Scenario 1: Rooting out a Mage

[Konrad2]

(7) What, if any, are changes you would have made to the scenario to make it more fun?

- I'd go to add a line after attacking a ghoul: "So it is true, our weapons are not much of a use against these foul creatures. If only we had arcane weaponry provided by Baran!"

Ghouls have very human like resistances, e.g. they have 20% resistance vs arcane damage (just like humans). So that sentence wouldn't make any sense in that context.

[Tom_Of_Wesnoth]

(1) What difficulty levels and game versions have you played the scenario on?

1.14.7 on Knight/Challenging.

(2) How difficult did you find the scenario? (1-10)

4. I was never in danger of losing too many of my units, or of failing to win within the turn limit. The Necromancer can easily be taken out with a Horseman charge during the day, and Horsemen are fast enough to skirt around his army and pull that off. I tried to avoid abusing that though, and instead focused on building up some experience for my loyal units.

(3) How clear did you find the scenario objectives?

Very clear.

(4) How clear and interesting did you find the dialog and storyline of the scenario?

I did enjoy the dialogue and storyline here, with the dynamic being set up between the two brothers. Although the core storyline - undead attack - isn't particularly unique, the real focus here seems to be on Arvith and Baran's relationship, and the dialogue does well to set that up. It's all pretty well written, too.

(5) What were your major challenges in meeting the objectives of the scenario?

Without any access to arcane or fire damage, dealing with the ghosts was frustrating. Arvith's charge can kill them off during the day, but at night there isn't much you can do against them.

The positioning of the villages along the south bank of the river makes poison particularly potent, as it forces units to withdraw for multiple turns at a time.

(6) How fun do you think the scenario is? (1-10)

7. The map is well set up to give you different tactical options, with both sides of the river offering a viable path forwards. The mix of units is unique, with chaotic footpads adding a new dimension to an otherwise lawful army. The dialogue adds some flavour to the battle. However, fighting the ghosts - and to a lesser degree, the bats - was frustrating.

(7) What, if any, are changes you would have made to the scenario to make it more fun?

Nothing that I can think of.

[supperman]

(1) What difficulty levels and game versions have you played the scenario on?
Both 1.12.5 but I'll answer for challenging because I remember it better.

(2) How difficult did you find the scenario? (1-10)
This campaign has only four scenarios so I try to make the numbers reflect perceived difficulty in addition to relative to other scenarios.
8 - Definitely winnable but expect heavy losses, including loyal units (which are plenty).

(3) How clear did you find the scenario objectives?
Clear if you look at scenario objectives. The talk suggests that Baran would slay the mage but presumably it fails.

(4) How clear and interesting did you find the dialog and storyline of the scenario?
Of the two Arvith is the man of war, but he doesn't suggest that Baran should draw the undead away with the army while Arvith attacks the leader with horsemen. And Baran invited his brother just for a decoy. I understand why the brothers don't get along.

(5) What were your major challenges in meeting the objectives of the scenario?
Fighting undead with a pierce-oriented army. I lanced the sorcerer on turn 7 because my army was dying.

(6) How fun do you think the scenario is? (1-10)
4. Pierce vs undead just isn't very fun.

(7) What, if any, are changes you would have made to the scenario to make it more fun?
If leader assasination isn't intended, give the enemy higher income and compensate by reducing his starting gold.
I understand that Arvith comes with his loyal men, but I wish they had something other than pierce.
A loyal infantryman would be something you really want to keep alive.

[IceTyp]

(1) What difficulty levels and game versions have you played the scenario on?
Knight (Challenging), 1.15.5
(2) How difficult did you find the scenario? (1-10)
3, The scenario could be more difficult.
(3) How clear did you find the scenario objectives?
clear
(4) How clear and interesting did you find the dialog and storyline of the scenario?
clear
(5) What were your major challenges in meeting the objectives of the scenario?
One Ghost was pretty nasty. I tried to hit it with my leader, but this was not really a good idea...
(6) How fun do you think the scenario is? (1-10)
3
(7) What, if any, are changes you would have made to the scenario to make it more fun?
This scenario could have been a bit more difficult. My first contact with the undead was during the day. I would place more undead on the map to ensure, that the player has to fight them during the first night.

[Konrad2]

(1) What difficulty levels have you played the scenario on?

1.15.6, Knight (Challenging)

(2) How difficult did you find the scenario? (1-10)

4, the enemy is no threat.

(3) How clear did you find the scenario objectives?

Clear.

(4) How clear and interesting did you find the dialog and storyline of the scenario?

I like it.

(5) What were your major challenges in meeting the objectives of the scenario?

Not suiciding my units after getting them poisoned.

(6) How fun do you think the scenario is? (1-10)

6, because there is lots of dialog

(7) What, if any, are changes you would have made to the scenario to make it more fun?

-

Scenario stats:

Spoiler:

[Lord-Knightmare]

(1) What difficulty levels and game versions have you played the scenario on?
(2) How difficult did you find the scenario? (1-10)
(3) How clear did you find the scenario objectives?
(4) How clear and interesting did you find the dialog and storyline of the scenario?
(5) What were your major challenges in meeting the objectives of the scenario?
(6) How fun do you think the scenario is? (1-10)
(7) What, if any, are changes you would have made to the scenario to make it more fun?

1. Wesnoth 1.15.7 (Challenging)
2. 7
3. Crystal Clear
4. Cool cool cool cool cool no doubt no doubt
5. Trying to avoid getting exposed to those pesky ghouls and figuring out if the Skeletons would be too much of a hassle.
6. 8
7. It's good as it is.

AToTB-Rooting Out a Mage replay 20201126-164155.gz

(15.75 KiB) Downloaded 446 times

[Apparos_Vaklas]

(1) What difficulty levels and game versions have you played the scenario on?

Knight (Challenging), Version 1.14.16

(2) How difficult did you find the scenario? (1-10)

2

(3) How clear did you find the scenario objectives?

Pretty clear.

(4) How clear and interesting did you find the dialog and storyline of the scenario?

Pretty good. I like the dynamic between the brothers.

(5) What were your major challenges in meeting the objectives of the scenario?

No issues.

(6) How fun do you think the scenario is? (1-10)

6
It's a good starting scenario appropriate for the level of the campaign.

(7) What, if any, are changes you would have made to the scenario to make it more fun?

I can't think of anything.

[Atreides]

(1) What difficulty levels and game versions have you played the scenario on?

Hard, 1.14.16

(2) How difficult did you find the scenario? (1-10)

10

(3) How clear did you find the scenario objectives?

Clear

(4) How clear and interesting did you find the dialog and storyline of the scenario?

Didn't pay attention. Have played before on easy.

(5) What were your major challenges in meeting the objectives of the scenario?

Survival. Not vomiting in revulsion and giving up. Massacred left right and centre. Just went berserk and played on and by stupid luck won on the LAST turn with a desperate rider charge vs the leader in his castle.

(6) How fun do you think the scenario is? (1-10)

0 (well OK 1)

(7) What, if any, are changes you would have made to the scenario to make it more fun?

The most disgusting thing is that you lose all your loyal troops and have to replace them with recruited Wegelagerer (Ruffians? I forget). I'd make most of the troops non-loyal that you could use as cannon fodder. Being forced to waste loyal troops like that is sickening. There simply isn't enough time or gold to build a screen of recruited ruffians to send out ahead to soften up the undead so that the loyals can dash in and pick off easy kills. Playing defense, using terrain and villages (vs zombies) isn't possible due to the incredibly short time. 18 turns is barely enough to rush at the enemy headlong and reach him.

[Lord-Knightmare]

The most disgusting thing is that you lose all your loyal troops and have to replace them with recruited Wegelagerer (Ruffians? I forget). I'd make most of the troops non-loyal that you could use as cannon fodder. Being forced to waste loyal troops like that is sickening. There simply isn't enough time or gold to build a screen of recruited ruffians to send out ahead to soften up the undead so that the loyals can dash in and pick off easy kills. Playing defense, using terrain and villages (vs zombies) isn't possible due to the incredibly short time. 18 turns is barely enough to rush at the enemy headlong and reach him.

I think you can recruit fodder units on the first scenario and have those be used as meat shields. The normal strat is getting some Horsemen and Arvith in for charging attacking the leader.

[egallager]

sounds like someone should give AToTBWaTD a try! It has a "Normal" difficulty you can try before moving on to Hard.

[Remellion]

I made a review 6 years ago. It still holds up in large parts.

1. Played on Grand Knight (Challenging), 1.15.14. (Also numerous times before on 1.5, 1.6 and 1.8 and 1.12.)

2. Difficulty? The scenario was easy, never in real danger of losing control, although protecting all the loyals is not trivial. Maybe a 4.

3. Objectives are clear and simple. "Slay" rather than "defeat" is a good touch.

4. Good dialogue. There's the right tone in the English. (I can't judge the French.)

5. Challenges. Mainly keeping all the loyals alive. The initial advantages are stacked for the player: Starting with a huge loyal army and having gold on top of no upkeep; the distance meaning the first contact with enemy is at dawn (turn 4); footpads being available for impact damage, good defense on flat, and expendability.

My approach to this scenario: Be aware that footpads are a huge gift to the pierce-heavy loyalists. First contact is at dawn; we plan to strike hard and eliminate as many units as possible starting from there. Bats are one-shotted by charging horseman; Arvith's charge one-hits ghosts at day. I could have, with terrible luck, lost a spearman on turn 6. After the first day, with some small luck, the situation is completely under control and it's just exp farming. This time, we let the undead come to us at the south bank of the river, and just plink away at them. I overcommitted with footpads on the left side and didn't leave quite enough to hold the river without losses, but again it's just a small detail, it was smooth sailing.

6. Fun factor is about a 5 for me. Standard Wesnoth one-on-one fight, gameplay-wise decent for an introduction to Wesnoth, although potentially frustrating for a newbie who doesn't realise footpads are very strong here. Then again Challenging is not for newbies.

7. Suggestions? Not much. It serves its purpose in the campaign well enough.

[Kalium]

A few words of introduction: I’ve played turn-based strategy wargames on computers since 1974 when I played SPCWAR on the PDP-10 as a student at Caltech. Over the years, besides playing them, I’ve written various games for various computers in various languages starting with FORTRAN and continuing up through various assembler languages, Pascal, and C. Turn-based strategy wargames are my favorites of all types of games. I also prefer them as boardgames and have played that type of boardgame since 1964. In January I went looking for new games to try on my computer, and one of the dozen I downloaded was Wesnoth. So I’m not a beginner at strategy games, wargames, or turn-based games. Far from it.

Now for the feedback on this scenario:

(1) What difficulty levels and game versions have you played the scenario on?

The easiest setting, whatever that was called.

(2) How difficult did you find the scenario? (1-10)

Are you KIDDING? See below.

(3) How clear did you find the scenario objectives?

Clear enough.

(4) How clear and interesting did you find the dialog and storyline of the scenario?

Good enough.

(5) What were your major challenges in meeting the objectives of the scenario?

The very FIRST round of combat with the enemy in this SUPPOSEDLY ‘beginner scenario’ went BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM YOU’RE DEAD YOU LOSE, HAH HAH HAH MY THIRD DARK ADEPT DIDN’T NEED ITS LAST SHOT AND MY FOURTH DARK ADEPT DIDN’T EVEN NEED TO MOVE, SUCKER! - without the enemy taking a single pip of damage. At that point, I immediately deleted Wesnoth from my computer, despite everything else I’d seen that made me want to love it.

(6) How fun do you think the scenario is? (1-10)

Are you KIDDING?

(7) What, if any, are changes you would have made to the scenario to make it more fun?

Here are some comments that were made by other players way back in 2006 and obviously utterly ignored ever since:

“I probably would have hated to play this scenario as my first ever experience with Wesnoth.”

Yes, that’s right, I hated it.

“Two brother is billed as suitable for beginners. I have doubts about that. ... if experience is the best teacher they are going to learn quickly or quit quickly with this scenario - I suspect quit quickly could be more likely.”

Yes, if this is what Wesnoth people think is a beginner scenario, played on the easiest setting, then forget the whole game, there are other games to play. Quit quickly is exactly what happened in my case.

Remember, you haven’t seen ANY comments from anyone else who deleted it, explaining why they aren’t playing Wesnoth. I’d guess that this scenario, shoved on new players who just finished the tutorial, has reduced the number of new players by a factor of at least ten. I note that these forums haven’t been very active recently, and I’d bet that Tale of Two Brothers is a major factor in causing that.

“Now, after I played Tale of Two brothers, I tried the South Guard Campaign, and THAT campaign does it right. It explains EVERYTHING in an awesome, easy to understand way, and I found myself wishing I had played South Guard first.

I would suggest either modifying Two Brothers to be as explanatory as South Guard is, OR alternatively, simply switch ToTB with SG in the Campaign Menu and have SG be first and ToTB second. As a true-blue total newbie to the game, I can say this simple change would ease the first-play experience a whole lot.”

I am in complete agreement with those comments. And yet here it is, 16 years later, and new players are STILL advised to play this scenario immediately after finishing the tutorial. I have to conclude that everyone who wants this scenario to follow the tutorial is either blitheringly stupid with no clue how to design beginner challenges, or else deliberately wants to prevent new players from ever giving Wesnoth a chance.

Well, too bad for the people who deliberately wanted to stop me from playing, because I reinstalled Wesnoth two weeks after deleting it, and gave it a second chance. I’ve played it for a month now, every day, and I like a hundred things about it, though I’m still angry about having been told to play this scenario as a beginner. The comment about The South Guard being a much better beginner scenario is spot on. Too bad no one listened in the last 16 years, except maybe the ones trying to prevent new players from liking the game. But even then, anyone who knows how to create an easy path for beginners would have something else between the tutorial and TSG, let alone ToTB.

If you want to modify ToTB the least, to at least TRY to make closer to a beginner scenario, then don’t let the enemy have magic ranged attacks, EVER, whether through its leader or recruits. Then, at least, what happened to me would be impossible, like it should be.

I expect my comments to be ignored for the next 16 years too, but I might as well post anyway. [If this shows up multiple times, it’s because the forum software made me make several attempts to post it.]

[Lord-Knightmare]

I feel like your entire post is just RNG frustration.

The very FIRST round of combat with the enemy in this SUPPOSEDLY ‘beginner scenario’ went BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM YOU’RE DEAD YOU LOSE, HAH HAH HAH MY THIRD DARK ADEPT DIDN’T NEED ITS LAST SHOT AND MY FOURTH DARK ADEPT DIDN’T EVEN NEED TO MOVE, SUCKER! - without the enemy taking a single pip of damage. At that point, I immediately deleted Wesnoth from my computer, despite everything else I’d seen that made me want to love it.

Yeah, RNG frustration...

Too bad no one listened in the last 16 years, except maybe the ones trying to prevent new players from liking the game. But even then, anyone who knows how to create an easy path for beginners would have something else between the tutorial and TSG, let alone ToTB.

Also, if you're wondering the campaign that was supposed to be played after the tutorial was AOI (An orcish Incursion), the true beginner's campaign. But it was removed for being too "tutorial". It's available as an add-on if you give it a whirl.

[Atreides]

Gasp boardgames since 1964? I was -2 then. I started boardgaming in the 70's.

Also cool to know someone else who learned FORTAN. :)

As for the frustration. Yes, I've felt that many a time with Wesnoth. Remember though that many of the classic old board/wargames had HUGE luck dependence. e.g. Third Reich by Avalon Hill has a 2-1 attack that can just possibly (3%) wipe out the entire attacking force. I wonder how many 3R players gave up on the game after losing their entire Panzer Army that way while trying to break through in France 1940...

I can also agree with the quoted player from 2006 re: The South Guard. It was a MUCH better starting scenario. I do believe that it has recently been promoted more as a beginners campaign. But IIRC it as not yet been made THE recommended choice as a first campaign.

I wonder though if perhaps first time players should not be encouraged to play MP matches vs the AI rather than a campaign. Campaigns by their nature are harder. Mistakes are harder/impossible to make up for than if just playing a single scenario vs the AI. In a MP game things also start out slower and there is less of the campaign envronment to distract. On turn 1 all a new player needs to learn is how to recruit and move. At contact with the enemy there'll be two roughly equal forces smashing into another. The maps are often symmetrical too. I can't imagine a better way for a new player to get comfortable. And losing means losing 1 game, not a whole campaign.

[egallager]

I feel like this is another chance to plug my version of AToTB (which, unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to porting to 1.16 yet): https://github.com/cooljeanius/Two_Brothers_With_A_Third_Difficulty
Besides adding a middle "Normal" difficulty, it also makes the "Easy" difficulty more explanatory and tutorial-like, as seems to be the request.