The Hammer of Thursagan

This is the place for discussing development of mainline campaigns, reporting bugs in them and providing overall feedback.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8137
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

esr wrote:
Gameplay: The difficulty of the scenarios is widely varied. The first three scenarios were trivial; Invaders was quite difficult, since I hadn't made any Dwarvish Lords yet (I had three by the end); High Pass easy, Mages and Drakes somewhat tricky, Fear quite difficult.
Good, that's about the gradient I was aiming for.
Not sure if this is practical, but I'd like to have some indication of how difficult the scenario is going to be before starting, so that I don't bring a grossly incorrect amount of forces on my first try.
esr wrote:You've unerringly put your finger right on the most serious design problem I had. Yes, it's difficult to be tactically interesting with a dwarves-only side. Jetryl and I have kicked around an idea for a unit line of barbarian troops that could represent (among other things) the Northern Alliance's human infantry and cavalry. Adding those to Aiglondur's recruit list would help.
Certain enemy types and terrain can help. Horsemen, as I mentioned previously (which both add some risk to you and offset the balance away from mostly-fighters.) A few enemy high-level mages (or any moderate HP, high attack units) would add some spice by making actual risk for your high-HP units, where currently the only risk is once they've been worn at for several turns. Remember also that you're not limited to simply giving each AI side a certain recruit list - you can engineer a force with the proportions you want, etc.

Water also. Any other terrain is basically just "do I want to give the heroes 30% defense or 60% defense on this tile" but strategically placed water makes actually varied gameplay. The map of "Fear" is quite nice in this regard. (None of the other maps' water is nearly that effective, though. Also, consider more variety than just "each map will have a few everywhere-1-hex-wide rivers in it.")
esr wrote:Short of that, I tried to address the tactical-variety problem by giving him one gryphon and the loremaster.
I only recall the gryphon for scenarios where it's useful as a scout. Its tactical potential is cramped by the fact that you get no second chances with it (and it's less tough than all your other units.) Maybe allow you to recruit another whenever it dies? I'm sure you could come up with an excuse for that.

The loremaster, of course, is pretty heavy-handed... maybe shift one of its abilities to the hero? I find it slightly disappointing to have a hero unit that's just the same as my other Dwarvish Lords, but with less HP or less speed (since he has Intelligent instead.)
esr wrote:I have contemplated mainlining the Explorer unit from UtBS so THoT can use it.
This (and the "barbarian troops" idea) have a sneaky little problem: In order to make the added troops usable, you need to make them something that complements a dwarvish force. Almost nothing complements a dwarvish force.

The Mages are spot on. Give them earlier, perhaps?
esr wrote:Do you think allowing Aiglondur to recruit ulfserkers would be a good thing?
No.
esr wrote:
The fact that the next few scenarios after you get Mages are hard scenarios for Mages? Doesn't help...
That was deliberate, too. One thing dwarven heavy infantry is particularly good for is bodyguarding mages. That's what you have to do.
Right, but Elves? Bodyguarding doesn't help a lot when the enemies all have powerful ranged attacks. The only way you'll get decent experience for your Mages there is to feed them kills, and that really doesn't feel right roleplaying-wise (These mages haven't done anything for us, and now we're pampering them?)

"Fear" was fine. (incidentally, how did that scenario get its name? and why does the peasant run straight for his death?)
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
User avatar
Turuk
Sithslayer
Posts: 5283
Joined: February 28th, 2007, 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Turuk »

Elvish Pillager wrote:Not sure if this is practical, but I'd like to have some indication of how difficult the scenario is going to be before starting, so that I don't bring a grossly incorrect amount of forces on my first try.
While I sympathize with this feeling as I have had it on scenarios in the past, I don't know that I'm for there always being an indication of what the scenario will contain. I usually just recruit conservatively if I can and adjust accordingly as it becomes apparent what enemy I am facing. This is more true on the hardest setting in this campaign with the limited gold and high level characters.
Elvish Pillager wrote:Water also. Any other terrain is basically just "do I want to give the heroes 30% defense or 60% defense on this tile" but strategically placed water makes actually varied gameplay. The map of "Fear" is quite nice in this regard. (None of the other maps' water is nearly that effective, though. Also, consider more variety than just "each map will have a few everywhere-1-hex-wide rivers in it.")
Agreed, this was one of the few scenarios where I actually felt I was battling for control of a bridge/ford area in order to cross effectively.
Elvish Pillager wrote:"Fear" was fine. (incidentally, how did that scenario get its name? and why does the peasant run straight for his death?)
I believe for the fact that the masked dwarves have put fear into the peasant's hearts with the destruction of their homes/killing them, and the peasant (as noted by his dialogue) runs to his death to avenge his family and friends.
Mainline Maintainer: AOI, DM, NR, TB and THoT.
UMC Maintainer: Forward They Cried, A Few Logs, A Few More Logs, Start of the War, and Battle Against Time
User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8137
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Turuk wrote:...the peasant (as noted by his dialogue) runs to his death to avenge his family and friends.
After he was cowering in the village from them? I'm not convinced...
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
User avatar
Turuk
Sithslayer
Posts: 5283
Joined: February 28th, 2007, 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Turuk »

Elvish Pillager wrote:
Turuk wrote:...the peasant (as noted by his dialogue) runs to his death to avenge his family and friends.
After he was cowering in the village from them? I'm not convinced...
Well he's not suddenly doing it on his own, he's bolstered by burly dwarves who have come to attack those who destroyed his life. Emboldened by their presence, he could easily give in to repressed anger and hate towards the invaders, and make some foolhardy charge.
Mainline Maintainer: AOI, DM, NR, TB and THoT.
UMC Maintainer: Forward They Cried, A Few Logs, A Few More Logs, Start of the War, and Battle Against Time
Archaeologist
Posts: 2
Joined: April 21st, 2009, 1:14 am

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Archaeologist »

I've been quite frustrated with Level 10- The Siege of Kal Kartha.

It's not a matter of gold, or even difficulty (on Normal). It's a matter of time.

I've continually replayed this scenario, and every single time I can't get my troops to the gates in time. All the Allied Dwarves are dead by turn 6-7 depending on how their luck is, and they've surrounded the Steel Clad by turn 8. Which is a bit of a problem considering that give or take a turn it takes me 9 turns to get into skirmish range of the gates.

I can't for the life of my get them to disengage their mad zerg rush to the Gates, and attack my guys instead. Every single team just charges for the gates.
AI
Developer
Posts: 2396
Joined: January 31st, 2008, 8:38 pm

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by AI »

Which version?
fatquack
Posts: 35
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 2:07 am

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by fatquack »

I have the same problem as Archaeologist. Version 1,6, even on easy I just don't get there in time. I sent some freshly recruted level1 units ahead, to try and draw the enemy, but except for some wolves I was ignored, they all rushed the gate. And the defending dwarves keep attacking the orcs and leave the hills and mountains. A dwarvish fighter attacking an orcish warrior on grass at night is basically suicide. If they would just stay in the hills and mountains for a few turns it would be doable.
Never seemed to have that problem in 1.4.
zaimoni
Posts: 281
Joined: January 27th, 2005, 7:00 am
Location: Linn Valley, KS U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by zaimoni »

Archaeologist wrote:I've been quite frustrated with Level 10- The Siege of Kal Kartha.

It's not a matter of gold, or even difficulty (on Normal). It's a matter of time.

I've continually replayed this scenario, and every single time I can't get my troops to the gates in time. All the Allied Dwarves are dead by turn 6-7 depending on how their luck is, and they've surrounded the Steel Clad by turn 8. Which is a bit of a problem considering that give or take a turn it takes me 9 turns to get into skirmish range of the gates.
There's no time for this strategy on Easy, either.
I can't for the life of my get them to disengage their mad zerg rush to the Gates, and attack my guys instead. Every single team just charges for the gates.
Which leaves the leaders conveniently unguarded.

I find this scenario to be critically dependent on both having a horde of Quick Dwarves, and the Gryphon Rider.
Archaeologist
Posts: 2
Joined: April 21st, 2009, 1:14 am

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Archaeologist »

Then it's flawed and really should be reconsidered, at least in the present game environment.

There's barely enough time to get within skirmish range of the Other Orc Armies before the Dwarves are overrun. This is a wee bit of a problem in it's own right. There's also no indication that trying to kill all the leaders within a 10 turn time-frame is not only an option, but even worth considering. It's also misleading to the players to have the turn limit not indicate they're to finish things quickly.

More so, what does it mean for the player who's trying to keep his units alive? "Oh hey, go suicidally zerg rush all your best units into the enemy here. Don't worry, I'm sure 2-3 will survive." It's madness and exasperating. It made me abandon the campaign three times. I understand that the level designer will have an idea for how the player should approach the level, but he shouldn't be punishing the player. There's no flexibility here at all. You're imposing another time limit on top of the game's preexisting conditions such as turn number, and victory conditions.
zaimoni
Posts: 281
Joined: January 27th, 2005, 7:00 am
Location: Linn Valley, KS U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by zaimoni »

Archaeologist wrote:There's barely enough time to get within skirmish range of the Other Orc Armies before the Dwarves are overrun.
???

I don't get anyone other than the Gryphon rider to the skirmish on Easy; the mages have to wait for armored support before attempting the central orc leader, and the Dwarf Lords/Steelclads don't get to anyone before turn 6. The Gryphon might get a vulnerable orc if the AI dwarves look like they'll provide cover, but other than that none of my forces ever reach the other orc armies.
Archaeologist wrote:This is a wee bit of a problem in it's own right. There's also no indication that trying to kill all the leaders within a 10 turn time-frame is not only an option, but even worth considering.
Make that 7-8 turns. I haven't let the game go on that long, but I'm pretty sure Dulcatulos goes down on turn 9-10 (Easy) if the orcs aren't routed. That means a 12-turn time limit (on Easy) doesn't provide any time pressure at all, although the gold removed this way should be put into the starting gold in the grand finale.

As for indication -- problem is that by the time the indication is there (turn 3, when the orcs simply leave their leaders wide-open) you've already committed. I just found it natural to send strike forces aganst all three leaders at once.
Archaeologist wrote:It's also misleading to the players to have the turn limit not indicate they're to finish things quickly.
The turn limits in THoT appear to be designed to provide gold. In this case, you'll need a lot of it to recruit properly for the grand finale; every little bit helps.

It is worth noting that ESR also has a guide on how to write campaigns. That guide really doesn't like sharp turn limits.
Archaeologist wrote:More so, what does it mean for the player who's trying to keep his units alive? "Oh hey, go suicidally zerg rush all your best units into the enemy here. Don't worry, I'm sure 2-3 will survive."
If only the zerg rush would arrive at all.

That was my first thought about Strange Allies, actually (but the key there is to simply not have your ready-to-promotes arrive first).
User avatar
A-Red
Art Contributor
Posts: 495
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 1:21 am

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by A-Red »

I just got the Annalist leveled to Loremaster, and he suddenly lost his frames--at least the main one, I haven't fought anyone yet to find out if other frames are there. I'm playing 1.6.1. Is this a known issue?
datakid
Posts: 7
Joined: November 2nd, 2004, 9:01 am

Re: New campaign: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by datakid »

I am also unable to complete Scenario 10 - The Siege of Kal Kartha for the reasons listed above.

wesnoth, 1.6, ubuntu jaunty.

I do it on the middle difficulty level and the orcs just charge and overrun the dwarves before I can get to the leaders. I think I may have killed the Northern orc leader once, but I had known that it was a futile gesture forr about 2 turns by that point - I was just trying it again...
User avatar
Shinobody
Posts: 391
Joined: March 9th, 2011, 5:46 pm
Location: somewhere in Poland

Re: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by Shinobody »

Hello? Anybody here?
By that I mean, if there's anyone here interested in continuing development of tHoTh... Since campaign still needs a lot of development, IMO...
I also hope this is NOT necroing, because although 2 years has passed since last post, these ones are necro-proof, right?
Right? :roll:
Artist, writer, game designer for hire.
Art portfolio: https://shino1.artstation.com
Writing dump: https://shino1portfolio.wordpress.com/
My itchio for video games and TTRPG stuff: https://shino1.itch.io/
User avatar
tr0ll
Posts: 551
Joined: June 11th, 2006, 8:13 pm
Location: canada

Re: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by tr0ll »

What are your ideas for further development?
The "recent" posts above are either misplaced (should be in campaign feedback) or left over from its pre-mainline days. I played this campaign on 1.9.6 and had no problems finishing on normal.
podbelski
Posts: 151
Joined: June 7th, 2011, 8:35 pm

Re: The Hammer of Thursagan

Post by podbelski »

Just finishing the campaign is not the only aim I guess, it should be both challenging to a certain degree and fun to play.

This campaign is confirmed to have one "broken" scenario (siege). I'm new to Wesnoth and just trying to find out how everything goes here, looks like noone is maintaining The Hammer of Thursagan :(
Post Reply