Knalgan's vs Drakes on medium+?

[Almindor]

I've played a team game on a random map (was I think medium sized) with quite a lot of villages. The map wasn't "big" but it takes 3-4 turns to fly over by the long side. Sides were Knalgan + Rebel vs Drake + Rebel.

Knalgans were top right, Drakes were top left, "my ally" rebels were bottom left (so across the map) and my rebels were bottom right.

We lost in the end, although it was apparent from around round 14. I noticed a few oddities here (note: I'm quite new at this game and did a few really stupid things, but all things considered didn't play that bad):

1. Dwarven units are too slow for these kind of maps (except gryphons of course, but they cost too much and can't defend).
2. Footpads proved to be very effective for their speed and relative defences.
3. Guardsmen were great WHEN they finally managed to get to town/mountains.

NOTE: It was the heroes era or somesuch, I could recruit level 2s (mostly didn't tho, the cost didn't justify it especially considering the number of villages out there)

I did alot of stupid things, like:
1. Forgot to actually move a unit (damn gryphon yeah, how bad can you get...)
2. Didn't get enough poachers and thunderers
3. Attacked too much with my guardsmen and at daytime sometimes too

I also did some good things I think, like:
1. Actually getting foodpads, contrary to popular strategies
2. Using proper terrain to my advantage (generic and "simple" I know, but I think VERY important especially for footpads)

Some conclusions I came to:
1. Footpads can be very useful when facing bigger maps with mobile enemies
2. Fighting drakes on medium+ maps will leave you outnumbered and outflanked at best (IMHO)
3. If the drake player isn't foolish, he'll win by starving you out (again, IMHO, unless someone can tell me how to counter their mobility/relative strength in units).

The question is #3 here.. how to fight drakes on medium-sized and bigger maps with MANY villages. I read the guides here for Knalgan's too but they only mention unit vs unit info without taking into account certain advantages like mobility (only minimally mentioned) or time to level (saurians...). I can't think of a way to keep the enemy from taking more villages over long-term and thus winning by getting more gold. His drake units have weaknesses yes, but their great mobility means that:
1. I can't "lock them in" easily (especially since most proper fighting units I have are slow)
2. I can't kill them with just 1 or 2 units if they are in a village (lvl1 that is.. see #1 of why same applies long-term)
3. I can't outflank or out-capture him (there are units which are fast, but they are weaker than his same-fast units mostly)

Any advice for this specific situation would be welcome. Again, this is not a question about generic anti-drake strategy, but specifically for keeping drakes from dominating the map village-control wise on medium+ maps.

[JW]

Drakes' advantage will always increase as the size of the map does, unless it is specifically designed with slowing terrain for them in mind. Similarly Knalgans will be at a disadvantage.

I don't really know how to generally counter this other than to have a few fast units control your front line villages until the Dwarves can catch up.

[TL]

Unfortunately there's no magic bullet here. Mostly you have to rely on general anti-drake strategy with slightly different emphasis, but it's still going to be an uphill battle. Especially if you're playing on random maps. Here's my perspective, from the other end of the match-up:

I would advise against guardsmen. They are expensive, slow, and mediocre offensively (even
against -10% pierce resistance); their physical defenses are incredible of course, but drakes have plenty of fire/cold attacks to get around this. I would get maybe one, probably not in the initial recruit but not too much later (or else they won't get to the front in time to do any good).

Get footpads early for village grabbing. They're mobile and very survivable for their cost. As the fight is joined cycle them towards the edges of battle to use as lookouts/village holders. Play them very conservatively and try to keep your initial footpads alive as long as possible. You want to keep several footpads to hold onto villages, but you do not want to have to spend a lot of money recruiting replacements. They are very poor attackers, especially against drakes, so it's generally not worth risking them just to get an extra attack in.

Thunderers are important. Duh. They're your best offense against most of the enemy units, and they're excellent at holding hills/mountains as well (thunderers on mountains are generally more useful than guardsmen on mountains.) Off of the high ground they're not so hot, though, so you'll want to mix in a poacher or two as well. Poachers aren't all that great offensively but they are superb at picking off low HP enemies that might get lucky and dodge a thunderer bullet.

Gryphons are supremely important in this matchup on any map, but especially on a larger one. Try to get two as soon as you can afford a second one (you should probably limit yourself to 1 in the initial recruit unless you have lots and lots of extra starting gold), and on a larger map consider a third if you can manage it. You will need them for scouting; judicious use of their movement (spend half of their move flying forward, look around, fly back to a safe spot before the end of your turn) lets you peek at incoming drakes a couple of turns before they hit you, giving you time to shift your units into position. They're also crucial for finishing off wounded drakes before they can get away and harrying lone drakes dancing around the edges of the battle, not to mention eating any stray saurians, but do not use them on the front line. If they die you'll have a hard time affording replacements, and you'll be much more vulnerable to the drakes' maneuvering once they die.

Fighters are handy for hitting saurians and burners and are solid defensive fodder, but overall you usually have more important units to get, so recruit them sparingly.



As far as general strategy goes, do not be afraid to give up villages on your front line if you're hard pressed or spread thin. Drakes have terrible defense, so it's relatively easy to get villages back from them if you have units in place. If you put all your units around one village to defend it, the drakes can often simply go around you to another village. Instead, sometimes it's a better idea to keep your units back behind your villages (at least during the day when the drakes are pressing you).

You can avoid damage this way by taking better defensive ground (or simply staying out of their attacking range altogether), so if they just waltz in your units will be healthy and in position to counterattack the hell out of them--then by the time they respond they've lost a turn of daylight. Moreover, you can keep your defense more flexible; keeping your defenders further back generally means they're closer to other villages, so if the drakes don't take the bait you can shift them elsewhere faster.

In a similar vein, be careful not to overcompensate for enemy movements. If you see a formation of drakes trying to outflank you, resist the urge to try to outflank the flankers or head them off. It's not going to work, and you do not want to spread your units out any more than necessary.

[IB]

Don't play on random maps, play on balanced ones.

[Dawgas]

A real man plays (and wins) on any map, because he is that good.

[csarmi]

That's stupid. Random maps are utterly unbalanced. I can assure you that any decent player will defeat ANYONE even the best if he's given a 2-3 village advantage (because of the map) and favourable conditions for his race.

It's like in chess I'd beat everyone (read: every single chess player in the world) 99% of the time if I get a knight in advantage at the start.

[grrr]

Wesnoth Faction Balance depends heavily on map design, for numerous reasons.

Why can that be perceived as a problem (or, "challenge", if you need that extra motivational boost to read on)?
1. Getting a map balanced is hard (some would say impossible, but that's a matter of purity).
2. Most maps, as a direct result of 1 (may they be randomly generated or not), are not balanced.

That Wesnoth Faction Balance is so dependant on maps seems to be a simple correlation with a faction's use of terrain. But that's not all. Consider a map of 100% grassland (or shallow water, if you prefer blue over green), and 6 factions where the units are different, but share same defense and same mp cost over grassland. If the above were true, this map would be balanced, by definition. But there is keep layout, village layout, FMA, factional overall speed, general map shape, and probably some more I forgot now.

It would be nice if map balance could be easily achieved by following purely aesthetic reasoning (+ some easy rules regarding keep/village layout), because - well, let's face it - map balancing would then be 87 times more intuitive to us mortals as it is now.

Consider map making in Starcraft: unless you screw up on starting positions there is not much you could do wrong. Exploitable terrain (such as high terrain near enemy bases) is easily spotted, as are choke points, and then you either add another ramp or widen the choke point. Could you spot all the possible map imbalances that easily in Wesnoth?

So, to draw a conclusion, if someone were to come up with an era of about 3-5 factions, each offering unique (and fun!) gameplay yet are considerably less dependant on map design (compared to default era) that'd be epic. Perhaps our master cartographers could lay out how such an era would need to look like. At the very least this excercise should reveal some deep insight into the art of Wesnoth Cartography.

[Turuk]

While I agree that it would be nice if there was someway to streamline the map making process to make it easier, there are a few points that are at odds with each other in your statement that will cause the biggest hurdles.

6 factions where the units are different, but share same defense and same mp cost over grassland. If the above were true, this map would be balanced, by definition. But there is keep layout, village layout, FMA, factional overall speed, general map shape, and probably some more I forgot now

So, to draw a conclusion, if someone were to come up with an era of about 3-5 factions, each offering unique (and fun!) gameplay yet are considerably less dependant on map design (compared to default era) that'd be epic

While I understand that you were referencing an example of just grassland, it holds true across the spectrum. In order to make the maps balance more easily would require the standardization of the factions as you mentioned, such as same defense and mp cost, in an effort to make each terrain equally beneficial to all units.

That however is at odds with having 3-5 factions that offer unique and fun gameplay, as each faction (even with different artwork and different attacks) would tend to play roughly the same as the others, as they have become less dependent on the terrain they move onto. So then it does not matter to maneuver your forces for the best terrain, but just to get into battle and slug it out. As you already said yourself, you would be reducing the whole point of terrain to purely aesthetic reasoning, with the exception of keep and village placement.

[grrr]

Ah yes, seeing only contradictions when there are actually none. Common internet forum mistake =)

First one: factional overall speed is not necessarily mobility as defined by mp costs (there is a reason I used the word speed). It could be simply a faction with 8mp on every unit while being ultra fragile. Then, the overall factional speed would be higher as compared to say, UD, even if both factions share same mp costs. If you want to see why mp costs and total mp points are different issues then calculate the village distances on a 1v1 map from each factions' view.

The 100% same terrain example was used to illustrate that simply nullifying factional terrain advantages is NOT the answer. Also, how would a 100% same terrain map be aesthetically appealing?

Oh, and also: why would factions need to be similar to be balanced towards each other? That's a false friend, my friend. Granted, Starcraft used some hacks, for example that Terrans could simply blast Protoss shields with a Science Vessel, while Zerks had to lower shields using more tradtional ways. A while ago, Jami showed you can device similar balance hacks in Wesnoth (Era of Strife): Have a neutral faction that has access to both TOD auras so it can nerf non-neutral factions as needed. Another already well-known hack is poison vs the UD trait, or the arcane dmg type. Each of these hack carefully filters out vs. which factions it is effective against, making room for uniqueness.

But the funniest is this: "As you already said yourself, you would be reducing the whole point of terrain to purely aesthetic reasoning," No, I did not quite say that. Making faction balance depending less on map design is an optimization goal, as is a "100% balanced default era". With that, it is already clear you cannot reach it without hurting other parts of gameplay. But you surely could move a bit more into that direction without a devastating impact to the rest. It is called trade-off.