suggestion about commanders [Archive]

klausD

September 29th, 2003, 03:38 PM

Thanks alot for the good answers. Looks like the game will be a good one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Just to post some "wishes" I would love to see in dominion.

-sea battles with ships (underwater battles are very fine, but I am a ship lover and up to now no empire building fantasy game has a good tactical solution for ship combat)

-user can name terrain features (rivers, forests etc)

-improvements of fortifications (more towers, better walls or similar)

-ablility to build some economic improvements (not many but some) in a province - resource mines, mills etc.

-more orders for units before battle begins. For example wedge orders for kavallery squads or turtle for well trained heavy infantry. (would look very dynamic if 20 Black Lords are rapidly engaging in a wedge formation...)

-siege machines (maybe they are already in Dominion II, but I miss them in Dom I Demo)

-a dimension like the spirit dimension in MOM

I have it already recommended Dom to some gaming friends of mine. (at least we will buy dom II)

by
KlausD

[ September 29, 2003, 14:39: Message edited by: klausD ]

Aristoteles

September 29th, 2003, 03:40 PM

You have some cool ideas there, Klaus!

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 03:45 PM

Good ideas actualy.
Siege engines and ships would be nice...
Maybe in Dominions III...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ September 29, 2003, 14:47: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Mortifer

September 29th, 2003, 03:49 PM

Ships are a very good idea, and siege engines as well!
Upgrade the castle.....mmmmm...would be sweet!
Perhaps there should be like 5 upgrade options for all designs! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 03:52 PM

*brainstorming for Dominions III begins*

[ September 29, 2003, 14:52: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

johan osterman

September 29th, 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by klausD:
Thanks alot for the good answers. Looks like the game will be a good one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Just to post some "wishes" I would love to see in dominion.

-sea battles with ships (underwater battles are very fine, but I am a ship lover and up to now no empire building fantasy game has a good tactical solution for ship combat)

-user can name terrain features (rivers, forests etc)

-improvements of fortifications (more towers, better walls or similar)

-ablility to build some economic improvements (not many but some) in a province - resource mines, mills etc.

-more orders for units before battle begins. For example wedge orders for kavallery squads or turtle for well trained heavy infantry. (would look very dynamic if 20 Black Lords are rapidly engaging in a wedge formation...)

-siege machines (maybe they are already in Dominion II, but I miss them in Dom I Demo)

-a dimension like the spirit dimension in MOM

I have it already recommended Dom to some gaming friends of mine. (at least we will buy dom II)

by
KlausDShip and sea battles where are not included because we thought it would be odd mixing it with the underwater nations, it also would require a new tactical combat.

There are no more economic or building improvements by design, dominions focuses on war and research. I myself do not like MOO, Civ or MOM like city building.

Formations are difficult to implement at this stage, especially if they are to have an effect such as shield walls or testudoes adding to missle protection.

Sieges machines are not implemented because illwinter believed that they were not a major features of field battles, and in sieges the sieges engines are abstracted. There are however sappers and siege engineers in dom2, the �game mechanics of these is that they give a siege bonus, this is the abstract way of representing them building siege engines and underming walls etc. There is also a new siege Golem.

If you want a spirit dimension you can create it by parting the map into different sectors and setting gateway provinces as neighbours. See Kristoffers map Hollow world as an example of this. It is downloadable from the illwinter site.

[ September 29, 2003, 15:01: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 04:00 PM

Siege Golem?
Oh my...

Well, i'm happy with Dominions (II) the way it is.

klausD

September 29th, 2003, 04:32 PM

Many thanks for your reply.

Ship and sea battles where are not included because we thought it would be odd mixing it with the underwater nations, it also would require a new tactical combat. I am not sure if this would be so odd. Just imagine some chtulhuoids appearing suddenly from deep sea and attacking a full equipped war fleet. Interesting scenario I would say. Of course some new rules adjustments for such engagments would be necessary.

There are no more economic or building improvements by design, dominions focuses on war and research. I myself do not like MOO, Civ or MOM like city building.
I agree. But I did not suggest the full range of hundreds of buildings etc like in CIV. Just add 4 or 5. (eg. a mill for income, a mine for resource value, a second fortification type etc. this would be enough I think, without burdening the game with many unnecessary buildings)

Formations are difficult to implement at this stage, especially if they are to have an effect such as shield walls or testudoes adding to missle protection.Its not necessary to let formations have some big historic impacts. Formations could just be a +1 to attack, prot, or defend. This should not imbalance the game. I was only suggesting it because of the big picture and for giving the player the possibility to watch in 3D combat a horde or a trained "roman style army". (would be great just for athmospheric feeling) Now its so that every army is somewhat moving around "undisciplined" in combat mode, which is fine for barbaric hordes and trolls etc. but not for ULM or similar armies.

bye

KlausD

johan osterman

September 29th, 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by klausD:
Many thanks for your reply.

I am not sure if this would be so odd. Just imagine some chtulhuoids appearing suddenly from deep sea and attacking a full equipped war fleet. Interesting scenario I would say. Of course some new rules adjustments for such engagments would be necessary.

I agree. But I did not suggest the full range of hundreds of buildings etc like in CIV. Just add 4 or 5. (eg. a mill for income, a mine for resource value, a second fortification type etc. this would be enough I think, without burdening the game with many unnecessary buildings)

Its not necessary to let formations have some big historic impacts. Formations could just be a +1 to attack, prot, or defend. This should not imbalance the game. I was only suggesting it because of the big picture and for giving the player the possibility to watch in 3D combat a horde or a trained "roman style army". (would be great just for athmospheric feeling) Now its so that every army is somewhat moving around "undisciplined" in combat mode, which is fine for barbaric hordes and trolls etc. but not for ULM or similar armies.

bye

KlausDI hope I do not come across as argumentative, but I want to clarify.

About the ships I did not mean that it would be odd that there were both ships and aquatics, it is the implementation which is problematic. If there were to be a tactiacal ship to be ship combat there are a multitude of issues needing to be answered. For example: how would posession be determined of a water province? Should it be layered with one underwater and one surface level water province? How do aquatic troops interact with ships in the tactical combat? Are the ordinary troops and ships on the same scale? How do troops aboard ships interact with ships or aquatic troops? If ship combat were to occur on a different scale than ordinary tactical combat interaction between aquatics and ships becomes problematic. I could go on. I think there are very many difficulties trying to implement ship combat in a way that would fit into the existing system, especially into the tactical system.

I just dont think that economic development would add anything to the game. I prefer if that aspect is kept simple. I guess I do not see why it would be desirable to add to that aspect at all, even if kept simpler than in MOO or Civ.

I am not opposed to formations as such, nor do I think they would necessary be unbalancing. But like the tactical ship combat they are a bit tricky to implement under the current system, perhaps less so than the ship to ship combat but still tricky enough for them to require major work on the tac combat, both rule wise and AI wise. So while I would like formations as well I just don't see it happening.

[ September 29, 2003, 15:56: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Mortifer

September 29th, 2003, 04:59 PM

Johan - I think, that there is a very good idea.
The possibility to upgrade the castles/towers etc.
Each castle/keep etc. should give additional bonuses, after they have been upgraded.
Example? You are upgrading a fortified city -> Population will grow faster. You upgrade it again -> More and lot stronger militia or other + bonuses, etc.
I think that would be awesome! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ September 29, 2003, 16:01: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

johan osterman

September 29th, 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
Johan - I think, that there is a very good idea.
The possibility to upgrade the castles/towers etc.
Each castle/keep etc. should give additional bonuses, after they have been upgraded.
Example? You are upgrading a fortified city -> Population will grow faster. You upgrade it again -> More and lot stronger militia or other + bonuses, etc.
I think that would be awesome! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif Why is it a good idea? I understand that they could be made to add different bonuses but unlike the formations or the sea battles I do not see the appeal. To me it adding more economic improvements would just be adding an additional hassle to the game that would not add to the gameplay and be potentionally detrimental to it, like adding resource management to chess.

Mortifer

September 29th, 2003, 05:21 PM

Hm...well, I think that upgrading forts/castles arent really economic..its just adds more strategical feeling/value, IMHO.

Aristoteles

September 29th, 2003, 05:27 PM

Upgrading forts is a good idea. I would like it.
Maybe upgradings should give military bonuses only?

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mortifer:
Johan - I think, that there is a very good idea.
The possibility to upgrade the castles/towers etc.
Each castle/keep etc. should give additional bonuses, after they have been upgraded.
Example? You are upgrading a fortified city -> Population will grow faster. You upgrade it again -> More and lot stronger militia or other + bonuses, etc.
I think that would be awesome! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif Why is it a good idea? I understand that they could be made to add different bonuses but unlike the formations or the sea battles I do not see the appeal. To me it adding more economic improvements would just be adding an additional hassle to the game that would not add to the gameplay and be potentionally detrimental to it, like adding resource management to chess.<hr /></blockquote>Well, the economic improvements could help if you get a tiny starting province, surrounded mostly by sea and poor provinces...
(been there...)

Also, if you decide for some reason to allow the fort upgrades, i would like to have them as a Kohan-esque "you can't get everything", I.E, you can upgrade a Castle to have either Bonus A or Bonus B.

[ September 29, 2003, 16:35: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

licker

September 29th, 2003, 05:41 PM

I think I agree with Johan on this one. Adding more upgrades and buildings just does not seem to fit into the general scheme of Dom. Already you can upgrade your defense of a province with your castle type, and by uping the defense value of the province. Adding more 'junk' would only complicate matters for the AI I think, and while it may confer some kind of 'cool' feeling to the game, it doesn't really add much to the overall gameplay. Any changes to the system should be kept on a very macro level I think, like the defense for a province. One simple solution would be to split the defense from the castles to the province and call it 'fortification' which could be increased in the same way the local milita is, and give some kind of crude defensive barriers for the defenders to use (pits, trenches, crude wooden walls, ...). The presense of a castle would still give the stone walls and allow for seiges though.

As to ships... I always hate them in every strategy game I play, it is seemingly impossible to get their mechanics right, so I say don't add them in... ever!

Army formations are all fine and well, but I think it would be better to expand the scripting power, add a few more commands (harass from another thread is a good one), and allow for units to also get stackable orders ala commanders, or allow units to follow the commanders orders (more than gaurd commander anyway).

Anyway, I think mostly from a SP viewpoint, and I don't like complications for complications sake, that may improve the feel of an MP game, but wind up shafting the AI because it becomes more difficult for it to keep up with all the new variables.

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 05:46 PM

I was just bringing out the facts at the issue of economic buildings. I realy wouldn't like complications either...

I would like to see ships, not nescesarily ship combats, but it seems pretty illogical that Ulm or Marignon can't cross a simple sea province...
Are Vans the only ones who can make ships in the whole world?

Sige engines could be like some abstraction during siege, perhaps like a militia, but with effect that adds to the abstract "siege power" of the attackers? Of course, the "sticks and stones" nations would not have siege engines... And not Jotunheim...

[ September 29, 2003, 16:51: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

st.patrik

September 29th, 2003, 05:52 PM

I'm sad to hear that formations aren't a possibility - Troop positioning is so important as it is, it seems that formations would only enhance what is one of the most strategic aspects of the game.

It's attractive for 2 reasons (to me at least):

one, because troops with any kind of 'attack' order run in a ragged horde toward the enemy, which makes certain things impossible (like leaving a gap in the middle of your line for potentially routing elephants). I would *love* my troops to stay together a little more

two, defense benefits to certain formations is a *great* idea (although I accept probably very difficult to add). I mean, there's a reason why the romans defeated all the Celtic (not to mention Germanic) tribes in Europe - formations! the Celtic tribes fought essentially as individuals, whereas the Romans teamed up using formations. ok, technology was a factor too, and attacking each tribe one at a time, but formations were (and are) a tremendously important part of strategy.

Having said all that, if it's not going to happen, it's not going to happen, and Dom II will still be a really great game.

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 05:56 PM

I would also like to see formations.
But Dominions II will be a great game, nevertheless.

Hmmmm... If we would start to design formations and their effects... And how to put them in to the game...

[ September 29, 2003, 16:58: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

johan osterman

September 29th, 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Nerfix:
I would also like to see formations.
But Dominions II will be a great game, nevertheless.

Hmmmm... If we would start to design formations and their effects... And how to put them in to the game...It is not lack of ideas about formations or their effects that keeps them from being implemented, it is the difficulty of implementing them. So you can gush formation ideas until you keel over, formations won't happen without a major reworking of the tactical battles and such a major reworking of the tactical battles is not viable before dom 3, and dom 3 might never be made at all.

[ September 29, 2003, 17:05: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 06:05 PM

Tell me, what are your technical dificulties with formations, exactly.
Yeah, yeah, i'm on a roll, but i want to see if i could figure anything out. I or we(the rest of us).

And yes, i'm willing to sacrifice my precious time for you. And yes, i have too much spare time.

Please, this can't possibly hurt you, can it...?
(as you can see, no smiley=dead serious)

[ September 29, 2003, 17:17: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Vger

September 29th, 2003, 06:14 PM

Hi,

Even though I'm a new Dom player. (I've been playing the demo in anticipation of Dom 2.) I would most violently object to building improvements. We don't need another Civ. I HATE spending forever building up cities, provinces, whatever. Having to do all that stuff before you're fully developed.

Dom 1 (and I presume 2) already have plenty of things to do and consider without this. Not to mention how it would change the balance. Poor Ermor would be in even more trouble and I freely admit they are my favorite so far.

OTH, I do think formations would be good. I'm a bit frustrated at the lack of control of my troops.

Ciao,
V'ger gone

st.patrik

September 29th, 2003, 08:31 PM

I think I agree with Vger about buildings - the focus of dominions is not building and I kinda like it that way - I think having more buildings would confuse genres

Mortifer

September 29th, 2003, 08:33 PM

Uh? You call a little upgrade - economy?! Or you call that civ like? Eh? Kinda odd if you call a castle upgrade like that...
Anyways I can live without it, but it would be cool to have.

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 08:34 PM

Well, duh.
This is Illwinter's call.
I still say it's stupid that "civilised" nations can't cross sea provinces!

Mortifer

September 29th, 2003, 08:36 PM

Well, I agree, ships would make more sense, but its ok if we wont have them.

However formations would be awesome, thats for sure.

st.patrik

September 29th, 2003, 08:50 PM

There is the magical item 'Pocket Ship' which enables you to sail over ocean provinces in much the same way Vanheim does (at least according to the manual).

If you think about oceans being pretty big it kinda makes sense that most nations can't sail on them. The technology involved in ocean-going ships is not something I'd expect Abysia (for example) to have - whereas small boats I think are reasonable for everyone to have, which is why you can go short distances from island to island without needing a special ability.

It also makes sense of why two nations sailing over the same sea wouldn't bump into one another - you can't exactly keep scouts all over the ocean to warn you of incursions. [of course under sea is different - outlying kelp villages, etc.]

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 08:50 PM

I'm completely OK with Dominions II the way it is... The lack of ships just constantly jumps straigth to my face... But i agree that formations would be awesome.

Yojinbo

September 29th, 2003, 09:12 PM

Guys,

Formations would be very taxing to the AI compared to the current battle logic. What we need is a borgMod; Dominions 2 strategic map with a call to Total War for the battles. Then you could run your own formations. (flashback; who remembers the game Breach? It had some kind of two-game integration) Now �all� we need is an interface application to move the data and a complete rework of TA to model the monsters and magic.

Sea Battles would really need two phases; ship to ship and boarding. Look how Port Royal handles this; the boarding is all AI (no ability to watch anything but the numbers of sailors per side) while the ship to ship continues. This would drive my crazy; not seeing my boarding operation succeeded (or fail) while I sail around firing arrows and fireballs.

I would like to hear what Illwinter wants to do with Dom III before I have any suggestions. I trust these guys to make games that I like to play already.

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 09:16 PM

About Dom III, i think IW will more likely make CoE III first...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Or then try something else...
*an image of Dominions JRPG flashes somewhere in the dark mind of Nerfix*
Now, a Dominions JRPG would be awesome!
How to combine heroic and high-lethality fantasy, how to mix Japanese and western RPG's, now that would be some challange for IW!

Of course i am kidding, unless IW is realy planning something like that...

[ September 29, 2003, 20:19: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Pocus

September 29th, 2003, 09:32 PM

didnt knew the wishlist for dominions XVII was already open...

PDF

September 29th, 2003, 09:32 PM

Well, the problem IMHO is not that we don't have "ships" per se, but rather than sea is impassable to most nations...

So why not implement a simple "Port" structure, that will allow a (limited) army to cross 1-3 sea provinces, in the same way than Vanheim can sail ?

The port could be only allowed to some nations, and its cost, the ship range and ship capacity (size of army movable per turn) could depend on nation : Vanheim would get small cost ports and long range (they could use ships for armies w/o "sailing comander"), Arco could get medium range and capacity, Pythium short range/big capacity, Abysia nothing etc...

This won't be difficult to do, as the mechanics already exist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif , and will solve the problem.
The only big impact is on game balance ...
What do you think ?

[ September 29, 2003, 20:33: Message edited by: PDF ]

Nerfix

September 29th, 2003, 09:38 PM

@Pocus:LOL! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

@PDF:
Hmmmm... Well, that would be one solution...

st.patrik

September 29th, 2003, 10:54 PM

I don't think I would want the kind of addition PDF is talking about. I think I prefer it the way it is.

Bard of Prey

September 29th, 2003, 11:14 PM

Well, I guess I'll through my 2 gp into the debate... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

On ships: the technical difficulty of adding ships as strategic or tactical units has already been pointed out, although if there were a way to overcome these problems (possibly for a potential Dom III), then I agree that it would be pretty cool to see monsters coming up out of the waves to board your ships... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

The problem of ownership could be settled by treating ships much like stealthy units, except that they wouldn't be able to attack an underwater province (unless they could breathe water as well), but they would run the risk of being discovered and attacked by the underwater residents of that province (or by enemy fleets). The 'owner' of the province would be whoever controlled the underwater portion.

As far as buildings and such allowing 'abstract' use of ships, I don't really see the need. Not only are most of the cultures used as a basis for these nations drawn from an era when ocean navigation was not possible (or at least, not reliable enough to risk an army on), but there are already several nations that can enter sea provinces, plus the new Water Cult theme... so if you really want to fight in the seas, you've got lots of options.

There could be a few more small things added though... for instance, I could see a national commander, for nations like Pythium for instance, who's a skilled navigator, and can carry his army across seas like the Vanir do... or perhaps a Death spell that summons a 'Ghost Ship', allowing the casting mage to do the same.

I'm afraid I don't really like the idea of improved castles either... mostly because it takes away from the choices you make when designing your nation. Who's going to spend 150 nation points on a great fortress when you can get the same effect by merely spending gold in-game? The same goes for economic buildings really... these things are abstracted into such concepts as dominion scales (one could assume that a strong Order dominion encourages the building of mills and other economic structures for example), starting castle choices (for the administration and supply bonuses) and the 'natural' resource and tax base of various provinces (these places aren't virgin wilderness after all, they do have some infrastructure... you just don't have to mess around with building it yourself).

Formations are another cool idea, but I can easily see how difficult this would be to implement. For one thing, the major counter-tactic to most of them is to break up the formation. The coding for that would be a nightmare... how would the game determine when your shield wall was sufficiently mixed up that it no longer provided its bonuses? Would it happen gradually, or all at once? Also, you'd pretty much have to start accounting for things like which direction a unit was facing when it was attacked... and that's a pretty serious mechanic, especially for something to add in a patch. Would fatigue affect the bonuses you get from formations? What if your squads aren't composed of all the same types of troops? Can mindless troops use formations? Etc., etc....

It's not very often that I argue against the inclusion of new features in a game, but in some cases added complexity breaks more than it 'fixes'. This is especially true when it comes to programming the AI to use these elements... if not done carefully (and preferably in the very early stages of design), it is incredibly easy to 'lobotomize' the AI by adding features only humans can use properly.

st.patrik

September 29th, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Bard of Prey:
Formations are another cool idea, but I can easily see how difficult this would be to implement. For one thing, the major counter-tactic to most of them is to break up the formation. The coding for that would be a nightmare... how would the game determine when your shield wall was sufficiently mixed up that it no longer provided its bonuses? Would it happen gradually, or all at once? Also, you'd pretty much have to start accounting for things like which direction a unit was facing when it was attacked... and that's a pretty serious mechanic, especially for something to add in a patch. Would fatigue affect the bonuses you get from formations? What if your squads aren't composed of all the same types of troops? Can mindless troops use formations? Etc., etc....That makes sense. Oh well. BTW you seem to have very well thought-out contributions - I give you 5 stars http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

licker

September 29th, 2003, 11:31 PM

" it is incredibly easy to 'lobotomize' the AI by adding features only humans can use properly. "

Heh, MoO3 anyone? Though there were more problems there than just too much complexity.

Actually the abstracted complexity is fine when the game is more geared to macro... but the testing and proving that the complexity can be handled by the AI must be a pain in the @#$...

I wouldn't mind seeing more robust province modeling in Dom eventually, but I don't think it should be attemped for Dom2. The next step in Dom would hopefully be further improvements to combat, either by allowing for some sort of control during a battle, or expanded orders for scripting.

It would also be nice if there were some assistance in setting your scripts. Say you selected a group of commanders with units and were given some basic choices for setting all of their positions and attitudes. Then you could still go in and tweek specific placements and orders. But the going through every commander and every group of units one by one is quite tedious (at least in Dom1).

johan osterman

September 30th, 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Bard of Prey:
[QB]Well, I guess I'll through my 2 gp into the debate... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There could be a few more small things added though... for instance, I could see a national commander, for nations like Pythium for instance, who's a skilled navigator, and can carry his army across seas like the Vanir do... or perhaps a Death spell that summons a 'Ghost Ship', allowing the casting mage to do the same.

Formations are another cool idea, but I can easily see how difficult this would be to implement. For one thing, the major counter-tactic to most of them is to break up the formation. The coding for that would be a nightmare... how would the game determine when your shield wall was sufficiently mixed up that it no longer provided its bonuses? Would it happen gradually, or all at once? Also, you'd pretty much have to start accounting for things like which direction a unit was facing when it was attacked... and that's a pretty serious mechanic, especially for something to add in a patch. Would fatigue affect the bonuses you get from formations? What if your squads aren't composed of all the same types of troops? Can mindless troops use formations? Etc., etc....
[QB]There is a new unit that is recruitable in sites that works in a Vanir like way, the navigator. If I recall correctly there is also one navigator with a mercenary band.

I think you succintly summed up the major problems with implementing formations.

Pocus

September 30th, 2003, 07:34 AM

the folded ship can be built too. Ok it costs air gems, and many cool items ask for air gems, but still it is feasible to have at least limited sea moving capabilities.

Very good point Bards about what can represents the admin level of your castle, or your order scale. This is abstracted economics for sure, and I seriously doubt that adding little mills and carries to doms would enhance it.

Jasper

September 30th, 2003, 08:26 AM

Ports as createable sites that let you abstractly move units strategically between 2 provinces (that you control) with ports would work in Dominion's current Framework.

You can already do something like this when designing a scenario, but this would be a little nicer and yet not overly complex.

September 30th, 2003, 08:52 AM

About the ports : you should try the great "Elric" scenario made by Pocus aka Pythie. It is available on the illwinter pages. 3 large continents are linked by 3-4 ports each. Units in a port may freely move to another port, jumping over the oceans (the connexions are scripted in the .map file). Neat solution IMHO, only minor drawback is that flying units could 'jump' several oceans in one turn using those sealanes.
You'll also see navigable rivers, customized province names and special indeps.
Cheers

Mortifer

September 30th, 2003, 10:02 AM

Yes, adding formations wouldnt be easy, the devs would be forced to work a lot on it. It would be worth of it, that isnt a question. The question is, that the AI could handle it properly, or not..

Endoperez

September 30th, 2003, 10:19 AM

Maybe we should wait till we have tried DOM II, before telling IW what they should change in it... In worst case, they will do it, and we have to wait a year more before getting the game...

Besides, even though formations would be nice, would they be useful? If they were just a line, a square and a row, this would allow more versatility in battle planning.
But we can already do this even in DOM I, although because commander can only command five different Groups (in DOM1), you would need one commander for every row/line.

And if formations were like shield wall, charge(for knights) etc., they would be hard to implement but would not add much. Yes, they would be useful, but they would either not be much use or would become so important that you would HAVE to quess your opponents' tactic and choose the best formation versus it. And that would add a lot micromanagement.

Of course, you might not agree, but this is only my opinion.

klausD

September 30th, 2003, 03:04 PM

Formations are another cool idea, but I can easily see how difficult this would be to implement. For one thing, the major counter-tactic to most of them is to break up the formation. The coding for that would be a nightmare... how would the game determine when your shield wall was sufficiently mixed up that it no longer provided its bonuses? Would it happen gradually, or all at once? Also, you'd pretty much have to start accounting for things like which direction a unit was facing when it was attacked... and that's a pretty serious mechanic, especially for something to add in a patch. Would fatigue affect the bonuses you get from formations? What if your squads aren't composed of all the same types of troops? Can mindless troops use formations? Etc., etc....
[QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you succintly summed up the major problems with implementing formations.I am wondering that everybody thinks formations are such a great change to the game system. Of course one can invent a whole new tactical combat system with a formation system as the core. But this was not the point of my suggestion. ALL I was suggesting was to give a formation a +1 to Att or defend or whatever. Is this so difficult to implement? Of course if one does not want to implement such things to the game, he can always make an elephant out of a fly. He can always raise problems like "facing" (I never suggested facing options and I dont think that they are necessary at all), complicated algorithms if somebody likes to have "mixed squads" (easy to circumvent - if a player likes to give a formation order, simple dont allow mixed squads for formations) and as Last and the most difficult problem to solve he says "formations poses so a big problem because of those mindless troops..." Well again I have to say that all I wanted was an UNCOMPLICATED order to make one or two formation types (turtle for infantry and wedge/line for cavallery) with trained troops - a +1 to the defense/attack factor or so. (no facing, no brainless units, no mixed squads, no penguin special attack...) The reason was to add to the battle athmosphere. If I dont have control over the troops after battle begins, then I would like to have at least the feeling that my ULM infantry is an disciplined elite and not the same than the wild troll troupe of my enemy. In DOM1 the most troops are running around how they want and as fast as their AP allows - which dont contribute to the game athmosphere.
bye
KlausD

Yojinbo

September 30th, 2003, 03:18 PM

klausD,

I understand your position better now. What about somthing even simpler, just a tendancy for certian troop types to move as a group and a +1 bonus to defence for any unit with like units on 2 sides?

You point about not wanting Ulm to advance like the enemy wild hordes hits home.

I may be making this too simple now.

johan osterman

September 30th, 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by klausD:
I am wondering that everybody thinks formations are such a great change to the game system. Of course one can invent a whole new tactical combat system with a formation system as the core. But this was not the point of my suggestion. ALL I was suggesting was to give a formation a +1 to Att or defend or whatever. Is this so difficult to implement? Of course if one does not want to implement such things to the game, he can always make an elephant out of a fly. He can always raise problems like "facing" (I never suggested facing options and I dont think that they are necessary at all), complicated algorithms if somebody likes to have "mixed squads" (easy to circumvent - if a player likes to give a formation order, simple dont allow mixed squads for formations) and as Last and the most difficult problem to solve he says "formations poses so a big problem because of those mindless troops..." Well again I have to say that all I wanted was an UNCOMPLICATED order to make one or two formation types (turtle for infantry and wedge/line for cavallery) with trained troops - a +1 to the defense/attack factor or so. (no facing, no brainless units, no mixed squads, no penguin special attack...) The reason was to add to the battle athmosphere. If I dont have control over the troops after battle begins, then I would like to have at least the feeling that my ULM infantry is an disciplined elite and not the same than the wild troll troupe of my enemy. In DOM1 the most troops are running around how they want and as fast as their AP allows - which dont contribute to the game athmosphere.
bye
KlausDI, like bard of prey, assumed that formations would include flanks and flanking bonuses for attacking formations in the flanks. This is also the appeal of formations to me. Flanking and facing etc. would require a lot of work on the tactical abttles and tactical AI.

Still, even the more limited formations you are suggesting would require some work on the tactical battles and the tac AI, as well as on the strategic AI in order for it to group correct units into correct Groups etc. But in the end it boils down to the following: JK doesnt like programming AIs, Kristoffer has tried to make JK accept formations (although that was formations with flanks facing etc.) on and of for 6 years without success, ergo it is unlikely that there will ever be formations.

[ September 30, 2003, 15:52: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Psitticine

September 30th, 2003, 04:57 PM

Maybe a good solution would be a Hold Position command for squads. They'd stay in place (e.g. right in front of missile units) but fight those who come within melee range. They'd not move unless routed, or possibly beserked, but instead would maintain a defensive wall in front of vulnerable troops.

For me, that'd close the biggest tactical gap. You can Hold and Attack, but nobody can stay back and guard, unless they are Guarding Commander.

It'd also be nice, as has been previously mentioned, if troops ordered to flee (as opposed to those who broke) would stay with the army after victory.

Aside from that, formations would be a great and powerful addition, but additions are very different than things that feel "missing" when not there.

Maybe instead of true formations, the ability to have the troops line up in other than simple boxes? That wouldn't need to have any change for the battlefield aside from different start-up positions, and I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to add AI capacity to know when a line (for defensive men) is better than a box (for massed troops).

All just my 2�, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

st.patrik

September 30th, 2003, 07:00 PM

Lots of desirable & good things mentioned. Particularly the following:

1. units staying in their group, rather than dashing off each at their own speed. Or at least to have this as an option.

2. a 'hold' command

3. distinction between 'fleeing' and 'routing'

4. some kind of bonus for units which are flanked on either side by members of their squad - at least a morale bonus, and maybe a defense bonus. Of course the penalties to defense already in the game (at least Dom I) for being surrounded might have the same net effect, if you get my meaning. But maybe a morale bonus?

5. different shapes for squads - can be done manually by subdividing into small Groups and placing alongside, but it would be so much easier if you could just make a line.

Don't know if any of these are possible/probable, but they sound like good ideas to me.

st.patrik

October 1st, 2003, 07:01 PM

I was browsing through the newgroup on strategic games on which there has been much discussion of Dominions and found an interesting discussion about retreating/routing etc. which I think highlights the need for a distinction between the two.

Here's the link: http://Groups.google.com/Groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&frame=right&th=78a826cc26bae4e6&seekm=3b686ab1.34607325%40news.inet.fi#link1 (http://Groups.google.com/Groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=78a826cc26bae4e6&seekm=3b686ab1.34607325%40news.inet.fi#link1)

The point raised that grabbed my attention was the guy who tried to storm a castle, while leaving 3 sages on 'siege castle', failed to capture the castle, and had all his troops that routed killed automatically for fleeing into 'hostile' territory - even though he still owned the territory!

of course that doesn't have so much to do with the proposed distinction between routing and retreating, but something's definitely wrong there.

*edit - sorry this is the wrong thread - the one that I meant to post in was "Cavalry archers, and other lost units"

[ October 01, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

Nerfix

October 1st, 2003, 07:03 PM

If this gets fixed...
I feel the Illwinter Dominion increasing...

Saber Cherry

October 2nd, 2003, 07:55 PM

Full-featured formations would take a lot of work, of course. However, I think that 2 small changes could add a substantial amount of control and flexibility, for minimal development effort, minimal army-screen micromanagement, without breaking the AI.

The changes:

1) A "Tight" versus "Loose" toggle for each group.

Tight: Default. Like Dom I, units are packed as close as size allows; e.g., 5 hobbits, 3 humans, 2 horses, or 1 troll per square.

Loose: Units are packed less tightly. The number per square is max/2, rounded up. Examples include 3 hobbits, 2 humans, 1 horse, or 1 troll per square.

2) "Square" versus "Wide" toggle for each group.

Square: Default. Like Dom I, the group is shaped like a square on the map.

Wide: The group forms a 2x1 rectangle, 2 tall by 1 wide. In other words, the group shows a wider face to the enemy, but is not as deep.

I think that adding both of these would allow players to better utilize - and increase the strategic differences between - heavy/light troops, cavalry/infantry, and ranged/melee units. Furthermore, it would allow easier and more flexible deployment. Currently, you can achieve both of these effects - mostly - by breaking your army into lots of tiny units. In other words, you can make a "loose-ish" formation by placing units in 4 adjacent Groups rather than a single group, and you can make a "wide-ish" formation by placing 2 Groups vertically adjacent. Both of these are tedious, imprecise, disrupt AI targetting algorithms more than the formations would, and require constant rebalancing after each battle to keep the same number of troops in each sub-group. Furthermore, split subGroups rout very easily compared to large Groups.

This does not, of course, give the "Formations or Bust" party what it wants, but I think it would be a quick and easy way to increase battlefield control while reducing micromanagement. Thoughts?

-Cherry

PvK

October 3rd, 2003, 12:47 AM

I just failed to take a castle in Dom I (two ethereal hydras blocking the breach!), and the surviving men routed to an adjacent friendly province. Seems to me they really should just retreat to the province with the castle, not to an adjacent province, but they didn't get eliminated due to no retreat route.

BTW, I would also like to see some of the men who can't retreat just get scattered and go into hiding rather than be eliminated completely.

PvK

Psitticine

October 3rd, 2003, 03:19 AM

I finished a wild game earlier this week where the final battle was in the enemy's home province. I couldn't seem to dislodge the enemy Pretender from his castle, no matter what I threw at him. I spent a lot of time after each attempt gathering up knights errant, if you know what I mean. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

The game finally ended when the Last black candle "burnt out" and my Dominion was everywhere. Big puff of smoke from inside the enemy castle, and it was Game Over! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Daynarr

October 3rd, 2003, 10:14 AM

Lol, I love when I kill enemy pretender that way. In my current game I killed Marignon while I was still preparing to invade his castle. He had only 2 territories and lots of troops in main castle but all of it gone with Last candle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Strong dominion, never leave home without one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Pocus

October 3rd, 2003, 03:06 PM

so how you fare now, Psitticine and Daynarr, is the AI still impossible to beat on 'impossible' http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

What do you think is the hardest difficulty setting, and number of AIs that you can beat reliably? 8 on Normal? 6 on impossible ? I would like to know how the game is in difficulty compared to Doms I.

1) Also, is Ermor still able to walk over the other AI, or are the AI now able to counter the undeads with mass of priests?
2) Are the blood nations operating normally? In Doms I Abysia were not very cute when it cames to blood slave usage. It was perhaps the weakest nation (for the AI to take), because the AI didnt knew how to be a big bad demonist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Psitticine

October 4th, 2003, 05:33 AM

For now, I'm playing on the very small, quick-game maps since I'm trying to test as many nations, themes, etc., in the time left before the gold date. Because of that, I rarely try to take on more than just 1 or 2 opponents. If I add more than that, there just isn't room for us all!

As far as AI setting, umm, "Normal" is rough enough for me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif My game is steadily improving, but I still lose more often than I win.

I'm trying to remember, but I'm not sure I've yet played against a Blood magic-dependent AI opponent, so I'll have to pass on trying to answer that one.

Mortifer

October 4th, 2003, 09:13 AM

The AI is cheating on harder diff. levels? [Example: Civ3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ]

Nerfix

October 4th, 2003, 09:19 AM

Yes.

Kristoffer O

October 4th, 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Pocus:

1) Also, is Ermor still able to walk over the other AI, or are the AI now able to counter the undeads with mass of priests?
2) Are the blood nations operating normally? In Doms I Abysia were not very cute when it cames to blood slave usage. It was perhaps the weakest nation (for the AI to take), because the AI didnt knew how to be a big bad demonist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 1. The AI still have problems with the Ashen Empire, but fortunately it is not the standard theme for Ermor.

2.The AI have learned how to gather blood slaves, use blood magic and make blood sacrifices. This was necessary as AI-Mictlan would die very quickly otherwise. They must sacrifice to get dominion.

Mortifer

October 4th, 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Nerfix:
Yes.Bah! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Pocus

October 4th, 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
The AI is cheating on harder diff. levels? [Example: Civ3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ]if cheating is receiving quantitative advantages, then yes the AI cheats. I dont think that new (refined) algorithms are used on higher levels of difficulties (few games have ever done that, but Gal civ function like that).

what I dont know is, does the AI have access to informations it is not supposed to gather, like in Age of wonders, the AI which dont have the fog of war.

PvK

October 4th, 2003, 05:38 PM

It hardly seems like cheating (per se) for the AI to take production bonuses, if the player told them to do so in the game settings.

PvK

Pocus

October 4th, 2003, 08:44 PM

no problems too on that, I wanted to know what he means by cheating.

On the other hand I would hate to discover that AI plays without fog of war.

Nagot Gick Fel

October 4th, 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
what I dont know is, does the AI have access to informations it is not supposed to gather, like in Age of wonders, the AI which dont have the fog of war.Play a 1-on-1 game on a huge map against an AI nation like Caelum or Pangaea, after a dozen turns it will start landing hawks or wolves on your provinces.

Daynarr

October 4th, 2003, 09:20 PM

He can use spies too you know. It doesn't mean he�s cheating if he starts landing arrows from afar. I'm not 100% sure but I think he can't see whole map. In one of my games I had increased my defense forces significantly and had steady patrols along borders, so they would intercept any spies. When arrows and flames started coming they would only attack commanders along the borders and in my home province. That gave me impression that he can't see whole map but as I said I can't be 100% sure. Only devs can answer that one.

Psitticine

October 4th, 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mortifer:
The AI is cheating on harder diff. levels? [Example: Civ3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ]if cheating is receiving quantitative advantages, then yes the AI cheats. I dont think that new (refined) algorithms are used on higher levels of difficulties (few games have ever done that, but Gal civ function like that).

what I dont know is, does the AI have access to informations it is not supposed to gather, like in Age of wonders, the AI which dont have the fog of war.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, Gal Civ, my other addiction!

I shouldn't be mistaken as anybody who has any kind of authoritative info on the AI's inner workings but, if I remember some Illwinter-posted comments from the beta-forum, the harder AIs get more design points to spend at the begining of the game and that's it. If you choose for them to have such an advantage, then they can spend those points on stronger gods, more advantageous scales, and/or better forts, but they otherwise have to play by the same rules as the player.

Circumstantial evidence from the oddball game I played Last night (I just kept having lucky break after lucky break! It was awesome! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) certainly indicates the AI doesn't have any Secret Knowledge at the Normal level at least.

In this game, the AI-led Ulm attacked north around a lake when my southern defenses were nothing but a sham. Northward, my Jotun armies were gathering beyond the border provinces to eventually sweep around the lake and attack. Those same armies were well able to withstand the assualt and then pressed forward to redefine the border quite substantially in my favor.

To the south, the border provinces themselves were defended to the same degree as the northern borderlands, but there wasn't anything of note beyond them. If one had fallen, the path would have been clear for a rampage or possibly even the conquest of a large part of my empire. (Did I mention I got a lot of lucky breaks? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )There's no way the AI would have chosen to go north instead of south if it had known what lay beyond the bordering provinces!

If they did know where my military strength really lay but had chosen to assualt the northern armies before they could strike, past experiences show they wouldn't have gone about things the way they did, with a less-than-overwhelming multi-pronged attack. They were not all that threatened where they were (due to their own Dominion being stronger than mine there, plus a good degree of provincial Defence in place) so it simply wasn't time for a desperate move. The AI only makes futile assaults if you've bottled them up so thoroughly that they have no other options.

Nagot Gick Fel

October 5th, 2003, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by Daynarr:
He can use spies too you know.If the AI did actually sneak stealthy units, I expect some of them would be intercepted by my patrols eventually. Yet I've never seen it happen. OTOH I've seen lots of AI spies, assassins, etc. in standard battles.

It doesn't mean he�s cheating if he starts landing arrows from afar. I'm not 100% sure but I think he can't see whole map. In one of my games I had increased my defense forces significantly and had steady patrols along borders, so they would intercept any spies. When arrows and flames started coming they would only attack commanders along the borders and in my home province. That gave me impression that he can't see whole map but as I said I can't be 100% sure. Only devs can answer that one.No answer needed from the devs, I just ran a quick test to prove you wrong. Edited the Europa map, removed all #specstart except Pangaea which I relocated in Iceland. Added 10 Pandemoniacs to speed research up, and an air-4 Manticore pretender. Added a couple "BLasted Heath". Recruited the first non-mage merc available. Researched Conjuration 4 and Enchantment 4, then switched the nation to AI control. I did all this to make sure Pangaea could cast Call of the Wind/Wild and Seeking Arrow, while being unable to move outside its capital or to use Astral Projection.

My second test nation, Arco, was randomly placed on the other side of the map, in Aegyptus. One of the leaders here was pinned by a Seeking Arrow the very turn after I switched Pangaea to AI. Even if Pangaea had received a Stone Sphere as an event, it needed an extra turn to use it to locate Arco. QED. The AI knows where you are.

Now what's really funny is the AI seems to be fond of casting "The Eyes of God" - what a waste of gems ;-)

st.patrik

October 5th, 2003, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Daynarr:
He can use spies too you know.If the AI did actually sneak stealthy units, I expect some of them would be intercepted by my patrols eventually. Yet I've never seen it happen. OTOH I've seen lots of AI spies, assassins, etc. in standard battles.
<hr /></blockquote>I've had the AI try to assasinate one of my commanders - having to go through some of my territories stealthily to do so. But only once, so it doesn't seem like the AI uses stealthy critters much. And this doesn't answer whether or not the AI uses spies to gather intelligence.

Daynarr

October 5th, 2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
If the AI did actually sneak stealthy units, I expect some of them would be intercepted by my patrols eventually. Yet I've never seen it happen. OTOH I've seen lots of AI spies, assassins, etc. in standard battles.You mean stealthy units = stealthy armies? If you are talking about armies I have seen Panganea on several occasions try to sneak an army to my home province (didn't see other nations though). As far as spies, assassins, black servants, etc. goes I use them often to mark target. So if you see a lot of them, why wonder if AI knows where to shoot?

No answer needed from the devs, I just ran a quick test to prove you wrong. Edited the Europa map, removed all #specstart except Pangaea which I relocated in Iceland. Added 10 Pandemoniacs to speed research up, and an air-4 Manticore pretender. Added a couple "BLasted Heath". Recruited the first non-mage merc available. Researched Conjuration 4 and Enchantment 4, then switched the nation to AI control. I did all this to make sure Pangaea could cast Call of the Wind/Wild and Seeking Arrow, while being unable to move outside its capital or to use Astral Projection.

My second test nation, Arco, was randomly placed on the other side of the map, in Aegyptus. One of the leaders here was pinned by a Seeking Arrow the very turn after I switched Pangaea to AI. Even if Pangaea had received a Stone Sphere as an event, it needed an extra turn to use it to locate Arco. QED. The AI knows where you are.This is probably true (almost certainly since we can�t tell what info AI gets when you switch control in mid game) but that means that AI can see where to shoot those spells, not that he has all info about your troops, movements, or that he can declare war on you from other side of the map without spotting you with spies first. He could be using "cheat" info only in that aspect of the game. He doesn't appear to see everything judging by his actions (e.g. movement troops, directions of attack).
The thing is that we don't play same game and even if AI could see everything in Dom I things could have changed somewhat in Dom II. So, "no need to ask devs" statement seems a bit rushed. We are both guessing something they know.

[/qb]Now what's really funny is the AI seems to be fond of casting "The Eyes of God" - what a waste of gems ;-)[/QB]Waste of eyes too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

st.patrik

October 5th, 2003, 04:06 AM

I just realised (reading Sunray_be's website) that one of the negative random events is an assassin trying to kill one of your commanders - so it may be that it wasn't the AI.

So just ignore my earlier post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Nagot Gick Fel

October 5th, 2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Daynarr:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
OTOH I've seen lots of AI spies, assassins, etc. in standard battles.... if you see a lot of them, why wonder if AI knows where to shoot?<hr /></blockquote>I mean I've seen lots of AI *unsneaked* spies, etc. participating in standard battles with other regular troops - just like if they were regular foot commanders. I can't see how these unsneaked spies could gather more intel than the regular commanders they journey with ;-)

This is probably true (almost certainly since we can�t tell what info AI gets when you switch control in mid game) As Pangaea I had absolutely no info on Arco when I switched Pangaea to AI - let's say that was in turn N. And this Seeking Arrow did hit in turn N+1, so the spell was planned the previous turn (turn N), at a moment we know Pangaea had no "real" knowledge on Arco's location.

but that means that AI can see where to shoot those spells, not that he has all info about your troops, movementsOn the contrary I've seen strong evidence that the AI monitors your leaders' moves, and I believe he's particularly fond of targetting heroes - I remember one occasion when I used the Caelum hero named Caelos to ferry troops deep into my core provinces, and guess what? 3 turns in a row, in 3 different provinces, the poor unescorted Caelos was targetted by Seeking Arrows.

or that he can declare war on you from other side of the map without spotting you with spies first.My test proves otherwise, since Pangaea couldn't send spies outside of Iceland to spot Arco. Or maybe you don't consider a Seeking Arrow serious enough to qualify as a declaration of war? Then I've news for you: I generated a couple more turns and Pangaea started sending hawks and wolves on Arco.

He could be using "cheat" info only in that aspect of the game. He doesn't appear to see everything judging by his actions (e.g. movement troops, directions of attack).AI = dumb. It can't analyze positions like you do, but from that you shouldn't infer that it hasn't access to the info.

The thing is that we don't play same game and even if AI could see everything in Dom I things could have changed somewhat in Dom II. So, "no need to ask devs" statement seems a bit rushed.Sorry if I didn't make it clear, every bit I wrote was related to Dom 1 only.

Pocus

October 5th, 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pocus:
what I dont know is, does the AI have access to informations it is not supposed to gather, like in Age of wonders, the AI which dont have the fog of war.Play a 1-on-1 game on a huge map against an AI nation like Caelum or Pangaea, after a dozen turns it will start landing hawks or wolves on your provinces.<hr /></blockquote>yes, I remember that it does that, but it seems quite random. Often they will bump on a group far too big for them to handle. So this is far from being an evidence that they are scanning your empire without fog of war.

edit : ok, I replied to a post of you, without having yet read the other Messages (and your testbed).

I would like to have Johan or Kristoffer drop a line on this, at least I hope that if the AI see thru fow, thats only for distant spells and not for planning how to counter your armies? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[ October 05, 2003, 06:31: Message edited by: Pocus ]

Kristoffer O

October 5th, 2003, 09:06 AM

I didn't make the AI, but I believe that the AI acts as if it had the input of a human player (mostly military info of neighbouring provinces).

However it also has access to ownerstatus of provinces. Thus it can cast spells from afar without regards to the military precense of a province.

I'm not sure to what extent it has knowledge of the wereabouts of special commanders.

Zerger

October 5th, 2003, 09:22 AM

wtf? cheating AI? AI will see everything on the map in Doms 2???????????????????????????????? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

I hope that this IS NOT TRUE!
I thought the the AI will be lot better than in Doms 1, so what is going on? We will have a nice cheating AI, which basically won't be better than the Doms 1 AI?

Damn now I will wait for the demo. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Johan K

October 5th, 2003, 12:29 PM

Hey, no need to call the mighty AI a cheater!

It does play with fog of war and has no idea where your little arch mage is walking around peacefully, searching for magic sites. Unless he has a scout there, of course.

To make the AI creation a possible task there are some differences in how it and a human player get information. But this should have no noticable effect on how the AI plays the game, compared to a player with the human information. It does have info on the ownership of provinces when targeting spells, but in most circumstances a human player would have a very good knowledge about that too by looking at the score graph, using some old scout info and making a qualified guess.

I think the Dominions II AI is exceedingly honest. If you assassinate one of its arch theurgs it really must cancel that order for 45 gladitors if it wants to replace him. If you conquer half of its provinces it really looses half of its income and he will be in just as much trouble if he gets sieged by a barbarian horde on turn 5. And of course he receives just as many unlucky events as the next player.

I think it is important that the AI plays by the same rules as much as possible. I really don't like a game where the AI is unaffected by any attempts to destroy its economy and instead it sits around with an enormous pile of cash waiting for you to get powerful enough to destroy it in one swift blow instead.

If the Dominions AI gets a pile of cash it will just spend more money in order to eliminate you faster. Therefore it is always short on cash just like any normal player.

/Johan K
Creator of the AI, God of War, patron of merchants

Nerfix

October 5th, 2003, 12:39 PM

Amen (or Oom if you prefer so) to that Johan.
It's good that the AI is honest.
And with cheating i indeed did mean getting extra design points, sorry for any confusion...

[ October 05, 2003, 11:40: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Psitticine

October 5th, 2003, 06:39 PM

I can't say anything about Dom I (still haven't had time to try it out) but I can definitely second the AI's usage of scouts, spies, and assassins in Dom II.

I'm always swatting the little buggers, and I've had many assassins sent after me. In one particular game, I had pushed up to the gates of the enemy's home province, but the battered remains of my army couldn't beat the enemy pretender and his guards within the castle, so I was prowling around the bordering provinces, nailing them down and building some temples. The AI's economy was a wreck (it was endgame time) but it apparently had enough to fund an assassin every turn or two. They kept seeking out the commanders of my army, and the damage they did was enough that I finally had to pull back my most valuable commander (my prophet) to keep her from getting hurt any worse. (They'd already given her the Limp affliction.)

Once I had fallen for it (slapping forehead) and the prophet pulled back with her troops, the Pretender came out with his back-up men, crushed the other half of my already-weakened army, and then proceeded to reconquer quite a bit of what I had just taken. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

I should have pulled everybody back; to stay in place just wasn't a good idea. Then we could have charged en masse when the reinforcements arrived. As it was, the final toppling of the enemy was delayed quite a bit, and all by clever use of assassins.

Pocus

October 6th, 2003, 01:17 AM

thanks for the added precisions. I think it is a most fair AI.

Mortifer

October 6th, 2003, 01:19 AM

I say lets wait for Doms 2, and we shall see the AI..if we will find areas what will need to be tweaked, I am sure that Illwinter will gladly update it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Daynarr

October 6th, 2003, 01:31 AM

Ok I will put in some of my gaming experiences with AI in Dom II in order to quench everyone�s fears, and even compare to AOW2 AI since it can be used as example of All-Seeing AI (although I don't like doing that).

First let me point out something, AI has all the info of your empire simply because it's stored in your PC. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The difference about all-seeing and not all-seeing AI is what info he will use when he makes his turn; will he use info that would be available to human player only or more than that. More than that can be only little more and only in specific areas of the game, not necessarily everything.

My experience with AI in Dom II is quite different from Jaque's in Dom I. Lets stick with seeking arrows for now. AI in my games uses them a lot; hell most AI's with powerful air magic seem to go after me as soon as they spot me so I've seen a lot of arrows land on my provinces.
I'll concentrate on one specific game where I was fighting Vanheim (I was Man) on large map with both of us quite large and only at war with each other. As soon as Vanheim declared war on me he started using those arrows and he didn't stop until I took his home province and most of his other provinces. During this pretty long fight (both of us had quite stretched empires and lots of resources) he would use seeking arrows in what can safely called random fashion. I had Groups of mages in couple of my inner provinces making items and researching (lots of sages particularly in couple of provinces). Also, logically, I had a number of good commanders doing war with at the front and lots of priests along borders to prevent enemy domains speeding into my provinces (1 or 2 at each border province at least). The arrows that AI sent against my troops would mostly hit my most numerous commander types along the borders - priests. Sage never got hit as I had 20-30 provinces and they were only in 2-3 of them so I guess they got lucky. Sometimes some of my commanders would get hit too and more powerful mages but such events would be something like 1 in 3 or 4 arrows. AI wouldn't target same provinces all the time nor did he ever displayed awareness that he knew where my most powerful commanders are, including my pretender (Cyclops in that case). So I draw 2 conclusions from this experience:

1) AI did not use info on my commanders locations (did not see them if you will) and did not target my most powerful ones with ranged spells, instead using ranged spells in semi-random fashion (semi because he would target my border provinces mostly, although not exclusively).

2) During my game fighting with Vanheim I did get the feeling AI knows what provinces I own.

Ok, getting this cleared lets comment scouting for a moment. In Dom II I kill hordes of black servants (these seem to be most numerous), spy's, scouts and assassins that other empires send through my borders. He does that very often and apparently builds scouting units and sends them around. So, if AI builds them and sends them roaming around (and assassinating some of your commanders in the process - yes I had such experiences too and they were not random events but one specific Abyssian assassin that killed 2 of my priests and 1 not so weak mage) and knows where your borders are, can you really call him cheating? If he builds and sends scouts around, then its logical he will be allowed to know where your provinces are located since that is the info they would gather.

In all my games so far (and I've had a lots of them by now) I have NEVER felt like AI is truly cheating, although I never played on levels harder then normal either. On normal level, IIRC AI has same conditions player has (no special bonuses) and it really FEELS like you are playing on even terms instead of being cheated.

You know how AI in AOW2 knows where you cities, your sites and your armies are (pretty much everything)? So when you move defenders from one city on remote side of the map, he will send force to capture that town. And if you put defenders back in that town he will pull back his now (in his, not so good, judgment) insufficient force even if there is no way he could normally see it. In AOW2 AI would react to all events around showing that he has access to all the info normal player would not. That is safe to say that it's cheating.
OTOH in Dom II I have never seen such AI behavior. AI does not favor provinces with lots of special sites (discovered or not) and does not attack as if he knows where your main castle is. He will focus on fortifications in your empire since they are strategically valuable and will favor your home province but only when he reaches them. He won't send a force from other side of the map to capture your weakly defended home province like AOW AI would do.

Ok, to wrap this up, AI in Dominions II is simply playing like normal human player would (of course, not as strong as experienced Dom veteran can, but that is why stronger levels are available) and in ALL my games I have never felt cheated by AI.

I hope this will quench some of your fears regarding this matter.

BTW. This post could very well be my largest so far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif