[Historical] Liberty

This is the place for discussing development of mainline campaigns, reporting bugs in them and providing overall feedback.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Locked
bloom
Posts: 25
Joined: April 13th, 2005, 8:06 am
Location: Almere, NL

Post by bloom »

Aloo wrote:Im having exacly the same problem.
The units change to normal outlaw units right at the end of Civil Disobedience (the moment the final speaches are made after killing the captain) and cant advance to lvl 3. The allied units work normal and can get to lvl.3 so the problem is only for owned units.
Well, I just completely removed and reinstalled wesnoth 0.9.3, downloaded the campaign again and the problem is gone. Maybe there was a conflict with some other campaign that was installed?
bloom
Posts: 25
Joined: April 13th, 2005, 8:06 am
Location: Almere, NL

Post by bloom »

No, wait... It seems that using Linux the campaign works well, but not when using Windows :?.
scott wrote:Both files you posted work ok in 0.9.2 and 0.9.3 for me, so the problem must be somewhere else. Here are some ideas:
- re-download the latest version of the campaign
- remove the default MP era and L3 outlaw pack & empty the trash
- save your game on turn 1 (not start of scenario) then reload - this fixed the problem in previous versions of the game
- go into the unit definition for highwayman and fugitive and remove the #ifdef...#endif around the [advancefrom] tags
Keep me posted!
Sorry, I somehow missed this message. None of the above works, except maybe the last method, but I don't see [advancefrom] tags in the definition files.
scott
Posts: 5243
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: San Pedro, CA

Post by scott »

It's possible one of the other Outlaw-using campaigns is doing it, but I don't think it's one of the three I maintain: Liberty, the Demo era, or the unit pack. That's becasue I have all 3 installed and it works. Perhaps A Seed of Evil?

But, that's good news. I was about to do a fresh install on another machine. I still might. Thanks for the report.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Teldar
Posts: 5
Joined: July 18th, 2005, 11:16 pm
Location: Bavaria

Post by Teldar »

Me too...

No L3 outlaws on my 0.9.3+cvs. But somehow I expected this problem already, since I read the following snippet for the BfW changelog:

Version 0.9.3:
...
* user campaigns can no longer redefine standard units

My wild guess would be: All outlaws in the campain need own .cfg files with changed advancement, but could use the standard graphics until L2.
scott
Posts: 5243
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: San Pedro, CA

Post by scott »

Aha. I thought I had fixed it, but I was wrong. The version on my computer was fixed, and I incorrectly thought the server version had the advancefrom tags. That's great - thanks. I was also going through and giving out traits and some other minor stuff.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
scott
Posts: 5243
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: San Pedro, CA

Post by scott »

== Version 1.13 ==

I released version 1.13, but since the campaign server seems to be having a problem, I posted it on the web here:
http://www.cis.rit.edu/~slk8779/wesnoth ... y_1_13.zip

There are several important updates, first of which is the use of the advancefrom tag. I thought I had already done this for some reason, but several brave souls proved me wrong. Anyway everything should work now.

Created units can have random names and traits or be loyal. It feels pretty good now when you're playing it through.

There were some minor typos that were fixed, but I think that's it for changes. Enjoy.


Finally, if anyone would like to draw his impression of what the fortress of Halstead looks like, I am looking for a good drawing to use in a cutscene. Thanks
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
cbrink
Posts: 5
Joined: January 24th, 2005, 5:31 pm

Crash in Unlawful Orders - when enemy changes

Post by cbrink »

Error Msg:
scenario: 'liberty4'
error display: could not open image ''
wesnoth: ai_attack.cpp:278: virtual int ai::choose_weapon(const gamemap::location&, const gamemap::location&, battle_stats&, char, bool): Assertion `!attacks.empty()' failed.
Aborted

I am guessing it is the Dark Adept at 19,31 named Surka

I am attaching my save file.
Attachments
Auto-Save.gz
Save File
(19.6 KiB) Downloaded 360 times
scott
Posts: 5243
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: San Pedro, CA

Post by scott »

Thanks for the report. I can reproduce it, but I don't understand it. It might be a game bug, but I'll check everything in the campaign first. This is a new one, though.
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
ott
Inactive Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: September 28th, 2004, 10:20 am

Post by ott »

I cannot reproduce this problem with 0.9.5+cvs. This is probably to do with one of the female mages that turns into a Dark Adept; in 0.9.5 only stub support existed for female Dark Adepts since this unit was not usually available -- other than breaking the unit help for this unit, this scenario is probably the only way to invoke the error. The Dark Adept has subsequently been fixed, if this is indeed the cause.
This quote is not attributable to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.
scott
Posts: 5243
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: San Pedro, CA

Post by scott »

Ok, good. Was this a unique problem with the dark adept's cfg file or something general to changing genders along with types?
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
ott
Inactive Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: September 28th, 2004, 10:20 am

Post by ott »

scott wrote:Was this a unique problem with the dark adept's cfg file
Yes. See http://changelog.wesnoth.org/
This quote is not attributable to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.
Pagan__
Posts: 6
Joined: September 11th, 2005, 11:02 am

Post by Pagan__ »

Hi.

I just completed Liberty on Medium. Overall, it's a very enjoyable campaign, though it is tad easy...

Here are some disjointed comments :

(a) The dialogue is very good, does a great job conveying the atmosphere.

(b) The many in-scenario events are also very nice, makes the game come alive. The many allies in the game are fun to have, though I think they create a random element in the game that is detrimental to real strategy.

(c) The early scenarios are great. I especially like the scenario where your enemy switches between undead and loyalists. Very impressive. However, the map where Baldras has to sneak through the city is too scripted. I don't think a person who does not know the map can complete it without a lot of luck : this is the only map where I Save-Load just because I find it a bit boring to restart the map again and again.

(d) The later scenarios felt rushed and are more of a grind. The Gray Woods is the weakest scenario of the campaign : one simply recruit a bunch of units and grind the undead down.

(e) The 2nd to last ("Hunters") scenario started interestingly, but ended up to be another grind...perhaps a bigger starting convoy with a mission to destroy it before it arrive at the fort migth create a sense of urgency. (This might be too similar to the 1st scenario though).

(f) The last few scenarios have too many turns...I hoarded over 800 gp by the time I got to the last scenario, I simpy recruit 40 units and overwhlemed the fort in less than 20 turns.

(g) The last scenario itself (Glory). It has a great premise, nice big final battle with a twist. However, the bad guys are too weak I think. The enemy sent half his army to slaughter the northern orcs, leaving the south rather weak, which me and my allies simply overwhelemed with sheer number of units : I sacrificed a bunch of units to wear down the defenders who has no villages to heal. The extra Lancers I get at turn 6 simply make the map even easier than it already is.

(h) Finally, the story felt rushed at the end...the motivation to storm the fortress is not well established. Perhaps a few more short missions to set up the big battle would be better.

Great campaign. I hope the developers incorporate your level 3 outlaws into the game :). Will make a challenging faction to play.

Pagan
scott
Posts: 5243
Joined: May 12th, 2004, 12:35 am
Location: San Pedro, CA

Post by scott »

I think you nailed head-on the "design trades" that were present when writing the campaign.

Three of those are the overall difficulty, the gameplay on "The Gray Woods" and the plot weirdness in attacking the fortress so soon.

It leans to the easy side on purpose because I wanted to make all "normal" players can make it through the tight spots (difficulty-wise) on the normal difficulty. How about playing on hard? I don't consider it fully balanced on hard.

I wonder if I should make it clearer what you're supposed to do in "Hide and Seek". Of course I know what to do since I wrote it. If you check the movement range for each enemy you see, it's possible to thread a path through the city without having the enemy attack you by staying out of their movement range. Might an instructional note from the narrator help?

I have considered doing several things with The Gray Woods, such as putting something interesting in the unused canyon (a unit, weapon, or castle) or giving you a chance to recruit from the bottom of the map.

I also had always wanted an extra scenario in there to give you a chance to build up any thieves or mages you recruit. Also, any extra scenario would be very similar to "The Hunters" in objective... instead you have to prevent escape.

I'm hesitant to make any drastic changes now since I consider it "done", you know? However, since there's no sense of urgency in making changes, I can let ideas stew until they're ready. There is one piece of art that I still want to add, which would be a side-view vista of Halstead. Anyway, thanks for the feedback; it's always welcome!
Hope springs eternal.
Wesnoth acronym guide.
Pagan__
Posts: 6
Joined: September 11th, 2005, 11:02 am

Post by Pagan__ »

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.

I do plan to revisit some of the campaigns at "hard", though at the moment I try not to punish myself too much :).

On "Hide and Seek", I did follow the plotline (hiding from the bad guys) until the final sprint across the city which I was instructed by one of the thieves to do. I had to sacrifice a couple of outlaws to create a ZOC safe-zone for Baldras to sneak through without being engaged. If there is suppose to be a way without engaging the guards, I'll have to go back and check it out again.

The Gray Woods can take a bit of a spicing up. I did send Harper over to the unused canyon with the dead body, but was disappointed to find nothing special there. A nice weapon might be a good way to make the map interesting. The canyons around the liches' strong hold I think did not help the AI to organize a large scale attack : their units trickle out to be slaughtered wholesale by my units laying siege on them.

Anyway, hope this helps! Keep up the good work.

Pagan
blackjack
Posts: 179
Joined: February 11th, 2004, 11:12 am

Post by blackjack »

downloaded 1.13 on a Mac, playing on 0.9.7, I found a bug.

In "A strategy of hope", the 3rd scenario, all of my units revert to wesnoth-standard thugs, footpads etc. I suspect this is because the liberty3.cfg has

Code: Select all

[side]
	type=Bandit
	description=Baldras
	side=1
	canrecruit=1
	controller=human
	recruit=Thug,Footpad,Poacher
	hitpoints=50
	{GOLD 220 160 100}
	team_name=good_guys
	[/side]
The same mistake is made when Harper is recalled.

The campaign looks promising - hopefully this fixes the problem.
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
Locked