Best strategy in Wesnoth: A good defense?

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Post Reply
Nordmann
Posts: 31
Joined: December 2nd, 2006, 6:17 pm

Post by Nordmann »

Well Noy, we played two games and honestly you are the only known player i played so far who accused me to play defensive. Well sometimes you have to - reading tactical situations. And my favourite faction isn`t knalgans. Drakes are mine (...) Well to be honest i play this game for fun and do not see the need and your evidence of getting personal again and again. The thread offered an idea and wasn`t called "Why did Noy loose against Sombra and Nordmann". And in your words: "I am fine with beating you by beeing a lucky defensive [censored]."

Nordmann
Well up north it should be cold...
bert1
Posts: 240
Joined: December 6th, 2006, 10:39 pm
Location: Morecambe, UK

Post by bert1 »

Noy wrote:Up against what used to be the top tier of players it is not a winning strategy because there are ways to defeat it. Playing the way I play, I beat most players regularly. Does that mean I should balance the game against my tactics as well? No, and yet you're suggesting that I should.
OK, thanks for that. I'm happy to accept that the original question of this thread is answered: A defensive strategy is not always best, and the best players will beat it. I certainly would not want to change the game to hamper your style, because your style isn't boring. Boredom is the evil here, not winning.

This brings us on to the secondary question: Does playing defensively make for boring games, and if so, is there enough of a disincentive to play defensively?
Soliton wrote:You're right though that a level 0 strategy is tedious and long winded but it's the opponent's fault if he doesn't manage to beat it until critical mass is reached.
OK, Soliton's acknowledged that sometimes games get boring due to defensive play, but that is the fault of the player who lets the defensive player get established. Fair enough. Mediocre players like me will just have to go through a learning curve and learn to break through these defensive players before I can start having fun again! Or I can play maps that don't allow very defensive positions, like Isars. Or I can make a list of defensive players and never play them. I fully accept that there are ways around this other than changing the basic game.
Noy wrote:The Defence strategy can be beaten regularly by more experienced players, its just really frustrating and boring to do so.
Noy also says sometimes games get boring, but he seems (unlike Soliton) to imply that it's not always possible to prevent a boring game. A game may be perfectly winnable vs a defensive player, but we are sometimes doomed to a long slog.

Given that the point of playing computer games is at least partially to have fun, there should ideally be a 1:1 correlation between well-played games and fun games. At the moment, but perhaps only for mediocre players, there is an effective strategy (defensiveness) which is nevertheless boring. While this state of affairs is tolerable, it is not ideal.

Is that the position so far?
Good is simply that which is willed. - Eugene Halliday
palloco
Posts: 136
Joined: April 3rd, 2004, 9:28 pm

Post by palloco »

Noy wrote:No offense Sombra, but thats the strategy you and Nordmann play; it has weaknesses and it can be countered. I realized that fairly early on the first game we played the 2v2 tournment, but by that point I didn't have the units to make it. In the second game I implemented strategies to counteract it, but I had a run of bad luck, and my ally made some critical errors. It does not mean you are unbeatable.
I really doubt he meant in any moment that this is a problem in any 2vs2 game. Actually if you just defend in 2vs2 you are probably gonna lose.

Well, I dont know why you even talk about them being unbeatable, as some of us had proven otherwise. But that is not the point of this thread.
bert1
Posts: 240
Joined: December 6th, 2006, 10:39 pm
Location: Morecambe, UK

Post by bert1 »

palloco wrote:I really doubt he meant in any moment that this is a problem in any 2vs2 game. Actually if you just defend in 2vs2 you are probably gonna lose.
Oh yes, I had assumed we were talking chiefly about 1v1s. There's much less of a problem with 2v2s IMHO.
Good is simply that which is willed. - Eugene Halliday
Velensk
Multiplayer Contributor
Posts: 4002
Joined: January 24th, 2007, 12:56 am

Post by Velensk »

I don't like the fog idea personaly. I think that you should find some other way of limiting sight other than that if limiting sight is nessisary (which I don't think it is)

It is hard to sneak attack if the enemy is protecting against it this is the way it should be.

If you want to set up an ambush set fast units behind your lines or deep on your flanks wait until they attack and have not option of retreat then encircle them. This will not alway be effective however it is the best way I know to set up ambushes.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
multilis
Posts: 69
Joined: November 27th, 2006, 12:36 am

attack vs defense, fog

Post by multilis »

I remember playing a few days ago, 5 player each for self. Above me were elves, I was dragons, and the elves set up a defensive position in the forest near my border, waiting for night. Map had lots of forest.

I was very tempted to trench up despite having dragons, but then I decided to go for it and attack. I threw everything into the battle including my king and the attack worked well. Had I played defence, I likely would have lost the game rather than won.

Some races such as dragons/saurons prefer attack and some units such as magic are better on attack.

Limiting scouting more by fog may help defender more than attacker, the attacker doesn't know whether it is safe to push the attack, what extra stuff defender has in position for the counter attack. And are you sure a game where someone often builds mostly horsemen and gambles on a quick kill will be fun?
User avatar
Doc Paterson
Drake Cartographer
Posts: 1973
Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
Location: Kazakh
Contact:

Post by Doc Paterson »

I don't see any problems with things as they are and I don't feel like getting deep into this debate, but as a point of interest:

There's been some talk of this defensive Nordmann/Sombra style being very effective (moreso in 1v1s people are saying?). I seem to recall that there are replays in the archive from TOC2 of Soliton going pure offense against one of the two (forget which) and winning both games, easily. Take a look.

EDIT: Thinking back on this, it may have actually been placed in one of the threads created for TOC2. No time now- I'll look later if there's interest.
I will not tell you my corner / where threads don't get locked because of mostly no reason /
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses.
-Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
friar tuck
Posts: 74
Joined: February 18th, 2007, 7:46 pm

Re: Best strategy in Wesnoth: A good defense?

Post by friar tuck »

Sombra wrote:For me a remarkable quote from "Dune" is when the Harkonnen decide to only defend their strongholds Paul says: We have won because the enemy has lost the initiative.
Er, if Paul hadn't been able to survey the Harkonnen's moves, how would he have known they had lost the initiative? I'm not sure restricting information is the key.
User avatar
krotop
2009 Map Contest Winner
Posts: 433
Joined: June 8th, 2006, 3:05 pm
Location: Bordeaux, France

Post by krotop »

Doc Paterson wrote:There's been some talk of this defensive Nordmann/Sombra style being very effective (moreso in 1v1s people are saying?).
Off-topic : I may be wrong, but I haven't seen much people saying that. Noy had a special treatment but 2 games don't sound enough to give Sombra & Nordmann the reputation to be over-defensive players (that wasn't the point of your message but with the redundance of that speech it gets confusing). For having played with/against them more than a semi-dozen times and observed the same amount, I can attest they usually don't play defensive and I'm certain I'm no isolated case.
Sombra
Posts: 273
Joined: August 11th, 2006, 6:38 pm

Post by Sombra »

Thx Bert for trying bring the discussion back to its starting point.


Yes I share the feeling that the current system gives many incentives to play defensive,. This is mainly a problem of 1vs 1 at least for me. YES you can overcome it but it takes most of the times a long boring moving around carefullly. The best players can beat other even with an aggressive style... Sorry thats not a surprise.

On the other hand even Soliton and Noy seem to admit that as soon as a player starts to defensive you have to very very carefully and boringly to crack him open.

Again I think its Wesnoth unique way of fog of war IMO which leads zot this situation.
friar tuck
Posts: 74
Joined: February 18th, 2007, 7:46 pm

Post by friar tuck »

Sombra wrote:Thx Bert for trying bring the discussion back to its starting point.


Yes I share the feeling that the current system gives many incentives to play defensive,. This is mainly a problem of 1vs 1 at least for me. YES you can overcome it but it takes most of the times a long boring moving around carefullly.
Yes, indeed. Moving around carefully has been described as one of the most important challenges also for playing campaingns with no losses (which is more on my agenda).

This sounds a lot like chess to me. And IIRC that's was BfW is supposed to be: a lot like chess, but with more fun and much less determinism, certainty and thus predictability.

I agree that moving around carefully (sometimes for a long time) can be the key to success. I fail to see what's wrong about this. And, I'm rather convinced Paul would fail to do so too. In fact, in the whole book series, in contrast with this one isolated comment, waiting patiently for the right moment plays an absolutely decisive role (as well as reacting quickly when a good oppotunity shows up, but I don't see a contradiction here).
To beat this horse even further, indeed Paul was actively using divination, so you might even argue he was one-sidedly playing without FoW :wink:
Shadow
Posts: 1264
Joined: September 9th, 2004, 10:27 am
Location: Following the steps of Goethe
Contact:

Post by Shadow »

One of the problem is a unit that attacks can only attack once. While a unit that defends can retaliate in theory more than once.

You can of course use ranged attacks if the enemy hasn't one and you strike almost always first but that are the only penalities. (And not even always aka Firststrike, rare but still existant)

Perhaps if the defender can retaliate only the first attack with full strange and the next ones just with half of his basic attack damage it would defuse defensive playing a bit more.
... all romantics meet the same fate someday
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe ...
All good dreamers pass this way some day
Hidin’ behind bottles in dark cafes
PingPangQui
Posts: 267
Joined: July 18th, 2006, 11:52 am

Post by PingPangQui »

No offense sombra - but if you want action you might be better off playing first person shooters or real time strategy games.

The style of game play does not only depend on your skill of game play (as you suggest: good players = defensive, which I think is not true) but also on the faction you choose.

Playing with dwarves ofcourse leads in most cases to a defensive playstyle which however needn't be the case if put a greater focus on the usage of outlaws and gryphons (The well known Hordor tactic).

Playing drakes actually permits good offensive tactics. That said, you might want to try playing drakes once in a while.

I've attached an example of a game that I've found very interesting and quite dynamic. However my opponent's opinion was rather the opposite I think, since he said that I've played too defensive. Have a look and please tell me what you think.
Attachments
2p_-_Hamlets_replay.zip
Grom(undead) against Solaris(elves) on Hamlets (Wesnoth version 1.3.4)
(16.78 KiB) Downloaded 209 times
Last edited by PingPangQui on July 4th, 2007, 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Clan Antagonist.

"Larry the Cow was a bit frustrated at the current state of Linux distributions (...) until he tried Gentoo Linux" - Free Software for free people.
palloco
Posts: 136
Joined: April 3rd, 2004, 9:28 pm

Post by palloco »

PingPangQui wrote:I've attached an example of a game that I've found very interesting and quite dynamic. However my opponent's opinion was rather the opposite I think, since he said that I've played too defensive. Have a look and please tell me what you think.
I think that is an example of how not to play the game from both sides.
Undead advancing at day?
You could have finished him by turn 20 or less, yet you decided to play a defensive style losing initiative and making the game extremely boring.
Rhuvaen
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1272
Joined: August 27th, 2004, 8:05 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Post by Rhuvaen »

One of the reasons IMO why there aren't more threads about MP gameplay and style is that it always boils down to a fight who holds the ultimate truth on it. And one of the reasons it does that is because the original poster makes a perfectly valid statement about HIS experience on MP play and then goes on to combine it with a request on rebalancing or change of gameplay. This is just bound to make the MP devs target their statements as truths or falsehoods and assess them on grounds of overall credibility because they see it as their duty to defend the status-quo (for a very good reason).

I was really glad when I saw the OP because I was looking forward to an interesting, refreshing discussion (call me naive :P). As someone who's playing in the same time zone as Sombra and Nordmann (not much recently, though), immediately some situations sprang to mind with Knalgans and Loyalists fighting on the north half of the Clash map (which you used to play quite often Sombra, I think) :wink:.

It makes perfect sense for a game with some strategic depth that attacking involves planning, crucial maneuvering and risks, and opens up some opportunities for counter-attack. That said, I sometimes find it difficult to successfully maneuver an effective attack in the corresponding ToD window with the loyalists' limited mobility against a well-formed line in defensive terrain.

I also like your fog idea. I just don't think it's an answer to the 'perceived problem'.
Noy wrote:If anything its not going to have the effect that you suggest it will. With LESS information many people become even more hesitant to make big moves, rather than more.
Very convincing point. Also, the attacker is also more likely to lose his "screen" while maneuvering to attack, while the defender just needs to stay alive to keep it up and secretly reinforce his position. It's very hard to judge when to retreat when you can't see the reinforcements coming up before they flank you...

[vague, broad statement]
What sometimes works remarkably well against a player with a defensive style is to use skirmishers or scouts to make him draw units away from his fortified positions. I'd basically try to challenge that style more than challenging the defensive positions. :)
[/vague, broad statement]
Post Reply