Engineering Units

[Cuyo Quiz]

Touché.

[fmunoz]

Even a good engineer could have problems getting all the trees in a forest hex down... (usually as big 1/5 of what a person can walk in 5 hours... several km.)
Or erecting a wall that big... (even a 3x3m wall can take longer..)

IMHO change terrain should be keep as a WML feature for campaigns and special scenarios not for normal units...

[finny_01]

It would not be too hard to teach AI to use it. AI does an adequate job of building towns in the first Warcraft game, and in civilization. The algorithm could be pretty straightforward:

If swamp or river between AI keep and Enemy keep,
Then build bridge over it;

If Enemy unit in defensive position
Then send closest engineer to reduce it

In my experience, the AI always attacks, even if it should be building up it's numbers, so I'm not sure when the AI should decide to start putting up forts. Maybe

If enemy units levels>>AI enemy unit levels
Then build fortifications at shortest approach points

[finny_01]

Even a good engineer could have problems getting all the trees in a forest hex down... (usually as big 1/5 of what a person can walk in 5 hours... several km.)
Or erecting a wall that big... (even a 3x3m wall can take longer..)

By that logic, every river in wesnoth is as wide as the missisipy and a castle is tens of kilometer across. I think that the scale in wesnoth is pretty abstract, it serves the game mechanics before it serves any kind of realism.

[turin]

Well, what I have to say is, read the FPI.

Sides should be able to build buildings.

Background: it should be possible to build various buildings on the battlefield

Result: the developers feel that the game is not about building things (other than your army). Furthermore, it is felt that although every other strategy game seems to be moving toward having a 'building' component, there is no reason why we should follow.

[finny_01]

I'm not proposing the build your base paradigm that has become the norm. I'm proposing that some armies can alter the terrain to suit them, provided it's worth the time.

There is an important difference between what was described in the FPI section, which I've read, and what I'm proposing.

The engineer would not affect unit recruitment, resource collection or availability, or the "techtree".

It would affect mobility and tactical engagements between units. As such, I felt that it was sufficiently different from what the developers saw as undesirable, that I could introduce the topic for discussion.

[freecraft]

The U.S. Army has standard techniques for constructing rope bridges over rivers so that only one or two guys have to get wet.

F***g U.S Army is using what my grand grandfather did on "Neretva" versus Germans and Kvinslings in 1943? Funny, USA must be very, very sophisticated then

Btw, picture of river Neretva:

[scott]

Didn't you ever watch G.I. Joe? They have that tank with the folded-up bridge on top.

[Stigmatix]

I really don't like the engineer idea. Strays too much from what the game focus's on and would be akward. What would the units weapon be? If he is an engineer it couldn't be effective enough to level up, like the healers who have ranged attacks.

[finny_01]

What would the units weapon be? If he is an engineer it couldn't be effective enough to level up, like the healers who have ranged attacks.

The engineer could have a melee attack, like a sword or mace. Ever get hit by a sharpened spade? Sappers loved using those things in both world wars. He still needs to defend himself from attacks, especially if he is reducing enemy fortifications. Like the healer, he is not a frontline killer usually, but can still fight. If he levels up, he could get more HP, and maybe steadfast.

I really don't like the engineer idea. Strays too much from what the game focus's on and would be akward.

What should be the game's focus? I thought it was about winning campaigns against the enemy. With an army that you build up. I think engineers are useful in most armies.

[turin]

I really don't like the engineer idea. Strays too much from what the game focus's on and would be akward.

What should be the game's focus? I thought it was about winning campaigns against the enemy. With an army that you build up. I think engineers are useful in most armies.

The game's focus would be to

Build up a great army, gradually turning raw recruits into hardened veterans. In later games, recall your toughest warriors and form a deadly host against whom none can stand! Choose units from a large pool of specialists, and hand-pick a force with the right strengths to fight well on different terrains against all manner of opposition.

Actually, though, the games is about "RPG-style skirmishes", not full-fledged battles, and it intentionally stays away from such concepts as units-which-carry-other-units (ships), units-that-change-terrain (what you suggest, the "pillage" specialty, etc), and units-that-can affect-those-not-one-hex-away (multi-hex ranged units).

Besides all that, there is a vibe this idea gives out that those who have been on the forums for a while understand. It just doesn't fit into what Wesnoth is, but its rather hard to explain.

Dave, can you get over here?

[Stigmatix]

The "vibe" is that unlike healers who use their non-combative powers directly for the healing of other units in the party, the engineer would be effecting the battlefield overall. All of the references to this unit in real life throughout this thread were about 'WARS' not small squad combat. Having a unit that can be purchased to edit the terrain would also hinder some map makers efficiency. Also, when would you actually -need- a engineer? When would you ever stop advancing, so you could wait for the engineer to move to the hex and build, then wait another turn for it to be able to move off of it? You could of already had your army over most rivers in that time. Also, towns are placed strategically so being able to dig in and make fortifications anywhere strays waay from games intent.

Really, I just don't see it being effective enough to have to impliment.
Also, Engineers are mainly known for seige equipment in medieval or fantasy times, and since its already stated that castle warfare is definately not ment to be a focus- it has even less importance.

[finny_01]

Also, when would you actually -need- a engineer? When would you ever stop advancing, so you could wait for the engineer to move to the hex and build, then wait another turn for it to be able to move off of it?

Usually, if I'm loyalists, and fighting orcs, I stop advancing at night, if I'm in contact with the enemy.

towns are placed strategically so being able to dig in and make fortifications anywhere strays waay from games intent.

If I'm fighting on more than one front, which usually happens, I typically have a strong force that focuses on killing an enemy commander, and a smaller blocking force, that keeps the other enemy units tied down at some choke point and keeps them from owning every part of the map except for what's close to me. It would be useful to give them a defensive position bigger than one town, preferably centered on a town.

I rarely cross water with so few units that they make a single front. Typically river crossings turn into a traffic jam, with units that have disparate movement rates getting segregated. Once my vanguard has crossed, I would like to be able to bring reinforcements across quickly. I also may very well want to destroy bridges to slow an enemy advance.

All of the references to this unit in real life throughout this thread were about 'WARS' not small squad combat.

Although you seem to assume that this kind of stuff only applies to large scale warfare, it is equally relevant to small units. Small units build improved fighting positions, breach or destroy enemy obstacles or defenses, and put up or destroy bridges. A large war is in fact a series of skirmishes between small units that are part of bigger units. Like a russian doll. I don't know where you get your ideas about war from, but having recieved army training on doing everything I talked about, I can tell you that most of these tasks are squad or platoon level details.

As far as the 'vibe' goes, I understand, and feel that it is a more legitimate argument than any other objections presented so far. However, enough people seem to have responded to this positively, actually thinking about how it would work and who should have engineers, that I think that it may not be against the 'vibe'. I think being able to do more things makes the game more rather than less like an RPG. The latest trends in RPGs have been to expand your skills beyond combat to making weapons and armor, mixing magic potions, etc... An RPG is only enriched by the ability to do things differently, other than fighting. For example, a unit with diplomacy skills may add an interesting dimension to the game.

Quote:

Build up a great army, gradually turning raw recruits into hardened veterans. In later games, recall your toughest warriors and form a deadly host against whom none can stand! Choose units from a large pool of specialists, and hand-pick a force with the right strengths to fight well on different terrains against all manner of opposition.

I think this actually speaks in favor of engineers, not against them, it calls for specialists, fighting well on various terrains, which engineers can help with, I don't see anything that rules engineers out.

[Elvish_Pillager]

However, enough people seem to have responded to this positively, actually thinking about how it would work and who should have engineers, that I think that it may not be against the 'vibe'.

Engineers are totally unfit for the world of Wesnoth.

(just so that you don't think my contribution to your idea was supposed to be support... )

[drachefly]

If you just want units which help others move faster, remember my Pathfinder unit. Its effect was to reduce the movement cost of units entering adjacent hexes by 1, to a minimum of 1. A pathfinder helping units cross a river could be imagined to be doing some rope-bridge engineering.