Skilled players don't think the game is too random

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Post by Noy »

MrGrendel wrote:As someone who's worked in the field of statistical process control, I can tell you that random fluctuations have a great amount of influence on being able to determine any sort of facts. Perhaps to the untrained person, in particular one with an inability to discern between good logic and fallacy, this distinction would be harder to make.

In addition to this, every strategic scenario tends to have a critical point; occasionally more than one, but typically one major breaking point, and some less important ones. Even though the random numbers will balance out over the average of an entire game, the entire game does not have equal weight. This further magnifies the influence of random numbers in a "process" such as Wesnoth.
That is a very simplified statement that does not realistically represent a game. I can minimize the effect luck can have on a game. A less skilled player will give me that opportunity. I can create an attack where I only need to do 25% of what my EV is, and still win, because I use terrain and maneuver my units accordingly. I play tricks in this game, ones that often increase my chances to hit, by forcing my opponent to expose his units on bad terrain. Thats tactics and they work quite well.

Between two very skilled players, you're right, chance may play a greater role. However we all make mistakes, and I make opporunities from the decisions of my opponent. Chance can play a role, but this game is by no means only determined by a roll of a dice.
User avatar
Temuchin Khan
Posts: 1738
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 6:35 pm
Location: Player 6 on the original Agaia map

Re: Breaking my promise

Post by Temuchin Khan »

Sauron wrote:Ok, now look at yourself you, who consider yourselves "skilled players".
I, for one, do not consider myself a skilled player. At least, I know there are many who are more skilled than I am. All I'm trying to do in this thread is put in my two cents.
Sauron wrote:I did my homework really well (half year of playing Wesnoth several times a week gives me right to say so)
I started playing Wesnoth almost two years ago and I still don't consider myself a skilled player. Which of us is correct about the amount of time and experience it takes? Which of us is evaluating his own skill level correctly? I think my own evaluation of my own skill level is correct, but what do I know about your evaluation of yours?
Sauron wrote:I played dice-rolled strategy games. Damage was usually like 5+2K6 and so on :) . I call strategy a game with some deterministic element. This allows you to make plans, assuming some damage. Wesnoth allows you to hope you do not miss 4x in a row at 50%. Got it? ["we do not want wesnoth to be like all other strategy games"]
But Risk often could and did have surprising strings of good luck/bad luck. A large attacking force, for example, could dwindle to nothing fairly quickly if the attacker had a string of poor die rolls. Shouldn't you logically accuse Risk of being a Random Numbers Game and not a strategy game?*
Sauron wrote:There are ppl who find planning and resource managing more fun.
Absolutely. For those who prefer planning and resource management, there's always Sid Meier's Civilization.

*Incidentally, I've lost at least 50% of the Risk games I've ever player. My younger brothers would ALWAYS gang up on me! There's determinism!
Last edited by Temuchin Khan on August 2nd, 2006, 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
5dPZ
Posts: 201
Joined: July 11th, 2006, 7:20 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by 5dPZ »

Wesnoth is a player-made game, right?

why not implement a deterministic mode and try it out? if 99% ppl ignore it and still continue playing the normal mode, then discard the idea.

If 50% ppl or somewhere like that ppl like the idea, we can always keep both modes. (as i said b4, it's like fog/no fog)

I think most of you here, (including myself), haven't tried out the "predictable" version of wesnoth. However, bunch of you already treat it like a bloody demon, saying it's gonna ruin a fun game. That just doesn't convince me. It 's like saying something is completing disgusting without even trying to taste it.
MrGrendel
Posts: 45
Joined: July 1st, 2006, 2:16 pm

Re: Breaking my promise

Post by MrGrendel »

Noy wrote:
Sauron wrote:There exist skilled players, who think game is too random (exclude me, I am obviously a pathetic low skilled moron) :arrow: the title is itself a dirty eristic trick.
Actually I know of none. Seriously, name a "skilled player" who thinks so. Probably the only one that I knew of was Mythological, and he's reversed his mind about it, and now thinks its a bad idea. And don't try to say that I wouldn't know, because the size of the community is small enough, and I'm online most of the time to hear about most "good players." I've tried the mod, and alot of others have, and I've not heard any good impressions.
A wonderful example of a fallacy. Good of Sauron to pick up on this, too bad people don't get it.

Here's the definition of the particular type of fallacyunderlying the assumptions here.
Flawed argument wrote:1. Those players who have been with Wesnoth the longest, and are subsequently the best, prefer higher degrees of randomization.

2. If better players prefer more randomization, more randomization must be a better choice.
What's the flaw here? Those players who have been here the longest have been here the longest because they like Wesnoth the way it generally has been in the past. The dependencies are therefore reversed, and how good you are as a player subsequently has nothing to do with wether randomization makes the game better or not.

If Wesnoth had been highly non-random in the past, all of the best players here would insist that non-random systems are the best, because "omg we r l33t and joo r not, n00b." None of this means that an argument in favor of more randomization is necessarily a bad one, just that it's made for bad reasons in this particular case.

If you want to make your argument for pro-randomization work, you need to adopt something more logical, like, "The fan-base is largely used to the randomization, and making a radical change in how the game works would alienate them. Therefore, the best choice is to leave the mainstream game as it is, with the possibility of modifying the behaviour as an option." That's an entirely valid and good line of reasoning, and it also happens to validate Sauron's work - as an optional mod.
Last edited by MrGrendel on August 2nd, 2006, 7:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Look at me, you will see what the moon has done to me / I'm a child of the brightest of nights...
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Post by Noy »

5dPZ wrote:Wesnoth is a player-made game, right?

why not implement a deterministic mode and try it out? if 99% ppl ignore it and still continue playing the normal mode, then discard the idea.

If 50% ppl or somewhere like that ppl like the idea, we can always keep both modes. (as i said b4, it's like fog/no fog)

I think most of you here, (including myself), haven't tried out the "predictable" version of wesnoth. However, bunch of you already treat it like a bloody demon, saying it's gonna ruin a fun game. That just doesn't convince me. It 's like saying something is completing disgusting without even trying to taste it.
Some of us already have, and quite a few don't like it.
5dPZ
Posts: 201
Joined: July 11th, 2006, 7:20 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by 5dPZ »

Noy wrote:
5dPZ wrote:Wesnoth is a player-made game, right?

why not implement a deterministic mode and try it out? if 99% ppl ignore it and still continue playing the normal mode, then discard the idea.

If 50% ppl or somewhere like that ppl like the idea, we can always keep both modes. (as i said b4, it's like fog/no fog)

I think most of you here, (including myself), haven't tried out the "predictable" version of wesnoth. However, bunch of you already treat it like a bloody demon, saying it's gonna ruin a fun game. That just doesn't convince me. It 's like saying something is completing disgusting without even trying to taste it.
Some of us already have, and quite a few don't like it.
but can "some of you" represent the whole wesnoth community? :)
MrGrendel
Posts: 45
Joined: July 1st, 2006, 2:16 pm

Post by MrGrendel »

The mod is obviously not made for the majority. (See my preceding post.) If you don't like it, don't play it. How hard was that?
Look at me, you will see what the moon has done to me / I'm a child of the brightest of nights...
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: Breaking my promise

Post by Noy »

MrGrendel wrote:
Noy wrote: Actually I know of none. Seriously, name a "skilled player" who thinks so. Probably the only one that I knew of was Mythological, and he's reversed his mind about it, and now thinks its a bad idea. And don't try to say that I wouldn't know, because the size of the community is small enough, and I'm online most of the time to hear about most "good players." I've tried the mod, and alot of others have, and I've not heard any good impressions.
A wonderful example of a fallacy. Good of Sauron to pick up on this, too bad people don't get it.

Here's the definition of the particular type of fallacyunderlying the assumptions here.
Flawed argument wrote:1. Those players who have been with Wesnoth the longest, and are subsequently the best, prefer higher degrees of randomization.

2. If better players prefer more randomization, more randomization must be a better choice.
What's the flaw here? Those players who have been here the longest have been here the longest because they like Wesnoth the way it generally has been in the past. The dependencies are therefore reversed, and how good you are as a player subsequently has nothing to do with wether randomization makes the game better or not.

If Wesnoth had been highly non-random in the past, all of the best players here would insist that non-random systems are the best, because "omg we r l33t and joo r not, n00b." None of this means that the argument is a bad one, but that it's made for bad reasons.

If you want to make your argument for pro-randomization work, you need to adopt something more logical, like, "The fan-base is largely used to the randomization, and making a radical change in how the game works would alienate them. Therefore, the best choice is to leave the mainstream game as it is, with the possibility of modifying the behaviour as an option." That's an entirely valid and good line of reasoning, and it also happens to validate Sauron's work - as an optional mod.
Actually what you've done here Grendel is taken a point out of context to argue a point. Sauron started this line of a discussion with his beliefs about the effectiveness of skills , not me. His original claims was that as an "experienced player" he should not be losing as much as he did, therefore it was blamed on the RNG, which is the reasoning for him creating this mod. Yet he has failed to realize that it is not RNG which is the determinant of the outcome of these games, its his own skills and stategy that was causing him this loss. Our counter is that he does not have the skills to win which is represented by our points.

What ultimately breaks down his argument is that Wargames, and strategy in general is based upon managing a high degree of uncertainty. This breaks down his argument that strategy is not about uncertainty, and therefore it should be removed in the game. (in the sense that it has no place in "real strategy").
Last edited by Noy on August 2nd, 2006, 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sapient
Inactive Developer
Posts: 4453
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 7:41 am
Contact:

Post by Sapient »

MrGrendel wrote:"Wah, my e-peen is bigger."
ROFL :lol:

Can I quote you on that?
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."
FleshPeeler
Posts: 162
Joined: June 19th, 2006, 8:37 pm
Location: A mystery wrapped in an enigma smothered with a three cheese blend.
Contact:

Post by FleshPeeler »

A lot of people in this discussion seem to imagine the pool of Wesnoth players as very one-dimensional. "If Skill = Skill, luck decides." Nobody has taken alternate strategies into account. You can have two players who are equally skilled, but they are skilled in terms of the strategies they use which might be vastly different. In that case, the strategy determines the win, not luck.

Luck sometimes factors into a win, but even in cases where luck decides there are other factors. Luck alone is not to be trusted. As an example check this replay I posted to the 1v1 thread:
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... &start=195 (Scroll down until you see my post, it's at the top. Sorry I don't know how to link directly to the post). Yes, I won on turn 10 with a really lucky Naga Fighter but I'll be first to admit that the win was a result of circumstance and not at all planned . . . although the fact that my opponent attacked that Naga with so many Elves plus his leader while placing all of his units in water might partially explain that outcome.

Would I try that again? No, nor was this win even intentional. In fact, just last night a similar opportunity presented itself. I was playing an Undead enemy who had just taken the central Keep of 1v1v1 Twister (I later realized that map is highly unbalanced in favor of Undead, probably why it's not mainline). My leader, a Troll, was the only thing close enough that could take out the enemy leader, a Bone Shooter (with 24 HP). However the rest of the Keep was filled with enemies except for the one panel I could get into, and there were Ghosts all about. It would have taken both of my Troll's 2 hits to win the game, and if not, he would have had to be really lucky and survive a full round of assault on all sides (and the Bone Shooter certainly would have fled the scene unless he had a good chance of picking off my Troll). But instead, I pulled back. We didn't get to finish the game unfortunately, but I suspect that this enemy would have won eventually because he took command of the center of the map.

There was a 16% chance that I could have ended it at that moment in victory for myself, and while I keep wondering whether or not I would have won, I'm still glad I didn't make that choice. The thing about Wesnoth is that the randomness presents situations of high stakes - in some cases, win or lose. In the replay I've linked to, a doomed Naga Warrior whom I am most assuredly going to lose on the next turn is next to the enemy's leader which has decent health, but is sitting in water. In terms of cost to each player, the only thing I had to lose by engaging combat was a Naga Warrior that I probably wouldn't have kept alive for another turn anyway, while the enemy had his leader on the stakes. In an exchange like that where your opponent has more to lose than you, trying your luck is a good bet. In my second case where I had his leader vulnerable to a kill but surrounded by allies, and my leader was able to kill but also susceptible to fatal counterattack should he fail, the stakes would have cost me more.

I know I'm being long-winded, but the point I'm trying to make here is that luck really doesn't decide who wins or loses because YOU always have a conscious decision whether or not to make the move.

(EDIT: For the record, Elvish_Master, who was my opponent on the replay I posted, never ever EVER complained that he lost on account of luck. He openly admitted that he probably shouldn't have attacked a sea unit at sea with so many units. That, I believe, makes him a good Wesnoth player, if for no other reason than the fact that he can admit to losing on his own accord.)
What if nobody ever asked "What if?"

FleshPeeler . . . Editting 5 times per every 1 post.
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Post by Noy »

FleshPeeler wrote:A lot of people in this discussion seem to imagine the pool of Wesnoth players as very one-dimensional. "If Skill = Skill, luck decides." Nobody has taken alternate strategies into account. You can have two players who are equally skilled, but they are skilled in terms of the strategies they use which might be vastly different. In that case, the strategy determines the win, not luck..
I agree with most of this actually. Different players clearly play with different strategies. One top player likes to stay defensive and play a war of attrition on good terrain. Another I know often lays alot of bait and counter attacks with massive force. A certain player I know exploits weaknesses in lines alot. Many players look for different things on the map. It influences how they play.

The fundamental point that I think Sauron is trying to make is that these stratgies don't really matter... really luck influences the game to such a great degree that it ruins the best laid strategies. Yet he provides no real hard evidence to substantiate that fact. I do not disagree at all that luck does influence game. However the use of intelligent tactics, I would argue plays a greater role in determining the outcomes of games, even between two skilled players, often because of the interaction of two players strategies. I have shown some empircal evidence from the outcome of the 1v1 ladder, where soliton, who is the finest player I know, wins more frequently than not. I would argue that it is because of skill and his good strategic sense that he wins more often than not, not because of his "luck."

Where the question becomes iffy is whether this is a good thing of a bad thing. Its such a subjective question. That might be a fallacy to say that because "skilled players say so it must be good." I'll agree with that. However many of the reasonings Sauron puts forward are highly contestable. I have made the point that most other wargames do include a random element, and that uncertainty is an important part of real warfare strategy...this is a precident. This usurp's his main point that the random element in Wesnoth does not make it a strategy game, because other real "strategy games" do have this same feature. This is to simulate very complex and variables that are not easily modeled, so they are randomize. As a result variability's inclusion in wesnoth is by no means a bad thing. If Sauron can come up with a reasonable rationale for why uncertainty does not exist in real life, or that it completely ruins the wesnoth damage calculations (As he has not done so up until this point on the former, and I've dismissed in various posts on the latter), then I'll agree with him.
Last edited by Noy on August 2nd, 2006, 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrGrendel
Posts: 45
Joined: July 1st, 2006, 2:16 pm

Re: Breaking my promise

Post by MrGrendel »

Noy wrote:Actually what you've done here Grendel is taken a point out of context to argue a point. Sauron started this line of a discussion with his beliefs about the effectiveness of skills , not me. His original claims was that as an "experienced player" he should not be losing as much as he did, therefore it was blamed on the RNG, which is the reasoning for him creating this mod. Yet he has failed to realize that it is not RNG which is the determinant of the outcome of these games, its his own skills and stategy that was causing him this loss. Our counter is that he does not have the skills to win which is represented by our points.
The point is not out of context, but I do realize that, as you're indicating, there are several issues here. Your main assertion at this particular point seems to be "Sauron has no skills." Since we've demonstrated that the degree of skill has no bearing on the "validity" of this thread, I'm going to cautiously extrapolate this to, "Noy doesn't get laid enough," and we'll see where this new approach takes us. (If necessary, please feel free to split this off into a new thread, devs.) :P
Noy wrote:What ultimately breaks down his argument is that Wargames, and strategy in general is based upon managing a high degree of uncertainty. This breaks down his argument that strategy is not about uncertainty, and therefore it should be removed in the game. (in the sense that it has no place in "real strategy").
To the contrary, you can define strategy without ever mentioning "uncertainty" or a synonym thereof one single time. In fact, if you go to webster.com, and look up "strategy," you will find that this is exactly the case there. Further, if you look at chess, you have a perfect example of a strategy game (maybe the strategy game) which requires zero randomness. Therefore it is clearly not based on it as you would like to imply.

Of course, to your credit, a great many strategy players do enjoy a certain amount of randomness in a game, and a few enjoy a rather large amount. That doesn't mean that it's a requirement, however. Coffee can be coffee without sugar or milk.
Look at me, you will see what the moon has done to me / I'm a child of the brightest of nights...
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: Breaking my promise

Post by Noy »

MrGrendel wrote:
Noy wrote:Actually what you've done here Grendel is taken a point out of context to argue a point. Sauron started this line of a discussion with his beliefs about the effectiveness of skills , not me. His original claims was that as an "experienced player" he should not be losing as much as he did, therefore it was blamed on the RNG, which is the reasoning for him creating this mod. Yet he has failed to realize that it is not RNG which is the determinant of the outcome of these games, its his own skills and stategy that was causing him this loss. Our counter is that he does not have the skills to win which is represented by our points.
The point is not out of context, but I do realize that, as you're indicating, there are several issues here. Your main assertion at this particular point seems to be "Sauron has no skills." Since we've demonstrated that the degree of skill has no bearing on the "validity" of this thread, I'm going to cautiously extrapolate this to, "Noy doesn't get laid enough," and we'll see where this new approach takes us. (If necessary, please feel free to split this off into a new thread, devs.) :P
No the original reasoning for Sauron's creation of this mod is that he has skills, and that luck was making them irrellevant, which is not true. Rather it was the correct application of his units that made him lose games against other players. We have proof of this, given Doc PAtterson's testitmony. If Sauron wants to disprove this contention, then he can play one of us. We can even use the game to examine how players dealt with luck, and show how tactical skills won or lost a game.

MrGrendel wrote:
Noy wrote:What ultimately breaks down his argument is that Wargames, and strategy in general is based upon managing a high degree of uncertainty. This breaks down his argument that strategy is not about uncertainty, and therefore it should be removed in the game. (in the sense that it has no place in "real strategy").
To the contrary, you can define strategy without ever mentioning "uncertainty" or a synonym thereof one single time. In fact, if you go to webster.com, and look up "strategy," you will find that this is exactly the case there. Further, if you look at chess, you have a perfect example of a strategy game (maybe the strategy game) which requires zero randomness. Therefore it is clearly not based on it as you would like to imply.

Of course, to your credit, a great many strategy players do enjoy a certain amount of randomness in a game, and a few enjoy a rather large amount. That doesn't mean that it's a requirement, however.
The origins of this argument come from Sauron's original point, which I shall quote below.
The mod was created in order to cope with excessive influence of the random number generator on the result of the game.
Modded game allows users to pick the amount of damage they intend to inflict for sure, thus making game more strategy-like rather than lottery-like.
His contention, and yours, is that Strategy and variability of situations is a zero sum relationship, which I fundamentally disagree with. As I have argued above using real world examples, taking into account variability is an ineherent part of "real strategy." The correct application of randomness (as in the outcomes of battles) is the key question. In Wesnoth battles are not completely random, actually they are probalistic, you have a good idea of what the expected outcome should be. I say this is a good balance between level of abstraction and realism, for playability's sake.
Last edited by Noy on August 2nd, 2006, 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Re: Breaking my promise

Post by Noy »

MrGrendel wrote:
The point is not out of context, but I do realize that, as you're indicating, there are several issues here. Your main assertion at this particular point seems to be "Sauron has no skills." Since we've demonstrated that the degree of skill has no bearing on the "validity" of this thread, I'm going to cautiously extrapolate this to, "Noy doesn't get laid enough," and we'll see where this new approach takes us. (If necessary, please feel free to split this off into a new thread, devs.) :P
Ps. Making really sly underhanded remarks as you just did really undermines your whole argument. You might want to change tactics and actually focus more on the topic at hand, because you're looking downright foolish right now.
Sauron
Posts: 221
Joined: January 11th, 2006, 8:51 am
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Contact:

Re: Breaking my promise

Post by Sauron »

Gosh. absent people are wrong by default, we can write anything if the do not deny :/
Noy wrote:Sauron started with this argument about skills , not us. His original claims was that as an "experienced player" he should not be losing as much as he did, therefore it was blamed on the RNG, which is the reasoning for him creating this mod. Yet he has failed to realize that it is not RNG which is the determinant of the outcome of these games, its his own skills and stategy that was causing him this loss.
1. I dare say I know all the units on default era , their specials, most of their defenses daytime bonuses and so on. I know the game well. I know how to use terrain (with painful results to noobs I fight - I play only noobs, cause I will not fight good players, cause I hate losing). That is my skill level.
2. I do not mind losing with better players - (though even more often I happen to play equally good good players, mabye I learned something?) I never said I do, so not put sth I never said im my mouth please. Thanx.
3. You did not fail to assume I do not understand the game. Mabye I do? Never played vs me and judging. Visit 1.0.2 someday, find me, then say. I won't defend too hard. I am just a plain programmer, not a West-Point graduate :). (mabye this remark is not polite - but neither is putting words I never said in my mouth)
Noy wrote:Our counter is that he does not have the skills to win which is represented by our points. What ultimately breaks down his argument is that Wargames, and strategy in general is based upon managing a high degree of uncertainty. This breaks down his argument that strategy is not about uncertainty, and therefore it should be removed in the game.
Ye, ye, my car is more beautiful than yours. I promise. All my friends believe the same, we must be right.
Strategy is about risk management. I like more the approach of gaussian distribution than binomial one (in WESNOTH fight system series are too short to converge to normal as binomial does). I am used to considering unit a company/ division, not single unit - and in the case - normal distribution is proper approach. Try to deny. Or better not. I am too tired to discuss any longer.
I NEVER DEMANDED REMOVING RANDOMNESS FROM WESNOTH. I wanted always to change the variance of damage inflicted. To make the results smoother in short run at small amount of units (I like small maps). My mod is not about eliminating randomness. Just to allow every player pick the amount he prefers. I played Mythological, we agreed the game tunes up EV dmg (it makes game faster, but at 70% dmg non-random weak units perish very fast if placet at weak positions). Still - I did my best making mod in time I had to spent on it.
Noy wrote:
The mod was created in order to cope with excessive influence of the random number generator on the result of the game.
Modded game allows users to pick the amount of damage they intend to inflict for sure, thus making game more strategy-like rather than lottery-like.
His contention, and yours, is that Strategy and variability of situations is a zero sum relationship, which I fundamentally disagree with. As I have argued above using real world examples, taking into account variability is an ineherent part of "real strategy." The correct application of randomness (as in the outcomes of battles) is the key question. In Wesnoth battles are not completely random, actually they are probalistic, you have a good idea of what the expected outcome should be. I say this is a good balance between level of abstraction and realism, for playability's sake.
I will put a stress on some crucial word: strategy-like rather than lottery-like. It means that there IS SOME substitution. Let's put it like this - we play a chess game. Than we introduce to the game a dice roll - that determines e.g. if you can move e.g your queen / how far you can move it. But AFTER you decided to move it and specified target field. The game would remain strategy - but for a chess player it is a crippled lottery he will not agree to play. He is not used to it - you might get. Just a matter of preferences IMHO. Nothing to prove here, but IMHO chess is a case of perfect strategic game, and dice rolling is a case of lottery. Thus 4 me it IS important where between these is placed the game I want to play.


I am sorry, I can no longer read and answer all attacks in this forum. And I am turning to all ppl who share my point of view - stop replying here. It is just waste of time. We are outnumbered. You cannot swim up the river too long. Even If their argumentation is (in many cases, not always) far from fair play or mathematical logics (even the fuzzy one), we cannot beat the amount.
Last edited by Sauron on August 2nd, 2006, 10:06 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Sauron
Customize yourself random factor in game:
GET my mod [available as C++ sourcecode and compiled Windows executable] for wesnoth 1.6.4
at http://saurons-mod.zor.org/
Mod thread
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26803
Locked