On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 03:11:45PM +0100, Guillaume Melquiond wrote: > Neither one nor the other; you are forgetting an important point. > Wesnoth is not a tactical RPG, you don't lose when one of your > soldiers die. This thread is not about campaign heroes, it is about > the plain soldiers you recruit. They will die, it's just the way it > is, and you will recruit other units to replace them. If your units > never die, you should really start playing in a harder difficulty > level. Units die, and hence your argument of having "units progress > through the entire campaign" isn't on the mark.
Many of my units die during campaign play, but I try to maintain a "core group" which I try to advance as far as possible. When this core group hits the roof long before the end of the campaign this reduces the fun for me. I enjoy the progression of this "core group" very much. This is just how I enjoy to play, if you want to label that the wrong way to play the game then feel free to do so. > > Let's see, Elvish Genocider, a lv5 unit in the Elvish Avenger branch > *snip* I obviously didn't make it clear enough that I didn't mean this very seriously.... > You seem to forget that units that are capped at lv2 are almost always > stronger than their uncapped counter-parts. Lv2 capped units are > interesting: they provide fast reached low cost heavy hitters. Too bad > you don't think such a diversity between units improve gameplay. I do. > I have no problem with lvl 2 capped _alternatives_ for a unit, and I don't see any significant reduction in diversity in adding a lvl2->lvl3 option to a unit that only has a capped lvl2. Quite the opposite imo. -- mvh (o_ Hogne Håskjold //\ V_/_