Archers and Range

[Pentarctagon]

I mean, not counting add-ons, Wesnoth isn't really meant to be played as an RPG - units are meant to be expendable to an extent. Each spearman you recruit doesn't have their own backstory, and you aren't expected to be able to keep all of them alive.

Additionally, maintaining and expanding your control of villages compared to your enemy is itself part of the strategy.

[Crysis]

I guess. It just feels less about tactics when you can treat your units as expendable. Nearly every Tactical game I've seen like this has been typically where if your unit dies, it's gone forever, and that was something to be avoided at all cost. But that's also what made them worthwhile to play. There were consequences if you couldn't play tactically.

Wesnoth sort of removes that consequence because you can simply buy more whenever you get low. It becomes less about tactics, and more about who can buy the biggest army.

[Pentarctagon]

The way I would say it is that the consequences of losing a unit in Wesnoth are usually less immediately severe than that. Losing individual units is usually not something to be concerned about; however, you also can't just infinitely buy more units to replace the one's you've lost - units cost gold to recruit and (generally) additional gold per turn to maintain, and gold is a limited resource. If you play poorly, then your opponent will be able to kill more of your units, level up their own units, and take over your villages, which will ultimately lose you the match specifically because you'll be unable to recruit enough units to defend and advance. In campaigns this can be even more impactful since gold you have leftover at the end of one scenario can be carried over into the next scenario, so often you don't actually want to simply recruit as many units as you possibly can - especially since recalling previously recruited units costs a flat 20 gold - since that will leave you short-handed for the next scenario.

[octalot]

If you're judging by the tutorial alone, it's meant to teach the game mechanics, but not challenge the player. The strategy and tactics tutorials are the first few campaigns.

Please have a read of https://r.wesnoth.org/t47702 , particularly the section VI. ACCEPTABLE BATTLE LOSSES. Speaking as someone who took a long time to realise that losses had to be accepted in this game, that article was a major eye-opener.

[sergey]

I probably wouldn't have wasted the 400mb of data to download Wesnoth knowing the engine was built this way.

Maybe it's just the younger generation can't really handle the tactics as required by some of the more standard games in the genre.

It sounds offensive.

I primarily downloaded Wesnoth because I thought I'd be able to make my own Fire Emblem-type campaigns.

As you already noticed Wesnoth and Fire Emblem have essential discrepancies.

[Crysis]

If you're judging by the tutorial alone, it's meant to teach the game mechanics, but not challenge the player. The strategy and tactics tutorials are the first few campaigns.

Please have a read of https://r.wesnoth.org/t47702 , particularly the section VI. ACCEPTABLE BATTLE LOSSES. Speaking as someone who took a long time to realise that losses had to be accepted in this game, that article was a major eye-opener.

I think this literally only applies to the Wesnoth campaigns themselves, because of how they are designed. For the majority of this genre, there is no such thing as an acceptable loss. If you are playing that way, you are playing it wrong.

[EarthCake]

So, you say that a player should try to keep every unit alive? For that, a player would need to reload a scenario around 200 times to have enough luck.
Also, campaigns are made to allow player to lose some units.

there is no such thing as an acceptable loss.

Have you never heard about war? In war, people die.

If you are playing that way, you are playing it wrong.

There is no wrong way to play this game. It is designed to allow the player to play the way he likes.

[Crysis]

Haven't you ever played any game like this? Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, Shining Force, etc?

There is no such thing as an acceptable loss in those games. Instead you use your tactical knowledge to ensure your army survives the battle. If characters die, it's because you screwed up and did something wrong.

But it's not technically designed to allow you to play how you like, not without a lot of mods to add features.

If it were designed that way, we'd have the option of using ranged attacks from multiple tiles from the engine itself, not from a mod, wouldn't we?

In practice, it seems to lean more towards the RTS genre over Tactical. You've got to capture villages to earn gold (ie, collecting resources), and use those to create your units. Which you send against an enemy. Tactics sort of goes out the window when you seemingly send out a first way to stall the enemy while your gold replenishes to summon a second wave to throw at them.

What I'm trying to say is, it isn't exactly tactical to do that. It comes across more as the Zapp Branigan method of war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF3g4Ua5e7k

[EarthCake]

The characters you are referring are heroes, and in this game heroes also mustn't die.

Everything else you said is unfair. Mods are also used in those games you referred to, aren't they?
So, in Wesnoth you have choice to play with and without that mod.

[Pentarctagon]

I have played multiple Fire Emblem and Fire Emblem-like games. The point being made here is that vanilla Wesnoth just doesn't play like those games, and it's incorrect to expect it to play like that.

[Crysis]

The characters you are referring are heroes, and in this game heroes also mustn't die.

Everything else you said is unfair. Mods are also used in those games you referred to, aren't they?
So, in Wesnoth you have choice to play with and without that mod.

No, I don't believe so. Most of those are console or handheld titles, without the option of mods.

[Mawmoocn]

I would also like to know the reason, for the reason behind implementing range "melee" attack.


There are some campaigns that allows you to achieve no death gameplay.
The problem? It depends on the campaign and you need some sort of mastery to achieve such things, if not, you have to be patient on retrying or at least be able to gauge if it’s really possible to do it.

Basically, any game, regardless of genre, will have a block, that you need to learn about.

[EarthCake]

That is what will never be changed in Wesnoth (I hope).
That allows you to focus on keeping your units alive and allows you to master the strategy. If this mod was implemented, the game mechanics and strategy would be completely changed. In example, you couldn't keep wounded healer just behind the units in frontline.

I love this game without that mod, and I would like that it doesn't change.

[josteph]

Regarding acceptable losses, that took me some time to get my head around, too. At first I thought that I should play different races differently, for example, sacrifice Skeletons readily and Elvish Fighters reluctantly, because Skeletons are easy to replace but elves are not (elves live long lives, according to the race description). That's nice and all, but it turned out that it's hard to win this way

Campaigns seem to, generally, be balanced on the assumption that you treat low-XP lvl1 units as expendable, regardless of lore. That's how I play nowadays, though I still expect scenarios to be winnable on first visit, without reloads, without exploiting AI bugs.

@octalot Thanks for that link, I haven't seen it before.

[Caladbolg]

I guess. It just feels less about tactics when you can treat your units as expendable... There were consequences if you couldn't play tactically.
Wesnoth sort of removes that consequence because you can simply buy more whenever you get low. It becomes less about tactics, and more about who can buy the biggest army.

There are also consequences in Wesnoth for not playing tactically - loss of a scenario, or following scenarios becoming more difficult or even unbeatable at your skill level. You cannot simply buy more units - you are limited by your gold, which is managed by balancing your loses, capturing villages, timing your moves to efficienty get xp and early finish bonus, to limit upkeep, etc. - all of which require tactical prowess.

I played Wesnoth with the intent of keeping as many units alive for many years - it resulted in lots of frustration, save-reloading to avoid loses, and massive recall lists full of units I'd never again use because I didn't have gold to recall all of them. Once I accepted that losing units is a part of the game strategy, a whole new field of tactics opened up - using units as lures, glass cannons, distractions...

As an example, putting shamans in water to divert trolls results in a loss of a shaman, but can spare some more valuable unit; it also leaves a troll in the water as an easy target. Putting a knight in the water can be a great distraction, as they have low def and are a valuable target as a lvl2; but they have enough hp to survive on low def, and enough mp to retreat afterwards.

Both losing units and the "fake" ranged are an integral part of how Wesnoth works. They don't make Wesnoth's tactics inferior imo; just different.