Best strategy in Wesnoth: A good defense?

[Shiver]

I don't have too much of a problem beating down most defensive players (although I'm probably playing a lot of newbs here), but what should a player do when they're up against an opponent of the same race? Even Orc vs Undead and Loyalist vs Drake usually have some pushing and pulling to it, but in a complete mirror match it seems as if there's never a viable avenue of attack.

[Weeksy]

often you wind up just having to spam certain types of unit (augur+clasher, DA+Ghost+perhaps a ghoul or two) but other matchups, like loyalist, I'm not sure what you'd want (I'm betting you want trolls for northerners)

[Shiver]

often you wind up just having to spam certain types of unit (augur+clasher, DA+Ghost+perhaps a ghoul or two) but other matchups, like loyalist, I'm not sure what you'd want (I'm betting you want trolls for northerners)

That's helpful, thanks. I'd be interested to see a more in-depth explanation of how to break a mirror-match deadlock for every race.

[Sombra]

Its simply a layer of strategic thinking I am missing in Wesnoth

I don't have a clue about 2vs2 games as I've only played 1vs1 (and I'm still a newb poop compared to everyone in here...), but if you really want to sneak, then do so. It's more or less possible depending on what player you face and how he/she has placed the units. You also have the option to try to hunt down and kill of enemy scouts in your territory or at the front. Surely there most be some spots on the map where the enemy has very few units - run of to them, kill 'em, then advance or fake advance to redo it and open more doors.


f) The more that play defensive, the more will learn to counter it. The community isn't flooded with morons even if there is a creepy share of them, as in any other community. Compare with the point beeing made by N. about the time when people thought that Drakes were too aggressive etc.

I think you miss the point. As I said Wesnoth adds many elements to gameplay to prevent stalemates. Different factions, day and night, spamming of low cost units..simple chance...

Still I mantain my point that Wesnoth favors the careful defensive player and a strongly tactical/move game system and not strategic decions / ok I will amass my troops in secret and lanch Barbarossa...

Besides If you want to play me you can find me often on the development server.

As I love Wesnoth I lobbying simply for one option for changed fo of war.

[Noy]

Still, your suggestion will do nothing to change the nature of the game. Defensive people will likely become even more cautious, while a smaller segment of more confident people will likely be able to exploit the change. But I'd say that more people would actually become more hesitant to attack if they couldn't see whats behind the skirmish line.

I don't mind that you;re supporting this sombra and I have my own reasons for liking it. But I don't like the fact that you're being somewhat disingenuous by suggesting this change would affect the offensive/defensive balance, when it probably won't: if anything it might make make people be more defensive. Its actually detracting from your argument, because there are other compelling reasons for why this change might be useful, and yet you focus on the reason why, in reality it wouldn't.

[friar tuck]

That's a 'surprise tactic'. A more experienced player would easily see through your ploy.

I strongly disagree. How would anyone ever win a game of chess in that case? Movement rules as well as attack options are infinitely more simple in chess than in BfW. I doubt even an experienced Wesnoth player can exactly predict the (ideal) expected situation a couple of moves in the future, based on the moves he's currently making (leaving randomness aside). And when this is the case, of course a surprise attack is possible, simply by luring a player into making moves that weaken their position in a future situation they did not forsee.

Especially when skirmishers are involved, I strongly expect there are next to no players who can "span" the complete multitude of possible situations say five moves in the future in their head, let alone imagine some kind of pareto set wrt to optimality for his win.

Ctrl-v of course can spoil a lot of possible surprises. Maybe one should turn that off in MP with fog? But even then, killing a single key unit can completely change movement opportunities.

I am still sure a more restrictive FoW would not enlarge, but diminish the tactical possibilities. Instead of long-term strategy, it would favour stealth tactics where one stays away from the enemy as much as possible.

[Swiftfingers]

Having read the suggestion for an adjusted fow option, I can't see how it would help the game. If anything it simply makes the game more of a lottery.

Because the factions are balanced against each other, rather than units being balanced against each other, it will become very difficult to know what to recruit for offence or defence. The only way to know what an opponent has will be by encountering them. This implies that scouts be sacrificed occasionally or gambling units in an attack risking using inappropriate units for the attack. If anything, I see this resulting in a less strategic game as players will have to guess at what to recruit.

Alternatively, players could recruit minimally until they have some idea of what their opponent has. Although, this simply results in an even slower game.

I have no problem with it being implemented as an option, but I don't think it improves anything

[Sombra]

I don't mind that you;re supporting this sombra and I have my own reasons for liking it. But I don't like the fact that you're being somewhat disingenuous by suggesting this change would affect the offensive/defensive balance, when it probably won't: if anything it might make make people be more defensive. Its actually detracting from your argument, because there are other compelling reasons for why this change might be useful, and yet you focus on the reason why, in reality it wouldn't.

I would be really interessted why you say this change wouldnt affect the balance between offensive and defensive. Any why you call my argument "disingenous" and what other üpurpose is behind my suggestion .This concept has been proven in games starting by the good old Battle Isle, Civlization, Alpha Centauri, Panzergeneral, Strategic Command...

But a s I am happy that you see other reasons to support such and option, I would really like to hear them as a kind of support for this addtional game option.

[Noy]

Sombra, do I need to repeat this for the fourth time in this thread? You're ticking me off now.

People who are already defensively minded are not going to suddenly become more prone to attacking if they have less information. Do you think if someone is more prone to defence, they would attack if they have LESS information? No, not at all. If anything your proposal only makes it increasingly likely that players would be MORE defensive because they won't know what is going on behind enemy lines. Now some people, who are more offensively minded, (like me) will take advantage of it, carrying out more feints bluffs, than they already do.

People are not going to change their playing style and their nature when confronted by this new situation. More likely they will retrench their behavoir, becoming increasingly defensive or offensive according to how they already play the game. Saying that this change will affect that is being disingeuous because its not true, and you keep saying it in order to justify your position.

[Rhuvaen]

I'm wondering if simply raising starting gold to something like 150 or 175 would help tipping the balance a bit more towards favouring initial aggression rather than a deep change in the workings of the game.

I'm not a big 1v1 player, but it's obvious that with perhaps 8 villages per player at 2gpv, you're going to have an initial game of just capturing and holding villages with the starting recruits with little skirmishes if at all. For an attack that will last through several cycles of ToD, a bigger build-up of units is needed - about 2-3 times as much as can be initially recruited at 100 gold.

I often wondered if the 100 gold setting was just a carryover from single-player, or a long considered choice on the part of the MP devs... it seems the most obvious factor in deciding the dynamics of the starting to mid game.

[hiro hito]

Rhuvaen is pointing a interesting suggestion here!

I used to play 1vs1 map in default setting. I noticed, between 2 players with same skill, first attack appears late in game: time to grab all village, to see opponent's faction and at least prepare an attack (or a counter attack).

Having more starting gold can, imho, players make up an earlier attack and surprised his opponent!

As many of us show that attack is better than defense, increase starting gold will make more player to play more offensive! And in same time increase the dynamic's game!... (stalemate will have less chance to appear)

Plus, the surprise (result of more starting gold) can , in some way, resolved Sombra's subject ( new fog): make a fast attack with more units since the start of the game can have the same result of this new fog ( but only at the beginning of the game...).

Imo, starting gold should not be over 200, and can change some way of playing! but this wont change what Sombra is talking about (unless if it makes the game shorter)... but this "new fog" is a good idea; we can change gold, xp,startin gold, ect setting, so why not have one more fog setting?!

It was just a simple player's point of vue....

[Caeb]

A more reasonable and practical approach will be to increase gold on many 1v1 maps to approximately 150 gold, this would eliminate the buildup turns and provoke earlier combat.

Reasons why that isn't an option:

(I know that this was only a suggestion, but, for the benefit of interested users, an explanation...)

1. The first few turns of a 1v1 are not simply a buildup. The moves and positioning that occurs during this time period are very significant, and add a lot of depth to later engagements. More units would water this down, fill in the gaps and de-emphasize the significance of early unit spacing and placement.
2. I do not want to increase turn 1-6 unit density on any of the 1v1s. I think the densities that generally occur are ideal, and believe that based on past observations of higher gold maps, stalemates become more, and not less likely, with less room to maneuver. I think that it's just about perfect as it is, and know that for many players, myself included, the first few turns can be very dynamic.
3. Much of early-turn player 2 balance is centered around the idea that their leader can repel would be village thieves and rush-threats. The fact that player one is one full recruitment and movement turn ahead is a huge factor, as everyone here knows, and increasing the unit count by a full 50 % (100 to 150), throws that safeguard out of wack and helps secure any early advantage that player one is able to gain (it changes the power ratio of the defending leader to the attacking units. If anyone doesn't understand what I mean here, I can elaborate). On big maps where this sort of thing would be less of an issue, there might be little or no problem, but of course these large maps have factional problems of their own.

Doc's response to this proposal of increasing gold from page 3 of this thread... if people aren't willing to attack a smaller entrenched force with a few holes to take advantage of, why would they want to attack a larger entrenched force with no defensive holes...?

to elaborate, hex saturation favors defense over offense since there are only a certain number (usually 2-3) of hexes against a prepared defense from which to conduct an attack... if the attacker cannot advance into the killed unit's space because of excessively packed flanks, the attack would overall be in vain...

otherwise, I'm indifferent to having another fog option until I try it out...

[Tux2B]

I don't believe that having only defence is the best tactic. It won't make you win, except if your opponent attacks first.
I personnaly am good at defense, but lack attacking skills (I have the same problem with chess). And trust me, it is not efficient if your opponent has a good attacking strategy.
Knowing how to defend yourself is important, but don't forget that the best defense strategy is to attack, because that's when you have the lead.

This also very much depends on the map, its size, your faction, etc...

[Beholder]

I think if 2 players have the same skill, defending is easier then attacking.

If your opponent have a alignment, moving your boss to the front just shy of the night / day can bring a huge shift in balance. If the enemy is Undead (example), I move my boss at dusk (or even at the 2nd day is the boss is slow) and when the night comes, he can help on the fight.

Isn't just about holding your line.. defender reinforcements come faster, he can bring the boss and he already have the higher ground. Attacker can choose the target first, and thats it.

I've seen some devious defense formations which really frustated me. Elvish Fighters in a village with a Captain behind, Woses hiding on forests and Archers and Scouts coming from beyond the fog to finish the job with a Shaman for support.

Attackers should have a easier have a way to break this turtling.

[Angry Andersen]

When the AI is improved, hopefully it can be used to test some of these alleged balance issues so that it doesn't all boil down to personal anecdotes...

There is a clever point here which goes further than making the AI a balancing tool.

I think part of the problem might be that campaign play (i.e. against AI) trains players to be defensive. The reason for this is that campaigns often balance the weaknesses of the AI by giving it more units. The counter strategy against this is to defend until the AI looses its advantage in mass and to counterattack then. Most new players start with campaigns and therefore are likely to adopt a defensive strategy (I know there are exceptions like leader assassination which can be very effective, but I guess this is a strategy for more experienced players).

So what I'm saying is this: Make the AI better and new players will learn how to play more offensively!

(Yes, I know, improving the AI is quite a challenge, but I think it's worth it)