Wesnoth mechanics vs battlefield reality

[Sauron]

What this post is NOT about and what I do not wish you to write here about:
1. making Wesnoth deterministic
2. complaining about excessive randomness
3. talking about an ERA I made ages ago
4. talking that my mod was slow/fast had nice/bad lobby icons and other immaterial things

What this post IS about and what matters are welcome in discussion:
1. divergences of Wesnoth gameplay from realistic strategic (army-level) command
2. possible remedies
3. other suggestions regarding improvements of game mechanics heading in the direction of more realistic solutions

Everyone here knows my disregard to the fight system implemented in Wesnoth. I will not bash the approach, long ago I realized what I want is a different game - while devs want a different one. I also do not intend to start another flamewar on randomness- I just want to present my thoughts on what Wesnoth IS and what it IS NOT.

I think Wesnoth, although considered by the developers and their affiliates a strategy game is not one. Wow, what is it then? It is not purely random, as dice rolling, requires thinking - so why not strategy according to my standards? It models a different situation than a clash of 2 armies.
Ok, but what does that mean? When two armies fight, the damage is distribited normally. If a division of infantry attacks another division it is impossible the attacked one receives no damage. Imagine 5000 pikemen attack another 5000 pikemen and miss all "hits", while losing 1/3 of its men. The situation modelled by Wesnoth is a SINGLE pikeman fight another pikeman. OK, but it is tactical level - by no means not strategic one. We can aggregate up to platoon level (an imaginable battlefield situation entire platoon gets wiped out or heavily damaged by another platoon). Most players do not understand the situation - in other games the fight mechanism models strategic situation, while here - tactical one, that is why 'ridiculous' outcomes are fully justified. The result is of course high dependence of the final outcome on individual fight, Wesnoth favors different movement approach and different unit concentration patterns than strategic-level. Still - tactical instead of strategic.

Another thing is the information player gets in wesnoth in comparison to the real army's high command. In most of real-battle situations the commander cannot look behind enemy lines too far (I mean conflicts up to XVIII century, the balloons and aeroplanes made things different). Most of interesting victories were result of surprising maneuver, unit concentration rather than deep insight into enemy lines, complete knowledge of its reserves, complete knowledge on positions of divisions and so on. In Wesnoth player is facing uncertainty of single fight outcome, in real battle - the outcome is far more predictable. What is not known - is the enemy's second line, the true type of battlegroup we're facing. Wesnoth allows deep insight behind enemy lines - while situation it is supposed to model (medieval conflict) did not allow it. Of course at tactical level, where John wielding a battleaxe sees Hans and Klaus wielding pikes, the insight into enemy lines reaches deeper than one row of enemies. Clausevitze's 'fog of war' influence is greatly reduced.

Summarizing - Wesnoth models different situation than real battle. It is modelling rather a rural-disco rumble. If it was the intention, then OK, but call it tactics rather than strategy : ). In order to model real-war army-level situation it would require:

1. changing the fight system to normal-distribution based.
2. changing the scouting depth - scouting should be reduced to reachable locations only +1 hex (which would reqiure special handling of skirmishers) - mabye reduction of scouting range for normal units should be min(2,movement left+1) and for flying/skirmishers - min(3,movement left+2).
3. your ideas .... ?

I would like to play such a game someday - my programming skills are sufficient to convert Wesnoth to such game. Last attempt convinced me I would make game for myself, but no other players - and I lost motivation (so instead of coding I am playing Wesnoth as it is ). If mighty devs should ever consider changing their approach to some really important matters concerning game philosophy and what it is supposed to model - I would be glad. If there appeared some coders able and willing to continue my condemned work - I could help with modding, I know well how difficult it is to get through Wesnoth code to apply changes if you are not a dev (the code sparsely commented - at least it used to be when I made my mod).

[Sapient]

divergences of Wesnoth gameplay from realistic strategic (army-level) command

Your units gain "experience" from striking a final blow, even if they just did 1 point of damage, and when they "level up" they regain all their health and become far more powerful than ordinary units.

Moving over paved roads takes just as much time as moving over dirt or grassland. Moving over deserts takes just as much time as moving over beaches.

You fight against fantasy creatures such as the undead...

WINR

[Sauron]

Heh, Sapient, piont : . Treating your joke seriously - this is not the game engine- these are era - defined things, right?

[Zachron]

Actually, while you can change somethings, The status of beach and deasert as sand tiles, and the status of dirt, grassland, and paved roads as flat tiles are things that are hardcoded into the engine.

[AI]

Actually, they're defined by terrain tags, you can change them all you want.

[Dave]

In Wesnoth we heavily prioritize gameplay mechanics we desire over "realism". I personally like the style of gameplay that Wesnoth has. Others may not. I have little reason to complain, because I typically do not like the games that these people prefer to play.

David

[Atz]

Firstly, I think you're confusing strategy with realism. They are not the same thing; a game can be strategic without being an accurate war simulation (games like Go, for instance, are abstract but definitely strategic). Wesnoth does have a lot of emphasis on tactics, but it also has sufficient strategic elements to be considered a strategy game - particularly in single-player campaigns, where the choice of which units to level or protect near the start of the campaign can have quite a significant effect on later scenarios.

Secondly, as others have graciously pointed out, Wesnoth has never purported to be realistic. You say that it's supposed to "model medieval combat", but this is clearly not the case. Aside from anything else, it's turn-based, and the real world certainly isn't. The fact that there are elves and undead horrors running all over the place is also quite a big hint. Complaining because Wesnoth doesn't accurately simulate real warfare makes about as much sense as complaining that Star Fox doesn't accurately model space travel - it's technically true, but misses the point entirely.

If you're looking for a game which tries for a more realistic approach to battle, may I suggest the Total War series?

[JW]

Hey again.

Secondly, as others have graciously pointed out, Wesnoth has never purported to be realistic.

I know personally from my experience that one MP dev claims that Wesnoth is more realistic than most war simulations because, as he would say, "war is random." I can only assume this is Sauron's attmept to address that one devs misguided and obtuse belief.

I fully agree with the point that Sauron is making, if that is the case. If he is trying to argue for pure realism however, that argument is clearly a failing one.

[Buddy Jimm]

Reading this actually reminded me of Sierra's years-old Civil War Generals 2. I only played the demo, but if I recall(and I admit not recalling perfectly well), some of the game's features were like what you describe.

May be worth a look if you can still get it.

[Fosprey]

Sauron i know it's a little offtopic, but i know your previous work and maybe you can take a look at my era? maybe you are one of the fews that are interestered on it.

[cool evil]

Wesnoth is kind of realistic in ways, but you have to really think outside the box before you figure it out. Since its a turn based game, it cannot achieve full realism, not even close to the levels of RTS games. However, you could look at the 6 intervals of each day as the time it takes to move one unit or allowing a unit to attack, using movement points to indicate how fast the unit can move. Likewise, the HP of an unit can indicate how many soldiers(or individual combat personnel) that is occupying that specific hex, even though it only displays a single sprite of the unit. When two units engage in combat, its not just about one infantry soldier fighting another solider, its now a whole platoon, and when they fight the attacking platoon sends out melee soldiers or command ranged units to fire projetiles, while the defending platoon prepares for a counterattack. By now, you should be simulating a real-time battle in your mind while the turn-based counterpart is playing on the computer.

Think big, and you could make anything possible.

[Limabean]

Sauron: I also think wesnoth would be better if it were more realistic (but I also accept it's an impossible to argue for it, so I don't), but believe it or not, I don't think the RNG is what makes it unrealistic. You talk about a confrontation between armies of 5000 soldiers each, but this type of thing never happens in wesnoth. Each unit is just that-a unit. Not an army of 5000 troops but one person (I don't think that's the right word, but whatever ). If you think of an entire wesnoth multiplayer match as a battle between a few tiny squads of soldiers, a mere skirmish, than fantastic RNG surprises like missing 4 out of 4 times are far more plausible. I'm sure you can imagine an archer having a bad day and missing all his/her shots by a little bit. I play soccer: there have been times when I have beaten four or five other players and then gone on to score. There have also been plenty of times when I can't beat a single player and give up the ball immediately. Individuals are rarely reliable so unexpected results are perfectly realistic.