The Settlers of Wesnoth; NEW: "NO DOWNLOAD NEEDED"

[Anonymissimus]

I have taken over this addon.
Since I want somehow a reward for the work I've uploaded a test release; mainly for Dixie to look and such.

The complete trading system and development cards don't work yet; the rest should be rather OOS proof now. You can report if you find things like inconsistencies with the resources you get/loose and such. When you start in debug mode and choose the "execute lua" right-click menu you should get resources so you can build some stuff.

[Dixie]

I have edited the first post. I will try to keep it in touch with your progress and annoucements. But maybe you'd prefer having a thread with your own first post you can keep up to date yourself? I dunno, I'll let you decide. Far from me the idea of stealing your hard work by claiming it as mine, anyway!

I will try to somehow download the test version, although I am currently writing from my parents' computer, not from my laptop, so it might be a bit more complicated in the immediate future.

Thanks a lot for your hard work!

[Anonymissimus]

Thanks; and I think I keep co-authoring this. Did you create all the images ? (something I'm particularly not so good at )
(We may put it onto the wesnoth UMC repository to be able to edit simultaneously.)
I'd like you to keep an eye on that the implemented rules don't change. The information given in the help isn't always sufficient; I mainly get to know the rules by browsing your code and then rewriting it (if I feel that it should be simplified) and it's quite possible that I accidentally change the implemented rules along the way since I don't know them well myself. Is it right that the probability of getting a specific resource when stealing with the robber depends on how many of that resource the target player has ? That is, in the board game, you just draw one of the target player's (concealed) resource cards I guess ?

And please: How to reenable the display of the current turn - I miss it especially for debugging.

[pauxlo]

Is it right that the probability of getting a specific resource when stealing with the robber depends on how many of that resource the target player has ? That is, in the board game, you just draw one of the target player's (concealed) resource cards I guess ?

Yes.

[Dixie]

And please: How to reenable the display of the current turn - I miss it especially for debugging.

Wel, I can try to edit the theme as soon as possible, although I can't tell you off the top of head what line has to be added and where exctly. As a quick fix (especially for debugging), you could just de-enable the custom theme in the scenario file. You'll revert to the default one, and it's mostly a cosmetic thing.

Ab out the images: the only things I didn't do myself are the little resource icons. The Wool (IIRC) is a ram from Archaic Era (thus, likely made by doofus), ore is a new rock also made by doofus, brick is an authorless piece of ingots I colorshifted, grain is from mainline and lumber is authorless also. And the robber, of course, is from mainline. And the terrains. I haven't given much credit to the artist for the time being, a thing which should be done by the time the add-on is completed.

And I don't have any problem with co-authoring, although I won't have much time for a while and I never used the wesnoth repository. But I guess it can be learned

[Anonymissimus]

Wel, I can try to edit the theme as soon as possible, although I can't tell you off the top of head what line has to be added and where exctly.

Never mind, guessed good and worked.

The current version on the server has oversea trade available so it's part way playable now.

[Anonymissimus]

Version 0.0.5 on the server includes everything except domestic trade (that requires out-of-turn queries so it'll be some work again). The dev card system should work now. The description is probably more scary than neccessary; I've played 1 vs 1 on the server without OOS. I recommend to build one of the initial settles near to a ? port to get needed resources (due to lack of domestic trade).

EDIT
Is it right that the largest army award is only given to players who have used at least 3 knight cards ?

[Captain_Wrathbow]

EDIT
Is it right that the largest army award is only given to players who have used at least 3 knight cards ?

Well, there's only one Largest Army award. The first player to play 3 knight cards takes the award, but if another player plays more knight cards than the first player, they can steal the award.

[Dixie]

The same goes for the longest road, but in that case it's at least 5 consecutive road units.

[Anonymissimus]

Both things are in the code in the way you said.
I've also made it so that the second settle gives the initial resources (see pauxlo above).

What are the rules about domestic trade (in addition to the things mentioned in the help) - I suppose any offer (arbitrary numbers and types of resources) against any demand ? And one should only be allowed to make one offer per turn then.

[Dixie]

About domestic trade:

I personnally wouldn't mind it. Indeed, any offer against any demand, it's up to the players. A few examples:
- Player two has the only wood unit in game and player one need it pretty bad, why wouldn't he offer 4 ressources for it?
-Player one sees player two has ten resource units, and asks what player two would give him sp P1 doesn't use a knight, moves the robber and makes P2 lose 5 resource units. Andmaybe he uses whatever he is given to trade for more useful stuff with others?
- P1 needs P2's wood and P3's brick, and can strike an agreeable deal with both of them.
- Or he is just careless, sends a deal without asking the others on the chat first, and is told he could have managed it if it had been slightly different, for any number of reasons.

I personnally wouldn't limit domestic trade, since it's the big political aspect of the game. But I can understand it might be a big time eater. Or if you must absolutely limit it, at least put the limit at 2-3 attempts? If it's not about time but balance, bah: if a player has the means to trade with the others and the others will agree, I don't see the problem. If the others think he is seeing too big or whatever, they can just not trade with that player.

A flash about trade: sometimes, you don't want to trade with a player no matter what, else he might win. Let's say P1 want to give wool to P3 against a brick, but P2 needs only a wool to win. P1 can never get his brick without P2 winning the game. Do you think it could be possible/advisable for the tyer to choose qwhich player he sends his offer to? A could pick between all of them or any single one of them, maybe...

[Anonymissimus]

I somehow don't like the idea of a player making repeated offers in his turn until someone accepts. Yes it'll eat time and give a "bazar" feeling. I want a player to make his offer tempting enough to be sure it'll be accepted.
Apart from my personal disliking, there's a technical reason here - each time an offer is made a full wesnoth game turn is (needs to be) run until the offering player is reached again; with turn bells ringing, all players presented with a query whether they accept, the usual lag etc. On the other hand the offering player could just have asked in the chat "anyone accepts 1 wool for 1 brick ?" or so.

- P1 needs P2's wood and P3's brick, and can strike an agreeable deal with both of them.

Making several offers in one turn is ok however I think. (That is, one for player 2 and another for player 3 when I'm player 1.)

A flash about trade: sometimes, you don't want to trade with a player no matter what, else he might win. Let's say P1 want to give wool to P3 against a brick, but P2 needs only a wool to win. P1 can never get his brick without P2 winning the game. Do you think it could be possible/advisable for the tyer to choose qwhich player he sends his offer to? A could pick between all of them or any single one of them, maybe...

I like it. That introduces more possibility to make alliances and balances the game more (that is, a player is close to winning and the others ally).

Both points will considerably increase the trading system's complexity though.

What are the official rules here btw ?

[pauxlo]

Apart from my personal disliking, there's a technical reason here - each time an offer is made a full wesnoth game turn is (needs to be) run until the offering player is reached again; with turn bells ringing, all players presented with a query whether they accept, the usual lag etc. On the other hand the offering player could just have asked in the chat "anyone accepts 1 wool for 1 brick ?" or so.

So, instead of "each player would be asked", the trading players should make clear by chat what to trade, and then the offering player could select number offered, number requested, and the player with whom to trade - and only this player gets shown the "accept/don't accept" button.

What are the official rules here btw ?

http://www.kosmos.de/kosmos/wrs/wrs.nsf ... 695316.pdf

Binnenhandel
Der Spieler, der an der Reihe ist, darf (nach dem Auswürfeln der Rohstofferträge) mit seinen Mitspielern Rohstoffkarten tauschen. Die Tauschbedingungen – wie viele Karten wofür – sind dem Verhandlungsgeschick der Spieler überlassen. Das Verschenken von Karten ist nicht erlaubt (Tausch von 0 gegen 1 oder mehr Karten).
Wichtig: Es darf immer nur mit dem Spieler getauscht werden, der an der Reihe ist. Die anderen Spieler dürfen untereinander nicht tauschen.

The current player may (after the random distribution of new resources) trade resource cards with the other players. The trade conditions (how many resource cards for which and how many others) are left to the negotiating talent of the players. The donating of cards (= trade of 0 cards against 1 or more) is not permitted.
Important: Only the current player (whose turn it is) can trade (with all the others), the others can not trade with each other.

So, I would say "negiotiating by chat", then only "yes/no" for one player to tell it to the engine.

[Anonymissimus]

So, instead of "each player would be asked", the trading players should make clear by chat what to trade, and then the offering player could select number offered, number requested, and the player with whom to trade - and only this player gets shown the "accept/don't accept" button.

You don't understand. The wesnoth engine is not capable of prompting a side which is not the current side with a query. That was the cause of the OOS errors. The workaround is to make a roundtrip by ending the sides' turns automatically and omitting the prompt if it's not a side which has been offered a trade; but that gives little speedup.
It's already done this way for the resource halfings for each side needed when the robber was moved and I find it somewhat confusing.
Also, I consider it likely that domestic trade will often not be talked about before, and that most trading offers will not be limited to one or some sides. (This is probably different in the board game.) Hence I vote for a limit of 1 offer per game turn per (offering) player.

[pauxlo]

So, instead of "each player would be asked", the trading players should make clear by chat what to trade, and then the offering player could select number offered, number requested, and the player with whom to trade - and only this player gets shown the "accept/don't accept" button.

You don't understand. The wesnoth engine is not capable of prompting a side which is not the current side with a query.

I think I understood this, but maybe my answer was not really clear about this, sorry.

That was the cause of the OOS errors. The workaround is to make a roundtrip by ending the sides' turns automatically and omitting the prompt if it's not a side which has been offered a trade; but that gives little speedup.

As I currently don't have Wesnoth installed, I can't really judge how long this takes, sorry. I would have supposed that the user interaction is the longest part of the process.

It's already done this way for the resource halfings for each side needed when the robber was moved and I find it somewhat confusing.
Also, I consider it likely that domestic trade will often not be talked about before, and that most trading offers will not be limited to one or some sides. (This is probably different in the board game.) Hence I vote for a limit of 1 offer per game turn per (offering) player.

I only know the board game, and there you have to talk about before - this negotiating is the most important part of the game, IMHO.

And, if it is limited to one offer per turn, then you really have to talk about it before, as you can't repeat with a better offer.

It was quite a time that I last played this game, but I think often you do multiple trades (not only offers) in each turn. Of course, this depends a bit on the number of players (more players => more resources => more need to trade) - but for two players the domestic trade is really less interesting than for three or more.