Does the AI cheat?

[Kestenvarn]

I still totally prefer the old tutorial. The new one (as if it can still be called new anymore) is much less intuitive.

Grab a copy of Wesnoth 0.7.7 (or a newer version, I forget when it was switched) and try it out!

Eh? There was a better one, once upon a time?

I couldn't stand the tutorial, myself. Booted up a campaign on normal, read through the entire help file, and save-loaded through most of it so I could check out the story.

[turin]

Dacyn made the tutorial, and, well... I don't think he's the best person to write a tutorial. Basically, his got in because it actually explained the concepts the tutorial needed to explain, instead of just putting you in the middle of a scenario with next to no explanation of what to do.

With the old tutorial, I spent a good 5 minutes trying to figure out how to attack, until I realized you had to move next to the enemy, then attack. Figuring out how to use ranged attacks took longer, since I wasn't figuring out how to do something, but rather that the "feature" I was looking for didn't exist.

I don't think either of the 2 tutorials written are adequate; a new one is in order.

[shevegen]

Hmm about the AI.

I dont know for sure but shroud of war (ehm... fog of war... you know what i mean)
should hinder the AI as well.

I believe if no easy fix is available, a temporary fix would be to reduce the max sight of AI units by -1. But then again I have so many ideas that about 50% of them do suck, not sure if that one would do too

[irrevenant]

I believe if no easy fix is available, a temporary fix would be to reduce the max sight of AI units by -1. But then again I have so many ideas that about 50% of them do suck, not sure if that one would do too

As I understand it, AI sight is not currently associated with units at all - it can just see everything, all the time. It's not really possible to reduce omniscience by -1...

[DavidByron]

The campaign, "An Orcish Incursion" is quite like an advanced tutorial as each scenario is designed to show off a specific advanced tactic -- which you are told to use at the beginning of the scenario.

[Chris Byler]

In general, I find it really hard to build up many strong units on Easy - just not enough enemies for my strategy (which is still oriented to winning with minimal losses rather than leveling-up units).

As long as your units don't cost 20 gold or more each, it is entirely to your advantage to throw away some inexperienced units in order to help get others more experience. There is no reason to keep them, no advantage to having them on your recall list.

Yeah, I think this is the biggest problem I have with Wesnoth (both as something that keeps me from advancing further in the game, and as something I perceive negatively about the game). I recognize that your statement is true, but I still try to keep my units alive and not use tactics that deliberately kill my own units (especially when I'm so badly outnumbered/outgunned already, which is essentially all the time).

Partly this is habit from other games that appear similar (I'm not sure that there are any other games that actually *are* similar to Wesnoth, but there are many that *appear* similar), partly just because it seems wasteful to kill your own units, and partly the roleplaying aspect.

It *seems* wasteful to kill your own units - but oddly enough, it isn't! (Or at least no more wasteful than throwing away 20% of your gold, which the game will force you to do after every scenario anyway.) It's cheaper to recruit a brand new unit than to recall that unit of the same type that was with you 5 minutes ago at the end of the previous scenario! Is this a deliberate decision, and if so, why? Why doesn't recall cost 5, 10, 20, 30 gold for level 0, 1, 2, 3 units or something like that? Or min(20, unitcost)?

Cheaper recall of level 1 units would provide an incentive to keep partially experienced level 1s alive (balanced against the usefulness of decoys against the AI - sacrificing units to keep it busy would be a bit more of a real sacrifice). So would some kind of credit for survivors at the end of a scenario. Either would require some campaign tweaking, but the campaigns need nearly constant tweaking anyway.

Incidentally, with the current system where you pay extra gold to get returning units (for most level 1s), what would you experienced players say is an appropriate exchange rate between gold and exp? Would you recall a 1 exp Elvish Fighter? 5 exp? 10 exp? 20 exp?

[Yogibear]

I wouldn't myself regard as a experienced player but i would say, that in the first case depends on the average exp that a unit gains per turn compared to its upkeeping.

Lets say an elvish fighter attacks another level 1 unit and gets attacked back. That would be 2 exp per turn. If it gets attacked back by two units that makes one more exp (if it gets attacked by four units it is probably dead ). So being on the front a fighter normally gains 1 to 5 exp per turn without dying, the average being somewhere between 2 and 3.
Then you have to take into account that the unit has to move to the enemy, might have the ability to kill him (gaining 8+ exp) and also needs some rest/healing after a while. Well, i didn't count that out but lets assume he gets an average of 3 exp per turn. It also depends on the map, number of enemy units etc.

So 3 exp cost you 1 gold upkeep. The difference between recalling and recruiting for an elvish fighter is 6 (if i remember that right without looking into the unit table) so that makes a break even of 18 exp. If you have a fighter with 18+ exp, thats a good deal to recall. Of course if gained exp per turn is lower, lets say 2, than recalling a fighter with 12+ exp is already worthwhile.

Don't forget though, that tactical decisions might suggest something different. It might be a huge difference to have a unit level up two turns earlier, which would make you recall an elvish fighter with say only 8 exp. And as i said before, conditions of a special scenario might change that critical "gained exp/turn" value quite a lot.

Thats just my personal view until now, further experience might prove me to be wrong on this, but to me it sounds logical.

[torangan]

I'd say the decision on wheter to recall a level 1 unit depends strongly on the campaign. In some cases every bit of experience gained is usefull and sometimes I recall units because they've got exactly the trait combination I need.

To the other side-topic of this thread (it was AI cheating once upon a time...) - there's also Two Brothers as an introductionary campaign.

[Artis]

The campaign, "An Orcish Incursion" is quite like an advanced tutorial as each scenario is designed to show off a specific advanced tactic -- which you are told to use at the beginning of the scenario.

There should be some kind of 'new to Wesnoth' campaign included with the game: long enough to see why you should level up units, but short enough so that you don't mind restarting it because of the mistakes you made in early scenarios or because you decided that you choose the wrong difficulty. HTTT is simply too long for the first play, even if you have played other strategy games.

[Temuchin Khan]

The campaign, "An Orcish Incursion" is quite like an advanced tutorial as each scenario is designed to show off a specific advanced tactic -- which you are told to use at the beginning of the scenario.

There should be some kind of 'new to Wesnoth' campaign included with the game: long enough to see why you should level up units, but short enough so that you don't mind restarting it because of the mistakes you made in early scenarios or because you decided that you choose the wrong difficulty. HTTT is simply too long for the first play, even if you have played other strategy games.

I brought this up months ago, and suggested that Tale of Two Brothers or South Guard be packaged with the game.

South Guard seems to be unfinished, but why couldn't Tale of Two Brothers and some other completed short campaigns (like Orcish Incursion?) be packaged with 1.0?

And I don't think it is sufficient for short, beginner-friendly campaigns to be available on the campaign server. Most beginners will start with the campaigns in front of them, not with those on the server. A campaign suitable for beginners has to packaged with the game, or beginners will never know about it.

Basically, an introductory campaign that is only on the campaign server and is not packaged with the game is a wasted effort.

[Jastiv]

nd I don't think it is sufficient for short, beginner-friendly campaigns to be available on the campaign server. Most beginners will start with the campaigns in front of them, not with those on the server. A campaign suitable for beginners has to packaged with the game, or beginners will never know about it.

Basically, an introductory campaign that is only on the campaign server and is not packaged with the game is a wasted effort.

I totaly agree with you. I started with Heir to the Throne and really wish I hadn't. All I had done prior to that was the tutoriall. I didn't even understand the advantages of moving my leader off the keep yet. I also hired way to much stuff becauses I didn't understand about conserving gold or leveling up untils. I ended up getting flustrated with it and giving up on campaigns for a while. At the time there wern't really many on the server.

Later I decided to play the dark horders, I managed to complete it on easy and normal, but the fact it was never finished and now is not even incuded with the game saddens me.

I did play two brothers. I think it is a good starting campaign.

[Elvish_Pillager]

I still totally prefer the old tutorial. The new one (as if it can still be called new anymore) is much less intuitive.

Grab a copy of Wesnoth 0.7.7 (or a newer version, I forget when it was switched) and try it out!

Eh? There was a better one, once upon a time?

Yes. The new one explains all the concepts, but it does it in such a way that it's worse than reading a manual. The older one wasn't as explanatory, but was more hands-on, which is the whole point of a tutorial.

[Notelrac]

now lets count the advantages you, as a player, have over the AI.

5. You can move a leader, have it give its leader bonus to an attacking unit, move the leader again, have it give the bonus to another unit, etc. And then have the leader make its own attack.

[Elvish_Pillager]

now lets count the advantages you, as a player, have over the AI.

5. You can move a leader, have it give its leader bonus to an attacking unit, move the leader again, have it give the bonus to another unit, etc. And then have the leader make its own attack.

Or, more accurately and comprehensively:

You can, practically, use and counter aura effects and invisibility.

[Darth Fool]

now lets count the advantages you, as a player, have over the AI.

5. You can move a leader, have it give its leader bonus to an attacking unit, move the leader again, have it give the bonus to another unit, etc. And then have the leader make its own attack.

I hope to be getting rid of this advantage in my new AI ... at least at a primitive level. A human might still better optimize the movement of leaders and other attack_buffers, but the new AI will at least use it:)