1.12 SP Naga campaign, Return of the Monster

[SkyOne]

Hey SkyOne,

The second scenario seems more polished now. But if the intent of this scenario is to give the Nagas some XP, I'd say dial back the friendly AI a bit - make them less aggressive and more cautious. I was pretty aggressive, but not suicidal, and even so, the enemy was soon surrounded by the friendly AI. I wondered whether anything I did mattered at all, I could have just sat on my fat ass and shouted cheers. Just like much of the world is now doing with the World Cup.

Hi doofus-01,

Yes, it is true. If I leave it, the allied AI doesn't recruit at all after the first turn (because the AI thinks recruiting is not necessary). That is one of the rare scenarios it occurs in my all... Originally, the first two scenarios were supposed to be very easy on this campaign, but it seems too much, especially the second one. I will adjust the GOLD or INCOME (or both) on the side. Thank you!

Spoiler:

Yeah, my fat ass also stays in the couch to watch soccer games at this time. It only happens once in four years although I watch baseball games almost everyday during the season.

The next scenario looks like it could be interesting, but I'll have to save it for another day. I can say that the opening dialogue needs [scroll_to] to the dwarves- I didn't know who was talking until it scrolled down to the Nagas.

I'll give an update when I get past the next scenario, for what it's worth.

Scrolling is not really as good as it use to be, isn't it? I think we did not really have to install [scroll_to] / {SCROLL_TO ..} when someone speaks... But I have just encountered the same issue on my other campaign during the testing. Anyway, I will install them. Thank you! On this third scenario, Nagas are supposed to gain more XP.

Keep on truckin', as they say. (No, I don't know who 'they' are, but we'd best do as they say.)

Yeah, I keep on truckin' as they say. Thank you. I am always doing my best for them. Well, maybe, close to my best...
I hope you, too, stay doing it for a long time.


Thank you so much.

----------------------

EDIT:
version 0.8.10 has been uploaded on 1.12 server since July, 5th.

This is a minor update, just touched up each of the 1st to 5th scenarios.
The carryover golds are changed to "add 20%" on them, and cut a few turns each. So it may change the balances, but not much.
-----------------------

Version 0.8.11 has been uploaded on 1.12 server since Sep, 3rd.

There are not major changes on this update.
The changes:
- polishing the melee-attack animations of Naga and Carapace fighter-units
- polishing a couple of portraits, Divaloss and Carapace Lord. (I really wanted to replace their orange eyes...)
- polishing the defense animations for Naga Noble, Nagini Maiden, Hunting Carapace, and Protective Carapace (all L1)
- touching up the sixth scenario/map, The Birth, a bit
- editing slightly the unit-description of Goblin Archer to adjust it to this campaign.

And hopefully, all of begin= and end= for the animations have been removed on this version.


Bug fix:
there had been two of Fire Guardian on the help menu. It has been fixed since this version.


thanks

[SkyOne]

Version 0.8.12 has been uploaded on 1.12 server!

The changes on this update:
- modified scenario and map on 07 The New Leader (installed Dust Devil unit and balanced)
- modified scenario 14 Longtime Enemies (polished the part of unstoring units when the boat and ship reach the harbor.
- modified the maps on 09 Spiritual Zone and 17 Return of the Monster to avoid the terrain-bug, and 18 Epilogue to adjust it to scenario 7 above
- re-installed the travel markers on BG-map, and installed the rotm-white-flag image
- replaced Orcish Sorcerer and Wizard's HIT and DIE sound from human's to orc's
- fixed an animation-bug on the ranged attack of Nagini Diviner unit ( start_time=-420, instead of 420 )

-------------------

Version 0.9.0 has been uploaded on 1.12 server since Nov, 13th.

On this version, Naga Shadows are spawned in a different way of WML (using the recruited animation). So all terrains, that had to be installed to avoid disappearing images on the maps when Naga Shadows were spawned, were able to be removed. It makes using some of the old save-files in the middle of scenarios impossible, but using them at the beginning of each scenario is just fine (of course, ones that would be saved on version 0.9.0 or after will be fine). Therefore, the version number raised up to 0.9.0.

The other changes:
- modified scenario, including the reason above; 04 Pirats Port, 05 Carapace Guards, 07 New Leader, 09 Spiritual Zone, 12 Into Farzi, 13 Orcish Wizard, 14 Longtime Enemies, 16 Reinforcements, and 17 Return of the Monster
- fixed a bug that BG-map did not show as well on the full screen mode
- added the melee attack animation for Nagini Dowser and Sorceress
- touched slightly on Naga Queen's portrait


thanks

[doofus-01]

Hey SkyOne,

I was picking this up again, and got a lua error in Pirate's Port, when a cuttle-fish got ambushed by a Naga Stalker:

Code: Select all

20141126 18:58:01 error engine: failed to auto-store $unit at (1,1)
20141126 19:08:42 error scripting/lua: /usr/local/share/wesnoth12rc2/data/ai/lua/ai_helper.lua:131: ai.attack from 14,17 to 17,17 could not be executed. Error code: 1010
stack traceback:
        [C]: in function 'error'
        /usr/local/share/wesnoth12rc2/data/ai/lua/ai_helper.lua:131: in function 'checked_action_error'
        /usr/local/share/wesnoth12rc2/data/ai/lua/ai_helper.lua:138: in function 'checked_attack'                                                                                                                                                      
        .../share/wesnoth12rc2/data/ai/micro_ais/cas/ca_lurkers.lua:62: in function 'execution'                                                                                                                                                        
        [string "wesnoth.require("ai/micro_ais/cas/ca_lurkers...."]:1: in main chunk 

I'll admit this was from an old start-of-scenario save, but I didn't see any warnings about that in your posts, so maybe that wasn't the reason.

I've attached the mid-scenario autosave-file before I got the errors. Reloading the autosave after that seems to work, at least there are no errors.

[SkyOne]

Hey SkyOne,

I was picking this up again, and got a lua error in Pirate's Port, when a cuttle-fish got ambushed by a Naga Stalker: CODE

Hi doofus-01,

Thank you for running it and reporting the bug.
I have been thinking why it occurs after seeing your post, but I am still unable to find it out... I run the scenario on both 1.11.18 and 1.12.0, but it works fine on mine. It seems the error is from the micro_ai, and the Cuttle Fish is MAI lurkers after the sight by side=1. So I will ask mattsc about it.

I'll admit this was from an old start-of-scenario save, but I didn't see any warnings about that in your posts, so maybe that wasn't the reason.

It is possible if your save-file was in the middle of the scenario, but should not be on the beginning one...


I appreciate your post.

[mattsc]

Thanks for reporting, doofus-01, and thanks for alerting me of this, SkyOne.

First, doofus-01: no, it does not matter that the save is from a previous version. The Micro AIs load external Lua files and are not included in the savegame code. So the most recent version is always used.

I did manage to reproduce the error, but it took me some trying... What happens is that the AI unit controlled by the Lurkers MAI gets ambushed by a naga with the submerge ability, and therefore does not get to the unit it is trying to attack. Trying to attack from a non-adjacent hex is then what the error message is about. Now this puzzles me a little as I thought that the AI cheats and does not get ambushed. I'll look into this and report back with a fix.

As a side note, I will also start a post in the Micro AIs feedback thread on bugs found in 1.12.x as a reference for everybody. I've done extensive testing of the MAIs, but I am sure there are plenty of situations (such as ambushes) that I just did not think about and now that more people are starting to use them, I bet more bugs will be found. In fact, just 45 min after you posted this, Bob the Mighty reported a bug in a different MAI to me.

[mattsc]

I'm going to double post here to make sure that people see this ...

So, I fixed this problem in both 1.12 and 1.13. There's a bit of a conundrum here though because, in a way, the bug was not really a bug and was fixed already. Here's what was going on:

Technical description for those interested

When a Micro AI executes an action, it calls an ai_helper function that first calls a (built-in) function that checks whether that action is possible. If it is not, it abandons the action. In addition, it also produces an error message if (and only if) the game is in debug mode (doofus-01: I assume you were in debug mode when you saw the error?). That is something I build into the code for development purposes, to alert the player (and in particular the UMC author) that there might be a problem.

In this case, there is not. The unit was ambushed and did not reach its attack target. Therefore, the attack action was abandoned. The error message simply stated that that's what happened. So in a way, the problem is double fixed now. The easiest way to take care of this particular problem would simply be to disable the error message altogether.

However, there are other cases when the same general behavior happens that are real bugs in the Micro AIs. Since the MAIs are still very new and certainly contain bugs that I have not found yet, I do want to keep this error message around, even though it will also trigger in cases like this. Once they have been around for longer and have been tested more thoroughly, I will disable the message and remove the double fixes from the code. Say, in 1.12.7 or so ...

Not sure if any of this makes sense to anybody but me, but I hope so.

So in summary, SkyOne, I think you do not need to do anything here. The behavior of the AI is not affected, and the error message only shows up in debug mode. Just tell people to either ignore it or not to use debug mode. And in 1.12.1, the error message will disappear also, even in debug mode.

[doofus-01]

Yeah, I was probably in debug mode... Not the first time that's caused (apparent) trouble. Sorry.

[mattsc]

Yeah, I was probably in debug mode... Not the first time that's caused (apparent) trouble. Sorry.

No, on the contrary. That's exactly what that error message is there for. In fact, during the 1.11 development cycle, it was set to always show up, even when not in debug mode. That has already resulted in us finding several bugs that might have otherwise gone undetected for a long time. So, please, keep reporting these message if/when you run into them, as that is the only way for me to determine if they are real problems or (semi)false alarms. If anything, I should apologize for raising false alarms, but an automated system unfortunately can only detect the effect, the cause has to be determined manually afterward.

[SkyOne]

Thank you so much for finding out the issue and fixing it, mattsc.
I was not able to imagine that only starting the debug mode carried it (because I don't use it).

Currently, MAIs are installed on all of my campaigns, including Northern Forces campaign, so hopefully, they help finding the bugs if there still is.


Anyway, I forgot that I had shifted the BG-map to left (west) a bit on version 0.8.12, then replaced the normal one on version 0.9.0. So some of travel makers are not really on the track. It will be fixed on the next release.

[doofus-01]

Well now, back to the campaign!
I found a minor bug. Several times you use

Code: Select all

[unit]
...
generate_id=yes
...
[/unit]

which does not exist, I don't think. In any case, it generates a warning warning unit: Unknown attribute 'generate_id' discarded. You probably wanted "generate_name", but that defaults to yes anyway, so you can probably just delete those lines.

As for the scenario, Pirate's Port, I'd suggest redesigning the map. It was a bottle-neck of surrounding and slowly worming through the AI sides, who didn't need to control any villages because of their high income. If you want it to be a small map and quick scenario, maybe you could cut down on the AI income, and auto-recall some Nagas in the beginning, instead of having the starting encampment. That's just my opinion of it. The next scenario didn't quite have the same problem, but the enemy AI sides were still too bunched up, I thought. Maybe you could have some ships show up on edges far from their keeps?

[SkyOne]

Well now, back to the campaign!

Thank you, doofus-01, not only for continuing to play, but also for commenting more. I appreciate them.
The campaign finally showed you many of my original art, including the portraits, so I am a bit as you are a fine artist.
Do the units look okay?

I found a minor bug. Several times you use

Code: Select all

[unit]
...
generate_id=yes
...
[/unit]

which does not exist, I don't think. In any case, it generates a warning warning unit: Unknown attribute 'generate_id' discarded. You probably wanted "generate_name", but that defaults to yes anyway, so you can probably just delete those lines.

Ah, you are right. I still keep it on some places. I will remove them. Thank you.

As for the scenario, Pirate's Port, I'd suggest redesigning the map. It was a bottle-neck of surrounding and slowly worming through the AI sides, who didn't need to control any villages because of their high income. If you want it to be a small map and quick scenario, maybe you could cut down on the AI income, and auto-recall some Nagas in the beginning, instead of having the starting encampment. That's just my opinion of it.

Okay, I keep it in my mind, then I may try to do something on it. Thank you.

The next scenario didn't quite have the same problem, but the enemy AI sides were still too bunched up, I thought.

But allied AI protects the items a lot, doesn't it?

Maybe you could have some ships show up on edges far from their keeps?

Yeah, that is a nice idea! It is slightly strange that they only have one ship each. Thank you.


Just in a case, if you reach 07 New Leader scenario, this is one I will update with the next version (0.9.1) that takes a little more while to upload. There is a minor bug on the MAI of version 0.9.0.

07_New_Leader.cfg

(19.09 KiB) Downloaded 268 times

Thank you so much.

[doofus-01]

Do the units look okay?

They're good enough, the elderly turtle sprite is nice. The dust devil in New Leader is a bit of an eyesore though, maybe you could use the image from the one in UtBS?
The unit names seem a bit strange, how attached are you to those?

Starting New Leader (haven't actually played it) gives some minor errors:

Code: Select all

20141130 11:08:33 error audio: tried to add duplicate track '/usr/local/share/wesnoth/data/core/music/traveling_minstrels.ogg'
20141130 11:08:33 error engine: failed to auto-store $unit at (1,1)
20141130 11:08:33 error display: could not open image 'misc/blank-top.png'
20141130 11:08:33 error display: could not open image 'misc/blank-bottom.png'

The last two are because of a custom ellipse in the dust devil. The BfW engine automatically adds the "-top/-bottom" stuff in the ellipse, apparently, so you need to have images by those names, even if you never explicitly asked for them.

[SkyOne]

They're good enough, the elderly turtle sprite is nice.

Glad to hear it. Thanks.

The dust devil in New Leader is a bit of an eyesore though, maybe you could use the image from the one in UtBS?

Yeah, Dust Devil is the newest unit, and I didn't spend much time to draw it. One on UtBS looks nice. Actually, I totally forgot there has been one on it. A problem is that DD on UtBS is a normal unit that has the attacks, but mine has no-attacks, just has a negative healing ability and for taking AI Ogre's attentions. So I think they should not be the same image... Mine should be polished, though... Or maybe, replace it to Giant Rats, like another scenario, Dwarvish Pathfinder...?

The unit names seem a bit strange, how attached are you to those?

You mean for Carapaces, right?
Their names are basically from Nagas (and some Lizards), then I put some suffixes on some of them to make them look South Asian like, such as:
(naga) Kzap --> Kzapka (carapace)
(naga) Xnamos --> Xnamoha (carapace)

Of course, any opinions and ideas will be taken.

Starting New Leader (haven't actually played it) gives some minor errors:

Code: Select all

20141130 11:08:33 error audio: tried to add duplicate track '/usr/local/share/wesnoth/data/core/music/traveling_minstrels.ogg'
20141130 11:08:33 error engine: failed to auto-store $unit at (1,1)
20141130 11:08:33 error display: could not open image 'misc/blank-top.png'
20141130 11:08:33 error display: could not open image 'misc/blank-bottom.png'

The last two are because of a custom ellipse in the dust devil. The BfW engine automatically adds the "-top/-bottom" stuff in the ellipse, apparently, so you need to have images by those names, even if you never explicitly asked for them.

Thank you so much.
blank-top.png and blank-bottm.png have been added in the misc folder of the new version that will be uploaded.
On the first two, I am not sure why... On the scenario, the "traveling_minstrels" runs as well, and there is no unit on x,y=1,1 ...
Maybe, this macro carries something, but it works fine at least:

Code: Select all

{ROTM_INTRO_AND_SCENARIO_MUSIC "traveling_minstrels.ogg" "traveling_minstrels.ogg"}

Thank you.

[doofus-01]

You mean for Carapaces, right?
Their names are basically from Nagas (and some Lizards), then I put some suffixes on some of them to make them look South Asian like, such as:
(naga) Kzap --> Kzapka (carapace)
(naga) Xnamos --> Xnamoha (carapace)

Of course, any opinions and ideas will be taken. :)

Oh, those are fine. I meant the "infiltrative carapace", "smashing carapace", etc. Some of those names & progressions seem odd to me, but if you have your reasons, that's cool. On a somewhat related note, the "babble" attack name seems odd too. Did you mean bubble or foam?

[SkyOne]

I meant the "infiltrative carapace", "smashing carapace", etc. Some of those names & progressions seem odd to me, but if you have your reasons, that's cool.

My reason is just a grammar thing from none-native English speaker's view. The word of "carapace" is noun only, so I put the adjective forms before the word of "carapace".
If they look okay for native speakers, I prefer "Carapace Infiltrator", "Carapace Smasher", etc.

So could you (or anyone) tell me what you (or he/she) think(s)?

Current Names -- Possible Replacements
---------------------------------------------
1. Lord Carapace -- Carapace Lord
2. Elder Carapace -- I think this is okay
3. Divine Carapace -- Carapace Diviner better?
4. Foraging Carapace -- Carapace Forager
5. Infiltrative Carapace -- Carapace Infiltrator
6. Monstrous Carapace -- Carapace Monster better?
7. Protective Carapace -- Carapace Protector
8. Guardian Carapace -- Carapace Guard
9. Smashing Carapace -- Carapace Smasher
10. Hunting Carapace -- Carapace Hunter
11. Javelin Carapace -- Carapace Javelineer better?
12. Heroic Carapace -- Carapace Hero better?

On a somewhat related note, the "babble" attack name seems odd too. Did you mean bubble or foam?

Foam! Foam is the right word for the attack. Thank you for pointing it out. It is a typical mistake for me.


Thank you so much.