The Sojournings of Grog (3.6.1 is out)

[StDrake]

I've played through a little more and got a few things for you:
in A7 - Nemesis there's an amulet that supposedly rises magic resistances very high, that works well with fire and astral resists but instead of cold res it raises piercing - not very magical is it.

in B1 - south gate - i think you understimated the exploitness of this, i actually spammed gryphons at start and by the time the dwarven bosses arrived i had units on their recruiting tiles slaughtering the lonely leaders a few turns later..except for the run lord. I understand you predicted someone might do that, but it would be more fun if the map was winnable by killing the dwarves off as well, not making that immortal leader that doesn't take damage no matter what. Storywise you could always say there's even more comming up and it's better retreat while they didn't arrive yet, then just force the win script.

B2 - north gate..didn't even end the first turn, it just looks depressing so see such an uncomplicated field and tons of enemy sides comming in for a senseless, not very tactical, all-out assault deathmatch..and that dwarven side with 10000 gold for a good start that's going to appear soon. Maybe it would be nice to add some more features to the maps landscape not just a line of water and randomly scattered villages?

[Waz72]

Hi I've played your campaign almost to the end ,liked it a lot so far - the new lvl 3 troll units are a must - , but I want to report a few bugs I found. No problems found until the scenario "the back door " where I cannot load saved games 'cause when I try an error appears saying " attempt to recall a unit for side 2 ,which does not have a recall list " ,can you fix that?
And in the next scenario " dragonbane " you have the choice of taking control of your allies or let ai do it ;if I take control I cannot recruit units with Kaleh (but I can recall the general from his recall list -?? ) because it says he is not in the fortress even if he is! And if I let ai do my allies I have the same problem I said before with the other scenario...
I have BfW 1.6.2
Thanks and keep up the great work!

[Eros]

A7 - whoops will fix that error
B1 - Yes we dont find that this scenario gels very well. Having another option is on the books
B2 - A bit like most of RoW?

As for bugs I will have a look. I didnt get those problems when I did it and I am also on 1.6.2. Must be I ported it wrongly.

As always thanks for the help.

[Eros]

2.3.1

release

boulderlobber animates like rocklobber
B1 and A4 have changed
lots of talk rewrite

upcoming

C1 will be inserted
B4-7 will have option to be enemies with the humans
B3 will be changed

[Kerth]

If you haven't already got somebody working on the cactose, I'd like to try. I've only got the part of the idle stance right now, but I'd like to see if you think this is going down the right path


Also, I think A1 just went missing D:

[jdp]

I think I must be missing something obvious, but I'm not sure what it is.

In 'the siege' the turns jump from 4 to 10 or 11 depending on how quickly I make contact with the enemy. Considering that the turn limit is only 13, this makes things very tight. Also, even if I get three trolls onto the three glyphs the tunnel doesn't open.

What am I missing?

[Deusite]

A1 and the 'Siege Perilous' should now work properly. The runes don't do anything in the siege, just decoration.

From now on most of our efforts will be spent in updating the campaign to 1.7 coding standards (as long as 1.8 doesn't come first). When that happens it is likely that we will no longer maintain TSoG for 1.6 because of the effort.

You have been warned

[Eros]

If you haven't already got somebody working on the cactose, I'd like to try. I've only got the part of the idle stance right now, but I'd like to see if you think this is going down the right path

Yes I very much like the cactose graphic. Stance is much better than I had invisioned. The flower is quite a good idea. Some Q'.s How are you going to animate it? Isnt the shadow to hard?

NB: depending on far you want to take this (he says hopefully) there is no rush for a burn animation as according to our new light C1 is going to be a bonus scenario for keeping Jaash alive (unless this causes international uproar which is moderately unlikely).

[Eros]

1.6 is going

As of the next week 1.6 will be maintanance only. We will be releasing a 1.7 release shortly. This is an effort for a quick upgrade to 1.8 when that comes out. We will still use this thread though.

Ideas wanted

The creators still have a few tricks up their sleeve but we are throwing the floor open for any brilliant ideas that may be floating around the cloud. We want sensible ideas as this is meant to be a mainline quality campaign. Therefore we dont want to add badly animated units (You will notice that we break our own rules with lava beasts and some select nagas) or other factions without a good reason (we did consider having the humans as chaos/aragwaithi). The campaign story is complete, however expanding on events is a good idea (for example: we could add a scenario between S2 and B2 where Elyssa goes of to get help). Especially I would like to explain what happens afterwards better.

Glitches?

Little things. Minor errors. Things (such as the bit where all the humans move in in B6) where things are not as smooth as they could be. Glitches (such as the thunder and lightening in A2 not working all the time) we haven't spotted. Anything that could be made better.

[Elvish_Hunter]

Kerth wrote:
If you haven't already got somebody working on the cactose, I'd like to try. I've only got the part of the idle stance right now, but I'd like to see if you think this is going down the right path


Yes I very much like the cactose graphic. Stance is much better than I had invisioned. A Q how are you going to animate it?

My compliments, it's exactly what I intended but I never was able to draw . IMHO you can create the other frames. Just to know, how did you created this sprite?

For Eros and Marz: I noticed that, on the add-on server for 1.4, there is a campaign named Trolls! This campaign includes L1 Rocklobbers and Shamans, called Whelp Shaman (HP 40, XP 36, MP 4, cost 15, fist [2-2, impact, melee], flame blast [5-3, fire, ranged, magical]) and Whelp Rockthrower(HP 40, XP 36, MP 4, cost 14, fist [4-2, impact, melee], sling [10-1, impact, ranged]). Maybe these units can be useful for your campaign?

[Eros]

For Eros and Marz: I noticed that, on the add-on server for 1.4, there is a campaign named Trolls! This campaign includes L1 Rocklobbers and Shamans, called Whelp Shaman (HP 40, XP 36, MP 4, cost 15, fist [2-2, impact, melee], flame blast [5-3, fire, ranged, magical]) and Whelp Rockthrower(HP 40, XP 36, MP 4, cost 14, fist [4-2, impact, melee], sling [10-1, impact, ranged]). Maybe these units can be useful for your campaign?

Yes the shaman is a good idea but would it dilute the amazingness of troll shamans?
Having another level one troll would be nice to remove the mundanity of troll whelps.
Another idea up their stats but make only +4 regeneration

[Eros]

Completely side issue can anyone tell me how to rename this topic from The Sojournings of Grog (1.6) to The Sojournings of Grog (1.7)

[Anonymissimus]

I'm going to spam the forum today.

For Eros and Marz: I noticed that, on the add-on server for 1.4, there is a campaign named Trolls! This campaign includes L1 Rocklobbers and Shamans, called Whelp Shaman (HP 40, XP 36, MP 4, cost 15, fist [2-2, impact, melee], flame blast [5-3, fire, ranged, magical]) and Whelp Rockthrower(HP 40, XP 36, MP 4, cost 14, fist [4-2, impact, melee], sling [10-1, impact, ranged]). Maybe these units can be useful for your campaign?

I'm using whelp shamans in my campaign, too. I suggest you refer to them, then. They are meant to be a sensible level 1 for the core troll shaman. They have only 34 hitpoints, 4-2 melee impact and 4-3 ranged fire magical, costs 15 (Not quite sure about the numbers, it's out of memory.)
I wanted this unit for the reason mentioned - an interesting tactical alternative to the core troll whelp. Suitable for fighting bats and flying undead. The bad thing is, I'd really need sprites for them since they can not so easily be distinguished from the troll whelp, other than by moving the mouse onto them. The idea to make them is actually taken from the aforementioned campaign.
As for the whelp rockthrower, I don't like that idea. It's superfluous, and it creates a strange "cross-advancement": Troll Rocklobbers can be acquired from both whelp rockthrowers and normal troll whelps then. Except in case one overwrites the core troll whelp's adcances_to somehow, but I wouldn't want to interfere with the core units that much.
The sprites which you're using for the level 3 troll shaman are used for a side-advancement tree in my campaign, called Ice Troll, for the whelp shaman. It can slow enemies. I wanted that unit, since it makes a fight trolls vs trolls (which happens in my campaign) tactically more interesting. You're using the same sprites for a level 3 shaman. I don't have anything against a level three for the shaman, but the sprites simply look to different compared with the core troll shaman, not suitable for a level 3.
In your campaign, troll shamans are depicted as very special units I think ? I mean, one gets only two of them at all. (I have only played the first scenarios of TSoG, though.) How is that in UtBS ? Are troll shamans also very exclusive there ? (I haven't played the troll alliance choice campaign path here, too.)
Anyway, it may be a good idea if we treated this issue in the same way. I suggest making an alternative level 1 unit available since it makes the troll faction a lot more interesting imho.
I've basically included the trolls (on the player side!) in my campaign since they're generally underrepresented and depicted only as mindless hard hitters. The same reason makes your campaign interesting for me.
(An enemy is needed. What do you choose ?
1.undead
2.orcs
3.trolls
...)

Another idea up their stats but make only +4 regeneration

Since all other trolls have +8 that would at least need an explanation. I'd rather make them low on hitpoints instead.

Completely side issue can anyone tell me how to rename this topic from The Sojournings of Grog (1.6) to The Sojournings of Grog (1.7)

You can edit the topic's headline when editing the first post.

[Deusite]

From what I remember from UtBS and extracting the text. There is an advisor to the great trolly chief, a Shaman who leads you in the caves, blows up a cave wall, and fights dwarves (explaining the fist and fire thing). One who summons lava beasts (a Great High Priest) and an assistant. So they're definitely special.

The theory I've been running along with is that Shamans act similarly to Druids (as in the actual Gallic/Celtic ones), minus the immunity from military service, taxes and that whole wicker man thing. And also that only certain trolls have the ability to control magic; the Shamans kind of 'absorb' knowledge by experiencing/imagining things. Therefore, level 1 Shamans aren't possible. Anyway, this belongs in the Writers' Forum.

Personally I don't know whether having only one unit (yes, one) in your recruit list is either a hindrance or tactically interesting.

And who needs rockthrowers when you can burninate?

[Anonymissimus]

Say, I don't want to give level 2 units to the player directly, since he shall need to level them up. Building the army by oneself is part of the fun. Then, I want to have ghosts/wraiths/spectres as enemies. (This also happens in TSoG IIRC.) Now try fighting that with impact melee in underground - 50% resistance (more, I think) and weapon special drain on ghost side, 10% arcane weakness on troll side. It's suicide.

/edit
As for troll shaman vs rocklobber: I think it is balanced the way they are. The rocklobber has better melee usage than the shaman, while the shaman needs to hit 3 times to have better ranged attack than the rocklobber. And the rocklobber needs to hit at all, of course...I'm using them against units with bad denfense then, the shamans in the same turn against the ones with good defense or resistance towards impact.