New Idea for Battle of Wesnoth

[Palpatyne Tyford]

This may be a good idea. It may not be, but here goes...
Perhaps the game could include a choice of where to go next (yes it has this feature, but this is different). The idea is better understood by an example

Say you win scenario 1, you then move onto scenario 2

Say you lost scenario 1, you are "pushed back" and have to play a different scenario altogether.

[Rhuvaen]

I don't think this is a good idea (I guess you're talking about campaigns here), because:

1. most scenarios you lose because your leader is killed. Each campaign is focussed around one or more leaders. If those die, the campaign is over.

2. you'd have scenarios that you only get to play by LOSING! That means, you create an incentive for losing as otherwise, the player wouldn't get to play that scenario.

Of course, all of this is a decision of the campaign designer (and so a poll doesn't make a lot of sense), they can do what they want if it fits in with their plot.

NOTE to moderators: the original post was asking for whether the idea was good or not .

[Palpatyne Tyford]

Good point, but it could be a multiplayer campaign. There is such an EPOC32 game that is like Wesnoth and is implements the idea that if you lose you are pushed back. Several captains could be used in the scenarios and you are just the general.

[scott]

Some scenarios have 2 sets of victory conditions, one better than the other. So if you beat a leader you can go to scenario A, but if you just survive, you go to scenario B. So, it's a good idea as long as it makes for a better story.

[Elvish_Pillager]

It would be a nice idea to have a range of endings for each scenario, some favorable, some not. It would also be really cool to wander around a continent, meeting a set of enemies, but meeting them in different locations depending on where you travel. On the other hand, either would take a lot of WML and/or extra work...

[Dennis]

I have no problem with it... in fact, in a sense it has already been done with the campaigns that start off with you losing the first scenario.

However, I would set it up so that both outcomes lead to the same scenario later in the campaign. As for the incentive to lose to explore the alternative scenario, that's OK -- it's really no different than having two different victory outcomes. In fact, a really evil (or chaotic) developer might have it advantageous to "lose" a scenario, much like Island of the Damned where it was better to not kill the enemy leaders (I don't know if this is still true) so that you can get the mage back later. So I can see this adding to the richness of the game.[/i]

[turin]

If you lose a campaign scenario, you've lost. It doesn't make any sense to continue the campaign. You've already lost! If a certain event doesn't actually make you lose, it doesn't, IMHO, make any sense to say in the scenario objectives that it does.

However, there can be multiple objectives in a scenario, some leading to more favorable outcomes than others. See "Bay of Pearls" for an example. Its fine to have those branch. I could see having it so when you lose a unit (even your leader!), something bad happens, but only if it does not say in the scenario objectives that if you lose that leader you die.

[Palpatyne Tyford]

This idea could be for a multiplayer campaign where you play against someone online. While you are the generals your underlings do the work.

[Disto]

It would be a nice idea to have a range of endings for each scenario, some favorable, some not. It would also be really cool to wander around a continent, meeting a set of enemies, but meeting them in different locations depending on where you travel. On the other hand, either would take a lot of WML and/or extra work...

I suggested this but there weren't any solid replies, i suggesting using multiple developers to help with the work load, so 1 person does the large map and 1 person does like half the battles but no other person who knows WML replied.

[lwa]

For some hard scenario it may be usefull the troops will be able to retreat (or on survival condition), have a small scenario to make some money or level then return back to the main branch.

[ILikeProgramming]

This can be done with WML.

[Taurus]

I suggested this but there weren't any solid replies, i suggesting using multiple developers to help with the work load, so 1 person does the large map and 1 person does like half the battles but no other person who knows WML replied.

Don't worry Disto, you get that sometimes, well, most of the time I find. But anyhow.... As far as THAT particular idea goes, I am not to sure how it would work. For myself anyway I would rather make my campaings on my own, even if they take a long time. That way you don't have to argue and bicker over every little change and bla bla bla. It is possible I guess but it all depends on the particualr people involved

About scenarios having alternitive endings, I am gennerally in favour of the idea. ***spoilers*** as a matter of fact, in "Northern Rebirth", if some particular units die, which are not essential to the victory, the storyline goes down a totally different path. Mind you they all lead to a similar ending but it's a start anyway.

The logic behind my opinoin comes from real life. If, say a person and his friend are on a quest and one of them dies, then the other guy doesen't automatically die too. He moans and cries, and mopes for a while and then goes on (usually) of course the outcome would be totally different then then it would be if they were both alive.

Or even, say you have a situation like a bunch of slaves rising up against their masters. If the head slave dies there surelly will be confusion and maby even short term defeat but that still doesen't mean all the slaves are compleatley beaten, crushed and deafeated. They can retreat (or run like hell) rally and make a comeback.

Anyhow, as it was said before, it can be done but it all boils down to a matter of work.

[martenzo]

This Idea would work out great with the turns running out (If you win you go to scenario A, If turns run out, you go to scenario B).

[ILikeProgramming]

But would campaign authors want to do this?

[Taurus]

But would campaign authors want to do this?

That is the big question lol. I'll keep it mind though and I might eventually do something like this.