Let's make Heavy Infantries useful!

Mabuse · Post by **Mabuse** » January 8th, 2008, 5:53 am

whatnoth wrote: hey, does anyone think human horse units should have 50% grassland because they have absolutely horrid defense everywhere else, unlike wolves, elf scouts, fliers, and pretty much every other highly mobile unit? go ahead and adjust the hp if you want, but i think a mounted unit in the plains should have some premiere defense.

unlike most other units human cavalry has high resistances -

name · Post by **name** » January 8th, 2008, 5:56 am

anakayub wrote: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.

I know they are different things, but I am saying they are related in that mountains in doc's rebalanced maps have become an endangered species because of the loyalists seemingly pointless inability to scale mountains anywhere near as well as the other factions. Basically, I am saying that an important tile has been rendered imbalanced if used more than extremely sparsely because of an unnecessary factional weakness that does not further balance between that faction and any other.

If this is corrected, map makers can feel free to use the mountain tile more than very sparsely and the map generator will be one step closer to being useful. I think it would only need to mix up the terrains at different elevations for the maps that it produces to be roughly balanced.

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?

I was refering to the non-default generated multis and any map that has mountains as passages between major impassable mountain tiles or three or four adjacent mountain tiles. Basically, any place where mountains are not used very, very sparingly or not at all.

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?

Yes, a little more than half, do the math- 8 units total, cavalryman, horseman and heavy infantry (3 units) cannot move over mountains at all. That is a significant portion of the loyalist's role fillers absent on mountainous terrain. Compare that to the other factions.

And I didn't say on a default map, on mountains. They're a tile type, not a map.

Mabuse · Post by **Mabuse** » January 8th, 2008, 6:10 am

the point is that loyalist have no weakness in mountains, if a map contains just mountains and you get just HI and cavalry i guess its your fault then.

SURE, other factions like dawrfes or notherners (good movement) have advantages in mountains (or drakes) - and thus will most likely win on such a map
for that reason the dwarfes and northerners live in mountains, its their terrain

loyalist are no mounatin people, but thy can still take their ground there

having HI that is able to move 1 tile per turn on mountain wouldnt change anything about it either

Post by **anakayub** » January 8th, 2008, 6:13 am

I think there are a few problems here:

1) Balance depends on faction vs faction on default maps.

2) Mountains aren't endangered in the default maps. And maps are balanced for all factions. Would you like to consider how it'll affect other races, e.g. Drakes, Dwarves, etc. just because you want to make it a common tile? I'm sure Doc would explain it better.

3) Please forget about the map generator. Please forget about non-default maps. There is a reason why tournaments are played on official maps. And balance is not based on single tiles. We might as well give everybody weapons on every type of tile then.

Frostfire · Post by **Frostfire** » January 8th, 2008, 10:51 am

I hate loyalists, therefor they should be removed from existence.

In all seriousness though there is only one thing I dislike about the HI line and thats if loyalists get a shock trooper as a leader on the Freelands they can't reach the village adjacent to the keep on turn 1 because of a hill hex in the way.

Post by **Doc Paterson** » January 8th, 2008, 2:44 pm

Frostfire wrote:I hate loyalists, therefor they should be removed from existence.

In all seriousness though there is only one thing I dislike about the HI line and thats if loyalists get a shock trooper as a leader on the Freelands they can't reach the village adjacent to the keep on turn 1 because of a hill hex in the way.

Eh....You'd be creating the problem by your own choice. The Shocktrooper is not in the random leader pool for Loys.

Post by **Doc Paterson** » January 8th, 2008, 2:57 pm

leocrotta · Post by **leocrotta** » January 8th, 2008, 3:09 pm

Believe it or not, I was just about to create a map that looks exactly like that image

Post by **anakayub** » January 8th, 2008, 3:40 pm

"I don't care! I ain't gonna make mages just to push you off that mountain!"

Post by **Blarumyrran** » January 8th, 2008, 3:43 pm

someone make a survival map for this. the defenders mission is to resist the urge to walk to the edge of the mountains where HI reach him. a survival both pacifistic and deep-psychological!

Martinus · Post by **Martinus** » January 8th, 2008, 3:53 pm

This image is hilarious.

Still I rarely see HI in multiplayer matches. I don't think that not being able to move through mountains is really a problem here.

Sombra · Post by **Sombra** » January 8th, 2008, 4:06 pm

Martinus wrote:This image is hilarious.

Still I rarely see HI in multiplayer matches. I don't think that not being able to move through mountains is really a problem here.

If I think about history: I think heavy infantry was the core part of the army...the elite units and unbreakable center and the shock to break the enemy => for example the persian immortals. To expensive an equipment to give to the throw away light infantry troops.

In Wesnoth the HI is not significantly stronger than the normal spearmen. (In special cases yes for example vs undead) . I would say the strong point of the HI being "unbeatable by other units on plain batlefield" is simply not given. Spearmen are more flexible, cheaper, faster and have better defense values on most terains and are quite good on grassland too. So there is not much reason to buy HI much

Post by **Blarumyrran** » January 8th, 2008, 4:18 pm

Sombra wrote:If I think about history: I think heavy infantry was the core part of the army...the elite units and unbreakable center and the shock to break the enemy => for example the persian immortals. To expensive an equipment to give to the throw away light infantry troops.

on all reliefs ive seen of them, immortals _were_ light infantry :/ well at least i havent seen them holding anything else than a spear as weapon, nor a full-face helmet.

name · Post by **name** » January 8th, 2008, 4:41 pm

Doc Paterson wrote:

Okay, I have to admit that is pretty funny.

Sombra · Post by **Sombra** » January 8th, 2008, 5:08 pm

Syntax_Error wrote:
Sombra wrote:If I think about history: I think heavy infantry was the core part of the army...the elite units and unbreakable center and the shock to break the enemy => for example the persian immortals. To expensive an equipment to give to the throw away light infantry troops.
on all reliefs ive seen of them, immortals _were_ light infantry :/ well at least i havent seen them holding anything else than a spear as weapon, nor a full-face helmet.

Only if you dont compare it to the other troops from this era. Compared to them they were heavily armoured and well armed. Aa well as greek hoplites etc. That the Wesnoth developers gave the HI a mace as official weapon should not matter as much as the purpose of the heavy infantry in the field.