Should size (of weapon :)) matter?

[Christophe33]

Right now, the unit initiating an attack always hit first even if it is with a bite or a dagger against a unit equip with a 6m (18 feet) long pike.
I would like to propose introducing a probability for the attacker to hit first taking in account the relative size of weapon use.
A weapon will be given a size rate from 0 (bite/touch) to about 12 (pike). An approximate formula would be:
A=attacker, D=defenser
chance for attacker to attack first (%)= 70 + ((size weaponA - size weapon D) x 5) + ((bonus/malus day/night A - bonus/malus day/night D) x5) + ((speed of A-speed of D) x 5)
Explanation: the initial chane is 70 %, so more than even (could be increased specially for higher level units).
size of weapon is the number I mentioned varying for 0 to 12 (a long sword would be 4, a spear or horsemen lance 7, paladin lance 8, pike 12...).
The bonus/malus day/night refer of course to the +/-25%, it might be divided by 2 lower its effect since a loyal unit attacking a chaotic unit at night will suffer a 50 % malus.
The speed is the number of move the attacker unit can do on the hex the defenser unit is (if too difficult to implement then on its own hex). This is a way to give a bonus to fast moving unit.
Special cases would be charge (horsemen...) with the size factor multiplied by 2 (both side to amplify the difference), ambush/backstap will give a bonus of 50 %.
This would not change the total number of attack but the order of attack and would help reflecting the advantage long weapon have over short one when hitting first matters.
The same princcip could be apply to range weapon... a throwing net clearly doesn't have the same range than an heavy crossbow or a longbow.
OK, I'm sure someone is going to say "stay simple" and "if it aint broke, don't fix it"...but we are here to discuss the mecanism of the game...
The player doesn't need to know the formula, just that size, speed and day/night do matter. You don't need to be a mechanic enngeneer to drive a car...

[Slainte]

That also brings into discussion a thing that 'rose in another post... Defensive fire to incoming chargers... This really would be interesting and would not need to be specially complex... maybe something like if attacking charger started move more than half it's allowed moves a defensive shot can be fired (missile weapons) and then the unit won't fight in the melee/combat phase as it is reloading the weapon or chaging weapons to match the close combat... or maybe it would loose part of the attacks... but this way it may be possible for missile firing troops to avoid direct close combat.

Charging into close combat units would benefit for the same based on weapon reach... i.e. a pike is a defensive weapon, used to attack at long distance or to stop charging units... so if charging against a pikemen with, i.e. a sword, with less reach distance the pike gets to strike first.

It is not a hard rule to understand and would give some tactical benefits and drawbacks when picking and moving units... i.e. the pike is a bad close combat weapon as it is too long and cumbersome to handle in short space... so after the first combat turn the pike should be always attaking last wether it be attacking or defending.

I don't know if this would cause the code too much havoc, but I think it will greatly increase the tactical weight in the game.

[fmunoz]

IMHO this is a bit against KISS ideal.
Why not jsut simple give pikemen and halbardiers a new skill..."1st strike" they allways attack 1st even when defending.. this will make them nice defense units, even more against calvay attacks.

[Blackbeard]

I'd expect the attacker to strike first, but surprised if it always lands the first blow. Sometimes my horsemen appear to charge with their eyes closed .

After playing a few games with terrain as the defense criteria, I'm not convinced a more complex formula will make a noticeable difference.

After watching two equally gifted dwarves attack an Orc, one swishing the air and the other thwacking hard, I suspect traits might have more affect than a random throw.

Actually, using a size rating might be unfair where high level rabbits have front teeth to the floor, but rated a size 0 .

Seriously, is the problem in the calculation or the strength of the attack? Perhaps what you're asking is a reduced charge hp. Some units currently only have a single range attack. Being able to defend against that, renders the unit virtually useless.

I find the current attack/defense complex enough already, the day/night is tough because I don't like 'wasting' turns to get my units up to optimal strength. And with the AI improving all the time, my units don't want to leave the castle anymore . Basically, I don't want to sit down with a spreadsheet for each turn, just move and kill .

In any case, all formulas have their weaknesses, the complex ones just take longer to find.

[Christophe33]

I think Slainte remark are good and it will actually be fairly easy to adapt the system of weapon size to make unit with long weapon efficient sa long as they manage to keep the enemy at bay but poor when reduce to close hand to hand fight.
You test length weapon A- weapon D. If the results is -5 or lower then the defencer has a weapon lenght advantage if +5 or above then the attacker has a weapon advantage, meaning that this approach works both for attack and defence mode. If the unit with longer weapon (>=5) strike first succesfully, not only it makes domage but also redue the chanceof the enemy to hit (by 10% for example). It's the interdiction effect of long weapon against short one: you prevent the enemy to come close enough to you to hit you.
If the unit with short weapon manage a hit then we are in close hand to hand fight and the long weapon turn useless. The level of penalty can be a defensive malus (-20%) or/and being unable to hit with the long weapon. Unit with long weapon could be given a weak secundary short weapon like dague 3-1 40% when they are reduced to fight at close range.

fmunoz solution is partial but as he pointed out very simple and better than nothing. With some slight improvement like defensive bonus when the pikemen hit/defensive malus after the enemy hit, it could be good enough.

[Christophe33]

I'd expect the attacker to strike first, but surprised if it always lands the first blow. Sometimes my horsemen appear to charge with their eyes closed .

After playing a few games with terrain as the defense criteria, I'm not convinced a more complex formula will make a noticeable difference.

To know that, we have to try it and tickle the system.

After watching two equally gifted dwarves attack an Orc, one swishing the air and the other thwacking hard, I suspect traits might have more affect than a random throw.

Have you seen the lenghty post of Mark Y. and ffollowing discussion about the high randomness of the game and about some solution to that (none great for the momment).

Actually, using a size rating might be unfair where high level rabbits have front teeth to the floor, but rated a size 0 .

The extension of the formula I just proposed will take care of that, if your rabbbid rabbit is not reduced to a kabob by the pikemen, he can then chew his b*tt with little risk.
Seriously, is the problem in the calculation or the strength of the attack? Perhaps what you're asking is a reduced charge hp. Some units currently only have a single range attack. Being able to defend against that, renders the unit virtually useless.

I find the current attack/defense complex enough already, the day/night is tough because I don't like 'wasting' turns to get my units up to optimal strength. And with the AI improving all the time, my units don't want to leave the castle anymore . Basically, I don't want to sit down with a spreadsheet for each turn, just move and kill .

I argued, unsuccesfully that day/night should affect the chance to hit rather than the amount of domage: a sword is a sword and when you succesfully hit with it you should do the same amount of domage, a loyal unit just has less chane to do so in the dark. Cold atttack by undead and holly attack b y loyal rtoup might be a special case.
You don't need a spreadsheet, you can at the info the computer gives you before you start the fight . You see the chance to hit and possible domage for both side. If you don't like the odd, undo your move or bring in another unit first.

In any case, all formulas have their weaknesses, the complex ones just take longer to find.

Yep, the other day I looked at "tax for dummy"...300+ pages of nicely boring text to explain you how to get the best $ out of the "simple" tax fomula.
I ended up paying someone to do my tax [/quote]

[Dave]

After watching two equally gifted dwarves attack an Orc, one swishing the air and the other thwacking hard, I suspect traits might have more affect than a random throw.

I'm not sure what exactly it is you're saying here, but let me assure everyone that traits do not have any affect on a unit's chance to hit or be hit.

David

[Christophe33]

trait are not changging the cance to hit (maybe some new trait will), strong only increase the domage of your melee... none of the other affect a fight itself beside increasing or decresing the HP your unit start with. What Blackbeard face is just plain luck or bad luck... or mabe the enemy units aren't placed on the same terrain.

Dave, what do you thing of the idea to implement some "weapon lenght" effect in the game?

[Blackbeard]

After watching two equally gifted dwarves attack an Orc, one swishing the air and the other thwacking hard, I suspect traits might have more affect than a random throw.

I'm not sure what exactly it is you're saying here, but let me assure everyone that traits do not have any affect on a unit's chance to hit or be hit.

David

Some players have identified preferred traits for their units based on their perceived effectiveness. The randomness in the attack exchange seems less important to them than having units with those traits. My point was the player's view may differ from the actual mechanics used.

I did not mean to imply traits were used in hit calculations, thanks for pointing it out.

[Blackbeard]

Right now, the unit initiating an attack always hit first even if it is with a bite or a dagger against a unit equip with a 6m (18 feet) long pike.
I would like to propose introducing a probability for the attacker to hit first taking in account the relative size of weapon use.

I was upbeat with my previous reply and with the various responses, took another look at the proposal.

Perhaps I missed your point here, but I don't see where you showed this is an issue. Perhaps it would be nice and fun to include weapon size in hit calculations. But is it neccessary? What do you see as the problem with the current method? We know it doesn't take weapon size into account - neither does it take any number of other equally plausible quantities.

In fantasy worlds weapons need not resemble any real weapon in any shape or form. The key to succesful fantasy games and stories is that the reader or player has points of reference to reality. In this case the point of reference is 'sword' and 'bow'. These words conjure up a type of weapon, but in wesnoth, they may be constructed differently and have unusual effects not found with real 'swords' and 'bows', such as various damage based on the day cycle. This does not mean that the fantasy world lacks a rationalisation. Indeed, having a rational system is imperiative in making the fantasy believable. I suspect it is a lack of imagination that causes people to revert to realism, rather than sustaining the fantasy the developers have worked so hard to create.

In short, wesnoth weapons enable a first hit, regardless of defensive weapon dimensions. This is the fantasy. And it is intriguing (for fantasy lovers) to explore this type of warefare. If there are strong motivating reasons (not based on 'real wepons work like this, so..') that extend the existing rationale behind weapon use, I'd be more interested in the proposal.

[Eponymous-Archon]

If there are strong motivating reasons (not based on 'real wepons work like this, so..') that extend the existing rationale behind weapon use, I'd be more interested in the proposal.

Obviously, you have not been reading a lot of the Forum postings.

[Blackbeard]

If there are strong motivating reasons (not based on 'real wepons work like this, so..') that extend the existing rationale behind weapon use, I'd be more interested in the proposal.

Obviously, you have not been reading a lot of the Forum postings.

What I have read is people saying, "I want you to include X feature because its in Y game and very cool".

I have read people saying, "I don't like X feature, change it".

I have read people saying,"This calculation doesn't include X paramater, please put it in".

None of these have anything remotely connected with Wesnoth's fantasy warefare. Until I see ideas motivated by wesnoth's fantasy world, the proposals aren't worth discussing. Wesnoth is a unique world that may resemble good things found in many games, but that doesn't mean they should be included here, or that Wesnoth is moving toward any particular game features.

Again, I repeat, I have no problem with weapon size being a factor in hit calculations, but I'd like the reasons for its inclusion to be based on Wesnoth's warefare system.

[Eponymous-Archon]

None of these have anything remotely connected with Wesnoth's fantasy warefare. Until I see ideas motivated by wesnoth's fantasy world, the proposals aren't worth discussing. Wesnoth is a unique world that may resemble good things found in many games, but that doesn't mean they should be included here, or that Wesnoth is moving toward any particular game features.

Again, I repeat, I have no problem with weapon size being a factor in hit calculations, but I'd like the reasons for its inclusion to be based on Wesnoth's warefare system.

My point, made all too pithily perhaps, was that many people refer to real-world weapons and warfare when commenting on things they'd like to see, whether in hardware or plot.

Seems to me that a game with wizards, undead, orcs and elves already has missed that particular boat.

[Blackbeard]

My point, made all too pithily perhaps, was that many people refer to real-world weapons and warfare when commenting on things they'd like to see, whether in hardware or plot.

Here, we are in agreement. You, apparently, see this benefitting Wesnoth, I don't.

Seems to me that a game with wizards, undead, orcs and elves already has missed that particular boat.

Exactly, a war game simulator attempts to recreate reality and as such, should describe real weapons. Wizards etc. have no place in simulator games.

Wesnoth is a fantasy game, not a simulator. Fantasy games suspend reality, and replace it with an imagined, rational world. It only works well if the player has some reference to real things, such as weapons. But that's all. The weapons in Wesnoth are not real and never intended to simulate a real one. Tactics and strategy still apply, but in a different universe. This means discovering new tactics and strategies that only apply to Wesnoth.

Wesnoth developers are asking players to believe weapons work the way they do and use them accordingly. They are not asking players to compare them with real ones and spot the difference:)

Again, if weapon size does factor into Wesnoth's world, include it, but the rationale should be consistent with its warefare system.

Now that we understand each other's view, I'll drop this thread.

[Eponymous-Archon]

Here, we are in agreement. You, apparently, see this benefitting Wesnoth, I don't.

No, we are in complete agreement. BfW isn't a real-world simulation and oughtn't be.

I too will drop the thread.