Topic: give some bonus to the defender?
Nordfriese
Joined: 2017-01-17, 17:07
Posts: 1949 OS: Debian Testing Version: Latest master  One Elder of Players Location: 0x55555d3a34c0 |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 06:54
+1 Another thought: the point of this change is to give defenders more power. So however we do it it should not be applied to soldiers on the way to attacking something. 
Top
Quote
|
Solstice_s_Return
Joined: 2020-01-28, 12:24
Posts: 62  Likes to be here Location: Finland |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 07:02
There could be an another related bonus effect too: If military building isn't connected to a road network, no healing is possible or the heal rate is halved.
Top
Quote
|
kaputtnik
Joined: 2013-02-18, 19:48
Posts: 2439 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 07:41
Didn't read (or understand) all posts related to healing, but some thoughts about it:
Fight simulator for Widelands:
Top
Quote
|
|
JanO
Joined: 2015-08-02, 10:56
Posts: 177  At home in WL-forums |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 08:22
The benefit for defenders should result from the fact, that in average, defenders stay in own territory longer than attackers. I guess.
Top
Quote
|
GunChleoc
Joined: 2013-10-07, 14:56
Posts: 3324 One Elder of Players Location: RenderedRect |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 09:46
Exactly, it's only done within the territory. I like these 2 ideas:
I'll remove the simultaneous healing inside the building and only do simultaneous healing outside the building. I also think we should try to keep the chance as simple as possible. We can always add more effect later if needed.
Not yet, I added that in the experimental branch. Busy indexing nil values
Top
Quote
|
|
Nordfriese
Joined: 2017-01-17, 17:07
Posts: 1949 OS: Debian Testing Version: Latest master One Elder of Players Location: 0x55555d3a34c0 |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 10:08
This would be counterproductive IMHO because it means that once you succeeded in conquering one building inside the enemy's territory, counter-attacks are made much more effectively. Also it encourages players who conquered one site to try and conquer all other nearby sites as well so they can keep what they got. This would result in attacks being necessarily followed up by more fighting from both sides, which is the opposite of what we want to achieve.
Top
Quote
|
|
JanO
Joined: 2015-08-02, 10:56
Posts: 177 At home in WL-forums |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 10:47
I think easier recapturing of captured buildings is totally in favour of making defense stronger
Top
Quote
|
|
Nordfriese
Joined: 2017-01-17, 17:07
Posts: 1949 OS: Debian Testing Version: Latest master One Elder of Players Location: 0x55555d3a34c0 |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 10:54
Perhaps, depending on whether you define defence as "everyone keeps what he built" or "attacking is always bad". But increasing the attacker's need to launch follow-up attacks is certainly not defensive
Top
Quote
|
|
JanO
Joined: 2015-08-02, 10:56
Posts: 177 At home in WL-forums |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 11:05
It means that an attacker has to wait with his/her attacks until he/she is strong enough to capture a bigger piece of territory. Prevents rushing, gives more time to take care of your economy. Sucessfully capturing one single building might be equal to capturing some two or three buildings and giving up all of them except one. So I'm still convinced that these changes will delay fighting stuff, even if actual conquering territory is maybe not slowed down.
Top
Quote
|
|
king_of_nowhere
Topic Opener
Joined: 2014-09-15, 17:35
Posts: 1668 One Elder of Players |
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 13:59
or maybe you get full healing from one building and half healing from the others. but the point is to give usefulness to many military buildings. also don't foget that this healing only applies if the defender has more soldiers than the attacker, and if the defender wins fights. if the attacker has more soldiers, the defender won't have idle soldiers that heal. and if the attacker has stronger soldiers, the defender won't have the chance to heal. so, balance-wise, there shouldn't be a risk of making this too strong. if the attacker is stronger, he will pass regardless.
first of all, in high level games buildings are not conquered, they are destroied first. secondly, even if you are playing with the AI, it still means that the attacker needs to have a lot of power to conquer the whole line. which is what we want: that attacking makes sense if you have a clear advantage. we don't want to discourage attacking completely.
are you telling me that sometimes you conquered a building in enemy territory and then the enemy didn't try to get it back and you didn't try to conquer anything else? seems real strange.
again, in multiplayer (which is where those balance changes really matter) buildings are not captured because the defender burns them down first. even if the defender is distracted and loses the building, the likelyhood that the other player is also distracted and will forget to burn down the building rather than have the enemy capture it back is negligible.
actually, it is. it forces the attacker to only attack if he has an advantage. right now, the problem is that the attacker can launch a couple of soldiers (fully healed, the attacker can choose) and force all defender soldiers to move out to intercept. this stops the defender from healing his own soldiers, so he will lose a war of attrition. if the attacker has more power and swarms the enemy, that's not something we want to stop
Top
Quote
|
