Wesnoth2 ruleset (or undoing Wesnoth)

[iridium137]

Wow, am I the only one that actually likes the new Wesnoth2 mechanics? (But then, I'm also one of those people that don't like Wesnoth's take on the RNG... )

[taptap]

Have you ever had to play a campaign where the map is huge and you have dozens of units? The difference is that the current Wesnoth takes longer to bog down that it would given an IA like system which can help the feeling of a battle being large but wesnoth manages this anyway through abstract scale as a 40 vs 40 unit battle is pretty immense.

I have. In my opinion Wesnoth works fine between say a minimum of 8 and up to a maximum of 32 units per side given a suitable map, below 8 dependence on luck is not really sustainable, above 32 it starts to feel very different as well and you more often than not end up with "battle-line management" which Wesnoth rules may not be suited to (you have multiple ranks, but limited support options, no stacking). To me it looks like the new game requires a minimum as well (a single critical hit should not unravel the match) with a much lower maximum number it can handle.

Wesnoth2 is intended to be a platform more than any specific ruleset. We want to support a bunch of things and so trying something kind of different to start with seemed to be an interesting thing to do. Rest assured that we want to support a broad scope of hex-based pixel war games. And the engine will definitely be powerful enough to support classic Wesnoth rules as well.

Thanks for the clarification.

[taptap]

Wow, am I the only one that actually likes the new Wesnoth2 mechanics? (But then, I'm also one of those people that don't like Wesnoth's take on the RNG... )

You will love critical hits

[Flameslash]

Just a suggestion - Before newbies arriving here start getting terminally confused, would it be possible to make a specific forum (in "Development" for instance?) about W2?
I fear those who (due to forum sedimentation) miss the original announce ("Wesnoth2, Wesnoth, Inc, and other things") will think those discussions are about the original Battle for Wesnoth, a situation which won't help either game, polluting W2 and confusing W1.
Just my 2 cents worth.

Making this thread a sticky should help with that too.

[kurt751]

Sure, for a time at least, for I guess there will be more threads, especially if this gathers some momentum, creating the rather unfavorable situation of people talking about two different things at the same place and time.
But well, as I said, just a suggestion. *shrug*

[vultraz]

Would any of you mind as much if it just didn't use the same name?

that would be enough. the thing that is infuriating the community (i think) is the fact that the developers call this different game a 'successor' of bfw. and thus, i causes minor paranoia about how they will treat bfw after release of this new game. the only thing most of us need is just not calling the new game a successor, but rather a spinoff (since it's barely even similiar to bfw at this point anyway).

btw, i agree with Velensk

Might I clarify that it would not as much be a successor as a sequel or 'next game in the series'.

[ForestDragon]

Might I clarify that it would not as much be a successor as a sequel or 'next game in the series'.

i'd rather prefer it as a spinoff, since it's so different from bfw, that most players would see it as an entirely different TBS

[vultraz]

It is as yet undecided exactly how we'll be managing it, though. That still needs to be worked out and is reliant on many factors.

[Gyra_Solune]

I definitely think entitling it "Wesnoth2", for the time being, is exceptionally confusing. It carries with it the implication that the original game's development is going to conclude and that now you will be moving on to this new project to serve as the center of things. When people see a number after a title, they take it to mean that this is the new, definitive version of this thing they liked, and as such everything they enjoy will be present, only it'll be even better this time even though that's almost never rooted in reality, since companies always misunderstand exactly what it is people had their hearts in from the previous game.

If it's going to be an 'engine' for different types of games, then you should define it as an engine, and then define Wesnoth as a thing that runs on it. Nomenclature can be difficult but now that we're starting to look at this game expanding in scope and organization, it's important to have things clear for the public. This is something understandably the BfW community has not had to deal with - marketing, but once it rears its head, it rapidly becomes something you need to keep very much in mind.

It's also important to have a clear purpose for a video game engine. There are very obvious limits to the existing platform Wesnoth runs on, and it's less of an organized thing so much as it is a giant ball of code that's been rolling for over a decade now. It's a good idea to think perhaps you need to start with something fresh and more flexible! But you also need to know why it is you're making this - because eventually that's a question your teammates will pose and without a definite goal, you're going to have a lot of attrition with manpower as people wander off and decide the project's not the best use of their time.

It SOUNDS, to me, at least, like what you are going for is an open-source platform that's easy to make strategy games for - the Unity of turn-based strategy, so to speak. That's a good idea! Focus on that. Don't focus on 'Wesnoth, but with new features!', because I think a lot of what defines Wesnoth to people is that it's extremely tightly focused and rigidly balanced from a multiplayer perspective, and people are immediately going to be dubious about how those new features affect the actual playability of the game, and how long it's going to be before everything is considered fair and balanced. It's good to have those features be easy to implement and use for games, since there might be a really potent core concept in terms of game balance for how that works, but right now a lot of them wouldn't really work if you plugged them into Wesnoth as-is. That's likely why a number of people aren't very pleased by that, and that's why it's imperative to make sure both you and the audience understand what exactly it is you're doing.

I think a good prospect would be to pitch a handful of other, rudimentary strategy game concepts to test the flexibility and versatility of the engine. Personally the first thing I'd think of is this - how friendly is this engine to someone making a Fire Emblem fangame, or a Super Robot Wars fangame? People are going to want to do that! Is that the thing you're going to want people to do, or is that not what you're designing this for? Stuff like that.

[Tad_Carlucci]

Fully concur on everything Gyra Solune said.

[name]

So since this new ruleset is about experimenting with radical ideas for improving wesnoth gameplay, does anyone have any ideas they would like to bring up (rather than shoot down)? Here's a few of mine:

True Ranged Attacks With Falloff
Ranged attacks can hit a target more than one tile away, but with somehow limited effectiveness that becomes more limited with increased distance.
One implementation is for each extra tile of distance to reduce the number of ranged attacks by one. So an elvish archer with four attacks with his bow at close range, can only shoot twice at a target three tiles away or once at a target five tiles away. Another implementation is for the attack damage or chance to hit to be halved for each tile of increased distance. Also, ranged attacks would be blocked by hostile units and their zones of control to further prevent wanton slaughter of wounded units.

Monster Spawning Map Tiles
Bat caves, spider holes, dragon lairs, watery abysses, etc. These tiles regularly or randomly spawn "Monster" units of one flavor another, which attack units of all sides on the map. Optionally, the spawning could be preventable by capturing the tile or putting a specific building over it. Or the spawned monsters might then join the side that controls their spawn point.
It is not something for most competitive maps or campaign scenarios but it would make it easy for map makers to spice up more survival or adventure themed maps.

Checkbox Spell Type Toggling for Multiplayer and Skirmish Scenarios
Make all spell types optional at the game setup screen and try to balance the game such that this doesn't destroy it. So someone who wants a game that will take less time or play more like classic wesnoth could disable "Conjuring Spells" so that capturing villages is faster because there can be no buildings over them. Or someone going for an RPG experience could disable "Summoning Spells" so that units cannot be 'recruited'.

Optional RNG for Multiplayer and Skirmish Scenarios
Randomness can be disabled for scenarios, by chances to hit being recomputed as modifications to damage values with the game balance trying to roughly accommodate this.
I really love the strong effect of chance on strategy, but maybe an option could appease the noisy determinism crowd?

[Flameslash]

I'd like to see true height added to the map - cliffs giving units a height advantage, caves/valleys giving them a disadvantage, and so on.

[Bitron]

Ranged attacks can hit a target more than one tile away, but with somehow limited effectiveness that becomes more limited with increased distance.

I think I would lower the chance to hit, instead of the damage. In case of spells or magical attacks, I'd higher the mana costs for each hex, given that normal units also have mana for its spells. (wich actually could be a possibility to balance those high damage attacks from magical units)

I'd like to see true height added to the map - cliffs giving units a height advantage, caves/valleys giving them a disadvantage, and so on.

This is something I would like to see, too. It would change the use of the terrain, as well as strategic possibilities especcially in combination with true ranged attacks.

I think with those two mechanics, it would give Wesnoth a lot of fresh and new gameplay possibilities, without taking much of its flair.

[johndh]

I think the best way to avoid activation advantage might be an initiative system like in many (e.g.) JRPGs. At the start of the turn, every unit gets shuffled or rolls for initiative, possibly with bonuses for some units or situations (e.g. chaotic units at night), so it might be something like P1 spearman, P2 grunt, P1 mage, P1 mage, P2 assassin, P1 heavy, P2 archer, etc. This takes some of the planning power away from the player and forces adaptability. I'm sure some players would hate that, since they really like digging into the intricacies of "gaming" move order and such, but to me I think it would be more immersive because I like to play in the moment and deal with situations as they arrive as my best laid plans fall apart around me. If everything is following a plan with nothing unexpected happening, then I'm not having fun and I don't feel like I'm commanding a battle. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" and all that. This might be why I actually like the RNG.

[kurt751]

"No plan survives contact with the enemy" and all that. This might be why I actually like the RNG.

There is always a RNG, check classic RPGs. Taking AD&D as an example (being the grandfather, and the inspiration of most RPGs), units have an initiative dice roll, a to-hit dice roll, and a damage dice roll. Meaning that your unit might make a one-hit kill, but it also might have a "fumble" moment and miss critically, dropping his sword and losing a combat turn. Or just hit for very little damage.