Player controlled battles???

[Aristoteles]

I always wanted to control the battles, why won't be that possible in Dominions 2.?

Wait I know the answer...because that way, the AI would be killed too fast? I mean I could control the battles lot better than the AI, that is for sure, so if the AI would be the oppoment, I would wipe him out easily, more than likely.
AI vs. AI battles are better balance wise....am I correct?
I think that this is sad, but true. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Yojinbo]

I'll let Illwinter give the "real" answer but I don't think it would feasible to manage a multiplayer game in any realistic time frame this way.

How many turns in a Dominions game? 1000?
How mayn turns in a player controlted combat Dominions game? 100,000?

Now try this PBEM - games would take years.

Over internet - what would player A do while players B and C fight a strat battle? Multiply this times 8 players.

[Nerfix]

No, you are incorrect here:
1st reason: Do you REALY want to control hundreds, or possible thousands of units? Yup, armies of over 200 units ain't so rare in Dominions...
2nd reason: PBEM. I believe Dominions was designed for PBEM, so that's the 2nd reason.

[Aristoteles]

Huh, well there should be an option: AI controlled battles or human controlled battles....There are games, where you can choose out the method. Its quite simple, don't you think?

[Nerfix]

Well, that would force IW to redesing quite much stuff...
Not worth it, IMHO.

[Aristoteles]

Originally posted by Nerfix:
Well, that would force IW to redesing quite much stuff...
Not worth it, IMHO.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not worth for you...IMHO

[Mortifer]

I am with Nerfix in this one. I never missed the player controlled battles in Dominions. This is an unique game, also the Dom II. combat/spellcasting AI will kick some ***, so dont worry about it.

[Yojinbo]

Aristoteles,

I could see the option giving the game more depth, but I can't imagine a MOM-like player controlled battle with 150 units running I go, You go.

Now maybe Simultaneous Execution like the first PC LAN game in history; (trumpet bLast) RoboSport. Or like the more recent Combat Mission games.

Battles could be divided into 90 second phases where we both give orders and watch them play out.

It comes down to this; where should a small development group like Illwinter spend its precious time? Would player controlled battles bring in more customers? Would it significantly enhance the game for us? Would developing it take Illwinter away from other stuff we all would enjoy more?

[ September 30, 2003, 13:40: Message edited by: Yojinbo ]

[Nerfix]

Well, if the Dominions II AI is realy so good they say in the "Wish List-Targetable spells" thread, i won't miss player controlled batles the slightest bit.

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Nerfix:
No, you are incorrect here:
1st reason: Do you REALY want to control hundreds, or possible thousands of units? Yup, armies of over 200 units ain't so rare in Dominions...
2nd reason: PBEM. I believe Dominions was designed for PBEM, so that's the 2nd reason.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">3rd reason, it's much more gratifying to be in the C-in-C boots, rather than in the corporal's. Do you think Napoleon bothered to manage every man in his army? He preferred to concentrate on the big picture.

[Aristoteles]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Nerfix:
No, you are incorrect here:
1st reason: Do you REALY want to control hundreds, or possible thousands of units? Yup, armies of over 200 units ain't so rare in Dominions...
2nd reason: PBEM. I believe Dominions was designed for PBEM, so that's the 2nd reason.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">3rd reason, it's much more gratifying to be in the C-in-C boots, rather than in the corporal's. Do you think Napoleon bothered to manage every man in his army? He preferred to concentrate on the big picture.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know, still I would like to command my own troops. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Drago]

Originally posted by Aristoteles:
Huh, well there should be an option: AI controlled battles or human controlled battles....There are games, where you can choose out the method. Its quite simple, don't you think?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think this is a needed option. Unless it is the type of game the creators want. Have a great day.

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Aristoteles:
Huh, well there should be an option: AI controlled battles or human controlled battles....There are games, where you can choose out the method. Its quite simple, don't you think?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">no I dont think so. Saying is one hundred more easy than doing.
Except when you code something. In this case saying is ten thousand times more easy than coding.
in solo play, direct command versus scripted command, wow, if the game was not designed like this, would be a major rework of the tac system of dominions (IMHO anyway)

[Yojinbo]

Aristoteles,

Do you mostly play multiplayer or single player?

[Nerfix]

Originally posted by Drago:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Aristoteles:
Huh, well there should be an option: AI controlled battles or human controlled battles....There are games, where you can choose out the method. Its quite simple, don't you think?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think this is a needed option. Unless it is the type of game the creators want. Have a great day.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The creators wanted it to be this way.

[Psitticine]

Originally posted by Mortifer:
the Dom II. combat/spellcasting AI will kick some ***.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'd tell you my Win-Loss record against the AI, but . . . eesh. It's a very smart AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

I think this is one of those issues that'll never reach a unanimous concensus. Some would prefer direct control; some don't. It's a personal taste thing as much as anything else, IMHO.

[Nerfix]

Can the AI be...evil?
*evil cackle*

[Zerger]

I think, that the AI controlled battles are cool.
Well, if there would be an option to turn on/off the AI battles..that would be better, I agree.

[Daynarr]

Originally posted by Nerfix:
Can the AI be...evil?
*evil cackle*<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Computers are evil. Games are evil. How can AI not be evil? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Psitticine]

The AI can definitely be evil!!!

Did it do the "rampage" thing in Dom I? In Dom II, if it realizes it can't hold secondary territories against you, it will abandon them and charge into yours, tearing down your temples, pillaging and looting, and generally demolishing your infrastructure. You're forced to chase the rampaging armies down, and they're building up front-line troops and defence levels in the meantime. Eesh! It's enough to make a Pretender Parrot weep!

Sometimes I've "counter-rampaged" and charged into their territory to mess it up while trying to stop them from what they're doing to mine. I've yet to be able to press a full assualt in the face of having my interior demolished, however. The AI seems to be able to find any hole in my defenses and slip through!

[Mortifer]

OMG, I really want to see this AI now! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Daynarr]

That’s not all! If AI decides to go at war with you he will place his troops before that and strike at ALL your provinces he can reach simultaneously. I was attacked like that two times so far by Panganea and Atlantis (from sea!). I'll tell you, AI is BAD boy.
And even that is not all. I thought I have figured him out so when 1 of his provinces borders 2 of mine and I have army in one of them while other is undefended (only local force), I would move that army to undefended province and intercept his attack. But noooo! Now he attacks BOTH of my provinces with just enough troops to take down one of them if only my local force is defending. I’ve lost lots of provinces nearly by surprise (more like shock) that way.

Basically AI is teaching ME how to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Nerfix]

And you even aren't noobs!

[WraithLord]

I really like the tac combat of DOM-I.
It's great to be able to script your forces and watch your army of hundreds of units fight a huge battle in less the 2 minutes.
I played HOMM,AOW series and such games and sure enough battles can be tedious and boring. In AOW-SM I sometimes has 20 minutes siege battles http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Truth is DOM-I is the fantasy TBS game I always wanted. Only drawback is micromanage. That fixed (at least to some extent) I am sure DOM-II would be my all time favorite.
can't wait to see the new AI in action http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The old one was a bit too easy, once you learned it's patterns.

[st.patrik]

If you could control your troops directly it would be a fundamentally different kind of game - RTS [Real Time Strategy] rather than TBS [Turn Based Strategy]. I personally enjoy both genres, but they are incredibly distinct. The fun of a RTS (for example, Warcraft III) is to try to micromanage your army to maximum effect, using about 6000 mouse-clicks a minute http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

On the other hand, the fun of a TBS is scripting a battle by giving orders ahead of time, and then seeing how well your best effort at guessing the opponent's tactics does against his best effort at guessing your's.

The two are mutually exclusive - you can't have the fun of planning how a big battle will go down if you have the fun of micromanaging your army on the spot. And they are both fun.

I would probably enjoy a RTS game which had the same units and abilities as Dominions, but it would be a completely different experience from playing Domionions itself.

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Daynarr:
That’s not all! If AI decides to go at war with you he will place his troops before that and strike at ALL your provinces he can reach simultaneously. I was attacked like that two times so far by Panganea and Atlantis (from sea!). I'll tell you, AI is BAD boy.
And even that is not all. I thought I have figured him out so when 1 of his provinces borders 2 of mine and I have army in one of them while other is undefended (only local force), I would move that army to undefended province and intercept his attack. But noooo! Now he attacks BOTH of my provinces with just enough troops to take down one of them if only my local force is defending. I’ve lost lots of provinces nearly by surprise (more like shock) that way.

Basically AI is teaching ME how to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">sound cool, but ... in dominions I it is relatively easy to toast even Impossible AI, mainly because of two big drawbacks they have.

They are totally unaware that a supply rule exists, so every big army they have starves.
They are totally screwed by battlefields spells, because they dont protect themselves with wards, or if they do, you see them coming one hundred miles away (they are unsurprising).

So Psitticine, Daynarr, are these points a bit alleviated in doms II ? Have you checked if the big enemy armies are not starving? Have you tried to prepare for battlefields spells, how the AI reacted???

[Kristoffer O]

God, I must be smart! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I beat the AI every time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Nerfix]

Well, the fact that you know how The AI works won't affect the outcome...?

BTW, is the AI called "KristofferNet"?
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ September 30, 2003, 19:35: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by Daynarr:
That’s not all! If AI decides to go at war with you he will place his troops before that and strike at ALL your provinces he can reach simultaneously. I was attacked like that two times so far by Panganea and Atlantis (from sea!). I'll tell you, AI is BAD boy.
And even that is not all. I thought I have figured him out so when 1 of his provinces borders 2 of mine and I have army in one of them while other is undefended (only local force), I would move that army to undefended province and intercept his attack. But noooo! Now he attacks BOTH of my provinces with just enough troops to take down one of them if only my local force is defending. I’ve lost lots of provinces nearly by surprise (more like shock) that way.

Basically AI is teaching ME how to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OMG! I WANT TO PLAY DOMINIONS II. NOW!
*whining* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Nerfix]

Well, the Dom II AI only proves that Scandinavian people are evil. Or sadistic. Or both. Or neither.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But seriously, sounds very good.

[Psitticine]

The only time I've noticed a problem with the enemy supply situation is when I've got them boxed in with superior forces. Then, they'll often grow and shrink as they try and deal with supplies. Given a normal amount of room, or a less than overwhelming force bottling them up, they seem to deal with it OK. I haven't studied it though, so I'll keep a closer eye on that.

I'll watch their usage of warding spells more closely, but they seem to be quite willing to guard themselves. They lay a lot of protection spells of various kinds about, although not anything that wouldn't actually come into play. (i.e. no anti-missile spells if the opposition has no ranged troops!) I think they actually tend to use more defensive than offensive spells, but that's something I'd have to analyze more closely before being 100% sure.

[Nerfix]

More defensive than offensive spells, eh?
Hmmmm, sounds definedly intresting...

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by Nerfix:
More defensive than offensive spells, eh?
Hmmmm, sounds definedly intresting...<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">lol Im glad that someone's spelling is worse than mine! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Ps. It is quite rare. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ September 30, 2003, 20:04: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[Nerfix]

Well, english isn't my primary language.

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by Nerfix:
Well, english isn't my primary language.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yea, I am always mentioning that as well...I know the feeling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Nerfix]

Originally posted by Mortifer:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Nerfix:
Well, english isn't my primary language.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yea, I am always mentioning that as well...I know the feeling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well i am not.
What did i exactly misspell?
If i actualy misspelled something, i'll have to burn my english books.

[Mortifer]

Don't take it so seriously..
Anyways a few examples:

"definedly intresting" should be definitely interesting?

"And you even aren't noobs!" should be And you aren't even noobs! ??

etc.

Btw as I said my english is bad as well, so its totally ok of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ September 30, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[Psitticine]

I just know English, a smattering of Spanish, and some rusty Irish Gaelic. My Hungarian is limited to being able to name the Gabor sisters. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Kristoffer O]

You all know a bit of Swedish too: Något gick fel!

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
You all know a bit of Swedish too: Något gick fel!<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">sure, the program keeps crashing.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Strategos]

Player controlled battles?

Yes and No, or , rather, both please!

In pre-info-age eras, communication was difficult and you'd only get news of a won or lost battle days, weeks or even months later.....so the present DOM system of reporting battles is realistic.

HOWEVER, what about when the pretender is present on the battlefield? - the pretender is in a position to fight the battle and makes the decisions - he/she should be able to direct battles in situ

Either that, or more flexibility/options in battlefield deployments

[Mortifer]

Whoa old topic! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Hm I think an option to turn on/off controlling battles would be the best, however managing an army of 600+ troops is kinda hard + we have AI vs AI in the battles, so this is the best way to balance the SP tactical combat.

[ October 23, 2003, 09:13: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
I didnt read the whole thread but the answer always used to be that player controlled battles would be non-PBEM.

I rarely watch the combats anyway. In fact Id like to see some changes so that Im not forced to watch as many as I do. Such as Arena Messages say xxxx beat yyyyy on each one so I know which were my guy. And zzzzz tried to assassinate yyyyy could maybe mention if he won. The "there was a battle" might mention xxxx beat yyyy so I dont have to watch it just to see the participants <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree with Gandalf on this - sometimes you don't want to watch all the battles. However, if you were only able to control your pretender it would be max one battle per turn. I can also see the role-playing element - which is attractive - here. But it would fundamentally change the nature of the game to implement, plus which, as Gandalf said, totally remove the PbeM element - which is a pretty important part of the game for a lot of people (including, I suspect, the devs).

[Mortifer]

Guys I tell you what would be the best: Only allow to control pretenders maybe commanders in the battle. Of course with a turn on/off option.

Anyways, I think that this is not really important, there are lot more important things like the diplo system, the weapon/armor system or the mod tools.

[Gandalf Parker]

I didnt read the whole thread but the answer always used to be that player controlled battles would be non-PBEM.

I rarely watch the combats anyway. In fact Id like to see some changes so that Im not forced to watch as many as I do. Such as Arena Messages say xxxx beat yyyyy on each one so I know which were my guy. And zzzzz tried to assassinate yyyyy could maybe mention if he won. The "there was a battle" might mention xxxx beat yyyy so I dont have to watch it just to see the participants

[ October 23, 2003, 12:42: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[HJ]

Ah, full control of the battles... What a great wish... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone.

[ October 24, 2003, 08:45: Message edited by: HJ ]

[HJ]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by HJ:
Ah, full control of the battles... What a great wish... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No it wouldnt. Or well, maybe it could but I dont see how even an option for controlling the battles can possibly NOT affect the game. If nothing else the tremendous amount of time and effort to put it in. Sorry but Id rather NOT see anything along this line. More options for scripting commanders, or using formations, would be great but not combat control.

Its a PBEM game. One that is done by uploading your turn file. And its one of the few excellent long-living games out there that do it. Im usually diplomatic and middle-ground on things but here Id have to say something that might kindof rude.... there are plenty of those games out there already, please dont turn this into one. Id rather see Dominion continue to be an excellent PBEM game than to see it become a mediocre RTS game. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, I won't go into the scripting argument. Yes, it would require some major rewriting, scripting the new combat system, AI, etc. That's not my point at all, and I don't see it as a valid argument coming from an end-user. How hard is to script something doesn't really influence what I personally do or do not like.

I don't play PBEM, so that doesn't influence what I like or don't like either. I'm just saying what would make the game even more enjoyable for me personally.

And I never said anything about RTS. Actually, I was thinking about TBS tactical combat. Why do people immediately assume tactical combat has to be RTS as if they've never heard of or played HOMM or AOW, I don't know. I mentioned TW purely because it has the option to autoresolve or fight it out yourself. AOW2 has the same option, and I could've used it as an example as well. I didn't, well, my bad, I still wasn't thinking about RTS. In any case, since you'll be autoresolving battles anyway, I don't see why you would care either way.

There are people who would like the game to stay exactly what it is right now. I myself like many of the game aspects, and in other aspects I see a great potential. That potential means that it would make it more enjoyable for me if some things would change. And this is the only forum I've seen where suggestions, regardless of how polite the tone is, are so vigorously shouted down by the people who play the game that it's becoming ridiculous. Usually, the people post suggestions, and then others add to them. Here every suggestion gets flooded by naysayers in no time. I don't seem to recall that I did the same thing for things I don't care about or think the devs shouldn't spend their time on improving, such as MP or modding tools. Mostly because I find it pointless, and even rude. But I guess I'm in the minority (maybe not in my wishes, but in the described tolerant attitude for sure).

[ October 24, 2003, 14:48: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Vodalian]

What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously.

[ October 24, 2003, 14:43: Message edited by: Vodalian ]

[HJ]

Originally posted by Vodalian:
What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In light of my previous post, I'm tempted to make a joke and start shouting "Heresy!!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by Vodalian:
What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There was some work made in this direction for a while, but it was abandoned. The nice thing about it is that you could be able to assign different speed values to different actions, perhaps make some weapons slower, certain spells slower to cast etc.

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by HJ:
Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone.
[/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well I am afraid it wouldn't please me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Note that Dom's is not an autoresolve battle system in the pure sense, you do not just get told you killed X & lost Y due to some obscure formula, you actually _do_ issue orders to your guys, it's just that you do it before the battle instead of during it.

To me, this is a much richer system than the autoresolve algorithms from other TBS games that I find simplistic & boring. In a sense, the battle engine is the part of the game I value the most (and have most fun with).


I don't play PBEM, so that doesn't influence what I like or don't like either. I'm just saying what would make the game even more enjoyable for me personally.
[/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The arguments against this have been rehearsed before:
-It would make MP unviable with full control (or simplify it immensely with autoresolve)
-Battles with 50+ commanders & 500+ troops per size would be totally unplayable, even in SP.

The game would need a huge rewriting for this aproach to even be considered (starting with troops operating only in units & finishing by limiting a lot the nº of mages & spells they can use), and I do not think the end result would even improve on what we currently have.


And I never said anything about RTS. Actually, I was thinking about TBS tactical combat. Why do people immediately assume tactical combat has to be RTS as if they've never heard of or played HOMM or AOW, I don't know. I mentioned TW purely because it has the option to autoresolve or fight it out yourself. AOW2 has the same option, and I could've used it as an example as well. I didn't, well, my bad, I still wasn't thinking about RTS. In any case, since you'll be autoresolving battles anyway, I don't see why you would care either way.
[/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Note that 2 of the above examples are games with 8 or less stacks/commanders/units per army, and the other one doesn't even have mages. The difference of magnitude for every single battle is huge.
And no, once again I wouldn't like autoresolve.


And this is the only forum I've seen where suggestions, regardless of how polite the tone is, are so vigorously shouted down by the people who play the game that it's becoming ridiculous. [/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I guess we have a certain clash of cultures here:
-On one side we have enthusiastic newcomers to the game proposing changes left & right to things that actually work in their current estate.
-On the other we have the vet players from Dom I with ample experience in the game (2 years in my case), who feel a sense of 'deja vu' with many of these proposals (ie, they have been discussed already, maybe even many times in previous forums).

The first group doesn't understand why the brilliant (in their minds, at least) proposal gets rejected or disliked, the 2nd group doesn't understand how something so glaring obvious (to them) is not immediately seen by the revolutionary newcomers.

Stuff like control of battles or naval battles fall in this bag, they have been discussed before & the arguments against have not been rebuted yet.

Longer term a FAQ could alleviate this type of conflicts, so that newcomers could get pointed to the previous debate on the topic, for now we will have to do with what we have.

One way or the other, the tone could improve and I am myself guilty of having a too sharp tongue at times.

[HJ]

Originally posted by Wendigo:

Note that Dom's is not an autoresolve battle system in the pure sense, you do not just get told you killed X & lost Y due to some obscure formula, you actually _do_ issue orders to your guys, it's just that you do it before the battle instead of during it.

To me, this is a much richer system than the autoresolve algorithms from other TBS games that I find simplistic & boring. In a sense, the battle engine is the part of the game I value the most (and have most fun with).
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, I stand corrected for the second time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I was thinking the "autoresolve" to stay just as it is now, what you have described in a greater detail.


The game would need a huge rewriting for this aproach to even be considered (starting with troops operating only in units & finishing by limiting a lot the nº of mages & spells they can use), and I do not think the end result would even improve on what we currently have. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">*sigh*
You are the end-user - how can this be your argument, I fail to grasp. No comment...


-Battles with 50+ commanders & 500+ troops per size would be totally unplayable, even in SP.

Note that 2 of the above examples are games with 8 or less stacks/commanders/units per army, and the other one doesn't even have mages. The difference of magnitude for every single battle is huge.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And why assume that the system has to be *identical*? There are plenty of original concepts and execution solutions in Doms, why discard the possiblity of a system that is specifically suited for this game beforehand?


-On one side we have enthusiastic newcomers to the game proposing changes left & right to things that actually work in their current estate.
-On the other we have the vet players from Dom I with ample experience in the game (2 years in my case), who feel a sense of 'deja vu' with many of these proposals (ie, they have been discussed already, maybe even many times in previous forums).

The first group doesn't understand why the brilliant (in their minds, at least) proposal gets rejected or disliked, the 2nd group doesn't understand how something so glaring obvious (to them) is not immediately seen by the revolutionary newcomers.

Stuff like control of battles or naval battles fall in this bag, they have been discussed before & the arguments against have not been rebuted yet.

Longer term a FAQ could alleviate this type of conflicts, so that newcomers could get pointed to the previous debate on the topic, for now we will have to do with what we have.

One way or the other, the tone could improve and I am myself guilty of having a too sharp tongue at times. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First of all, you haven't actually discussed those things with the said newcomers. Fresh minds and perspective, when compared to jaded seen-it-all-and-gotten-used-to-it ones, can do wonders sometimes.

And second, I wasn't complaining about the tone (although both sides sometimes leave much to be desired). It's the atmosphere that I sometimes find preposterous. If you don't have anything to add to the suggestion, why bother posting just to say "no"? Have I said "no" to things I don't care about, went in those threads and said that it's a waste of devs' time? Live and let live, and let the devs sort them out at their own discretion.

[ October 24, 2003, 15:31: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by HJ:
Well, I stand corrected for the second time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I was thinking the "autoresolve" to stay just as it is now, what you have described in a greater detail.
[/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh I see...so you are proposing to keep the current system + adding an even fuller control one...I still have doubts about the feasability of this, but at least it wouldn't worsen the game as a pure autoresolve would.


First of all, you haven't actually discussed those things with the said newcomers. Fresh minds and perspective, when compared to jaded seen-it-all-and-gotten-used-to-it ones, can do wonders sometimes.
[/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Definitely, but unless the newcomer adds a new spin to the debate in his initial post he is going to be handed to the inquisition. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


And second, I wasn't complaining about the tone (although both sides sometimes leave much to be desired). It's the atmosphere that I sometimes find preposterous. If you don't have anything to add to the suggestion, why bother posting just to say "no"?
[/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I would say that the tone builds the atmosphere, but in regards to your 2nd question, IMO those that say 'no' often _do_ care & do not want to see changed something that works as it is, and besides: in a sense every new idea is competing with the others for the devs time, so players will rather have the devs invest their limitted time in the areas of the game the like the most (or find lacking the most) instead of others they are neutral about

[MythicalMino]

the reason that the "rewriting of code" is always brought up, is because that is just it, there would have to be a lot of re-writing of the code...and that would mean that the devs would have to do it...something that maybe perhaps they don't have the time to do, or the desire to do...kind of like the "why fix it, if it ain't broken?" deal...

It would be alot of work on the developers if they chose to add some of the things that has been suggested....

Now, as far as the "Revolutionizers" and the "Jaded Ones"....

The "Jaded Ones" have been through these arguements, duscussion, ect. They have talked about what it could add, what it could do, what it could be...Dominions I came out in what, 2001, 2 years ago...Sure, Dom2 is a new game, yet to be released...BUT, it is still built on Dominions I. The newcomers, or the Revolutionizers, are only (for the most part) bringing up topics that has been duscussed 1-2 or maybe even 3 years ago...which, was discussed in great detail at that time.

Keep proposing ideas and suggestions....but i think one of the issues is that when someone thinks he has come up with the grandest idea ever, chances are, it has been brought up before....That could also explain why the devs do not answer every post or question....They have been through it before elsewhere...

I hope I am not coming across as arrogant or anything, that is not my intentions with this post...

The fact of the matter is this:

The first game has been out for a couple of years. During those years (read through the google newsGroups, you will see what I am talking about here), but during those years, many many of these ideas and suggestions were brought up, discussed, debated. You should also note that when the devs seen an idea/suggestion that they liked, or that they thought would improve the game, they did add it....

[licker]

I am unclear as to why there would be any "rewriting" of code. Sure there would be new code written, but why would old code need to be rewritten?

It seems to me that if the devs were seriously interested in adding some control (not going into specifics) for battles they would likely approach it as an additional module to the existing game (think Breach for those that know Breach and what it wanted to be).

With a set up like that if a player (since this is limited to SP only, or hot seat I suppose) wanted to not use this module he would not use it (selected at start up, or at every battle ala AoW). I have given alot of thought to how combat could be made more user controlled, and I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't need to be, mostly because I see this as another way that people will just ***** about the AI, but also because it really wouldn't add that much to the game, and could likely detract from the game.

As always to each their own, the more that is discussed the more we will all learn (usually... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Here's a final thought though, if it were possible for third parties to make the combat module (kinda like the combat simulator I suppose) then I think most everyone would be happy. I'm not sure if that's really possible though.

[st.patrik]

I guess the reason why I am a little skeptical of some of the suggestions that have been raised is because they strike me as fundamentally changing the good thing that is Dominions.

To my perspective you have to play the game quite a bit before you understand its peculiar charm - before you start appreciating the things that make it truly great. To be honest I find myself suspecting that a lot of new players come in and want to re-make Dominions in the image of other games that they liked.

The most extreme example of this would be the people who come in and say something like "ugh - the graphics are just horrible. you guys (IW) should remake the game with 3d models of all the units which move in lifelike ways". Of course anyone who would say that is simply missing the point: dominions isn't about incredible graphic fx, it's about having more than 1000 different units, etc.

So when I hear someone suggesting player-controlled battles it makes me think that person hasn't fully appreciated the joy of the way it is right now.

[Gandalf Parker]

As far as "need recoding" being an "non-user" argument, it only takes a small amount of programming experience in ANY language to have a decent opinion on this. I have done some programming on both pbem and real-time (Online) games. To me the addition of active controls is on par with if someone said why not make it a first person shooter. OK maybe not that extreme but even adding the interface for controlling the units would be a project. The only half-way method I can picture that wouldnt be extensive coding would be something where you watch the battle but can stop it at any time (or make it run in short spurts) and when paused you can change the instructions on units based on the same set of instructions that you have now.

On the one hand we have threads where people are complaining that the devs arent doing enough with this excellent pbem game, and here is a suggestion to change it into another type of game. Im sorry, this would be neat but Id still rather see one of the few good PBEM games continue on that path rather than spread out to cover another.

[Pocus]

"When it aint broked dont fix it" is perfect for me. I would prefer the devs putting their time in small but convenients/new features (searchbox? hu!), and not hundred of hours for a tac combat module, but thats my personal opinion.

[HJ]

Whoa, a whole lot of anti-critique critiques.... Which can be summed up as "Shuddup, especially if you haven't been here as long as we have, and you're not a buddy of the devs". This is the kind of atmosphere I was refering to as it feels very inflexible and somewhat hostile.

I'm going to address a few issues, and then rest my case.

I am not married to the devs to care where and what they spend their time on. I think they are all mature and intelligent individuals that can judge this for themselves. If someone would address me this way about my work, I'd feel a bit insulted as far as my maturity and intelligence are concerned.

If the issues have been discussed before, fine. I don't have any illusions that people who are against them now weren't against them before as well. Maybe those that advocated the changes before got alienated by this approach, as I am incrasingly starting to feel as well now, so there are nowhere to be found? And this would also imply that nobody can contribute anything further to the discussions, and the people doing that now are simply not intelligent enough to contribute something new which couldn't have been conceived previously by the "wise ones". Again, very unfriendly.

As far as "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". Well, we are talking about a new game here, and not a patch to an existing one. Sure it's based on the Doms I, but the emphasis is on "based". Not all things are the same, and there is room for additions and changes. Who knows, maybe for possible Doms III if not for this incarnation. And the view itself whether something is "broken" or not is subjective, as are all views. It doesn't have to be broken per se for someone to be able to envision something that would be more enjoyable for some.

Lastly, for the "fitting the game into existing templates" argument. Well, you are guilty of exactly the same thing - fitting all future incarnations of Doms into Doms I framework. Sure there is evolution, but that evolution can take different approaches, an I don't see why it shouldn't encompass more of them than simply improving on the existing formula. I'm not saying that you shouldn't get what you want (and that good things shouldn't be retained), but you are saying exactly that - nope, don't implement what others want, even though it doesn't hurt our goodies. To say that there are other games to play if you want those different things would be the same as me telling you "Well, if you liked the concept of Doms I so much, then go and play Doms I, and let's give Doms II a new life". And furthermore, I'm not trying to fit it into existing frameworks: I'm thinking what I would like to see in this particular game within its particular setup. But even if I would be doing something like that, I guess I could also come up with the argument: "It has been proved successful in so many other titles; hence if the concept ain't broken, don't fix it".

The hositilty and resistance to critiques (and I don't mean rude comments, but tactful suggestions) here is very puzzling, and I never had the (mis)fortune to experience it on this level before, despite being a member of many other forums .I have already said this, and I'm going to restate it: Live and let live. I'm not trying to bring down your desires and wishes, so why do you constantly do that to other people is beyond me. It certainly isn't helpful to the growth of the community and the game, the things you deem so dear to your heart.

[ October 24, 2003, 19:17: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Gandalf Parker]

Whoa, a whole lot of anti-critique critiques.... Which can be summed up as "Shuddup, especially if you haven't been here as long as we have, and you're not a buddy of the devs". This is the kind of atmosphere I was refering to as it feels very inflexible and somewhat hostile.

I am not married to the devs to care where and what they spend their time on.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I will try not to read anything into YOUR comment but in general Im alittle afraid we might be seeing some of the pros and cons of going "professional". With Dom 1 we had the feeling of a garage business by friends of ours. With Dom 2 I think we are going to see more "if I pay this much for a game then....." arguments.

Also, dont necessarily take things as being snide. The fact that things have been discussed to death before IS a fact. One which it would be good to know. Especially with reference to googling for the old conversations. And the fact that there is a large contingent of players who loved Dom 1 shouldnt be a surprise so suggestions that turning Dom 2 into something else could almost (ALMOST) be considered trolling if not done delicately.

[ October 24, 2003, 19:34: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by HJ:
Whoa, a whole lot of anti-critique critiques.... Which can be summed up as "Shuddup, especially if you haven't been here as long as we have, and you're not a buddy of the devs". This is the kind of atmosphere I was refering to as it feels very inflexible and somewhat hostile.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is completely NOT what I was trying to get across.

Discussion is a good thing - a forum like this has the potential to be (and I would argue is) a hotbed of new ideas and innovative suggestions. My point (which you did not respond to) was that some people come in here wanting to re-create dominions as their favourite other game, without first appreciating Dominions for what it is. This is an inherently misguided thing to do, for obvious reasons I think.

Accordingly it is my (humble) opinion that the suggestion to make battles player-controllable is coming from a perspective which has not realised the good thing which it would replace (and therefore destroy). Ergo something I would not want implemented.

Note that none of this implies that it is bad to bring up suggestions, or that they are not welcome, or whatever else. All I would say is that newer converts to Dom I should try to get a feel for why the game is so good, and make suggestions which fit with that rather than cut against it. I don't think this ought to offend anyone - it's a reasonable suggestion.

[MythicalMino]

but...so far, i have pretty much only seen why you want something, and why some others don't...

how are we being anti-anything? you state your opinion, I state mine....you state yours, i state mine....isn't that what a discussion is?

When you give your reasons for having something in the game, and someone else gives their reasons not to have that something in the game...why do you take offense to it? Or, why do you suspect a hostile atmosphere? At least we are not attacking you and trying to force you otu of the forums...

So far, I see your suggestions...then someone else's counter-suggestions....then you post that there is a bad atmosphere....

It is understandable that you want player-controlled battles....and I really don't think anyone is calling you a heretic or anything because you want player controlled battles...BUT, just like you want others to read why there should be, you should also read why others don't think there should be.

You also keep asking why we say it will take a lot of work to redo, rewrite, write new code. Yoy say the devs are their own ppl...true....

But, we are telling you why it will most likely not be implemented...it is a lot of work...and it is something that the devs have basically said they do not think it needs to be in the game...for one reason, it is a lot of work. Another reason, there is no "fore-see-able" need for it....It was dropped, abandoned....

Now, I am not telling you to stop posting this stuff...go somewhere else, play another game, leave us alone....

Actually, what has happened here, is you posted a suggestion, I have posted why it will more than likely not happen....

[Wendigo]

*Boggle*...I am not buddy with the devs & neither are most of the posters, you are making unfair assumptions about the other posters that oppose your point & that doesn't help your side of the argument.

I don't know what kind of forums you have been before in, but as others have said the only way of having a debate is having people posting different points of view and adding arguments to back them.

I have reviewed the past answers you got and all of them were pretty polite and argumented, you might chose to ignore the points made and make it personal but it's not. Those Posts are just the opinions of people that disagree with you, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Would you prefer to be ignored? would you prefer a lie of the type 'we take note of your valuable contribution and will do our best about it'. I would rather prefer the honest opinions expressed in a polite way that you got.

Do not look for conspirations & old buddies clubs where there are none. I do not know most of the previous posters, and those I know, I do from facing each other in the battlefield and making each other's life difficult...hardly a love story. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

If there's one thing I am glad about the Dom playerbase is the fact that it's very open to newcomers. When I started playing I did so by joining a group of players that already knew each other from a previous game, yet I was not particularly singled out & ganged on because of it, and was even granted my nation of choice. I have tried to act the same when I have been the one creating the game, and received no complaints on this instance to date.

Try MP with the established crew, they are all a pretty likeable bunch & you will be received with open arms. It's not a matter of us & you, so long as you do not make it so...there are no entry barriers here.

[Pocus]

very instructive post for my english level HJ.

Originally posted by HJ:
Whoa, a whole lot of anti-critique critiques.... Which can be summed up as "Shuddup, especially if you haven't been here as long as we have, and you're not a buddy of the devs". This is the kind of atmosphere I was refering to as it feels very inflexible and somewhat hostile.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I dont know who implied that you should shut up, but it didnt work apparently http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

(snip some things I dont have comments for)


As far as "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". Well, we are talking about a new game here, and not a patch to an existing one. Sure it's based on the Doms I, but the emphasis is on "based". Not all things are the same, and there is room for additions and changes.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yes sure, there is room for change. But should you not try to play either doms I or doms II some time before saying that the mechanisms dont fit you?

You dont seem to perceive, or dont want to, that when the devs 'fix' something which is already working (lets say 'upgrade' to give a positive tone to the modification you ask), then they wont spend this time on something else, perhaps more urgent (wow, how can it be?). There is a trade off you see.


Who knows, maybe for possible Doms III if not for this incarnation. And the view itself whether something is "broken" or not is subjective, as are all views.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yes that subjective, our view, your view too. Few things are not. So the point is?


It doesn't have to be broken per se for someone to be able to envision something that would be more enjoyable for some.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">refine versus create, sure. I still think the devs should concentrate on missing features. My opinion is personal, but is as worthy as your. Thats called discussion I suppose.

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Wendigo:
Do not look for conspirations & old buddies clubs where there are none. I do not know most of the previous posters, and those I know, I do from facing each other in the battlefield and making each other's life difficult...hardly a love story. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I remember well my biggest defeat since I play the game, and it was you on the giving end. Something like 8 father illearths, some archdevils and pazuzus, 40 priests and 300 units killed. I think you lost some zombies, and had your pretender slightly fatigued for the rest of the day.
Thats was a brutal introduction into the doms I world http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[licker]

This whole thread is starting to mimic the old "New Weapons System" thread, and I don't mean that in a good way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Anyway, I like the suggestions made about adding in control over tactical combat, even though I don't care to see it implemented in the game. What I don't understand (and didn't in the other thread either) is why anyone who disagreed with the suggestion was told to shut up because they were talking for the devs, or beacuse the new addition wouldn't hurt them (assuming that it was optional).


Look everyone is welcome to their opinion, and these Boards are a good place to make suggestions, just don't get so hung up on your personal whims that you can't stand to see them criticised. No one here is saying that more control is de facto a bad thing, just that it doesn't fit into their view of how dom should work (the PBEM problems aside), that's the same as in the Weapons System thread, great and interesting idea, but maybe it doesn't fit in to Dom, or maybe it detracts from Dom in some other way.

As I said before, I play almost exclusively a SP game, I could really care less what the PBEM people want for PBEM and what improvements could be made for MP, but (and this is important) the Devs have stated several times that Dom is first and foremost a MP game, to get things added that would only be applicable to SP is going to be an uphill battle, and is going to meet with a fair amount of criticism. Thats unfortunate in my mind, as the majority of game time spent in Dom will be SP, but that's how it is. I really believe the best tactic for the people who want 'radical' additions or changes is to pursue the ability to mod, and either make the changes themselves, or hope someone else makes something close to what they want.

Doubtful that modders will be able to add tac combat though. Still it shouldn't be a lost cause, and there's no reason not to continue to ask for it in some incarnation, however, I think that understanding the view point of the devs is key, once you accept that they are more concerned with the MP crowd (as they've said) then you'll come to realize that some battles will not be won, especailly for Dom2 (which is gold now anyway, so I wouldn't expect any 'radical' addations).

Finally, lets answer this question. Why do you want tac control over battles? Is it simply because its 'cool'? Is it because you can't stand to watch your forces get slaughtered when you didn't script them appropriately (or at all)? Is it because you need to be more in control of every aspect of the game?

Now I realize those questions are a bit insulting, they are supposed to be, they are the same questions I asked myself when I decided that I don't want Tac control in the game (and I've been playing Dom for less than a month, so don't lump me into any jaded old timer catagory please). Look at the questions seriously, look at your answers seriously, and hopefully, if you still want tac control in the game you'll have a better answer than any of those above.

[ October 24, 2003, 20:39: Message edited by: licker ]

[HJ]

First of all, my post wasn't intended against anyone in particular, and it wasn't based solely on comments made in this particular thread. I was expressing something of a general feeling I have gotten so far about the discussions, and those at the same time stem from the arguments, not from people. I also stated that I am addressing *some* of the arguments, not all of them, as I don't find all of them contributed to the feeling I was expressing.

I see that a lot of people got hooked on my little exaggeration with which I opened my post. By saying that it's an exaggeration, I admit I overstated things, but I also admit it was intentional. In literature this is called hyperbole, if I'm not mistaken, and is used to overstate things so as to emphasize them, and is not intended to be taken literally.

As far as the rest of my post is concerned, as I said, I have every intention to rest my case. I think I pretty much said what I wanted to say in that post and the one preceeding it, and to continue would be a pointless tug-of-war. What I actually want to say now is thanks for consideration. In addition, the majority of the Posts that followed my own have a very different tone than the one I described in it, and I'm glad to see that they have.

Cheers,

[ October 24, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by HJ:
Ah, full control of the battles... What a great wish... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No it wouldnt. Or well, maybe it could but I dont see how even an option for controlling the battles can possibly NOT affect the game. If nothing else the tremendous amount of time and effort to put it in. Sorry but Id rather NOT see anything along this line. More options for scripting commanders, or using formations, would be great but not combat control.

Its a PBEM game. One that is done by uploading your turn file. And its one of the few excellent long-living games out there that do it. Im usually diplomatic and middle-ground on things but here Id have to say something that might kindof rude.... there are plenty of those games out there already, please dont turn this into one. Id rather see Dominion continue to be an excellent PBEM game than to see it become a mediocre RTS game.

[WraithLord]

I do prefer the battle control the way it's implemented now.
Sure, small improvements to this system are welcomed. however I really don't want tac combat.
This will shift the emphasis from strategically to tactical, allow AI exploits and will hurt/kill pbem.
DOM-I is a great game. I would like to see it improve in Depth (more units, spells, nation etc) and less Micromanagement.

[Zerger]

Originally posted by izaqyos:
I do prefer the battle control the way it's implemented now.
Sure, small improvements to this system are welcomed. however I really don't want tac combat.
This will shift the emphasis from strategically to tactical, allow AI exploits and will hurt/kill pbem.
DOM-I is a great game. I would like to see it improve in Depth (more units, spells, nation etc) and less Micromanagement. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually Dom 1. is far from great. It is average.
It is a very simple wargame. More units and spells wont make it more complex.
IMHO with a diplomacy system, or with that weapon / armor system the game would have more potential. It is just a simple wargame now, as it is.
1000 different units? Seriously who cares? You wont use 90% of the units at all.
I dont really understand IW. Instead of the +400 new units they should add diplomacy just for example. Or anything strategical addition would be lot better than +400 units. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif (Yes, including the wep-arm system.]
This is why I wont order the game. I will try the demo, and wait for some add-on packs. If there will be any..
Right now I dont feel that I must preorder this game.

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by Zerger:
Actually Dom 1. is far from great. It is average.
It is a very simple wargame.
[/QB]<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's not a wargame,its a 4X game, a 4X fantasy TBS game if you want ot be nitpicky.

Simple as compared with which other games in its genre? Certainly not the Heroes, AoW or warlords series...those are far simpler games despite being better known.

How many 4x games have you played that account for morale, experience, afflictions, a dozen different stats per unit, supply, battlefield magic, ritual magic,overland spells, religious influence...? And that with 14 different sides + independents.

[Nerfix]

Originally posted by Wendigo:
How many 4x games have you played that account for morale, experience, afflictions, a dozen different stats per unit, supply, battlefield magic, ritual magic,overland spells, religious influence...? And that with 14 different sides + independents. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And Dom is a fantasy 4x TBS with no overused generic cliche nations and races like Elves or Orcs. Dominions has huge amounts of content when comparing to other fantasy TBS games. 1000+ units and 400+(not sure on this) spells makes a big diffrence when comparing to the IMHO rather pathetic amount of units and spells some FTBS games offer. I don't see what SP diplo would add, excluding that it lets you to exploit the AI. Wep/Arm system would be nice if it would be done realy good and would be balanced, but i am more than content with the current system. You guys realy should see some 500+ unit battles and then say if player controlled battles are a good idea. Even if we would have autoresolve option or it would be squad commanding, i would end up using autoresolve most of the time, making the option to controll battles useless for me. And this game is build for PBEM, people!

If you are not happy with Dom II there are always other games.

[ October 26, 2003, 17:17: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by Zerger:
Actually Dom 1. is far from great. It is average.
It is a very simple wargame. More units and spells wont make it more complex.
IMHO with a diplomacy system, or with that weapon / armor system the game would have more potential. It is just a simple wargame now, as it is.
1000 different units? Seriously who cares? You wont use 90% of the units at all.
I dont really understand IW. Instead of the +400 new units they should add diplomacy just for example. Or anything strategical addition would be lot better than +400 units. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif (Yes, including the wep-arm system.]
This is why I wont order the game. I will try the demo, and wait for some add-on packs. If there will be any..
Right now I dont feel that I must preorder this game. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I might agree that Dom I is not *great* just due to the interface and level of micromanagement required in the late game, but to claim that Dom I is "a very simple wargame" is foolish. The strategic depth of this game is immense; this is what makes up for the interface etc.

As regards not using the 1000+ units, well of course in no single game are you going to use anything like that, because you only are 1 of 14 nations [in Dom I], and your magic choice won't enable you (in all likelihood) to summon all summonable creatures. But the advantage of 1000+ units is replayability - you can play 14 different games and have them be pretty different in battle tactics, because each time you are fielding a different army, with different strengths and weaknesses than the one before.

This level of replayability is what brings people back to Dominions over and over again, and makes it a great game. Now with the improvements in interface and micromanagement in Dom II, this will be even more the case.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but If you don't like this kind of game, play something else that you do like, rather than complaining that you don't like this one.

If you have new positive suggestions that might improve the game, rather than just general statements that you don't think it's that good, please share them.

[HJ]

I guess there is an essential difference in what people like about the games like this one. Some like tactics, some like to overview things. I myself consider the battles to be the "meat and potatoes" of this kind of game, and everything else is pretty much leading to them. That's why I was never really able to like the abstracted combat of wargames, where your hex is attacking my hex and you see some smoke and that's it, or Warlords series, for example. This is also a major complaint I had about the Europa Universalis, that the fate of the painstakinlgy built empire is decided by two guys doing "piff-paff" to each other, and me not being able to do anything about it. Also, I see the example of MoO games - MoO3 didn't allow you do to anything as the AI was actually playing the game - very bad from my perspective when compared to the previous titles. I like empire building games, but I also like to do the dirty work myself, and not leave it to the AI.

From this difference in what people like stem the different views about the game itself. Some people like it the way it is, while others see a great potential in it. I mean, I'd really like to play a game where I have as many different options at my disposal as in Dominions, but one that is also expanded in other terms as well (incidentally, I also like the diplomacy, weapon-armour system, and tactical control ideas). I like plethora of options and variablilty, afflictions, individual treatment of units, etc. but I like other things beside that which are not in as it is now, and some solutions that are in I actually find frustrating. Hence my advocation of these aspects as well as keeping the ones I like at the same time.

As for some of the arguments used yet again, well, I said enough about them already.

[ October 26, 2003, 18:57: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Taqwus]

The time to win battles is, not infrequently, before they start. This is particularly true given the variety in Dominions, where many tactics can't be countered with mere battlefield manuevering but need decent preparation beforehand.

In any event, human-controlled tactical battles don't mix very well with PBEM, even if you limit control to pretenders. It would also alter balance; there's quite a bit of magic that would be considerably more powerful if the user had fully controlled target selection.

[Zerger]

Dominions is a very simple game. Nothing special in it. As I said it is average. Sure I like to play with it, that is not a question.
600 units? Guys don't be clowns. You know that most of the units are useless. You won't use more than 90% of those units. IW put in 1000 to Doms II. It is a great addition? To me: NO
I guess the IW scripter didn't wanted to add more complex things, like diplomacy. Instead they added 400 units. Yes it is lot more easier, that is for sure.
Spells? Heh yeah we have lot of spells. The problem is that you won't use the majority of these spells. Just like the units.
When you know what to do, you won't. Simple as you know what. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
So what we have more other than a huge amount of useless units/spells? Basically nothing. That is the truth.
That is why I am pissed about Doms II. There won't be major gameplay additions. Too bad. New units, new spells....what a joke. Instead of 500 useless units, now we will have like 850. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ October 26, 2003, 20:31: Message edited by: Zerger ]

[HJ]

Originally posted by Taqwus:

In any event, human-controlled tactical battles don't mix very well with PBEM, even if you limit control to pretenders. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But they do mix well with SP.

It would also alter balance; there's quite a bit of magic that would be considerably more powerful if the user had fully controlled target selection. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Erm, that's a good thing in my book.

[WraithLord]

zerger:
So what we have more other than a huge amount of useless units/spells? Basically nothing. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For what it's worth I have to say that I strongly disagree with that.
I have only DOM-I to base my opinion on.
I think most of the units/spells have their usage.
DOM-I is full with creativity that is expressed in the units, spells, nations.
The game has a unique atmosphere.
I believe that DOM-II would only enhance that.

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by Zerger:
Dominions is a very simple game. Nothing special in it. As I said it is average. Sure I like to play with it, that is not a question.
600 units? Guys don't be clowns. You know that most of the units are useless. You won't use more than 90% of those units. IW put in 1000 to Doms II. It is a great addition? To me: NO
I guess the IW scripter didn't wanted to add more complex things, like diplomacy. Instead they added 400 units. Yes it is lot more easier, that is for sure.
Spells? Heh yeah we have lot of spells. The problem is that you won't use the majority of these spells. Just like the units.
When you know what to do, you won't. Simple as you know what. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
So what we have more other than a huge amount of useless units/spells? Basically nothing. That is the truth.
That is why I am pissed about Doms II. There won't be major gameplay additions. Too bad. New units, new spells....what a joke. Instead of 500 useless units, now we will have like 850. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In a single game I do not use more than 10% of the units in the game, but if I would like to play the game more than once and with a different nation I would probably use a lot more.

If you are a newbie you might play several games with the same nation before you figure out all benefits and drawbacks of the unit setup of that particular nation. True, some units are less useful than others, but I believe most units have some uses and you might encounter some as independents where this does not matter. I would say that less useful units add to gameplay or the feel of the game. Historically Romans did not use horses to any great extent and their cavalry was inferior to that of Carthage or Numidia, but still there was equestrians in the roman army. The relative strengths of Hastatii or Triarii is and was difficult to measure. Probably one of the two was stronger, but this didnt matter much. The triarii were used as rear guard a long time after the reformation of legionary army.

The uselessness is a matter of strength vs cost. In SP games where competition is less pronounced you might find a unit that you believe is better than other units and therefore avoid other units. On the other hand you can indulge yourself in making units for fun rather than because they are the most cost effective units in the game. In MP games most people try to make the most cost effective units in a given situation. Here you must adopt to your enemies tactics to avoid defeat. What first seemed a good units combination might be worthless because your opponent has come up with something.

Of course it is easier to make new units. It is also fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . As an old pen and paper RPG game master I gladly indulge myself in imagining things. Some of these things end up in Dominions. Other ideas are used in roleplaying, yet other ideas I use on my unwary students. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Some spells are rarely useful, but they do not take much coding to add. I can assure you that the amounts of time spent on adding spells is quite limited.

I really do not understand how you can be pissed at something you havn't tried. I have never eaten corned beef, but I couldn't say that I'm pissed at it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . BTW is this language offensive to americans? If so I'm sorry and hope that Zerger also will moderate his tongue.

The most important change I would say is the UI, but perhaps you do not consider this important.

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by Zerger:
Dominions is a very simple game. Nothing special in it. As I said it is average. Sure I like to play with it, that is not a question.
600 units? Guys don't be clowns. You know that most of the units are useless. You won't use more than 90% of those units. IW put in 1000 to Doms II. It is a great addition? To me: NO
I guess the IW scripter didn't wanted to add more complex things, like diplomacy. Instead they added 400 units. Yes it is lot more easier, that is for sure.
Spells? Heh yeah we have lot of spells. The problem is that you won't use the majority of these spells. Just like the units.
When you know what to do, you won't. Simple as you know what. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
So what we have more other than a huge amount of useless units/spells? Basically nothing. That is the truth.
That is why I am pissed about Doms II. There won't be major gameplay additions. Too bad. New units, new spells....what a joke. Instead of 500 useless units, now we will have like 850. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I frankly have no idea why you are pissed. No one is trying to trick you into doing anything. You have no stake in the development of dom 2. You have not paid anything for dom 2. So why are you pissed? Exactly what about a small group of people designing and making a game they themselves enjoy, implementing features they like and selling it to other people that share their tastes, is it that pisses you off? Is it somehow offensive to you that illwinter make their own game the way they want it, and in their own freetime work on changes they enjoy doing?

[ October 27, 2003, 02:40: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

[PvK]

I think Zerger is trolling, exaggerating and/or just doesn't appreciate many of the interesting things about Doms. At least, his negative comments are simply incorrect and inflamatory.

It would be nice to eventually see some diplomacy and other suggestions. For instance, I like the idea of allowing modders to invent damage types, so they could do their own wep/armor effects without bothering those who don't like it. And, I would enjoy the option of being able to control one commander per battle in single-player mode. Eventually, if you guys feel like it.

Moreover, it sounds to me like Doms II does add several nice features besides more spells and units. A nicer interface, improved AI, more victory condition types, game system refinements, etc.

PvK

[Jasper]

Quote by Zerger snipped

I miss my usenet killfile. :-(

[Endoperez]

Besides, even if you only used 10% of the units, in Dominions there are more useable units than the total sum of all units in other games. So does that make Dominions worse than them? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[PhilD]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

The most important change I would say is the UI, but perhaps you do not consider this important. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That, IMHO, is good enough to warrant the new game (provided the improvements are real; but don't worry, I already have the game preordered anyway http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif )

[Pocus]

I would think he is trolling too. But for the sake of argumentation, can Zerger enlighten us with the list (a partial one will suffice) of the 90% spells and units he never use? Some examples and counter examples would allow us to make progress in the discussion.

I would have said, after playing some hundred if not more hours of doms I, that the stats are exactly reversed. 90% of units and spells have a use. Some game objects are not frequently used, and some very often, but still nearly all have a use.

True Zerger, if you dont see how to use a legionary with sword compared to a legionary with a spear, or if for you all Ulmish infantries are equals, then the problem is here. The difference is not great, but is real. I thus suggest you play dominions more competitively, and surely all of the puzzle pieces will fit together.

I think we have here a case of accute olignosis (oli : few, gnosis : knowledge). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ October 27, 2003, 09:11: Message edited by: Pocus ]

[MStavros]

I think this is a subjective thing.
Personally I prefer diplomacy or a new weapon system over new units and spells as well...
The new UI looks cool. The question is, the gameplay will be better? I think yes, but propably it won't be 2x as good. New units and spells are a nice addition, but maybe more complex stuff like diplomacy, armor & weapon system would be lot better for the gameplay.

I think Zerger had some valid points. I do not agree with him however.

[Taqwus]

To clarify my thoughts on manual control, magic and balance:

Consider the assorted "instant death" spells (soul slay, disintegrate, et al), certain other vicious bits of nastiness (nether darts comes to mind, as does leech and perhaps even Hand of Death). A magically talented pretender, especially one that could fly, would likely be used to kill leaders with rather extreme efficiency. Imagine one capable of flying behind enemy lines and tossing Blade Wind on the hapless AI commanders, or flying back and forth while doing Shimmering Fields from behind the enemy. Or fly to rear, summon lammashastas or other nasties, return. Even without strong magic, a pretender might be much more efficient; e.g. targeting commanders with the Black Bow of Botulf or the lightning bow.

I'm not at all sure that encouraging such dominance would be a good thing, especially if the AI weren't as good at using such tactics. It would certainly affect balance significantly, and that's something that deserves careful consideration before trying.

[PvK]

Sure. That's why it would be best as a single-player option. Players who want to try to use personal tactics to win games against the AI could then do so.

PvK

[HJ]

Originally posted by PvK:
Sure. That's why it would be best as a single-player option. Players who want to try to use personal tactics to win games against the AI could then do so.

PvK <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And that was the only thing that I was saying.

[-Storm-]

Originally posted by MStavros:
I think this is a subjective thing.
Personally I prefer diplomacy or a new weapon system over new units and spells as well...
The new UI looks cool. The question is, the gameplay will be better? I think yes, but propably it won't be 2x as good. New units and spells are a nice addition, but maybe more complex stuff like diplomacy, armor & weapon system would be lot better for the gameplay.

I think Zerger had some valid points. I do not agree with him however. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Diplomacy must be nr.2 on the "to do" list.
Dominions II. needs a lot better AI, than the current one. The devs must work on this first of all.