The RNG is in the wrong place

[Badger Murphy]

I've played this game on and off throughout the years, and the thing that always makes me put it down is how the RNG is implemented. Specifically, the units on the map are, according to the storytelling in the game, meant to be indicative of platoons of soldiers. So, any combat between 2 units is meant to be representative of those 2 platoons meeting on the battlefield. That being the case, it isn't plausible for such an exchange to take place with zero casualties. This is not one character swinging a club at another character, but dozens, if not hundreds of characters engaging in battlefield combat with dozens/hundreds of other characters. Whether or not damage is dealt reduces to a statistical certainty under these conditions, with any variance to the damage being one of degree.

It seems to me that a more reasonable implementation of the RNG that preserves the feel of the game and the plausibility of the unit interactions would be to have it weigh heavily on the AMOUNT of damage dealt, and not really at all on WHETHER OR NOT damage is dealt.

Not only would such a change add to the realism of the base game (within the context of the setting, of course), it would take the edge off the painful, and arguably un-fun, all-or-nothing mechanics so often encountered in these interactions.

Further building on this idea would be the possibility for unit health to have a direct impact on the damage potential of an attack. For example, a unit at 50% health could be presumed to have lost about 50% of its soldiers, or been beaten up and marched around to the point that it can only output 50% of its damage range for whatever reason. It could also include a mechanic where a weakened unit also takes MORE damage from attacks, better reflecting the fact that they've been worn down by previous encounters and they're outmatched in the battle. Sure, this would minimize "hail Mary" plays, but in reality, things like that are nearly unheard of on a real battlefield--the superior force with the terrain advantage is virtually assured victory, with only the most extreme of lucky breaks able to change that fact.

To be abundantly clear, I do feel that randomness has a place in a game like this, and not advocating for its removal, as I have already seen in other threads. Instead, I am suggesting that RNG has been somewhat mis-applied in this game, and creates impossible scenarios where 2 platoons meet in battle, collide, and exchange no damage.

My apologies in advance if this has been brought up already; I know the game is really old and probably has forums all over the place. My initial search through this forum shows people complaining about there being RNG at all, but this topic is more nuanced than that, focusing on where to put the RNG, rather than whether to put it in at all.

[Robepriority]

Wesnoth strategy, as I understand it, is usually
A. focused on positioning your units so that they have as many attack rolls as possible(denying the enemy rolls too), and
B. reserve units are positioned close enough to compensate for bad rolls/exploit good.

Both aspects typically require a decent amount of units to group up. A mistake I made while starting campaigns was being stingy with starting gold and not recruiting enough units to make grouping up possible.




The AI tends to demonstrate A very well, often going to your flanks or overextended units just to get as many rolls as possible. This gets closer to the theoretical probability, so terrain begins to show it's influence a lot more than luck.

Oneshots even with full hits won't happen in an even match, but there are certainly controllable factors to make it so.
* There's a rank difference between units
* The attacker is favored by the time of day
* A unit is designed for attack phase ex. lance users
* The attacker is using an attack type the defender is weak to ex. piercing vs cavlary
Stacking these factors means that you might even oneshot even with a few misses.

B is where a lot of the strategical setups pay off in terms of balancing spare recruits with high level recalls and where the tactical placement of units within a formation(considering movement, zones of control, and damage type matchups) become super important.



A Total War type system is certainly nice, but Wesnoth was developed under a few other philosphies.

On development: https://wiki.wesnoth.org/WesnothPhilosophy
On risk: https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=21317
On tactics: https://wiki.wesnoth.org/AdvancedTactics

[Konrad2]

I'd like to point out that depending on the campaign you are playing, units represent persons instead of Platoons.

[RoboSauce]

A few versions back there was a damage mod that did something like what OP wants, not sure if it still works or is updated. https://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=40947

[Darkfireslide]

It's not really a simulation, man. There's not a good argument for making the game more "realistic."
If you hate the RNG that much, try Age of Wonders 3, where attacks never miss and damage is almost guaranteed. It's almost exactly like what you're describing.

Wesnoth's RNG makes the game unique, because it creates a strategy of risk management where even the best troops can't be used carelessly on the off chance they royally screw up. This game is basically a test to see if you believe in the gambler's fallacy or not, and how good your strategy is, if you are hinging that strategy on a dice roll.

[Kopyrda]

There is a great mod that fixes that. It's called "No randomness mod" by Dugi. It changes the way how the terrain works - exchanging chance to dodge to damage reduction. You hit with every strike, but the units in better defensive position will receive less damage.