War of Chaos Era

[Madnessbane]

here's what I have done so far (excluding animations, rewriting code, and new projectiles)

[Devling_Overlord]

sorry to necro, but I havn't seen this era in the newest version of wesnoth. THIS MUST BE CORRECTED (please?) !!!

also, wth is up with this? there are so many,many eras already, but it's usually easy for me to find ones i'm interested in. not this, so it must not be there.

nice concept, and please, if needs updateing, then could be done soon?

Edit:

-'09-

2 years ago? wow. nercroing to the MAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!

[mnewton1]

There have been worse...

Anyway, I have been thinking about updating this for awhile so, because of your post, I finally got around to it.


War of Chaos Version 0.5.3 is now on the 1.8 and 1.9 add-on server
The only changes that were done were several bug fixes and reorganizing.


EDIT: And I just noticed Madnessbane's post saying he was redoing this in Lands of Corruption Oh well, if he ask me to remove it, I will

[Devling_Overlord]

well, I thank you greatly. gunna try chaos v.s. EoC something or other... if they're compatible?
I hope they are...
but I really don't care to much. just want to play what looks awesome.

...

they really are awesome.
I played as infected. here is what I noticed:

the main beggining army composition should be an illusionist, a gargoyle, 3 grim spawns, and a reborn mercenary(I forgot the name cuz it's not used so often for me)
after this, you can get away with just grim-goyle play. leveling grims is excessively easy, and after they get teleportation, a number of... interesting... strategies come into play. they are really cool.

everything else is really well done, well drawn, beatifully coded (not that I looked at the code but everything seemed to work pretty well.) and just generally awesome.
any campaigns planned? because an infected campaign would rock the socks of all involved.
if you need anymore help beta-testing - something that you suspect may be glitchy, new units you want tested - just ask.

...

damn...
there was something else I was going to say...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
OH YEAH!
the infected seem really overpowered in general.
sorry, afflicted.
but srsly, they are really OP.
I'm holding off a horde of cave dwellers on a large bridge with a few grims, a gargoyle, and my general, while simultaneously facerapeing a small group of dwarves. any good commander would never split his forces like this in any scenario, but the OP-ness of the afflicted makes it possible.

or mabye I'm just really good at playing afflicted. either way, good job.

[Tet]

Really nice work. Can you provide a link to the automated unittree? I want to have some overview. I have seen that computer generated for a lot of things, but can not find the right link.

http://units.wesnoth.org/

[Reepurr]

Really nice work. Can you provide a link to the automated unittree? I want to have some overview. I have seen that computer generated for a lot of things, but can not find the right link.

Madnessbane last logged on April 2010. I doubt it.

[Tet]

Well somebody put it on 1.9.
Maybe there is a maintainer?
The unit tree seems to be auto generated anyway. Maybe it is there and I just do not know the right abriviation for the era.

[SigurdFireDragon]

If anyone is maintaining this, the '-' in several of the [unit_type] id fields cause an invalid save whenever someone tries to load a save containing such a unit. (for WoC 0.5.3 on Wesnoth 1.9.6)

[mnewton1]

I guess I will fix that and upload it around... June 11 - 13

[mindrot]

<---- Madnessbane. New forum name.

Thank you very much to Mnewton.

It took me a while to get lands of corruption up, but Beta versions are being released on the stable branch (may add to dev branch after Beta).

This version is far more balanced than my earlier work, as for teams Afflicted are still there as the Nair, The divines are now the Salnorn, the mountainfolk are now the nord and the mountainfolk. The muspeltic are loosely similar to the leviathens, but not really based on them. Cavedwellers, Genetecists, and Naturals are no longer going to be there, and the elves are going to be completely different. I'm working on the nomads now and that should be out when the mainline is updated (I need to be able to add a status effects for some new debuff abilities).

There is a new patron system, essentially this means each general has makes a slight variation in unit abilities and has different recruit lists and leveling paths, as well as this each general, or patron, has a unique trait that each unit has a chance of getting.

Just a brief overview, if anyone has any suggests or encounters any problems feel free to message me on this account and I'll fix it.

[Superking]

Hi, just a suggestion: unit sprites with black outlines dont look as proffesional as the blended style seen in the default sprites. you might get good results blurring or lightening the borders for a more natural outline

[artisticdude]

Hi, just a suggestion: unit sprites with black outlines dont look as proffesional as the blended style seen in the default sprites. you might get good results blurring or lightening the borders for a more natural outline

Don't believe I've seen the sprites in question (I run the dev branch only 90% of the time) (nevermind, I see them up above), but -while pure black outlines aren't ideal- blurring or smudging sprites is a certain recipe for disaster. Generally speaking, outlining with one of the darker colors in the palette will fix the issue.

[iBaLkiD]

Wow. One of my all time fav add-ons. Its super great to see this back in development. I love the uber darkness/evil of some of the factions.

Im off to download this goodness!

[adr3n]

I hope this era is still active, its a fun era btw...

[CherryDelight]

For the current maintainer: a handful of typos in translatable strings which should be corrected, and some disambiguity suggestions.

in utils/abilities.cfg:

• Two instances of "tathening" should be "taking"
• Two instances of "accross" should be "across"
• Three instances of "disarmment" should be "disarmament" (this is also a misleading name for the ability, but that's another matter)

in utils/abilities-magical.cfg:

• Two instances of "illusionry" should be should be "illusionary"
• Instances of "divinity", "shamanism" and "elementalism" might, in context as weapon specials, be better as "divine", "shamanic" and "elemental"

in utils/traits.cfg:

• in {TRAIT_GENERAL} and {TRAIT_LEADER), the names "commander" and "lieutenant" might be preferable to avoid ambiguity (specifically, "is the character a military general, or is this a general/generic trait?")
• The name "chaining" isn't self-descriptive and could be improperly translated. If any of «fast, quick, agile, dextrous» aren't used, one of those might be preferable.

in utils/weapon_special.cfg:

• "Intimidate: When this attack is used in offense the unit takes nullifies enemy damage."
  Proposed: "Intimidate: this unit suffers no damage when attacking with this weapon."
  (coding note: this special might be cleaner as an [attacks] modification, IMO, but that's beside the point)
• "sniping: This attack always has a 80% chance to hit regardless of the defensive ability of the unit being attacked when used in offense."
  Proposed: "Sniping: this unit always has an 80% chance to hit when attacking with this weapon."
• "dizzying: This causes the opponents attack to have a 30% chance to hit (provided they do not already have an ability determining accuracy)."
  Proposed: "Dizzying: reduces an opponent's chance to hit."
• "retaliation: This attack always has a 60% chance to hit regardless of the defensive ability of the unit being attacked when used in defense."
  Proposed: "Retaliation: this unit always has a 60% chance to hit when defending with this weapon."
• "Combat Expertise: This unit always strikes first with this attack, even if they are defending."
  Proposed: "Lightweight" or "Long reach: this unit always strikes first when fighting with this weapon." ("Combat expertise" is an attribute of a person, not a weapon)
• "aggression: When this attack is used in offense the unit deals 10% more damage and takes 20% more damage."
  Proposed: "Overbalanced: this unit deals 10% more damage, but receives 20% more damage, when attacking with this weapon." ("Aggression," again, is an attribute of a person)
  (coding note: the [damage] tags in WEAPON_SPECIAL_OFFENSIVE_GAIN and WEAPON_SPECIAL_OFFENSIVE_GAIN2 can (and should?) be merged into the same macro)
• mutation:When a unit is killed by a mutation attack, that unit is replaced with a Mutation on the same side as the unit with the Mutation attack. This doesn't work on units in villages."
  Proposed: "Mutagenic: when an opponent is killed with this attack, it becomes a mutant and joins its killer's side; has no effect on units in villages."
  (coding note: id=mutation has type=mutation2, and id=mutation2 has type=mutation. Is this meant to be this way?)
• "Balancing: This attack always has a 50% chance to hit regardless of the defensive ability of the unit being attacked."
  Proposed: "Reliable: this weapon always has a 50% chance to hit." ("Balance" is not 50/50 in this context; a well-balanced weapon is easier to wield, and would grant 60% or 70% chance to hit (or an extra attack))
• "accuracy: This attack always has a 60% chance to hit in offense and 50% chance to hit in defense regardless of the defensive ability of the unit being attacked."
  Proposed: "Accurate: this unit has a 60% chance to hit when attacking and a 50% chance to hit when defending with this weapon." (personal opinion: that's not really very accurate...)
  (coding note: again, the macros ACCURACY and ACCURACY2 can be merged)
• "Difficult Magic: This attack always has a 20% chance to hit regardless of the defensive ability of the unit being attacked."
  Proposed: "Difficult: this spell only has a 20% chance of success." (or "this attack always has a 20% chance to hit", but since this is magic-specific, some flavour can't hurt)
• "Difficult Arts: This attack always has a 30% chance to hit regardless of the defensive ability of the unit being attacked."
  Proposed: "Difficult: this attack always has a 30% chance to hit." (note: I've only played a couple rounds with this era, so I'm unsure of what "Arts" refers to here, but I can't imagine it needs to be in the description explicitly)
• "Caution: When this attack is used in defense the unit takes 20% less damage and deals 10% less damage."
  Proposed: "Protective: this unit receives 20% less damage, but deals 10% less damage, when defending with this weapon."[/i]
• "Preparation: This unit receives 40% less damage from ranged attacks on defense."
  Proposed: Create a "preparation" ability, and add this weapon special silently (a weapon can't "prepare itself")
  (coding note: despite its description, this special actually reduces both units' damage)
• "Minor Brutality: This attack presses the engagement until one of the combatants is slain, or 3 rounds of attacks have occurred. Brutality only works in offense."
  Proposed: "Brutality: when this unit attacks, combat continues until one combatant is slain, or 3 rounds of attacks have passed." (personal opinion: it might look cleaner just to describe them all as simply "Brutality," and just change the number of rounds in the description (in which case, these could be reduced to a single macro which takes a ROUNDS argument))
• "Tactics: this attack deals 150% damage if there is an enemy of the target on the opposite side of the target, and that unit is not incapacitated."
  Proposed: (I'd really just like to see a new name here, in the vein of the others, since "Tactics" really isn't attributable to a weapon on its own ... but maybe I'm just neurotic)
• "Wounding: This attack wounds the target until it ends a turn. Wounding halves the damage caused by attacks and the movement cost for a wounded unit is doubled. A unit that is wounded will feature a snail icon in its sidebar information when it is selected."
  Proposed: "Wounding: this weapon seriously wounds its target, halving its damage and doubling its movement costs until the end of its next turn."
• "Infection" should be "Infectious."

Maybe I went a little overboard on the last file; I just thought a lot of the descriptions might be too convoluted to translate cleanly, and I hope my proposed edits help a little.