[Historical] Some proposed changes to Heir to the Throne

[Invisible Philosopher]

"A choice must be made" and the next two scenarios are the only time that there is a split in the HttT campaign

There is also Bay of Pearls -> Muff Malal's Peninsula or Isle of the Damned.

(I like the idea of being able to choose your battlefield)

I might like that, too, but you can't, without foreknowledge. The campaign gives no indication of what either battlefield/choice is like, so you are basically choosing randomly. It would be much better if, for example, Kalenz mentioned in "A choice must be made" that there is a legend of a flaming sword to the north and lots of undead to the south.

EDIT:

We may take two paths which avoid the river. North, through the ancient home of my people, and then east to where they now live. Or we can go south, passing through the Swamps, before turning east, and then north. We would cross the river one time more if we chose that route, but I know a safe place for the crossing.

Not very much information.

[quartex]

Point taken, I.P. but surely we can change the dialogue to make it more descriptive about the dangers of either route?

[Temuchin Khan]

I haven't played Test of the Clans, and I don't know how feasible these ideas would be, but I thought they were interesting, and interesting ideas have a way of giving birth to other interesting ideas, so I thought I'd post them nonetheless:

1. The clans are seeking to test you, not to destroy you. Any units lost by either side in the course of the scenario should be restored to life at the end of the scenario. Or perhaps they should be removed from play when they are reduced to one health instead of when they are killed.

2. Even if you lose the scenario, your game should not end. The clans, again, are seeking to test you, not to destroy you. You should simply continue fighting Asheviere, albeit without the aid of the clans.

Anyway, there they are. I hope they can in some way help.

[Invisible Philosopher]

Point taken, I.P. but surely we can change the dialogue to make it more descriptive about the dangers of either route?

I am not sure. If it is too descriptive, it may not be believable dialogue. I don't know how descriptive it would have to be to provide useful information. It might be possible to do it well. (although I personally dislike a choice unless I have more than all the information, and so I don't know how much information other people need until they can make an informed decision.)

[Elvish_Pillager]

I am not sure. If it is too descriptive, it may not be believable dialogue.

My lords! I have found you at last, even before I do in HttT currently! When my lord learnt of your coming, he sent riders out looking for you! There is trouble afoot! You must journey north or south to reach our home. In the north, the snow plains, there is a weak warlord of the Orcs encamped, crouching over the hiding place of a flaming sword that he himself cannot wield, to prevent any others from claiming it. In the southern swamps, there are six Liches, each of whom commands a small army of Undead and controls a stash of more than 100 gold. Choose quickly, for the forces of Asheviere and Orcish rebels are clashing on the very doorstep of the North Elves, and if their battle is to end, their sights will be set upon you alone!

[ignatius]

I quite like the ideas, esp. the Duell in ToC: It adds a completly new twist, by having to select 5 very strong units which probably wont make it all out alive (I assume that only Konrad gets auto-recalled for this) and it's also a refreshing change from the huge armys that tend domiate the second half of the campaign.

And I agree that HttT chould use some shortening. Maybe some other currently sequential levels should be turned into alternative paths or made optional. This would increase replay value and allow for a faster shortest path and earlier gratification (very important as HttT it is intended to be the newbie-campaign).

[Elvish_Pillager]

I quite like the ideas, esp. the Duell in ToC: It adds a completly new twist, by having to select 5 very strong units which probably wont make it all out alive (I assume that only Konrad gets auto-recalled for this) and it's also a refreshing change from the huge armys that tend domiate the second half of the campaign.

Problem: I recall 5 Elvish Avengers. Then any enemy who charges (assuming they have lots of Horsemen) will take 16-4 damage (a LOT) and then they can be finished off by 13-4 (still a lot) bows.

Not fun, especially if you lose units as well as winning trivially.

[Dave]

1. The clans are seeking to test you, not to destroy you. Any units lost by either side in the course of the scenario should be restored to life at the end of the scenario. Or perhaps they should be removed from play when they are reduced to one health instead of when they are killed.

I kinda like this idea. It'd allow the scenario to be truly very hard, but not depressing -- since the player would know that as long as they win, they'll get all their units back.

We could also make it that units aren't awarded any experience in this scenario, to stop experience milking. (After all, the units aren't experiencing real combat).

David

[quartex]

1. The clans are seeking to test you, not to destroy you. Any units lost by either side in the course of the scenario should be restored to life at the end of the scenario. Or perhaps they should be removed from play when they are reduced to one health instead of when they are killed.

I kinda like this idea. It'd allow the scenario to be truly very hard, but not depressing -- since the player would know that as long as they win, they'll get all their units back.

We could also make it that units aren't awarded any experience in this scenario, to stop experience milking. (After all, the units aren't experiencing real combat).

David

It sounds like a good comprimise. That way players wouldn't be scared risking all their best units to complete their scenario.

[scott]

What about gold? Will that be fake too?

[Dave]

I don't see any real reason for gold to not be genuine. I can't see how it'd unfairly advantage or disadvantage the player...

David

[Glowing Fish]

1. Giving the player a lot of Gold at the start of a level, but it makes more sense to allow the player to build up a store of Gold. There is several points in the game (SoE, SoF and RtW) where the players stores of Gold are probably going to be exhausted.
2. Goblins would make more sense, since the Saurians aren't really explained. They would also be easier. Also, since this is early in an "introductory" campaign, where players should be learning to use ZOC, it is a little confusing to introduce a unit that violates this rule.
3. I didn't have much problem with the water in BoP, although I would like to see more castle tiles introduced. Also, Merman Fighters\Hunters.
4. SoE is an interesting enough map, I think.
5 Agreed. Crossroads is hard, and frustarating, because you don't have any tactical options, other than deciding what unit to sacrifice.
6. It could be harder, but not blindly so. If it was harder, it would also allow more unit levelling.
7. I don't know if these scenarios should be removed. I don't know if they shouldn't be.
8. Do something with ToC. Make the map smaller and add some forests, maybe.

And three ideas of my own: one of these isn't an idea, as much as a bug correction.
In the sceanrio "Finding the Dwarves", you have the Gold penalty at the end, even though the scenario is more or less a storytelling scenario. It seems silly to penalize the player for what is more plot then scenario.
Also, "Home of the North Elves" shouldn't have the "resist until end of turns", not just because it takes away the bonus, but because once you are to the woods, the orcs and humans are going to be too busy fighting each other to hunt you down in the woods, especially considering the fact the elves usually have a lot of units. Also, watching four or five turns of the fighting takes some time.

[Shade]

Before I left for the holidays & since I've gotten back I have started going through HttT... At this point I've touched up all of the maps & scenarios up to the 'Crossroads'. A lot of this has just been cleaning of some of the organic WML growth that has occurred, and the flipping of maps to correspond with the world map better. Most of the changes are outlined in: http://changelog.wesnoth.org/ The big changes are totally new maps for Elensefar & Crossroads.

In the case of Elensefar I wanted to make it look more like a coastal city on a great river, and the new map should make it easier to beat the Orcs (given their general stupidity near water and the fact that assassination is now more of an option). But I did Make dealing with the Lich a bit more painful. Even though I haven't tinkered with the gold it plays easier for me.

In the case of the Crossroads I made the map correspond with the map of the Great Continent better. The ambushes are weaker, and more diffuse- The enemy leaders also get less gold... (Most of what Scott said)

Oh, I put Mr. Malal on peninsula and made fighting him optional...

On the random bugfixing front I set passive leader on the Princess of Wesnoth as Circon suggested, and set the result in Plunging Into the Darkness (Or wherever Deffie scares the Dwarves) to continue as Glowing Fish pointed out...

This is only the start... If something mentioned for the first few scenarios isn't here it's just because I haven't got there yet...

And I haven't even really touched balancing on the different difficulty levels yet... Or some of the perverse incomes on hard... etc...

If anybody has more ideas, bugs, or a pile of WML feel free drop it off here .

[turin]

SoE is a MUCH better map. And it fits pretty well with my map outline for SE's final scenario... all in all, a good job.

[scott]

You need to change the dialogue in SoE.

- Konrad:"Look to the south"
+ Konrad:"Look inside that distant, conveniently placed cave to the north!"