Should size (of weapon :)) matter?

[Christophe33]

Blackbeard and Eponymous-Archon:
Your points of view are interesting but I will like to add a few comment to explain why I think it would be usefull to addd such type of factor.
First, Wesnoth is based on a typical medivial-fantastic background: medieval type of technology, organization (kings, queen ect...) weapon (OK, late medieval or renaissance for the gun) and using mytological creature/magic common during middle age (and later) in Northern Europe. From this point of view Blackbeardd iis wrong to say that other fantasy game have nothing in common with Wesnoth... Wesnoth is a based on a very classic and popular type of fantasy. Furthermoer, there is nothing in discussing about adding features found in other games... Wesnoth is steal in development and the whole purpose of this forum is to discuss the possible developments.
The orginality of Wesnoth is not in the concept of the world or in the storyline but in its attempt to combine both roleplying and wargame aspect in a single game.
One of the interesting aspect of games in such background is the contrast between mudane things and magical/mythical one.
A mundane sword in the hand of a mundane soldier should have a mundane effect and be affected by day/night cycle in the SAME way than a fantastic weapon like the nightblade used by undeads or te holy weapons used by Paladins. If you want a sword that deal far more domage during the day than the night then call it "sunblade" and it will be clear that it is not a ordinary weapon. The present way to represent night/day effect is simple but works fine even though it could be made differently to better contrast mundane units from mythical one.
Anyway it was not the main point of my initial post but another way to add some more contrast in between the various weapon used.
Again I'm arguing only about a mundane aspects witch is the lenght and reach of weapon.
You can argue than the law of physics/magic in Wesnoth world are such that have a dague or a pike doesn't matter for who will hit first...but then why bother having developped a pike to begin with ...just give everybody the same weapon: a sword and a bow as Blackbeard wrote.
Part of the interest of the game is in the diversity of weapon, with their strengh and weakness. The system I propose would help contrasting the various weapon instead of having all basically the same with just a change in name and domage. It will thus create more diversity, at least for ordinary weapons and enriched the game. It will also intensify the strategic application of various weapons and units: For example sending irregular units equipped with small weapon (thief) in open field and during the day against regular units equiped with long weapon (pikeman) would become more costly/dangerous but would be more effective at night and with the support of another unit (because of the increased bonus of backstab).
The conjonction RPG/wargame is partly the source of the problem. RPG games (on board or computer) usually avoid dealing with polearm, first becaue they are not the weapon of heros (adventurer) and second because any way to deal with their special properties (powerfull at distance, useless in close combat) requires additionnal rules. So they tend to stay in background as decorative weapon. When they are included in RPG their qualities are dismissed, making it the weapon for the poor clumsy guards the heros are going to massacre.
In wargames, both classical and fantasy based, polearms are a major compotent for most formations and rules are set up to take in account their strength and some of their weaknesses. However the weaknesses are far more limited at the scale used by wargames since they deal primerly with formations of at least 10 people/unit.
Wesnoth use a 1 to 1 scale but often include far more units than a typical RPG and implement wargames rules like zone of control, effect of terrain on move and combat...
Since units with polearms or other long weapon are used, they should be deal properly and following wargame type of rule.
Right now, units with polearms are included, at least for the loyalist but no rule have been set up to deal with their properties. It might be easier to just remove these unit (poor loyalist they already dont have much) or to ignore their characteristic but doing so will make the game more poor not better.

[miyo]

Weapon lenght could bring some value add to game, add to tactics, but it would also bring more complexity.

What about you getting "first strike" attacking my archer (with dagger as melee weapon) because poleram is longer... why can't my archer get "first strike" instead because he can always shoot you with arrows as you are approaching. Things that are now simple would get more complicated.

The good thing in weapon length that matters is that people would learn about weapons and how they are to be used. That could be nice, but as already said - brings more complexity.

It might be easier to just remove these unit (poor loyalist they already dont have much)

No, we will not remove them.

or to ignore their characteristic but doing so will make the game more poor not better.

That is the case already, I don't see how it makes the game more poor.

- Miyo

[Slainte]

I think length alone is not the solution... some "charge into close combat" rules need to be added to benefit missile fire as I stated in my previous post. Also the point of keeping "long range" bonus for long arms until the short weapon closes and works a successful hit reduces first strike calculations greatly as first strike goes for the long weapon until into close combat at short distance where short weapon gets first strike always.

Also missile weapons requiring space and ammunition colocation would be last striking in close combat... image firing a longbow in short close combat... I find it hard to believe you can prepare an arrow and fire while battling a swordsman... though i don't find it so hard to think an assain can throw some throwing knife in the same situation as it is a more manegeable weapon requiring less space for aiming and much less preparation for the shot... My suggestion in that matter is that once in close combat arechery would not be available to an archer unless he breaks from the fight... that also brinngs another point into place... breaking away from combat is very unrealistic... you simply wander off lightly footed and merrily... I think some kind of opportunity attack or a simple (but surely more realistic than the current situation) chance of breaking off close combat would do... i.e. a failed breaking from combat action will produce a last_strike for the unit independently of the weapon and modifiers.

I know I might be flying away from KISS... but I don't think the complexity go too much higher and in fact some of those notes are a common base for many games... i.e. old rpgs had a "escape from combat" action... that action was on a percentage and you could or could not escape on semi-radom basis, failing the escape implied getting a full set of enemy attacks before you could reply to them.

[miyo]

You would have to select when to escape from battle - as sometimes it is favorable to fight until end. This requires choice to be made by player... it is simpler as it is now, without escaping.

- Miyo

[Dave]

I think that the most viable solution is that suggested by fmunoz -- add in a '1st strike' ability. Units that have the 1st strike ability will always strike first -- except when attacked by other units who also have the 1st strike ability.

I'm also very vaguely interested in the idea of a long ranged unit that, if it doesn't attack on its turn, is considered to be 'standing guard'. Units standing guard get a free long range shot (just one shot, not an entire round worth of shots) at any unit that moves into its ZOC.

David

[Eponymous-Archon]

Obviously there are a huge number of things one might allow in the game, and some of these would more accurately reflect reality. The question is whether these would make the game better. There is a concern that complexity and quality have some inverse relationship to one another.

Personally I am coming to the conclusion that it would be better to get the existing elements completed (AI, animations, plot, etc), than to add more subtleties to unit capabilities etc.

The best way to find out whether C-33's suggestion are good ones is to put them in and play with them. I suggest that we get a slightly more complete game before doing that.

Which is not to say that I don't think the ideas are good.

Nor of course does it prevent Dave from adding in things he wants to.

[Dave]

some of these would more accurately reflect reality. The question is whether these would make the game better.

Indeed, the main question is 'do they make the game better?'

How much they reflect 'reality' is only of secondary concern.

One has to see the game as a series of abstractions, and not dwell too much on whether certain things are 'realistic' or not.

At this stage I can say that I am almost certainly not interested in changes for 1.0 that will require more data fields being stored with units in unit configuration files. I feel unit configuration files are already complex enough.

David

[quartex]

Definitely having a first-strike ability shouldn't be any harder to implement than any of our other abilities and does sound useful and appropriate for certain fast units or units with long weapons.

I definitelty support the idea of a long ranged units that could shoot once if someone entered it's ZOC, becuase I've been advocating some form of units that can attack beyond the adjacent hex. This would allow you to essentiially provide covering fire. I worry this could get too powerful if you could clump many of these units together. Besides limits movement (keeping units from freely running/riding past these guys) it allows you to start creating zones of control, areas that the enemy wouldn't want to go. A unit like this would probably change wesnoth's strategy heavily, and might break the game, but is something that would be cool to explore. We just have to be cognizant of how it would affect the game, and work to not make it too powerful.

[miyo]

I definitelty support the idea of a long ranged units that could shoot once if someone entered it's ZOC, becuase I've been advocating some form of units that can attack beyond the adjacent hex.

ZoC = adjacent hex(es)

- Miyo

[quartex]

Oh, i get it. i was confused becuase I thought it meant the all the area that the unit could move in one turn. So if a unit wanted to attack these guys, they would probably get attacked 1 or 2 times. Sounds like an interesting defensive unit.

[Christophe33]

I'm glad that the discussion started up again
There are been a lot of post since my last so I won't try to answer all.
Here are a few though to help the brainstorming:
We are trying to gives units more indiduality by developping their weapon specialities. This is why I think it will make the game better and more rich.
During the discussion we have mixed at least 4 related questions:
1- long weapon vs short weapon (melee)
2- Long range vs short range (distance weapon)
3- range weapon vs melee weapon
4- Units entering or leaving a ZOC (should they have a special rule).
Our goal is to find a way, if possible simple and elegant that can be implemented to express the differences between the weapon without driving the developper crazy, increasing too much the complexity of code or slowing down the computer too much.
Dave is appparently doubdfull about using my sizing method (both for melee and range weapon) because it might increase too much the complexity of the code.

Based on Miyo and Dave remarks we could have use a simple solution on the two first problems (and part of 3) by giving the 1st strike (hiting first when attacked by melee only) to unit with the longest weapon and 1st shoot to the best range units (1st shoot = shooting first when attacked by melee or range weapon).
The special cases will be:
"normal" melee attacker vs 1st strike defenser---> defenser hit first
1st strike attacker vs 1st strike defenser---> attacker hit first
1st strike attacker vs 1 shoot defenser---> defenser shoot first

1st shoot attacker vs 1st shoot defenser ----> attacker shoot first
"normal" range attacker vs 1 shoot defenser---> defenser shoot first

backstab attack vs 1st strike defenser----> backstab attack first ?
backstab attack vs 1st shoot defenser ---> backstab attack first?

I put a ? for backstab since it wasn't discussed but it sounds reasonnable and will allows units with backstab to negate the bonus of 1st striker/shooter.
It is certainly possible to build on this simple sytem to make it fit more the unit expected behavior and to balance it.
For example limit the 1st strike/shoot for some terrain/condition.
i.e the 1st strike of pikemen/halberd would not work in adverse terrain like forest, swamp or water.
The 1st shoot of loyal unit will not work at night.
From what I saw of the special feature of other type of unit, it should be possible to make these changes without overwhelming the developpers or the code.
The question 4 witch was bringed later in the discussion also deserve to be discussed but might bring in far more complexity.
It boils to that:
When a unit arrive in a ZoC of enemy (instead of being there already), should thew rules of first hit be different since we bring in the notion of movement, so of closing range? (example of a unit with melee coming toward a unit with range but not 1st shooter)
On the other hand, when you withdraw a unit from the ZoC of an enemy, should the enemy be allowed a chance to hit the retreating unit?
Before considering any mechanism on the how to, we should ask Dave if it is easilly possible to code the notion of moving in/out of a ZoC for a unit
If not then we will have to let the things as they are.

[miyo]

Our goal is to find a way, if possible simple and elegant that can be implemented to express the differences between the weapon without driving the developper crazy, increasing too much the complexity of code or slowing down the computer too much.

It is not so much about code (we can do that) it is about keeping the things simple for players - keeping the game fun to play, keeping the 7-years old playing the game, keeping the game playable without needing higher math, keeping the game playable without being expert tactician.I have been one of those who suggested wild ideas (morale, courage, colorization, etc). But then I became aware that I was going to change a game that I already love... because it's simplicity.

"absolutely great game. The game has simple rules, you can get started and playing in 20 minutes. This is combined with a nice campaign which steadily increases difficulty level, so that the game stays chalenging all the time. I spend lots of hours playing this game. On the technical side the game is very polished and rock solid for me. It's a genius example of an OSS-Game IMO: Simple and Easy design done with perfect knowledge about technique and usability." -- MatzeBraun's comment on The Linux Game Tome

Dave is appparently doubdfull about using my sizing method (both for melee and range weapon) because it might increase too much the complexity of the code.

Me and as far as I have understood Dave and fmunoz are against adding 'sizing matters' and instead we are 'keep it as it is'. You still have to work more if you want to convince us. You don't have to convince us how it would be more realistic or how it would bring more tactics in the gameplay - you have to convince us how it is simple, how it brings more fun to the gameplay, how it makes the game more fun for the 7-years old.

"7-years old" is not our selected target audience, it just happens to be the age of youngest player we have (actually few of that age).

- Miyo

[Christophe33]

It is not so much about code (we can do that) it is about keeping the things simple for players - keeping the game fun to play, keeping the 7-years old playing the game, keeping the game playable without needing higher math, keeping the game playable without being expert tactician.I have been one of those who suggested wild ideas (morale, courage, colorization, etc). But then I became aware that I was going to change a game that I already love... because it's simplicity.
"absolutely great game. The game has simple rules, you can get started and playing in 20 minutes. This is combined with a nice campaign which steadily increases difficulty level, so that the game stays chalenging all the time. I spend lots of hours playing this game. On the technical side the game is very polished and rock solid for me. It's a genius example of an OSS-Game IMO: Simple and Easy design done with perfect knowledge about technique and usability." -- MatzeBraun's comment on The Linux Game Tome
Me and as far as I have understood Dave and fmunoz are against adding 'sizing matters' and instead we are 'keep it as it is'. You still have to work more if you want to convince us. You don't have to convince us how it would be more realistic or how it would bring more tactics in the gameplay - you have to convince us how it is simple, how it brings more fun to the gameplay, how it makes the game more fun for the 7-years old.

"7-years old" is not our selected target audience, it just happens to be the age of youngest player we have (actually few of that age).
- Miyo

Thanks for your answer, what about the idea to simply use the special hability 1st strike/1st shoot as you suggested yourself?
It's a good compromise, simple to use and to understand.
The main problem with many special talent/hability right now is more the lack of documentation (I know you are working on it) than their complexity. It took me some time to understand how backstab or leadership worked... An hability like 1st striker or 1st shooter is basically self descriptive, you know what to expect from it.
Furthermore human units (probably the only one with 1st strike) come late in the game, when the player had already quite some experience and wants to see something different.
The 1st shoot bonus would probably be given only to marksman and longbowmen, again coming later in the game and giving the player some new fun unit/enemy to fight rather than always the old same.
The player has already see how devastating a horsemen/knight can be against most orc units and now will learn how to deal with a apparently weak but dangerous new unit... by not charging with horsemen but rather using unit with range weapon.
Another idea on how to satisfy a wide range of people with various age , experience and expectation:
What about making some of the "advance rule" optional (you click on some button when starting the game if you want them) and/or available only when playing at level medium/hard.
Younger/less experience players will start playing a difficulty low to start with (OK I did the same and now redo the campaign in medium...and will do it in hard after that). When people will play in medium, they wil be informed of the additional rule, again when playing at hard level (or maybe only at hard level). It will then be possible to add some of your not so wild ideas and will increase the replayability. Playing the game a low difficulty will then be like a big tutorial before playing with more complex rules.

[Eponymous-Archon]

It is not so much about code (we can do that) it is about keeping the things simple for players - keeping the game fun to play, keeping the 7-years old playing the game, keeping the game playable without needing higher math, keeping the game playable without being expert tactician.

Well, although I'm in favor of KISS here, it would be easy enough to be able to toggle this striking preference on and off. Then advanced players could take it into account and beginners could ignore it.

It would then be like fog of war, for example.

(Still voting for Dave and other developers spending programming time elsewhere and adding this later, if at all.)

[fmunoz]

Well, although I'm in favor of KISS here, it would be easy enough to be able to toggle this striking preference on and off. Then advanced players could take it into account and beginners could ignore it.
It would then be like fog of war, for example.
(Still voting for Dave and other developers spending programming time elsewhere and adding this later, if at all.)

No like fog of war, FoW is an option in multipler games much like giving extra gold to one side or picking a map with too much forests.
In the campaign there are levels with FoW and levels with shroud but with a reason, but the units powers and skills are allways the same..