I really don't like the new default attack picker...

[Jym]

I look at the enemy I want to attack, decide which attack out of the pool of all attacks of all my units that can reach it to attack with, and then move that unit, such that by the time I reach the attack dialog, I already have an attack in mind, and I have had time to subconsciously guess which attack the computer has defaulted to.

With basic units, this is also more or less what I do ("Here is a forest in which I can send elvish archers to attack that grunt with their bows").

But with more elaborate units, especially those with multiple damage type, it's not always like that. A dwarven lord or a drake gladiator not only has several attacks but also several damage type. I happen not to know by heart the different resistance of each unit.
Typical case is with the dwarven lord. The obvious "against skeletons, use hammer", I can remeber quite well. But with other units, that might not be as obvious, and highly dependent on the HPs of the ennemy (if each of the blade attack can kill then 3 is better than 2 for the CTK, if you need to hit all of the 3 or all of the 2 to kill, then 2 gives a better CTK, ...) and of the dwarf (should I use the ranged attack).

Well, this to said that with these kind of units I usually chose to attack, get a look at the attack dialog (maybe at the different damage calculations) and only after that choose which attack to use (or choose to backup). The computer just happen to be better and faster than me to do all the computations of bonuses and maluses implied when attacking.

I have taken the dwarven lord as an example, but I'm doing this for almost any units with several attacks at the same 'distance', including orcish archer, knights, mermen, pikemen, ...

Of course, when it is simply a matter of choosing between one ranged and one melee attack, I usually make my choice before sending the unit to attack.

[joshudson]

The new attack picker only does two wrong things:

1. It picks a weak attack of melee/ranaged that opponent cannot reply to rather than a strong one that the opponent can.
2. It gets it wrong when I'm going to try to swarm a very-evasive unit. In particular, if two hits (any weapon) are required to kill the assassin in forest when two dwarvish fighters are allocated to do it, it selects hammer for the first attacker.

2 is obviously unfixible.

1 might be fixible but very difficult to do: obviously an elvish archer shouldn't be using his sword on a nearly-full HP wose in most situations. That's what the old attack picker would suggest there and the new one gets it right.

[williamager]

But with more elaborate units, especially those with multiple damage type, it's not always like that. A dwarven lord or a drake gladiator not only has several attacks but also several damage type. I happen not to know by heart the different resistance of each unit.
Typical case is with the dwarven lord. The obvious "against skeletons, use hammer", I can remeber quite well. But with other units, that might not be as obvious, and highly dependent on the HPs of the ennemy (if each of the blade attack can kill then 3 is better than 2 for the CTK, if you need to hit all of the 3 or all of the 2 to kill, then 2 gives a better CTK, ...) and of the dwarf (should I use the ranged attack).

Well, this to said that with these kind of units I usually chose to attack, get a look at the attack dialog (maybe at the different damage calculations) and only after that choose which attack to use (or choose to backup). The computer just happen to be better and faster than me to do all the computations of bonuses and maluses implied when attacking.

I have taken the dwarven lord as an example, but I'm doing this for almost any units with several attacks at the same 'distance', including orcish archer, knights, mermen, pikemen, ...

Of course, when it is simply a matter of choosing between one ranged and one melee attack, I usually make my choice before sending the unit to attack.

Have you tried using the tooltip on the damage type in the sidebar?

I've found that the automatic selection usually works well (in 1.1.5), but this can be bad as well, since a new player could rely on it, and then have it do something stupid. The only reliable and specific example I've found is with lvl 3 Kalenz in HttT: the default attack against a full hp Red Mage is often the ranged instead of the melee. I cannot quite remember the exact situations where this happened, but I do believe it happened several times in grassland during the day.

[joshudson]

Got one for you:

When both have full hitpoints, attacking with a strong, resilient footpad against ghost at night selects melee attack. Obviously wrong as ghost will drain back almost all of the damage.

[Sapient]

hmmm... that is a good example. I wonder why it would do that.

[Soliton]

When both have full hitpoints, attacking with a strong, resilient footpad against ghost at night selects melee attack.

Doesn't here...

[Elvish_Pillager]

What terrain is the footpad in?

[joshudson]

Well, that was stupid of me. What I though was a footpad was an outlaw, backed by a level 3 leader. So, melee has less average damage due to drain but best chance to kill (.5 * .7 * .5) as opposed to (.5 * .5 * .5).

Mark that down as another weird corner case.

[zol]

Highest chance to kill, is it?

Well, now I have a vague idea of what's going on.

As an inexperienced player trying to get a feel for combat variables, I have usually reacted to the attack dialogue with - "Eh?" - check all calculations - refer to the in-game manual for two or three details - still not understand the default choice - and just go with what I originally planned.

Now I can adopt the idea, "When this unit must kill unassisted regardless of damage incurred, or survival into subsequent rounds, even if it can't possibly succeed, go with the default."

I don't think that can be the whole story, as I would expect that really stupid decisions are avoided, but it's a guide.

As it happens, I don't usually find that approach applicable unless I've created a critical situation for myself.
Not that I'm always sure of my choices - there has to be some play.


[edit]
What does the damage calculation actually say?

I decided to really try and get it while playing Isle of the Damned in HttT, so that's the sample data from which I'm trying figure it out, in case the scenario has some bias in these things.

"base damage" can have different values for the unit description and the attack dialog, and a third, different from both, for the damage calculation.

The damage calculation gives a "total" [damage, remember] that is the same as the number of hits - except that there's plus or minus some small number next to it.

The manual doesn't seem to have anything about this.
Maybe it's convention, but I don't recognise anything like a calculation from known/documented values or a result - except kill/die/neither% when it applies.

(Now, back to losing through ignorance ...)

[zol]

[Separate because connected to discussion]

EP: if the computer (for whatever reason) doesn't choose by default the attack you wish to use, is it really so hard to click the one you do want?

You're starting at the wrong point. If I have already brought up the attack dialog, and see which attack it has defaulted to, your logic makes perfect sense. However, the important thing to me is that I no longer know which attack it will default to before I even open the dialog...

Agreed. How often does one attack during a game? Requiring the player to stop thinking about what to do next until the widget has been presented, and its settings revealed kills efficient, transparent interaction.

I'd like no attack selected when you open the attack box

I also like Na'enthos' idea: no default selection. Sometimes less is more.

I'd disagree here. Although personally I almost always ignore the computer's choice (nowadays), I think it is a worthwhile aid for the newcomer. Seeing and understanding why an attack was chosen will help them learn the game faster, and perform better in most situations initially, easing the initial frustration of learning all the factors that need to be considered.

This makes sense insofar as the newcomer is given some rationale for the choices. I had to discover one here, and I'm still not convinced that the verbal snippets really correspond to the actual behaviour.

If there are defaults, I believe that they should be naive, precisely so that the newcomer can readily understand them, and then be inspired to take greater control of the finer points as their knowledge and aspiration outgrows them.

On the meta-level - not implemented (or requested) - The user might have a global or per-unit setting over the rule by which defaults are chosen.
I imagine something simple like an Aggressivity value (>0) , in which the default is whichever yeilds the largest value for KILL/(DIE+A).
(Just an example) Basically, as A increases, personal safety becomes less significant.
The rule would reflect the player's own baseline, against which exceptions would stand out clearly for special attention, and it wouldn't compete against the player's own framework.

For me, the best attack dialog would be as follows:
(Typical things like fixed order of attack types of course... and)
For each attack option, a selectable pane on the left containing a brief of significant values (as now shown), and a (big, square) button on the right to attack with the weapon (now).
The left pane would expand/open a window to show more info on the attack (e.g. the damage calc.) on selection. (i.e. it is also a button), or there could be a separate button for that at the bottom next to Cancel.

[edit]
Oh yeah, EP already said that.

Leo is right! Instead of attack selections, they should be buttons (and have a seperate damage calculations button for each as well.)

It's a basic interface design principle. If you want to do one thing - attacking with a certain weapon - then you should make one click to do it.

Still, it doesn't hurt to paraphrase.

[egbert]

As for me I prefer no default selection at all. Dialog should be redesigned. Now we have:

Bla-Bla-Bla
First attack
Second attack
[OK] [Cancel]

I suggest
Bla-Bla-Bla
[Melee] First attack
[Ranged] Second attack
[Cancel]

To me this seems to be the best idea yet.

Come on, how many new people are going to pay attention to the default attack selected? I didn't. In fact, I can't even TELL which one is selected. Man, I've messed up so many times by not remembering that it's the DARK one that's selected, not the lighter one. And so I've gotten in the habit of clicking the one I want anyway before I attack, just to be sure.

So, the buttons are a solution for the default choice, and my issue.