Presence of Ambush etc. in MP? Issues and ideas.

[La_vie_en_Wose]

Do you mean it like "ennemy in sight - type t to continue" when there's fog ?

I don't understand this question - can you rephrase?

Is it because of the word "FOG" ?

Excuse my english. Could it be the same way it is when there's fog as you step on an ennemy unit ?

[Elvish_Pillager]

That doesn't help -

Could WHAT be that way?

[Darth Fool]

I agree that ambush needs reworking, but it will be awhile before I get to it.

[Cuyo Quiz]

Consider a Lich getting ambushed by a Ranger...

That's life

He would be ambutchered I guess...

There are thing that are ambush-resistant of course, using them to search for ambushing units could be considered a tactic, but if the program can't choose... well, the other option seems to change undo...

[JW]

I think simply removing a units ability to attack as well as the removal of its remaining moves would be an appropriate reworking of ambush. Giving firststrike to the ambusher sounds complicated and doesn't make too much sense (that the ambushed would still use all of its attacks).

Such a working would make it so that you would need to use units as scouts for the ambusher, which is what I assume would happen in actual combat? The only problem with this working is that you could have a force of all ambushers and force you opponent to be reactionary. Ambush would probably need to take place at the beginning of the turn for this working to not be overpoweerd.

-edit-

oh, I realise these ideas were already proposed, but I hope my explanations help in their considerations.

[turin]

The main problem with ambush, as I see it, is the undoing problem. I don't see how JW's proposal addresses it...

[maliciouskorean]

perhaps if finding a ambush unit was the same as claiming a village, and the unit that finds the invisible unit gets all moves taken away?

[Zhukov]

Unless I am very, very wrong, this is what already happens. The ambushee enters the ZoC of the ambusher and thus is robbed of movement.

Elvish Pillager was suggesting that the ambushee also be robbed of attacks. (Something I agree with.)

[Ken_Oh]

You two need to read the thread again. Don't worry, though, because it's quite confusing.

I'm not saying you can undo when being ambushed - I'm saying you can undo when NOT being ambushed, and redo the move until you find the ambusher.

The only thing I can think up is if a unit that is hidden via Ambush creates FOG in the connected terrain of woods that it's hiding in. But, while that might work for Ambush, it wouldn't work for Nightstalk, so =/.

[JW]

The only thing I can think up is if a unit that is hidden via Ambush creates FOG in the connected terrain of woods that it's hiding in. But, while that might work for Ambush, it wouldn't work for Nightstalk, so =/.

lol, interesting proposal, but the second part would be ridiculous.

And about the undoing of moves until you find the unit...
...I'm not sure how to address this. There really is no fair way to take away a person's undo ability I think. Removal of attacks and movement which equates to the removal of a unit from battle will have to be sufficient enough of a penalty to counter-act such tactics. I mean, what is the true purpose of Ambush anyway? Is it the mystery of the unit's placement, or, with the new changes, will the new purpose be to solely remove the attack and movement of a unit?

I think the latter, and therefore such tactics would still allow the ability to do its job. The ambushed would simply have a choice of which unit to negate if he uses such (cheesy) tactics.

[Elvish_Pillager]

My theory is that the undo trick is not that useful when you come upon some random forest - you're not going to move-undo into every hex of forest you come across.

The situation that would most inspire you to use that trick is when an ambusher, heavily wounded, runs off into forest. So you go and find it.

However, you can't flee like that with my proposal. So the trick is less useful.

In addition, the trick becomes less useful when it becomes less useful to reveal an ambusher, since you get fewer attacks with it anyway. You can still use the trick, in limited situations, but it's at a real, quantitative loss.

[turin]

I maintain that any system wherein the best strategy is also the most time-wasting and idiotic is a bad system. (See the game BS - the best strategy is to call almost every time, but the game is no fun at all if this is done.) Ambush as it is currently set up is such a system. I don't think it matters whether one is inclined to use ambush-discovery every time you encounter a forest or not. (In fact, I am pretty sure that you could write a program in which you picked a unit, clicked on a spread of forest, and it proceeded to automatically undo-scout the forest, giving you a reading of "no ambusher" or revealing the ambusher. And I would not consider such a program cheating.)

In any case, my proposal would be to make the ambushing unit visible to the enemy at all times. Just make him partially invisible, the way he is to the controller of the ambushing unit. The advantage of ambush would not lie in the enemy not knowing where he is, but in the enemy being slaughtered if they take advantage of the info. Give the ambusher some huge advantage when he is discovered - say, a free, non-retaliatable attack against the discoverer, with the discoverer losing the ability to attack.

This isn't an ideal solution (takes away the hiding part of ambush), but I do think it actually solves the problem - something few of the "solutions" posted so far do...

[Garion]

I- the presumptuous newbie- take exactly the opposite tack, Turin. I was thinking about this earlier this evening, and it seems to me that the strength of the Ambush ability is the hidden unit location, more so than any effect on its attacks.

I've read Pillager's "No Fog Club" post and I understand that he feels stealth is not a facet of the Wesnoth strategy. I think it should be. I like fog, because it forces a behaviour seen on every real battlefield there's ever been- you must allocate some of your force to the defense of your leader. This seems like a matter of elementary tactics, to me.

What I'd like to see for Ambush, though, is a unit that remains completely hidden under all circumstances unless it chooses to launch an attack. While hidden, it would have no ZOC and would allow units to pass freely around (and through, if that's codable) the hex it's in. I'd even let an enemy unit stack on a hidden ambusher (though one unit or the other must move before a fight could occur).

That would eliminate the undo trick, because there'd be no way to find an ambusher in its own terrain- except one. Ambushers with the same terrain type should be able to see one another. Opposing Elvish Rangers, for instance, could reveal one another's location if they were within movement range of one another.

This, I guess, would allow for a limited form of the undo trick, but it'd go a lot faster and would occur much less frequently.

Now, it may be that my ideas are flatly unwriteable, in which case, I bow to Necessity. But if not, I think a hidden Ambusher is a much better reflection of the ability's intended effect.



EDIT: I should note that I have indeed read the FPI page and that I know stacking has been vetoed many times over. I'm not proposing it as a standard feature, though. I'm proposing it as an unhappy necessity to resolve a problem with hiding Ambushers, which I see as the more important attribute of ambushing.

It's not much of an ambush if you see it coming, and even eliminating the enemy's retaliation doesn't preserve the flavour of the ability, since the enemy will only approach an ambusher with a unit that can survive the onslaught or one that's worthless to him.

This edit was placed to spare me being linked over and over to the FPI page, and get people to consider what I'm saying on its merits.

[Zhukov]

Apart from the stacking part, I really like this idea. Also, the idea of ambushers being able to see one another is awkward.

It seems sad that these efforts have to be taken just because people abuse game features. IMO abusing Undo in this way is exactly the same as saving before every single attack and reloading until you get a perfect round.

[Garion]

Hmm. I guess with the ambushers seeing one another, I've neatly eliminated the undo problem and then immediately reintroduced it in a new form. It is awkward. A "tracker" type ability as a counter to ambush would be really handy, though, and would give Pillager something he could do to avert the dread obnoxious surprise attack.

I could live without it.

The problem with stacking is this- if an enemy unit isn't able to stack on my hidden ambusher, the ambusher has to reveal itself to prevent the stack from occuring. And if there's a way to force an ambusher to reveal itself, then the undo trick is reintroduced in an even more annoying form- you'd have to actually order your units to move into each hex of forest, individually, and then undo, to try to find my ambusher.

Only the most neurotic and annoying opponent would do this (IMO), but why let him? If an enemy landing on an ambusher just gets to stay there- awkward though that may be- the problem resolves.

I guess a third option would be to displace the ambusher without revealing him, but that could cause all sorts of weirdness, including pushing him into illegal terrain or even into a hex which can't hide him.

Oh! What if the Ambusher got a free attack on any enemy that stopped in its hex, and then displaced the enemy unit back one space in the direction he came from?

This resolves the stacking, gets the free attack idea in, significantly punishes people for the undo trick while making that trick a pain in the ass to use, and preserves in most cases the hidden attribute of the ambusher.