Interface: Plan Mode (or rather Plan Window)

[ALX23]

What about adding a mode or an additional window or something like this - which every turn (or rather move) copies the real game, but where you can do moves without affecting the real game.
That will allow you to plan part of your moves there.
There will never be fog updates, trigger events (unless they have a tag "execute in plan window") and invisible units won't ambush you.
So, no matter what step you do there it won't give you additional information on the real game so all moves will be undo-able unlike regular moves
(which shouldn't be undo-able at all - at least because you can hunt down shadows or other hidden units with the undo button)

You simply do movements there but not in the real one, and when needed you can press the button "execute" which will do the planned moves (or specified one) in the real game.
Obviously it will alert you if something happens and pause the execution.
It may require some kind of a list of moves that you planned and shows the list to you.
So, when you are alerted (or ambushed) you can delete or modify some of them if needed, without deleting all of them.
And you should be informed on the list if some moves cannot happen the same way they did.

Possible Features:
1) Now if you order a unit to move to location farther than he can he will automatically move on the next turn, without asking you.
With this implemented it can be transformed into a better form - instead of executing his order to move, it will appear at the top of the list.
So you can delete it if needed, if not - you don't have to order him to do the move again.
2) This mod could also allow to see what would happen if you attack your enemy with more that one unit
to see the kill chance and health distribution for several attacks in the specified order.
* Multi-player:
3) You may plan your moves while others play, so you won't have to sit idle while others play -you may prepare some of your moves beforehand.
4) It could also contribute for the "allied simultaneous turn", if it will be implemented.

I do understand that combat cannot be planned beforehand, so sometimes it will be rather useless.
I also believe that it will generally fasten multi-player games, even though it might sometimes slow them down.

[thespaceinvader]

Who is going to code all this, exactly?

[em3]

The coding fairies.

About the idea... I'm not really that fond of this proposal. I mean, you could feasibly plan at most half a turn, before any actual combat. If you, for example, want to kill one unit to free ZOC for your other units to advance, this would probably not be achievable in "plan mode".

Altogether, I don't see much use for this "planning mode"... other than kill boredom during enemies' turns. I'm quite sure I wouldn't use it then, even, as I prefer observing what is happening on the battlefield instead.

[Lu Mong]

Who is going to code all this, exactly?

Oh, come on. This is ideas section. It is quite important to first decide if a feature is usefull/important/popular and then comes the realization that nobodys gonna write the code. Dissmissing an idea only because I am not sure who will do the code is not really constructive from my point of wiev...

The coding fairies.

Hmm.. the coding fairies. I ought to catch some and make them to do my work too.



I do not like the idea either. I wouldnt use it and I do not see its usefulness. Plus there is a ton of technical difficulties like how you will treat hidden(ambush) units. You said, that they wouldnt be discovered during plan mode, but what if player tried to move on exactly the same spot where they stand? It would either maprohibit the player to make the planned movement(thus giving him hint of his enemy whereabouts) or allow him to move there(thus making it even harder to code and losing much of its usefulness by disallowing to plan on actual state of things.)
Also I find statistics of more than one attack as to random to actually have much of strategic use.
The idea of cuting boredom during others turns is quite good, but I do not think that this is the way(I for one play Tyrian 2000 on second computer during other players turns ) My actions during a turn will depend from about 60 percent on what my opponents have done, so planing ahead without seeing what they will do wont be very productive.

[ALX23]

Actually maybe I didn't explain well enough how it I see it.
There are plenty ways... but an example:
Imagine it works like two tabs in your browser (unless you have an ancient one).
One real and the other is Your plan - your plan initially is a copy of what you see in the game.
There is a list of moves which you always see. Every move you do there adds a move to the list.
When you execute your moves - they one by one start running in the real game, till they done, or paused if you get additional information or something unexpected happens.
If it doesn't completely ruin your plan, and can be solved by a small modification that's fine - simply go to the affected moves according to the list and change them.
If it did ruin your plan - it's fine nonetheless since most probably you made the plan during your spare time - and situation becomes at worst as bad as it is now (that you have to make all moves during your turn)

I doubt that this is that difficult to make or that there are "tons of technical difficulties".

It is true that such thing is almost useless in small maps, since mostly they are combat.
But in large maps it is a real bonus, since there are always lots of units that don't fight - and it is a waste of time for you to command them during your turn, worse, you may even forget them.
I really believe that this may make some big maps much more playable in MP.

Also I find statistics of more than one attack as to random to actually have much of strategic use.

You do want to know your killing chance. Plus in some situations it may depend on the order.

[Caphriel]

Who is going to code all this, exactly?

Oh, come on. This is ideas section. It is quite important to first decide if a feature is usefull/important/popular and then comes the realization that nobodys gonna write the code. Dissmissing an idea only because I am not sure who will do the code is not really constructive from my point of wiev...

I doubt that this is that difficult to make or that there are "tons of technical difficulties".

This is why.

So now, I will respond, for instance, "ALX23, if you don't think it's that hard or there are no technical difficulties, why don't you do it yourself?" and he will respond "I don't know how to program!" To this, I say, "If you are not a programmer, how can you evaluate how hard something is to do or what technical difficulties there are?" I personally think something like this would be fiendishly complicated (or at least non-trivial), because it would require a newish GUI component, new code to evaluate legality of moves, code to actually do the stuff you're talking about like the move list and actually executing moves conditionally. Furthermore, because it doesn't work with combat, it's of very limited scope.

Also, Lu Mong, it doesn't matter how useful/important/popular an idea is if nobody is interested in writing it. People seem to treat the ideas section as a way to find people to implement their New Unique Awesome Idea, because apparently there are tons of people with time an interest in coding for Wesnoth, but no ideas of their own/other things to work on.

Finally, you can plan your moves in advance using labels. They're an amazing tool for communicating with teammates, or simply writing notes to yourself.

Edit: To respond to a couple of other points I missed:
If your units are so far away from the front that there's no chance of them engaging in battle, you can give them an automove command. This will save you time and prevent you from forgetting them.
Big maps are not frequently played for a variety of reasons. Balance is a major one.

[Lu Mong]

I doubt that this is that difficult to make or that there are "tons of technical difficulties".

Well. It is not that difficult. But it is still a lot of code. There is no feature in Wesnoth upon which you could base this idea - so this would need lot of programing(I may be wrong, since I have not much idea as to how the Wesnoth code works). But thats not the real problem. In my opinion this would kind of take away the simplicity of game, which is one of Wesnoths critical features...

Also I find statistics of more than one attack as to random to actually have much of strategic use.

You do want to know your killing chance. Plus in some situations it may depend on the order.

Wesnoth is pretty much random. Some like it, some dont, but it makes the game more dynamic. If you used queve of attacks with different units and then counted the probability two things would happen: 1.dynamics of game are kind of ruined, since you do not have chance to react with additional attacks on what did the first attack. 2.You get some number(s) but these numbers are based on what may happen statisticaly. These statistics arent something upon what you can base your decision since they are probabilities of probabilities which happen after probabilities - and more attacks you have worse it gets.

Also, Lu Mong, it doesn't matter how useful/important/popular an idea is if nobody is interested in writing it. People seem to treat the ideas section as a way to find people to implement their New Unique Awesome Idea, because apparently there are tons of people with time an interest in coding for Wesnoth, but no ideas of their own/other things to work on.

Sure. But you cant really know if someone is interested or not, until you ask. I thought (and used it that way) that Ideas section is for being able to tell others about ideas of what "could" be implemented, see if they are interested and depending on their feedback either do it yourself, abaddon it or find someone to do it for you.
Sure most of the content of this section was never implemeted to game, but there were quite a few ideas that got implemeted - and lot(I do not really dare to say most) of them not by those who thought of them initially...

[Caphriel]

I'll quote Noy:

This is the problem with the forum: its not used by developers for serious policy proposals.

And hope he doesn't feed me to Turuk for quoting him a little out of context.

Ideas here do get implemented sometimes, but practically speaking, anything, even the most trivial addition, is only going to get implemented if the poster does it themself, or if one of the devs takes a liking to the idea. In general, I think the main purpose this forum serves is to let the general community feel like they're contributing

In the sense of getting things done, "Who is going to code it?" is the most important question when it comes to a new feature. If you're not capable of or interested in coding something yourself, posting an idea is basically asking someone else to do the work. Or, the entire discussion is academic. I wasn't trying to imply that he shouldn't have posted the idea. I was trying to explain to you why TSI's question is very relevant and reasonable. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[ALX23]

you can plan your moves in advance using labels.

You can as well remember your plan in head, so, what? That is not the point of the plan mode at all.
Main points are:
1) economy time - primary.
2) evade possible problems caused by hidden units or events.
3) move list - have a good management tool mainly for your non-fighting units.

These statistics arent something upon what you can base your decision since they are probabilities of probabilities which happen after probabilities - and more attacks you have worse it gets.

These statistics are your base of decision. (of course there are other factors, but ctk and damage are important) - "I won't believe that sun is blue because I know what color it is." (It's black if you don't know).

1.dynamics of game are kind of ruined, since you do not have chance to react with additional attacks on what did the first attack.

What a hell??? Where did you get that from???
Here is a simple example: You have two units fighting a lich. Grand knight with holy water (arcane attacks) and a swords man. Lich has 60 hp. Grand knight does 57 damage with single hit. But Lich has drains so he heals himself. You want to know "how is more probably to kill him?" - first by attacking with swordsman then with knight or opposite? or if it does not really matters? What damage you would suffer?

Big maps are not frequently played for a variety of reasons. Balance is a major one.

No, not balance - time.

"Who is going to code it?" is the most important question when it comes to a new feature.

It is, but there is no point in asking it - only the answer has meaning.

[Lu Mong]

In the sense of getting things done, "Who is going to code it?" is the most important question when it comes to a new feature. If you're not capable of or interested in coding something yourself, posting an idea is basically asking someone else to do the work. Or, the entire discussion is academic. I wasn't trying to imply that he shouldn't have posted the idea. I was trying to explain to you why TSI's question is very relevant and reasonable. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Than you are right(and TSI too) but as ALX23 wrote: I do not see the usefulness of the question as the first reaction. First you must find out if that idea is even worth coding. For you or for somebody else - that doesnt really matter - I for example like to read Ideas for inspiration and from time to time I say to myself "Well, this is interesting, maybe I will use it in my campaign/scenario/era/whatever". and when at least one person thinks something like that then the idea was worth writing. Even when in the end nobody decided to implement it into maingame. Thats my opinion.(Plus asking that question as first reaction can be pretty intimidating )

1.dynamics of game are kind of ruined, since you do not have chance to react with additional attacks on what did the first attack.
What a hell??? Where did you get that from???
Here is a simple example: You have two units fighting a lich. Grand knight with holy water (arcane attacks) and a swords man. Lich has 60 hp. Grand knight does 57 damage with single hit. But Lich has drains so he heals himself. You want to know "how is more probably to kill him?" - first by attacking with swordsman then with knight or opposite? or if it does not really matters? What damage you would suffer?

Okay - I misunderstood here a bit(do I get it right now, if I say that you would basicaly have a queve of orders with presented statistics with attacks used one after another with players chance to intervene whenever he wants?), though I still doubt its usefulness most of the time. But at least now I dont think its nessesarily bad

[thespaceinvader]

The other major, MAJOR problem that strikes me: You're doing all this planning in your opponent's turn? What happens when the opponent's moves disrupt your plan right from the off?

It's a turn-based game. There's going to be some down time, it's inherent in the concept. Deal with it

[Caphriel]

you can plan your moves in advance using labels.

You can as well remember your plan in head, so, what? That is not the point of the plan mode at all.
Main points are:
1) economy time - primary.
2) evade possible problems caused by hidden units or events.
3) move list - have a good management tool mainly for your non-fighting units.

This doesn't help with time because your plan will depend on your opponents' moves, hidden units function as designed in my opinion, and you can already give multi-turn move orders to your units, which is even more useful than your suggestion

Big maps are not frequently played for a variety of reasons. Balance is a major one.

No, not balance - time.

I didn't say time wasn't a factor, but there are a variety of factors that keep people from playing big maps. One of them is that faction balance deteriorates on very large maps.

"Who is going to code it?" is the most important question when it comes to a new feature.

It is, but there is no point in asking it - only the answer has meaning.

Yes, but since you didn't seem to be considering the question, TSI was prompting you to think about it.

This is a poorly thought out suggestion that attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist in a way that wouldn't solve it even if it did exist.

[ALX23]

The other major, MAJOR problem that strikes me: You're doing all this planning in your opponent's turn?

You can do it anytime, but to save time you do it during turns of others.

What happens when the opponent's moves disrupt your plan right from the off?

That is a very simple question to answer. Obviously there is no real point in planning something that has a high chance of being disturbed...
But, suppose there are 4 players. You have a high intersection only with one of them. So, after he moved you can plan while the other two play (or one).

It's a turn-based game. There's going to be some down time, it's inherent in the concept. Deal with it

That is a very orthodox way of thinking. I would prefer to not think that way.
If there is a way to really speed up game - that would really make the game better. That fact that you will wait is true - but the question is "how much?" and "what you do in the mean time?".

Yes, but since you didn't seem to be considering the question, TSI was prompting you to think about it.

First - do not speak for others. It may make them angry (it did made me angry when you tried to speak for me).
Second, do not think for me. I want it implemented, so I post it here, so a person who likes enough the idea and can implement it - would do so. Is this simple reasoning so hard to understand? Or is it that complicated that you didn't get it after all those other topics in the section? I don't get why such stuff is even discussed because answers are always obvious: if someone said "yes" than yes until then no. What else to say? I don't say anything about it because there is nothing new to say -it is that simple.

I didn't say time wasn't a factor, but there are a variety of factors that keep people from playing big maps. One of them is that faction balance deteriorates on very large maps.

No, there is no other reason except for time (every reason you can think of is direct outcome of time, or negligible). Balance is negligible in this case.
Balance will be modified (in time, maybe in quite a while actually) if people start playing on large maps more frequently.
I am not completely sure... but might be you mean ladder games? They are a small amount of games played, so they have a small influence on the statistics - and I am talking about the large picture.

[Lu Mong]

I didn't say time wasn't a factor, but there are a variety of factors that keep people from playing big maps. One of them is that faction balance deteriorates on very large maps.

No, there is no other reason except for time (every reason you can think of is direct outcome of time, or negligible). Balance is negligible in this case.
Balance will be modified (in time, maybe in quite a while actually) if people start playing on large maps more frequently.
I am not completely sure... but might be you mean ladder games? They are a small amount of games played, so they have a small influence on the statistics - and I am talking about the large picture.

Well. Now you are just taking your personal opinion and stating is as a fact. I for one dont play big maps, because I find them unbalanced(I do not really care about the time since from my experience its not that big difference - plus Tyrian is pretty good game in case the waiting time is to long) - so there is at least one person who has other reason then the one you are presenting - thus proving the whole statement wrong.
By the way: ladder games? What the hell?

That is a very orthodox way of thinking. I would prefer to not think that way.
If there is a way to really speed up game - that would really make the game better. That fact that you will wait is true - but the question is "how much?" and "what you do in the mean time?".

Couldnt that be because Wesnoth is mostly pretty orthodox game? If you want dynamic turns try for example age of wonders - and even there it has its issues and classical turn-based mode is also implemented.

[thespaceinvader]

I think Caphriel's aware of the way I post at this point. It bugs me more that you're telling him I might get angry, when you don't know the first thing about me, than him trying to clarify my point for me, when he's known me for some time, and has a reasonable idea of how I think, and how I post.

That aside: thus far, noone has shown any support for your idea. The issue of who would code such an idea remains the most vital one. If noone likes it enough to code it, it won't happen, and discussing it will simply raise your hopes unnecessarily.

Wesnoth is a small scale TBS game. That core mechanic will not be changing. The potential benefits of this idea are far outweighed by the potential pitfalls, difficulties, and frankly, the unnecessary nature of it. I respectfully suggest you try to understand that, and not antagonise anybody any more.

And as for what you do in the meantime: you watch what your opponent is doing. if you plan your turn in isolation, without looking at what he is doing, you're on a hiding to losing. I've learned that lesson myself often enough. An ability to plan in advance what your rear-echelon units are doing is indeed useful. It's also provided for you already. You can plan movement as many turns in advance as you want.