Rugged Defense

Post by **Mille** » June 25th, 2006, 7:38 am

Well - This idea came up in the village bonus thread, but i think it goes under there abit, so here a repost to comment.

What about a rugged defense ability. It would make sense for some units to have the ability to entrench, if they stay longer on a terrain field. If they stay longer, denfense gets a bonus.

This could be true for example for some kind of infantry units.

This could enhance defence strategy depth to make holding scenarios more interesting, without making the game to complex. Look at the daytime option - i think this is much more complex but understandable. Rugged Defense can be the same if the entrenched unit gets a mini counter icon to make clear.

toms · Post by **toms** » June 25th, 2006, 8:35 am

Not actually bad. I donÃ‚Â´t think that it will manage to get into the game because it drastically changes the gameplay though.
(but maybe WICOT)

JW · Post by JW » June 25th, 2006, 9:30 am

Hmm...sounds like it CABD, and is interesting.

Again, I can't think of a mainline unit this would be good on, but the idea could be a useful defensive ability that would share the duty with Steadfast.

Dragon Master · Post by **Dragon Master** » June 25th, 2006, 1:49 pm

Sounds interesting. I'd like to see some faction that utilizes this ability.

toms · Post by **toms** » June 25th, 2006, 1:54 pm

There could be an ability called "Fortify" that increases defense on various terrain types after some turns of not fightning. But WML is not a very good way to do this, even if possible.

Na'enthos · Post by **Na'enthos** » June 25th, 2006, 6:48 pm

I would like to point out that there is already a similar ability called 'steadfast'. I don't play with dwarves a lot, so I'm not completely sure whether the two can coexist logically or not.

ozymandias · Post by **ozymandias** » June 25th, 2006, 7:06 pm

Getting a better defense bonus after not moving would fit some units better than steadfast, though. The imperial era's Lavinian siege archers come to mind, since I think they'd be protected equally well on attack and defense once they've set up their big fat shields, but would be quite vulnerable while on the move. OTOH, for units that would still use their shields mobily (is that a word?), like dwarvish guardsmen, merman hoplites or Lavinian legionaires, vanilla steadfast is just be fine.

JW · Post by JW » June 25th, 2006, 11:12 pm

this would increase defense after a turn of not moving, whereas steadfast always improves resistancies on defense up to 50%.

The two are completely different....

Post by **Mille** » June 26th, 2006, 12:24 am

How rugged defense might work in detail - I see it as a general option to make defending more interesting - but it would make balancing necessary - PLease make better suggestions:

A) Depending on terrain:

MOUNTAINs, SNOW MOUNTAINS, VILLAGES, Castles: Defense Bonus +40% (1 Turn), +80% (2 Turn), 100% (3 Turns+) --> Luck +1 after second turn

Wood, Jungle, Ruins, Oasis, CAVE Hills, HILLS, SNOW HILLS: Defnse Bonus +30% (1 Turn), +60% (2 Turns), +100% (3 Turns Plus) Luck + 1after Second entrenched turn

LAVA, WATER, SWAMP: No rugged Defense

GRASSLAND, DIRT, DESERT:: Defense Bonus +20% (1 Turn), +40% (2 Turn), +60% (3 Turn +)

B) Units that should NEVER have the entrench ability

- All flying units (Bats ...)
- All magical units (Priests, Magicians, Necromancers...)
- All Non intelligent Units and Undead (Skeletons, Zombies...)
- All riding units (Cavaliers, Wolf Riders etc.)
- All water based units (mermans, ...)
- Berserker and Ulfserker
- Siegetrooper / Shocktrooper
- MOnsters

C) Units that should definitely have entrench ability

- goblin impaler
- goblin spearman
- goblin rouser
- Dwarfen guard and dwarfen fighter/warrior
- loyalist general
- loyalist halberdier
- javelineer
- lieutenant
- longbowman
- peasant
- pikeman
- royal guard
- spearman
- sowrdman
- bandit
- footpad
- outlaw
- rogue
- thief
- thug
...

Post by **Soliton** » June 26th, 2006, 12:37 am

What's the point?
Can someone detail a possible game situation were this ability would make the game any more interesting?

JW · Post by JW » June 26th, 2006, 1:00 am

What?????

Mille, you totally lost me with your description. Totally. +100% defense? So they're invulnerable?

And what is luck +1??

scott · Post by **scott** » June 26th, 2006, 1:16 am

In the past ideas that throw the balance towards defense have been rejected because an overly defensive game tends to slog down the gameplay. JW should sympathize.

Post by **Mille** » June 26th, 2006, 1:44 am

JW wrote:What?????

Mille, you totally lost me with your description. Totally. +100% defense? So they're invulnerable?

And what is luck +1??

Sorry - i didnÃ‚Â´t made my suggestion clear enough and please keep in mind it was only only a first more detailed try to start a real discussion of what make sense here and what not. I would like to hear every idea of how to make this a usable idea.

100 % means maximum rugged defense bonus - not + 100% damage or number of attacks

luck +1 means - that the chance of the first hit should be improved. Reason -

What i suggest is making defense more interesting, not to pump up defense. That would only make the game boring. You are right at this scott.

Its the question to debate - and my suggestion is as good as any other to start a valuable discussion. Heart of my statement was, that rugged defense should depend on the unit type and on the terrain type and that entrechned units that attack loose their rugged efense bonus.

Post by **Mille** » June 26th, 2006, 1:57 am

Soliton wrote:What's the point?
Can someone detail a possible game situation were this ability would make the game any more interesting?

Yes - I will try to give you some examples i can think of. But keep in mind - i think more of an adjustment to the combat system, than a real ability for a single unit.

A) A Simple situation

- Think of units blocking a way free to reach a waypoint
- Hold strategical important points- like bridges, castles and make it interesting to get those points back very fast, so that the enemy canÃ‚Â´t get a bonus.

B) A More complex situation

The night/day concept is a very interetsing point of Wesnoth. I think it would be enriched by rugged defense.

...

I will post more- Its late

Flametrooper · Post by **Flametrooper** » June 26th, 2006, 2:26 am

Mille, you're making this complex - I think the original idea was good though. I can think of a few cases where, if the devs don't want to put it in mainline, it would work in UMFs. The lavinian siege archer and my Celtic Schiltrons spring first to mind, but I'm sure there are others.