Dawn of Thunder [SP campaign for 1.16.x]

[RainerT]

On which version of wesnoth are you playing? I just played through on 1.11.12 and had no problems.

I'm playing the the Debian package from testing. The package changelog doesn't say anything about any further additions, therefor it should be the vanilla game.

In the valley of death, enemy waves are appearing until turn 32. After this you only have to clear out all enemies and click end turn.

I gave up waiting a bit to early. That way I could finish the scenario, without bothering about the problem above.

So far I like the campaign. In the last scenario you should add a time limit. If you use enough loyal units, you can still keep a positive gold gain. Killing one of the enemy leaders after a while, will make it possible to play indefinate, gaining more and more gold and level heroes and your loyal units as much as you like, without a risk to get heavy losses. A time limit with early finishing bonus would also increase the interest to finish the scenario as soon as possible.

[Paulomat4]

I'm playing the the Debian package from testing. The package changelog doesn't say anything about any further additions, therefor it should be the vanilla game.

I have heard nothing else about this. I'll go through the changelogs to look if I might have overseen something.

So far I like the campaign

thanks!

In the last scenario you should add a time limit. If you use enough loyal units, you can still keep a positive gold gain. Killing one of the enemy leaders after a while, will make it possible to play indefinate, gaining more and more gold and level heroes and your loyal units as much as you like, without a risk to get heavy losses. A time limit with early finishing bonus would also increase the interest to finish the scenario as soon as possible.

You mean in valley of death right? I guess that would make sense.

How do you found the difficulty in the first few scenarios? I fear that it's too easy now, but i had a few friends complaining that it's too hard and repeatedly made it easier.

Thanks and have fun playing!

EDIT:
I feel so dumb right now. The then error was in my own code. Anyway it's fixed now, thanks for reporting. I never noticed it, because I always fought off every enemy in my playthroughs.

[RainerT]

You mean in valley of death right? I guess that would make sense.

I'm referring to "Grand Meeting", but it might apply to "Valley of Death" as well. If the latter one takes over a certain percentage of gold, then it should definitely be limited as well. In your scenario objectives is never mentioned if and how much gold is taken over.

How do you found the difficulty in the first few scenarios? I fear that it's too easy now, but i had a few friends complaining that it's too hard and repeatedly made it easier.

In my eyes difficulty is fine. I'm playing "normal" and it feels like many other campaigns. "Valley of Death" is perhaps a bit to easy. On the other hand, if the enemies are a lot stronger, it can easiely happen that Limwen is killed before you can reach her. This happend to me in the in my first attempt.

[Paulomat4]

well, in grand meeting you're supposed to be doomed. The enemy gets gold every 4 rounds. In fact you should not be able to survive, only temporary. You maged to beat this one? can you give me replay? I'd like to see this ^^

"Valley of Death" is perhaps a bit to easy. On the other hand, if the enemies are a lot stronger, it can easiely happen that Limwen is killed before you can reach her.

this scenario is way harder to balance, as you can not just adjust the gold the enemy get's. Anyway i am aware that the enemy spawning system needs an overhaul. Currently it is too predictable, and not balanced at all. (You get the same enemies on easy, normal and hard.)
I will recode this during vacations next week, which will hopefully improve this.

[RainerT]

well, in grand meeting you're supposed to be doomed. The enemy gets gold every 4 rounds. In fact you should not be able to survive, only temporary. You maged to beat this one? can you give me replay? I'd like to see this ^^

I attach a replay. I did it twice before, but in these attempts sometimes I retried a turn, if it didn't work out as I wanted. I'm not picky about that. In this one I definitely didn't retry anything. I made some mistakes and lost one of my loyal trappers, but it was just a proof of concept game. One helpful thing I used, are blocking units, which have just one XP point left before they level, but I don't think they make such a big difference. As you can see, it wasn't a big problem to take out the northern guy.

It would make sense to make it more difficult, but you have to be careful. The problem about this scenario is, it's not just you, you have to care about, but also three other units you don't have any control about. Therfor you can't give up the northern frontline and retreat, because you can't take these units with you. One thing I noticed, you get quite some elvish reinforcement from NPC side. Perhaps you should reduce the amount a bit and/or improve the northern and western enemy. You shouldn't improve the southern one, because he will swarm you with goblins and you won't be able to leave the castle. Add a time limit. I think 30 rounds will be a good time. That will force you to act and you won't have time trying to kill leaders, even if you could do so.

[Paulomat4]

I just looked at it. Using high xp units to shield was certainly your key to win here. It seems far easier now, i didn't think about this trick. I think I'll add a turn limit and give the blue more gold. The problem I have with the turn limit is, that I mostly want to have a reason for the turn limit to be there. I can't see any here. But clearly it is neede, as you have proven in your replay.
I'm also thinking about making the ai more aggressive, so the tactic with high xp units works less well, but i'm just fooling around with that thought.

thanks for playing through and the food for thoughts!

[RainerT]

There are rarly good reasons for a time limit, but it is an integral part of BoW, even if it serves a different purpose in this case. Making the ai more aggressive might be an option as well.

I like one thing about this scenario. The allied leaders don't attack, if an enemy is in reach. It is very difficult to keep them alive, if they do so. I told you that Limwen was killed in my first attempt of "Valley of death" befor I could reach her. A similar thing happend in Lake Aelin. The leader jumped into the battle in the first round an was badly wounded. The standard behavior should be "only attack if they are attacked". This is not an special issue of your campaign, but of BoW in general.

I have question about Limwen and Alasar. Are they just ordinary loyal units that can die without loosing the game? I was just wondering, because they have dialogs, but are marked as loyal units and not hero units. Do the get AMLA options?

[Paulomat4]

I like one thing about this scenario. The allied leaders don't attack, if an enemy is in reach. It is very difficult to keep them alive, if they do so. I told you that Limwen was killed in my first attempt of "Valley of death" befor I could reach her. A similar thing happend in Lake Aelin. The leader jumped into the battle in the first round an was badly wounded. The standard behavior should be "only attack if they are attacked". This is not an special issue of your campaign, but of BoW in general.

In fact I fixed this issue, by giving the allied leaders the command not to move at all. I had the problem that those leaders would suicide everytime, just as you described. This was also applied for Mal Lirak (the second scenario). I could apply this to those other scenario's as well. I have chosen not to do so in "the valley of death" (I really should think about another name) because you have the possibility to push the fight farer away from Limwen. You can fight your enemys wherever you want. And this is the problem in "Grand meeting". You just have one possibility where to meet the enemy, and that's all. Also an integral part of the strategy here is to move really fast, and to recall or recruit scout to shield limwen.

As for "Lake aelin" I have never really thought about that, and never had a real problem with the allied leader. I guess he really needs to move from his castle too, to let you recruit from there. I might however make the enemy avoid him a bit, so he is not too much attacked.

I have question about Limwen and Alasar. Are they just ordinary loyal units that can die without loosing the game? I was just wondering, because they have dialogs, but are marked as loyal units and not hero units. Do the get AMLA options?

YOu can let them die if you want. they are not necessary to complete the campaign. I added them mostly for fun. There is for example no guaranty that you get Limwen (only if you fight off all enemies in scenario 3). Alasar is only there to look badass. Both add a bit of dialogue from time to time but it's never really important and they never have any relevant information. If you wouldn't have them the dialogue wouldn't show up.
I tried to make them more special from their stats and that's why Alasar has so powerful traits. I'm still thinking of some way, to make Limwen more special. maybe some trait called "passionate" which makes her heal +12 instead of +8. I have thought about amla's but decided that this would make them too special.

[RainerT]

I have chosen not to do so in "the valley of death" (I really should think about another name) because you have the possibility to push the fight farer away from Limwen. You can fight your enemys wherever you want. And this is the problem in "Grand meeting". You just have one possibility where to meet the enemy, and that's all. Also an integral part of the strategy here is to move really fast, and to recall or recruit scout to shield limwen.

The probelm in Valley of Death is, you can't really protect Limwen with a few scouts. There are most likely different places she can go to and you won't have enough scouts to build a real defence line for all the possibilities. The scouts are more likely cannon fodder you are offering as the nicer meet or reducing the chance that she is getting outnumberd/surounded. In my case she jumped at a place where she got completely surounded in the sixth round. An scout at that place might not helped a lot. Anyway, you can keep it the way it is. Such a situation is not very likely. I played the scenario twice afterwards and never had a problem with Limwen. If a really unlucky situation happens, you can go back a few turns or restart, because it will only happen in very beginning. The same applies for Lake Aelin. I had some scenarios in other campaigns, where the allied leader was und heavy attack and you couldn't reach him for a long time to do anything about it. Then this suicidal behaviour is just a pain, because it has nothing to to with good playing, but is just gambling.

[Paulomat4]

I may change it for lake aelin. I'll realize most of the things you have said next week.

[RainerT]

I have a few minor issues.

Could you add the the description of the gold bonus to the scenario objectives? It is always irritating not to know if there is a bonus an how much it will be.

A few comments about the traits of your loyal human units. Naia's followers are basically fine. Only the fencer should have somthing different than intelligent. This helps a bit with levelling, but he would be better served with resilient or strong. I would change more traits with the guys from "Woodchoppers". The woodsman is more likely to be changed into an poacher, since you have a quick archer and poacher is the better choice anyway. If you want to get a movement of six, you can go for a a ranger. This is the better choice, because of their great movability on hills and forrest is more helpful than marksmanship. This you get from your elvish marksman. In that case the quick trait is not that helpful. Resilient or strong would be the better choice. The peasant has strong, which makes the natural choice to go for a swordsman/royal guard. Since you have a strong spearman from Naia, it is not that interesting anymore. For all other unit types quick would be more interesting. The squire got intelligent, which is a bit wasted. The most important thing ist to bring him up to leve one. With or without intelligent you have to kill four unit levels, because you will only attack, if you are pretty shure you are going to kill the enemy. After that you don't have to worry about gaining xp, because this is really easy with an horseman. Strong is in my eyes the better choice. Quick for the ruffian is fine.

I have a little "complaint" about position of the six northern villages in the first scenario. It makes a big difference if your scouts have the quick trait or not. If you recruit two scouts in the first round, which i prefer, both have quick and one is positioned on the northern or northeastern recruitment field, you can grab the three eastern villages in three turns and the western in four turns. without quick both will take five rounds. In the vast majority of scenarios this doesn't really matter, but at the begining of this scenario you are scarce of money/units. The speed of grabbing these villages can make a big difference in the beginning. It's not just the money that might give you another unit when you desperatly need it to keep a good defence line, but also the scouts are earlier availably for the fight. You should change the distances one or another way that it doesn't matter having scouts with quick or not. It would remove a big gambling factor in the beginnig of the game.

[Paulomat4]

About the villages, the gold bonus and the traits of the fencer and the squire: These are valid points, and they will get into the next version.
The peasants on the other side get random traits (except loyal of course). I don't think i'll change this.

[RainerT]

The peasants on the other side get random traits (except loyal of course). I don't think i'll change this.

I thought they have fixed traits like Naias followers. If they are random, than you can forget the nonsens I wrote.

[Paulomat4]

Version 0.1.2.3 is out!

This may not seem like a big improvement to version 0.1.2.2 but it is! Many things RainerT noticed were taken care of. This version also heavily focuses on improving scenario 3. It now has balancing (although it may be badly balanced), random enemies and the locations are also more random. I would be very glad here about balancing suggestions, because I think it may be too hard.

Version 0.1.2.3:

Code: Select all

-fixed a bug in scenario 3 which couldn't be ended early because of false use of the [then]-tag
-different traits for the loyals you get
-Ronurs death in scenario 7 is now better animated using [harm_unit]
-rework of the unit spawning system in scenario (better than before, but not completed)
-added wave counter to scenario 3
-set a turn limit to scenario 3
-using [interim_text] for better intros to scenarios
-turn limit on scenario 8
-added gold carryover instructions to every scenario
-balancing on scenario 8
-Limwen and Rothilion are now less likely to be hit in the first few turns of scenario 3 and 5
-changed map 1 and 2 to have less dependence on the quick trait

[RainerT]

Hi,

I replayed the scenarios and have a few comments.

Scenario 1+2: The placement of the villages is fine now. You changed the the trait of the loyal fencer into resilient. Wouldn't it be a better idea to choose strong? No unit type gets a higher profit from this trait than this one and it might improve your low damage against the undead in scenario 2+3, but I'm not shure about the latter one.

Scenario 3: It's more interesting now, but in my eyes you went a bit over the top.

There are to many flying units with high movement rates. You get easiely attacked at to many places, which makes defending pretty difficult. I think you should remove the bats. They don't fit into the scenario anyway, because it is a about undead and they aren't even if they are part of the undead faction in the standard game. By the way, Naia talks about fighting 'skeletons' in the starting dialog. This is a bit irritating because it's not just skeletons.

The coincidental apearance of enemies together with attacking in the same turn is to much of a gambling game. You get easily surrounded out of nothing at appropriate places like the villages in the northeast. If you remove the bats, it might be okay that way, but you should concider to not let them move/attack in the same turn they appear.

The biggest problem is 'Sucidal Limwen'. It was okay to defend her in the previous version after reaching her. Now the enemy is a lot stronger and you won't have enough units to build a defence line out of her reach. If the only choice for a leader is suicide behaviour and pinning the unit, you should go for the latter one with Limwen. She is to fragile to let her fight.

Increasing the diffculty in this scenario undermined the main goal of it. You won't be able to move Fiannon towards the sign post before the last wave, because there are too many enemies on the map and you can't give him enough protection, which is needed to keep Limwen alive. It doesn't really matter, because people are likely to get the bonus, but at the current state it ends up as a sort of nonsens option.

Scenario 7: I think there is a bug in this one. I didn't meet any fallen faerie apart from Maeblie. If I occupied a teleport tree before Oenoch is called none appeared and later on they didn't appear as well.

Scenario 8: I was a bit astonished after finishing the scenario, because it was a lot more relaxed than my attempts with the previous version. The northern enemies attacked me only twice at the castle front and in the end their leader was killed by the allied elves not me. It was a bit crowded at the southern front but managable. The time limit of 30 rounds is fine.

Just out of curiousity, when are the traits of the woodchoppers defined? I finshed the previous scenario at different rounds, but thy always got the same traits.