Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: Injured Soldiers should not attack

WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1466
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-02-22, 14:38

GunChleoc wrote:

So, polite attackers then that led the defenders pass by when the path is blocked?

Don't they already do in many cases?

The other important situation is the following:

The defender is directly at the doorstep because he just came out of the building when the attackers were already there.

When the defender wins, the path is not really blocked, as he is directly at the doorstep, so he should be able to retreat quickly.

The current problem is that one can have luck as a defender and retreat is possible, or bad luck and the retreat is denied by an attacker. This might be too luck-based. (by the way, is that based on some factors like number of attackers, size of military building and level/health of defender?)

Soldiers seem to have a big honour codex anyway:

  • They fight only 1vs1
  • They only attack soldiers, never civilists
  • They only destroy headquarters or ports, no civilian buildings.

“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
GunChleoc
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-07, 15:56
Posts: 3147
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: RenderedRect
Posted at: 2020-02-22, 14:45

I don't know at this point, I'd have to dig into the code.


Busy indexing nil values

Top Quote
teppo
Joined: 2012-01-30, 09:42
Posts: 376
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-02-22, 14:45

GunChleoc wrote:

So, polite attackers then that led the defenders pass by when the path is blocked?

The warfare in Widelands, is already pretty unrealistic. No harm done.

If you want it to be more realistic, the lowest hanging fruit is replacing iron->copper (as ore, bronze in weapon), gold -> iron or so.


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1522
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2020-02-22, 15:11

Nordfriese wrote:

It would also be good if badly injured soldiers would not leave their buildings for defensive interceptions.

It often happens that all soldiers except one go out to intercept the invaders, and only one soldier stays inside. If the attacker sends lots of soldiers, one of them will reach the building´s entrance anyway – I would then prefer to have my strongest soldier remain inside, because if the five supersoldiers are out fighting and the one injured rookie defends the entrance, the building is soon lost.

yes, sometimes.

other times, i want my supersoldier, into whom i invested a lot of resources, to be out there kicking asses, instead of sitting on a bench while my other soldiers get slaughtered.

which leads to

jmoerschbach wrote:

Maybe let the player explicitely choose/send the intercepting soldiers by herself? Just like selecting the soldiers to attack, she could select the soldiers to come to aid (aka intercept) when being attacked?

perhaps this. of course we can't rely on the defender to do it all manually, because unlike the attacker the defender may not be there.

but perhaps we could have this compromise: defending buildings send out to intercept no more than half of their soldiers, and only if fully healed. or maybe the player can choose among the option (like in the economy setting) how many soldiers should stay in a building, and what is the low healt treshold for being sent out. the defending player can then manually order to send out more, with a window similar to that for the attacker.

it also would help the defender, as currently the mechanics are too favorable for the attacker.

Edited: 2020-02-22, 15:12

Top Quote
teppo
Joined: 2012-01-30, 09:42
Posts: 376
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-02-22, 15:58

king_of_nowhere wrote:

other times, i want my supersoldier, into whom i invested a lot of resources, to be out there kicking asses, instead of sitting on a bench while my other soldiers get slaughtered.

I really do not remember a case where I want my injured supersoldier to try his luck with more attackers. Especially if the outcome is uncertain.


Top Quote
Solstice_s_Return
Avatar
Joined: 2020-01-28, 13:24
Posts: 57
Ranking
Likes to be here
Location: Finland
Posted at: 2020-02-22, 16:48

GunChleoc wrote:

So, polite attackers then that led the defenders pass by when the path is blocked?

In my opinion when retreating pathway is blocked, it should always require fighting.

At least I would avoid too much micromanagement here. In a military building there could be three buttons to set the defence (which is an attack behavior at the same time as they are tightly linked together) behavior if necessary. Basic setting would be a balanced approach, where only half of the units inside a military building get out. Aggressive engagement leaves only one defender inside just like now and passive protection means that no unit leaves the building until enemy gets to the doorstep.

To keep micromanagement in minimum, I would also include some of that information in the attack window so that when player orders more troops than balanced approach offers, the number turns to red, meaning that defence gets compromised. There could also be a quick button for full attack in the attack window to get most out of wandering scouts military wise.


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1522
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2020-02-22, 17:33

teppo wrote:

king_of_nowhere wrote:

other times, i want my supersoldier, into whom i invested a lot of resources, to be out there kicking asses, instead of sitting on a bench while my other soldiers get slaughtered.

I really do not remember a case where I want my injured supersoldier to try his luck with more attackers. Especially if the outcome is uncertain.

injured, no. healty, yes.

i've seen it happen many times; i invested my resources to make one supersoldier. the opponent invested his resources to train some evasion. he attacks me with evade2 soldiers, that my supersoldier would slaughter. but the supersoldier, fully healed, stays inside. instead the rookies are sent out, and they die for nothing.

anyway, it's only fair: if the attacker can choose his soldiers, why the defender cannot? plus, it's a major flaw of this game that mechanics favor the attack. at high level gameplay, as soon as the two playuers come into contact there is virtually no scenario where neither of them should immediately lash out with all they have. i can't even remember a single game where i didn't attack my opponent and my opponent didn't attack me. there's just no incentive to it. the only reason to not attack is that you are weaker, in which case yuour opponent should attack. to allow for a nice long game where you can make your economy matter more, we should help the defender.


Top Quote
JanO
Avatar
Joined: 2015-08-02, 11:56
Posts: 106
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2020-02-22, 19:30

I would divide the garrison of each military building into three. Now the soldiers are lined up in one line of the status window by the game. Those could be two or more lines that sum up to the capacity of the building with one line for defense at the door, one for counterattacking and one for first strikes. Maybe one additional line for injured soldiers which retreated and get pushed back into their original line once they are healed or clicked by the player.
Player should be able to place each soldier manually into those lines, maybe even in a specific sequence. How to assign the soldiers entering a new building, which should be done by the game for obvious reasons, can be discussed. I would vote for counterattack, just because that would mean the same behaviour as right now.


Top Quote