logic for multiple reactionary attacks???

[Velensk]

Naturally, any creature that is rare but would have sufficent presence all by itself to be a threat to a large force could represent a single creature.

As I said though, it is an abstraction. In order to view it any way you have to ignore a few things.

[Hulavuta]

Answer: A Yeti battalion has significantly less Yetis than a human battalion has humans.

[Rya]

A MOD where every unit can only retaliate once per turn would be interesting, though.

[doofus-01]

As I said though, it is an abstraction. In order to view it any way you have to ignore a few things.

Sure, the sprites have unrealistic proportions, hitpoints, and they generally don't sleep, eat, or defecate, and the days go by fast. There are inconsistencies of scale, that is a known flaw that is too big to fix.

But I stand by my position that the "individuals" make more sense than the "battalions" or "abstractions". Genders, names (unit types too), dialogues, and abilities are not my interpretation, they are what they are. You can interpret them however you wish, but sometimes a square peg really is square, even if you can stomp it into a round hole. That a hex is miles wide, that Wesnoth battles are clashes of greatest armies throughout the land, those are interpretations. Interpretations that may in fact be supported by a particular scenario - but that could be true of anything, and it is only within that scenario.

The reason I care enough about this to write a forum post is that, believe it or not, some thought does go into the graphics. If it were mere "abstraction", there would be a lot more freedom and would, I'm quite sure, look quite different. So, yeah, I feel some push-back against the notion is worth doing. Not because I want to change your mind, I just don't want "abstraction" becoming "established fact".

[Velensk]

And again, I think it makes a lot more sense that the names/genders refer to the unit commander and that the unit as a whole has the abilities/attacks listed than that the land of Wesnoth is severely underpopulated.

[Dave]

What is the "logic" behind one side having to have all its units remain still while the other side gets to choose where to move and when and where to attack?

The attacker gets such a huge advantage by getting to choose where and how to concentrate its attack that the defender needs several advantages to mitigate against 'dumb aggressive' play being too powerful -- most notably the defender gets to retaliate against each attack, and gets Zone of Control which limits the attacker's movement.

David

[ArtillaryGoat]

Geez Dave, you always manage to make something seem so obviously right.

And again, I think it makes a lot more sense that the names/genders refer to the unit commander and that the unit as a whole has the abilities/attacks listed than that the land of Wesnoth is severely underpopulated.

This is what I prefer to think, I'd always felt a unit represented anywhere from a dozen to a hundred men and/or women, depending on the scenario and setting.

[bjhartin]

I think that Wesnoth combatants follow a strict code of honor, and attack in turn, just like the villains in Kung-Fu movies.

[Insinuator]

A MOD where every unit can only retaliate once per turn would be interesting, though.

Or just dumb and frustrating.

I mean, come on, why wouldn't a unit be able to retaliate?! If you're an Orc watching a Spearman jab at you with his spear, are you just going to stand there and take it? That's ridiculous. And from a gameplay standpoint, having no retaliation would favor the attacker enormously. Every unit would have to be re-written.

As to the scale, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. It is abstract, so you can call it whatever you want. Nobody is going to come up with a "reasonable" explanation here.

[salade]

won't that most times seem illogical and unfair?

were multiple reactionary attacks incorporated just for it's gameplay "value"?
or is there another reason for reactionary attacks that would make sense at "face-value"?

this game works quite well (balanced, and playable) with the current retaliation design IMHO. you can't always rationalize game design. as mentioned by Dave, without the retaliation, it gives too much advantages to attackers.

[Dave]

A MOD where every unit can only retaliate once per turn would be interesting, though.

Think carefully what this would do to gameplay. To begin with, suddenly having a secondary attack (such as a Spearman or Elvish Fighter having a ranged attack) would be a liability -- people would attack you first at the range you weren't good at so you use up your one retaliation attack. Then they'd all attack you as normal.

It'd also make the player whose turn it is far too powerful, and it too hard to defend a position.

David

[Skrim]

It would also decrease the usefulness of non-magical ranged attackers, i.e, archers. Their entire shtick is that they don't get the retaliation that melee units do and that they can attack (rather prevalent) melee-only units with impunity whilst the same can be said of melee attackers only in one special case (DAs).

Removing or meganerfing retaliation would send the Bowman into a void of pointlessness - as such the Spearman already does everything better, and the Bow's only plus point is the absence of retal thanks to range. Similar things would happen to all other ranged attackers except for magic types who would still remain useful for their high accuracy attacks.

[pauxlo]

A better way to do something like this would be to have no retaliations at all while the attack is in progress, and then, after all attacks are finished, the attacked units get a turn in which they only can retaliate (but have to choose one of the units which attacked them before, and the same range).
You would need some WML events to do this.

(Yes, I know that this would greatly change the gameplay, too. But it looks like it might be a bit more balanced than "only retaliate against the first attack of the turn". It still would need quite a lot of rebalancing if applied to any era balanced for the current rules.)

[Atz]

A better way to do something like this would be to have no retaliations at all while the attack is in progress, and then, after all attacks are finished, the attacked units get a turn in which they only can retaliate (but have to choose one of the units which attacked them before, and the same range).
You would need some WML events to do this.

(Yes, I know that this would greatly change the gameplay, too. But it looks like it might be a bit more balanced than "only retaliate against the first attack of the turn". It still would need quite a lot of rebalancing if applied to any era balanced for the current rules.)

That would slow down the game a lot because you need to have an extra retaliation turn after every turn. And what happens if a unit is killed before it can retaliate? How do you easily indicate which units you can attack and at what range?

[Rya]

Well in chess the attacked units have no chance of survival or retaliation, yet it isn't unbalanced.