Keeping fallen units on campaings
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Keeping fallen units on campaings
Playing the campaing, Its easy assume we are expected to slowly level some units to carry to the next level, starting the later scenarios with some more powered units.
Knowing this, it's easy to start to become attached to your high level units, or any unit and wanting to make a "perfect match" with little to no loss.
However, unless you save-and-load a lot, you are prone to lose some units, sometimes, your most leveled units. Replaying a scenario again and again can turn on a chore, specially on some very large maps.
Since we are expected to have some high leveled unit anyway, won't be easier (and less frustating to the player) to just being able to recall your fallen units on the next scenario?
The first advantage you will be able to use your leveled units more freely.
Replaying a long scenery because one of your precious units died is frustating.
Another advantage is the desginers can create campaings with more powerful entities. The player -will- have some high level units no matter what, so the designer can put some high level units on his side too.
If the players getting way too many high level units too fast is somehow a problem, can always tone down the XP rate on the campaings to allow the units level more slowly. Raising the price to recall very high level units could be higher too.
My 2 cents.
Knowing this, it's easy to start to become attached to your high level units, or any unit and wanting to make a "perfect match" with little to no loss.
However, unless you save-and-load a lot, you are prone to lose some units, sometimes, your most leveled units. Replaying a scenario again and again can turn on a chore, specially on some very large maps.
Since we are expected to have some high leveled unit anyway, won't be easier (and less frustating to the player) to just being able to recall your fallen units on the next scenario?
The first advantage you will be able to use your leveled units more freely.
Replaying a long scenery because one of your precious units died is frustating.
Another advantage is the desginers can create campaings with more powerful entities. The player -will- have some high level units no matter what, so the designer can put some high level units on his side too.
If the players getting way too many high level units too fast is somehow a problem, can always tone down the XP rate on the campaings to allow the units level more slowly. Raising the price to recall very high level units could be higher too.
My 2 cents.
-
Inigo Montoya
- Posts: 199
- Joined: November 27th, 2006, 2:29 pm
- Location: Behind you
But then there's no incentive to keep your units alive - you could play as suicidally as the AI does, and it wouldn't matter as long as you had a few units left to take out the enemy leader.
What would be interesting, though strictly for a custom campaign (not the mainline ones), would be the option to 'buy back' any of your dead units at the end of the scenario, for an appropriately high price (rough estimate - 25 gold x the unit's level, or possibly more). But you can only recover units that died in that battle - if you don't pay at the end of the scenario that they died in, they'd be gone for good.
What would be interesting, though strictly for a custom campaign (not the mainline ones), would be the option to 'buy back' any of your dead units at the end of the scenario, for an appropriately high price (rough estimate - 25 gold x the unit's level, or possibly more). But you can only recover units that died in that battle - if you don't pay at the end of the scenario that they died in, they'd be gone for good.
I don't exist when you don't see me...
I don't exist when you're not here.
You bought a mask - I put it on.
You never thought to ask me if I wear it when you're gone.
I don't exist when you're not here.
You bought a mask - I put it on.
You never thought to ask me if I wear it when you're gone.
I don't think keeping your troops alive should be a requeriment. Most scenarios have a objective (survive for x days, kill y enemy).
If your victory will be paved on the body of your fallen troops, it's a way to play, but I assume any balanced scenario won't be too forgiving with reckless waste of units. If you lose a lot of troops your enemy will level and will sooner or later overwhelm you.
As it is, the only non-frustating way to play the campaigns is to load any "unfair" battle which end up with loss of your troops.
Tired of baby-sitting my high lvl troops I tried my luck on some skirmishs versus the cpu and found it very fun. I could now make some strategic sacrifices whitout worrying of needing these troops later.
If your victory will be paved on the body of your fallen troops, it's a way to play, but I assume any balanced scenario won't be too forgiving with reckless waste of units. If you lose a lot of troops your enemy will level and will sooner or later overwhelm you.
As it is, the only non-frustating way to play the campaigns is to load any "unfair" battle which end up with loss of your troops.
Tired of baby-sitting my high lvl troops I tried my luck on some skirmishs versus the cpu and found it very fun. I could now make some strategic sacrifices whitout worrying of needing these troops later.
-
Inigo Montoya
- Posts: 199
- Joined: November 27th, 2006, 2:29 pm
- Location: Behind you
Keeping your troops alive is NOT a requirement...
In theory it should be possible to complete any campaign using only freshly-recruited troops, if you use them well enough. In practice, in later scenarios the AI will (probably) hand you your ass if you try it.
The (strategic) point of campaigns is not just to level-up as many troops as possible. It's also to learn to use them efficiently - Wesnoth is not reality, but nevertheless certain things still hold true. And few wars have ever been won by needlessly sacrificing veteran troops, when they could have been saved.
There are certain situations, both in the game and in real life, where you have to sacrifice something or someone - most probably as a delaying tactic, while the rest of your army moves to a safer and more defensible location. But any general who makes a habit of hurling his troops into impossible battles, without any concern for their safety, deserves to be defeated - and is more likely to be killed by his own men than by the enemy.
It's really not that hard to keep (most of) your experienced troops alive (in most circumstances*), if necessary by sacrificing fresh recruits instead. Just be careful how you use them!
* Certain scenarios do seem to be designed to kill off as many high-level units as possible. Generally, this is done for valid reasons - specifically, because you're not supposed to have a huge, veteran army when you arrive at the next scenario.
Saying that, sometimes it's just bad scenario design, but this isn't really an issue with the mainline campaigns or a lot of others.
In theory it should be possible to complete any campaign using only freshly-recruited troops, if you use them well enough. In practice, in later scenarios the AI will (probably) hand you your ass if you try it.
The (strategic) point of campaigns is not just to level-up as many troops as possible. It's also to learn to use them efficiently - Wesnoth is not reality, but nevertheless certain things still hold true. And few wars have ever been won by needlessly sacrificing veteran troops, when they could have been saved.
There are certain situations, both in the game and in real life, where you have to sacrifice something or someone - most probably as a delaying tactic, while the rest of your army moves to a safer and more defensible location. But any general who makes a habit of hurling his troops into impossible battles, without any concern for their safety, deserves to be defeated - and is more likely to be killed by his own men than by the enemy.
It's really not that hard to keep (most of) your experienced troops alive (in most circumstances*), if necessary by sacrificing fresh recruits instead. Just be careful how you use them!
* Certain scenarios do seem to be designed to kill off as many high-level units as possible. Generally, this is done for valid reasons - specifically, because you're not supposed to have a huge, veteran army when you arrive at the next scenario.
Saying that, sometimes it's just bad scenario design, but this isn't really an issue with the mainline campaigns or a lot of others.
I don't exist when you don't see me...
I don't exist when you're not here.
You bought a mask - I put it on.
You never thought to ask me if I wear it when you're gone.
I don't exist when you're not here.
You bought a mask - I put it on.
You never thought to ask me if I wear it when you're gone.
-
catwhowalksbyhimself
- Posts: 411
- Joined: January 23rd, 2006, 8:28 am
It's part of the strategy. You have to balance using your powerful units, not losing too many, and leveling new units to replace fallen high level ones.
With your way, all your units would all be level 3 after only a few missions. What's the fun with that? Sounds pretty boring to me.
The way it is, is great. It adds a layer of strategy and depth that the game would greatly miss otherwise.
With your way, all your units would all be level 3 after only a few missions. What's the fun with that? Sounds pretty boring to me.
The way it is, is great. It adds a layer of strategy and depth that the game would greatly miss otherwise.
I am concerned with the fun-factor of the thing.Inigo Montoya wrote:
* Certain scenarios do seem to be designed to kill off as many high-level units as possible. Generally, this is done for valid reasons - specifically, because you're not supposed to have a huge, veteran army when you arrive at the next scenario.
Saying that, sometimes it's just bad scenario design, but this isn't really an issue with the mainline campaigns or a lot of others.
Some scenery, yes, feel like they are made to kill your troops, but note I don't know if this is the purpose of the scenery. All I know high-level units are hard to grab and harder to let go. I could use my Grand Knight to hold a chokepoint while my main army retreats, but.. and if I need him later?
Truth is, the player never knows if and when he will need X and Y high leveled units. He can play risky, go with the flow and find a cockblock ahead, or he can play safe and reload a scenery ad infinitum until he manage to beat it with manageable losses.
On the end, what more then one person do is to reload a unsatisfatory turn to allow as much troops as possible to survive.
The XP rate should be a bit slower to make this work thou, unless fighting with a army of high lvl units is the desired objective, although this ALREADY happens if you save-load.
I also agree that this is the greatest fun-stopper of Wesnoth campaigns, because it forces you to play the scenarios twice - once, to find out all the scripted twists and optimal troop composition and second time to actually finish it.
Sometimes, those twists are just insane - enemy reinforcements coming from unexpected directions, or just popping up in the thin air as a result of some story twist, sometimes wiping out your wounded high-level units that were supposed to rest safely behind the lines (bad luck? reload the level!).
To compensate for the unpredictability, the challenge of the levels must be more forgiving, but then the levels become too easy as you replay them.
I think the greates problem is that the campaign levels are linearly scripted, so replaying is not so much fun. In case of games like Mount and Blade or Swat 4, the actual situation and enemy layout is different in each case, and that makes replays interesting. But in wesnoth, every replay is the same, especially since the AI is so predictable. In campaigns, the enemy units are more obstacles laid by the campaign designer than actual opponents.
Sometimes, those twists are just insane - enemy reinforcements coming from unexpected directions, or just popping up in the thin air as a result of some story twist, sometimes wiping out your wounded high-level units that were supposed to rest safely behind the lines (bad luck? reload the level!).
To compensate for the unpredictability, the challenge of the levels must be more forgiving, but then the levels become too easy as you replay them.
I think the greates problem is that the campaign levels are linearly scripted, so replaying is not so much fun. In case of games like Mount and Blade or Swat 4, the actual situation and enemy layout is different in each case, and that makes replays interesting. But in wesnoth, every replay is the same, especially since the AI is so predictable. In campaigns, the enemy units are more obstacles laid by the campaign designer than actual opponents.
Many people (me very much included) completely agree with you on this point. However, situations like that are (obviously) simply due to bad scenario/campaign design. I'd much rather have campaigns designed (and fixed) to work in a better-than-horrible way than to change the whole game so that you wouldn't need to be careful with your important units.Kamamura wrote:I also agree that this is the greatest fun-stopper of Wesnoth campaigns, because it forces you to play the scenarios twice - once, to find out all the scripted twists and optimal troop composition and second time to actually finish it.
Sometimes, those twists are just insane - enemy reinforcements coming from unexpected directions, or just popping up in the thin air as a result of some story twist, sometimes wiping out your wounded high-level units that were supposed to rest safely behind the lines (bad luck? reload the level!).
If an enemy pops up out of thin air and kills the players leader that he had every reason to assume was safe, then the blame falls solely on the campaign designer, not the underlying game mechanics.
EDIT: Unfortunately, basically every single campaign I've played to any extent has some design faults like this (some just have a few problem spots you might stumble upon, some introduce situations like that constantly). I'm guessing the underlying game mechanics are actually pretty hard to work with when trying to create scenarios that are both tactically interesting and have some story advancement or other happenings mid-scenario while not having any surprises that have the potential of making the player lose outright.
-
Inigo Montoya
- Posts: 199
- Joined: November 27th, 2006, 2:29 pm
- Location: Behind you
HOW NOT TO DO IT:
On Turn 12, without warning 10 enemy Horsemen appear behind your lines, spawning on the map-edge nearest your keep. You haven't moved your leader, because you didn't need him on the front lines, and nor have you guarded him, because the enemy appeared to be so weak that you didn't need to.
Game over.
HOW TO DO IT:
On turn 7, a message from the enemy leader appears, directed to one of his aides and telling him to summon reinforcements from the nearest barracks (mentioning the direction, and the fact that it's behind the player).
On turn 8, another message as the aide in question lights a signal-fire and rings an extremely large bell.
On turn 10, yet another message, from the player's own leader: "What's that I hear? It sounds like hooves - and lots of hooves! And it's coming from behind us!"
Turn 11: "They're getting closer - close enough to see that they wear the colours of the enemy!"
Turn 12: 10 enemy horsemen appear, with plenty of warning while still providing a tactical challenge (since the player now has 1 turn to recruit whatever he can, before being forced to flee for the safety of the nearest forest)
I realise the dialog's pretty lousy in this example, but you get the idea.
On Turn 12, without warning 10 enemy Horsemen appear behind your lines, spawning on the map-edge nearest your keep. You haven't moved your leader, because you didn't need him on the front lines, and nor have you guarded him, because the enemy appeared to be so weak that you didn't need to.
Game over.
HOW TO DO IT:
On turn 7, a message from the enemy leader appears, directed to one of his aides and telling him to summon reinforcements from the nearest barracks (mentioning the direction, and the fact that it's behind the player).
On turn 8, another message as the aide in question lights a signal-fire and rings an extremely large bell.
On turn 10, yet another message, from the player's own leader: "What's that I hear? It sounds like hooves - and lots of hooves! And it's coming from behind us!"
Turn 11: "They're getting closer - close enough to see that they wear the colours of the enemy!"
Turn 12: 10 enemy horsemen appear, with plenty of warning while still providing a tactical challenge (since the player now has 1 turn to recruit whatever he can, before being forced to flee for the safety of the nearest forest)
I realise the dialog's pretty lousy in this example, but you get the idea.
I don't exist when you don't see me...
I don't exist when you're not here.
You bought a mask - I put it on.
You never thought to ask me if I wear it when you're gone.
I don't exist when you're not here.
You bought a mask - I put it on.
You never thought to ask me if I wear it when you're gone.
Personally, I think I was wrong.
Seeing the game options, there is a menu to load a specific turn.. you can back as many turns as you want and the game even save every turn automaticaly.
0bviously loading, while frowed by some, is a viable alternative with ample support in-game, trying to find a option by it is fooly when you can resort to the already implemented solution of ignoring any bad result you had.
I personally prefer to try to complete any given stage whitout resorting to ignore any of my bad judgment calls, but the game isn't designed to support it. A player can win every fight and suddenly found himself outmached on a later scenary, whitout gold or good troops. A victory is a victory and you shouldn't be penalized by winning it fair.
The solution: Save and Load.. a lot. If wasnt intended there would be no dropdown menu to back a turn, right?
Seeing the game options, there is a menu to load a specific turn.. you can back as many turns as you want and the game even save every turn automaticaly.
0bviously loading, while frowed by some, is a viable alternative with ample support in-game, trying to find a option by it is fooly when you can resort to the already implemented solution of ignoring any bad result you had.
I personally prefer to try to complete any given stage whitout resorting to ignore any of my bad judgment calls, but the game isn't designed to support it. A player can win every fight and suddenly found himself outmached on a later scenary, whitout gold or good troops. A victory is a victory and you shouldn't be penalized by winning it fair.
The solution: Save and Load.. a lot. If wasnt intended there would be no dropdown menu to back a turn, right?
I think you will enjoy Wesnoth more if you take the attitude that units are expendable, and only save+load if you have suffered major losses (instead of just 'emotional' losses). Remember, you can take it out on the AI by avenging your fallen comrades!
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."
-
Darth Fool
- Retired Developer
- Posts: 2633
- Joined: March 22nd, 2004, 11:22 pm
- Location: An Earl's Roadstead
You are mistaking tools that are there for the benefit of the development of wesnoth for tools that are meant for the player to abuse. The primary reason for autosaves every turn is to make it easier (a lot easier really) to debug the game. I can't count the number of times someone has posted a 'bug' that would have been nigh impossible to squash if not for an autosave from the previous turn. As an opensource project, wesnoth developers' tools don't get removed in production. I mean really, do you think that because you can type ":debug" and then start adding any number of units to your side, or any amount of gold, that this means that the intent is for players to use this feature to complete campaigns?Beholder wrote:Personally, I think I was wrong.
Seeing the game options, there is a menu to load a specific turn.. you can back as many turns as you want and the game even save every turn automaticaly.
0bviously loading, while frowed by some, is a viable alternative with ample support in-game, trying to find a option by it is fooly when you can resort to the already implemented solution of ignoring any bad result you had.
I personally prefer to try to complete any given stage whitout resorting to ignore any of my bad judgment calls, but the game isn't designed to support it. A player can win every fight and suddenly found himself outmached on a later scenary, whitout gold or good troops. A victory is a victory and you shouldn't be penalized by winning it fair.
The solution: Save and Load.. a lot. If wasnt intended there would be no dropdown menu to back a turn, right?
Oh, and at what level are you playing wesnoth? From your complaint, I presume it must be easy.
"you can already do that with WML"
Fight Creeeping Biggerism!
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 760#131760
http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 1358#11358
Generally, you shouldn't worry too much about losing high-level units. In my last play-through of TROW, I lost almost a dozen upgraded units in various places and still had so many for the final battle that I couldn't recall them all with 1,000 gold pieces.
If you want to get better at this game, take calculated risks but be ready to face the consequences (loss of a unit) if those risks turn bad, and just play on. Unless it's something like losing an Elvish Shyde when you didn't have another healer handy, it shouldn't pose too much of a problem - and even then it may not be an immediate problem, allowing you to level another one.
If you want to get better at this game, take calculated risks but be ready to face the consequences (loss of a unit) if those risks turn bad, and just play on. Unless it's something like losing an Elvish Shyde when you didn't have another healer handy, it shouldn't pose too much of a problem - and even then it may not be an immediate problem, allowing you to level another one.
To Darth FoolDarth Fool wrote:You are mistaking tools that are there for the benefit of the development of wesnoth for tools that are meant for the player to abuse. The primary reason for autosaves every turn is to make it easier (a lot easier really) to debug the game. I can't count the number of times someone has posted a 'bug' that would have been nigh impossible to squash if not for an autosave from the previous turn. As an opensource project, wesnoth developers' tools don't get removed in production. I mean really, do you think that because you can type ":debug" and then start adding any number of units to your side, or any amount of gold, that this means that the intent is for players to use this feature to complete campaigns?Beholder wrote:Personally, I think I was wrong.
Seeing the game options, there is a menu to load a specific turn.. you can back as many turns as you want and the game even save every turn automaticaly.
0bviously loading, while frowed by some, is a viable alternative with ample support in-game, trying to find a option by it is fooly when you can resort to the already implemented solution of ignoring any bad result you had.
I personally prefer to try to complete any given stage whitout resorting to ignore any of my bad judgment calls, but the game isn't designed to support it. A player can win every fight and suddenly found himself outmached on a later scenary, whitout gold or good troops. A victory is a victory and you shouldn't be penalized by winning it fair.
The solution: Save and Load.. a lot. If wasnt intended there would be no dropdown menu to back a turn, right?
Oh, and at what level are you playing wesnoth? From your complaint, I presume it must be easy.
Well, I am a player, not a developer. I didn't even know about ":debug" or the use of autosave to squashing bugs.
If the auto-save thing is for bug-hunting, I take back what I said about it being there to make the game easier.
But I think you are losing the sight of the player on the end. Sure, Wesnoth as a program is very well made, from all the damage charts you can have to the very nice interface.
But a game is (too) about fun, growing your units is fun. Losing then forever because all enemies hit all blows agains't all odds isn't. Needing to open a old save because you aren't suited for the current scenery is yet worse.
To close, the remark about me playing on easy was unecessary AND ilogical. IF I played on easy I would have no easy to load the game, unless you are, which is more problaly, hinting I am a bad player. Being this the case, I only won't answer in kind because you are a moderator and I am not.
To Imp
I agree.. after playing the game one time (or several) I would be less worried about which units I lose, or even losing units at all. If I would replay Heir of the Throne, I would problaly level my Shamans as soon as possible, and never make Lancers again.
But on the first time you play the game, you don't know if you will need little or much gold on the next scenery, or if you will need high level units or not and the player tend to avoid risking his precious units lest it be needed on the next time.
Of course, if all scenarios can be beaten with mininal gold and fresh recruits, having a party with some high level trivialize the campaign.
I do generally agree that losing experienced units solely due to the RNG is not fun, and that it's perfectly valid criticism of the gameplay (which doesn't mean that it'd probably ever get changed, though: it's still a question of different players liking/disliking different kinds of gameplay, even if the reasons for disliking the current way are sound).
I think it's fair to assume that you're a new and relatively inexperienced player, who therefore should be playing on the easiest setting(s).Beholder wrote:To close, the remark about me playing on easy was unecessary AND ilogical. IF I played on easy I would have no easy to load the game, unless you are, which is more problaly, hinting I am a bad player.