Let's make Heavy Infantries useful!

[whatnoth]

So if HI will be able to cross mountains at 1 tile per turn he won't be a meatbag to other units?

to answer succinctly, i think the unit would still be overpriced, underpowered, and under-useful if my suggestion were put into place, but ill settle for a small measure.

preferrably 3x movement, so he could still have one left for a single grassland tile. its basically impossible to get a heavy into and out of combat unless you are in an 8x8 grassland section. everything that isnt grassland causes him to completely shut down. being able to actually use a mountain to his benefit, and at the same time exclude another enemy unit from using the mountain counts for a lot too. so does being able to occupy a mountain when it is the heavy who has to cover someone elses' retreat. currently, its extremely easy for the opposition to pin heavies against mountains, or hide their own heavy-vulnerable units against mountains and use zone of control to force heavies to use about 16 turns to drive around the mountains.

[Doc Paterson]

To any and all who believe that HI not being able to move on mountains is a "problem:"

Surely you have at least one replay that demonstrates an unbalanced scenario, resulting from this?

So far, we only have nebulous descriptions of something that "can happen."

So where is it? I'd love to see an example.


* * * * *

And who was it who said that "mountains are everywhere" on default maps? They are far and away the rarest of the basic terrain types.

(Maybe that was true in pre-0.8 days....)

[leocrotta]

This is just to offer my opinion according to the issue HI, so all under the law if "imho" :

I partly agree with both sides.
On the one hand I agree with Noy.

#1 Its balanced
#2 It serves a unique role in the faction.

For now there's no use to be especially scared as loyalist facing any other faction and the other way round.
Therefore a possible HI-change like for example JW's idea to enhance fire-resis by +10% is in fact an idea that would make a recruit of a HI more possible,
though it would enhance his general purpose (even if the change is little) and make a "special-case-unit" come closer to the more general spearman. Is there a need to do this ... I wonder.
I think he should stay the one who is for special usage and additionally the one who can epecially be killed by fire and cold.
Which leads to the conclusion (like most of us know) that he's more useful against factions with a lack of those attacks, meaning dwarves and additionally against those with a special weakness to impact meaning the skels of the undead.
That's the point where I cross the border to the other hand
So... furthermore I believe there might be a need of making him a little more useful against the opponents he should be useful against, meaning those two factions mentioned above.
Match-up vs Dwarves : they're fast on mountains and hills as we know...
Match-up vs Undead : it's essential, ... well more useful to escape combat before night arrives, looking at adepts especially..
(Other Match-ups : casual usage )
Like grrr once showed (http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 010#260072)
there are rumors that loyalists can even beat undead with pierce only . Well not taking it too far, I have to say that I'm mostly tempted not to recruit HI in this particular match-up either.
I believe it's more useful to keep mobile to avoid the "wave of the match" turning towards you more and more,
which excludes the HI (generally) from recruiting.
...
(here: plenty more of thoughts and facts.)
...
So all in all my little insignificant proposal is the following :

Max. Change the HI's movement on hills from 3mp down to 2mp. (The problem is : it affects the logic a little.)
Might sound a bit ironic, as if I'm kicking myself, but actually that's what I think about it, just to say.

Conclusion: Make him slightly better for those situations and match-ups that are his "destiny" ... well maybe.

best regards, nani

[grrr]

OK, I do not think the position of JW, Noy, nani and me are that far away actually. I noticed that Noy did NOT say JW's observations about the usefulness of the cav compared to the HI are wrong! We disagree on whether it needs a change. Noy says, "Why change? show me that loy have a serious weakness with the HI first!". That's actually a valid point, and I did not say loys are imbalanced at all!

I guess Noy wants the default era to stabilize, and so any change that is not really needed is therefore bad. Fair enough.

So if we really want to have a change on the HI, we (those that propose it) would have to show (in real games probably) that it does not create a new imbalance (which most of the proposals here would probably do).

Why did I proposed the removal then anyway? Well, simply because from my perception the niche of the HI has become smaller since the 1.2 version, seeing that UD players are likely to recruit less skeletons now (I could be wrong here). I knew from the very beginning the proposal stands no chance, it was more of a theoretical construct if you want to say so, to make the discussion focus on "Do Loyalists still need the HI?" I failed on that matter, and I apologize to Noy for doing so. This thread has attracted a lot of nonsense, and I am - to great parts - responsible for that. Sorry.

[name]

To any and all who believe that HI not being able to move on mountains is a "problem:"
Surely you have at least one replay that demonstrates an unbalanced scenario, resulting from this?
So where is it? I'd love to see an example.

I have never saved replays, it always seemed like what gloaters do so they can show everyone how brutally they crushed a newbe.

But random replays would not be enough anyway, you would need an expert loyalist and undead player going at each other in one of the levels that has mountains, the more the better.

So far, we only have nebulous descriptions of something that "can happen."

It has happened to us, but it is not the decisive, all-defeating show stopper that would make a persuasive replay, coming from a battle that might not have two equally expert, expert players, on a map like blue water province or the manzivan traps. That is because this is not a major imbalance, but a slight imbalance.

However that doesn't mean you should take a "if it ain't glaringly, Windows ME sort of broke, don't bother fixing it" kind of attitude.

And who was it who said that "mountains are everywhere" on default maps? They are far and away the rarest of the basic terrain types.
(Maybe that was true in pre-0.8 days....)

As you just said now, they are a basic terrain, they might not be as common as forests or hills, but they are there in many of the default multiplayer maps and should be balanced like the rest of the basics are.

And is not the map generator a part of default wesnoth's multiplayer experience? Are not the campaigns that ship with wesnoth, though admittedly of lesser need for this sort of balance, part of the default wesnoth experience also? Are large mountain ranges an unnatural occurence that does not fit into the world of wesnoth and should never be represented in its theaters of war?

[anakayub]

To any and all who believe that HI not being able to move on mountains is a "problem:"
Surely you have at least one replay that demonstrates an unbalanced scenario, resulting from this?
So where is it? I'd love to see an example.

I have never saved replays, it always seemed like what gloaters do so they can show everyone how brutally they crushed a newbe. ...

I save replays, for studying strategies and tactics, and the occasional interesting matches. Replays are like hard evidence, so you shouldn't dismiss their significance. Only from this can anyone really say if there's slight or major or no imbalance.

Of course it's best if they're between expert players, but having something is better than claiming with nothing.

And who was it who said that "mountains are everywhere" on default maps? They are far and away the rarest of the basic terrain types.
(Maybe that was true in pre-0.8 days....)

As you just said now, they are a basic terrain, they might not be as common as forests or hills, but they are there in many of the default multiplayer maps and should be balanced like the rest of the basics are.

I don't get you...You want to modify numbers of mountains in maps? You want to modify HI's? Remember, factions are balanced against factions on properly balanced maps. Loyalists are balanced despite having mountains hindering their moves.

And is not the map generator a part of default wesnoth's multiplayer experience? Are not the campaigns that ship with wesnoth, though admittedly of lesser need for this sort of balance, part of the default wesnoth experience also? Are large mountain ranges an unnatural occurence that does not fit into the world of wesnoth and should never be represented in its theaters of war?

That's why you need to adapt to different strategies. Different theaters call for different units. You don't send M1 Abrams into the Amazon to fight highly mobile guerrilas. You don't send mermans into games with no water. You don't send HI's into areas where its mobility will be severely hindered.[/quote]

[JW]

anakayub is like Noy2 (Noy in training).


I thought there were some replays in the archive....someone should pull some of them.

[anakayub]

Is that sarcasm?

I'm just being myself really, sorry for the resemblance. The only reason that I can't contribute enough to this discussion is because I don't consider myself a good enough player to make compelling arguments regarding this issue. I'm sure everyone else is. The reason I made the post was because I felt it was necessary; you can't talk without proof, that's all. Maybe I shouldn't have made that post. Anyways, I'll try to look into the archives, maybe I can help in that.

Edit: I'm looking at some atm.
Edit 2: I'm sorry, I didn't keep the previous dev versions; couldn't open them. Here are some links for those who can open them:
Loy vs Ud here here here here here here here
Loy Mirror here
Loy Northener here here here here
Loy Rebel here

[JW]

lol, it's just an observation. Noy isn't the worst person to take after. You could take after what was his name.....Tom?

[name]

I save replays, for studying strategies and tactics, and the occasional interesting matches. Replays are like hard evidence, so you shouldn't dismiss their significance. Only from this can anyone really say if there's slight or major or no imbalance.

I was not planning on making this into an issue, I am not the TC of this thread, just a participant. But, when I found other people had picked up on the same small issue with HI mobility, I decided to chime in.

Of course it's best if they're between expert players, but having something is better than claiming with nothing.

Sorry, I have no replays saved, let alone ones relevant to this discussion. Maybe someone else will. But what something like this really needs is for those who can make decisions about mainline wesnoth, to consider the facts and opinions and look into some playtesting in this small area of the game to see if there is considerably more merit to this than to most of the newbe suggestions on this forum that demand massive changes. And then if it is not total bogus, to focus some organized playtesting on this.

I don't get you...You want to modify numbers of mountains in maps?

There should be some consistency amoung campaign maps, generated maps and default multiplayer maps, yes. Mountains occuring in small clusters shouldn't be a problem because one faction was pointlessly nerfed on mountains, yes.

You want to modify HI's?

Do you even realize what the thread you are posting in right now is about? With a title like "Let's make Heavy Infantries useful!" you might get the impression that someone within such a thread might want to make at least one modification to Heavy Infantry, no?

Remember, factions are balanced against factions on properly balanced maps. Loyalists are balanced despite having mountains hindering their moves.

Then a significant portion of the game is imbalanced, but could be made balanced without considerable further work if the loyalists alone were not pointlessly nerfed on a basic terrain type!

That's why you need to adapt to different strategies. Different theaters call for different units. You don't send M1 Abrams into the Amazon to fight highly mobile guerrilas. You don't send mermans into games with no water. You don't send HI's into areas where its mobility will be severely hindered.

That is great, except that everyone else can send in everything they have, while loyalists are stuck with a little more than half their arsenal. If you are fighting guerrilas in the amazon, neither of you is going to have tanks.

[Doc Paterson]

Attention to everyone who didn't get me a Christmas present this year-

Here are some things I'd like:

1. A Wesnoth campaign based on the life and adventures of David Bowie. Medieval-oriented orchestral translations of his hits (for the soundtrack), arranged by Aleksi and company, would be a plus.
2. A football autographed by Higher Game.
3. Replays showing an unbalanced scenario resulting from HI not being able to move on mountains. Default maps of course. It is common knowledge (Cold Steel) that the random map generator does not create maps that are even remotely balanced for the default factions, and that units are not balanced according to campaign maps.

[name]

Replays showing an unbalanced scenario resulting from HI not being able to move on mountains. Default maps of course.

What would need to be in a replay to show that it was imbalanced do to HI's lack of mobility over mountains?

It is common knowledge (Cold Steel) that the random map generator does not create maps that are even remotely balanced for the default factions, and that units are not balanced according to campaign maps.

Then when will the generator make balanced maps, and if never, why is it even built into the game itself in the first place?


I have another related question to ask you Doc since you are the lead map designer/proofer and do a very good job of it based on the factions in their current state. Why are mountains so rare in the default maps versus the other staple terrains? What would become imbalanced if they were a little more common?

[name]

Replays showing an unbalanced scenario resulting from HI not being able to move on mountains. Default maps of course.

What would need to be in a replay to show that it was imbalanced do to HI's lack of mobility over mountains?

It is common knowledge (Cold Steel) that the random map generator does not create maps that are even remotely balanced for the default factions, and that units are not balanced according to campaign maps.

Then when will the generator make balanced maps, and if never, why is it even built into the game itself in the first place?


I have another related question to ask you Doc since you are the lead map designer/proofer and do a very good job of it based on the factions in their current state. Why are mountains so rare in the default maps versus the other staple terrains? What would become imbalanced if they were a little more common, specifically?

[anakayub]

Actually I didn't take after anyone JW, maybe it's because of my previous debating background that I sounded like that...But Tom of Wesnoth (during the days when I'd only read the forum and never post)? He's err, hilarious.

I don't get you...You want to modify numbers of mountains in maps?

There should be some consistency amoung campaign maps, generated maps and default multiplayer maps, yes. Mountains occuring in small clusters shouldn't be a problem because one faction was pointlessly nerfed on mountains, yes.

You want to modify HI's?

Do you even realize what the thread you are posting in right now is about? With a title like "Let's make Heavy Infantries useful!" you might get the impression that someone within such a thread might want to make at least one modification to Heavy Infantry, no?

I meant those questions together, I'm not blind. On one hand you want to modify the mountains in maps; on the other hand you'd like to modify the HI to modify mountains. They're different things you know. And I don't see how campaign maps are needed to be taken into consideration, as they're meant to "narrow" your scope into a certain strategy for the victory, although there are usually many available strategies available for each scenario.

Then a significant portion of the game is imbalanced, but could be made balanced without considerable further work if the loyalists alone were not pointlessly nerfed on a basic terrain type!

Where's the proof? I believe this is just rhetoric. All of the default 1v1's, most of the 2v2 maps have mountains (could be wrong here). Are the loyalists really nerfed?

That is great, except that everyone else can send in everything they have, while loyalists are stuck with a little more than half their arsenal. If you are fighting guerrilas in the amazon, neither of you is going to have tanks.

I suggest that you rethink this statement. Little more than half? Which default map are you talking about? With every other faction having a serious advantage?

Anyways, I've linked various replays in my previous post. I couldn't open them, kept saying the "the file you're trying to load is corrupt". Anyone with previous versions can take a look.

[Mabuse]

But spearmen [...] are weak.

no they are not. spearman is exeptionally strong. they can tank very well, can be easily replaced, and deals an incredible amont of damage

dont exspect that your judgement on this matter (HI) is taken seriously if you state things like that.

in dont see why people are whining -
loyalists are one of the best factions in the game

HI serves a complete other function in the loyalist faction than a spearman, if you want a damage absorbing "tank", (a wall of) spearman is what you need