Antar, Son of Rheor [Development Thread]

[dimosok1]

The upgrade for Antar's saber damage is not working.

[Adamant14]

I spelled the attack saber, and the advancement sabre
Easy fix, but I am currently unable to update the campaign, the server kicks me every time I try to.

Again thank you for the report Dimosok1, I hope you have enjoy the campaign so far.


EDIT:
After removing my campaign from the addon-server, I was able to upload the newest version. Sadly that has set the download counter back to zero.
But now the latest version is available now.

[sergey]

Hi, Adamant14.

In the scenario "Through The Goblin Hills" I didn't like that all units from the previous scenario are with me, I recruited/recalled them not for this scenario. I have an idea for this scenario. Auto-recall only dwarves and main characters. Create a big enough encampment with 10 hexes or something like that. But allow recruiting/recalling only during the first turn. Perhaps the easiest way to do that is replace encampment terrain with dirt/trash. E.g. say "we must hurry, recruitment is available only during the first turn". Delay the goblin's events for one turn because of that. What do you think about that?

[Adamant14]

Hi Sergey,
first I want to thank you for your feedback and for your suggestion. This one is mentioned and suggested several times before, and sadly I must say, that I still like this scenario as it is. The reason why I like it as it is, is that the player has some units at the start, that he never would have recalled by hisself. And to have these "unwanted" units with you, that "ball and chained guys", only that makes this scenario really interesting,and really challenging. That is why I decided, back then when I created this scenario, not to give the player a starting keep. If I allow the player to recall/recruit, then he is able to recruit just some cheap and disposable units, units that don't matter when they die. But I want it so that the player must care about a lot of hard levelled and dear units, units that he want to keep alive. I hope you can now understand my intention.

But there is another scenario in my campaign, another scenario where the player has no starting keep, and has only auto recalled units (like in this scenario), and I really think about to change this other scenario (I wont tell you the name of the scenario here, because I don't want to affect you further play-through). I think about to change this other scenario, because it is much more important to have the right kind of troops there. So please tell me what you think about that other scenario when you have played through it. And of course any other feedback is still welcome.

[sergey]

The other scenario is "Dwarven Pass" I suppose. I finished it pretty smoothly, I was lucky to have suitable units with me. If you think about creating an encampment to recruit / recall, I believe that is ok.

I found a minor bug in "The Elvish Outpost". In the starting scene when orcs and elves are fighting, text with damage is shown above the attacker. It must be shown above the defender. To fix that you should update fake_attack.cfg file and move

Code: Select all

text={DAMAGE}
red,blue,green=255,0,0 

under the [animate] tag. Currently it is placed under the higher level [animate_unit], so it applies to the attacker. I updated my local file and verified that fix works.

[Adamant14]

Thank you Sergey for your opinion about Dwarven Pass, and thank you for noticing that little bug in Elvish Outpost (and a solution how to fix it included) too.

[sergey]

You are welcome. In case you didn't notice I left some comments and replays in the feedback thread. I am enjoying your campaign a lot!

[sergey]

And one more minor bug in the "Flight Tunnel" scenario.

Spoiler:

09_Flight_Tunnel.cfg file, line 249. I believe the sword's name should be related to poison, not fire.

[sergey]

Bug in the "The Volcano Mointain":

Spoiler:

You set enemy gold based on the players gold. That's a cool idea by the way. In 12_The_Volcano_Mountain.cfg file line 849 you stored gold of side 3 to variable gold2. If gold2 variable will be replaced with gold3 at line 849 enemy will get about 50% more gold. That is a huge difference. Perhaps you already balanced that scenario with that bug. Or you intended to give much more gold to the enemies?

I will place some calculations here. There are 3 allied sides and 5 foes.

I am goind to compare total enemy gold with total friendly gold. With that bug it is not possible to compare precisely, since one of the friendly sides is ignored in the calculations of the enemy gold. For simplicity I will consider that all allies have the same amount of gold (which is pretty accurate in my case). Multipliers (1.2 on easy, 1.3 on normal, 1.4 on hard) are also taken into account. Formula to calculate gold for each enemy - sum all friendly gold, divide it by 3 (number of friendly sides) and apply multiplier.

Assuming total friendly gold is X
With the current bug:
- on easy total enemy gold is 1.33 * X
- on normal total enemy gold is 1.44 * X
- on hard total enemy gold is 1.55 * X

If line 849 will be changed to variable gold3:
- on easy total enemy gold will be 2 * X
- on normal total enemy gold will be 2.16* X
- on hard total enemy gold will be 2.33 * X

What is also important here - only 3 of the foes are active at the beginning. It is easier than fighting with 5 enemies from the beginning. I will add some additional calulations - compare gold of 3 enemy sides with 3 allied sides.
With the current bug:
- on easy gold of 3 enemies will be 0.8 * X
- on normal gold of 3 enemies will be 0.86 * X
- on hard gold of 3 enemies will be 0.93 * X

If line 849 will be changed to variable gold3:
- on easy gold of 3 enemies will be 1.2 * X
- on normal gold of 3 enemies will be 1.3 * X
- on hard gold of 3 enemies will be 1.4 * X

[Adamant14]

You are welcome. In case you didn't notice I left some comments and replays in the feedback thread. I am enjoying your campaign a lot!

Indeed I didn't noticed the posts there. I got no notification, and I didn't see a entry under Active Topics. That is kind of strange.

And one more minor bug in the "Flight Tunnel" scenario.

Spoiler:

09_Flight_Tunnel.cfg file, line 249. I believe the sword's name should be related to poison, not fire.

Oh, thanks for noticing that.

Spoiler:

I renamed the sword -> Sword of Creeping Death

Hope that sounds good.

Bug in the "The Volcano Mointain":

Spoiler:

You set enemy gold based on the players gold. That's a cool idea by the way. In 12_The_Volcano_Mountain.cfg file line 849 you stored gold of side 3 to variable side2. If side2 variable will be replaced with side3 at line 849 enemy will get about 50% more gold. That is a huge difference. Perhaps you already balanced that scenario with that bug. Or you intended to give much more gold to the enemies?

I will place some calculations here. There are 3 allied sides and 5 foes.

I am goind to compare total enemy gold with total friendly gold. With that bug it is not possible to compare precisely, since one of the friendly sides is ignored in the calculations of the enemy gold. For simplicity I will consider that all allies have the same amount of gold (which is pretty accurate in my case). Multipliers (1.2 on easy, 1.3 on normal, 1.4 on hard) are also taken into account. Formula to calculate gold for each enemy - sum all friendly gold, divide it by 3 (number of friendly sides) and apply multiplier.

Assuming total friendly gold is X
With the current bug:
- on easy total enemy gold is 1.33 * X
- on normal total enemy gold is 1.44 * X
- on hard total enemy gold is 1.55 * X

If line 849 will be changed to variable side3:
- on easy total enemy gold will be 2 * X
- on normal total enemy gold will be 2.16* X
- on hard total enemy gold will be 2.33 * X

What is also important here - only 3 of the foes are active at the beginning. It is easier than fighting with 5 enemies from the beginning. I will add some additional calulations - compare gold of 3 enemy sides with 3 allied sides.
With the current bug:
- on easy gold of 3 enemies will be 0.8 * X
- on normal gold of 3 enemies will be 0.86 * X
- on hard gold of 3 enemies will be 0.93 * X

If line 849 will be changed to variable side3:
- on easy gold of 3 enemies will be 1.2 * X
- on normal gold of 3 enemies will be 1.3 * X
- on hard gold of 3 enemies will be 1.4 * X

Wow, how did you find out that deep hidden bug?
Anyway, thank you for noticing that.

With that bug it is not possible to compare precisely, since one of the friendly sides is ignored in the calculations of the enemy gold.

That is not completely true:

With bug:
x= side1_gold + side2_gold + side2_gold
Without bug:
x= side1_gold + side2_gold + side3_gold

That means, if side 2 and side 3 both have a similar amount of gold, then it will not matter that much.
(I guess that is the reason why I never noticed that bug while play-testing. And I still wonder how you found out that thing.)
But if one of the two sides has much more gold than the other, then it will matter, and break the balance!


Thanks a lot for your feedback, and for finding (and reporting) all those bugs.

[sergey]

Indeed I didn't noticed the posts there. I got no notification, and I didn't see a entry under Active Topics. That is kind of strange.

There is an "Add-on Feedback" subforum, perhaps because of that.

Hope that sounds good.

It sounds cool. But I am not sure since I am not a native speaker.

Wow, how did you find out that deep hidden bug?

At some point in a mid-campaign I had a lot of gold and decided to increase difficulty to make it more fun. I played several scenarios on hard, than again on medium once I had small amount of gold. I will descibe which scenario on which difficulty I played in the feedback thread. Once I reached "The Volcano Mointain" I decided to look at the scenario settings and decide what difficulty to take. And there was that interesting approach regarding the gold amount

That means, if side 2 and side 3 both have a similar amount of gold, then it will not matter that much.

I will check that again in the game, but it looks like that actually matter a lot:
- variable gold1 is initialized correctly with side 1 gold
- variable gold2 is initialized with side 2 gold
- then variable gold2 is overwritten with side 3 gold
- variable gold3 is uninitialized, which is 0 as I understand
Thus, x= side1_gold + side3_gold + 0

[Adamant14]

I will check that again in the game, but it looks like that actually matter a lot:
- variable side1 is initialized correctly with side 1 gold
- variable side2 is initialized with side 2 gold
- then variable side2 is overwritten with side 3 gold
- variable side3 is uninitialized, which is 0 as I understand
Thus, x= side1_gold + side3_gold + 0

Yes, you are completely right. My fault.
Sorry, and thank you for the clarification.

[sergey]

That nasty bug was eventually caught I will try to beat that scenario on hard with the bug fixed. I think it is doable. As I calculated before, in total enemy will have 2.33 times more gold than Antar and friends. But only 1.4 times more gold at the beginning. And it is ok to sacrifice some veterans, since the end is near.

[sergey]

And one more bug in the 12_Volcano_Mountain.cgf. I noticed a dwarf fighting on the orcs side. That's because of line 620 - they are unstored to recall list of side 5, which is incorrect.

[Adamant14]

Once again, I have to thank you. Just a copy & paste error, but hard to spot (I never noticed such a AI behaviour).
And many thanks for the replays. It took some time to watch them, but I am always curious how others handle the scenarios. And I hope to get some more feedback, and replays too.