Antar, Son of Rheor [Development Thread]

[Adamant14]

Scenario 1:

I don't think that adding or removing some turns changes the difficulty much. (It is easier to build for the rush to the castle if you have some more turns a little more money, etc. but it is not really necessary as well.) I don't think the difficulty scales enough for this scenario when regardless of difficulty the adept is recruiting a full castle of corpses from first to last turn, that is why you have complaints by those who play on easier levels.

But exactly that is the idea of this scenario.
You have to fight your way through endless rows of Walking Corpses to get next the enemy leader.
You can not wait till your enemy has no more gold to recruit.

Changing this would ruin the idea of this scenario.
It would spoil the whole scenario.
Don't you think?


EDIT:

After a second thought;
maybe it is necessary for players with less experience to change the code the way you suggested.
Maybe that is the only chance for a newbie to cope the first scenario.
I think about it.

[Eugen]

I totally agree with Adamant, I really like how the scenarios offer a new approach. It's the main reason why I continued playing after the first few turns. Good job, Adamant!

[taptap]

Scenario 1:

I don't think that adding or removing some turns changes the difficulty much. (It is easier to build for the rush to the castle if you have some more turns a little more money, etc. but it is not really necessary as well.) I don't think the difficulty scales enough for this scenario when regardless of difficulty the adept is recruiting a full castle of corpses from first to last turn, that is why you have complaints by those who play on easier levels.

But exactly that is the idea of this scenario.
You have to fight your way through endless rows of Walking Corpses to get next the enemy leader.
You can not wait till your enemy has no more gold to recruit.

Changing this would ruin the idea of this scenario.
It would spoil the whole scenario.
Don't you think?

Yes, that is why I am saying work with the base income. Make it high enough on hard for full recruits each turn, maybe 1 less on normal, maybe 2 less on easy after some turns of full recruits. Then easy is easier but still features an endless row of Walking Corpses.

[Adamant14]

I totally agree with Adamant, I really like how the scenarios offer a new approach. It's the main reason why I continued playing after the first few turns. Good job, Adamant!

Yes, that is why I am saying work with the base income. Make it high enough on hard for full recruits each turn, maybe 1 less on normal, maybe 2 less on easy after some turns of full recruits. Then easy is easier but still features an endless row of Walking Corpses.

Not for NORMAL, but for EASY.
I think normal is a bit difficult for NORMAL, but not impossible to beat.
I don't want to change NORMAL.

I will change EASY the next version the way you proposed.

Thanks for your recommendation.

[taptap]

Scenario 4: Bugs me endlessly. Not that winning itself is too hard, but if you want to remove my recall list you can do so directly (go over the other pass and they died in the snow). But I have no idea where the goblins come from they are sheer endless in numbers and unlike mainline goblins have annoying ranged capabilities (picking of a full health dwarf from a hill happens easily, no wonder as the L1 has marksman) + Roc rider mobility + you have no choice of units and thus are stuck with a bunch of 4 MP guys (2 HI + all dwarves and you can't omit the slow movers by different recruitment in the previous scenario) that need 16 turns pure walking time (turn limit is 24). After I lose some units too much, I am unhappy about the result and want to restart the scenario anyway usually after the second night and 2/3 of the road. I know this is realistic and all such, but definitely not fun.

Not fun?
The idea is avoiding useless combat.
Rush to the signpost fast as you can, the enemy is definitely not beatable, and that's indented.
With how many unit did you start. How many survived?
How many healers? (ideally you had two healers)
Witch level had the healers?

Looking in the code you seem to replace all killed goblins regardless of how many I am killing. Spawn a limited number per turn until they are complete ok, but you put a dozen in my way and instantly replace them when I fought my way through them?

I test-played this scenario many times without loosing much units.
The goblins are week on flat-land.
I suggest to avoid fighting them on hills.
Even with dwarves I avoid this.
Hurry your units direction signpost,
don't waste much time fighting.
And use the healers. (two healers are not bad, especially on level 3)

I really use the L0 guys and level them whenever I find a spot where I can with minimal risk, but he definitely isn't L2 yet. I had 21 units, 8 of them with 4 movement, at start (and lost the mood after losing 2 after 2/3 of the way with more losses in sight, but the amount of losses is not the point). I know I am supposed to lose units here and I am happy about rough scenarios that kill my levelled guys, but here it is not fun because you leave nothing to me to decide. Auto-recalls, unbeatable opponent, running scenario with 4 movement guys, no villages, sounds like fun to you? With 2 healers you can probably hedgehog / ZoC yourself with minimal or no losses through this scenario but will it be fun? *sigh*

[Adamant14]

...but here it is not fun because you leave nothing to me to decide. Auto-recalls, unbeatable opponent, running scenario with 4 movement guys, no villages, sounds like fun to you? With 2 healers you can probably hedgehog / ZoC yourself with minimal or no losses through this scenario but will it be fun? *sigh*

That's bad.
Maybe you dislike the second-next scenario also then.
The next scenario is a battle-scenario.
Hope you like it.

Hint: Don't take all of your allies villages there.
You play your allies role later and it will be bad when you have not enough gold and XP then.

This hint I need to insert in the next version I think.

EDIT:

I had 21 units, 8 of them with 4 movement, at start (and lost the mood after losing 2 after 2/3 of the way with more losses in sight, but the amount of losses is not the point)

I think the main problem is the big number of 21 units at the start.
The number of enemies depends on the number of own units, means more own units more enemies.
And 21 own units at the start spawns really a lot enemies.
And then are two healers really not enough.
I did not expect someone begins this scenario with so many units.
In my play-tests I never had so much units at the start.
I never finished the third scenario with so many units, and it seems I have to limit the goblins-spawn for such a case in the next version.

[taptap]

I think the main problem is the big number of 21 units at the start.
The number of enemies depends on the number of own units, means more own units more enemies.
And 21 own units at the start spawns really a lot enemies.
And then are two healers really not enough.
I did not expect someone begins this scenario with so many units.
In my play-tests I never had so much units at the start.
I never finished the third scenario with so many units, and it seems I have to limit the goblins-spawn for such a case in the next version.

I guess that is it.

Well together with auto-recalls and spawning dwarves you gave me probably already 10 units, but I came in with bonus gold and tend to recruit a little more spammy than quality. Then you spawn 2 goblins for every unit I bring regardless of its level. However I am optimistic that I can easily finish this scenario with 2 healers, having only 1 healer for 21 units however can be tedious. I will replay scenario 3 and tell you later.

So I replayed it now... my dear young mage finished scenario 3 as L1 at least (became healer after 2/3 of scenario 4 approximately) and I had an additional L2 archer. In scenario 4 I had still 21 units, lost a shock trooper and a cav, had luck with 1-2 other units but they could have had the swordsman, the spearman or even the lieutenant it wouldn't matter. Interestingly it became much easier after around 2/3 of the way, because I was running away from them I could put L2 ranged units in the back and the axemen didn't attack anymore with their axes. After Gelphrad levelled and my units stayed very close to each other on the last turns I could represent enough strength that they did rarely attack even during the night.

Gelphrad isn't easy to level, when still a ruffian he looks like a normal L0, but upon changing his clothes he 1) loses the XP he already got in scenario 2, 2) got a requirement of 47 if i recall correctly to level up to L1. Bringing him to L2 all in one scenario is certainly possible but requires adapting very much to this goal as it requires > 100 XP during a mere 22 turns. So practically he has to kill a unit every second turn, as I had 2 other L0 I didn't manage that, mostly because I had to kill Othar rather quickly in the end. Anyone not knowing that you get 6 free dwarves will likely end with around 20 units at the end of scenario 3 as well. (There is no chance to have more than 2 healers I guess.)

[Adamant14]

Gelphrad isn't easy to level, when still a ruffian he looks like a normal L0, but upon changing his clothes he 1) loses the XP he already got in scenario

Thank you.
I changed this for the next version.
Gelphrad keeps his XP after changing his clothes.
It's really unfair to ignore the gained XP.
I also changed down the XP and HP of the Gelphrad_Initiate unit.

Anyone not knowing that you get 6 free dwarves will likely end with around 20 units at the end of scenario 3 as well. (There is no chance to have more than 2 healers I guess.)

Good point.
I never played this scenario without knowing that I meet some Dwarves there. (maybe impossible to ignore such things when you're created that stuff)
That's why I am so grateful to hear how you played this level.
I don't want to give a hint, it should be a complete surprise.
Maybe Lord Othar should be more powerful, so you have more losses in this scenario.
But I don't like that idea.
As I said before, I have to limit the goblin spawn for the case you have more than 20 units at the start of scenario 04.
I changed the code for the next version, but I didn't had the time to test it yet.
It's on my todo-list.

(There is no chance to have more than 2 healers I guess.)

Definitely not.

[taptap]

Well, I was just asking concerning Gelphrad, you can give him whatever XP requirements you want, but give him those already when L0 ruffian and keep the collected XP imho. Btw. what happens when he levels in scenario 2 already?

Scenario 5 is comparatively easy. Although I misplayed turn 1, and couldn't continue recruiting on turn 2 with the elves (and even wiped out my start of scenario savegame = couldn't even restart the scenario if it goes wrong without going through tedious scenario 4 again). As soon as the elves start levelling up the orcs are lost. Even the buffed elvish hunters are kind of overpowered (archer defence, slow ranged, fighter melee, even with the reduced hp). This is not your fault but I wouldn't allow it as a standard unit. Maybe give you one loyal hunter if you want them in the game but don't let them be recruited unlimited. End of scenario: I am not a big fan of such surprises, they may easily lead to a dead leader (dead loyal marksman in my case but could have been the leader) or similar. I as a player feel then entitled to allow myself a save/load. If the campaign is generally built on tomato surprises like Grnk the Mighty is in a fun way it is ok, but in a campaign like yours it is a spoiler. At least for me.

Scenario 6: Leaders with drain should be more active when but defence units stand near by.

Scenario 7: Wonderful scenario. Not that you have much choice what to do, but very nicely done.

[Adamant14]

Well, I was just asking concerning Gelphrad, you can give him whatever XP requirements you want, but give him those already when L0 ruffian and keep the collected XP imho.

Done. In the next version.

Btw. what happens when he levels in scenario 2 already?

He simply changes from Gelphrad_Ruffian to Gelphrad_Initiate, nothing more. Some kind of weird because he levels from one L0 to another L0 unit. But that's intended because I don't want him level up quick. He should be for a long time the student of Dagor. And when he levels quickly to a Mage-of-Light is the student-thing implausible. Especially in the case he levels faster than Dagor; I will avoid that. And the upgrading, the improvement when Gelphrad levels up from L0 (ruffian) to L0 (Initiate) is he becomes magical attack, and in a battle against Undead he became soon a L1-Mage.

Scenario 5 is comparatively easy. Although I misplayed turn 1, and couldn't continue recruiting on turn 2 with the elves (and even wiped out my start of scenario savegame = couldn't even restart the scenario if it goes wrong without going through tedious scenario 4 again).

The deleted save-game is completely my fault. It will be fixed in the next version.

Even the buffed elvish hunters are kind of overpowered (archer defence, slow ranged, fighter melee, even with the reduced hp). This is not your fault but I wouldn't allow it as a standard unit. Maybe give you one loyal hunter if you want them in the game but don't let them be recruited unlimited.

I agree with you. One loyal hunter is enough. I change this for the next version.

End of scenario: I am not a big fan of such surprises, they may easily lead to a dead leader (dead loyal marksman in my case but could have been the leader) or similar. I as a player feel then entitled to allow myself a save/load. If the campaign is generally built on tomato surprises like Grnk the Mighty is in a fun way it is ok, but in a campaign like yours it is a spoiler. At least for me.

Do you think it's enough to give a hint when a unit comes near the cage? Is the cage not suspicious enough?
Or is the "furball" simply too much and should be replaced by a weaker unit, a Troll or such.
In scenario 6 is the same surprise, but without a hint. What about that?

Scenario 6: Leaders with drain should be more active when but defence units stand near by.

I will check that.
You don't have to kill the bats, you can also win the scenario by reaching the signpost.
Was it your wish to kill the bats, or are the objectives unclear?

Scenario 7: Wonderful scenario. Not that you have much choice what to do, but very nicely done.

Thank you.

Spoiler:

Did you have problems to keep your units away from the fire? Own casualties by fire?

What do you think about the Trolls at the end, they appear unexpected, and they fight unusual?

[taptap]

Gelphrad:
Ok, I start to understand. Ruffian -> initiate is a kind of level up already, so the XP aren't really lost but you gave some freely at start of scenario 3.

Elvish Hunter:
I love to use them when available but there is always the tendency to use them too much as the combination of fighter melee and ranged slow is very powerful. It is so much more risk to slow with shamans.

Scenario 5:
Didn't recognize a furball. I don't see any cage. If there were one it would have been obvious enough. As you play with elves - many of them L2 at that point you have ample slow abilities (druid, sorceress, 2 trappers). Opening dialog is slightly too long here for my taste.

Scenario 6:
Well, not so unexpected here. However - having to pin this guy down with a unit that isn't going to die in one turn and preparing finishing assault with bad movement and not with elvish powers is not easy. Knights, dwarves to pin and a lot of ranged attack later did the job however.

I wanted to kill the annoying bats, I was already paid for it after all. I was a testing it a little. But it does so much damage that it will last longer if it counterattacks at least within the cave.

Scenario 7:
I didn't yet finish it, I rushed too much and lost due to stupid but half-forced leader exposure + a little bad luck as the wose clogged the ford. But AI leader was talking about reinforcements anyway so they are in no way unexpected. Another great thing about your campaign is that the AI recruits goblins and L1 units in general.

Orcs:
You are probably German referring to Orcs (as is common in English) as Orks.

[Adamant14]

Gelphrad:
Ok, I start to understand. Ruffian -> initiate is a kind of level up already, so the XP aren't really lost but you gave some freely at start of scenario 3.

I think about a bonus for Gelphrad when the player manages it to level him to Initiate in scenario 02.
But at the moment, I have no idea what kind of bonus this could be.
Maybe extra HP or some kind of abilities.

Scenario 5:
Didn't recognize a furball. I don't see any cage. If there were one it would have been obvious enough.

This is bad, no cage, not even a image_not_found?

Scenario 5:
Opening dialog is slightly too long here for my taste.

I think about it. Maybe I can shorten it a bit.

Scenario 6:
Well, not so unexpected here. However - having to pin this guy down with a unit that isn't going to die in one turn and preparing finishing assault with bad movement and not with elvish powers is not easy. Knights, dwarves to pin and a lot of ranged attack later did the job however.

I modified this one, so he is weaker in this scenario. To avoid too heavy causalities. And avoid Antar lose all his man here.

I wanted to kill the annoying bats, I was already paid for it after all.

Does this mean the objectives are unclear here?
You can take the money and go away, its unethical, but you can do it and win anyway.

Maybe I better insert a option where you can choose to accept the gold, or to refuse it.

Scenario 7:
Another great thing about your campaign is that the AI recruits goblins and L1 units in general.

Yes, this is important for me.

Orcs:
You are probably German referring to Orcs (as is common in English) as Orks.

Yes I'm German. Don't you like 'Orks'?

By the way, today I played scenario 04 (Through_The_Goblin_Hills) one more time.
But with modified code.
With 26 units at the start, and finished it with 24.
And this with only one healer.
I think I should insert more hints like:
"Stay away form the hills!" And: "Keep together!"

[taptap]

Scenario 5: Just a hills, cave, impassable hex.

Scenario 6: In fact I lost no one, but in any case if he really wipes out your party you can still restart the scenario.

Scenario 7: The dialog being on the other side of the river just triggers when you have no unit left on the island in the south. As they are in safety already there I would change that. The dialog at the end of the scenario was a little disturbing. So my dear elves just killed all orcs, tortured the leader and he happily talked and then he was killed as well. (Elves are so nasty.) The combination of black-white morality with the good guys doing all the same and worse than the bad guys but are entitled to do so because they are good doesn't please me.

Orc/ork:
I thought orc is just the correct english spelling, however, Tolkien himself thought about changing the spelling to ork later in his life according to Wikipedia. So you can probably leave it as is.

[Adamant14]

Scenario 5: Just a hills, cave, impassable hex.

Really sad. Everybody who has played this scenario, then probably has not seen a cage.
This annoys me.
Will be fixed in the next version.
I'm sorry for that error.
Thanks for letting me know.

Scenario 7: The dialog being on the other side of the river just triggers when you have no unit left on the island in the south. As they are in safety already there I would change that.

OK, I'll fix that.

Scenario 7: The dialog at the end of the scenario was a little disturbing. So my dear elves just killed all orcs, tortured the leader and he happily talked and then he was killed as well. (Elves are so nasty.) The combination of black-white morality with the good guys doing all the same and worse than the bad guys but are entitled to do so because they are good doesn't please me.

I agree. The Elves shouldn't be so nasty.
They can't let him go, but arrest.
In the next version he will survive, the Elves will only capture and imprison the Ork-leader.
Thanks for this piece of advice.


Have fun with the ,for the time, last playable scenario 08 The_Dwarves.


Scenario 10 and 11 are playable and almost done,
but I have really trouble with 09.
I finished it 4 times, in different versions, with different maps, and different settings.
The problem is I don't like non of them.
To big, to slow and time-consuming, and above all - boring.

The scenario-plot is:
Humans, Elves and Dwarves attack together Mal Kazurs Stronghold.
No big thing,
but for story-reason they should not be able to win this attack.
Mal Kazur have to be too strong to beat, but not strong enough to kill all our heroes.
Its terrible to balance that.
And really boring to play a game 'you can not win',
and in which you have heavy losses.
This is a scenario only for story-reason, and I don't like it. (I hate it)

I thought about to change this in a only-dialouge-scenario.
But how to handle the heavy causalities such an attack would cause.
After such a 'only-dialouge'-fake-attack, Antar and his allies must have losses.
And I don't want to do them with random.

This means it takes a while before I upload the next scenarios.
I will upload version 0.0.6 with only some bug-fixes, mostly recommended by your posts.

Thanks one more time

[taptap]

Scenario

I start a scenario against undead with 3 bowmen, 1 cav, 1 stalwart, 2 spearmen, 1 javelineer and some useful units because you decided my recalls for me.

The scenario itself is fine, most of the gold is used up by the upkeep until I manage to kill the first AI leader when I finally can recall some more useful troops, another dwarf, HI types. The northern gatekeeper sits at his entrance while his fellows get slaughtered and does nothing - only after you reach the king he dispatches his troops to fight inside. Your caves have surprisingly much roads so it is easy for skeletons and even cavalry types to move in there, while the AI dwarves have a tough time ending up on 30% territory more often than not. (The gate keeper AI died and the second AI inside was close to death when I reached it. And the undead managed to liberate their other leader, thank god the nightgaunts didn't manage to do much harm.)

General)

Give the player more control, it isn't funny to fight skeletons with bowmen or to make running scenarios with HI. At least announce in some way that the units at the end of scenario x will be used in scenario x+2 without or with strictly limited recruiting options. Say, you can play scenario 6 without dwarves at all, then scenario 8 can be incredibly hard. Be careful with tomato surprises, at least add forshadowing for them, in scenario 2 it easily breaks the player (I was about to attack the leader when they arrived and offered two L2 for sacrifice to gain time to finish the job, but you can retreat with your slower units against deathblades anyway.) The snowy between scenario picture looks strange as if you randomly moved parts of the picture? (And better don't add a scenario where you randomly kill half the recall list of the player - you can add a battle that you can't win but nobody loves tomatoes.) The story with the book isn't totally convincing as far as I have played, but in general the campaign looks very promising. It will need more balancing later, many scenarios are likely too easy on hard.