Problems with Gold and the Leveling System in BfW?

[Noy]

I wouldn’t want to see changes instituted that markedly change the game. I do agree that a significant amount of enjoyment comes from leveling up units and seeing your army develop over time. I think this is an integral aspect of the game and to remove it would be to, in some sense, destroy the uniqueness of the Wesnoth experience. But I still believe the game would benefit if there were some way to protect against players hitting that dreaded wall. And, yes, I realize that for some replaying scenarios over and over again is very enjoyable. However, for others, who have limited free time and only turn to BfW as a diversion, the thought of having to mine earlier scenarios for gold and levels for their units just to complete later scenarios is a real turn-off.

So it seems to me we need a solution that accommodates players of both tastes. So what is this solution? Let me try to explain one via illustration. Let’s say we have two players. Player A reaches scenario 5 with two level 3 dwarvish lords and a level 2 white mage. Player B reaches the same scenario with just his main character alive (everyone else was wiped out the last scenario). Now, let’s just say that scenario 5 pretty much requires a couple of powerful units and a white mage. While player A can complete the scenario, player B is screwed. My solution would be to simply make two level 3 dwarvish lords and a level 2 white mage available to be recruited AND to make sure that the player also has enough gold to afford them. This would prevent player B from having to return to repeat earlier scenarios.

OK, I hear a couple of criticisms already:

Criticism 1

But now player A has an unfair advantage: he or she can simply recruit the extra units and therefore may have too powerful of an army.

Response

Ideally, players only would be able to recruit the units IF they did not have them. As I am not familiar with the coding end of things, though, I do not know how difficult this would be to implement. Of course if it’s too difficult, then I guess the whole idea is a nonstarter.

Criticism 2

But you are fundamentally changing the Wesnoth experience; part of the enjoyment comes from building up your own army and carrying it through from one scenario to the next.

Response

I totally agree with you that this is part of the fun, and ideally this is how it should be played. But I would point out that my proposed solution does not change this. Rather, it simply gives the player options. The player can still choose to play through with only the army he or she built up, in effect refusing to recruit these higher level units. But with my proposed solution, if the player does not want to redo earlier scenarios, he or she can choose to take the new veteran units that are being offered and continue onwards. I mean, players already have options: they can play it on different levels of difficulty (easy, medium and hard), they can use the save-load method to make sure valuable units don’t die, and they can redo scenarios so as to make sure they finish each scenario with as powerful an army as possible (thus making each successive scenario easier). So just think of this as yet another option for players, one that makes the game more linear (as opposed to stop-go back to mine earlier scenarios for resources-restart-go forward-stop-go back to mine-etc).

Look, Gesalt I'm sorry to say we don't agree with your posts and now you're just sounding shrill. First, the game played on easy, basically gives you the option to do everything you are asking for except reanimating dead soldiers or buying new ones. This, as I've shown, is not required. As I've pointed out in my last post (which you ignored) having and losing leveled units are critical parts of strategy. Removing that just eliminates a core part of strategic thinking from the game.

Moreover just buying veteran soldiers mid campaign is not a viable option. Most lvl2s and 3s (as several people pointed out in this thread) are extremely expensive and often not worth the cost, compared to lvl1s. When people play the era of heroes in MP, (where could buy lvl2s) only the new inexperienced players went out and bought all lvl2s, because more experienced players bought a ton of lvl1s and swarmed their opponent to death. The same is true for campaigns where you need more lvls 1s than 2s and 3s to win. You'll see this forum littered with threads where people are complaining that they can't beat the game because they have a ton of lvl3s and get overwhelmed by the computer. You often need way more lvl1s to beat the game then you do lvl3s.

Your suggestion, rather than focusing on a narrow set of strategic of skills, just rewards bad decision-making and bad skills.

Finally, you just blatantly ignore the fact it would require a significant amount of reprograming and rebalancing of the scenarios, something that takes alot of time and effort, which nobody wants to do because they don't agree with the premise of your argument. The most we can suggest is maybe a system that shows how much gold you have and what you probably need for the next scenario. That should cover any issue you have raised here.

[Gestalt]

Look, Gesalt I'm sorry to say we don't agree with your posts and now you're just sounding shrill. First, the game played on easy, basically gives you the option to do everything you are asking for except reanimating dead soldiers or buying new ones. This, as I've shown, is not required. As I've pointed out in my last post (which you ignored) having and losing leveled units are critical parts of strategy. Removing that just eliminates a core part of strategic thinking from the game.

But many people who have posted in this thread do agree with me (it's the reason I've persisted), and many have offered potential solutions to the issue I’ve raised. So I don’t quite understand when you say, “I’m sorry to say WE don’t agree with your posts.” Maybe when you say WE you really mean I?

And I didn’t respond to your last post because you simply tried to show how gaining experience for your units is a part of strategy by quoting numerous historical instances where it played a role. This is tangential to my point, and a very dangerous road to go down. I mean, if you are going to argue that this or that should be in the game because it’s realistic or not, then the game needs a major overhaul. For example, in real life do I have to be 2 feet from my adversary before I can shoot him with by bow and arrow? I do in BfW. In real life if I’ve been hacked to near death am I going to be as effective when fully healthy? In BfW all of my men could be in the red and they can move just as far and do just as much damage as if they were full healthy. Presumably, however, these parameters are the way they are because they make for a more enjoyable, strategic game. And that’s the reason I’m suggesting the change(s) I am: because it will make for a more enjoyable, strategic game (at least for some).

Moreover just buying veteran soldiers mid campaign is not a viable option. Most lvl2s and 3s (as several people pointed out in this thread) are extremely expensive and often not worth the cost, compared to lvl1s. When people play the era of heroes in MP, (where could buy lvl2s) only the new inexperienced players went out and bought all lvl2s, because more experienced players bought a ton of lvl1s and swarmed their opponent to death. The same is true for campaigns where you need more lvls 1s than 2s and 3s to win. You'll see this forum littered with threads where people are complaining that they can't beat the game because they have a ton of lvl3s and get overwhelmed by the computer. You often need way more lvl1s to beat the game then you do lvl3s.

Your suggestion, rather than focusing on a narrow set of strategic of skills, just rewards bad decision-making and bad skills.

Fine, you don’t agree with my proposed change(s). That’s OK. As I carefully tried to explain in my last post, it won’t affect your personal game play at all. But it will give those players that have hit the wall the option to move on in a campaign if they so choose. Why must it be the way YOU want it to be? Why it is so wrong to want to accommodate the sensibilities of as many different types of players as possible. Wouldn’t this ultimately be good for BfW, expanding the player base?

And if you're hell-bent on ensuring that players aren't "focusing on a narrow set of strategic skills" to get through campaigns, then why not get rid of the save-load method? I mean, let’s be honest, there are huge number of players who use it so as to save their higher level units from dying anyways. Why not remove this save-load option and instead implement the one I've suggested: with the former, players build up God-like armies and literally maul their way through scenarios (where's the strategy in that?); with the latter, because they will be given a minimum of resources, you are at least forcing them try to implement some strategy during a scenario.

Finally, you just blatantly ignore the fact it would require a significant amount of reprograming and rebalancing of the scenarios, something that takes alot of time and effort, which nobody wants to do because they don't agree with the premise of your argument. The most we can suggest is maybe a system that shows how much gold you have and what you probably need for the next scenario. That should cover any issue you have raised here.

And I have not blatantly ignored this fact, but you’ve obviously blatantly ignored my last post where I said, and I quote, “As I am not familiar with the coding end of things, though, I do not know how difficult this would be to implement. Of course if it’s too difficult, then I guess the whole idea is a nonstarter.” So I am very sensitive to this issue and do realize that this could be a big reason why the change(s) I’m suggesting couldn’t be implemented. Having said that, and the reason why I’ve persisted, is because others who seem familiar with the coding end of things have suggested that some changes perhaps could be made that wouldn’t be that difficult to implement code-wise.

[jb]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that playing a campaign first on easy mode eliminates this "wall". Players with more skill can skip easy mode and start on normal. If you find yourself somewhere in the middle, then maybe your skills need some small improvement.

The hardest version of a campaign is generally designed for players who want more of a challenge. The harder it is, the more replay value it has on a 2nd play-through. Should difficulty be lowered for these veteran players to make it easier for the average player?

And for players who say "But I don't have time to play it twice!"...well, what about players who do have the time? Should these players have to compromise?


Wesnoth has already created a difficulty scale for campaigns to solve "problems" such as this one. Furthermore, the author/maintainer of any campaign can already implement any system they wish. Lobbying that specific person will garner more results. Make sure you list the specific campaign, the exact scenario, and the difficult situation. Balancing a campaign scenario by scenario for difficulty is an ongoing challenge. Instead of changing the entire campaign system, make sure it's not just one particularly tough knot.

[Noy]

But many people who have posted in this thread do agree with me (it's the reason I've persisted), and many have offered potential solutions to the issue I’ve raised. So I don’t quite understand when you say, “I’m sorry to say WE don’t agree with your posts.” Maybe when you say WE you really mean I?

Uh, no, I do mean we. I don't think there is any stomach for altering the game in the way you want. Where there is an issue is that people might feel screwed because they don't have enough gold to win the next level. Its an issue and I'll refer to that later.

And I didn’t respond to your last post because you simply tried to show how gaining experience for your units is a part of strategy by quoting numerous historical instances where it played a role. This is tangential to my point, and a very dangerous road to go down. I mean, if you are going to argue that this or that should be in the game because it’s realistic or not, then the game needs a major overhaul. For example, in real life do I have to be 2 feet from my adversary before I can shoot him with by bow and arrow? I do in BfW. In real life if I’ve been hacked to near death am I going to be as effective when fully healthy? In BfW all of my men could be in the red and they can move just as far and do just as much damage as if they were full healthy. Presumably, however, these parameters are the way they are because they make for a more enjoyable, strategic game. And that’s the reason I’m suggesting the change(s) I am: because it will make for a more enjoyable, strategic game (at least for some).

Well if you'd actually go look into game design philosophy you'd have realized that the central aspect of the game is to develop good strategic skills. We have abstractions, like size of units, damage, combat resolution and the like. Nevertheless the system as designed provides a gameboard for which you can apply those skills without having to go deeply into the minutia of military movements. Upgrading units, fighting a campaign are also important skills which are quite popular aspects to the game and are also useful useful strategic skills for commanders.

And if you're hell-bent on ensuring that players aren't "focusing on a narrow set of strategic skills" to get through campaigns, then why not get rid of the save-load method? I mean, let’s be honest, there are huge number of players who use it so as to save their higher level units from dying anyways. Why not remove this save-load option and instead implement the one I've suggested: with the former, players build up God-like armies and literally maul their way through scenarios (where's the strategy in that?); with the latter, because they will be given a minimum of resources, you are at least forcing them try to implement some strategy during a scenario.

Save Loading exists because quite a few people like it and we tend not to remove features that are already exist. Sometimes you get a really crappy set of hits and a save load can be useful. By the same token many people refuse to use it at all. Its an option that has existed since the start of the saving system and we won't remove it. In that case we leave it up to the responsibility of the individual player. By the same token its cumbersome to abuse anyway.

By comparison, very few people have ever complained of what your issue is and suggested we alter the whole system. When you say "Why it is so wrong to want to accommodate the sensibilities of as many different types of players as possible?" to me sounds like "let me win this map in the way I want to play it." If thats the case why even have difficulty levels? Why not just rename easy to expert so that everybody can win and feel good about it?

Its a ridiculous statement when you think about it, because the challenge is for people to win the game using the skills that are needed. Hundreds of thousands of people have beaten the game successfully by learning to do so the right way and had a sense of accomplishment doing so.

Now I can see how not having enough gold for the next map can be annoying; I've been there before and I can see its an issue. So having a dialogue at the end of the map saying how much gold you should need for the next map (and maybe even if you have the right units) would be helpful. This can be something we can use the stats archive to compute. Some people can beat it with less and thats fine too. But altering the game because you refuse to beat the game using the skills required is just ridiculous to me.

[Gestalt]

Uh, no, I do mean we. I don't think there is any stomach for altering the game in the way you want. Where there is an issue is that people might feel screwed because they don't have enough gold to win the next level. Its an issue and I'll refer to that later.

Irrespective of what most people actually think, your use of “we” was terribly presumptuous, especially within the context of this thread where many of the posters have been amenable to my ideas.

Well if you'd actually go look into game design philosophy you'd have realized that the central aspect of the game is to develop good strategic skills. We have abstractions, like size of units, damage, combat resolution and the like. Nevertheless the system as designed provides a gameboard for which you can apply those skills without having to go deeply into the minutia of military movements. Upgrading units, fighting a campaign are also important skills which are quite popular aspects to the game and are also useful useful strategic skills for commanders.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes strategy within the game of Wesnoth. I don’t necessarily feel the game as it is now forces me to use “good strategic skills.” On easy, especially, I’m able to complete scenarios in plenty of time and with plenty of leveled-up units, meaning that I can then dominate subsequent scenarios even without applying good strategy.

Save Loading exists because quite a few people like it and we tend not to remove features that are already exist. Sometimes you get a really crappy set of hits and a save load can be useful. By the same token many people refuse to use it at all. Its an option that has existed since the start of the saving system and we won't remove it. In that case we leave it up to the responsibility of the individual player. By the same token its cumbersome to abuse anyway.

So you’re appealing to the old, “that’s the way it has always been so that’s the way it will always be argument.” With that kind of thinking I can see that the future for BfW is very bright!

By comparison, very few people have ever complained of what your issue is and suggested we alter the whole system.

I haven't suggested we alter the whole system. Making a couple of higher level units available in the event that they're needed is not altering the whole system. And, as I've suggested, you aren't being required to recruit these units; they're offered when the only alternative is for you to go back and repeat earlier scenarios to get them. Either way, you'll eventually get them. I mean, I know I can beat the previous scenario, there's no doubt about that. So I was unlucky and lost my level 2 mage. You want to force me to go back and do the whole scenario again just so I can get my level 2 mage. Oh boy, that's some kind of fun!

And did you ever think that maybe very few people have ever complained about my issue because they use the save-load method to avoid it? And have you ever checked on forums regarding various scenarios? Have you seen some of the armies people claim to have? You can’t tell me these people accumulated that many level 2’s and 3’s by playing without save-loading (or at least redoing a scenario a half dozen times - again, for joy!). And the fact is that many people are very cool with this – they get off on building God-like armies over the course of campaign. So you’d rather err on the side of appeasing these individuals instead of those that care about matching wits with the AI strategically? If so, that’s fine.

When you say "Why it is so wrong to want to accommodate the sensibilities of as many different types of players as possible?" to me sounds like "let me win this map in the way I want to play it." If thats the case why even have difficulty levels? Why not just rename easy to expert so that everybody can win and feel good about it?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Its a ridiculous statement when you think about it, because the challenge is for people to win the game using the skills that are needed. Hundreds of thousands of people have beaten the game successfully by learning to do so the right way and had a sense of accomplishment doing so.

Again, I would challenge this assumption. I think a large proportion of those people use the save-load method to complete campaigns.

And, to reiterate for the last time, my issue has nothing to do with not being able to complete campaigns. It’s how I’m able to do so. I often get the feeling that the only reason I’m able to get by a scenario is because of the resources I’ve accumulated.

Now I can see how not having enough gold for the next map can be annoying; I've been there before and I can see its an issue. So having a dialogue at the end of the map saying how much gold you should need for the next map (and maybe even if you have the right units) would be helpful. This can be something we can use the stats archive to compute. Some people can beat it with less and thats fine too. But altering the game because you refuse to beat the game using the skills required is just ridiculous to me.

And speaking of ridiculous, if you get nothing out of anything I’ve said, please get this:

It’s ridiculous to think that I should encounter situations in BfW where I’ve been granted access to the next scenario even though I may not have sufficient gold or leveled-up units to complete it. This forces me to go back to the previous scenario (or even two or three scenarios) to redo it to make sure I have the proper resources. If you let me pass a scenario, then you’re telling me I have everything required to complete the next one. If I don’t, then please don’t let me pass! What does this have to do with freaking skills? My skill to be able to redo a scenario until I’m able to milk it for crazy amounts of gold and unit levels?

At any rate, I think we’ve reached an impasse. You’re now giving me the old, “that’s the way it is and that’s the way it will always be,” and “we already have hundreds of thousands of satisfied customers and therefore no changes are required” routine. What can I say to that? Is “to maintain the status quo” a Wesnoth principle? Fine, so be it.

But I think it’s clear that BfW could use some improvements. Just my own personal opinion, but if you could marry the mechanics of Reign of Swords (which, among other things: allows ranged units to strike from a distance, eliminates luck, has self-contained scenarios, and makes injured units strike with less damage) with the content of BfW, you’d have a real gem here. Of course, that might not be entirely possible given the KISS philosophy of BfW, but I’m sure some improvements could be implemented along these lines. And isn't this the point: to try to gradually improve the game over time?

Anyways, I think the way our debate is progressing (it’s becoming crass and trite), it’s going nowhere. I've said what I wanted to say and it's obviously fallen on deaf ears. But that's fine - at least I gave it a shot! And I'd like to emphasize that my arguments here should not be taken in any way, shape or form to mean I think the game is crap. On the contrary, there is much to recommend here. But there is just a little room for improvement, that's all!

[fozzy]

I'm all for the grading system. I don't know if it's the easiest to implement, but I think it would be the least intrusive on the existing player base -- play-balance would remain the same, but players could see the wall coming alot easier if they got really bad marks on a couple scenarios in a row.

Plus, grades would have a benefit outside of the scope of this problem. It would introduce more replay value. So you've beaten a campaign? Now try to get 'A's or stars or whatever on each map. These types of ranking systems are quite in vogue right now and it's no coincidence.

[Velensk]

rrespective of what most people actually think, your use of “we” was terribly presumptuous, especially within the context of this thread where many of the posters have been amenable to my ideas.

It's not terribly presumptuous if he knows he's right and in this case he almost certainly is. Many posters are amenable to your idea because you have a valid point and he has agreed that you have a valid point.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes strategy within the game of Wesnoth. I don’t necessarily feel the game as it is now forces me to use “good strategic skills.” On easy, especially, I’m able to complete scenarios in plenty of time and with plenty of leveled-up units, meaning that I can then dominate subsequent scenarios even without applying good strategy.

If that is the case then obviously the campaign is too easy for you on easy simple as that. If you can walk through everything without thinking then the task is too easy. If you are thinking and playing your best and you still run into a scenario that you do not have the resources to beat then you're trying something too hard for you. The process of building up resources involves quite a bit of stratagy and skill. On harder campaigns disreguarding stratagy and skill will kill off your resources that you've built up making it hard to continue.

So you’re appealing to the old, “that’s the way it has always been so that’s the way it will always be argument.” With that kind of thinking I can see that the future for BfW is very bright!

I see nothing wrong with saying, "this has worked and worked well" and we don't want to change it to something that will work a diffrent way.

I haven't suggested we alter the whole system.

No you've just suggested that we should offically impliment a way of getting around the system if it gets in the players way. The stated philosophy is that the players should learn how to get the system on their side.

Again, I would challenge this assumption. I think a large proportion of those people use the save-load method to complete campaigns.

Oh a large number almost certainly do. That isn't relevant to this. I also know that many people (myself included) refuse to use it and have still beaten expert campaigns on hard. That is satisfying. I don't especially care that others have beaten it with save-loading or that others have beaten it on easier difficulties, however I would be rather offended if the game through me lifelines whenever it thought I looked incapable of beating the next scenario. This being especially the case when some scenarios took me a few tries to beat I really don't want the scenario to say "oh well, you obviously arn't good enough to beat it, so here is some extra gold (at that point I had enough level 3s that more leveled units wouldn't help me at all).

Either way, you'll eventually get them. I mean, I know I can beat the previous scenario, there's no doubt about that. So I was unlucky and lost my level 2 mage. You want to force me to go back and do the whole scenario again just so I can get my level 2 mage. Oh boy, that's some kind of fun!

And did you ever think that maybe very few people have ever complained about my issue because they use the save-load method to avoid it? And have you ever checked on forums regarding various scenarios? Have you seen some of the armies people claim to have? You can’t tell me these people accumulated that many level 2’s and 3’s by playing without save-loading (or at least redoing a scenario a half dozen times - again, for joy!). And the fact is that many people are very cool with this – they get off on building God-like armies over the course of campaign. So you’d rather err on the side of appeasing these individuals instead of those that care about matching wits with the AI strategically? If so, that’s fine.

Comment 1: In all but the hardest of Wesnoth campaigns it is entirely possible to make it so that it is impossible for your level two mages to die unless your entire formation is broken. If your entire formation is broken you would want to restart anyway even if you win.

Comment 2: It is possible and more than possible to build up armies of the required power to win without save-loading. You say that they are insane but really what you are seeing is the result of good play. A skilled general can keep his leveled units from dieing except when nessisary or by misfortutune. In either case a skilled general can also level enough forces to replace them. You just keep bringing in new recruits as well and soon you'll find that if you play well you aquire leveled units much faster than you lose them. Is not the stratagy in focusing kills and keeping units alive not matching your wits against the AI?

It’s ridiculous to think that I should encounter situations in BfW where I’ve been granted access to the next scenario even though I may not have sufficient gold or leveled-up units to complete it. This forces me to go back to the previous scenario (or even two or three scenarios) to redo it to make sure I have the proper resources. If you let me pass a scenario, then you’re telling me I have everything required to complete the next one. If I don’t, then please don’t let me pass! What does this have to do with freaking skills? My skill to be able to redo a scenario until I’m able to milk it for crazy amounts of gold and unit levels?

I think you're thinking of the game in the wrong way. It's not like an arcade game 'you beat level 4 now procede to level 5'; it's a story. Just because you were able to get past one event dosn't mean that you are prepared for the next and if you havn't been playing skillfully enough enough till that point then the story will have a bad ending. Now because it isn't fun to start over from the very beginning every time this happens the save system lets you go back to whereever the character made his critical mistake (or failed to succeed thoroughly enough).

As for what skill: The skills to keep your untis with experiance alive, the skills needed to create situations where the only possible losses are non-critical, the skills required to finish the scenario quickly while keeping the above in mind, or maybe just the ability to overcome the urge to over-recruit high leveled units (this used to kill my gold reserves)

Anyways, I think the way our debate is progressing (it’s becoming crass and trite), it’s going nowhere. I've said what I wanted to say and it's obviously fallen on deaf ears. But that's fine - at least I gave it a shot! And I'd like to emphasize that my arguments here should not be taken in any way, shape or form to mean I think the game is crap. On the contrary, there is much to recommend here. But there is just a little room for improvement, that's all!

I have never assumed you had a low opinion of the game. I just don't think that what you are proposing would be good for it.

[Zachron]

...Anyways, I think the way our debate is progressing (it’s becoming crass and trite), it’s going nowhere. I've said what I wanted to say and it's obviously fallen on deaf ears. But that's fine - at least I gave it a shot! And I'd like to emphasize that my arguments here should not be taken in any way, shape or form to mean I think the game is crap. On the contrary, there is much to recommend here. But there is just a little room for improvement, that's all!

On the contrary, I would say that what you have said has not fallen on deaf ears, your points have been heard, understood, and even agreed with by numerous people, who have then proceeded to both conceed the merits of your points, then counter-argue them. The only thing that's been trite about this "debate" is your responses to their counter-arguments, which have been nothing other than thinly veiled "well you are wrong," or "this is what I really meant," statements, that is aside from your occasional rehashing of taking jabs at aspects of this game that has been core to it's mechanics since its beginning. No wonder it could be so easily misconstrued that you have been attacking the game itself. Whether you admit it or not, at some level you have. Your argument is analogous to saying "I really love the Beatles, but why couldn't they have sang Country Western instead of Pop," or "I really like Christianity as a religion, but what's up this Jesus fella..." All that being said why not take an inventory of what you have argued, what has been counter argued, what will not be achieved, and what might still be achieved.

*First off, WE will not change the game at its core to suit you.

*Second off, while preuptuous on my part, it is on no part presumptuous for Noy, or any of the other Devs and Mods, to use the term "we" and speak on behalf of the community at large. They represent the community, or at least any portion of it that has any say in the matter.

*Some of us, who are involved in creating these campaigns, are already continuously working on ideas to make resource management easier without detracting from the logistical challenge. (i.e. evaluating the minimum gold for a scenario to be winnable, resetting starting gold to meet that standard on lower difficulty levels... players at higher difficulty levels should know the score here.)

*It has been pointed out that appealing personally to a campaign's maintainer will consistently yield better results than imploring the development staff at large. (i.e. The game at large will change slowly and will not follow the whims of a single fan, but the developer and maintainer of a campaign will be more likely to look into your appeal because they quite often make little tweaks to the difficulty settings and the scenarios themselves, so as to make them more intuitive to new players, and more challenging to seasoned players.)

*All changes made to "Expert" level campaigns are likely to be done in the spirit of making them more intuitive if not more challenging, as these campaigns are not intended for new players to pick up an beat in one try.

*ON a side note, you would do well to explore the forums a bit more. 90% of your posts so far have been in this thread. Branch out a bit, and learn a bit of what we as a community are about. The "off topic" is a good place to look.

*One more thing. Don't bother to counter-argue any of my points. I've thrown in my 2-cents, and I shall not be returning to this thread to read what I'm sure would be well through out rebuttal. You remind me a lot of myself when I was just teenager, so my advice to you is lighten up about things and learn to let some of it go.

[Edit: No, I did not take an extensive inventory of the points argued. For the sake of brevity I stuck mostly to the points that pertained to what I was talking about.]

[chaoticwanderer]

I just want to agree with Velensk; I'm sure many people might save-scum/de-bug mode their way to victory in campaigns, but that's beside the point. The point is that campaigns CAN be beaten without aformentioned tactics(provided player skill is high enough for difficulty) and that it is one's own choice how they play; whether actually trying to play properly and use and develop their skills or take the unmannly save-scumming route.

And it's kind of hard to not allow for saving and loading. The devs originally didn't let you save in-game, but afterwards they changed that so that you didn't have to finish a scenario in one sitting, especially since some scenarios can take a very long amount of time. (Last scenario of HoT comes to mind). I personally would be okay with a Fire-Emblem-like saving system where progress was automatically saved as you play, so save-loading would be impossible, but once again, it's your choice.

And I disagree with the idea that Wesnoth should be more like some other commercial game, just because it has more 'realistic' mechanics. For example, Wesnoth may not let you attack from 'range' or account for a unit weakening as it gets damaged, but bear in mind that combat in Wesnoth is very abstract. You don't know how large hexes are, for example. Wesnoth is not a combat simulation game; it's more focused on strategy and the actual fighting is very generalized. Because combat is so abstract, one could justify that Wesnoth is 100% realistic. I could go on justifying ways in which wesnoth is not necessarily unrealistic, but I don't want go on a tangent.

To conclude, I just want to say that if Wesnoth were to become more like some other commercial game out there, just because some player wanted it to be, it would become some sloppy convoluted mess. Wesnoth is its own unique thing, and its base mechanics are not going to be changing.

[The Black Sword]

I just wanted to re-iterate Velensk's point. When I started playing wesnoth I played on the easier difficulty levels and there was a period when I succumbed to the save-load trick when I originally found it, but I'd estimate that at least 1/2 of the wesnoth campaigns I've played I have beaten on the 1st try on expert without save-loading, (a few rare times I've had to restart a scenario). Invariably I tend to buld up a sizeable list of levelled units, though I don't know how big the lists you've seen are.

I agree with the person earlier on who said that part of the strategy in wasnoth is being able to plan your way through the campaign, not just the individual scenarios. For this reason I estimate the amount of resources needed at the beginning of a scenario and usually recruit just above this to complete the scenario as fast as possible(and yes shroud is annoying ). By your logic, where each scenario is self-contained, I should just throw everything I have at the scenario in order to win. After all I know I'll have the resources required to win the next scenario anyway right?
Additionally I try to level up my units in order to get every possible unit available to me to make a balanced army, I don't know what's ahead so I try to be prepared for every eventuality. In general this isn't even too hard, the AI isn't very smart and its rare that I'd lose a unit I wanted to keep, except for certain really difficult scenarios where I know some losses are ineviteable(which again I see beforehand).

To be honest it seems to me you must have 1 of 2 problems;

1. You are ignoring the campaign planning aspect of wesnoth strategy. This is a fundamental part of the game and I think changing it would change the type of game wesnoth is rather than making it a better game of the same type.

2.You're playing on too high a difficulty. I'm tempted to try that challenge "beat every campaign on easy with no recalls/min gold" to see if its true or not. But in my opinion if you are constantly having to go back multiple scenarios to beat the current one then you're difficulty is too high. If its just one campaign then it could just be a problem in the campaigns design rather than in wesnoths.

[Dynamo-Nath]

As a relative newcomer to the game, courtesy of the iphone version and now the pc version, I have read this thread through with interest. I have encountered similar problems to the op in several campaigns to the extent that I have several half started ones on the go because I have hit the "wall", particularly in the Hammer of Thursagan where the drakes just splatter me silly. I only made it that far due to massive save/loading on the level or two before. I find myself torn between save/loading because I want to see how the units develop, i.e. what the next level up looks like/can do, and playing the game sensibly/correctly without resorting to aforementioned method; which results in a less than satisfactory level of achievement to me.
Whilst this post hasn't contributed in any useful way to the thread I just wanted to say hi and express an opinion. Unfortunately I can see no solution that will keep all players happy as both sides of the arguement have been well presented. On a positive note it's refreshing to see a well argued thread with politeness on both sides.

Keep up the good work developers! Great game!

[Jozrael]

You can type :debug in stable or :discover in dev to see all units before you encounter them ingame if that's your cup of tea (it is mine xD).

Also, play on a lower difficulty level your first playthrough so you are better able to deal with walls, and don't need to resort to save/loading. I find completing a campaign without it (but with lesser 'success') to be more enjoyable than otherwise, but that's just IMO.

[Dynamo-Nath]

Ah ok, thanks for the tip I shall try that later.

Slightly off topic perhaps but what does the difficulty level effect? Starting gold? There seem to be so many more campaigns available that are rated as expert that sound really good but the level has put me off trying any so far.

[ivanovic]

Ah ok, thanks for the tip I shall try that later.

Slightly off topic perhaps but what does the difficulty level effect? Starting gold? There seem to be so many more campaigns available that are rated as expert that sound really good but the level has put me off trying any so far.

The effects depend on the campaign. Common things are for higher levels compared to lower levels are:
* AI has more starting gold available
* AI has a higher base income
* AI is able to recruit stronger units
* AI is more agressive (seldom!)
* Player has less starting gold available
* Player has less time to finish the scenario (turn limit)
* Player has worse recruit list
* Terrain changes so that less villages are available (seldom!)
* Some additional events or missing events (sometimes additional help texts in the easy level, sometimes extra units or the likes in easier levels, ...; seldom!)

What exactly is used depends on the campaign creator. It can be a mixture of any of the points mentioned above. The most common change is the starting gold as well as the turn limit.

[Tonepoet]

The only thing I dislike about the current situation is that there's no official barometer or litmus test for determining how much reloading is acceptable, like a lives system, a Save Point, a set of continues or anything that most other video games would have. This more or less makes it so that from an official standpoint, that there's no difference between reloading a few scenarios back or manipulating the game turn by turn so that nothing bad happens. This lends itself to the whole reload the game to accept the scenario thing feeling like a bit of a cheap time travel tactic. Certainly no modern day general would be able to utilize that.

The whole crux of the situation though is that the whole recall mechanic is more or less the only gameplay mechanic that adds continuity to a campaign. It's more or less what keeps all of the scenarios tied together and keeps them unique in comparison to fighting the A.I. on a random map in Age of Heros era. To change this, would thusly change half the atmosphere of playing a campaign. I also do quite agree with Noy that the resource management issue is quite an important one, as the preservation of more important units is very much at the core of Wesnothian strategy. This is true even in single scenario maps as evidenced by the importance of leader preservation, kill ratio economics and yes, even exp. grooming to some extent. That much is good play, and good play should be rewarded, as well as bad play like losing those important units being punished. That's just one of the things that makes the difference between having skill with the game or being terrible at it. As much as I dislike the situation, I see very few ways of coming up with an elegant solution, in a manner that'd preserve these good aspects of the status quo while tossing out the bad ones.

At any rate, the suggestions already made by Ghestalt are possible via WML already if one wants. I've seen higher leveled units on recruit listings at the end of some scenarios and recalls edited/disabled a-la Isle of the Damned before. I'm not even sure if it'd really help though, since level 2 units are usually a bit uneconomical to just straight out recruit completely undiscounted, as has already been mentioned with things like the Age of Heros era.

Maybe one could make the recall cost customizable in WML, allowing the campaign's designer to set the cost based upon the recalled unit's level or how deep the specific scenario is in the campaign, allowing the budget to come closer to actual recruiting costs. This could bring the budget of recalling a little closer to the budget of recruiting to make things a bit easier if you don't have the resources, allow people who preserved their units to continue to have access to unique tools, and also has the added benefits of possibly making lower level recalls a bit more economically feasible while maintaining the current situation where necessary by keeping the default setting at 20. It'd make the game a bit more modular for content developers too. On the other hand, it would often downplay the usefulness of higher leveled recalls where used to increase costs and further complicate the weighing of usefulness for the mechanic to the end user, which may not actually be desirable effects perhaps? I also vaguely recall possibly reading something about the 20g cost being "hardwired" into the game somewhere before, so this may not even be realistically feasible either...