Gameplay differences between Conquest<-->standard Wesnoth

[SlowThinker]

This is a jump from NoLuckEra.

If you want [...] higher importance of skills then play Conquest (Conquest Minus of course)

it would be cool if you could backup this statement by a top ladder rank or at least a partizipation (including one or two successfull games - reaching round 2 for example) in a good old wesnoth tournament.
(even then it would be just your personal opinion, but it would show that you COULD be in a position to ESTIMATE which skills are required).

i personally would be happy to play some 1v1 normal wesnoth with you (3 games).

Mabuse, but standard Wesnoth and Conquest are different games. It is possible that I am much stronger than you in Conquest while you are much stronger than me in Wesnoth.
Like an experienced chess player beats a top poker player (who is weak in chess), and vice versa.

I made that note in the 'NoLuck Era' thread because we talked about it yesterday with Amangon and grrrr: a noob with a big luck can beat a top Wesnoth player (and I have seen 5dPZ being beaten by a total noob), but this scenario is impossible in Conquest.

[Mabuse]

I made that note because we talked about it yesterday with Amangon and grrrr: a noob with a big luck can beat a top Wesnoth player (and I have seen 5dPZ being beaten by a total noob), but this scenario is impossible in Conquest.

well, the scn is also impossible if the top-wesnoth player plays seriously.
i for myself can state that i would never be beaten by a total noob unless i play like a total noob too.

i dont know which ratio you exspect, how many games will be won due to luck in a "total noob" versus "top ladder player" scenario ?

i would say: not a single game

i dont play wesnoth often, extremely rarely tbh, so im surely not a top player. im also not as expierienced with all the maps and all the factions.

how many games will you win out of 3 due to good luck ?


i would say that you totally underestimate the complexity of normal wesnoth, which require a lot of expierience to master, also, i can only recommend to play a few games versus dauntless for example. you can probably learn a lot.

in comparison, conquest isnt very complex.

[Mabuse]

besides:

you know for yourself that luck can even have an impact on conquest games too, when in the expanding phase you lose a unit due to some bad luck. or you have "bad ai spawns".
you know as well as me that also in conquest games players complain about bad luck

but then again you (as an expierienced conquest player) would say: well, if you take such a risk losing an important unit so early, then it was a mistake and no bad luck.
same applies for the "normal wesnoth" situation.

i just say to be careful with comparisons like that, because as you said, wesnoth and conquest are different games.

still we can play some friendly 1v1 normal wesnoth games on some nice maps.
normal wesnoth is also worth playing and fun

[Velensk]

I have been beaten by complete noobs due to luck without playing like like one on a few occasions (a time when a bunch of elvish scouts beat a force of knalgans comprising mostly of thunderers, poachers, thieves, and fighters in a fight in the open at night when the scouts were just charging and not even preventing backstabs springs to mind). These occasions are few and far between.

That said I think that Wesnoth has a great deal more depth and a higher skill cap than conquest (as well as simply being funner to play).

If I want the kind of thinking conquest tends to emphasize, I know a number of board games I'd much rather play.

[Mabuse]

ah well, i think we cannot argue about fun.

conquest is of course also a lot of fun.
in conquest you can simulate epic scenarios like "the rise of rome" for example.

advantages of conquest are:
easy to learn, fast gameplay, epic battles.

[wtf_is_this]

After having 8 years plaiyng of wesnoth,i can say it became boring to me before 2-3 years of normal wesnoth and i started playing wesnoth.The pros of wesnoth are:not hard to be played;the average/good players make something like a society,full of nice people;Really it makes a lots of fun.

I love playing wesnoth a lot too.Just i got a bit bored,mainly cos u cant find good players for 2v2,or someone with who to try orocia(the real one) on hardest level(was it called ZONC i havent played about a year orocia),In 1v1 i got some potential but watching games of Cremember,dauntless and played vs some guys.I founded its hard for me playing 1v1 wesnoths after such big pauses and i mbasicly trying to learn by observing(i learned conquest by the same way)


So basicly Conquest is fun,where ai/spawn can make big diference,but if u arent cut by oponent in begining u can always win on capitol mode.But in std mode with evry spawn,u can get at least draw or win the game with your skil(sadly noone plays and std mode now)

I may continue playing wesnoth,since my skils there are beter and i have big friends(Slow,amangon,condor,xy,ikerpeta,kud,grrrr(2), and others),but wesnoth will be never forgoten.So let evryone choose what he prefers.

[SlowThinker]

After having 8 years plaiyng of wesnoth,i can say it became boring to me before 2-3 years of normal wesnoth and i started playing wesnoth.The pros of wesnoth are:not hard to be played;the average/good players make something like a society,full of nice people;Really it makes a lots of fun.

I guess you mean Conquest?

[wtf_is_this]

yes i do

[SlowThinker]

the luck factor

well, the scn is also impossible if the top-wesnoth player plays seriously.

5dPZ didn't know his opponent was a noob (he was a noob in MP, but apparently played some campaign before), and he seemed to be quite frustrated after he found it out.

you know for yourself that luck can even have an impact on conquest games too, when in the expanding phase you lose a unit due to some bad luck. or you have "bad ai spawns".

I know Conquest depends on luck too, especially the starting spawn is important (but people usually ask an observer whether the start is balanced, and if not things are clear around turn 5: so around turn 5 players usually know whether the start was equal). But if we disregard the start the effect of luck is lower than in Wesnoth.

In classic Wesnoth a heavy mistake may be quite easily drowned by a (moderate) good luck. In Conquest the effect of a mistake is larger, it may be drowned by a very good luck only.

[SlowThinker]

fun / depth

i would say that you totally underestimate the complexity of normal wesnoth, which require a lot of expierience to master, also, i can only recommend to play a few games versus dauntless for example. you can probably learn a lot.

Of course Wesnoth is very complex. But you can understand its principles
(with a ranged/melee weapon attack units without a ranged/melee weapon, use a good terrain, take notice of XP, don't create targets for the enemy, backup your units...)
relatively early, and then your strength depends on your combinatorial abilities.
Conquest is different: I am an experienced Conquest player, and after more than one year of playing I still discover new principles of the game.

I guess after hard studying and understanding all the principles, Improved_SlowThinker would beat Current_SlowThinker in 85-90% of Conquest games (in case we throw away games with an unbalanced starting spawn).
On the contrary I think a top Wesnoth player cannot get better so much and he cannot raise his % successfulness so distinctly: 1st he cannot get beyond his combinatorial abilities, 2nd the impact of luck is very high.

That said I think that Wesnoth has a great deal more depth and a higher skill cap than conquest (as well as simply being funner to play)

Can you be more concrete? Which points exactly cause Wesnoth is more fun and a deeper game?

I disagree with you and will explain my concrete arguments next.

(BTW, Don't you talk about FFA Conquest? Any FFA game (Wesnoth, Conquest or football) is a FFA game firstly: it is much more about diplomacy than about the original game.
So next I will talk about team Conquest games (from 1vs1 up to 4vs4) and mainly about the capitol mode)

Concerning the skill cap
Please read also my answer to Mabuse above.

Wesnoth is mostly a combinatorial, tactical game and strategy is overshadowed (especially for very strong players, who should be able to solve the strategic problems by the combinatorial thinking).
In contrast to Wesnoth, Conquest is not only combinatorial. You must think also about:

• a distribution of your gold: in which area(s) you shall invest your gold, where your gold will be most effective
• whether to explore or not and how (realize in Wesnoth you know the starting position, but in Conquest you don't)
• whether to prefer an economical growth or a fast expansion
• ways and directions of the expansion (this is a very interesting problem especially in 4 vs 4 games)

(Conquest may be also heavily combinatorial, but only if there is many units on the map: for example if you must find a way to bite through enemy units to an enemy village)

Concerning the fun:
Conquest brings

• the more varied way of thinking, which I explained above
• fun from exploration
• enjoyment from growth
• a variety (every game is different, because of the different starting spawn)

Wesnoth misses these points.

But there is one point that I consider more fun in Wesnoth: the up-down movement of armies (in chaotic vs lawful games, and after a leader must return to his keep). This effect exists in Conquest too, but is more subtle: you can force the enemy to over-recruit locally, then retreat. The strong enemy advances towards your village, and now it is you who must over-recruit in order to stop him...

[Velensk]

My claim to wesnoth being more fun is a IMO thing (and frankly I'd think that's obvious to the point that it shouldn't need be said.

I'll disagree with just about everything you said in the last post but I don't care to discuss it. Feel free to ignore me if you please for this fact but you''ll never convince me otherwise. I've played too many games like conquest to be willing to play it enough to see it differently.

[Mabuse]

hey slowthinker, your assumptions simply result from lack of knowledge about normal wesnoth.
as said we can always check your "combinanatory skills" (it cant be that hard, eh ) by playing 3 normal wesnoth games.

conquest minus is basically played a pool of people who never managed to play normal wesnoth at a decent level.
slightest changes as offered in ORIGINAL CONQUEST overstrain them, and make them cry "the gameplay is overcomplicated".

the thread is full of irony, but im not surprised that it exists.
once in a while a noob who never played normal wesnoth pops up and tell the world whats wrong with wesnoth.

[SlowThinker]

I've played too many games like conquest to be willing to play it enough to see it differently.

You mean you never played Conquest, but many similar games?

hey slowthinker, your assumptions simply result from lack of knowledge about normal wesnoth.
...
conquest minus is basically played a pool of people who never managed to play normal wesnoth at a decent level.

Mabuse, I have understood your opinion. But so far I didn't hear an argument. Such a debate seems to be useless.
I put a lot of effort to express my arguments, can you do it too? Or at least explain why you think my arguments are incorrect?



*****************************************

off-topic (the challenge)

as said we can always check your "combinanatory skills" (it cant be that hard, eh ) by playing 3 normal wesnoth games.
...
the thread is full of irony, but im not surprised that it exists.
once in a while a noob who never played normal wesnoth pops up and tell the world whats wrong with wesnoth.

I have no problem to play with you so that you can prove you are much better than me in standard Wesnoth. I hope it will help you
The problem is you play with different nicks on the server and never as 'Mabuse', so I can hardly find you there.

[Velensk]

I played conquest about a half dozen times. It was enough to convince me that it was like other games I had played and enough to convince me that I didn't want to play it anymore for the same reasons I don't particularly enjoy those other games.

[Mabuse]

hey slowthinker, your assumptions simply result from lack of knowledge about normal wesnoth.
...
conquest minus is basically played a pool of people who never managed to play normal wesnoth at a decent level.

Mabuse, I have understood your opinion. But so far I didn't hear an argument. Such a debate seems to be useless.
I put a lot of effort to express my arguments, can you do it too? Or at least explain why you think my arguments are incorrect?

well, you dont have arguments either, what you write is also simply your opinion.

and as said, i think your assumptions are incorrect since i simply deny you the ability to judge what skills are required to play wesnoth at a top level.

once you are a decent wesnoth player you will most likely get a "live and let live"-attitude and realize the fact that both variants of the same base-game are interesting.

being good at ANY game requires always good knowledge, dedication and skill.
to argue about what game is more challenging is useless.

i would like to know your motivation behind statements like:
"conquest is a better game than standart wesnoth"


about the "challenge": let me know when you have some time and we might be able to play some games together -
im confident that i can join the server with "Mabuse" - of course i dont have always time -