On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Bruno Wolff III <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This doesn't sound correct. If you did well in the earlier scenarios,
> you should be well positioned to do well in the current one. The issue
> is when you win the scenarios without doing well.
>
One question I have is whether this "issue" is actually a problem.
In Wesnoth you play a -campaign-. It's called a campaign because it's
modeled after real-world military campaigns in which a general leads their
army in a series of battles. In any military campaign a successful general
must make sure that they not only win a battle, but do so without losses
great enough to hinder the remainder of the campaign. In fact, winning a
battle but suffering losses great enough to damage one's likelihood of
success in the campaign has a specific name after a famous historical
example ("pyrrhic victory").
Are the existence of pyrrhic victories in Wesnoth such a bad thing? I
don't necessarily think so. In fact I think a great, fun moment for a
player is getting to scenario 8 of a campaign, getting repeatedly crushed,
then thinking "but wow, with all I've learned I can play over from scenario
1 and I bet I can do so much better" -- when they do so successfully and
return to scenario 8 crushing it it's such a satisfying experience.
David
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
