Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
-
DeathDealer
- Posts: 14
- Joined: October 20th, 2008, 6:35 pm
- Location: North Carlina, USA
Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
I already posted most of this in the discussion on rebalancing the carryover system but I thought I might as well throw it out here as well.
Firstly, the Unit Tax/Tithe suggestion. All numbers used are examples only, not properly evaluated and balanced amounts.
Wait... even more firstly: I know the game works fine on its own. Without my help. So just give a little thought and critique instead of criticism please.
UNIT TAX/TITHE SUGGESTION:
Basic Idea:
Suppose that carryover % was set to 80% as it has been, but you subtracted 2% times the number of levels beyond the 1st your recall-able units had?
[80% - 4%x(# of level 3 units) - 2%x(# of level 2 units) = % gold carried over]
Example:
So with 3 level 3 units, 4 level 2 units, and a number of level 1 units you'd go from maximum of 80% to an actual total of 60%.
[80% - 4%x(3 level 3 units) - 2%x(4 level 2 units) = 80% - 12% - 8% = 60% gold carried over]
You could lower the base carryover % from 80% to 60% or so and add scenario starting gold amounts to the carryover equation (the amount you get no matter how little you ended the last scenario with). This system is much nicer (IMO) because it values the scenario balance over simple campaign economics and gold accumulation.
[(60% - 4%x(# of level 3 units) - 2%x(# of level 2 units) = % gold carried over) + minimum starting gold = Starting Gold]
Note: Loyal units shouldn't incur such costs and level 3+ units should probably be considered simply level 3 due to their already high cost to field, preserve, and create.
Also Note: Varying the initial amount of carryover would be an easy way of adjusting for difficulty levels, i.e. 80% easy, 70% medium, 60% hard...
Pro's and Con's (IMO):
+A balancing system between xp and gold acquisition.
This is the true value of this carryover system. If you don't consider this as a balance between the two main resources of the game then the whole idea is just a new way to devalue player achievements (the worst possible effect of a game mechanic). So before replying please consider this carefully.
+More player control and interaction than a flat figure.
Strategy gamers love an opportunity to get a little extra with some forethought.
+Encourages unit turnover and replacement.
Continually upgrading new units would save money vs. continually using the same experienced ones. To maximize your gain in this system it would be beneficial to let high level units die and be replaced by units close to leveling up at the end of each scenario. Thus letting experienced units die and replacing them with new units would be much more beneficial. This would hopefully encourage players to reload less often and to grieve a little less.
=This system would value "Loyal" traited units even more highly than they currently are.
Loyal units would be the defining factor in how much more powerful an army became over the course of a campaign, while still maintaining a balance between carryover and unit levels. Losing a loyal unit would then become that much more painful.
-Without attention to your recall list you could end up with unused units draining your gold for no benefit.
You'd have to pay attention to the units you keep around and constantly prune the list for idle leveled units. Players might also feel penalized for not using a high level unit when they could have but felt it was the wrong unit for the job. The unit cost them money for no gain in that scenario (devaluing their leveling of that unit). Also if you happen to have a lot of units level in a scenario it could cause serious frustration.
-May discourage experimentation/replacement of high level units.
Players may wonder: Why would I try and level that poacher when I can't tell if it's worth it. Should I have gone with the Huntsman instead of the Ranger? I might as well level another Elven Archer instead. Or they might wonder: Why would I risk these high level units when they cost me so much to keep around? I can't lose them with that much investment I'll have to play the perfect game (obviously not the intention of the designers if you consider the random number generator). This could be player preference, but could also stunt new players development/enjoyment within the game.
Selective Recall:
A possible addition that might potentially take a lot of frustration out of this system would be the ability to remove units from the recall list at the end of a scenario, before carryover. Perhaps even a small monetary gain per removed unit would make the process rewarding instead of boring.
If you made it this far thanks for your patience and I hope you found the ideas diverting if nothing else.
DeathDealer
Firstly, the Unit Tax/Tithe suggestion. All numbers used are examples only, not properly evaluated and balanced amounts.
Wait... even more firstly: I know the game works fine on its own. Without my help. So just give a little thought and critique instead of criticism please.
UNIT TAX/TITHE SUGGESTION:
Basic Idea:
Suppose that carryover % was set to 80% as it has been, but you subtracted 2% times the number of levels beyond the 1st your recall-able units had?
[80% - 4%x(# of level 3 units) - 2%x(# of level 2 units) = % gold carried over]
Example:
So with 3 level 3 units, 4 level 2 units, and a number of level 1 units you'd go from maximum of 80% to an actual total of 60%.
[80% - 4%x(3 level 3 units) - 2%x(4 level 2 units) = 80% - 12% - 8% = 60% gold carried over]
You could lower the base carryover % from 80% to 60% or so and add scenario starting gold amounts to the carryover equation (the amount you get no matter how little you ended the last scenario with). This system is much nicer (IMO) because it values the scenario balance over simple campaign economics and gold accumulation.
[(60% - 4%x(# of level 3 units) - 2%x(# of level 2 units) = % gold carried over) + minimum starting gold = Starting Gold]
Note: Loyal units shouldn't incur such costs and level 3+ units should probably be considered simply level 3 due to their already high cost to field, preserve, and create.
Also Note: Varying the initial amount of carryover would be an easy way of adjusting for difficulty levels, i.e. 80% easy, 70% medium, 60% hard...
Pro's and Con's (IMO):
+A balancing system between xp and gold acquisition.
This is the true value of this carryover system. If you don't consider this as a balance between the two main resources of the game then the whole idea is just a new way to devalue player achievements (the worst possible effect of a game mechanic). So before replying please consider this carefully.
+More player control and interaction than a flat figure.
Strategy gamers love an opportunity to get a little extra with some forethought.
+Encourages unit turnover and replacement.
Continually upgrading new units would save money vs. continually using the same experienced ones. To maximize your gain in this system it would be beneficial to let high level units die and be replaced by units close to leveling up at the end of each scenario. Thus letting experienced units die and replacing them with new units would be much more beneficial. This would hopefully encourage players to reload less often and to grieve a little less.
=This system would value "Loyal" traited units even more highly than they currently are.
Loyal units would be the defining factor in how much more powerful an army became over the course of a campaign, while still maintaining a balance between carryover and unit levels. Losing a loyal unit would then become that much more painful.
-Without attention to your recall list you could end up with unused units draining your gold for no benefit.
You'd have to pay attention to the units you keep around and constantly prune the list for idle leveled units. Players might also feel penalized for not using a high level unit when they could have but felt it was the wrong unit for the job. The unit cost them money for no gain in that scenario (devaluing their leveling of that unit). Also if you happen to have a lot of units level in a scenario it could cause serious frustration.
-May discourage experimentation/replacement of high level units.
Players may wonder: Why would I try and level that poacher when I can't tell if it's worth it. Should I have gone with the Huntsman instead of the Ranger? I might as well level another Elven Archer instead. Or they might wonder: Why would I risk these high level units when they cost me so much to keep around? I can't lose them with that much investment I'll have to play the perfect game (obviously not the intention of the designers if you consider the random number generator). This could be player preference, but could also stunt new players development/enjoyment within the game.
Selective Recall:
A possible addition that might potentially take a lot of frustration out of this system would be the ability to remove units from the recall list at the end of a scenario, before carryover. Perhaps even a small monetary gain per removed unit would make the process rewarding instead of boring.
If you made it this far thanks for your patience and I hope you found the ideas diverting if nothing else.
DeathDealer
Last edited by DeathDealer on October 26th, 2008, 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Lord_Aether
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
You could just tax the units actually recalled for a scenario, instead.DeathDealer wrote: -Without attention to your recall list you could end up with unused units draining your gold for no benefit.
You'd have to pay attention to the units you keep around and constantly prune the list for idle leveled units. Players might also feel penalized for not using a high level unit when they could have but felt it was the wrong unit for the job. The unit cost them money for no gain in that scenario (devaluing their leveling of that unit). Also if you happen to have a lot of units level in a scenario it could cause serious frustration.
Overall, I think this just penalizes the player for preserving units and levelling them, though
I LIKE having units that I care about.
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
Not to mention that in any campaign over a certain length, said player would be up $h17 Creek without a paddle if they kept just their elites much less a decent supply of lvl 2's which is a MUST if you wish to take the later scenarios in these campaigns. I just would hack every .cfg file to remove this monstrosity from any campaign I was playing in.
Project Battlescar: An rpg engine of my own design.
http://battlescar.wikispaces.com/
http://battlescar.wikispaces.com/
-
DeathDealer
- Posts: 14
- Joined: October 20th, 2008, 6:35 pm
- Location: North Carlina, USA
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
If they are already considering knocking gold carryover down to 40% or even less what exactly are you losing? Besides the numbers themselves could be easily adjusted. I understand that nobody likes taxes where there were none before, but while the developers are considering alternatives they should look at a system that ties xp/levels and gold amount together.
With a system that takes your resources into account you, as a player, will make out better than a system that doesn't.
Let me reiterate that the math is just to give a clear example. The numbers could be anything that makes the system balance out.
Also the new 40% system is completely optional so give more thought to a constructive critique as opposed to an immediate reaction. Nobodies going to force an untested new "monstrosity" onto this game, whose designers already have such high standards of testing and balance.
Maybe I was a little to into the math when I wrote the original topic post.
I apologize. I'm sorry about that but what I really think is important is this question:
Should xp/levels and gold be tied together in the campaign?
-Would you trade one for the other?
-Would you always be in favor of one over the other?
-How much gold would you pay for 1 xp? Or the other way around?
Currently I've read (and experienced for myself) that the lower gold carryover means that players try and milk as much xp as possible out of a scenario and pass up on the opportunity to stockpile gold because it's value is now too low. Previously you could rely on massive gold booms to coast through campaigns in many cases and certain levels were created specifically to drain such reserves.
Now players starting gold lies within a much more predictable range making scenario balance much easier and much more likely to actually be balanced. Suddenly the less regulated economy is xp farming and the balance of power switches from amassing gold to amassing leveled units. That's fine, I like powerful units as much as anyone else. However scenario balancing problems just become how much xp could the player really have accumulated by this point? Since gold is basically limited to certain amounts where does the player capitalize to achieve the greatest advantage?
But what if the two primary resources, gold and xp, were linked together. Then the player's capabilities would be easier to predict overall since the one unregulated resource would be loyal units whose appearance is already programmed into the equation. But players would have to decide for themselves if they would favor gold over xp or seek some sort of middle ground. Such a system would accomplish some of the current design goals involved in remaking the carryover system, make scenario balancing easier, and hopefully replace a little tactical thinking with a little strategic thinking.
DeathDealer
With a system that takes your resources into account you, as a player, will make out better than a system that doesn't.
Let me reiterate that the math is just to give a clear example. The numbers could be anything that makes the system balance out.
Also the new 40% system is completely optional so give more thought to a constructive critique as opposed to an immediate reaction. Nobodies going to force an untested new "monstrosity" onto this game, whose designers already have such high standards of testing and balance.
Maybe I was a little to into the math when I wrote the original topic post.
I apologize. I'm sorry about that but what I really think is important is this question:
Should xp/levels and gold be tied together in the campaign?
-Would you trade one for the other?
-Would you always be in favor of one over the other?
-How much gold would you pay for 1 xp? Or the other way around?
Currently I've read (and experienced for myself) that the lower gold carryover means that players try and milk as much xp as possible out of a scenario and pass up on the opportunity to stockpile gold because it's value is now too low. Previously you could rely on massive gold booms to coast through campaigns in many cases and certain levels were created specifically to drain such reserves.
Now players starting gold lies within a much more predictable range making scenario balance much easier and much more likely to actually be balanced. Suddenly the less regulated economy is xp farming and the balance of power switches from amassing gold to amassing leveled units. That's fine, I like powerful units as much as anyone else. However scenario balancing problems just become how much xp could the player really have accumulated by this point? Since gold is basically limited to certain amounts where does the player capitalize to achieve the greatest advantage?
But what if the two primary resources, gold and xp, were linked together. Then the player's capabilities would be easier to predict overall since the one unregulated resource would be loyal units whose appearance is already programmed into the equation. But players would have to decide for themselves if they would favor gold over xp or seek some sort of middle ground. Such a system would accomplish some of the current design goals involved in remaking the carryover system, make scenario balancing easier, and hopefully replace a little tactical thinking with a little strategic thinking.
DeathDealer
Last edited by DeathDealer on October 26th, 2008, 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
I don't think that replacing tactical thinking with strategic thinking or vice versa is an objective of the developers. As it is, they are tied together, upper lvl units require more upkeep. You need to choose how many higher lvl units to use in a senario, that will affect the amount of gold you use, but accumulating upper lvl units should not cost you inheritly.
What we have now works fine, and I realy don't think that your way would be better.
What we have now works fine, and I realy don't think that your way would be better.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
i see your point, but i'm not really sure if the focus on maximizing gold will change that much. 100 gold more or less at the beginning of a scenario can make a huge difference. and your approach would make it harder to estimate with what amount of gold you start the next scenario (but so does the new carryover system). i guess this could be fixed by displaying this value somewhere...
Last edited by Max on October 26th, 2008, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
I would do away with the colored text to illustrate your points, using bullets works just fine, and often times the colors are hard to read.
I understand that your system would affect the amount of gold in such a manner that the player will end up with the same amount of gold similar to the new 40% that can be implemented.
My question is how do you think this will affect balancing a campaign, as many times the designers take into account the fact that a player will have a certain amount of gold or leveled units in which to successfully complete the scenario. But by imposing your system, the longer the campaign, would it not require a huge amount of fine tuning to account for the fact that the player would have large numbers of leveled units which would drain their funds, or the player would try to limit the number of leveled units in his/her recall list in an effort to manage their money, but then be stuck recruiting a large number of lvl 1s each scenario?
I understand that your system would affect the amount of gold in such a manner that the player will end up with the same amount of gold similar to the new 40% that can be implemented.
My question is how do you think this will affect balancing a campaign, as many times the designers take into account the fact that a player will have a certain amount of gold or leveled units in which to successfully complete the scenario. But by imposing your system, the longer the campaign, would it not require a huge amount of fine tuning to account for the fact that the player would have large numbers of leveled units which would drain their funds, or the player would try to limit the number of leveled units in his/her recall list in an effort to manage their money, but then be stuck recruiting a large number of lvl 1s each scenario?
Mainline Maintainer: AOI, DM, NR, TB and THoT.
UMC Maintainer: Forward They Cried, A Few Logs, A Few More Logs, Start of the War, and Battle Against Time
UMC Maintainer: Forward They Cried, A Few Logs, A Few More Logs, Start of the War, and Battle Against Time
-
DeathDealer
- Posts: 14
- Joined: October 20th, 2008, 6:35 pm
- Location: North Carlina, USA
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
I believe that the fine tuning wouldn't be the main difficulty. The real problem as has been pointed out by Max2008 and Valensk is the growth of your army would be restricted by your desire to carryover gold. This is also what would allow a simpler projection of how powerful a players army could actually be along the course of a campaign.
Basically a player would hit a limit of carryover amount they were willing to live with. What would make prediction simple is if the system truly were balanced properly that limit, whether shifted towards gold, levels, or middle ground, would be easily determined. The calibrating of the mathematics would take some serious effort so it's not like it'd be magic or anything, but if there were a formula that tied levels to the carryover system (which in effect values your unspent gold over time) you wouldn't have to calculate a players power twice. Once for possible gold accumulated and once for possible xp, if they got a lot of xp they'd have less gold and vice versa.
So the growth of your army would in essence be controlled by what kind of windfalls were designed into the campaign because you couldn't limitlessly acquire gold or xp. (Technically with my example I suppose you could acquire a lot of gold but that's what critiquing is all about right?). When the only efficient way to grow over the course of a campaign is to gain access to loyal units and have the developer tweak the carryover system so that you could afford more units (by higher starting gold amounts or lowering taxation) they'd have a really idea of how powerful you could possibly be.
Maybe not so pretty to be limited in such a way, but then again why try and change the current system at all?
I really appreciate the comments guys.
Basically a player would hit a limit of carryover amount they were willing to live with. What would make prediction simple is if the system truly were balanced properly that limit, whether shifted towards gold, levels, or middle ground, would be easily determined. The calibrating of the mathematics would take some serious effort so it's not like it'd be magic or anything, but if there were a formula that tied levels to the carryover system (which in effect values your unspent gold over time) you wouldn't have to calculate a players power twice. Once for possible gold accumulated and once for possible xp, if they got a lot of xp they'd have less gold and vice versa.
So the growth of your army would in essence be controlled by what kind of windfalls were designed into the campaign because you couldn't limitlessly acquire gold or xp. (Technically with my example I suppose you could acquire a lot of gold but that's what critiquing is all about right?). When the only efficient way to grow over the course of a campaign is to gain access to loyal units and have the developer tweak the carryover system so that you could afford more units (by higher starting gold amounts or lowering taxation) they'd have a really idea of how powerful you could possibly be.
Maybe not so pretty to be limited in such a way, but then again why try and change the current system at all?
I really appreciate the comments guys.
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
Hmm, interesting, but then do you think that will make a player place too much emphasis on protecting and leveling only loyal units, just to avoid the cost?
A good way to try and get this implemented, or at least even considered, would be to apply it to a campaign, maybe one of the shorter ones, and see how it plays out.
A good way to try and get this implemented, or at least even considered, would be to apply it to a campaign, maybe one of the shorter ones, and see how it plays out.
Mainline Maintainer: AOI, DM, NR, TB and THoT.
UMC Maintainer: Forward They Cried, A Few Logs, A Few More Logs, Start of the War, and Battle Against Time
UMC Maintainer: Forward They Cried, A Few Logs, A Few More Logs, Start of the War, and Battle Against Time
-
DeathDealer
- Posts: 14
- Joined: October 20th, 2008, 6:35 pm
- Location: North Carlina, USA
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
True. I'll see if i can manage it.
The thing I don't like is if you cap the players power at some point, even if they can favor one type of power over another, there doesn't seem to be enough ways to un-cap it. Loyal units and changing the math around mid-campaign (or having it shift slowly over the course of a campaign!).
Hmmm...that's a good idea. If the gold tax slowly decreased after each successive scenario then over a long campaign it would be cheaper to field large armies while a shorter one wouldn't be able to get too far out of hand.
Quick question: After a certain amount how much gold is simply going to be wasted in a scenario? I would usually just spend a lot of gold at the beginning to field an army powerful enough to win really quickly. Are there other basic approaches to campaign financing? Is saving gold but taking longer a viable option?
The thing I don't like is if you cap the players power at some point, even if they can favor one type of power over another, there doesn't seem to be enough ways to un-cap it. Loyal units and changing the math around mid-campaign (or having it shift slowly over the course of a campaign!).
Hmmm...that's a good idea. If the gold tax slowly decreased after each successive scenario then over a long campaign it would be cheaper to field large armies while a shorter one wouldn't be able to get too far out of hand.
Quick question: After a certain amount how much gold is simply going to be wasted in a scenario? I would usually just spend a lot of gold at the beginning to field an army powerful enough to win really quickly. Are there other basic approaches to campaign financing? Is saving gold but taking longer a viable option?
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
Hmm, well it depends on the scenario. For some, you're of course going to recruit what higher levels you have because in most campaigns, each scenario is a bit harder and you'll need them (or the fact that they make winning faster/easier). However, a player would not always go through all their gold fielding a large army because if they do not know what faction they are facing and they have enough variety in recruits, they will wait to see what to recruit.DeathDealer wrote:Quick question: After a certain amount how much gold is simply going to be wasted in a scenario? I would usually just spend a lot of gold at the beginning to field an army powerful enough to win really quickly. Are there other basic approaches to campaign financing? Is saving gold but taking longer a viable option?
Not to mention, often times scenarios are set up so a player will try to recruit just the right amount of units, enough to win but without blowing through the gold. This is often the case in scenarios involving get Char from Point A to Point B without dying.
Mainline Maintainer: AOI, DM, NR, TB and THoT.
UMC Maintainer: Forward They Cried, A Few Logs, A Few More Logs, Start of the War, and Battle Against Time
UMC Maintainer: Forward They Cried, A Few Logs, A Few More Logs, Start of the War, and Battle Against Time
-
DeathDealer
- Posts: 14
- Joined: October 20th, 2008, 6:35 pm
- Location: North Carlina, USA
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
Some scenarios are also balanced towards flexing a particular section of your recruit list *cough*mermen*un-cough*. It would be pretty frustrating to carry a lvl 3 merpriest around for the last 10 scenarios of the Heir campaign...
GENIUS! You could have a number of units that were "exempt" from the tax system. This number could increase over the course of a campaign based on chosen difficulty and/or length. These units would simply be a number of your highest leveled units or a certain number of units of each level! Something like: Well between scenario 7 and 8 the player's got 3 exempt lvl 3's, 5 exempt lvl 2's, and 10 exempt lvl 1's.
. . .what was I saying before. . .oh. Well I can't think about that first part anymore. The second problem would be that you'd have to increase the % cost per unit to a pretty significant amount because a player would only be taxed on what he used and not many scenario's really require a lot of units. Scenarios that did would then either cost you a lot or have to be exceptions to the rules which would cause more work rather than less. . . but I think the exemption option could be of significant benefit!
DeathDealer
This is definitely a nice option that would make the system easier on the player. There are two problems that spring quickly to mind. First the system is no longer as encompassing as it probably should be to maintain balance. You can stock up xp while saving gold and then simply crush one mission at the expense of your carryover for that mission only. The US tax system definitely involves. . .Lord_Aether wrote:DeathDealer wrote: You could just tax the units actually recalled for a scenario, instead.
GENIUS! You could have a number of units that were "exempt" from the tax system. This number could increase over the course of a campaign based on chosen difficulty and/or length. These units would simply be a number of your highest leveled units or a certain number of units of each level! Something like: Well between scenario 7 and 8 the player's got 3 exempt lvl 3's, 5 exempt lvl 2's, and 10 exempt lvl 1's.
. . .what was I saying before. . .oh. Well I can't think about that first part anymore. The second problem would be that you'd have to increase the % cost per unit to a pretty significant amount because a player would only be taxed on what he used and not many scenario's really require a lot of units. Scenarios that did would then either cost you a lot or have to be exceptions to the rules which would cause more work rather than less. . . but I think the exemption option could be of significant benefit!
DeathDealer
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
"Stocking up on XP" to "save gold" is one of the basic economic tenets of managing an army through a campaign. Besides, I usually save Loyal Mermen casters beyond the water levels. A healer is a healer.
Project Battlescar: An rpg engine of my own design.
http://battlescar.wikispaces.com/
http://battlescar.wikispaces.com/
-
Simons Mith
- Posts: 821
- Joined: January 27th, 2005, 10:46 pm
- Location: Twickenham
- Contact:
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
Question: When you're playing a new campaign for the first time, how are you supposed to know what units you need to keep to win future scenarios when you haven't played those scenarios yet?
I don't mind having a system that encourages players to optimise their recall lists, any more than I mind them optimising any other game feature under their control. But I don't think players should be forced to use prior knowledge of what's coming in order to balance their forces correctly for future parts of the campaign.
If you know what's coming ahead of time and balance your forces in anticipation, it stands to reason that you'll do better than if you just keep a well-balanced generic force. But personally I'd prefer to win with what I've got, rather than 'just happening' to have recruited the right forces because I'd played the campaign before. In the light of this example, the important point is more one of 'not dismissing the wrong unit' rather than 'retaining the right units' but the overall result is much the same. I'd rather have the fun of a varied recall list where I can try different approaches rather than a pared-down list that only gives me a single option.
I don't mind having a system that encourages players to optimise their recall lists, any more than I mind them optimising any other game feature under their control. But I don't think players should be forced to use prior knowledge of what's coming in order to balance their forces correctly for future parts of the campaign.
If you know what's coming ahead of time and balance your forces in anticipation, it stands to reason that you'll do better than if you just keep a well-balanced generic force. But personally I'd prefer to win with what I've got, rather than 'just happening' to have recruited the right forces because I'd played the campaign before. In the light of this example, the important point is more one of 'not dismissing the wrong unit' rather than 'retaining the right units' but the overall result is much the same. I'd rather have the fun of a varied recall list where I can try different approaches rather than a pared-down list that only gives me a single option.
Re: Campaign Gold Carryover: Unit Taxes and Selling
This is definitely going to rehash old debates about how to deal with carrying over campaign gold and how to balance with recall. I apologize in advance -- I just can't help myself. I know it would require a lot of changes in the campaigns but these systems keep getting more and more arcane to try and balance this factor at Wesnoth. I think there should be a system that is transparent and doesn't overwhelm people with complexity, and doesn't force campaign / scenario designers with multiple layers of balancing.Simons Mith wrote:Question: When you're playing a new campaign for the first time, how are you supposed to know what units you need to keep to win future scenarios when you haven't played those scenarios yet?
Maybe have each scenario only allow you recall X number (that X is set by the scenario designer and set on a per map basis) of troops from your roster. And the rest of your units that map have to be recruited. Starting gold is also set by the campaign/scenario designer on every map.
This way:
* You get to keep your entire backup roster
* You don't have to worry about gold management for overload/ underload for the next map.
* You can play as hard as you can to win
* The scenario designer doesn't have to guess how many troops / gold you'll have
* Leftover gold can be turned into a scoring system (I won with 200 gold over), and can be carried through (I finished the httt campaign with 3000 excess gold).
This is the same system as many (commercial) strategy games.
* warcraft 3, etc.
It's interesting to see the games where they allowed this type of carryover:
* homeworld -- I loved homeworld, but the scenarios did become unbalanced towards the end, and the game was too easy if you played the early levels well.
I'm really really really sorry to bring this up. I just had to spew.