The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

Okay. Thanks for all your work! I uploaded it again. I hope it is all good this time.

gaojicainiao wrote: ↑

October 4th, 2019, 9:09 am

Maybe the reason why "Ubor" wasn't included in the .pot file is that the "Ubor" in 01_New_Leader.cfg has no the punctuation "" ?

Oh no! You're right, I forgot the punctuation on that line. I fixed that, and also updated the objectives to match the current style while I was making changes anyway.

DukeSwampy wrote: ↑

October 4th, 2019, 7:17 am

1.14 hasn't been ported yet

No, I ported TFoB to Wesnoth 1.14 around the time it came out. The version of TFoB on the current add-on server is 1.1.6.

TFoB on Wesnoth 1.12 works as far as I know, but is no longer supported.

Okay, great! I think I've got it working. Would you mind checking the text and the map in at least one scenario? (I did upload a new version of the campaign, but I didn't update the version number because most players who have already downloaded it won't see the new parts.)

I'm still a little to busy to get to this. If someone doesn't mind posting the .pot file, that would be great.

The hide_unit tag doesn't change the game or the unit or its effects at all. It just stops the unit from being shown to the player. It has no relation to ambush abilities.

It was probably never done because drawing a north-facing unit is so hard--much harder than it sounds. (I've tried it.) It has to look very different, but still be recognizable as the same unit. There is no real shortcut if it's going to look decent. It might sometimes be possible to frankenstein a ...

Why don't you try playing a couple campaigns all the way through? Playing against the computer is different than playing against a human, but many of the skills really do transfer. Also, nobody sees it when you lose, so your pride stays intact! Choose the highest difficulty that you can win--even if...

You have to declare an ID in both places because they mean different things. The ID in the Leader.cfg file is inside a [unit_type] tag (I assume), so it's the ID of the type. The ID in a [unit] tag is the ID of the specific unit that's being created.

Female players aren't going to relate to a character who isn't relatable in the first place, regardless of said character's gender. That seems to be a straw-man argument. Let my try to be clearer. In NR, for example, the slave that decides to revolt could have been a woman. I never said nothing wou...

BTIsaac wrote: ↑

September 3rd, 2019, 1:57 pm

if there's going to be a campaign with a female lead, it has to actually mean something

But are you okay with campaigns where the gender of the leader isn't very important that have male leaders? If so, how does your argument stop being valid when it's reversed?

If we do end up adding the ability to expire objects, it should be flexible: You shouldn't be required to move a unit to the recall list to use it, or know when the object is created that you will need it. It seems to me that it would make the most sense as an available tag in modify_unit. (It could...

That wouldn't be a problem if the proposed key defaulted to "no".

I'm sure it can be excluded, but it's not obvious to me what the problem is just by looking at the code. However, to figure it out, I would do exactly what Ravana suggested. I think you could solve many of your problems yourself if you used debugging tricks like that, but sometimes it seems like you...

mcv wrote: ↑

August 24th, 2019, 11:00 am

That's some epic thread necromancy!

Yes. Please check the dates and don't answer questions from ten years ago. It's not that helpful.