Unit Choice doesn't matter

[Gus]

If by "some people" you imply a handful of very good players, then they are probably right, because in a situation where they play one against the other, any other unit choice is actually going to lead to a loss.

[Glowing Fish]

If by "some people" you imply a handful of very good players, then they are probably right, because in a situation where they play one against the other, any other unit choice is actually going to lead to a loss.

I concur with this completely. With no randomness, the best players are the ones who have everything mathematically worked out in exhaustive detail.

With randomness, what makes a good player becomes a whole lot less clear -- there are many different approaches, including more and less rigorous ones, though there is still a definite distinction between players of different skill levels. (Contrary to the claims of a vocal minority of players who say that all their losses are because of bad luck).

It is very hard to calculate out, even on a small map, the different damage results that two units could have. I agree that good players will often go for certain combinations. But sometimes, certain things come down to instinct and understanding patterns that might not be immediately clear.
For example, say you hire an Elvish Archer against undead, and park it on a vital forest square. Now, the opposing player, if he is smart, knows that he can just get Skeleton Archers to shoot at it, and chances are that even with high defense, it will die quickly enough. But maybe he is a little paranoid, or maybe the square needs to be cleared quickly, so he instead hires Dark Adepts, for the "guaranteed" magical hit. You now have your opponent hiring some units that are vulnerable to the attacks of the relatively cheap Elvish Fighter. Of course, this might not happen...but then it might. There are so many permutations on what can happen, that it is hard to set out only one path.
So, I guess I just don't always have a "rigorous" approach to how I fight my battles. Sometimes I recruit units on a whim. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

[Kalis]

That is pretty much what I am saying. And some people are pretty strict about just the "right" units: one shaman, one archer, and two fighters on Isar's Cross, and if you get two archers and one fighter, that is like the worst idea ever.

The thing is though, part of the reason 2 archers 1 fighter is bad because of the gold cost. That 3 gold can easily be the difference between having 2 fighters trained on turn 5, or just 1 fighter trained on that turn. Or even something simpler like having the gold to train a mage or wose rather than being forced to train another archer.

In a way, what you say is correct: some deviation from the standard start strategy is perfectly acceptable and won't be the end of the world.
However, it can also be said that deviation from that standard strategy generally is negative, rather than positive.

It all depends on whether you're going for the "ideal" strategy (which every map does have for every faction), or just playing less competitively and more to test things and play around

[tadpol]

the "ideal" strategy (which every map does have for every faction),

I'm inclined to disagree, and I can't think of a solid test to prove you right. I would expect the playing styles of the players involved to make a difference in which side plays offence where, which should make different in what the best strategy is.

Starting with units weak to their units is not good, but I think it's possible to lose slowly with most combinations, and the longer it takes the less the starting gold matters.

[Glowing Fish]

the "ideal" strategy (which every map does have for every faction),

I'm inclined to disagree, and I can't think of a solid test to prove you right. I would expect the playing styles of the players involved to make a difference in which side plays offence where, which should make different in what the best strategy is.

Starting with units weak to their units is not good, but I think it's possible to lose slowly with most combinations, and the longer it takes the less the starting gold matters.

There are no solid tests.
Think about chess...people have been playing chess for thousands of years, and chess only has a few units with one movement type each. And even though there is obviously some standard openings and patterns in chess, there are still widely different styles of chess play.
So with Wesnoth, you have so many different factors, and then on top of that you have the element of chance...so we might have to argue for tens of thousands of years about the different units.

[Gus]

Think about chess...people have been playing chess for thousands of years, and chess only has a few units with one movement type each. And even though there is obviously some standard openings and patterns in chess, there are still widely different styles of chess play.

I know nothing about chess, but are there really "widely different styles of play" among the top players (and by that i mean the handful at the top, those who win world tournaments)?

[Thrawn]

Think about chess...people have been playing chess for thousands of years, and chess only has a few units with one movement type each. And even though there is obviously some standard openings and patterns in chess, there are still widely different styles of chess play.

I know nothing about chess, but are there really "widely different styles of play" among the top players (and by that i mean the handful at the top, those who win world tournaments)?

yes

[theothercolin]

As a noob, I think that unit choice has at least a fair amount of impact on the game. The first turn recruit imo has real potential for failure. If you recruit the wrong units on the wrong hexes the first turn you lose at least two gold in not capturing a village second turn(on some maps). Maybe even more later on. And like one of the previous posters said, the 4 normal factions can be generally recruited against, but if you dont recruit at least one unit for the 'specialty' factions(drake, ud) it generally fares fairly poorly for you in terms of overall effectiveness. I cant say that on a map such as Isars that has probably been played more than enough times to know the 'perfect' recruit that there isnt a perfect recruit, there could be. Although I think every recruit opening has something that can go wrong if your opponent recruits correctly. Just my pennies on the subject.

[Sombra]

Think about chess...people have been playing chess for thousands of years, and chess only has a few units with one movement type each. And even though there is obviously some standard openings and patterns in chess, there are still widely different styles of chess play.

I know nothing about chess, but are there really "widely different styles of play" among the top players (and by that i mean the handful at the top, those who win world tournaments)?

Spending to much time on the MP server I think that most of the top players (Soliton& Co) have a similar style. Fine points in concentration and preferred units etc.

The one player coming to my mind with a sometimes strange and totally different approach is "Observer" Hard to describe his style: Only unusal units recruitment, mass sacrifices of units but somehow he still wins

So somehow there must be deeper layers of Wesnoth I havent discovered yet.

Yet for new players JW player guide is still the best starting point for MP games. Using unusal units you must be very good to know what to can still do with them.

[Kalis]

tadpol: by "ideal" strategy, I was referring to unit choice, as opposed to strategic decisions. It's generally linked to how fast you can seize villages vs. overall combat power.

With regards to the strategy of wesnoth, there is an aspect of luck in combat, which can completely change what's happening.
For example, it's very easy for battle plans to fall apart if an enemy fighter survives when it should of died.

Variations in MP exist because of risk vs reward of units.
Take thunderers - if they hit their shots, they're without doubt the most effective unit in the game. But if they miss 3 or 4 shots in a row, you probably lost the game right there.

[tadpol]

how fast you can seize villages vs. overall combat power.

This is an important thing to concider in recuiting but I'm still skeptical that there is a perticular best plan for a map. I think there are several viable plans for victory along the lines of gain control of something important (like tempo, terain, econ, combat power, or anything else) and leverage that advantage into control of more important things; rinse and repeat to victory. If I'm not blowing smoke, this means that between "equally skilled" players the one who wins will be the one who contests the important things his opponent persues better that his opponent contests the ones he does.

if an enemy fighter survives when it should of died

this too is a good thought, I would suggest that each strategy has a ctk against each other strategy (with too much math involed to make finding that ctk worth persuing) presupposing equal players which I'm disinclined to believe in.

As a point of fact chess is a purely deterministic game and therefore does have a ideal strategy, but as there are around 10^200 possible ways to play out the first 50 moves no one has been able to definitively say what that strategy is.

[ArmOrAttAk]

It's nice to see the chess comparisons. I was just playing a game of chess actually, and I became frustrated when my pawn attacked another with 100% chance to hit him(the opponents pawn was on a white square), and he missed! So I tipped the board over and went online.

Seriously though this game is nothing like chess. Please make all further comparisons to "YAHTZEE with graphics".

The real story goes like this.. I was playing a lot of wesnoth then this dwarf thunderer blessed by the gods came around and singlehandedly routed all my armies. I haven't played since.

What I liked to do was buy a mix of units on turn one that could cope with whatever the opponent brought out. Reinforced with specialists of course.

[Imp]

Yeah, Wesnoth cannot be compared to chess. It can only tentatively be compared to Backgammon.

[Yogibear]

The thing is though, part of the reason 2 archers 1 fighter is bad because of the gold cost. That 3 gold can easily be the difference between having 2 fighters trained on turn 5, or just 1 fighter trained on that turn. Or even something simpler like having the gold to train a mage or wose rather than being forced to train another archer.

I disagree slightly. After all, there is a reason the archer costs 3 more gold: because it is believed to be a more valuable unit which it has opportunity to prove in turns 1 to 4.

To answer the original question: Most factions are so versatile in tactics and strategies that any "healthy" mix of recruitment will do (2 mages, 2 woses and a shaman for example wouldn't be a healthy mix for rebels).

I only see one faction that you need the right units to fight against: undead. Unless you don't have enough impact or fire at hand they screw you completely, because those skellies make up the meat of their army.