RELEASE: Coming of the Storm - v0.3.2- 10.07.2020

[TrashMan]

Finally I have enough to release something

check the first post for link and details.

[TrashMan]

If you try it, I do expect some feedback..and bug reports

[docrock]

well right, i started playing your current version on 1.5.6 (dunno if it's intended for it as you did not say if it's a 1.4.x or 1.5.x campaign, or did i overread something?).

first scenario: typos in the introduction, else pretty nicely thought out, used my ally as cannonfodder and killed the wounded of the enemy which gave nice xp and i did not loose one unit (which should give a gold bonus imho, at least on 1.5.x), carryover was too low (ended up with 83 gold for next scenario though i had all villages and finished massively early).

second scenario: just started playing so only first impressions, but stop the ally from recruiting lvl2s and mages only. obviously suicidal against outlaws, even more considering his starting gold. having a minimum starting gold, like say 120 or 140 for the player would also help to not be so dependant on the outcome of scenario1.

edit: having them start at this ToD is also a problem. the first clash with the enemy will be at night (at least for the player's ally) which surely gets them killed (the ally, not the enemy). tried to go to the middle keep to flank them from there with the gold earned on the way there from the start but no way. enemy's poachers are just too quick and have too good defense for that. will try out the resistive way next with protecting my ally.

edit2: working better now, still that ally is so plain stupid. who would send a white mage to melee-attack a poacher from a 40% position at night? insane stupidity. that lieutenant would be better off with lvl1s for his gold so he can't do so much damage to himself. now trying to protect him from bad things and therefore upped my starting gold to 140, which somewhat seems to work but is still very very difficult. it's like herding cats.

[TrashMan]

Well, the plan was to not allow the player to carry over any gold or units from the first scenario. Story-wise, it makes sense.

You are right regarding the second scenario. Initially, I gave your ally only lvl1 units to recruit and he was doing better that way. Will probably switch it back and make minor tweaks while I'm at it


B.t.w. - does anyone notice anything wrong in my cfg or pbl file? I can't upload it to the add-on server.

[docrock]

Well, the plan was to not allow the player to carry over any gold or units from the first scenario.

right, i can agree to that. just give the player some starting gold for the second one then. with the carryover this is not winnable imho (except with mad save-load-save-wesluck-cheating). with the 140 starting gold it is now possible and i would rather tend to 120 or 130 default starting gold. that makes it possible to protect the suicidal lieutenant and his mages and as it does look like, to even win, one more or less unit wont make a difference. either change that or move the ally back to lvl1 recruits i'd say. still nice to have a demanding scenario.
i'd prefer the default-gold approach though, as to be able to build up a serious force over time. and maybe, the ally really is just a superbly incompetent officer. which would be represented by his inability to properly recruit very well, in contrary to our hero, who, of cause, does everything right, lol. no idea which one is more storyline-compatible though.

edit: you're not going to give out any info for which BfW it was designed for, ain't you? is it 1.4.x or 1.5.x?

edit2: now the outlaw commander just started to recruit only crap and is loosing it massively, doing the equally suicidal stuff the ally did before (not that this would stop the ally from only recruiting mages, *sigh*), maybe some kind of bug of the 1.5.x AI?

[TrashMan]

I'll give the Liutenant 2 starting Pikeman and a White Mage, but otherwise remove lvl2 units from his recruitment list. He will perform better that way.
And I'll see what to do about player starting gold

[docrock]

well, don't understand me wrong, the scenario itself is great, it's just the first few turns are too hard and the castle in the middle is of no use because when you can reach it you already got the upperhand. early balancing issues, nothing else. besides that it is good fun. oh, and what did you have in mind starting-gold-wise for the next one? so just i can get it in relation to my debug-cheated carryover resulting from the (too high, should at most be 120 i'd say now) starting gold.

[TrashMan]

K, I've put it up on the add-on server and made a few fixes and tweaks.

The Liutenant should be a smarter now with is unit selection and the player starts with a bit more gold

[docrock]

ha. finally i know. it IS a 1.5.x campaign (*satisfied smile*). will start over soonish. thx for your work, was good fun so far.

[TrashMan]

1.05 released.
12 scenarios

[TrashMan]

I need help balancing this thing. Some feedback would be very much appreciated.

[Turuk]

Noted, and it's on my to-do list for this evening. So expect some initial notes posted here in the next 3-4 hours.

[Turuk]

Scenario 1
-Active Duty instead of Acting Duty
-Through not Trough
-Welcome not Welecome
-Rules not Ruels
-Remember not Remeber

Scenario is not too bad, I understand it's the whole training exercise bit, but it came down to a one on one between me and another leader, and I just had to hope/reload until I got the right hits versus him (Spearman vs. Spearman).

Also the dialogue that claims the win was more the effect of red team? Red team died within 4 turns.


Scenario 2
-Trouble not trobule
-Alright not Allright
-You Are not You're (Wesnoth is set in a time period where contractions are probably not used)
-Plaguing not Plauging
-We Are not were
-Gonna... a more acceptable form of poor english as lower classes might slur words together, but eh...

Not bad, but I have yet to finish this one in an acceptable manner so I have not moved on. Following the map design, I send my units up the east side of the map to the "old camp" which is situated across the river. However, the enemy sends most of his troops after mine (read here 17 out of 22 units head towards me) and so I am either stuck trying to hold the ford below the fort or falling back to the green units for protection. I can eventually take the fort with heavy losses, but it also means leaving my leader on the southern fort in order to keep recruiting, thus rendering the whole point of the old camp... a bit pointless. As by the time that I have killed enough enemies to get my leader to the front line, I just continue on to basically watch green wipe out the leader.

[TrashMan]

Scenario 1
-Active Duty instead of Acting Duty
-Through not Trough
-Welcome not Welecome
-Rules not Ruels
-Remember not Remeber

Scenario is not too bad, I understand it's the whole training exercise bit, but it came down to a one on one between me and another leader, and I just had to hope/reload until I got the right hits versus him (Spearman vs. Spearman).

Also the dialogue that claims the win was more the effect of red team? Red team died within 4 turns.

Damn typos. Gotta fix those.

The text you get at the end depends on the number of soldiers under your command still 'alive'. Making smart use of terrain can mean having only 1-2 losses at the end.
Generally, if you loose all your men then Red team is doing better than you, but exception prove the rule. I should probably change the text.

Scenario 2
-Trouble not trobule
-Alright not Allright
-You Are not You're (Wesnoth is set in a time period where contractions are probably not used)
-Plaguing not Plauging
-We Are not were
-Gonna... a more acceptable form of poor english as lower classes might slur words together, but eh...

Not bad, but I have yet to finish this one in an acceptable manner so I have not moved on. Following the map design, I send my units up the east side of the map to the "old camp" which is situated across the river. However, the enemy sends most of his troops after mine (read here 17 out of 22 units head towards me) and so I am either stuck trying to hold the ford below the fort or falling back to the green units for protection. I can eventually take the fort with heavy losses, but it also means leaving my leader on the southern fort in order to keep recruiting, thus rendering the whole point of the old camp... a bit pointless. As by the time that I have killed enough enemies to get my leader to the front line, I just continue on to basically watch green wipe out the leader.

Ahh...the trick is to position your troops properly. Bowman and spearmen in the woods and hills on your side of the stream, Woodmen (yes, lvl0 units) in the swamp (they get 50% defense there), and then just creating a opening so your leader can slip trough.
Alternatively, you wait a bit for Ployer to draw most of his troops west, and then move in.
Either way, if you have some suggestion how to improve on this scenario, I'm open to suggestion.

[Turuk]

The text you get at the end depends on the number of soldiers under your command still 'alive'. Making smart use of terrain can mean having only 1-2 losses at the end.
Generally, if you loose all your men then Red team is doing better than you, but exception prove the rule. I should probably change the text.

Right. But with the same sides using the same units, and my ally having some bad luck, he was dead from the rather quicky, so I wiped the floor against the enemy across from me and his. So thanks, but I do know how to use terrain, it's more on the nature of the conflict.

Ahh...the trick is to position your troops properly. Bowman and spearmen in the woods and hills on your side of the stream, Woodmen (yes, lvl0 units) in the swamp (they get 50% defense there), and then just creating a opening so your leader can slip trough.
Alternatively, you wait a bit for Ployer to draw most of his troops west, and then move in.

Thanks. I am well aware of how to play the game. I did all of that, but 17 versus 8, even with the best of luck and terrain, still means that I will get trumped. I could easily just follow green up, or wait for him to draw them onto him (used that tactic to win too), but then it's not really much of a scenario. If your ally is doing all the work or you are so dependent on your ally that you defer to him doing most of the heavy fighting, there's just no fun in carefully moving your troops in a manner so that the enemy will not attack you.

I am not saying it cannot be beat, I did not have a problem winning the scenario. I'm just saying the method used to win means that the ally does all of the work. A fix would be as minor as changing the terrain near the southern bridge by the fort from swamp (on the northern side of the bridge) to grass. That would allow the player units that manage to push across the bridge to not have to fight from 20%.

I made use of all the unit types in varying ways, and yes, woodsmen do get 50% defense in swamp, but they do not stack up well against thugs or footpads. 18 hp versus 30 or 32. Not to mention a 5-2 and 5-4 melee over a unit that has 3-1.


Also, is there a reason that the leader takes so much extra exp to level?