Newbie's first impressions

[PCarroll]

After getting lots of recommendations at comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic, I finally broke down and bought Dom2. I had played the demo several months ago but was pretty well turned off by it. Yet--there's this huge fan base, and so I figured there must be more to the game than meets the eye.

Well, it installed cleanly, and I like the fact that you don't have to have the CD in the drive to play. But startup is amazingly non-intuitive! It's as if the designer wanted to make sure only the initiated would be able to play.

But, thanks to the "Walkthru" I downloaded, and a willingness to learn by trial and error, I managed to play fifty turns or so of a game.

I must say, Dom2 is about the strangest game I've ever played. Not because of its theme or overall structure; in that respect it's just an ordinary fantasy-themed conquer-the-world game. It's strange because on the surface it looks like almost nothing ever happens. Whereas most games these days go to great lengths to impress the player with dazzling eye and ear candy, Dom2 looks about as plain as a game can be.

But from what I hear, there's a lot beneath the surface. Unfortunately, it looks like it's going to take a good deal of time and effort to delve into those depths.

I suppose I should start by reading the manual. I haven't done that yet; I just followed the "walkthru" and then experimented on my own from there.

The thing is, I've already forgotten half of what I learned during the walkthru. Once I set out on my own, I immediately lost track of what kind of research was being done back in my home province; where my income was coming from; where new units could be recruited; what gems have to do with spells; and everything else except movement and combat.

Before long, there were enemies everywhere, closing in on me. The battles that had been so easy during the walkthru were now so tough that I kept losing turn after turn.

I found an enemy (Ulm) fortress and decided to send my big armies there, in hopes of at least taking out one of the enemies. But it turns out I didn't know how to do that, so I left my armies there for ten or fifteen turns, just besieging and waiting for the fortress to fall. Finally, after shutting the game down in frustration, I flipped through the manual and was reminded that you have to change the commanders' orders. So this morning I loaded the game and reset the commanders' orders to "Storm the Fortress" (the gate had been smashed ten or twelve turns before), and took over immediately.

Actually, it was kinda cool being able to change the commanders' orders like that. It's a simple mechanism and fits with the player being in a position of making high-level decisions.

That indirect control over commanders and battles feels pretty weird, though, after years of playing games where I had *direct* control over tactical battles. It's funny: when I first encounted that kind of game (which I called "split-focus games" because the player has to keep switching between the strategic and tactical dimensions), I hated it. But now that I'm so used to it, it's hard going back to a game where the player *doesn't* have direct control over the minutia of tactical combat.

And yet--as I was flipping through the manual, I kept coming across nitty-gritty details and wondering how in the world they could possibly come into play. One section is telling how long weapons have an initial advantage over short ones--and I'm thinking, "Yeah, but once a battle starts, arming the troops is already a done deal, so. . . ."

I guess that kind of detailed info helps when deciding what kind of army to build when you're up against a cavalry-dominant enemy or whatever. But as a rank beginner, I've just been building armies wherever I can find them, out of whatever kinds of troops are affordable and strike my fancy.

Another thing I find strange is the lack of diplomacy; it's a multiplayer free-for-all with no alliances. That's annoying enough that I may stick to two-player games for a while. Last night I felt hopelessly ganged up on. In games with alliances, at least I've got some friends to counter the gangs of enemies.

Besides all the behind-the-scenes stuff (the economic and magical dimensions), the most annoying thing about Dom2 so far is the difficulty of establishing defensible borders. In my trial game, provinces changed hands the way they do in Risk; and that got old in a hurry. Nothing is more frustrating than making a successful attack, only to find that the enemy has meanwhile snuck in and taken over a couple lightly defended or undefended provinces behind your armies. That situation soon starts to seem hopeless.

Evidently--judging from all the posts in this forum and elsewhere--there's a LOT more to Dom2 than meets the eye. I'm just hoping I discover some of it before I shrug the game off as too plain-looking and frustrating.

[YellowCactus]

Well.
Yea. There is a whole lot to Dominions. The Multi-player is really keen. This is a 'grand strategy' game. By playing a turn each day in multi-player games, campaigns can last a real life month or longer. Entire games can last half a year or so. Dominions is certainly not about instant gratification for your dicisions. I like coming home from work to check out the 'new turn' in my current Dominions game. New turns rarely happen though because Aku is such a slacker. **Jab-Jab**
Anyway, Good luck with Dominions.
-yc

[Endoperez]

What was the level of independents? The default is pretty low, playing with level 6 gives you much more time to get
ready for the enemy, and slows the AI down more than it does you.

The national units are just the beginning. Research and magic is where the true depth is, as well as the diversity of nations and magic paths. And if you get to like the game, you can start choosing from the nations and spells and items and creatures, and play the game your way. To get to that point, well... the manual is mostly just listing all the spells and the items. Quickly look through the index, and check those that sound interesting (like Vision's Foe, eye-eating crossbow, or Blade Wind, that fires 52+ low-damage missiles in one casting). Remember that a + after a number (damage, Area of Effect, etc) means the power grows with better mage. Thus Falling Frost (AoE: 5+ and damage: 17+) will be a monster if cast by a mage with Water 6, which is not too hard to get. Choosing what to research can be quite hard in the beginning, so just research Evocation, mainly consisting of different combat spells. It suits any nation with elemental mages, and quite a few others. Other options could be Conjuration for summoning, Enchantment for raising the dead, or Thaumaturgy for Astral mages, with Paralyze and Mind Burn. Preferably you can then have your cheaper mages cast something offensive, like Fireball (Evoc. 3, Fire 2), Magma Bolts (Evoc. 3, Earth 1 Fire 1) or Mind Burn (Thaum. 2, Astral 2).

Defending your area can be quite hard. Buy some Province Defence, but not much. Few points are enough. On provinces next to enemy border, buy 11 points of pd. This will discourage your enemy from attacking your provinces, as there are some defenders there.

If you were to try with other nation, try Abysia. They have pretty strong starting units, get extra points by taking Heat 3, and start with pretty good Fire-based attack spell, Flare, researched. Abysia has no archers, but if you pretender has at least Fire 4 and more than 15 hitpoints, he can be used to scorch early independents.

[Molog]

Dominions 2 is a pretty fun game, but it might not be to your taste.

[PCarroll]

"What was the level of independents?"

Don't know. I was playing the special Walkthru scenario I downloaded, so everything was preset, and I didn't check the details.

[PCarroll]

Molog said:
Dominions 2 is a pretty fun game, but it might not be to your taste.



Time will tell. So far I'm scratching my head, wondering why so many others seem to find it such fun.

But I guess it takes all kinds. Railroad Tycoon is a big hit, and I once bought a copy just to see what all the fuss was about. But it didn't work; I still don't know. I've never liked trains or investing, so as far as I'm concerned, the game sucks. (It has some good music, though.)

I'm no fantasy-fiction buff, but I am a longtime wargamer (started in 1968). So Dom2 has some of what I like. But it probably won't be to my taste if it's too heavy on the economic or research dimensions. When I play a wargame, I'm in it for the war.

--Patrick

[Zooko]

I think the main appeal is multi-player, turn-based.

Lots of people like playing it single-player, apparently, but in my opinion there are better games for single-player. However, there are no better games (as far as I know) for multi-player, turn-based. :-)

Maybe you should jump into a multiplayer newbie game head-first.

[Molog]

If he can't win against the AI he will just be wasting people's time.

Perhaps read an aar to get an idea how to play, see aar thread (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=296275&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1)

[quantum_mechani]

Molog said:
If he can't win against the AI he will just be wasting people's time.
[/url]

...unless he plays with other newbies. Even with more expirienced games, most people don't mind newbies as long as they keep with the pace and don't drop out.

[Bummer_Duck]

Zooko said:
I think the main appeal is multi-player, turn-based.



More to the point, IMO, it is the indepth strategy, vs reaction time with a keyboard and mouse.


However, there are no better games (as far as I know) for multi-player, turn-based. :-)

Depends on what part you are talking about. There are a few out there that are close, and some with 'better' peices. I'd say Dom II is better in some important ways, but not everything.

Look at Stars!, and take into account that it was created (as far as I can determine) 7 years before Dom I and still has alot of GUI features that make Dom II seem clunky. I'll also point out that Stars! was created mainly by 2 programmers, not a big company.

[NTJedi]

If you are somewhat knowledgeable about greek myths, fantasy lore and enjoyed playing the Civilization series... then this game is a great treasure.

PCarroll... have you discovered that you can place the location of your troops and assign commands to the commanders?

This game does take patience and I would suggest not playing against Ermor AI until you feel well experienced.

[jeffr]

I'd say stick with it. It really is very deep and alot of fun. I think it is a war game, with spell research there to allow you to build a superior army. You can play games quickly against the AI to try out various strategies. Feel free to ask specific "how to" questions here and I or others who are far better than me will answer them. The community is really helpful. After you become comfortable with the game's mechanics, join a some Multiplayer games. That is where the game really shines. I still get stomped, but I really enjoy trying to figure out counters to the strategies that have been used against me. The game has been modified a great deal to make it much more balanced and to eliminate certain "cheesy" (in my opinion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif) strategies.

Some initial advice would be:

1. Learn the hotkeys. The UI becomes much better with them.

- F1 brings up a city report that shows much info at a glance and allows you to set taxes (to lower unrest, my goal is usually 0 unrest), increase Province Defense (1 or 2 is enough, as mentioned above 11 against the AI will usually deter an attack on that province, so you can channel the AI's attacks).

- 8 turns on arrows that allow you to see what provinces are adjacent to the currently selected province.

- n cycles through all commanders that don't have current non-defend orders. Always try to have commanders doing something, researching, searching, scouting (if stealthy), atttacking, ferrying troops around, patrolling, etc.

- tab toggles your commanders that research "on" and "off" in the UI, making it much easier to manage commanders

2. There are spell, unit and magic items guides (pdf and excel) that help alot. I don't have the link handy, but Sunray's and Liga's sites (or something like that, do a Google) might have them.

3. Most people always try to recruit a mage a turn in every castle with a lab. Magic is very powerful (or so they tell me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif).

4. Focus your spell research to achieve specific spells. I heard someone recommend a strategy to go for Flaming Arrows (Enchantment level 4?), take Marignon, build crossbows and then rock. Remember to equip the mage that is going to cast Flaming Arrows with some fire gems. Certain spells require that a mage have gems in addition to the necessary level (Fire 3 for Flaming Arrows, I believe). Also, arrange your troops with the Crossbows at the back with some high protection infantry in front of them to slow down the enemy while your crossbows shred them.

Another might be to take Niefel themed Jotunheim and take a Pretender with 9 levels of Nature magic (i.e. N9). This will give your sacred giants the Nature 9 blessing, which will give them regeneration, 50% poison resistance, and the berserking ability, which rocks. You bless your sacred troops (sacred troops have candles in their unit dialogs) by casting the "bless" spell with a priest. Each unit can have battle orders. If you can get a priest with a Holy 4 level, then cast "Divine Blessing" and all your sacred troops on the battlefield will be blessed.

5. Try to expand at one province a turn early in the game and then more than that as time goes by. Avoid Heavy Cavalry, Knights and Longbows early. One possibility is to take a Pretender that is a "Super Combatant", something that can cast certain "self buff" spells that make it almost invincible against the independent provinces. Others can give better advice, and you can search the forums, but the Alteration and Enchantment schools have the best of these "self buff" spells: Mirror Image, Mist Form, Fire Shield, Iron Shield if you need protection. There is an post by Quantum Mechanic (I think) on this subject.

6. Build some scouts and send the out. Take a decent dominion (6 or 7).

Man, a long post, but stick with it and you too can experience the joy of crushing some magic loving wuss in the early portion of an MP game and the lust for vengeance that comes when the other magic loving, super combatant loving, life drained equiped pansies crush your soul later in the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Tals]

NTJedi said:
If you are somewhat knowledgeable about greek myths, fantasy lore and enjoyed playing the Civilization series... then this game is a great treasure.

PCarroll... have you discovered that you can place the location of your troops and assign commands to the commanders?

This game does take patience and I would suggest not playing against Ermor AI until you feel well experienced.



Dom 2 is a strange beast - i've played this for sometime now and mostly MP, PBEM or tcpip which the game is very well suited for. For me the real draw is playing a game where their is literally hundreds of different spells and items - all with nicely different effects. So a world where it is possible for armies to Portal to your enemies doorstep is available http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I also found the game through the strategic newsgroup and the now defunct gone gold forum - though I don't frequent the Ng's anymore. Likewise I was an Ex Stars! player looking for another pbem game - the games are similar in that they both have great pbem hosting options - although Stars! interface was more intuitive the games are pretty much different so not really fair to compare http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I also find the inteface whilst being initially not very intuitive - becomes so, almost like riding a bike - I hadn't played Dom 2 for about 6 months until recently, started it up and I was straight back into the game.

If I was to have a complaint i'd wish for some more diplomacy options - whilst I understand the point about a God not wanting to ally to another god, in reality this wouldn't be the case and some good old fashioned diplomacy options would really assist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Tals

[sushiboat]

PCarroll said:
Besides all the behind-the-scenes stuff (the economic and magical dimensions), the most annoying thing about Dom2 so far is the difficulty of establishing defensible borders. In my trial game, provinces changed hands the way they do in Risk; and that got old in a hurry. Nothing is more frustrating than making a successful attack, only to find that the enemy has meanwhile snuck in and taken over a couple lightly defended or undefended provinces behind your armies. That situation soon starts to seem hopeless.


The best defense is a good offense. It's better to play musical chairs in your opponent's territory.

Build forts in provinces that have good magic sites or high income. If a computer enemy takes a province with a fort in it, it won't move on until it either captures the fort or is defeated. If the enemy goes around your forted provinces, you should be able to cut off its retreat and kill it.

Buy province defense. Every province should have a PD of at least 1, which will give you a look at the enemy army that captures the province. After PD 1, the AI recognizes increments of 10. Having PD of 11 in several provinces will often delay AI attacks. PD is a useful supplement to any other defensive forces you have. Also, you can use low PD to set a trap. If all but one of your border provinces have a PD of 11, and the one has a PD of 1, the AI will probably target the PD 1. You can have armies positioned to pounce after the enemy takes the bait.

Create a supercombatant (SC), a powerful commander who can singlehandedly kill whole armies without taking a scratch. Start with a creature that is already powerful -- e.g., a Queen of Elemental Air, a Golem, an Ice Devil, or a Bane Lord. Give it a lifedrain weapon (Death or Blood) such as Wraith Sword, Hell Sword, or Blood Thorn. Fill its other equipment slots to make the SC harder to injure or to give it other desireable qualities. If the SC can't fly naturally, give it Winged Shoes or a Flying Carpet. Thus you will have a highly mobile commander who can recapture your provinces. Do a search on this forum to get more information about making and using a SC.

Play around with magical movement spells, such as Teleport (Astral) and Cloud Trapeze (Air). These spells allow you to catch your opponent before his army moves in the regular movement phase. Just be sure that the mage(s) you send is tough enough to get the job done. If you have a SC who can Teleport or Cloud Trapeze, you might want to do that even if it can reach the province with regular movement.

Summoning units that don't require upkeep will allow you to have more large armies, which will help defense. Vine Ogres, undead, Wolves, Elementals, and seasonal spirits (Summer Lions, Winter Wolves, Spring Hawks, and Fall Bears) are often used. Some commanders can "Summon Allies" for free. Werewolves can summon Wolves. Some of the Elemental Kings and Queens can summon Elementals. The Draconian Chief can summon Draconians. The Mound Fiend can reanimate undead. The Ivy King can summon four Vine Ogres for one Nature gem -- not free, but a very good deal. Later in the game, you might want to have Mechanical Men and Living Statues. If your nation is using a lot of Blood magic, Devils are among the best troops available. A Vampire Lord can summon immortal Vampires for free.

[Endoperez]

Bummer_Duck said:
Look at Stars!, and take into account that it was created (as far as I can determine) 7 years before Dom I and still has alot of GUI features that make Dom II seem clunky. I'll also point out that Stars! was created mainly by 2 programmers, not a big company.



I just wanted to point out that Illwinter team consists of Kristoffer Osterman and Johan Karlsson. Not a particularly big company, either.

[Truper]

Well well. Somebody who started playing wargames before I did. Stick with it my friend, there *is* a lot here. Once you begin to get a feel for the differences between nations, and then between the various themes, you begin to realize that there is an awful lot of strategy in Dom2.

The community is pretty good about helping people out, too. Ask here, and you'll get answers. If you're into IRC, stop by #dominions on irc.gamesurge.net port 6667 sometime. A few of the Dom2 grognards hang out there, and its a good way to get a bunch of questions answered quickly.

[Bummer_Duck]

Endoperez said:

Bummer_Duck said:
Look at Stars!, and take into account that it was created (as far as I can determine) 7 years before Dom I and still has alot of GUI features that make Dom II seem clunky. I'll also point out that Stars! was created mainly by 2 programmers, not a big company.



I just wanted to point out that Illwinter team consists of Kristoffer Osterman and Johan Karlsson. Not a particularly big company, either.



I guess I assummed everyone here knew this...and was pointing out a apples to apples comparison.

[magnate]

Patrick - I've refrained from contributing to this thread so far, having pestered you so much on csipgs, but there's just one important question: are you a fan of magic in wargames? If you're not, I don't think you're going to get very far into this game before its UI limitations annoy you. If you are, do keep going with it. Magic is critical to the game, and gives it much of its depth. Battlefield spells, summoning spells, artillery spells, item forging, blessings, etc. etc. - all of them affect the war element.

Best,

CC

[PCarroll]

magnate said:
Patrick - I've refrained from contributing to this thread so far, having pestered you so much on csipgs, but there's just one important question: are you a fan of magic in wargames? If you're not, I don't think you're going to get very far into this game before its UI limitations annoy you. If you are, do keep going with it. Magic is critical to the game, and gives it much of its depth. Battlefield spells, summoning spells, artillery spells, item forging, blessings, etc. etc. - all of them affect the war element.

Best,

CC



"Are you a fan of magic" is kind of a strange question to me. I mean, we're not talking about magic per se, but about a dimension of game play.

First, for the record, I'm now into my second Dom2 game--the first one I started on my own. And things are going fine so far. Fifteen turns into the game I've conquered a number of independent territories, built a fortress, started a temple, and am into level 3 evocation research.

Apparently my first post sounded like whining to some folks. Didn't mean it that way. I'm brand-new to the game, but I'm learning and doing OK. I was just expressing my surprise at how unusual the UI is compared to other computer games. Makes learning more of a challenge, and it keeps me in the dark as to what's in store.

I guess I still don't quite know what to do with magic yet. The walkthru gave me the basics of doing research and gathering gems, but I still need to learn who can cast what spells where, when, and how. I haven't made it a high priority, since I'm just getting used to the UI. But I plan to get there. Discovering the F1 key helped a bit.

Will I like the magic dimension of this game? It depends. In Master of Magic, I liked summoning creatures, forging magic items, and casting protective spells on my units--and especially casting global spells. But after a while I decided I didn't like playing with White magic much, because it meant I had to painstakingly cast all kinds of protective spells on as many units as possible. That was time-consuming. Sometimes there'd be a big payoff, and I liked that. But all in all, I preferred to cast battlefield-wide spells like High Prayer or Blur, or global spells that affected the whole world. The more widespread the effect, the better; the more picky and specific the spell, the less I usually liked it.

But yeah--I liked beefing up Torin with all kinds of magic armor and items and spells, then sending him out to conquer the world. Similarly, early the in the game I liked casting Confusion and handily winning battles I'd have easily lost without magic.

Then again, in Age of Wonders, it was sometimes a pain in the neck to cast routine spells. Turn after turn I'd have my wizard cast Enchant Weapon on a few units in a stack, until he ran out of mana; and I never paid much attention to what effect it was having--I just knew enchanted weapons worked better.

So, I'm not the kind of gamer who gets into the nitty-gritty details of what's happening. I'll notice when my guys quickly tromp an enemy, or when (as just happened this morning) those lizard-looking guys chewed up my army and sent them packing. But I probably won't know exactly *why* any of it is happening. In that one battle, I noticed there was an enemy leader who cast "barkskin," so I guess the enemy troops had some kind of special armor for one thing--which means I'd better get some stronger troops or better weapons or armor or something before I go back into that province.

I'll build a temple because I know it's supposed to boost dominion, and that's supposed to be important. But I'll never pay attention to the numbers and see how *much* it improved things. If I need more money, I'll look for ways to get some; but I won't track the precise effect of taxation changes, conquering farmlands, or whatever. Numbers bore me too much.

So, I guess I'm more of a "broad-stroke" kind of gamer. Not much interested in finessing my way to victory; I'd rather bulldoze my way through. In MoM, the bigger a spell was--the more it accomplished all at once--the more I liked it. So the best spell of all was, of course, the Spell of Mastery (which, once cast, wins the game outright).

As to the other (nonmagical) part of the game, I tend to be an expansionist. It works in Risk, and it pretty well works in every Risk-like game I know of: get big! I always try to get big fast, and to keep my enemies from getting big. I've heard that some expert players were able to win MoM while having only a few cities; and apparently the trick was to manage those few cities VERY closely and carefully, squeezing every ounce of worth from each of them. I'd never have the patience for that. I always had to try to grab the lion's share of the map.

OK, so much for writing. Time to get back to playing Dom2.

--Patrick

[jeffr]

One thing I do during a battle replay to try and determine what is going on is to periodically right click on a unit I'm interested in. This will pause the replay and give you the unit's current status: hitpoints left, current spell effects (fire shield, paralysis, etc.) and weapons (if it's an enemy commander). If you right click on a specific stat (hitpoints, attack, etc.) at the top of the dialog, it will tell you how that number was arrived at).

So, for example, if you see that your defense is 0 and you are wondering why, right click and you might see that you have been blinded or are paralyzed.

Another use is to track the status of a particulary important unit in the battle (say, your pretender). I've watched my units lose hitpoints but then gain them back via regeneration, etc. It helps explain what's going on.

So, if you wanted to find out what Barksin did exactly, right click on the unit after it is cast. You'll find that it's basic protection (it's protection without armor, i.e it's skin/hide/whatever), has risen to 10. This has probably raised it's overall protection value by some value slightly less than 10, depending on the armor it is wearing. There is a description of how protection is calculated in the rulebook or one of the dom2 pdf guides on the net. It has also been made 25% more receptive to fire damage. The spell effects guide also has this info.

[Endoperez]

In Dominions, there are only few spells that can affect normal units, and none permanently (besides killing/harming them, of course). However, you can get spells that offer your whole side an advantage, Battle Fortune, Fog Warriors, Armor of Lead and AoGold, all in alteration, offer your whole side pretty hefty bonuses. Also, there are Global spells with big effects (Wrathful Skies, Ecovation), and others that can harm an army badly from across the world (Murdering Winter and Flames from the Sky at Evocation 9), and those with big but not so direct effects (Haunted Forest at Enchantment 8).
While it's impossible to cast spells on commanders, giving them items and making them cast buff spells and then wading in and killing whole armies can be done with most tough commanders, although recruitable ones rarely qualify. I think you will find some very interesting spells when you become more comfortable with how the game plays.

And while it would help to know the effects of the spells, the more common ones you will probably learn quite quickly as you research them. Press F5 to visit research screen, and click on the name of the researched school to see the spells, and again, click on the spells to see their descriptions.

[sushiboat]

Endoperez said:
Also, there are Global spells with big effects (Wrathful Skies, Ecovation)


Wrathful Skies affects the whole battlefield in one battle, but it's not a global spell. Perhaps you are thinking of Wrath of God.

[Endoperez]

Yes, indeed. Wrath of God is what I meant, but Wrathful skies might also interest PCarroll.

[Wish]

on the subject of getting big fast, I've found expanding slowly to be better, defensively. you move to fast and your enemies will sweep in behind you and take the unprotected provinces. so you end up playing cat and mouse.... but at the same time if your enemy gets to big then they can muscle your dominion out from under you.

[PCarroll]

OK, I'm back--and this time I know what I'm talking about. I've read the manual, and yesterday I played (and won) my first full game of Dom2.

At this point, I'm wondering why it was such a hurdle to get used to the UI; actually it's pretty straightforward. I guess I've been away from board games for so many years that I'd forgotten how they're played; I've been spoiled by the blinking units and drag-and-drop features of modern computer games. But now that I've played my way through a whole game, the Dom2 UI makes sense and works just fine (though I'm still annoyed by the extra "Host" click required due to its being geared to multiplayer).

Is it good? Well, it captivated me enough that I spent most of the day yesterday playing it. Furthermore, I played it on our upstairs computer, because my wife had the other one tied up all day. Our upstairs computer is older and slower and evidently needs a new video card. I was unable to view any battles (because they play at a frame rate of less than 1 per second even with resolution set to its lowest), and there were serious delays in scrolling (which made me wish there were a strategic thumbnail map I could click on to quickly see some other part of the world).

I played Caelum, with Mictlan as an "Easy AI" enemy. After reading the manual, I finally found out how to choose a regular map instead of a scenario (my earlier attempts were all scenarios, unbeknownst to me). I chose a map with a "bottleneck," and I made a point of racing to that bottleneck and fortifying it--which left me free for the rest of the game to take my time conquering independent provinces and learning the magic system. The end of the game was anticlimactic; Mictlan was a pushover by then.

So, it's a good game. Kinda long, though. And I'm surprised how tough some of those independent provinces can be to conquer. Some highlights were hiring a mercenary assassin who managed to kill the enemy God; casting Hurricane on enemy provinces; summoning some army-enhancing creatures; and as a sidelight, building a "fish" army to conquer the surrounding oceans.

More later. My wife needs the computer again.

--Patrick

[Edi]

There is not necessarily any problem with the graphics card itself. If you're running Windows XP with native drivers, no wonder you have it slow, because those drivers do not support OpenGL. You need to update the drivers with the manufacturer's own instead of Micro**** ones, and then you also probably need to run a program called Refresh Force to take care of the refresh rate synching. That should fix things.

My own rig is a Celeron 500 one, five years old, and no problems running Dom2 as long as the detail is set to lowest.

You should find the thread where I wrestled with the same problem by running a forum search about display problems. It has all the links you need.

Edi

[Molog]

The AI performs worst with mictlan and best with ermor.

Shame that you couldn't see the battles, I like watching large battles.

[jeffr]

which made me wish there were a strategic thumbnail map I could click on to quickly see some other part of the world



You can use the Insert, Delete, Home, End, Page Up and Page Down keys to zoom the map in and out. Insert will zoom so that the entire map fits on the screen.

[PCarroll]

Molog said:
The AI performs worst with mictlan and best with ermor.




Hmm--guess I accidentally picked the easiest AI of all, then. Probably for the best, since I had aborted a few lost-hope games before this one.

[PCarroll]

You can use the Insert, Delete, Home, End, Page Up and Page Down keys to zoom the map in and out. Insert will zoom so that the entire map fits on the screen.



Yeah, if my video drivers (or whatever) would cooperate. But zooming is as slow as scrolling. Maybe I'll try Insert next time and see if the map is too tiny to play on.

Anyhow, it was a pretty good game even with all the computer problems I had. And on our downstairs computer, the game runs perfectly. (Well, except for the time I was viewing a battle and had to switch to the desktop momentarily; when I returned, all the soldiers and commanders on the battlefield had turned to letters of the alphabet!)

Thanks.

[Cainehill]

PCarroll said:
Anyhow, it was a pretty good game even with all the computer problems I had. And on our downstairs computer, the game runs perfectly. (Well, except for the time I was viewing a battle and had to switch to the desktop momentarily; when I returned, all the soldiers and commanders on the battlefield had turned to letters of the alphabet!)




Heh. To avoid that, never run Dominions in full screen mode; instead add "-w" to the command line / short cut, and then resize the window as large as you want it.

[Ed Kolis]

PCarroll said:
[quote]

(Well, except for the time I was viewing a battle and had to switch to the desktop momentarily; when I returned, all the soldiers and commanders on the battlefield had turned to letters of the alphabet!)




Ah yes, the legendary nethack mode http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Cainehill]

Ed Kolis said:
Ah yes, the legendary nethack mode http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif



Bah! Angband / Moria mode, not Nethack! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Ed Kolis]

I prefer angband as well; I just thought nethack would be a bit more recognizable http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[quantum_mechani]

Ed Kolis said:
I prefer angband as well; I just thought nethack would be a bit more recognizable http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Meh, Nethack is obviously superior. Or ADOM. Or anything that remembers levels and has a non-insane combat system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Zooko]

Illwinter recommended Dungeon Crawl on their web site one time, and I got hooked on it. I really prefer it to the others that I have briefly tried, because

a. It has balance.
b. It has a consistent world (not a myriad of independently developed levels, each one attempting to be sillier than the last).
c. It has a pleasurable skill system.

Also I've written several patches to Dungeon Crawl, mostly to re-invent the personality of the god Xom.

[PCarroll]

PCarroll said:
. . . I guess I've been away from board games for so many years that I'd forgotten how they're played; I've been spoiled by the blinking units and drag-and-drop features of modern computer games. . . .



Played a little more Dom2 last night, and it's growing on me. I'm now convinced that what I said above is true: I've been spoiled by computer games over the past decade or two. Dom2 is bringing back some of the old board-wargame feel that I didn't even know I was missing.

I remember when I first started playing wargames on the computer, I didn't like them. I didn't like the computer handling so many of the things I used to have to do manually, because it separated me too much from the "game engine" and tended to make playing the game a more mindless activity.

But then again, it always took way too long to set up a board wargame; I rarely had a opponent, so I ended up playing both sides against each other; and the process of playing was kind of slow and laborious. . . . So, pretty soon I decided computer games were OK after all.

Dom2 demands a little more from the player than many other computer games. There aren't many prompts; you're expected to know what you're doing. And now that I've played awhile, I'm finding that refreshing.

--Patrick

[Tals]

I love Dominions 2 - although I don't like playing it against the AI - go figure http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif The network game (if you can persuade some poor mug (hands in air) to have there PC on the whole time is very nice and if not then the pbem option is also good. I'd recommend having a go at that to really see where this game rocks.

Tals

[Endoperez]

EDIT: missed page 3. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

I also found Dungeon Crawl through Illwinter's recommendation. They also like ADOM. I enjoy both.

And Crawl has lately seen some development, both "independent" patches and "official" upgrading. The newest beta has added some interesting stuff, and reworked old stats, and you can play as a Giant Fighter (debugging option for new big characters, will be gone from future versions).

I would like to add that Crawl handles religions wonderfully. Character worshipping certain god has to follow its principles, so priest of the Shining One shouldn't backstab or poison, healer god Elyvelon's worshippers should never kill anything while praying, warrior gods prefer killing creatures in their name and accept their corpses as sacrifices (you need a sharp tool to buthcer them, but not an altar)... And you can worship the RNG: Xom! Demonspawn Chaos Knights of Xom are crazy fun, one of mine was dying, and got healed, was ambushed and got few devils to help him, found mace of protection and armor +1 and got to level 3 in first 3 rooms, when he was hungry and wanted to butcher a corpse a magical broad axe just appeared... And then he stepped into a Zot trap that appeared too early due to a bug in the beta, *kaboom!*, dead. If that's not The random-number generator, it comes very close.

[spirokeat]

It sounds like your getting the bug anyway !. I agree with what you said about being spoiled by modern games, many lack gameplay and concept and instead rely on trashy graphics and mouse acrobatics rather than genre gripping themes.

For me DOM2 holds a cherished place alongside games that I can honestly say fired my imagination. The diversity is astounding. I've had the game over a year now and had two significant play periods with a break inbetween. I play pretty much only against the AI (though I wouldnt mind a shot at MP) and usually only on Orania with about 7 nations. Yet i've still only really played Mictlan. I know Machaka would be interesting too, but the play style between them is so different I know I would need to refocus how I'm playing.

Even within a single empire there seems to be loads of ways of playing. Im currently in a devil and fallen angel mood. The last one was a lots of magic bless troops game. The one before, Vine Ogres, Dark vines and Crossbreeding with Vampires swooping around to slay any who entered my domain. I'm gonna give a using Horrors a shot soon too. It's just endless.

If you liked MoM, I'm sure you will like this. The lack of diplomacy is odd initially, but to be honest, once you got good an MoM, you knew it was a sham in that anyway.

I'm looking forward to Dom3. I'm hoping that the the few things that annoy me, which is vastly outweighed by what makes me smile will be lessened.

Spirokeat.

[PCarroll]

Just finished another game. Played Man this time, with Ermor as an enemy (since somebody said the AI is best at playing Ermor).

Don't understand how the game ended. I won--somehow. Several turns back, I had stormed the Ermor fortress and demolished it, but the Ermor army took one of my fortresses, then another. I got my fortresses back, though.

At this point, Ermor was besieging two other forts of mine. I sent my God in with too small an army and tried to lift one of the sieges--but my God got killed in that battle. However, I guess Ermor failed to take the other fort, and suddenly the computer declared that I had won. My God who just got killed "ascended."

I guess that kinda makes sense somehow.

My impressions of the game at this point? Still mixed. I'm not sure I really like big, complicated games anymore. Too much to do every turn, and the game goes on too long. I used to like them because the size obscured my ineptitude: if I made a mistake or two somewhere, I could usually make up for it somewhere else. But now it just gets tiresome having to recruit new units every turn, keep track of mercenaries, and balance the various dimensions of the game (magic, economics, dominion, etc.).

And btw, I haven't yet seen dominion play a real role in the game. Maybe it has invisibly made my God stronger, but I haven't noticed.

So, I think I'm off to find a smaller, shorter, simpler game to play.

--Patrick

[Ed Kolis]

Hmm... if you like fantasy and wargaming you might like Land of Legends, or Battle for Wesnoth...

Dominion, BTW, is very important - for one thing, if you lose all your dominion, you're out of the game. Perhaps that is how you won your game - did Ermor run out of dominion? Also, you were correct in thinking that it made your god stronger - it directly affects your god's (and prophet's) hitpoints. In a +10 dominion province your god will have triple his normal hitpoints - but conversely, don't send your god out into enemy dominion if you expect him to get in a fight! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Dominion also affects other things such as morale, too...

[quantum_mechani]

PCarroll said:

My impressions of the game at this point? Still mixed. I'm not sure I really like big, complicated games anymore. Too much to do every turn, and the game goes on too long. I used to like them because the size obscured my ineptitude: if I made a mistake or two somewhere, I could usually make up for it somewhere else. But now it just gets tiresome having to recruit new units every turn, keep track of mercenaries, and balance the various dimensions of the game (magic, economics, dominion, etc.).


You should try playing small map one-sitting blitz games. There the focus is much less on the micromanagment and magical 'economics' and more on tactics.

[NTJedi]

PCarroll said:
And btw, I haven't yet seen dominion play a real role in the game. Maybe it has invisibly made my God stronger, but I haven't noticed.

So, I think I'm off to find a smaller, shorter, simpler game to play.

--Patrick


The higher your dominion the higher your gods life while he's in that province.
If you enjoy fantasy TBS games then I recommend Heroes_3 and AgeofWonders:ShadowMagic.

[PCarroll]

If you enjoy fantasy TBS games then I recommend Heroes_3 and AgeofWonders:ShadowMagic.



I'm afraid I don't know what I like anymore; I seem to be hopelessly fussy.

I've played HoMM2. Liked it pretty well overall, but I found the game dragged on and on--and I hated it when a last enemy hero was wandering around on some distant part of the map and I had to spend a hundred more turns just hunting him down. The game was over by then, so it was just busy work.

I've also played AoW3:SM. Another good game. But it has too many "moving parts" for my taste these days. Too much fussing around with city improvements, production, resource guarding and harrassment, and so forth. And as often as not, I skip tactical battles because they get too big and long. (The stylized tactical battles of HoMM2 are more to my liking.)

A simple card game or classic board game might suit me. But then it's almost always abstract, and I miss the theme (be it fantasy, history, or whatever). Also, classic games tend to be very analytical; and to me, analysis is work, not play. I don't want to have to work at a game. Nor am I competitive. I play games for fun; competition is incidental.

Yet, it's a catch-22. I want a game to just be a pleasant escape, but I also want it to be worth seriously studying and getting good at. But I don't want it to be worth getting good at just so I can boost my ego by beating other players; I want it to be good for me--good mental exercise, stress relief, a way to exercise the imagination, or whatever. I also want it to suit my taste, and yet I don't want to whine and weasel out every time I run into something that doesn't quite feel right.

Lately I've been thinking of taking up a game like chess or bridge again. I do that periodically, but my discipline never holds out. I can happily while away hours studying at Chessmaster's "academy," but then I find it's really not much fun for me to play in actual games. Too analytical, too abstract, too much hard work.

But OTOH, I get restless when playing a just-for-fun game that has no real value other than just a break from the seriousness of day-to-day life. If a game doesn't somehow seem meaningful to me, I perceive it as a waste of time.

What a weird, tangled-up attitude I've delveloped toward games, huh?

--Patrick

[Alneyan]

PCarroll said:
What a weird, tangled-up attitude I've delveloped toward games, huh?



I pretty much feel that way myself (sometimes, at least), so perhaps I can make a worthwhile suggestion: Deadly Rooms of Death (DROD). In that game, you are a dungeon exterminator (a delver), hired to... well, clear up dungeons and their inhabitants.

The game, while not specifically strategy, still requires reflexion: it is a pretty much "old school" puzzle game, quite different from some recent games in that genre. Once you have figured out what you should do, you have to do that yourself, so the game does have a fun execution part - unlike Dominions, where you cannot direct battles yourself, and can only think about them. (That makes the game better strategically, but also reduces its fun factor for me)

Since it is a puzzle game, you will get that "Aren't I bright?" feeling after having beaten a tough room, and you can compete with other players to see how efficient you are (that part is purely optional). Throw in the level editor, and you have a pretty fun game that will last for a long while.

Their webite is at <a href="http://www.caravelgames.com" target="_blank">http://www.caravelgames.com (http://www.caravelgames.com/Articles/Games.html) </a>. There are currently two editions of the game: Architect's Edition, available freely, and the superior Journey to Rooted Hold sequel. DROD was formerly a commerical game, known as Webfoot DROD back then, so you might have heard about it already.

[Zen]

Try Phantom Dust on the Xbox.

[PDF]

PCarrol, did you try something like Combat Mission (if anything else exists that is "like" CM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ) ?
Games are rather short and fast paced compared to Dom2 et al., and it requires some "battlefield tactics" sense more than analytical brains - surely that's why I suck at it, I was able to make strategy articles on it then get blasted by one of my readers that managed to apply it, while I couldn't !! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif .
Also it's graphically more rewarding than top-view 2D strat game as it's in full 3D with free camera, even if now it's not really up to date graphic-wise ...

[PCarroll]

Alneyan said: I pretty much feel that way myself (sometimes, at least), so perhaps I can make a worthwhile suggestion: Deadly Rooms of Death (DROD). In that game, you are a dungeon exterminator (a delver), hired to... well, clear up dungeons and their inhabitants.




Thanks. Just tried the demo--or rather, a similar demo the company offers now. It was hard to tear myself away. I usually don't like puzzle games, but it was pretty fun.

[PCarroll]

PDF said:
PCarrol, did you try something like Combat Mission (if anything else exists that is "like" CM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ) ?



Yep. I played the demo several months ago. It's apparently one of the most popular games around, but I didn't care for it. The 3D graphics that impress everybody else are a turn-off to me. I don't like things looking that realistic.

[Edi]

PCarroll, if you want other games besides Dom2, try the original Age of Wonders, if you haven't already. It has almost none of the micromanagement of AoW2 and AoW:SM, and while it still has some 3D look, very little compared to its sequels. It's also, in my opinion, more beautiful because the maps don't look so cluttered. The magic system also works much better than in AoW:SM, because any spellcaster can cast spells, it's not all dependent on one caster.

There are alsoa couple of mods for the original AoW, Warlock's Ruleset which was done by reverse engineering, and some others that were added when Triumph Studios released the dev editor which made it possible to do modifications without reverse engineering (but was still a lot of work).

Edi

[Alneyan]

PCarroll said:
Thanks. Just tried the demo--or rather, a similar demo the company offers now. It was hard to tear myself away. I usually don't like puzzle games, but it was pretty fun.



I checked their website yesterday, and noticed they made the older version harder to find; it is still available though, under Dugan's Dungeon More Info, or directly from DROD.net here (http://drod.net/forum/downloads.php).

It is not really a demo, of course, but simply the older incarnation of the game; it also lacks some of the nice commands from Rooted Hold, including some sword-swinging macros and Undo.

[PCarroll]

Edi said:
PCarroll, if you want other games besides Dom2, try the original Age of Wonders, if you haven't already. It has almost none of the micromanagement of AoW2 and AoW:SM, and while it still has some 3D look, very little compared to its sequels. It's also, in my opinion, more beautiful because the maps don't look so cluttered. The magic system also works much better than in AoW:SM, because any spellcaster can cast spells, it's not all dependent on one caster. . . .



Thanks. Unfortunately I gave my copy of the original AoW away a couple years ago. I barely remember the game now, but I do recall being more disappointed than pleased with AoW2. Until now, I thought I was the only one who felt that way. For a long time after getting AoW2, I kept playing the original AoW. But eventually the scenarios all looked too familiar, so I let it go.

My wife, a longtime Master of Magic fan, plays AoW3:SM while hoping for a MoM2 to come out. The main thing she likes about AoW3 is the random map generator; she hates scenario-based games (including campaign games with strung-together scenarios). The one thing she complains about in AoW3 is that there's no numerical score at the end of a game--no "hall of fame." She wants to know how well she did so she can try to beat her best score next time.

Since I'm rambling, I'll mention that years ago I used to love the game Conquered Kingdoms. Its graphics were obsolete even when the game was first released, but the game played well and was quite challenging and interesting. Evidently, it's due for a comeback sometime soon: http://www.lostadmiralreturns.com/conqueredkingdoms.html

I tried the Lost Admiral demo (I hadn't played that game back in its day), and it's pretty good--as a game. The user interface is painfully awkward, though. I'd recommend these games to anyone who doesn't mind ancient 2D graphics and a chesslike feel to their games.

[Molog]

AoW2 was a dissapointment to me too, but then I found dominions 2 and all was good.

[teal]

PCarroll said:

A simple card game or classic board game might suit me. But then it's almost always abstract, and I miss the theme (be it fantasy, history, or whatever). Also, classic games tend to be very analytical; and to me, analysis is work, not play. I don't want to have to work at a game. Nor am I competitive. I play games for fun; competition is incidental.

...

What a weird, tangled-up attitude I've delveloped toward games, huh?

--Patrick



Hi Patrick,

I too have felt like I had a weird attitude towards games. What you are saying really struck a chord for me, games were getting too long and complex and frankly no fun, and yet the simpler, traditional games often lacked that "flavor" or theme which is what really attracks me to a game in the first place. Then I discovered a little German board game called Settlers of Catan. The game was short (around 90 minutes), it was fun (me and my friends laughed constantly about "trading wood for sheep"), it had some depth (there was a variety of strategies, not all of which were apparent at first glance), the theme was a little pasted on but definately present, and some analysis was rewarded but did not dominate the game. That game launched a whole industry around these short (playable in an evening), simple (rules were easily taught and learned), yet involving (more thought was required than, should I be the dog or the battleship this time?) games. Most of the designs come from Germany, so they are often called German style board games. You can find out more about them at a slightly out of date FAQ here (http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/GermanGamesFAQ.shtml). Or the comprehensive resource that is the Board Game Geek at <a href="http://www.boardgamegeek.com" target="_blank">www.boardgamegeek.com (http://www.boardgamegeek.com)</a> (which can be a bit overwhelming at first due to the huge numbers of these games that have come out since Settlers first made it big, and BGG is devoted to all games, not just these German ones).

Good luck in finding your gaming Nirvana!

Teal

[PCarroll]

teal said:. . . Then I discovered a little German board game called Settlers of Catan. . . . That game launched a whole industry around these short (playable in an evening), simple (rules were easily taught and learned), yet involving (more thought was required than, should I be the dog or the battleship this time?) games. Most of the designs come from Germany, so they are often called German style board games. . . .



I own Setters of Catan and Seafarers of Catan--and the Settlers card game. I also have a freeware version of Settlers on my PC. And I used to frequent rec.games.board, where such games are discussed all the time.

Settlers is a terrific game alright. Next time I get together with three other people for a game, that's probably the one we'll play.

However, last time I got together with three other people for a game was four or five years ago. Last time I played the Settlers card game with my wife was a year or two ago (after that, we discovered Caesar &amp; Cleopatra, which she likes better). The people I know don't play games that often, and I haven't wanted to go out and meet new people just for the sake of playing games. To me, that's the biggest personal benefit of the home computer: it enables me to play games anytime I like without having to hunt up other players.

The Internet came along some years after I'd gotten used to playing games on the computer--and I still haven't really warmed up to playing online games yet. I have played some--but there's a part of me that really doesn't like the tension of playing against other people. Playing against the AI gives me the imaginative immersion and intellectual challenge without any of the interpersonal tension or putting my ego publicly at risk.

But the "German" games are mostly designed for social play. On the computer, Settlers isn't much fun. Trading games don't work well as single-player games, no matter how good the AI is. (I guess poker would be another game like that; in poker it's important to be able to see your opponents' faces--so computer poker would be sorely lacking.)

I briefly had another "German" game on my computer: Through the Desert. I found that one so abstract that I might as well have been playing a classic game like chess or go.

Speaking of classic games, this evening I spent an hour or so playing cribbage, backgammon, and dominoes on the computer--and I enjoyed them all! When I'm in the right mood, theme is optional. And one thing I especially like about playing games like those is that I feel I'm practicing so that I'll know what I'm doing next time I play against another person (even if that doesn't happen for another year or so).

Before I started playing those games, however, I taught my wife to play Dom2. More on that in a separate post.

[PCarroll]

I taught my wife to play Dom2 this evening. She's a longtime Master of Magic fan--still hoping a MoM2 comes out someday. Meanwhile she's been settling for AoW3:SM.

She seemed interested all while I was teaching her to play, and I sat and guided her through several moves. Then she started losing track of her commanders and getting frustrated, so she quit.

She ended up saying, "I don't see how anyone could say that game is a worthy successor to MoM. It doesn't have any of the stuff I like--such as being able to cast spells and see them take effect." She viewed only one battle, then refused to bother with that; she considered it a waste of time since she couldn't influence the outcome.

She also had the impression that Dom2 is an old game, judging by its plain look and old-fashioned user interface. The UI finally did her in; she's unlikely to play Dom2 again. She'll go back to AoW3:SM and keep hoping somebody releases a new, improved version of MoM.

[Tals]

Give her the manual and point out that F1 keeps track of the commanders. I'm a real non hard core gamer but this game in terms of magic is unsurpassed IMHO. A year on I still pick up the manual and go through it - nicely done and the descriptions and attention put to the spells is very impressive.

I'd also recommend an MP game - I could never go through this game in SP, really holds little interest - but in an MP pbem or network game - great!

Tals

[magnate]

Hmmm. I can see that Dom2's combat would disappoint if you were used to the tactical control of MoM or AoW. I played VGA Planets even before I played MoM, so Dom2's pbem-style combat videos were comfortably familiar, if not as exciting as tactical battles. As least you can script your armies in Dom2 - in VGAP it was hard enough to get them fighting in the right order, let alone telling them what to do in combat.

I missed the first AoW, but I'll look out for it. I quite enjoyed AoW2:SM but it was really *too* close to MoM for comfort, without being an improvement.

Patrick, I have run out of ideas for your gaming geas. I share your desire for an involving theme, but I don't share your impatience with analysis - in fact I generally prefer longer games over shorter ones, so Dom2 works very well for me (until the micro really hurts after about turn 70).

I do have a friend who is a veritable fount of gaming knowledge - I've known him for about ten years and we've hardly ever played the same game twice. I think he might be able to suggest some more games for you to try. If you're interested, PM me with your email address and I'll put you in touch with him.

CC

[Endoperez]

As I am reading this, I can't help thinking that PCarroll and others with lots of experience from both computer strategy games and strategic board games would be the perfect idea factories for Dominions III. Also, he could also tell how to make people like his wife get interested in the game more easily. UI improvements, Hall of Fame list for whole games (% of sites found in onwed provinces, conquered unique provinces, statistics for the game, best SCs/mages, favourite unit/commander/spell/summon etc etc), and possibly Battle Simulator or some other way to experience how directly orders affect battles. I'm not sure if lots of these are doable at this point, with the game slowly(?)coming together, but it never hurts...

What else has been mentioned in this thread? What else can you think of? I think the guys at Illwinter would be very interested in this discussion if they haven't already found this. It has been quite insightful for me, too.

[PCarroll]

Tals said:
Give her the manual and point out that F1 keeps track of the commanders. I'm a real non hard core gamer but this game in terms of magic is unsurpassed IMHO. A year on I still pick up the manual and go through it - nicely done and the descriptions and attention put to the spells is very impressive.

I'd also recommend an MP game - I could never go through this game in SP, really holds little interest - but in an MP pbem or network game - great!




I did give her the manual; I pointed out the hot keys and the extensive listing of spells. And I repeatedly called her attention to the F1 key, which she did (of course) find useful.

I also mentioned how all the Dom2 fans seem to be raving about it's magic system being unsurpassed. But her response, which I think I quoted above, was, "So what? If I don't get to see my spells taking effect when they're cast, it doesn't matter how extensive the magic is."

Oh--and I did mention the fact that Dom2 seems to have been designed with multiplayer gaming in mind. She shrugged that off (as I would have myself). One evening I saw her playing a card game against a computer AI, and I said, "You know, you could play this online against real people." She frowned and replied, "I've been extroverting all day at work. The *last* thing I want to do when I'm relaxing at home is interact with other people, even across a virtual game table." Like me, she's very much a single-player gamer.

[Tals]

I don't think anyone says its unsurpassed just that it is detailed. In fact I don;t think i'd even say anyone is raving - this is probably one of the most self critical publishers forums you'll find http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

But yeah it is for MP - i'd take the opposite view - why the heck do I want to play against a lump of meta with pre programmed responses, far more fun to play against a human - the interaction from the human perspective is as little or as much as you want - it is not by any stretch an fps style chat - far from it in fact http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

My own view is this game sucks in SP and i've seen no comments that would suggest otherwise. But you'd have to try the MP out to really understand it's attraction. I understand it's not of interest but it is where the game sings.

Tals

[teal]

You may want to try Battle for Wesnoth (http://www.wesnoth.org). It is a single player computer game, with a strong theme, it is strategy based so it has some analysis, but is nowhere near the amount of analysis required for Dominions 2 (I would put it down at the level of hearts or cribbage). And it is free! It is a nice little war game with units representing individual soldiers, who get better as they fight through the campaign (if you can avoid getting them killed that is).

Teal

[quantum_mechani]

Tals said:
I don't think anyone says its unsurpassed just that it is detailed. In fact I don;t think i'd even say anyone is raving - this is probably one of the most self critical publishers forums you'll find http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Sorry to burst your bubble... but I do think it is unsurpassed. And I'm most certainly raving. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[PCarroll]

teal said:
You may want to try Battle for Wesnoth (http://www.wesnoth.org). It is a single player computer game, with a strong theme, it is strategy based so it has some analysis, but is nowhere near the amount of analysis required for Dominions 2 (I would put it down at the level of hearts or cribbage). And it is free! It is a nice little war game with units representing individual soldiers, who get better as they fight through the campaign (if you can avoid getting them killed that is).

Teal



Thanks. I've done that too. Somebody else recently recommended it to me.

It is a very good game--especially for the price! Kind of reminds me of the old SSI game Fantasy General (which used to be one of my favorites, though it never got as popular as Panzer General or others in the series).

I haven't played Wesnoth in a couple weeks, though, and I don't know when I'll get back to it. One pet peeve I have about games like this is recruitment. In such a fast-moving game, I find it annoying to have to take care of that "housekeeping" chore every turn. I'd rather just give some kind of general instruction to an AI "recruitment officer" (e.g., "Give me lots of archers.") and then have recruitment happen automatically during the game.

Funny you should say it's "at the level of hearts or cribbage." Cribbage is probably my favorite traditional card game: to me, it has just the right amount of luck vs skill--it holds my interest without straining my brain. Hearts seems like a tougher game to me--but it's probably easier than the likes of Spades or Bridge (neither of which I like, because I don't like bidding games--which is why I'm not at all interested in Shrapnel's game "Gladiator").

[Wyatt Hebert]

Wow, someone who actually mentions both MoM and Fantasy General... Loved both of those games. Unfortunately, I don't have as much time as I would like to talk about things, but it's just an interesting insight to me. The whole problem I think is that people see computers as the fix to minutiae of a game... which they easily can be... no dice-rolling, no keeping track of counters, just making the decisions. However, the main problem is that with that ease people aren't paying attention to two other major issues: attention span and mental hold. I've noticed in myself that when either of those limits are exceeded, my fun factor starts going downhill.

I also truly enjoy cribbage, and it is an excellent game. Short enough not to drag on, and limited enough in each installment to not have to count all the cards in a deck. This is probably the reason Dom2 is truly better as a multi-player game... and that is because of the episodic nature inherent to the style of gameplay. I only have to hold so much in my head each time I sit to play, and it doesn't exceed my attention span. I believe I have larger than normal attention span and mental hold (by which I mean the ability to hold the current situation clearly in mind). I have managed to _fully_ complete a World War scenario, but it is excessively taxing, and I almost always dominion-kill the last 4 enemies, just due to temple overload.

I don't have a solution to suggest, just the observation, if it helps anyone.

Wyatt

[Cainehill]

Wyatt Hebert said:
Wow, someone who actually mentions both MoM and Fantasy General...



Classics among turn based fantasy strategy games. Also, mmm, Sword of Aragon and, mmm, a couple of TSR games. (There was also one that wasn't necessarily fantasy, I was playing in, mmm, well, it was between 1985 and 1988, that was just great - in some ways low level like Risk, but without huge stacks of armies, and I think there were 3 kinds of armies, each with their own advantages.) Heck, I even paid a second time for Fantasy General and Sword of Aragon to get them on CD in a collection. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


The whole problem I think is that people see computers as the fix to minutiae of a game... which they easily can be... no dice-rolling, no keeping track of counters, just making the decisions.



For some things, it is a panacea. At one point Gemstone III, a very early commercial online RPG, was using ICE's Rolemaster rules. Fairly nice system, except for all the permanent character deaths, and worse, all the very VERY complex tables required. (Example : A full page of a table, maybe .... 2000 numbers, dedicated to the broadsword alone. Then imagine : 40 weapon types. 30 spell types. 20 miscellaneous types of damage, and 20 types of crits. Each with their own page of results. Heh!)

So it was awesome to have it wrapped up and handled via the computer. It was nice to know the system and have some idea what was going on, but not vital. And it was awesome to not have a round of combat take 10 minutes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

But yeah :


However, the main problem is that with that ease people aren't paying attention to two other major issues: attention span and mental hold. I've noticed in myself that when either of those limits are exceeded, my fun factor starts going downhill.

I also truly enjoy cribbage, and it is an excellent game. Short enough not to drag on, and limited enough in each installment to not have to count all the cards in a deck.




MP Dominions doesn't solve this; if anything it makes it worse, because people eventually discover that a game on a huge map like Faerun becomes totally stultifying, in terms of time required per turn == hours per day, etc.

A game of cards essentially has a built in turn limit, with few exceptions (games where a players score can go up or down - said games almost never get boring though because of the possibility of 2 or 3 hands with luck / big points finishing it). Dominions doesn't, with the exception of playing with .... victory conditions generally regarded as lame : research, dominion, etc.

Hopefully Dom3 will see a few new things : cumulative victory points (discussed in other threads, but essentially... Now, if the VP condition is 5, you may not have held a VP _ever_, but take 5 the next turn and have a surprise win. With cumulative, you add the number of victory points held by each player each turn. No stealth victories. No never-ending games, and the game gets more tense / exciting for everyone when they know one player is nearing the victory.

And also : Timed turns. Where a player has a time limit on how long they can play their turn, for one thing. This aids blitzes - it's actually currently possible, but the concept is crippled, because : in game, players don't get warned about how much time is remaining. Nor do orders get uploaded when the time is up. Right now, the concept of playing 10/20/30 minute forced hosting is ... undoable, as turns take longer, people would have to concentrate on doing their turns and updating constantly, then continuing, just so their previous 1-50 orders didn't get lost. No fun.

Speaking of no fun : No beer in the fridge, and the boss sending an email saying "we need to talk - take tomorrow off." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Chazar]

This thread has moved on already, but since someone mentioned that "Settlers of Catan" started a whole genre of these "german-style" boardgames: This is not true! There are much more of these board games around and most of them are much more entertaining (IMHO).

However, it is true that these games are much less fun on the PC than playing with friends around a proper table with a drink and a snack. Nevertheless it is worth to try www.brettspielwelt.de (http://www.brettspielwelt.de): One can play several modern boardgames there. It is entirely for free and without advertisments, but requires a Java-enabled browser to play. While it is less fun to play online (against humans only) this site is a perfect place to test a boardgame before actually buying it (nothing against the boardgamegeek-reviews, but a review can never replace the actual test play of a game). Most of this site is available in english as well.

[Wyatt Hebert]

I know Rolemaster... and yes, that's exactly what a computer can alleviate. However, my point was primarily that if a designer, for example, doesn't take into account the attention span and memory span of the _player_, then a game that utilizes all of the computing tracking can still get very bogged down. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Wyatt

[PCarroll]

Wyatt Hebert said:
. . . The whole problem I think is that people see computers as the fix to minutiae of a game... which they easily can be... no dice-rolling, no keeping track of counters, just making the decisions. However, the main problem is that with that ease people aren't paying attention to two other major issues: attention span and mental hold. I've noticed in myself that when either of those limits are exceeded, my fun factor starts going downhill.

. . . [In a game like cribbage,] I only have to hold so much in my head each time I sit to play, and it doesn't exceed my attention span. I believe I have larger than normal attention span and mental hold (by which I mean the ability to hold the current situation clearly in mind). . . .



Thanks, Wyatt! I've never seen the problem put so succinctly before. I think that's exactly it.

I've been a big fan of board and card games throughout all five decades of my life so far, and I've enjoyed games of all kinds. I was an avid board wargamer from 1968 to about 1994 or so--but even during that time I was always struggling with the attention-span/mental-hold problem. Though drawn to big, complex games, over time I found I couldn't really enjoy playing them. I'd pore over a monster game--or a thick-rulebook game like Advanced Squad Leader--and *admire* it; but it was hard to make myself actually play--and even harder to keep playing and enjoying it. So, I kept falling back on simpler wargames.

I think there's some real tension there--between a desire to immerse yourself in a detailed, realistic game-world (participating in the *theme* of the game) and a desire to mentally grasp the game-system itself (minus the theme) and learn to play well. Designer Jim Dunnigan, back in the heyday of SPI, took an extensive survey and discovered that most wargamers were just "reading" the games, not playing them. Admittedly, that's what I usually did: I'd lovingly open the box, look at the components, read the rules, and play a practice game or two by myself; then the game would start gathering dust on a shelf.

The home computer at first looked like a solution to the problem; and as you say, it many ways it was. Setup time has been reduced from many minutes (or even hours, for monster games) to a second. Game play is speeded up. Online help and prompting saves searching through a rulebook. Combat calculations are automatic and instantaneous. And so forth.

But the basic problem still remains: if there's enough of a detailed theme to satisfy one's desire for imaginative immersion, there is also going to be a lot to hold in one's mind for a long time.

Until now, I hadn't noticed how simple the problem is. I don't have a solution either, and I'm not sure there is one. But it's nice to just be able to finally see the problem clearly.

The more I've played wargames and computer games over the years, the more I've come to appreciate the elegant simplicity of classic games like backgammon, checkers (draughts), chess, cribbage, and dominoes. No wonder these games have crossed over into many cultures and remained popular for so many generations. They've been refined to the point where they're just right in terms of size, length, pace, ease of learning, and level of challenge. Some (like chess and checkers) can be daunting to master; but you don't have to master them to enjoy playing them.

Dom2 (or Dom3) can't possibly solve the problem we're talking about, of course. By nature, it's an epic game with a fairly complex underlying game-system. So it's going to appeal to those who still want the imaginative immersion enough that they're willing to strain to wrap their minds around something too big and long to really be comfortable. To each his own. I've been there and done that, so it's easy for me to understand that desire.

At this point in my gaming life, however, I think maybe it's time to turn to some of the classic games I named above.

--Patrick

[Sammas]

"They've been refined to the point where they're just right in terms of size, length, pace, ease of learning, and level of challenge. ... At this point in my gaming life, however, I think maybe it's time to turn to some of the classic games I named above."

Have a look at the Land of Legends demo - easy to understand, but there's a lot of depth to it.

[spirokeat]

Actually I think there comes a point with some people (myself included at times) when you simply burn out on games and no ammount of UI/theme/Styles will do.

You just can't please everyone and its a bad business idea to try. Personally I despise why that is, but thats a different story.

Dom 2 has an audience...Multiplayer. I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.

When I first started I thought...damn no tactical combat. But the advantages outweight anything else. And Im sorry Patrick but to say that you dont get to see spells working is not true...MoM had limited spell effetcs, they reminded me of 8 bit sprites.

Dom is without any debate the successor to MoM....I signed the MOM2 petition with I'm sure the rest of you. But to be honest, I just get the feeling your not in the mood for anything right now.

Good luck in finding something to ring your bell.

Spiro

[sushiboat]

If you like games that can be played quickly yet have some thinking involved, try the games by Freeverse (http://www.freeverse.com/).

[Alneyan]

spirokeat said:
Dom 2 has an audience...Multiplayer. I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.



I have one opening for Jotunheim in a beginner's game: link to thread is here (http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=381623).

[Wyatt Hebert]

One small clarification to one of the things I was trying to say. When I say 'mental hold', I am primarily talking about the ability to maintain the current _local_ game state in your mind. I have no problems with large and intricate game _worlds_, but the ability to maintain knowledge about what is going is crucial to many games these days.

As an example, I am a long-time RPG GameMaster. I've run about 12 different game systems in my life, and played in more, and I love large and detailed worlds. However, I can maintain the pertinent game information mostly in my head while playing, and this is merely a subset of the world.

To put it another way, I think very few people honestly are upset when they are out-played. I think true anger or disappointment with games is when they believe that it was an oversight on their part that led to the problem or defeat. In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations. In games of the current complexity, trying to keep the game-state in your mind is extremely difficult, and most likely impossible after the early turns. If I lose provinces due to an oversight on my part, I will be upset that I missed it, and possibly at the game engine for not being clearer.

In any event, this was just an attempt to explain what was in my mind when I referred to 'mental hold'.

Wyatt

[PCarroll]

Wyatt Hebert said:
One small clarification to one of the things I was trying to say. When I say 'mental hold', I am primarily talking about the ability to maintain the current _local_ game state in your mind. I have no problems with large and intricate game _worlds_, but the ability to maintain knowledge about what is going is crucial to many games these days.

As an example, I am a long-time RPG GameMaster. I've run about 12 different game systems in my life, and played in more, and I love large and detailed worlds. However, I can maintain the pertinent game information mostly in my head while playing, and this is merely a subset of the world.

To put it another way, I think very few people honestly are upset when they are out-played. I think true anger or disappointment with games is when they believe that it was an oversight on their part that led to the problem or defeat. In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations. In games of the current complexity, trying to keep the game-state in your mind is extremely difficult, and most likely impossible after the early turns. If I lose provinces due to an oversight on my part, I will be upset that I missed it, and possibly at the game engine for not being clearer.

In any event, this was just an attempt to explain what was in my mind when I referred to 'mental hold'.

Wyatt



Errmmm . . . I thought I understood what you meant by "mental hold" the first time you said it. Now, after your clarification, I'm not so sure.

I certainly agree that the main reason people get upset over a game is that they feel they've overlooked something that they should have noticed. And sometimes (depending on what the player overlooked and other factors) the player will shift the blame to the UI or something outside himself.

But the part I don't understand is when you say, "In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations." That's true, but are you saying that in chess a player does or does not have "mental hold"? Is mental hold "see the entire game situation at once," or is it seeing "the winning and losing combinations"?

Because if it's the latter, then it seems to me "mental hold" would be undesirable in all games. The whole challenge of playing games is *reaching* for the foresight or insight to see all the winning and losing combinations. As soon as someone attains that level of mastery, the game is no longer challenging. It becomes trivial, like tic-tac-toe (naughts &amp; crosses).

The reason I'm having trouble understanding you this time is that in my mind, there's no difference between being outplayed and making an oversight. If we're playing chess, and you outplay me, it means there were moves and combinations that I overlooked. You may have overlooked some too, but you overlooked fewer of them than I did.

My understanding of "mental hold" from your first message was that either of two things could be a problem: (1) a rulebook too thick to ever memorize in a lifetime, or (2) a game so big and elaborate that it's impossible to consciously take care of *everything* under one's control. In board-wargaming terms, [i]Advanced Squad Leader is an example of (1), and The Longest Day (a monster game with a five-foot-square mapboard and thousands of unit-counters) is an example of (2).

Chess is nothing like ASL or TLD. The rules to chess can easily be memorized, and the most a player ever has to do is choose which one of sixteen pieces to move on the 8x8 grid. Very small and manageable. Perfect "mental hold," in this sense. And yet, comprehending *all* the winning and losing moves and combinations is next to impossible.

So, IMO, it's good when a game is challenging; otherwise it'd be as trivial as tic-tac-toe. But it's bad when the size or complexity or length of a game becomes daunting to one's mental grasp--because then the player tends to give up before he ever gets around to facing the challenge of figuring out winning strategy &amp; tactics.

--Patrick

[quantum_mechani]

spirokeat said:
I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.


We are always looking for players every weekend on the #dominions IRC channel (irc.gamesurge.net).

[Scott Hebert]

While I cannot speak for my brother (Wyatt), I tend to agree with him.

To speak to the chess problem... if I miss the fact that you're are threatening my rook, did you out-play me if you take it, or did I miss it? This, to me, is more of a situation of the latter.

OTOH, if you knight-fork my King and Queen, this is more likely a matter of out-playing me than a mistake on my part. True, you could see it as 'not seeing that you could fork me, and thus not defending myself properly', but then it could also be that you are setting up multiple threats, perhaps using a bit of misdirection to confuse me, etc. etc. There is a point where someone can be simply out-played.

I have to say that my biggest problem with Dominions II is that the game rapidly outstrips my ability to focus on all of the different pieces that require my attention. Some people may like the fact that late-game Dominions has 100s (if not 1000s) of commanders that require orders every turn; I do not. However, adding more automation is not the way to 'solve' this problem, IMO. A 'better' way of solving the problem would be to allow fewer commanders to do more, or alternatively add a limit to commanders, whether a hard cap (you may not have more than 20 commanders), or a soft cap (your commanders die after X turns).

Also, at this point, there is very little in the game that can surprise me, and surprise is useful. That may be the reason that R'lyeh is my favorite nation, because of the Void Gate. There is also with the Void Gate something akin to the 'level gain' feeling with role-playing. I can see my priest's summoning skill rising, in a direct way. I guess a good comparison is the HoMM level gain pop-up. It's like, 'Oh wow, my achievements have this direct benefit.' It's not like Dominions where your commanders got a star, whee. It is a nice thrill once you see you can lead more troops, etc. etc., but it's not on the same level.

Anyway, I guess I'm rambling. Wyatt's much better at concise writing than I am. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[PCarroll]

Scott Hebert said:
To speak to the chess problem... if I miss the fact that you're are threatening my rook, did you out-play me if you take it, or did I miss it? This, to me, is more of a situation of the latter.

OTOH, if you knight-fork my King and Queen, this is more likely a matter of out-playing me than a mistake on my part. True, you could see it as 'not seeing that you could fork me, and thus not defending myself properly', but then it could also be that you are setting up multiple threats, perhaps using a bit of misdirection to confuse me, etc. etc. There is a point where someone can be simply out-played.



Is there such a point? Perhaps. When I bought a boxed Go set (back in 1975), I read a curious point of etiquette in the instruction manual: it said that it's not uncommon to allow an opponent to take back a move--or even several moves--even in a tournament game. The rationale given was that it's considered dishonorable to win just by capitalizing on an opponent's oversight.

I've always had mixed feelings about that, and I've always continued to wonder about it. On one hand, I'm all for letting an opponent retract a move or two; I'll even agree to start over. But OTOH, theoretically a game could go on forever that way: every time you get in trouble, you say, "Oops. Can we go back six or eight turns? I think I must've made another mistake."

I'm inclined to believe that *all* games are won by capitalizing on opponents' oversights (or lack of foresight or insight).

And yet, I suspect you're right too: there's a difference between missing a direct threat and missing a setup for a knight fork. But what is the difference really?

Seems to me we're talking about the line between what's considered obvious and what's not considered obvious. Beyond the beginner level, direct threats are supposed to be obvious to a chess player; so if an experienced player misses a direct threat, that's just an oversight.

The trouble is, at an intermediate level, setups for knight forks are supposed to be obvious to players. So if an intermediate-level player misses one, why doesn't that also count as an oversight?

"Obvious" is a matter of degree and experience. Grandmasters sometimes, in hindsight, consider their moves (or their opponent's moves) obvious blunders.

There may indeed come a point where "someone can be simply out-played." But the test of that is losing repeatedly to a given opponent. And even if player A consistently loses to player B, how do you know whether player A is being outplayed or is just prone to making oversights?



I have to say that my biggest problem with Dominions II is that the game rapidly outstrips my ability to focus on all of the different pieces that require my attention. Some people may like the fact that late-game Dominions has 100s (if not 1000s) of commanders that require orders every turn; I do not. However, adding more automation is not the way to 'solve' this problem, IMO. A 'better' way of solving the problem would be to allow fewer commanders to do more, or alternatively add a limit to commanders, whether a hard cap (you may not have more than 20 commanders), or a soft cap (your commanders die after X turns).



Now you're speaking my language. This sounds like the "mental hold" problem I was describing in my last message: a game that's too big, with too many moving parts, to comfortably hold in one's mind.

To me, size (including number of units to command), rules complexity, and game length are the three things that can weaken one's "mental hold."



Also, at this point, there is very little in the game that can surprise me, and surprise is useful. . . .



That's a twofold topic: (1) the joy of learning all the possibilities a game affords, and the pleasant surprise of making a new discovery, and (2) the surprise of a random or unforeseen game event occurring, and the challenge of having to deal with it.

The first type of surprise is, IMO, a big reason for being attracted to games like Dom2 or a good RPG or wargame system: it seems there's always more to discover. The size and complexity of the game gives a player a lot to explore before he's seen it all (whereupon he often gets bored and turns to a new game).

The second type of surprise is what makes backgammon different than chess: there's a factor (the dice rolls) you can't accurately predict; you have to take them as they come and make the best of them. In a sense, each dice roll is a surprise (all the player's calculations notwithstanding).

The latter is a kind of surprise that occurs during the play of a game. The other kind only occurs during the learning of a game (which, for a very complex game, can be a never-ending process).

So, the question is: What do you really want to do--play a game, or just keep learning games? Those who get more joy out of learning games may hate "mental hold"--because if they can comprehend the whole game, there's nothing left to learn. But those who get more fun out of playing will welcome "mental hold"--because once they've got it, they're free to focus on strategy &amp; tactics, on playing well.

Is it dishonorable to know about the Void Gate in Dom2 if your opponent doesn't? Do you really want to win just because you happen to know something that comes as a surprise to your opponents? Theoretically, nothing in the rules or structure of the game should ever be a surprise to players. Yet, there are players who thrive on exploring the game-system and its possibilities; and once they've tried everything, the game becomes like a stick of gum that's lost its flavor.

It's weird when you stop and think about it. What would you say to a person who says, "Chess is boring now that I've learned all the rules"? Learning the rules is just the beginning of being able to enjoy chess. Yet we hear people saying, "The Void Gate was the last thing of interest to me in Dom2; now that I've experimented with that, the fun's over for me." That's a little like someone saying, "I didn't know about en-passant captures in chess, and that was kinda cool; but that was the last rule I had to learn, so now the fun's all over." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Clearly some modern games (wargames, RPGs, etc.) have a very different kind of appeal than traditional games.

--Patrick

[BigJMoney]

This is a little out of the blue, and it probably won't apply, but what about the RTS/TBS hybrids? You admitted that, initially you were surprised with maybe a shade of disappointment when you first noted that Dom2 did not allow you to control tactical situations.

Rome: Total War is a game that has a very "board game" like strategy element that is VERY easy to grasp: the economy; recruiting; all of it. In fact, the game right before it in the series, Medieval: Total War, actually played out on a game board map of Europe. In the Total War games, you can choose to resolve the battles instantly (if you aren't feeling up to it) or you can actually fight them out in a turn-based strategy fight. Here is the sweet part: it's nothing like the TBS that is genre-contrived (WarCraft, AoE, etc) because you don't have to fuss with building bases and recruiting units! You already built them in the TBS(main) part of the game. It's 100% battlefield tactics. And if you know you've gotten caught with your pants down because you made a strategic mistake in the first place, you can at least choose to not waste your time by actually experiencing the defeat: just auto-resolve the fight. R:TW does have a few battle AI problems, but from the way you talk, it sounds like a minor quibble for you. Besides, none of them are game ruining.

I hope I've been descriptive enough. I also hope R:TW isn't a curse word around these parts.

=$= Big J Money =$=

[PCarroll]

Zooko said:
Illwinter recommended Dungeon Crawl on their web site one time, and I got hooked on it. I really prefer it to the others that I have briefly tried, because

a. It has balance.
b. It has a consistent world (not a myriad of independently developed levels, each one attempting to be sillier than the last).
c. It has a pleasurable skill system.

Also I've written several patches to Dungeon Crawl, mostly to re-invent the personality of the god Xom.



Thanks for that tip. I'd heard of the game but never tried it. Now I have, and it's very good. My wife's hooked on it too. Her only complaint is that she can't cheat by saving at critical points; it's hard losing a character you've carefully worked up to a high level.

Surprisingly, neither of us has any complaint about the interface (we're using the basic one, not the "tiled" one, mainly because I couldn't figure out how to get the tiled version to work in English--and I don't read Japanese).

My wife thinks it's great, because she has control over everything--casting a spell or using a wand or whatever, and seeing the effect.

--Patrick

[Scott Hebert]

Patrick (if you don't mind my calling you that),

I do read Japanese, as a matter of fact; if you need any help in that area, just let me know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Scott

[PCarroll]

Since our discussion drifted off to such games as chess and cribbage, I thought I'd just post this invitation here, FWIW:

Just started a group to discuss classic games like backgammon, checkers (draughts), chess, cribbage, and dominoes. If you enjoy such games and care to talk (or read) about them as well as play them, please visit:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/timelessfavorites/

--Patrick

[Zooko]

Cool! What platform -- Windows? Let me know if you or your wife want to try my new improved Xom. :-)

[FarAway Pretender]

Very interesting thread, all of you! I don't think I've ever seen so many of my favorite games posted in one place, ever, and certainly not such a wide variety.

MoM, AoW, Heroes, Settlers of Catan, Dom 2, and so many others.

The Go example you cite is interesting. Almost all of us bring our own personal/cultural views into the gaming experience. I'm oversimplifying a little here, but let me make a few comparisons. Chess is a pretty Western game--clearly defined rules, combinations and permutations of differing abilities and weaknesses, straight and clean lines of power projecting onto the blank field of a game board, and dramatic moments of victory often come when a mighty opponent is toppled by a destructive attack.

Go is rife w/more Eastern themes. Notions of space are as important to winning the game as are the pieces. Rather than viewing space as an empty nothingness that pieces move through as they assert their power against other pieces, space is as vital a part of winning as are the pieces. The whole duality of Western thinking is replaced by the seamless integration of the whole.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself right here--I have no graduate education in Philosophy at all, but I've lived in both parts of the world, and I recognize parts of each culture in those games.

In many senses, the games we play are both a reflection and an example of our own culture's philosophies. But that is a bit far out from the original topic here!


Dom2 is a complex game, but it's a lot like an onion. Depending on the difficulty level (of SP or your opponents), you can keep peeling the onion back further and further to find another layer of challenge and understanding. From a "mastering the game system" standpoint, it's as complicated as you want to make it.

This also makes things very open-ended. Think your phalanx of Long Spearmen might do well against overwhelming numbers of low-morale militia who would hesitate to brave those long pointy sticks? You're right. Think Crossbowmen are a good match for the heavily armored Infantry of Ulm? You're right again! Want to put off attacking the Undead Trees until you've learned Fireball in hopes of setting them ablaze? That could actually be a very good idea!

Casting Lightning Bolts a good way to stop heavily armored cavalry? Yup. Priests turning undead? Correct again. Shortbowmen proving a cheap and effective way to dispatch crazed Religious Zealots who go into battle with only the Faith in their God as armor? You betcha, unless their God is a God of Air! Nimble Barbarians in loin cloths being a good match against hard-hitting but slow-moving Giants sound worthwhile? Right once more.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but figuring these little match-up things out is a lot of fun, at least for a certain type of player. I found that one of the most pleasant aspects of Dom2.

BUT, one of the more common complaints about the game is the level of micromanagement required. Most of the folks on this forum don't mind sweating the details, but it is VERY annoying to have my star hero killed because I forgot to change his orders when I moved him to a new stack. In the endgame stage, things do get more than a bit unwieldy.

Some of these are UI issues that will hopefully be addressed in Dom3, but others are inherent in such an open-ended game that allows players to do so many things. I've sometimes wondered whether fewer provinces might solve these problems, but I suspect that would change other things?

In any event, Dom2 is a great game, but not for everybody.

[Endoperez]

With fewer provinces, games won't get so far, and as an example, you couldn't have as good SCs as you can in a long game. It changes the gameplay, but leaves out some options others couldn't play without.

But yes, it still isn't for everybody.

[PCarroll]

FarAway Pretender said:
Very interesting thread, all of you! I don't think I've ever seen so many of my favorite games posted in one place, ever, and certainly not such a wide variety. . . .

The Go example you cite is interesting. Almost all of us bring our own personal/cultural views into the gaming experience. I'm oversimplifying a little here, but let me make a few comparisons. . . .



Thanks. I love reading stuff like that. And since this thread has wandered off in that direction, here are a couple of my favorite articles on comparisons of classic games like chess, go, checkers, and backgammon:

http://www.bobnewell.net/comp.html

http://www.kiseido.com/gatg.htm

--Patrick

[Whollaborg]

FarAway Pretender said:
Very interesting thread, all of you! I don't think I've ever seen so many of my favorite games posted in one place, ever, and certainly not such a wide variety.

MoM, AoW, Heroes, Settlers of Catan, Dom 2, and so many others.

The Go example you cite is interesting. Almost all of us bring our own personal/cultural views into the gaming experience. I'm oversimplifying a little here, but let me make a few comparisons. Chess is a pretty Western game--clearly defined rules, combinations and permutations of differing abilities and weaknesses, straight and clean lines of power projecting onto the blank field of a game board, and dramatic moments of victory often come when a mighty opponent is toppled by a destructive attack.

Go is rife w/more Eastern themes. Notions of space are as important to winning the game as are the pieces. Rather than viewing space as an empty nothingness that pieces move through as they assert their power against other pieces, space is as vital a part of winning as are the pieces. The whole duality of Western thinking is replaced by the seamless integration of the whole.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself right here--I have no graduate education in Philosophy at all, but I've lived in both parts of the world, and I recognize parts of each culture in those games.




FarAway Pretender,
I am stupified to find out that you took the words out of my mind even before i had read this discussion.

My point is all about GO, which just has the Crown of games for me in this Hall of Fame of computer / classical games we all enjoyed. As a lowly apprentice in Greek / European philosophy I cannot but agree you FarAway Pretender!

I see it in the way that the game of GO offers more intuitive type of strategy game instead bit more calculative and rigid system of chess. This means a kind of holistic approach instead of Aristotelian type of categorising objects of world according to rules that are created by that gategorising.
GO for it!

About Dom2,
I just recently joined the multiplyer community after enjoying years of single playing with both Dominions. I recommend you trying mp as well.

[Reverend Zombie]

FarAway Pretender said:
Notions of space are as important to winning the game as are the pieces. Rather than viewing space as an empty nothingness that pieces move through as they assert their power against other pieces, space is as vital a part of winning as are the pieces.



Not to drag this thread hopelessly off-topic, but I can see the above being said about chess as well. A large part of chess is about controlling said space, perhaps that is where the difference lies? I don't know enough about Go to say. But the board in chess is far from an "empty nothingness."

[PCarroll]

Reverend Zombie said:
Not to drag this thread hopelessly off-topic, but I can see the above being said about chess as well. A large part of chess is about controlling said space, perhaps that is where the difference lies? I don't know enough about Go to say. But the board in chess is far from an "empty nothingness."



Space is certainly a prominent feature in both chess and go. Some writers boil chess play down to three basic principles: force, space, and time (to these, Seirawan adds pawn position). I think the game of go could also be understood in terms of force, space, and time.

But if we zero in on the concept of space, it seems to play a different role in each game.

In chess, the idea is to develop your pieces and advance your pawns so as to control more space on the board (especially the central space or, later in the game, the space around the kings). Doing so maximizes your army's mobility while minimizing your opponent's. And since mobility is mainly what makes one piece more valuable or powerful than another, by dominating space on the board, you weaken the enemy's force. Thus, force would seem to be the main concept--one that's modified by how much space you control.

In go, space would appear to be the dominant concept. Space (eyes, or vacant spaces) gives life to your stones, and space is all (except prisoners) that counts toward victory. Since the stones are immobile, they have no force in the chess sense; what force they do have is determined by their relative position in space. A group of stones, properly placed and connected, can exert unassailable force--but it's more a "force field" which contains the space it surrounds and depends upon for life.

To win at chess, you must exert inescapable *force* against the enemy king. To win at go, you must fence in the lion's share of *space.*

Have we forgotten about the third factor, time? There must be a game in which time (or timing) is the dominant concept. Maybe checkers (draughts) or backgammon or mancala. I'll have to ponder on that.

--Patrick

[Wyatt Hebert]

You got my 'mental hold' concept in one, PCarroll, but to be explicit, I would define it as:

the ability to contain and comprehend the current game state.

This could be stated as a percentage, or it could be simply expressed as the required amount of data required to maintain proper gameplay. My primary point, I suppose, is that Dominions 2, on larger maps, inevitably runs into the problem of being out of scope for almost any player. It certainly, in my opinion, gets to the point that missing command opportunities will be more common, and missing optimal plays will be expected. I used Chess as an example because the 'mental hold' required, while not constant, is bounded to a fairly manageable level. Understanding the game state is not a particularly difficult task, particularly for a basic understanding. Extrapolating from that position is the mark of more advanced studies, certainly, and that's where a large part of the skill comes in, but the ability to retain the game state is quite important. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Wyatt