Simple Question.... Carry Over Gold...

[Zrevnur]

It would be nice to know just how much gold is needed to have a sustainable chance in a particular scenario without assuming that I am supposedly to win with so little funds in the first place.

Unfortunately Wesnoth does not give player fair info about how much gold you will need in the next scenario. IME this is one of its major flaws from a strategic perspective. You need to have prior knowledge or you cant make a fair decision between the two main objectives - more XP or more gold.
It would be better if the player would have some incling about how well they are doing before finding out the slow hard way like being destroyed in the next scenario. (And I dont like the carry over system nor the early finish system.)

The old formula was "80% OR the minimum starting gold", which in mainline campaigns is still used by Northern Rebirth and Legend of Wesmere, I guess. This formula was ditched a while ago because it discouraged players from saving money, especially if the minimum starting gold of the following scenario was comparatively high.

I think its either the Delfador or Rise of Wesnoth campaign which still use the 80%-minus-or-nothing scheme. Wesmere mostly uses the plus-40% but there may be a (bugged?) scenario in it using the 80%-minus-or-nothing scheme.

• There might also be an advantage in that the AI is often reluctant to attack a unit which is close to leveling up so that you have more control over when the battle actually begins (although this is highly dependent on the scenario and the AI settings it uses).

IME in 1.14.11 its the other way round: The AI likes to level up those take-one-attack-to-level units by attacking them. It used to be different: It was possible to use those units as blockers as the AI was mostly unwilling to attack them.

[CosmicBandito]

The minimum starting gold is set at the start of the scene, and determined by the difficulty. If you ever find a scene which starts with less, either post a replay here or attach one to a GitHub issue; it's a bug and should be fixed.

Yes, it's a balancing act on who and when to recruit or recall, when to advance, which villages to grab, and when, and whether to play through quickly for the early completion bonus or capture all the villages and delay to the maximum turns.

Those who worship the RNG properly learn how to reduce the effects by planning for all eventualities and not depending upon the outcome of a single roll of the dice.

Yes, I agree, I have also found that there is a significant difference in gameplay when I plan to make more gold in a scenario. I always hate to reload a move or turn so I try to just play a scenario with that in mind. Therefore, I must have many units as possible because of the contingency of having bad RNG results. So I never have had as much carryover gold as others. Last night, I ended up making over twice as much gold as usual... but with reloads.

Let's face it, one can use the exact same stratagies, tactics, and logistics and with each progressive turn get radically different results good or bad. I remember someone wrote in an email thread here how they compared TBFW with playing chess. I had to laugh. Checkers(Draughts) has vastly more in common with chess than TBFW. This is because of the chance factor not being involved in either.

So the more I try and make more gold for the next scenario, the more I may have to reload turns to get favorable results.

This makes me come to, I think, a reasonable conclusion, that playing the single player version of the game is not really playing a game to win a scenario or campaign.
It is mostly a learning/training platform to aid in preparation in playing a human opponent.

That said, it would be nice to have a version where one could conceivably play more like a single player game with a goal.

Thought I might add, that certain campaigns seem to play dramatically different than others. i.e. more like a SP game .

Just my opinion.

[CosmicBandito]

This makes me wonder if while playing a scenario, it is sometimes not a good idea to let units level up, get experience yes, but leveling up might mean less gold for the next scenario.

One of the quirks of the game is that a unit which is close to leveling up is often better than a unit which has already leveled up to the next level.

Consider this example: suppose you are getting close to victory in a scenario, and you have a unit which is level 2 but is close to leveling up to level 3. Usually it is better to avoid leveling him up in this scenario if possible - then you gain the following advantages:

• The unit will have lower upkeep cost (2 gold pieces instead of 3) for each remaining turn in this scenario.
• If you recall the unit in the next scenario, he will have lower upkeep cost for each turn in that scenario until he levels up. (In most scenarios there are usually several turns spent grabbing villages, etc., before the main battle is joined.)
• When he does finally level up in the next scenario, he will be healed to full hit points. This is a big advantage in the middle of a battle - you can afford to have him take a lot of damage early on because you know he's going to receive a full heal anyway.
• There might also be an advantage in that the AI is often reluctant to attack a unit which is close to leveling up so that you have more control over when the battle actually begins (although this is highly dependent on the scenario and the AI settings it uses). EDIT: This trick may no longer work depending on which version of Wesnoth you are running - see this post for details.

The only disadvantage is that he will start the battle in the next scenario at a less powerful level 2 instead of level 3, but that will probably last only a turn or two until he gets his first kill (or if the unit has enough XP he might not even need a kill to level up).

Thanks for your detailed and informative input.

I am thinking along the same lines on every point except the last and this maybe because of versions like you mentioned.

I have found the AI tends to attack my highly experienced units often and with focus, it's easy to notice, it seeming to want it dead.

This makes for another balancing act. ;-(

Please see my other recent post.

[CosmicBandito]

It would be nice to know just how much gold is needed to have a sustainable chance in a particular scenario without assuming that I am supposedly to win with so little funds in the first place.

Unfortunately Wesnoth does not give player fair info about how much gold you will need in the next scenario. IME this is one of its major flaws from a strategic perspective. You need to have prior knowledge or you cant make a fair decision between the two main objectives - more XP or more gold.
It would be better if the player would have some incling about how well they are doing before finding out the slow hard way like being destroyed in the next scenario. (And I dont like the carry over system nor the early finish system.)

The old formula was "80% OR the minimum starting gold", which in mainline campaigns is still used by Northern Rebirth and Legend of Wesmere, I guess. This formula was ditched a while ago because it discouraged players from saving money, especially if the minimum starting gold of the following scenario was comparatively high.

I think its either the Delfador or Rise of Wesnoth campaign which still use the 80%-minus-or-nothing scheme. Wesmere mostly uses the plus-40% but there may be a (bugged?) scenario in it using the 80%-minus-or-nothing scheme.

• There might also be an advantage in that the AI is often reluctant to attack a unit which is close to leveling up so that you have more control over when the battle actually begins (although this is highly dependent on the scenario and the AI settings it uses).

IME in 1.14.11 its the other way round: The AI likes to level up those take-one-attack-to-level units by attacking them. It used to be different: It was possible to use those units as blockers as the AI was mostly unwilling to attack them.

I concur with your accessments as well as my own experience will allow.
As for the AI attacking my high experienced units
yes I've noticed that too
doesn't this make for quite a quandary in respect to leveling a unit up or not...?

[Zrevnur]

I concur with your accessments as well as my own experience will allow.
As for the AI attacking my high experienced units
yes I've noticed that too
doesn't this make for quite a quandary in respect to leveling a unit up or not...?

Not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not but if its not:
I think (also based on your post viewtopic.php?p=652025#p652025 ) that your perspective on BfW campaign play in terms of player skill vs RNG is off the mark. Aside from maybe a few "bad apple" scenarios this (leveling up unit or not) is mostly under the control of a skilled player - just like the gold income mentioned in your other post.

[CosmicBandito]

I concur with your accessments as well as my own experience will allow.
As for the AI attacking my high experienced units
yes I've noticed that too
doesn't this make for quite a quandary in respect to leveling a unit up or not...?

Not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not but if its not:
I think (also based on your post viewtopic.php?p=652025#p652025 ) that your perspective on BfW campaign play in terms of player skill vs RNG is off the mark. Aside from maybe a few "bad apple" scenarios this (leveling up unit or not) is mostly under the control of a skilled player - just like the gold income mentioned in your other post.

Oh, I'll definitely agree that playing skillfully puts the odds of winning substantially more on the players side. But in any game that has chance involved, there is always a possibility that a player may get some bad luck. There must always be some bad outcomes. Otherwise it wouldn't be a RNG.
If someone thinks that all it takes is a skillful player to come up with the same results every turn, and every scenario, they should stay away from casinos.
In chess, or checkers, you make a move based on a desired outcome.... that's it! You don't have to pray to the RNG God to make it legitimate or profitable, it just is....
In TBFW, the RNG always has the final say, you can try and stack the odds in your favor but that never cements an outcome.
That is why I like to be able to plan ahead with extra units. Maybe I will not need them, but.....

[CosmicBandito]

And, as far as the AI attacking my experienced units.... why not?
I can see the AI's experience units... and will attack them.
I can also see the AI's loyal units and I have noticed that the AI will focus on killing my loyal units.
I'm fine with that... but if one is trying to find a balancing act whereby:
1) Need to make gold
2) Need to capture villages for upkeep.
3) Need to not buy too many units but need enough units before leader leaves keep to join the fight because one or two bad rolls can mean a big difference.
4)Need to stay within reasonable scenario turn limits. Another time a bad roll may mean retreating and losing valuable turns. Because there are no more units to be had.
5) Need to either level up units, costing more upkeep, or find some way to use them while not allowing them to level up, all this while the AI wants to attack them and still needing to protect your loyal units, while using them from the vengeful wrath of the AI.
There's more but I hope you get my point.

[Zrevnur]

And, as far as the AI attacking my experienced units.... why not?
I can see the AI's experience units... and will attack them.
I can also see the AI's loyal units and I have noticed that the AI will focus on killing my loyal units.
I'm fine with that... but if one is trying to find a balancing act whereby:
1) Need to make gold
2) Need to capture villages for upkeep.
3) Need to not buy too many units but need enough units before leader leaves keep to join the fight because one or two bad rolls can mean a big difference.
4)Need to stay within reasonable scenario turn limits. Another time a bad roll may mean retreating and losing valuable turns. Because there are no more units to be had.
5) Need to either level up units, costing more upkeep, or find some way to use them while not allowing them to level up, all this while the AI wants to attack them and still needing to protect your loyal units, while using them from the vengeful wrath of the AI.
There's more but I hope you get my point.

Not sure if I get your point. I think you just described the basis of what makes it a "strategy" game. Or rephrasing: I dont see a "problem" or "dilemma" - its just part of the overall complexity.

As for the AI preferring to attack loyal units: I have never noticed this - do you have some evidence (like a replay) for it? It would be logical (and I think it should do that but I dont think it does) for the AI to prefer leaders over loyals over other units. Players also (sort of unless maximizing XP or sth) do this.