Merman to have 60% defence on Deep Water?

[zol]

This is getting interesting.
Unfortunately, I haven't played many maps where the water environment is both strategically significant and reasonably accessible from a "recruitment tile"(needs a name like "keep". "Stand" perhaps? "Rally"? "Post"?), or against many races ... so I'll keep my thoughts to myself (for now).

[JW]

(needs a name like "keep". "Stand" perhaps? "Rally"? "Post"?)

The recruitment hex your leader stands on is called a Keep. The hexes you recruit in are Castle (or aliases).

[scott]

This is getting interesting.
Unfortunately, I haven't played many maps where the water environment is both strategically significant and reasonably accessible from a "recruitment tile"(needs a name like "keep". "Stand" perhaps? "Rally"? "Post"?), or against many races ... so I'll keep my thoughts to myself (for now).

I tried to make some water maps in the ancient "High Seas" era, but this was before the current set of mermen was added to mainline. It was ok, but just because the new mermen units (the entire current roster) were novelties.

On the other hand, I assert that water is strategically significant on almost all of the official MP maps - it just doesn't dominate the map.

[zol]

(needs a name like "keep". "Stand" perhaps? "Rally"? "Post"?)

The recruitment hex your leader stands on is called a Keep. The hexes you recruit in are Castle (or aliases).

Oops. I've been assuming that you could only recruit on castle/encampment tiles that are contiguous with the keep, and any that are disconnected from it are ordinary terrain.

I agree that water is often strategically significant, hence the "and".

Only having played campaigns and against AI on random terrain, I usually see it primarily as a low defence / low (or zero) movement obstacle with no real chance of being occupied by appropriate units to any strategic purpose, either because they can't reach it, or they can't do anything useful from there.

[JW]

The recruitment hex your leader stands on is called a Keep. The hexes you recruit in are Castle (or aliases).

Oops. I've been assuming that you could only recruit on castle/encampment tiles that are contiguous with the keep, and any that are disconnected from it are ordinary terrain.

Any Castle (or alias) hexes that are not connected to a Keep are indeed unercruitable hexes. Your leader must recruit while standing in a Keep hex.

[khamul]

The question is not "is water strategically significant". The question is "Is deep water strategically significant on many mainline maps". I don't believe we're really suggesting changes to shallow water defense.

The game has to be balanced for multiplayer, but you can't altogether forget single-player balance. HttT will be a lot of players' first experience of Wesnoth, and early-on it features a major aquatic engagement between naga and merfolk, in which it is difficult to avoid taking losses. Play that scenario, and tell me that in shallow water a naga is not at least the equal of a merman fighter.

What's the argument against raising merman defense to 60% in deep water?

[JW]

What's the argument against raising merman defense to 60% in deep water?

4p - Lagoon.

Other than that I can't think of Deep Water heavy maps. Now that I think about it more, it probably would be more realistic to have Mermen have at least as good resistance in Deep Water as Shallow (though realism is not the #1 priority), so I now defer to the MP balancing crew.

[zol]

Any Castle (or alias) hexes that are not connected to a Keep are indeed unercruitable hexes.

Which is why I thought that a different name might exist to distinguish them. "Keep" is a functional name (i.e. according to function); Recruitment tiles could have had a distinct functional name rather than "castle (or alias)", too.

[PingPangQui]

I think the stats are ok as they are - refering to balance. If you really want to give mereman an advantage, why not give some units that hide ability that undead have in deap water?

P.S.: But its actually a good question for what reason the defense of mereman is better in shallow water than in deep water. Even if some argue that the fights take place always at the surface the terrain modificator of both should be at least equal.

[FleshPeeler]

And, of course, the big advantage Naga have is they're "all terrain vehicles", whereas the mermen can barely move on land.

I couldn't disagree with you more. If Nagas were "all-terrain vehicles" then I should have no problem recruiting them with the rest of my Northerner force. But there is a problem; Movement and Terrain Defense (not to mention they can't go on Mountains, which is an Orc's favored terrain). They might be better than Mermen on land, but that doesn't qualify them as truly amphibious. It also doesn't qualify as an advantage over Mermen because most of their battles are at sea.

The balance between Merman and Naga is fine the way it is. Nagas get more attacks so they do more damage on average, but Mermen pack more punch so an attack is more likely to kill. Plus, Mermen are far more versatile. They have more upgrade paths and there are two types, whereas Nagas are stuck with nothing but a Melee line.

Did you notice that NO Naga has ANY ranged attacks whatsoever? How can someone possibly think the Merman needs to be any stronger than this advantage?

If you want more variety with sea battles, altering their defense won't do. What you need is more terrain types (something I've always thought but never mentioned). Let's add in Reefs and Shoals in favor of Mermen, and Mud and Turbulence in favor of Nagas.

P.S.: But its actually a good question for what reason the defense of mereman is better in shallow water than in deep water. Even if some argue that the fights take place always at the surface the terrain modificator of both should be at least equal.

Because it's pointless to have a battle in deep water unless the map was specifically designed such that travel through deep water could secure vantage points later.

For realism, here's your explanation. In shallow water, they have ground beneath them to brace themselves with. This means they can put more force into their attacks and parries while keeping balance. In deep water there is nothing solid to brace their weight upon, so with every swing they also have to pedal their fins/tails a certain way to keep balanced. This is two actions at once, meaning they are less effective. To strengthen my argument, note that both Naga and Mermen also get 60% defense on bridges - a solid structure.

[turin]

P.S.: But its actually a good question for what reason the defense of mereman is better in shallow water than in deep water. Even if some argue that the fights take place always at the surface the terrain modificator of both should be at least equal.

Mermen have always had better defence in shallow water than in deep water in Wesnoth. The reason is mermen, and nagas, are not creatures of the deep - they live in water, yes, but they never go too far down. They make their homes in coral reefs, after all - in shallow water. The deep water is where creatures like the Sea Serpent live. The mermen can go there, but they're not comfortable there.

Actually, it is a lot like the movie Finding Nemo in why they're better in shallow.

Saying the mermen should have equal defences on shallow and deep is like saying men should have equal defence on grassland and mountains just because both are land, not water.

[YbeRn00b]

Saying the mermen should have equal defences on shallow and deep is like saying men should have equal defence on grassland and mountains just because both are land, not water.

Thats why I say naga 40% on deep, mermen stay 50%. After all, breathing under water gives a lot more space to roam in the deep seas.
Naga probably needs something in return.

And... Stop saying naga does more damage on average, they do not. (18v16 average). That mermen has a bit stronger attack is fine with me (in return naga level faster), but do NOT say one more time that naga deals more damage. Please.

[Jew unit]

[

If you want more variety with sea battles, altering their defense won't do. What you need is more terrain types (something I've always thought but never mentioned). Let's add in Reefs and Shoals in favor of Mermen, and Mud and Turbulence in favor of Nagas.
.

I can not state how much i approve of this idea :-p


btw to the people who are saying mermen realisticly should be better in deepwater because they can go under naga... i ask you what about javalin throwrers who cant throw underwater?

[Noy]

Saying the mermen should have equal defences on shallow and deep is like saying men should have equal defence on grassland and mountains just because both are land, not water.

Thats why I say naga 40% on deep, mermen stay 50%. After all, breathing under water gives a lot more space to roam in the deep seas.
Naga probably needs something in return.

And... Stop saying naga does more damage on average, they do not. (18v16 average). That mermen has a bit stronger attack is fine with me (in return naga level faster), but do NOT say one more time that naga deals more damage. Please.

Well then PLEASE don't keep brining up ideas that have already been commented upon by devs that are Not going to happen. You've done this in a number of threads and its annoying. Rationalize it as you wish, I don't really care, the current Naga and Merman balance is staying as is. That is unless you can come up with a proposal that is balanced AND is widely accepted by devs as being more rational... then maybe we'll consider it. However I don't hold out much hope to be perfectly honest. Stop wasting our time with proposals that have already been rejected, in the same thread no less

PLEASE

[FleshPeeler]

Saying the mermen should have equal defences on shallow and deep is like saying men should have equal defence on grassland and mountains just because both are land, not water.

Thats why I say naga 40% on deep, mermen stay 50%. After all, breathing under water gives a lot more space to roam in the deep seas.
Naga probably needs something in return.

Look, I've been yelled at before for trying to rationalize why a unit works the way it works, so I'm not even going to argue that point. Realism takes a back seat for balance. But since you insist, READ MY LAST POST. You can't reason your way around physics. Go out to a swimming pool and try swinging a sword around above water. Now go to the deep end of the same swimming pool so your feet aren't touching bottom and swing again. Physics rules.

And... Stop saying naga does more damage on average, they do not. (18v16 average). That mermen has a bit stronger attack is fine with me (in return naga level faster), but do NOT say one more time that naga deals more damage. Please.

It's not polite to give me a "bugger off" message when you don't even know what I'm talking about. The Naga gets more chances to swing, therefore it has a better chance of dealing damage per combat (I suppose I could have said that but I'm trying to make my posts less wordy).

On average, the Naga is more likely to deal damage. That's what I should have said.

Think of it this way. A Merman gets 3 shots, while a Naga gets 4. I say the Naga does more damage on average because, on average, they are more likely to hit. A Merman can miss three times and deal 0 damage, while a Naga can miss three times and still have one more chance at hitting.

Assuming 50/50 terrain, we have the following possibilities:
Merman - Miss/Hit M/H M/H
Naga - M/H M/H M/H M/H

A Merman has a 3/6 chance of hitting (3 H out of 6 possibilities). A Naga has 4/8. If we play this out . . .
Merman: 3/6 2/6 1/6
Naga: 4/8 3/8 2/8 1/8

And then add that up . . .
3/6 + 2/6 + 1/6 = 6/6 = 1. Therefore you're very likely to hit at least once with a Merman.
4/8 + 3/8 + 2/8 + 1/8 = 10/8 = 1 1/4. Therefore you have a one-in-four chance of hitting twice while almost guaranteed to hit once with the Naga.

The Naga has a greater chance of hitting than the Merman, therefore it is more likely to actually deal damage in combat. Typically, when a unit is low on health, you want the unit that's more likely to hit in order to get the kill rather than the one that's going to hit the hardest. Thus, the Naga is more likely to kill something, meaning the opponent will not get to finish its hits, meaning this tips the average a bit. With this in mind, they're probably exactly even (The math says Mermen get an average of 18 damage, but in practice it probably is more like 16 which is exactly what Nagas do.)

In conclusion, sure I'll admit I'm wrong by saying Nagas deal more damage on average, but only if you'll admit that you're also wrong for saying that Mermen need to be stronger.