The Hammer of Thursagan, Revised

[Dalas120]

Aimed at mainline for the 1.20 release, this revision of THoT restores some of 1.14->1.16's cut content, removes Morvur, and includes a mix of scenario/map/AI/dialogue/etc adjustments to (hopefully) improve gameplay.

The “Dwarvish Grenadier” L2 Thunderer advancement is included in this add-on, for playtesting. I'm hoping to add the Grenadier (or something similar) to core in 1.20.

Available on the 1.19 add-on server. Not compatible with 1.18.
.

thot.png (305.63 KiB) Viewed 1992 times

.

HolyPaladin has also released a "The Hammer of Thursagan, Revised" addon. This post is about the one by me - Dalas.

[redbeard2]

Awesome, hammer of thursigan is one of my favorites I’ll look forward to trying it out.

Love to see the love the drake faction has been getting lately in these newer campaigns

[holypaladin]

Love to see the love the drake faction has been getting lately in these newer campaigns

While here drakes are just episodic enemies in one scenario it's nice they're back. On my upcoming porting list there's "Brave Wings" for now under progress, soon it will get released as full drake campaign.

[FunkLord]

I'm really enjoying the revision so far, thank you for working on it!
I haven't really figured out how to use the "witness"-ability best -- is it meant as an incentive to use the grenadier against enemy leaders or is that a happy coincidence?

[ZIM]

Hello, I want to report an error, I got this message when trying to start the campaign for the first time

[Dalas120]

Awesome, hammer of thursigan is one of my favorites I’ll look forward to trying it out.

Did you get a chance to finish? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I'm really enjoying the revision so far, thank you for working on it!
I haven't really figured out how to use the "witness"-ability best -- is it meant as an incentive to use the grenadier against enemy leaders or is that a happy coincidence?

Happy coincidence. The "witness" redesign was mostly to try and differentiate it from leadership, as well as to give players an incentive to use more lower level units - including Ulfs, who aren't seen too often in SP campaigns.

I'm guessing you've finished the campaign by now - what did you think about it overall?

Hello, I want to report an error, I got this message when trying to start the campaign for the first time

Ack! Sorry for the delayed response. I've published a new version.

It's been a while since I originally released this campaign, and I haven't yet gotten very much feedback on it. It might still enter mainline in time for 1.20, or it might not - I don't want to push a campaign if I don't know how the community at large feels about it.

[ZIM]

It's been a while since I originally released this campaign, and I haven't yet gotten very much feedback on it. It might still enter mainline in time for 1.20, or it might not - I don't want to push a campaign if I don't know how the community at large feels about it.

Hello, I just played this campaign. I've played the old version, and the revised one currently in 1.18. I noticed the Mages and Drakes scenario are restored, but the one where you trek through snow plains that have village with outlaw ambushes are not restored. About the revision itself, the difficulty feels alright, I played on Normal. And I noticed many of the maps are altered, but I wonder, why the change toward low gold and small castles? Is it to represent that we're just a delegation and needs to travel light? But then why increase the turn limits, if we're supposed to travel fast? And I noticed Movrur is removed from this version. I personally find the presence of Movrur helps explain more why there're orcs bearing the cloak-pin of Kal Kartha so far from it. I mean, why would the orcs spread their force while they're still besieging Kal Kartha? Or are the orcs that attacked the East Gate are unrelated and simply bearing it because they've gotten it from trading with the orcs that besiege Kal Kartha?

On another note, I find it very strange that we fought a mixed army of orcs and humans in scenario 2, since there're no recorded cooperation between them in other main campaign, with the exception of being hired mercenary. I think it would make more sense it we just fight regular human outlaws. And also, I find the High Pass scenarios are more enjoyable than the old version, so I guess this one is an improvement. And also, why don't Ratheln got recalled automatically, he's supposed to accompany us, right? And he could contribute some dialogues from the perspective of a researcher.

Also, about the grenadier units, I guess smoke is a nice weapon special, but I kinda feel it's a shame we don't have fire ranged attacks, which would help attacking other dwarves. I noticed the unit file even has a commented out attack for it. If we want to avoid player confusion, wouldn't it better to add a weapon special that says something like "offense only", like what some units from Era of Magic has? Then you could just remove the dagger attacks, as the unit doesn't even have the animation for it.

[redbeard2]

Steam hasn't updated Wesnoth to 1.20 yet, so I don't think I have access to the newer version. There was an add-on with the name, but I don't think it was yours...

Awesome, hammer of thursigan is one of my favorites I’ll look forward to trying it out.

Did you get a chance to finish? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I'm really enjoying the revision so far, thank you for working on it!
I haven't really figured out how to use the "witness"-ability best -- is it meant as an incentive to use the grenadier against enemy leaders or is that a happy coincidence?

Happy coincidence. The "witness" redesign was mostly to try and differentiate it from leadership, as well as to give players an incentive to use more lower level units - including Ulfs, who aren't seen too often in SP campaigns.

I'm guessing you've finished the campaign by now - what did you think about it overall?

Hello, I want to report an error, I got this message when trying to start the campaign for the first time

Ack! Sorry for the delayed response. I've published a new version.

It's been a while since I originally released this campaign, and I haven't yet gotten very much feedback on it. It might still enter mainline in time for 1.20, or it might not - I don't want to push a campaign if I don't know how the community at large feels about it.

[Dalas120]

Steam hasn't updated Wesnoth to 1.20 yet, so I don't think I have access to the newer version. There was an add-on with the name, but I don't think it was yours...

The addon should be available on Wesnoth version 1.19 too, which is accessible through Steam. In your Steam library: right-click on Battle for Wesnoth, select Properties, go to the Betas tab, and select the 1.19.x option from the drop down.

Once upgraded to 1.19, you should be able to download the addon!

I noticed the Mages and Drakes scenario are restored, but the one where you trek through snow plains that have village with outlaw ambushes are not restored.

Yeah. I didn't want to expand the campaign too much, and I felt that the Mages scenario was more iconic than the Outlaws one (at least I've heard a lot more requests for the Mages scenario).

why the change toward low gold and small castles? Is it to represent that we're just a delegation and needs to travel light? But then why increase the turn limits

These are related. I've found that players hate losing to turn limits, so I raised most of them. But increased turn limits means more early finish bonus, which needs less starting gold to compensate.

For most scenarios I'd meant to keep the net starting gold similar to master (enemies, for example, have the same or more gold), but I also heard from another player that the campaign felt smaller-scale than the old one. That wasn't my intention, so in the latest version I've increased the player's starting gold by 20 in most scenarios.

There are a few scenarios where it was deliberate, though. I've found that low starting gold on both "At the East Gate" and "Mages and Drakes" have a great back-and-forth that really emphasizes village control.

Keep size is mostly for aesthetics; I felt it looks ugly to always give players the same circular 7-hex keep. I can restore some of those if you prefer them, though?

And I noticed Movrur is removed from this version. I personally find the presence of Movrur helps explain more why there're orcs bearing the cloak-pin of Kal Kartha so far from it. I mean, why would the orcs spread their force while they're still besieging Kal Kartha? Or are the orcs that attacked the East Gate are unrelated and simply bearing it because they've gotten it from trading with the orcs that besiege Kal Kartha?

Unfortunately I heard a lot of complaints about Morvur - his addition was actually my impetus for starting this revision in the first place! JL42's review in the forum thread is one example: viewtopic.php?t=20277&start=60

I agree that the cloak-pin doesn't have a great explanation, though, and I'm open to suggestions for changing or explaning that plot point.

I find it very strange that we fought a mixed army of orcs and humans in scenario 2, since there're no recorded cooperation between them in other main campaign, with the exception of being hired mercenary. I think it would make more sense it we just fight regular human outlaws.

I wanted to keep the "No true orc would fight for somethin’ as stupid as the Alliance" line, as I felt that makes the story more interesting than fighting random bandits. Would it be better if I changed the enemies to orcs-only?

And also, I find the High Pass scenarios are more enjoyable than the old version, so I guess this one is an improvement.

I'm glad to hear that!

And also, why don't Ratheln got recalled automatically, he's supposed to accompany us, right? And he could contribute some dialogues from the perspective of a researcher.

Those are *also* both related, actually. Because there's a lot of new campaigns and campaign changes coming up in 1.20, translators have a lot of work on their hands. I've tried to write as few new lines of dialogue in THoT as possible, instead using old already-translated dialogue from 1.14. In 1.14 Ratheln has barely any dialouge, so I felt he didn't have enough lines to justify being auto-recalled each scenario.

There's also the question of the storyline being very dwarvish and very private (Witness); not something that really welcomes other peoples and races.

Also, about the grenadier units, I guess smoke is a nice weapon special, but I kinda feel it's a shame we don't have fire ranged attacks, which would help attacking other dwarves.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's good for dwarves to not have good fire damage. I think factions are defined just as much by what they're missing as by what they have. Dwarves have great damage and durability, but no proper mages/marksman or elemental attacks. 'Smoke' was meant to emphasize the Ulf's identity as a pseudo-mage, while maintaining the dwarves' existing unique weaknesses.

(An offense-only special is a solid idea, and {WEAPON_SPECIAL_UNWIELDY} already exists in mainline, but that wasn't my only motivation for removing the ranged fire attack.)

[ZIM]

These are related. I've found that players hate losing to turn limits, so I raised most of them. But increased turn limits means more early finish bonus, which needs less starting gold to compensate.

For most scenarios I'd meant to keep the net starting gold similar to master (enemies, for example, have the same or more gold), but I also heard from another player that the campaign felt smaller-scale than the old one. That wasn't my intention, so in the latest version I've increased the player's starting gold by 20 in most scenarios.

There are a few scenarios where it was deliberate, though. I've found that low starting gold on both "At the East Gate" and "Mages and Drakes" have a great back-and-forth that really emphasizes village control.

Keep size is mostly for aesthetics; I felt it looks ugly to always give players the same circular 7-hex keep. I can restore some of those if you prefer them, though?

Oh no, I'm just curious about the reason, i'm totally fine with it. But I'd argue Marth-Tak castle in scenario 3 looks ugly with just keeps.

I wanted to keep the "No true orc would fight for somethin’ as stupid as the Alliance" line, as I felt that makes the story more interesting than fighting random bandits. Would it be better if I changed the enemies to orcs-only?

Yes, that would better in my opinion. Then the enemies in the first scenarios could be outlaws, I think, to avoid having to fight the orcs too often. Just say the want to raid the farms, or the ores from the mountain, or something to that nature. And you could retain Aiglondur's line about not so strange seeing human raids.

Unfortunately I heard a lot of complaints about Morvur - his addition was actually my impetus for starting this revision in the first place! JL42's review in the forum thread is one example: viewtopic.php?t=20277&start=60

I agree that the cloak-pin doesn't have a great explanation, though, and I'm open to suggestions for changing or explaning that plot point.

Maybe changing the first scenario into a regular enemy incursion and focus on showing Aiglondur is a new captain and this is his chance to prove himself. Or Then the dialogue in scenario 2 could be changed just into how Hamel want to send a delegation to Kal Kartha to talk about the recently found Thursagan's workshop, not to investigate. Then you add some dialogue in Mages and Drakes about how surprised they are finding an abandoned dwarven outpost wih orcish arrow, so they have to hurry, which explains That could also explains the high turn limit in previous scenarios, since we're not really in a hurry since we're not under the impression of something is wrong at Kal Kartha. But now that I think about it, having Drakes settling in the castle implies that the castle was abandoned long ago, meanwhile the siege are still ongoing. With the smaller scale of battle introduced in this revision, it's kinda hard to think the siege would go on so long. Maybe change the dialogue of the mages to say they're researching something else but then a Drake hunting group come and harasses them. I think this also had the potention to make the scenario more interesting, so instead of the typical Defeat enemy leader scenario, you could change the map so that we come in between the mages and the drakes, where our starting keep could be the abandoned dwarvish castle, and we're supposed to protect a certain amount of mages until they get into their castle, then we can proceed in defeating the drakes.

And also, isn't it weird that the masked dwarves have the leisure of raiding villages for sacrifice meanwhile their castle are under siege? I'm starting to think that the Fear scenario should be removed, since it was already made short, and then we could add human prisoners in the Underlevel scenario, since we already have a prison area which happens to be empty. Then this freed prisoners could be the one who informed Tallin about Aiglondur's exploit. Or if the scenarios are too iconic to be removed, either revamp the Fear scenario or revamp the Siege scenario into something else. My idea is that maybe elements from the 2 scenarios could be merged, like maybe during the siege, our party noticed that the Kal Karthans are sending human peasant as fodder. This in my opinion could also shows how Karrag casted glamours on the Kal Karthan dwarves, seeing they have no qualms sending peasants to their death.

Those are *also* both related, actually. Because there's a lot of new campaigns and campaign changes coming up in 1.20, translators have a lot of work on their hands. I've tried to write as few new lines of dialogue in THoT as possible, instead using old already-translated dialogue from 1.14. In 1.14 Ratheln has barely any dialouge, so I felt he didn't have enough lines to justify being auto-recalled each scenario.

There's also the question of the storyline being very dwarvish and very private (Witness); not something that really welcomes other peoples and races.

Okay, fair enough.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's good for dwarves to not have good fire damage. I think factions are defined just as much by what they're missing as by what they have. Dwarves have great damage and durability, but no proper mages/marksman or elemental attacks. 'Smoke' was meant to emphasize the Ulf's identity as a pseudo-mage, while maintaining the dwarves' existing unique weaknesses.

(An offense-only special is a solid idea, and {WEAPON_SPECIAL_UNWIELDY} already exists in mainline, but that wasn't my only motivation for removing the ranged fire attack.)

True, I rarely play multiplayer, so I don't really think that far. But still, i think the dagger attack should be removed, since it has no animation and we're already wielding a torch. And also, since we can't have good fire damage, maybe having the grenadier having illuminate ability could be considered, since we're wielding a torch, to make them a more support focused unit. Since dwarves are neutral, it shouldn't affect the balance too much, but it would still help against fighting chaotic enemies during the night.

[Dalas120]

But I'd argue Marth-Tak castle in scenario 3 looks ugly with just keeps.

Ah, yeah, thanks for bringing that up. I can change his castle to be more normal.

Yes, that would better in my opinion. Then the enemies in the first scenarios could be outlaws, I think, to avoid having to fight the orcs too often. Just say the want to raid the farms, or the ores from the mountain, or something to that nature. And you could retain Aiglondur's line about not so strange seeing human raids.

Ok, that seems reasonable. If we do change S01's enemies to outlaws, maybe there's a good way to tie in the cloak pin?

Maybe changing the first scenario into a regular enemy incursion and focus on showing Aiglondur is a new captain and this is his chance to prove himself. Or Then the dialogue in scenario 2 could be changed just into how Hamel want to send a delegation to Kal Kartha to talk about the recently found Thursagan's workshop, not to investigate. Then you add some dialogue in Mages and Drakes about how surprised they are finding an abandoned dwarven outpost wih orcish arrow, so they have to hurry, which explains That could also explains the high turn limit in previous scenarios, since we're not really in a hurry since we're not under the impression of something is wrong at Kal Kartha. But now that I think about it, having Drakes settling in the castle implies that the castle was abandoned long ago, meanwhile the siege are still ongoing. With the smaller scale of battle introduced in this revision, it's kinda hard to think the siege would go on so long. Maybe change the dialogue of the mages to say they're researching something else but then a Drake hunting group come and harasses them. I think this also had the potention to make the scenario more interesting, so instead of the typical Defeat enemy leader scenario, you could change the map so that we come in between the mages and the drakes, where our starting keep could be the abandoned dwarvish castle, and we're supposed to protect a certain amount of mages until they get into their castle, then we can proceed in defeating the drakes.

And also, isn't it weird that the masked dwarves have the leisure of raiding villages for sacrifice meanwhile their castle are under siege? I'm starting to think that the Fear scenario should be removed, since it was already made short, and then we could add human prisoners in the Underlevel scenario, since we already have a prison area which happens to be empty. Then this freed prisoners could be the one who informed Tallin about Aiglondur's exploit. Or if the scenarios are too iconic to be removed, either revamp the Fear scenario or revamp the Siege scenario into something else. My idea is that maybe elements from the 2 scenarios could be merged, like maybe during the siege, our party noticed that the Kal Karthans are sending human peasant as fodder. This in my opinion could also shows how Karrag casted glamours on the Kal Karthan dwarves, seeing they have no qualms sending peasants to their death.

It's tempting to try some big plot changes, but my main goal with this campaign was to bring the story closer to how it was in 1.14. THoT is rated rather poorly right now, and I've heard from multiple players that the 1.14 plot was generally preferred. With that in mind, I'd generally prefer mild changes that remain similar to 1.14, instead of major rewrites.

True, I rarely play multiplayer, so I don't really think that far. But still, i think the dagger attack should be removed, since it has no animation and we're already wielding a torch. And also, since we can't have good fire damage, maybe having the grenadier having illuminate ability could be considered, since we're wielding a torch, to make them a more support focused unit. Since dwarves are neutral, it shouldn't affect the balance too much, but it would still help against fighting chaotic enemies during the night.

We've actually had quite a lot of discussion about the Grenadier on both github and the discord. At one point I was hoping to add him as a core unit and was testing him in THoT, but right now the consensus is that 'smoke' is too overpowered for core.

The idea of Illuminates has come up a couple times, but there've been good cricitisms about how it would impact the broader game. If a torch is enough to Illuminate, why doesn't the Goblin Pillager get it? Why doesn't every lawful army hire a couple peasants to hold torches when they go into battle?

Right now Illuminates is a strictly magical effect (or needs a big, stationary lighthouse/bonfire/brazier, in some campaigns), which raises far fewer issues.

[ZIM]

Ok, that seems reasonable. If we do change S01's enemies to outlaws, maybe there's a good way to tie in the cloak pin?

I think it could be achieved by having a last breath event where the striking unit ask why the leader have the cloak pin on them, and them replying by saying they found it from an abandoned dwarven outpost

It's tempting to try some big plot changes, but my main goal with this campaign was to bring the story closer to how it was in 1.14. THoT is rated rather poorly right now, and I've heard from multiple players that the 1.14 plot was generally preferred. With that in mind, I'd generally prefer mild changes that remain similar to 1.14, instead of major rewrites.

Ok, fair enough, if your goal is bringing it closer to the 1.14 plot, then I'd say you did a really good job, how you handled the Fear scenario is better than the current one, I'd say. But what's your opinion about the point I raised about the dwarves having a raiding party while they're under siege?

We've actually had quite a lot of discussion about the Grenadier on both github and the discord. At one point I was hoping to add him as a core unit and was testing him in THoT, but right now the consensus is that 'smoke' is too overpowered for core.

The idea of Illuminates has come up a couple times, but there've been good cricitisms about how it would impact the broader game. If a torch is enough to Illuminate, why doesn't the Goblin Pillager get it? Why doesn't every lawful army hire a couple peasants to hold torches when they go into battle?

Right now Illuminates is a strictly magical effect (or needs a big, stationary lighthouse/bonfire/brazier, in some campaigns), which raises far fewer issues.

Ok, that's a good point which again i didn't think further upon. I guess if smoke alone made the grenadier overpowered, then illuminate would only skew the balance even further. I personally think it's just fine, since you only have 1 chance which in my case misses almost all of the time. Maybe limiting its accuracy with a weapon special, like it having a maximum accuracy of 40% could be a solution for introducing it to core? The reason could be that it's kinda hard to aim a grenade, or something along that line.

[redbeard2]

I'm getting through the campaign, and will have more commentary soon.

Regarding the cloak pin, I have this suggestion: When you save the Alliance orcs, the dwarves can mention that they are investigating the origin of the pin, and the orcs can mention that raiders were coming from the east selling spoils of their attacks. That way even human bandits may have the pin, even if they didn't participate in the attacks.

[redbeard2]

Mages and Drakes: I feel this scenario feels out of place in how the dwarves behave. In every other scenario the dwarves emphasize honorable fights and justice, yet side with these mages who make no secret about their just coming around bothering drakes who seem to be defending themselves. In all honesty I feel the dwarves would reasonably side with the drakes in this one. After all, the drakes played a major role in defeating the orcs in Northern Rebirth (at least the way I played it keeping Krash alive), and the dwarves wouldn't view them as soulless monsters, but possible friends, certainly more so than these random humans.

At most maybe the player could chose which faction to help, but given there's been so much expansion of drakes as a faction with personality in recent campaigns their role as generic antagonist here just doesn't work.

[holypaladin]

Mages and Drakes: I feel this scenario feels out of place in how the dwarves behave. In every other scenario the dwarves emphasize honorable fights and justice, yet side with these mages who make no secret about their just coming around bothering drakes who seem to be defending themselves. In all honesty I feel the dwarves would reasonably side with the drakes in this one. After all, the drakes played a major role in defeating the orcs in Northern Rebirth (at least the way I played it keeping Krash alive), and the dwarves wouldn't view them as soulless monsters, but possible friends, certainly more so than these random humans.

At most maybe the player could chose which faction to help, but given there's been so much expansion of drakes as a faction with personality in recent campaigns their role as generic antagonist here just doesn't work.

My suggestion is to follow how I made it - drakes doesn't appear in NRR (except for scenario where together with saurians are orcs' mercenaries) but in THoT drakes attack allied elves so dwarves support Krash which here is the one that is more peaceful drake and take over leadership among drakes after enemy leader is defeated. I personally think it make sense and open possibility to further use of drakes as allies.