Clanhoof Highlands (campaigns pack)

[hermestrismi]

"Engage in a storyline that portrays the ascension and subsequent decline of Hooflan Kingdom situated far from the lands of Wesnoth. Experience the kingdom's journey from its rise to power to its eventual fall, navigating through the challenges and triumphs that shape its destiny."

campaigns credts

## Chapter I was inspired from 'Castels and Knights' (Origin: Wesnoth 1.0.1)

actual version="0.1.1"

changlog

version: 0.0.5
release of testing version
version: 0.0.6
bugfix notably scenarios 02 and 08 (previously unable to win due to uploading old files),
changing some minor names
version: 0.0.7
chapter II completed : tester version,
more clarification for objectives in ch01 (Sc 01 and 02),
add some animations (floating texts...)
edit:
version 0.0.8
major changes:
improvement for the gui,
adding a droppable items system (potions, weapons and artefacts),
adding new characters,
a simple presentation scenario to make navigating campaigns much easier.
version 0.0.9
adding items system,
little bug fixing.
version 0.1.0
1 more campaign to the pack,
re-adjust items system (potions, items, artefacts),
rebalancing some maps and scenarios,
3 new races,
readjust some dialogs,
a new presentation (introduction) scenario.
note: old saves probably won't work with this update.
version 0.1.1
1 more campaign to the pack,
re-adjust items system (potions, items, artefacts),
the new campaign is Mermen Plight (wesnoth 1.0) with different maps and changes into races (Mermen, Kedari and Dwarves vs Dunfolk, Nemedians and occasionally Werewolves)

tags=Faehen Era, Werewolves, Kedaris, Elementals, Nysians, Far South, Lore, Old campaigns inspiration, TDM continuity, Clanhoof Highlands

[Spannerbag]

Hi,
Just played the first scenario on Soldier (easy) difficulty and although I meet the victory conditions, the scenario won't let me win!

The issue is with levelling up 3 walking units.
At first I levelled up a few Ruffians and lost, so assumed as they hadn't reached level 2 that was why I failed or walking units refers only to loyalist footsoldiers (i.e. bowmen and spearmen).
Tried again and eventually managed to finish with 3 L2 loyalist footsoldiers... but the scenario still didn't end.

Here's a screen grab showing the situation on the last turn with the L2 units highlighted:

Note that the last objective is still white...
If I end turn the "They've got reinforcements" message is issued and the player loses.

Am I doing something stupid here?

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

[hermestrismi]

Hi,
Just played the first scenario on Soldier (easy) difficulty and although I meet the victory conditions, the scenario won't let me win!

The issue is with levelling up 3 walking units.
At first I levelled up a few Ruffians and lost, so assumed as they hadn't reached level 2 that was why I failed or walking units refers only to loyalist footsoldiers (i.e. bowmen and spearmen).
Tried again and eventually managed to finish with 3 L2 loyalist footsoldiers... but the scenario still didn't end.

Here's a screen grab showing the situation on the last turn with the L2 units highlighted:
obj.jpg

Note that the last objective is still white...
If I end turn the "They've got reinforcements" message is issued and the player loses.

Am I doing something stupid here?

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

Hi. may I ask you if you play the 0.0.5 or 0.0.6 version?

[hermestrismi]

Hi,
Just played the first scenario on Soldier (easy) difficulty and although I meet the victory conditions, the scenario won't let me win!

The issue is with levelling up 3 walking units.
At first I levelled up a few Ruffians and lost, so assumed as they hadn't reached level 2 that was why I failed or walking units refers only to loyalist footsoldiers (i.e. bowmen and spearmen).
Tried again and eventually managed to finish with 3 L2 loyalist footsoldiers... but the scenario still didn't end.

Here's a screen grab showing the situation on the last turn with the L2 units highlighted:
obj.jpg

Note that the last objective is still white...
If I end turn the "They've got reinforcements" message is issued and the player loses.

Am I doing something stupid here?

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

I looked to the code. it was my fault.
in easy, you should advance Bowmen. I should replace footsoldiers by 'soldiers from villages'

[Spannerbag]

Thanks for the swift reply, much appreciated.

Errr, sorry to be dim but I'm still consufed because the screen grab has first_time_only=yes and seems to only issue dialogue?
As this event only fires once, how do you count the advancements?
Just curious.

Thanks again.
Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

[hermestrismi]

there is two related advance events. one for message that occurs first time only, the second with first time only=no for counting units

[hermestrismi]

Thanks for the swift reply, much appreciated.

Errr, sorry to be dim but I'm still consufed because the screen grab has first_time_only=yes and seems to only issue dialogue?
As this event only fires once, how do you count the advancements?
Just curious.

Thanks again.
Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

I could merge them into one event with [switch] (the case when the variable value equals 1 will get the dialog...) but I think it would be easier with 2 separated events

[hermestrismi]

I will collect the notes and the comments and fix them all in the next release instead of publishing a new version for each bug or improvement. what do you think?

[Spannerbag]

I will collect the notes and the comments and fix them all in the next release instead of publishing a new version for each bug or improvement. what do you think?

Apologies for the late reply.
Depends, I guess, on how you prefer to work.
Publishing little and often means you get feedback quicker and bugs will probably be found sooner.
However people may become bored or disillusioned with this approach and maybe lose interest playing basically the same scenarios over and over again?

I prefer to only publish major revisions (except for bug fixes) so that when a player returns to my campaign there is enough new/changed stuff that it hopefully doesn't feel stale.
Annoyingly due to time constraints I'm still wading through all the feedback and suggestions made for LSB (several months so far and plenty to do yet).
However when it is released I can hopefully leave the damn thing alone for awhile!

So yes, if it were me I'd prefer to wrap up all the bugfixes, suggestions and feedback into a single release even it takes awhile.

If I may make a suggestion (you've probably already got this in your "to do" list but just in case):

Spoiler:

I think it can become a bit confusing to players if only certain footsoldiers count towards advancements.
Personally I'd count all advancements (of non-mounted side 1 units)?
For example if a Peasant is advanced to Bowman to Longbowman that presumably counts as 2 advancements?
IMHO it might be easier to simply state a number of advancements for foot units based on difficulty.
So have your objective as something like (assuming this is the logic you use, you may want something different):
Your footsoldiers need to advance in total {ON_DIFFICULTY 3 4 5} times
You could also add a note clarifying how the objective works, e.g.:

Code: Select all

Every time one of your footsoldiers advances, this adds to the total required ({ON_DIFFICULTY 3 4 5}).
Advancing the same unit twice counts as two advancements.

If you really wanted to, you could also add [floating_text] with a count (e.g "$adv_count of {ON_DIFFICULTY 3 4 5}").
Also if I'm referencing the same {ON_DIFFICULTY...} in multiple places I usually define it in a wrapper macro so I only need to change the one {ON_DIFFICULTY...} (the #define)
So on NORMAL (4 advancements) the player can, for example, advance a peasant to bowman (1 advancement), another to swordsman (2 advancements) and a spearman to javelineer.
This logic would be straightforward because you can count any advancement of a side 1 unit except mounted units (so filter won't change if different difficulties spawn different foot units from villages and also means that recruited footsoldiers also count if they advance) and don't need to keep track of whether a unit has already advanced or not (tho' doing so would be easy, just assign it role=advanced_already and exclude units with that role from the advancement event [filter]).
Just my tuppenceworth, feel free to ignore.

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

[hermestrismi]

I will collect the notes and the comments and fix them all in the next release instead of publishing a new version for each bug or improvement. what do you think?

Apologies for the late reply.
Depends, I guess, on how you prefer to work.
Publishing little and often means you get feedback quicker and bugs will probably be found sooner.
However people may become bored or disillusioned with this approach and maybe lose interest playing basically the same scenarios over and over again?

I prefer to only publish major revisions (except for bug fixes) so that when a player returns to my campaign there is enough new/changed stuff that it hopefully doesn't feel stale.
Annoyingly due to time constraints I'm still wading through all the feedback and suggestions made for LSB (several months so far and plenty to do yet).
However when it is released I can hopefully leave the damn thing alone for awhile!

So yes, if it were me I'd prefer to wrap up all the bugfixes, suggestions and feedback into a single release even it takes awhile.

If I may make a suggestion (you've probably already got this in your "to do" list but just in case):

Spoiler:

I think it can become a bit confusing to players if only certain footsoldiers count towards advancements.
Personally I'd count all advancements (of non-mounted side 1 units)?
For example if a Peasant is advanced to Bowman to Longbowman that presumably counts as 2 advancements?
IMHO it might be easier to simply state a number of advancements for foot units based on difficulty.
So have your objective as something like (assuming this is the logic you use, you may want something different):
Your footsoldiers need to advance in total {ON_DIFFICULTY 3 4 5} times
You could also add a note clarifying how the objective works, e.g.:

Code: Select all

Every time one of your footsoldiers advances, this adds to the total required ({ON_DIFFICULTY 3 4 5}).
Advancing the same unit twice counts as two advancements.

If you really wanted to, you could also add [floating_text] with a count (e.g "$adv_count of {ON_DIFFICULTY 3 4 5}").
Also if I'm referencing the same {ON_DIFFICULTY...} in multiple places I usually define it in a wrapper macro so I only need to change the one {ON_DIFFICULTY...} (the #define)
So on NORMAL (4 advancements) the player can, for example, advance a peasant to bowman (1 advancement), another to swordsman (2 advancements) and a spearman to javelineer.
This logic would be straightforward because you can count any advancement of a side 1 unit except mounted units (so filter won't change if different difficulties spawn different foot units from villages and also means that recruited footsoldiers also count if they advance) and don't need to keep track of whether a unit has already advanced or not (tho' doing so would be easy, just assign it role=advanced_already and exclude units with that role from the advancement event [filter]).
Just my tuppenceworth, feel free to ignore.

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

very good suggestions indeed. I will take it into account

[Spannerbag]

Glad to be of (I hope) help!
Oh and a typo, meant to say I prefer to only publish major revisions (except for major bug fixes).
Good luck with the revision!

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

[hermestrismi]

version: 0.0.7
chapter II completed: 08 scenarios: tester version,
more clarification for objectives in ch01 (Sc 01 and 02),
add some animations (floating texts...)

[Spannerbag]

Just had a run through the first couple of scenarios and it's looking good.
I'm not the quickest (or competent!) of players so I've only just started the third scenario.
Not sure when I'll get chance to resume, busy few days ahead...

This time I played on normal (Recruit) difficulty.

No major issues during gameplay but a few brief comments:

Spoiler:

• Small point: objectives are in brackets (), is this intentional?
• Scenario 1: using the werewolves to soften up the enemy was fun.
• Scenario 1: having the option to move your leader to better placed keeps was good.
• Scenario 2: "found hidden goods" message seems a bit... unreliable?
  (Sometimes bales would vanish without any notification?)

Replays

Purification replay SBag.gz

(31.92 KiB) Downloaded 78 times

Disappointing and Salvation replay SBag.gz

(33.45 KiB) Downloaded 81 times

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

[hermestrismi]

Just had a run through the first couple of scenarios and it's looking good.
I'm not the quickest (or competent!) of players so I've only just started the third scenario.
Not sure when I'll get chance to resume, busy few days ahead...

This time I played on normal (Recruit) difficulty.

No major issues during gameplay but a few brief comments:

Spoiler:

• Small point: objectives are in brackets (), is this intentional?
• Scenario 1: using the werewolves to soften up the enemy was fun.
• Scenario 1: having the option to move your leader to better placed keeps was good.
• Scenario 2: "found hidden goods" message seems a bit... unreliable?
  (Sometimes bales would vanish without any notification?)

Replays
Purification replay SBag.gzDisappointing and Salvation replay SBag.gz

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag

I am happy that you liked it. it seems that I will relay on your comments and bug-testing. if you are still in SC.03, you have two choices: you upload to 0.0.7 and enjoy chapter 02 although I am not sure if that will make you forcibly repeat scenarios 1 and 02, or continue without updating and in this case you will stop at the end of chapter 01 only.

Spoiler:

1.

• No, it was unintentional but by the time I noticed it, it was too late so I left it to the next update.
• I really tried hard in the first scenarios to make the maps good and close to the original ones. designingthe maps was very hard.
• the goods are parts of the objectives. in 0.0.7 (and thanks to your suggestions) , a floating message will appear each time a player found a hidden crops (it may be crops or other things). for now, they are a placeholders to built another side quest that comes later. may be un 0.0.8, the purpose will be clearer

[Spannerbag]

Sorry, wasn't clear - I downloaded 0.0.7 (I'm using v1.18.1) and started from the beginning.
If you view the replays you'll see I was very lucky with levelling the peasants - things could've gone very differently...

Oh, and something I forgot to ask:

Spoiler:

Why did you remove marksman from the loyal hunter?
I guess it was for balance?
At first I wondered why he kept missing!
Then I realised: no marksman ability.

Cheers!
-- Spannerbag