Best strategy in Wesnoth: A good defense?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Best strategy in Wesnoth: A good defense?
For me a remarkable quote from "Dune" is when the Harkonnen decide to only defend their strongholds Paul says: We have won because the enemy has lost the initiative.
Sadly for me Wesnoth mainly in Multiplayer is waiting for the other player to attack. Crush the attack force and afterwards crush him in an counterattack. If the the other player does not attack a long period of careful manoeuvring starts trying to gain at one point of the battlefield the number advantage. This can take quite long between skilled players or even lead to a simple game over because its to boring for both sides.
What was the main difference between the situation for Paul Attreides and the players in wesnoth? Simply the Harkonnen never knew when and where and how many troops of the fremen will attack them. In Wesnoth there are nearly no surprises because you can easily see what your opponent is doing up to 2-3 movements before the actual encounter. Surprise...its very hard to achieve . Daring surprise attacks taking key areas . ..missing in Wesnoth.
Again I would like to see a fog of war where you limit the seen area with you zone of control.
The benefit would be that you would be able to actively hide troops for and attack or leave certain areas undermanned. The way Wesnoth is played would be changed in a big way opening up more strategic options for the players and making Wesnoth in the long run a better game in my opinion. Alas I lack the skill to program such a mod myself.
Sadly for me Wesnoth mainly in Multiplayer is waiting for the other player to attack. Crush the attack force and afterwards crush him in an counterattack. If the the other player does not attack a long period of careful manoeuvring starts trying to gain at one point of the battlefield the number advantage. This can take quite long between skilled players or even lead to a simple game over because its to boring for both sides.
What was the main difference between the situation for Paul Attreides and the players in wesnoth? Simply the Harkonnen never knew when and where and how many troops of the fremen will attack them. In Wesnoth there are nearly no surprises because you can easily see what your opponent is doing up to 2-3 movements before the actual encounter. Surprise...its very hard to achieve . Daring surprise attacks taking key areas . ..missing in Wesnoth.
Again I would like to see a fog of war where you limit the seen area with you zone of control.
The benefit would be that you would be able to actively hide troops for and attack or leave certain areas undermanned. The way Wesnoth is played would be changed in a big way opening up more strategic options for the players and making Wesnoth in the long run a better game in my opinion. Alas I lack the skill to program such a mod myself.
Sombra insisting yet again! One thing I would like to clarify in your fog of war : scouts would be really less useful then, right? Since scouts have so many movements they can see really far into enemy territory to help for attack / defense.Perhaps I am burned of too many 1 vs 1 games this weekend.
Ohter than against total beginners you are not able to mount a decent surprise attack. Yes you can hide long range units deep behind your front etc. But I really miss toe possibility to ATTACK.
Blancing would have to be very different. reducing range but give skirmisher ability for example?
Konrad why not push regardibng the one mayor flaw that Wesnioth has in IMHO? I am not a dev but I like strategy games and I am a decent player in most.
Ohter than against total beginners you are not able to mount a decent surprise attack. Yes you can hide long range units deep behind your front etc. But I really miss toe possibility to ATTACK.
Blancing would have to be very different. reducing range but give skirmisher ability for example?
Konrad why not push regardibng the one mayor flaw that Wesnioth has in IMHO? I am not a dev but I like strategy games and I am a decent player in most.
-
Shadow
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: September 9th, 2004, 10:27 am
- Location: Following the steps of Goethe
- Contact:
Most newer strategy games blast such stalemates with artillery. So a player gets punished for clustering his troops.
But somehow you are right if a player sets up a good defense you can throw everything in the meatgrinder and hope for some luck or just wait a bit longer. I think that's the main reason why some people complain about the Random Number Generator.
Perhaps reducing the view of all units to 2 hexes and only some special units have more range of course this would only work with permanent fog of war. It would be more risk play style than chess.
But that wouldn't be Wesnoth anymore.
A good place for a mod perhaps.
But somehow you are right if a player sets up a good defense you can throw everything in the meatgrinder and hope for some luck or just wait a bit longer. I think that's the main reason why some people complain about the Random Number Generator.
Perhaps reducing the view of all units to 2 hexes and only some special units have more range of course this would only work with permanent fog of war. It would be more risk play style than chess.
But that wouldn't be Wesnoth anymore.
A good place for a mod perhaps.
... all romantics meet the same fate someday
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe ...
All good dreamers pass this way some day
Hidin’ behind bottles in dark cafes
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe ...
All good dreamers pass this way some day
Hidin’ behind bottles in dark cafes
I can't saySombra wrote:Perhaps I am burned of too many 1 vs 1 games this weekend.
Ohter than against total beginners you are not able to mount a decent surprise attack. Yes you can hide long range units deep behind your front etc. But I really miss toe possibility to ATTACK.
Blancing would have to be very different. reducing range but give skirmisher ability for example?
Konrad why not push regardibng the one mayor flaw that Wesnioth has in IMHO? I am not a dev but I like strategy games and I am a decent player in most.
It's really a pity my skills and experience at Wesnoth are too low for me to answer to ideas like yours.I suppose that what you say would be a good idea to encourage people to attack, and encourage other people to think their defense even more... It would also make players really attached to Random, more than they already are. With restricted fog, attacks should be really deadly if coordinated right...I think. But attackers wouldn't know what are the defenders either.
This may be one of the weak points in Wesnoth. IMO in makes little sense to have a vision range equal to the number of movements. I think this is the only games where that happens.
This provokes that a garrison unit becomes a good scout just by moving half of its movements and going back to the village. A think it would be better to make the vision range equal to half the number of movements. It is easy to implement and could be tried in a development version.
This provokes that a garrison unit becomes a good scout just by moving half of its movements and going back to the village. A think it would be better to make the vision range equal to half the number of movements. It is easy to implement and could be tried in a development version.
The best bet to get to try this out would be to convince a coder to implement this temporarily so that the "restricted fog" could be activated via WML. Then we could all have a go at a few games with it and see how it works.
I have no idea how complicated it would be to implement a new alternative fog style even in a hacky way for testing. Probably not very easy.
I have no idea how complicated it would be to implement a new alternative fog style even in a hacky way for testing. Probably not very easy.
Granted I am a Newbie, so not sure how serious you all will take me, but I have/do play many TBS games.
I think that an option of fog of war would be a great thing, but also the ability that ranged attacks not needing to be adjacent would also help in this area. I have not had the honor of playing a multi player game at this point, but I would think that (much like with some chess challengers) you need to learn to how to draw your opponent. Using feints or small groups to attack while you prepare your larger forces to sweep in. *shrug* though, I can see where this would be difficult if your opponent has enough brains to see what you are doing.... I'll hush now *chuckle*
ibwebb
I think that an option of fog of war would be a great thing, but also the ability that ranged attacks not needing to be adjacent would also help in this area. I have not had the honor of playing a multi player game at this point, but I would think that (much like with some chess challengers) you need to learn to how to draw your opponent. Using feints or small groups to attack while you prepare your larger forces to sweep in. *shrug* though, I can see where this would be difficult if your opponent has enough brains to see what you are doing.... I'll hush now *chuckle*
ibwebb
My experience is very like Sombra's.
On many occasions I have looked at my opponenet's defensive position, and decided to more or less suicide, just because I know it would take a long long time to break it down. The other option is to just set up my own defensive position and wait. If we both do that the winner is the one with more patience/time to spare.
'Well,' I hear you all cry. 'Why do you bother playing 1v1s at all if you find it so tedious?'
Well, some games are very good fun, just not the ones that get bogged down. And un-bogging them usually means losing (for me anyway).
Maybe if I was a better player, I could play more aggressively and win, i.e. prevent my opponent establishing a solid defensive position early in the game. Some good players seem to be able to do this.
I like Sombra's fog idea. It's been discussed before, though. The role of skirmishers and scouts would change a little, and it might cause balance problems. But there's a chance it could improve gameplay.
Sapient mentioned using time and turn limits to put some limits on games, which I haven't tried yet. It might be one way to incentivise more aggressive play, depending on the winning conditions. Say, the game is only counted as a win if the opponent's leader is killed before the turns are up.
I do want to stress this might just be a matter of taste, and Sombra and I in a minority of 2. Perhaps most wesnothers are happy with things as they are. I can always play Isar's, which never gets bogged-down.
EDIT: cripes! since I began composing this there have been 6 posts...
On many occasions I have looked at my opponenet's defensive position, and decided to more or less suicide, just because I know it would take a long long time to break it down. The other option is to just set up my own defensive position and wait. If we both do that the winner is the one with more patience/time to spare.
'Well,' I hear you all cry. 'Why do you bother playing 1v1s at all if you find it so tedious?'
Well, some games are very good fun, just not the ones that get bogged down. And un-bogging them usually means losing (for me anyway).
Maybe if I was a better player, I could play more aggressively and win, i.e. prevent my opponent establishing a solid defensive position early in the game. Some good players seem to be able to do this.
I like Sombra's fog idea. It's been discussed before, though. The role of skirmishers and scouts would change a little, and it might cause balance problems. But there's a chance it could improve gameplay.
Sapient mentioned using time and turn limits to put some limits on games, which I haven't tried yet. It might be one way to incentivise more aggressive play, depending on the winning conditions. Say, the game is only counted as a win if the opponent's leader is killed before the turns are up.
I do want to stress this might just be a matter of taste, and Sombra and I in a minority of 2. Perhaps most wesnothers are happy with things as they are. I can always play Isar's, which never gets bogged-down.
EDIT: cripes! since I began composing this there have been 6 posts...
Good is simply that which is willed. - Eugene Halliday
It is definatly possible to play agressively and win even against a fortified position. It might be a good idea for an "expert player" to write an guide on offensive play.
I naturaly tended toward defensive playing this helped me beat campains and newbs on the server. Recently I've been figureing out a few things about offensive play.
I think that overall Wesnoth favors defence. However it is definatly possible to win playing offensively. If neither player attacks early then generaly one of 3 things happen.
1. One player loses paitence (sorry for bad spelling) and attacks recklessly
2. The game dose not end and goes nowhere
3 One player sets up for a planned offence waits for the right time of day and launches the assault.
Any of these 3 are a long game. Playing offencivly tends to lead to shorter games, and if done right can have a good chance of succending.
Minor note: If the game is looking like it is going to end up like that you might wish to stop building units or olny build lvl 0 units to conserve upkeep. Then build olny if you are going to attack or if he is going to attack.
I naturaly tended toward defensive playing this helped me beat campains and newbs on the server. Recently I've been figureing out a few things about offensive play.
I think that overall Wesnoth favors defence. However it is definatly possible to win playing offensively. If neither player attacks early then generaly one of 3 things happen.
1. One player loses paitence (sorry for bad spelling) and attacks recklessly
2. The game dose not end and goes nowhere
3 One player sets up for a planned offence waits for the right time of day and launches the assault.
Any of these 3 are a long game. Playing offencivly tends to lead to shorter games, and if done right can have a good chance of succending.
Minor note: If the game is looking like it is going to end up like that you might wish to stop building units or olny build lvl 0 units to conserve upkeep. Then build olny if you are going to attack or if he is going to attack.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
No offense Sombra, but thats the strategy you and Nordmann play; it has weaknesses and it can be countered. I realized that fairly early on the first game we played the 2v2 tournment, but by that point I didn't have the units to make it. In the second game I implemented strategies to counteract it, but I had a run of bad luck, and my ally made some critical errors. It does not mean you are unbeatable. The Defence strategy can be beaten regularly by more experienced players, its just really frustrating and boring to do so. And its not just me who has said this about your play. I mean lets be honest here, Nordmann CHOSES dwarves regularly. Maybe the problem is not in the game but in the strategy you play.
Anyway, I don't know if you're facing enough opponents who can tell the difference. Thats a question of quality. I'm not saying that there is a group who still play, actually, I don't think there are many good 2v2 players around right now, partly because the people who did play almost every night don't really do so anymore. But to be honest thats how I saw you and your brother play the game and this is the outcome.
Anyway, I don't know if you're facing enough opponents who can tell the difference. Thats a question of quality. I'm not saying that there is a group who still play, actually, I don't think there are many good 2v2 players around right now, partly because the people who did play almost every night don't really do so anymore. But to be honest thats how I saw you and your brother play the game and this is the outcome.
Last edited by Noy on July 3rd, 2007, 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.
Don Hewitt.
Don Hewitt.
As for the suggestion, I have my own reasons for supporting it, but not why you guys want it. If anything its not going to have the effect that you suggest it will. With LESS information many people become even more hesitant to make big moves, rather than more. It does make however more use for screening with scouts which gives more operational possibilities for attack, but really? thats not going to change how you play. If anything its going to disadvantage your style of play more than you realize Sombra.
Last edited by Noy on July 3rd, 2007, 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.
Don Hewitt.
Don Hewitt.
-
Shadow
- Posts: 1264
- Joined: September 9th, 2004, 10:27 am
- Location: Following the steps of Goethe
- Contact:
Well there is good example for this problem in this thread. link
Also a stalemate. I would say the game was pretty even until the opponent did some mistakes and the goblins with zero upkeep finally broke the stalemate.
So the problem still exists it might be counterable but it is still boring to overcome.
Nothing wrong about to try something new.
/Edit
reading Noy's second post any other ideas to solve it?
Also a stalemate. I would say the game was pretty even until the opponent did some mistakes and the goblins with zero upkeep finally broke the stalemate.
So the problem still exists it might be counterable but it is still boring to overcome.
Nothing wrong about to try something new.
/Edit
reading Noy's second post any other ideas to solve it?
Last edited by Shadow on July 3rd, 2007, 5:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
... all romantics meet the same fate someday
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe ...
All good dreamers pass this way some day
Hidin’ behind bottles in dark cafes
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe ...
All good dreamers pass this way some day
Hidin’ behind bottles in dark cafes
I recall one game that started as a 3p game, one player got killed early, and me and one other (both dwarf) built guardsman walls all the way across the map.
The game ended in OOS (darn!) His client said his leader (a rogue) reached the third keep, which would have guaranteed his victory, and my client said the path was blocked with my units.
There was another 2v2 game in which one player from each side left, with dwarf up against dwarf and drake against undead. The dwarves generally built guardsmen walls and sent a few units over to help in the other fight.
I finally got victory in that one when I managed to bust through what was only a four-hex wide hole in the guardsman wall and push six drake units through it by day.
Both of those games came very close to stalemate by guardsman wall. A defense can be almost impenetrable.
The game ended in OOS (darn!) His client said his leader (a rogue) reached the third keep, which would have guaranteed his victory, and my client said the path was blocked with my units.
There was another 2v2 game in which one player from each side left, with dwarf up against dwarf and drake against undead. The dwarves generally built guardsmen walls and sent a few units over to help in the other fight.
I finally got victory in that one when I managed to bust through what was only a four-hex wide hole in the guardsman wall and push six drake units through it by day.
Both of those games came very close to stalemate by guardsman wall. A defense can be almost impenetrable.
CHKDSK has repaired bad sectors in CHKDSK.EXE
Sigh, yes "nothing wrong about trying something new." if only it was that easy.Shadow wrote:Well there is good example for this problem in this thread. link
Also a stalemate. I would say the game was pretty even until the opponent did some mistakes and the goblins with zero upkeep finally broke the stalemate.
So the problem still exists it might be counterable but it is still boring to overcome.
Nothing wrong about to try something new.
/Edit
reading Noy's second post any other ideas to solve it?
Really if a player is already dispositioned to be defensive its not going to change anything. I don't see this as a problem, particularly when its the people who are probably the most guilty of sitting and playing defence on a map all day is complaining about it. Few other people have complained about it in the past, which leads me to believe its not the gameplay but the person. You coming on here shadow and adding your two cents doesn't convince me in the least.
To be perfectly honest, the players that would benefit from this change the most are the more experienced players. Since they have developed a more nuanced of the feel of the game, they would likelyknow when units would be coming and have a better feel for the game than less experienced players. They would be able to exploit such a change for its worth.
However then someone will probably complain that we make this game too hard for new players, so we'll go round and round on this one.
I suspect having one foot in the past is the best way to understand the present.
Don Hewitt.
Don Hewitt.