Bay 12 Games Forum

Hot damn! That picture rocks!

It was not my intention to incite hostilities, I'm sorry if anything was understood that way. You're right that I misunderstood him in that there's too much luck, and you were right for pointing that out. Which is why it's beyond me why you suddenly stated things like "Units have a 50% of killing enemy units, where's the fun" or "Not everything should be random", in other words, suddenly YOU were actually stating what I thought he stated before, and now I did exactly as you said and explained the various reasons why Wesnoth is NOT "all about luck".

The word you should've used isn't "wrong", though. I misunderstood him, which doesn't make my statements "wrong", but "not applicable" or something like that. That's probably what rubbed me the wrong way in your post. I'm fine with being wrong and told so, but I'd prefer it if it happened when I, y'know, actually was wrong.

Silfir, you should try out civ4 bts [if its possible with the ffh2 mod], and compare it to wesnoth.
You will notice how random Wesnoth combat is compared to that.

Civilization IV? Last I checked, units had HP, and who hit whom during the combat rounds was dependant on the strength of both units, modified by terrain, unit types, and multiple factors - and a random number generator. The game gives you probabilities for winning, and often enough I've had units with 90% chance of winning get brutally slaughtered. There's not really much difference at all - only of course that CivIV only shows the results, not the process itself, and combat is followed through until there is a loser.

If you invade an enemy city, don't you bring twice the number of attackers as there are defenders in the city, precisely BECAUSE you need them in case things don't turn out your way?

(Not sure if the mod you named - I do have Beyond the Sword - changes things about this...)

Quote from: Silfir on August 29, 2008, 05:04:03 am

As for Battle for Wesnoth... Are the Civilization games bad because there's luck involved? Is X-COM bad because there's luck involved? No. Risk management is a part of these games, as it is in Wesnoth.

I think it also fights the slippery slope effect prevalent in less luck-based strategy games, like Starcraft (Which also has a luck element in that there is a chance to miss units placed in certain locations, but it's a very minor one), where win or loss is often decided the moment one side makes a slight mistake, which creates a small advantage, leading to greater and greater advantages until the side loses. In Wesnoth, mistakes matter - there are ways to exploit them with minimum risk to create advantages that lead to an economy superiority, and sooner or later to victory. But if the disadvantage is small, some smartly thought out high-risk-high-gain bold moves and luck on your side later suddenly YOU'RE in front.

He wasn't saying luck is bad, he was saying too much is bad. If you read his post, he said that winning/losing was random, despite their stats. How can you make a strategy when everything is random? If all units have a 50% chance of killing the other, what is the purpose of having offensive/defensive units? Where's the fun in that. I love details - the kind that can kill you when you miss them. I think he must be wrong about his assessment, but you're also wrong.

How you can make a strategy when "everything is random"? Have you ever even played the game? If not, stating that I'm wrong is a pretty bold move.

The random elements are restricted to the distribution of traits (small boni, like extra HP or slightly faster movement) for certain units upon recruitment, part of the algorithm that determines if an attack hits (highly dependant on terrain type and how well the unit defends on the terrain type, it's rarely a 50% chance), and... um... well, if you choose a random faction or a random leader the result is random too, of course. That's all that's even remotely "random" about the main game.
Unit stats, like HP, XP needed for levelup, special abilities, resistances, defense on the terrain types, movement (how many, across what terrain), attacks (How many different kinds? Ranged or melee? Blade, pierce, impact, fire, cold, arcane? Is the attack poisonous or magical or has it any of the other special attack effects?), the units further up the upgrade tree, recruitment cost... Then of course the map layout doesn't suddenly change at random throughout a match, featuring the same terrain at all time... The result of the mixture of these predermined factors and the randomness - surprise surprise - is a game of strategy, with plenty room for skill, and mistakes or overlooked details.

Some people don't like having to dick around with five different resources, so they prefer Command and Conquer to Age of Empires. Similarly, if you don't like having to consider the possibility of failure for an attack, or the fact that sometimes you will just be too unlucky to win even if you do your best, you won't play Battle for Wesnoth. Claiming it is not a strategy game because it forces you to consider things in your strategy that you'd rather not want to consider, however, would be unfair.

Smooth your rough stone walls. Then they will look the same as constructed walls.

Water leaking in because I designated the moat channels over my far too long Archery range and forgot to check the damn moat is safe before I happily let water in.

Goblin ambush attacking me before my first immigrant wave and killing both miners while also destroying their picks somehow, suddenly leaving me without anyone to mine until the next pick comes with the next caravan (or I start a smelting operation, aboveground, with only charcoal) or the immigrant wave brings a miner. Sure enough, no miner came. Abandon fortress.

(Spent ages to find my favorite starting location again)

ADOM is much more forgiving than Nethack. You still die often, but at least you know how you could have prevented it afterwards. Also it has a much better interface and looks nicer.