What about interactive Tactical Combat ?

[markmarques]

Recently I downloaded and tried the Dom3 demo
but for my suprise one thing that is still missing
is the ability to interactivaly control the combats.

Someone refered that the game developers would read this forum.

Altough for multiplayer games the "interactive"
tactical combat would be a bit cumbersome, I think that
with that option for single player would enhance the entire game experience.

A small patch would make the following proposal workable.

A small option asking before a combat start or even as a global option would be nice.

I have several ideas to implement without being (I suppose...) to hard to code.

During the combat each turn every commmander/mage/ (pretender god) would be asked (simple Y/N option) which kind of action to take.
A small internal "stopwatch" could activated one of the options if the user did not noticed to choose any.

For instance each mage/ god would have the ability to select one of the available spells.
I know that each turn the AI would have to recalculate the complete stats of each group or unit.

Another idea would be the ability to simply decide if a group or unit would move or not.

When a group is rotted the ability to control it would be non-existent.

So those units/ groups within control would have the option to flee away with or away the rotted group...

So for some single player the depth brought by such options could revitalize and make more sense than sending a massive bunch of units only to see them dizimate or being dizimated in a small (beatiful) movie clip.

A small change like this could bring a more tactical game community to the wonders of Dominion.

[st.patrik]

Eh, this is one of those features that a lot of people bring up... Thing is, it's far from being a small change - it's a huge change that would basically mean an entirely different game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool - just that it's a totally different game.

[markmarques]

But as I stated first the ability to maintain as it is for those "hardcore Dominion fans" would still exist.
The ability to activate the tactical mode would be a personal choice...
I suppose the combined gain of having it "On" would surpass the "classical" Dominion mode adding to more deep Dominion experience.

[Cainehill]

And the AI would perform even worse. And it'd be completely unusable in PBEM. So we'll almost certainly never see manual tactical in Dominions unless Illwinter does an RPG or an FPS.

[Taqwus]

Balance would be *completely* different if there's player-controlled targeting and movement.

[Gandalf Parker]

PLEASE I do NOT want to see interactive combat.
I play games that have it, and I do enjoy it. But there are many many of those games. There are so few good PbEM games that they tend to stay years and years on someones machine. There are many advantages to PbEM which I would rather Dominions pursued further.

Now if the devs want to do a different game then I would buy it. But I dont want to see this one turned into something different.

[markmarques]

Regarding PBEM games that would true so the tactical option is to be disabled in that kind of game.
But regarding balance the only thing that I talked aobut is decisions regarding "when" during combat to apply a spell nothing about movement or targeting...
For single player ONLY or even small MP , the Simple tactical option of choosing to "attack / spell or Defend" would bring a deep strategy to this fantastic game.

Of course this would change a LOT this game...
But for best I think ...

[thejeff]

It's not a trivial change at all.

Ignoring the balance issues, since many things would balance very differently depending on whether this option was on or off, this would be a massive rewrite to the turn processing code. Currently the same process handles MP & SP games. This would need a very different process for SP.

Making the SP game even more different from the MP game isn't a good idea. This will also handicap the AI, even more than it already is, making the game less challenging and thus less fun.

Not at all an easy thing to do. Not going to happen in a patch.
And the devs don't want it. They haven't even expanded the order scripting, which would be a step in the same direction and which has been asked for. They like it the way it is.

[Boron]

Just buy Medieval 2 if you want tactical combat http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

In Dom tactical combat wouldn't fit too well imho, the current system is working well enough. Imagine all the MM you would have to do if you could control everything. I think Illwinter would have to make a completely new Dominions for that from scratch. I doubt that this redone new Dominions would be more enjoyable than than the current Dominions though because they would have to use an approach like CA for TW i think, otherwise it would be a MM nightmare.

Medieval 2 is great, but it cannot be compared to Dominions. Dominions is also great, but those games are two different subgenres, so they cannot be compared at all.
So just decide to your liking, or if you have no strong preference enjoy both games.

I am currently in gamers heaven with MTW 2 and Dom 3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif.

[PhilD]

Actually, I kind of like that there is no option for manual tactical control - because if there was, I'd be using it in solo play, and that would make moving to MP that much harder. Yeah, I know, I've been saying the exact opposite (on the "save vs no save" thread), that additional options don't take anything away from people who don't want to use them - but then, coding what is being suggested would be much more work than coding a simple "save and backup" command.

Now, I still think the game could have many more tactical options, and this is the big thing that is missing from Dom3 to really make it a great improvement over DomII. Things like battle formations, some coordinating of orders, more scripting options would be real great; a better UI for setting the tactical orders (like, I don't know, moving little puppets on the battlefield, saving/loading battle scripts, whatever) would also be a great bonus (though I'm not holding my breath - the switch from DomII to Dom3 was the place to introduce such changes, not a patch).

[Hullu]

I would be happy with some more advanced options for the current combat model.

For example, in my current game I play Kailasa. I like archers, but the archers kill more of my troops than the enemy would kill if the archers weren't present. Why can't I order my archers to 'shoot closest two turns, shoot rearmost two turns, stop shooting'. That would be enough options for them for me...

Or just "don't shoot at routing enemy".

I don't need the ability to control combat interactively, but I'd really really really want even a slightly more advanced commands.

[Hullu]

... addition to the previous post.

Enough for archers actually would be "shoot whatever as long as it's not within 5 squares of any of my troops".

[Nerfix]

I'm very happy with the current combat model. For example I can never get into the Total War series because I have to micro the combat or watch auto-resolve ruin it all.

Of course if some tactical control was allowed but not forced in the form of an option I'd be happy but I wouldn't use it.

[Twan]

If the combat is to be changed (my impression being IW doesn't want) I would prefer to be able to set the duration of the tactical/preparation phase (number of scripted orders for commander before the AI takes control, number of rounds before troops attack) over interactive combat. This option as a setting would probably be easier to implement, and will have an use for pbem as well as for solo games.
A probably harder to implement but other very interesting idea would be 2 list of orders for each commander/group and the possibility to determine the conditions of activation of the second script, according to the ennemy forces composition (consign will be like "if they are more than ... troops of type y", ie "activate script 2 if there are more than 50 missile troops in the ennemy army").

I often find the dominions combat a little too much out of control (especially as the tactical AI Ftaghn a lot) but I wouldn't like a total control either.

[AMF]

I also don't want to see interactive combat...but what I would love to see is a combat simulator, where I could pick and choose from my available forces, make an army, and then send them against another army I picked out, and then watch the otherwise regular combat ensure...this would help me, a lot, to learn how strategies work, what the strengths and weaknesses of units are, etc...

But...I fully realize that purists will say that half the fun of the game is finding out, in "real games" what the various units are really capable of, etc...

...and half the time I agree with that sentiment, alas!

[DominionsFan]

The current combat model is excellent. Playing tactical battles would take a lot of time. We have enough micromanagement already without that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Esben Mose Hansen]

I,too, like the current model. The only thing I'd like is the possibility to create a separate script for assasinations, and a box to enter how many gems to use max. The first because even the least bright commander ought to see a difference between an assasination and a battle; and the other to reduce annoying micromagement. Bringing along scouts are not exactly hard, but nor is it fun to move those gems all the time.

Another thing I'd like would be to eliminate the unit scripts completely, and moving them to the commander... "order charge" would make commander and his units to charge e.g. Again, this would cut down on micro (only need one script per commander instead of per squad+commanders), and I love the idea of commanders giving orders. Of course, if the commander dies, chaos (=AI) happens. A side effect would be a bit more control over units, as hold,hold,hold,charge e.g. would be possible.

The last totally unrelated thing I'd love would be squads of wizards :p

[thejeff]

Interesting thought on using commander + squad orders.

You'd need to use a lot more commanders, since one couldn't effectively control squads with different tactics. You'd also have a lot more commander attrition, since they'd have to go into combat.

Mages couldn't effectively lead troops.

[PhilD]

AMF said:
what I would love to see is a combat simulator, where I could pick and choose from my available forces, make an army, and then send them against another army I picked out, and then watch the otherwise regular combat ensure...this would help me, a lot, to learn how strategies work, what the strengths and weaknesses of units are, etc...




Interestingly enough, this (low-level, IIRC) simulator was in Dom:PPP (the first one), and for some reason was left out of DomII and not brought back in Dom3. Too bad, really.



But...I fully realize that purists will say that half the fun of the game is finding out, in "real games" what the various units are really capable of, etc...

...and half the time I agree with that sentiment, alas!



The thing is, if you really want it, you can set up mostly anything you want, by scripting a map and making some "test" game with enough filthy rich nations and whatever (although actually limiting spell availability would be more tricky, I think). It's just that it's boring as hell to do.

All this talk of "learn the hard way" is fine, but some people like to experiment in controlled settings. With an easy to use battle simulator, I'd probably run some tons of tests to see, say, how many of troop X or Y I need to beat such and such poptype - which, as I never manage to really pay close attention to troop stats and what it means, might help me get a better feel for which troops I should use in which situation. But as it's so boring to set up, I just don't.

[Graeme Dice]

I'd love to see a combat simulator that came with a fully featured input mechanism that would allow you to run hundreds and thousands of test combats based on an easily set up input file. I think that's just the researcher in me talking though.

[PhilD]

Graeme Dice said:
I'd love to see a combat simulator that came with a fully featured input mechanism that would allow you to run hundreds and thousands of test combats based on an easily set up input file. I think that's just the researcher in me talking though.



Hey, I don't want to turn experimenting in dominion into real work, but yeah, some automation would be nice. I'd still prefer manual setup (with a possibility of editing your last setup, say - that would be good enough; being allowed to copy things over from a game in progress, like an army and total research, would be gravy).

[Taqwus]

A combat simulator would be useful, provided it did include such things as research, gem allocation, a palette of items, scripting, et al.

Regarding orders, I'm still seeing some fairly silly friendly-fire -- ex. a death mage casting Soul Vortex when surrounded by living friendlies with no enemies anywhere near, and no real prospect that there -will- be enemies near (given the 'surrounded by living friendlies' instance). Wouldn't mind non-routing units also not playing Follow the Hydra, running straight into Clouds of Death, et al. *shrug* And nature mages are a wee bit happy with Touch of Madness... casting it on one's pretender seems slightly sacrilegious. ;p

[UninspiredName]

Another thing such a huge change would do is kind of slow down the multi-player. Seems like it would be a pain to need to wait for an opponent to input commands for every turn of a battle.

And I also like the current method. One cool feature would be to give units more commander-like choices for actions as they get more experience. And it wouldn't be that hard to make a 'Fire carefully' command, would it?

[Gandalf Parker]

The simulator that Johan uses is horrible.
Personally I found this to be easier
http://www.dom2minions.com/Mini.shtml

It gives you a mini map of just a few provinces and two test armies. You start an Era 1 game selecting the Mini map, start as Arcos and Ermor (human players on both), then have the armies both attack then empty province next to them.

Edit the .map file (its plain text) for different armies armies to try other simulations. You can use any units, give equipment, give gems, give spells, give experience. Prior to the combat you can set combat actions to try different tactics. This is a fairly easy way to test it over and over.

[NTJedi]

Gandalf Parker said:
You can use any units, give equipment, give gems, give spells, give experience.



Currently there's a bug with giving nations spells at the start of a game via map edit commands. Basically the spells are only available for the first turn... then PoooOF the spells are no longer available. This is probably effects battle spells too.

[Gandalf Parker]

Well first turn is about all I need to test an army against another army. Or does it poof before that first combat?

[Hullu]

I think a combat simulator would be a bad thing.

People would use it in MP to optimize and calculate odds. Sure, it's hard to get exact information about the enemy but it's doable with scout forces(attack, station a few cheap squads near the middle of map, with retreat order(s)). And once you have approximate information and approximate information abuot enemy orders - you could just brute force the 'perfect' tactic for yourself pitting the army you saw against your 'main army'. Definitely this would be a huge advantage compared to if you weren't using it.

Thus, I find combat simulator a bad thing.

[Agrajag]

Considering how you can already do that if you really want to, this isn't a good reason not to add a combat simulator...

[Endoperez]

Agrajag said:
Considering how you can already do that if you really want to, this isn't a good reason not to add a combat simulator...



Err... I think you just said that the fact that we can already do everything a combat simulator would let us do isn't a good reason not to make a combat simulator.

[Agrajag]

Endoperez said:

Agrajag said:
Considering how you can already do that if you really want to, this isn't a good reason not to add a combat simulator...



Err... I think you just said that the fact that we can already do everything a combat simulator would let us do isn't a good reason not to make a combat simulator.


Yep, I just did.
Because a combat simulator will make it a lot easier and more comfortable.
Just like we can already give a unit special abilities using #copystats, but its still much better to have a new command for what we want.
Or just like you can make 5000$ if you work hard enough, but you'd still rather get the same amount of money and work less. Or do you like working for 1$ an hour? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[AMF]

Hullu said:
I think a combat simulator would be a bad thing.
...People would use it in MP to optimize and calculate odds.



You know, I agree with that concern, and it worries me also. But the real reason I would like one is to understand the strengths of units, and how the various characteristics interact and make a difference. I mean, I can read about what precision 15, or strength 5, or spell X and spell Y mean, but I really don't have a good intuitive sense...maybe I'm just alone in this, but what I would use a simulator for is to educate myself about things like that.

I think what I'm really talking about is an Arena, where I can see how a few units of my choosing can stack up against a few other units of my choosing.

So, I guess that is my revised suggestion: how about a Arena Simulator, or a "Gladitorial Pit" where we can pit one or two of our chosen heroes against some other heroes. Maybe it could be made in-game, so that I can issue a challenge to other players or the AI empires and send 1-3 of my heroes against theirs - they would choose who they send...and the losers die. Just like the Arena event, but between two empires, and there is no concrete reward except the death of your enemies...

Just thinking out loud, I haven't thought through the ramifications. But it sounds fun.

[Endoperez]

Agrajag said:
Just like we can already give a unit special abilities using #copystats, but its still much better to have a new command for what we want.
Or just like you can make 5000$ if you work hard enough, but you'd still rather get the same amount of money and work less. Or do you like working for 1$ an hour? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif



I don't like working for 1$ an hour. Most people don't. That's why having a battle simulator would make it feasible to test multiple different strategies and scripts until you know exactly what you should do, in a way map scripting won't.

[Hullu]

A controlled arena or something would be a solution. One to which you can't put just any armies you like, but for example only three squads and only two commanders. Or something like that - anyway something that can not be used to optimize complex MP combats.

I find a free simulator a legitimate threat to the fun of MP. I'd almost be forced to use it myself, since I'd be scared my enemy are using it, and thus not using it would put me in a disadvantage.

[PhilD]

Hullu said:
A controlled arena or something would be a solution. One to which you can't put just any armies you like, but for example only three squads and only two commanders. Or something like that - anyway something that can not be used to optimize complex MP combats.

I find a free simulator a legitimate threat to the fun of MP. I'd almost be forced to use it myself, since I'd be scared my enemy are using it, and thus not using it would put me in a disadvantage.



I really cannot understand such concerns, since, as has been pointed out, the possibility of doing this does exist, in the form of map scripting and fake MP playing. Someone who really wanted to do it, could. They could write their own tools to make map scripting easier, and would not have to let you see them. Then you wouldn't know about them, but they'd be able to use their tools - but you wouldn't.

All a battle simulator would add, would be ease of use. Maybe.

[Hullu]

I really cannot understand such concerns, since, as has been pointed out, the possibility of doing this does exist, in the form of map scripting and fake MP playing. Someone who really wanted to do it, could. They could write their own tools to make map scripting easier, and would not have to let you see them. Then you wouldn't know about them, but they'd be able to use their tools - but you wouldn't.

All a battle simulator would add, would be ease of use. Maybe.



Well, the use of ease is key. Certainly you can try to brute force optimal tactics with pen and paper - but it's not easy enough:) If it's trivial with a few button presses to simulate a combat with an enemy to find the optimal combinations and orders - it might get nasty.

How easy is it now? I'd guess kinda hard to run 100 combats and see average results?

[Agrajag]

Endoperez said:
I don't like working for 1$ an hour. Most people don't. That's why having a battle simulator would make it feasible to test multiple different strategies and scripts until you know exactly what you should do, in a way map scripting won't.


But map scripting can do all that a battle simulator will do, it just takes a bit more setup.
The difference between an extra 10 minutes to optimize your battle isn't that big of an obstacle, however the benefit of a battle simulator can be huge.
The obvious advantage is making the game easier to learn for newbies, which is a department in which Dom3 is seriously lacking.
Another advantage, which is why I'd personally like a combat simulator is that it can be a huge help in modding by making sure your new nation is balanced. Sure, I could just set up different scenarios with the map editor, but if I want to compare my nation to all the rest in its age, its going to take longer to set up and observe, to the point where I'd rather just have an unbalanced nation and be done with it...

I'd also like to remind you we already had a fan-made combat simulator in dom2, and it didn't ruin MP for anyone.

[Hullu]

I'd also like to remind you we already had a fan-made combat simulator in dom2, and it didn't ruin MP for anyone.



Maybe you just didn't see it ruin it for anyone!:)

But I don't think we're talking about an extra ten minutes here. To get good advantage you need to run dozens of combats or more. If it's fast or even trivial with a simulator compared to hours when doing it manually then I wouldn't give the simulator to the public...

[Agrajag]

Hullu said:
But I don't think we're talking about an extra ten minutes here. To get good advantage you need to run dozens of combats or more. If it's fast or even trivial with a simulator compared to hours when doing it manually then I wouldn't give the simulator to the public...


But we are talking about an extra ten minutes here, you can try it for yourself even without map commands.
Just start a new sp game with you as two nations (and no AI), giving both of you (:P) half the provinces in the map (by way of starting provinces at game setup). Just Host a few turns (without actually doing anything) untill you have enough gold to buy everything you want, buy it. Host a few more turns because it probably will take more than one turn. Send everybody to the front. Save the game. Now try different settings and reload as you see fit.
Getting the right spells is also easy, just get a few mages and host until you research whatever you want to.
It might get a bit more tedious if you want hunderds of specific summons that take very hard paths to summon, but even that's not that hard.

And with map modding commands its even a whole lot easier, since you can just spawn almost anything you want to test.

[Hullu]

Well, still that's something I wouldn't be bothered to do. But with a simulator I might be:)

[Agrajag]

Hullu said:
Well, still that's something I wouldn't be bothered to do. But with a simulator I might be:)


Why not? You are at a disadvantage to someone who does bother http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Hullu]

Because I'm a kind of person who values comfort over work:) If something is easy/comfortable enough for the gain, I do it, if it's not I skip it.

If using such an advantage is mandatory to be competitive and it causes too much discomfort, I quit playing. I doubt we'll ever reach that situation, although a careful planner AND user of this feature (simulating incoming battles) would have an enormous potential advantage over people who don't do it.

[Gandalf Parker]

I think a battle simulator would be a great advantage, to certain players. And a bad thing for the game overall.

That said, did anyone notice that I posted a link to a battle simulator? I dont think Johan needs to bother making the editor simulator into something user friendly and adding it to the game tools menu.

[Graeme Dice]

Gandalf Parker said:
I think a battle simulator would be a great advantage, to certain players. And a bad thing for the game overall.



There is no possible way that a battle simulator could be construed as a bad thing unless you don't want the players of the game to have accurate information on the capabilities of various units. Accurate information is not a bad thing in a strategy game, no matter how much the anti-powergamer crowd wants it to be. Accurate information is the only thing that makes a strategy game worth playing, as without it your decisions are not meaningful and might as well be randomly assigned.


That said, did anyone notice that I posted a link to a battle simulator? I dont think Johan needs to bother making the editor simulator into something user friendly and adding it to the game tools menu.



No, you did not post a link to a battle simulator. You posted a link to a map that can be used with some difficulty to create potential battles directly in the dominions game. It's nothing like a properly featured simulator that could be used to run the few thousand test casts that are needed to properly balance the gold costs on the vast number of overcosted units in Dominions.

[Hullu]

There is no possible way that a battle simulator could be construed as a bad thing unless you don't want the players of the game to have accurate information on the capabilities of various units. Accurate information is not a bad thing in a strategy game, no matter how much the anti-powergamer crowd wants it to be. Accurate information is the only thing that makes a strategy game worth playing, as without it your decisions are not meaningful and might as well be randomly assigned.



Accurate information is good you say? This taken to the extreme -> The game tells you "You will win" or "You will lose", even before you submit your turn (if orders/army compositions don't change). That's accurate information, and it would utterly ruin the game.

An easy to use battle simulator would be one step towards that. Certainly not even close to all the steps, but one step nevertheless.

[Maltrease]

With the amount of option in Dominion is unlikely that a "Perfect" strategy will ever be found. Sure there are optimal strategies in specific situations. Finding these and being able to actually create the scenario to your advantage is what strategy gaming is all about.

I think Graemes post sums it up perfectly. I would simply add that there are already people that ENJOY building custom maps to run battle tests. So in essence that advantage already exist to the dedicated (obsessive) player... having an easy to use simulator will lower the bar on the how much effort it takes to learn the "tricks" and allow more players access and UNDERSTANDING of the mechanics.

[Hullu]

Finding these and being able to actually create the scenario to your advantage is what strategy gaming is all about.



To me what they're all about is seeing the advantage yourself, not bruteforcing it with a computer. In other words, outwitting your opponent instead of out-tooling him.

[PhilD]

Hullu said:
Accurate information is good you say? This taken to the extreme -> The game tells you "You will win" or "You will lose", even before you submit your turn (if orders/army compositions don't change). That's accurate information, and it would utterly ruin the game.




No way, because this is a simultaneous turn game. If you can see your opponents' orders, then you can potentially (theoretically) prepare an optimal strategy against them, and a very powerful simulator would help you with that.

But we're not proposing a cheating device, we're proposing a tool that would make it possible to ask, "hey, what would happen if I had an army of X, and gave it such and such orders, and pitted it in such and such conditions vs an army of Y". This is completely different, and would be used, to various degrees, by people, depending on how much they want to get a feel for how the units' stats turn into performance on the battlefield. Depending on how much they wanted to get better at the game, some people would spend a lot of time with the simulator, and others wouldn't - and it's absolutely not certain that those who spent the most time with it would end up winning more, because some have a better tactical or strategic mind than others.

But it would make the option available.

[Hullu]

"hey, what would happen if I had an army of X, and gave it such and such orders, and pitted it in such and such conditions vs an army of Y"



I'm not really against that. I'm just against the fact that some people (probably not too many) would use it excessively in multiplayer games.

I'm personally against all 'unfair advantages' in all games, very heavily against. As you might see since I consider this one.

I have zero problems doing that kind of analysis just for fun for yourself or perfecting your strategies. I however have a problem with it if you are pitting your army against what you know about my army, and win because of that. It's a problem of principle, nothing else.

[PhilD]

Hullu said:
I'm not really against that. I'm just against the fact that some people (probably not too many) would use it excessively in multiplayer games.




Actually, this is all possible right now, by scripting a map and playing two nations. Anyone who wants to do it, can do it - and it's probably possible to actually script a map where almost any two armies could be recruited and sent to fight each other in a few turns (you wouldn't be able to easily control dominion or things like that, but most of the rest would be doable). People are probably not doing it right now, because getting reliable information for large battles would require a huge number of runs and trials ("what if I move this squad two squares forward?"), and this will always be tedious to do.

As it is now, the lack of integrated tools makes scripting a map as a learning tool, just as tedious as scripting a map to do some powergaming testing. I'm pretty sure that a reasonable tool would make the learning tool usable without taking the boring part out of the powergaming testing.



I'm personally against all 'unfair advantages' in all games, very heavily against. As you might see since I consider this one.




There is no unfair advantage in a widely available simulator, other than that some people have more free time to use it than others. But that's already true - some have more free time to play games than other.



I have zero problems doing that kind of analysis just for fun for yourself or perfecting your strategies. I however have a problem with it if you are pitting your army against what you know about my army, and win because of that. It's a problem of principle, nothing else.



Yeah, but you cannot prevent me from writing down what I know about your army, and scripting a map with that, and doing some testing - if I have the time and inclination to do so. So the game's all ruined up for you, already. Now what?

[Maltrease]

In all likely hood any sort of automated battle simulator would not account for things like orders and spells. Or even accurately representing how units target and gange up on each other.

However you could do some basic functions for MELEE combat (by simulating the mechanics) where you could see things like "how much difference does adding 4 protection (Legions of Steel) to my army make".

Something like that you could set to run 50 times and get the average results.

For a "REAL" battle simulator you will likely need to use the MAP method. I've got an idea for a tool that would help automate the map creation with the units you want, but you would still have to manually position the armies and assign all the orders.

I suppose if you could recreate the Battle field placement and order assignment in your program, build the turn files manually, send and run them through a Dom3 server for processing, parse the battle results and automate this entire process you could get something more advanced... but that sounds like A LOT of work.

Frankly if someone is willing to spend time "practicing" things why shouldn't they be a better player then those that don't want to "practice". I think almost any game or sport works that way.

[markmarques]

As someone stated before the inclusion of the option ( focus on option) of interacting in combat would mean a greater micromanagement burden.
What I meant would be the possibility to interact a bi more in tactical combat.
As an example (someone pointed that out sometihng similar) I had a spell caster that "incidentaly" destroyed everybody around him due to the nature of it own spell.
The ability to choose when to activate that spell would change completly the outcome of the combat.

The single ability for commander+squad to decide when to "attack|move| stay| spell" during turns would make a more deep commitment to the tactical decisions.
Of course a timeout would be needed.

For MP games the interaction during combat would not be needed.

Someone stated before the idea of a pre-combat set of orders (scripting) in order to achieve the ability to control the tactical combat...
If that is a way to achieve some control over tactical so be it...

Of course something like that would change the game mecanics a lot...
But for better I suppose.

Regarding the simulator issue I would agree that using a tool like that would ruin the "magic" deep of this game...

[tombom]

Also a lot of results involve random numbers which would be different.

[Gandalf Parker]

Graeme Dice said:

Gandalf Parker said:
I think a battle simulator would be a great advantage, to certain players. And a bad thing for the game overall.



There is no possible way that a battle simulator could be construed as a bad thing unless you don't want the players of the game to have accurate information on the capabilities of various units. Accurate information is not a bad thing in a strategy game, no matter how much the anti-powergamer crowd wants it to be. Accurate information is the only thing that makes a strategy game worth playing, as without it your decisions are not meaningful and might as well be randomly assigned.



Exactly. That IS what I think. Dont forget that I play it solo and I love randoms. So as far as Im concerned less strategy in facvor of more randoms is not a threat. But as far as MP gaming, Ive seen games destroyed where every little thing could be so completely tested that a slight benefit amounted to defining the ultimate absolute winning strategy. There was no more reason to buy it, play it, discuss it. Or it turned into a continual give and take between player-testers and developers that it also wasnt worth really playing the game. As far as Im concerned that would suck and it would be stupid to give that ability to the players. Yes, keep them in the dark and make them PLAY the game to find their strategys.

Oops. Sorry for that. What I meant to say was in MY opinion there are some factors which might make.. nahh screw that. You wont play diplomat so why should I.




That said, did anyone notice that I posted a link to a battle simulator? I dont think Johan needs to bother making the editor simulator into something user friendly and adding it to the game tools menu.



No, you did not post a link to a battle simulator. You posted a link to a map that can be used with some difficulty to create potential battles directly in the dominions game. It's nothing like a properly featured simulator that could be used to run the few thousand test casts that are needed to properly balance the gold costs on the vast number of overcosted units in Dominions.


Such a flat factual statement? Maybe you meant to say that in your opinion that was..
Scratch that also

No, I posted a link to a Battle Simulator. It works. It works better than Johans as far as Im concerned. You might like something fancier like some other games have but I see little benefit in having the devs work on one. Especially since the link I gave allows for well over 90% of whatever tests anyone wants to do and what little is left over Id doubt would show up in any other simulator.

[Graeme Dice]

Gandalf Parker said:
Exactly. That IS what I think. Dont forget that I play it solo and I love randoms. So as far as Im concerned less strategy in facvor of more randoms is not a threat.



There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing a game to win. If playing to win means that people use "unthematic" or "cheesy" tactics, then the problem is that the thematic and "non-cheesy" strategic elements aren't powerful enough. I also don't know why you feel that your games against the unintelligent AI would be threatened by the availability of a powerful learning tool to multiplayer players.


But as far as MP gaming, Ive seen games destroyed where every little thing could be so completely tested that a slight benefit amounted to defining the ultimate absolute winning strategy. There was no more reason to buy it, play it, discuss it. Or it turned into a continual give and take between player-testers and developers that it also wasnt worth really playing the game. As far as Im concerned that would suck and it would be stupid to give that ability to the players.



I'm glad that you feel that chess is a worthless strategy game thanks to its complete lack of randomness.

Personally, I'd also like to see some concrete examples of games that you think were ruined by such balancing.


Or it turned into a continual give and take between player-testers and developers that it also wasnt worth really playing the game. As far as Im concerned that would suck and it would be stupid to give that ability to the players.



It's _stupid_ to let players make meaningful decisions in a strategy game? If we follow that line of thought to its logical conclusion, it's clear that we must remove all decisions from the game. Everything shoud simply be a collection of random statistics where it's impossible to figure out any relationship between them. After all, it's stupid to let the players figure things out in the game.


Yes, keep them in the dark and make them PLAY the game to find their strategys.



I don't know why you feel that it's necessary to insult every player that wants more strategic decisions in their strategy game. I'd like to learn by playing the game. I'd even more like for new players to be able to learn by playing the game. Simulating battles is part of playing the game. It's merely one way of taking one of the most important parts of the game and working on learning that part without the distractions from the other parts of the game. Would you tell somebody who repeatedly practices a single measure of a difficult song to perfect it that they aren't playing properly? I'd hope not, because they are doing exactly what is needed to learn as effectively as possible.


Such a flat factual statement? Maybe you meant to say that in your opinion that was..



Some statements are simply correct or incorrect. There is no question of opinion when somebody makes a statement of fact.


No, I posted a link to a Battle Simulator.



I don't see any program that you posted, and I'm not sure why you want to argue the semantics of what the term "battle simulator" means. You provided a link to a map file that can only be used to get an extremely rough approximation of the capabilities of a true simulator. There are dozens of critical variables that can't be controlled on that map that effect battles. You can't control who has dominion in the province, whether there's a magic or drain scale, the heat scale, what spells are available to the nations, what globals are in effect and how strong they are in the particular province, what afflictions the units have, etc.


You might like something fancier like some other games have but I see little benefit in having the devs work on one. Especially since the link I gave allows for well over 90% of whatever tests anyone wants to do and what little is left over Id doubt would show up in any other simulator.



I want to test 1000 (or 2000, or 100,000) gold worth of every national infantry unit against every other national infantry unit in enough battles to produce statistically significant results. Such results would be extremely useful in providing players with concrete information about the actual capabilities of the units that they have available to them.

Now, I'm not sure why you think that your opinion of what the devs work on should rule the day, while those people who disagree with you have opinions don't matter. After all, you're the one who constantly tells us all that every opinion is equally valid.

[Maltrease]

I don't think there can be much reconciliation between the type of gamers that want

Every mechanic explicitly stated and equation defined. Maps out income over time in a spreadsheet to see effects of growth or death. Etc..

vs

Keep everything a mystery and just let me get a "feel" for the game after playing it several times. Eventually I will learn what works through enough trial, error and exploration.


I fall into the first school and it is completely infeasible to me why someone would desire the second (but of course many people do). I imagine those the second school can’t imagine why someone would want to “waste” all of their time calculating out all the details. I doubt there is any reason to debate it as you are not going to change anyone’s mind about it.

The simple fact is that the first school of thought will absolutely win more games and be more competitive then the second group.

I'll admit that I have killed many "shallow" games by going to GAMEFAQs and reading every rule, spell and mechanic then deciding that "I know everything about the game now... no reason to play it.". There are a lot of games that hide "boring, obscure or easily abuse-able" mechanics behind this "mystery".

Dominions has enough depth and already is EXTREMELY transparent in how the mechanics work that I have little worry there will every be a master document that would make be bored with the game after I read it. You may end up with something like the chess books have where you have some optimum openings and counters to them… but once you get a few turns in (or through in a few more variables) all bets are off.

So does an easy to use battle simulator help the 1st school or the 2nd school more? I don't know?

If there was an easy way to test how well 100 netted Merman (how do nets affect glamour) vs. 20 Helheim PD would the "mystery" player want to find out before they committed the action in their MULTIPLAYER game… that they have already spent countless hours on over weeks or months?

For me (if it was a critical component of my strategy)... falling into the first camp I would setup a 2 player game, build up the armies and test it manually. So maybe this takes me 10 minutes... way to much time for the player from the second school.

BUT... if running that test only took 2 minute due to a semi-automated way to build the map files and start with all the needed troops would that be easy enough for the "mystery" player to play out the situation.

BTW, I ran this test a few days ago and the merman netters didn't have the slightest chance of victory. (due to javelins and no protection)

To me the challenge and FUN is finding the solution to the problem. What can Oceania do vs. Helheim that is effective? (nothing I’ve found yet) So if someone comes at me with a specific army that is destroying me… I want to find the counter to it. And I don’t want to lose the game trying to find that counter… or lose the game without finding the counter.

Tools to help me with this research are greatly desired. The great thing about Dominions is there is so much variety that their will never be “Turn 1 to 40, Complete path to Victory” document. Even if you wrote 200 articles (one for each nation vs. another) it still isn’t going to be comprehensive as you don’t know what independent troops, lucky magic sites, pretender designs, scales, actually recruited troops are… they are just guides.

Is Chess boring because of the 100’s of strategy guides and books made for it? Its fun because all the rules are transparent and how you apply them determines your victory or success.

And you are never going to have a simulator that makes things like the effectiveness of raiding with stealth troops broken down into spreadsheet format.

Gah… guess I didn’t listen to my “no point to debate it” comment at the beginning. Nor have I spent the last hour on WORK that I need to do.

Anyways… my chapter is complete.

[Taqwus]

It's also true that there are behaviors that would be known to an actual commander, but are nowhere documented and thus can only be found by experimentation.

Behaviors such as a half-dozen mage-priests ALL completely neglecting to cast Bless when there are a few dozen sacred units in range, for instance, in favor of skellispamming; archers firing into a melee; troops cheerfully running through the left-behind cold/poison auras of their fellow monsters and dying because of it; mages casting Touch of Madness on their own side's archers and mages, thus stupidly ruining an otherwise perfectly valid deployment... and since the AI is perfectly incapable of avoiding much of what can go wrong, the only way to deal with this is to be aware of all this nonsense beforehand. That's the "unfair advantage" waiting to be discovered. Knowing one's own army is required for any commander.

ALL of that should, in fact, would be perfectly reasonable to know before battle. A simulator would NOT grant any additional information in pinpointing an opponent's disposition, tactics or use of resources. It WOULD grant information about what behavior they might have so people don't have to GUESS about such things as, say, "what happens if I mix units with different speeds in a squad with attack orders" or so forth.

[curtadams]

A big advantage of a simulator is that it would improve our ability to balance the units, nations, and PD. I'm playing Pythium MA solo right now and I'm pretty shocked how strong its PD is compared to other nations I've played. The AI is clearly underestimating it. Is the Pythium PD too strong for the cost? It's hard to say without a more rigorous test and that's not too practical at present.

[Endoperez]

curtadams said:
A big advantage of a simulator is that it would improve our ability to balance the units, nations, and PD. I'm playing Pythium MA solo right now and I'm pretty shocked how strong its PD is compared to other nations I've played. The AI is clearly underestimating it. Is the Pythium PD too strong for the cost? It's hard to say without a more rigorous test and that's not too practical at present.



The manual lists it as Velites, 2xAlae Legionnaires, and Hastati after PD 20+. Do they have something else in addition? Slingers?

I think any third types of units received in PD under 20 aren't included.

It doesn't sound that powerful, though. Lots of chaff, albeit with a slightly better morale than is usual, and some good infantry as well. Tien Chi gets 3 Footmen and 1 Imperial Footman after 20+, but that isn't good either. Marignon gets Pikeneers and Crossbowmans, and Halberdiers after PD 20+; that's much better IMO. They get ranged units AND infantry. Then there's Mictlan, which gets Jaguar Warriors!

[Gandalf Parker]

Hmmm PD could be tested on the Mini map also. I can set the nation that owns a province, and the PD of it. Then I can attack it to see what I come up against. Attacking it with the same army each time would be an interesting benchmark. That would probably be worth doing.

[curtadams]

Endoperez said:
The manual lists it as Velites, 2xAlae Legionnaires, and Hastati after PD 20+. Do they have something else in addition? Slingers?

I think any third types of units received in PD under 20 aren't included.

It doesn't sound that powerful, though. Lots of chaff, albeit with a slightly better morale than is usual, and some good infantry as well. Tien Chi gets 3 Footmen and 1 Imperial Footman after 20+, but that isn't good either. Marignon gets Pikeneers and Crossbowmans, and Halberdiers after PD 20+; that's much better IMO. They get ranged units AND infantry. Then there's Mictlan, which gets Jaguar Warriors!



No, the Pythium PD doesn't sound strong at all. That's part of why I was puzzled at the result. Some slingers do show up so they are part of it. Mostly it's just that the defense is mostly shielded medium infantry, which is hard to kill, and they're not breaking. It could be that my opponents (Caelum, Mictlan, and Ermor) have fairly light units (Ermor already has lots of undead).

With AI positioning, an almost-all-ground force might be an advantage. The armies will normally meet in the middle and most archers have pretty mediocre aim at that distance. The Caelum archers are probably hurting their own force almost as much as mine, and I have a lot more infantry.

Incidentally, it's not that the forces are totally unbeatable by what the computer has. It's more that the computer now tries to send the minimum force to do the job and it's not sending enough. On more than one occaision the computer has split its force and what could easily have taken one province has gotten beaten attacking two. Even so, though, several times I'd given up a province for lost and then the computer failed even with a respectable force. Maybe I just got lucky on the morale checks. It would be nice to be able to test it.

[UninspiredName]

I like the idea of a Battle Simulator, personally. It's hard to abuse it for multi-player reasons, considering how many unknowns you need to consider when looking at an enemy army, even with scouts. Scouting doesn't mention the four Magi the enemy has with the army, that one of them was (For some reason) empowered to cast Blade Wind, and that the Archers have experience 3. Even if you attack with that scout to get some more information you still can't predict Morale checks, projectile deviation, Magic Resistance saves, etc. And even after that attack, you still don't know the scripts for later turns, if the foe will add more units, if a Global Enchantment will be cast, or many other things.

I can't imagine it would be that hard to program in either, since it's basically lettting the player punch in variables for something the program's already doing.

[Sindai]

I think a battle simulator would be really cool.

If nothing else to try out all of the really expensive summons and spells that you rarely get to use in a full game.

[Hullu]

One more comment on the information people.

Wouldn't it then be cool that you could simulate all the battlers before you submit your turn.

"If there enemy doesn't bring reinforcements, do I win?"

I think it would utterly ruin the game. But it's more information, so the people who want information would definitely want the game to just tell you if you win or lose even before you fight? It'd be fun playing then when you'd know all you'd be losing in every fight (unless conditions change, they don't always change). And against indeps they never change, what fun would taking indies be after that!:) "Hmm, if I move this squad two suares to the north, I reduce my losses from 2 units to 0, whee!".

Too much information is bad. Enough information is good, and enough is a personal preference.

I think Dominions is pretty well around the 'enough' for me right now, there's some details I'd like to know, but definitely I don't want to be able to check my battles before I fight them.

[Twan]

If Johan has the time to work on the tactical engine I would prefer anything improving the tactical battles in the actual game (more choices of orders, better AI, etc) over a battle simulator. I am not strongly against the concept but don't think it's so necessary (adding 2 or 3 map commands, to determine the dominion of a province, the research levels of a nation at start etc..., would make any simulations possible, and looks easier to do than a whole program).

About tactical MM, I've also not the same opinion as many people here. Having more choices will never be seen as a bad thing by me, I would be glad to have options like playing with longer scripts, deciding how long the troops hold before attacking or chosing the spells the tactical AI is allowed to use. The strategical part of the game has lot of possible different settings, I would like to have as many options for the tactical part.

[Cainehill]

Hullu said:
One more comment on the information people.

Wouldn't it then be cool that you could simulate all the battlers before you submit your turn.

"If there enemy doesn't bring reinforcements, do I win?"

I think it would utterly ruin the game. But it's more information, so the people who want information would definitely want the game to just tell you if you win or lose even before you fight? It'd be fun playing then when you'd know all you'd be losing in every fight (unless conditions change, they don't always change). And against indeps they never change, what fun would taking indies be after that!:) "Hmm, if I move this squad two suares to the north, I reduce my losses from 2 units to 0, whee!".




*yawn* One note Johnny, the way Dom works, you can have the _exact_ same battle, with the same troops, same scripting, and win with zero casualties one time, and get butchered another time. Or have you forgotten the pretty darn significant random factor? Spell / missile targeting - one time they hit friendly units, another time they hit the enemy. One time a key commander gets spells off, the next time they fail an MR roll or get killed by an arrow. One time a unit keeps fighting with 75% casualties, another time they turn and run after taking two minor arrow wounds.

[thejeff]

True, but if it's trivial to run the battle a few dozen (hundred?) times, it won't be hard to minimize losses.

Much more significant is that you can't know what your opponent forces and scripting actually are.

[Hullu]

Much more significant is that you can't know what your opponent forces and scripting actually are.



You can get a pretty good idea about that if you feed some sheep to them before the big fight. Although you can't know them exactly, you might now them better than a 'wild guess'.

[PhilD]

Hullu said:


Much more significant is that you can't know what your opponent forces and scripting actually are.



You can get a pretty good idea about that if you feed some sheep to them before the big fight. Although you can't know them exactly, you might now them better than a 'wild guess'.



... which means, if you get to fight some random "retreat" scouts, you should change your scripts. Maybe just reverting left/right (top/bottom in the scripting screen) could work, if you don't feel like really changing your battle order (I have no idea how precise people's battle orders can be).

But, the random factor is pretty important, or at least it was in DomII - while the randgen bug still was there, it wasn't that rare to completely wipe off the opponent in the replay, just to discover you had actually lost...

[Taqwus]

Hullu said:
One more comment on the information people.

*snip gratuitously insulting strawman*




Try again without a bogus reductio ad absurdum. You don't play Dominions 3 blindfolded, do you? If not, you play with information. The question is what information is one likely to have.

I submit that any sane commander will, given time to prepare, attempt to determine his troops' capabilities before ever seeing an enemy. Ever hear about training exercises and war games? At the moment, you can't even see the placement of your troops without a battle -- if your squads are large enough, you can get some fairly silly or dangerous results. It would also be obvious to see how mixed-unit squads behave, what commanders might consider casting or doing -after- they've finished their scripts, how eager your troops are to charge through killing clouds, et al.

If you wish to object to excessive information, the obvious points to object to include the lack of fog of war during battle replay regardless of whether it's real or simulated -- you know EXACTLY what happened, which is tricky -- while you may be able to count bodies on the field if you win, would you really know how many enemies were wounded, or what was cast, or all the equipment belonging to enemy leaders? Units are never misidentified or miscounted. In particular, information would justifiably be worse with a rout, while individual details are more likely to be lost in a large battle... and if everybody dies and you have no scouts there, where are your eyewitnesses?

[Taqwus]

Now, the obvious retort to that is that information on enemy capabilities before and even after contact is made is going to be fairly dubious; furthermore, that some capabilities are difficult to simulate safely.

That would suggest
(a) simulated melee, with minimal lethal spell use, between units one actually has, and

(b) actual combat against target summons that one has little compunction killing -- for instance, summoning Mechanical Men, phantasms, low-level undead, any living units if you're the Ashen Empire... that -would- allow demonstration of lethal capabilities or lack thereof. Done in-game, this would cost resources.

Ex. in-game command 'Stage attack' for a leader, where the mage serves only to direct the target units in an attack but does not actually participate.

That would be fairly realistic, avoids the palette / spoiling issues, and still gives useful information regarding what troops might do (whether they tire too easily, whether they can hit the broad side of a barn, et al)... and, as a battle, it would actually give experience to the units.

[Cainehill]

Heh. The "broad side of a barn" / accuracy issue is always a worthy question, given that archers with 13/14 accuracy can still generate more friendly casualties than enemy. But then again, some question exists whether that's accuracy or AI.

[alexti]

PhilD said:
... which means, if you get to fight some random "retreat" scouts, you should change your scripts. Maybe just reverting left/right (top/bottom in the scripting screen) could work, if you don't feel like really changing your battle order (I have no idea how precise people's battle orders can be).



I usually script specifically for every major battle. And of course, everybody who can hide is hiding until then (in particular gem and item carrying scouts). Any reasonable opponent will make reconnaisanse attack (and not with a scout, but with something more serious to better identify enemy's plans), so you never reveal what you have in mind.

I think the points about optimizing your scripts against unknown enemy plans is moot. You really need to figure out what the opponent is going to do. If you can do it accurately you usually win without any simulations. That's a real challenge though. I can only see simulator as a help in exploring unfamiliar troops and situations. Good for general Dominion education, but not something that allows you to win games by itself.

[Archonsod]

The entire thought of a battle simulator being of advantage in multiplayer is somewhat moot.

As already pointed out, your unlikely to get the same random numbers generated (unless you can force the same seed, but even that could be screwed up with multiplayer).
Secondly, you don't know your enemy's script, powers or similar. No matter how many times you win in the simulator, if you don't realise that the enemy has six mages scripted to spam blade wind, it's going to be a somewhat devestating shock, or the fact that the enemy commander has Tempest and your strategy relies on archers...
Finally, you run several thousand simulations, get the optimal army to defeat your opponent and finally attack, only to find a completely different army. If your opponent is also using the simulator, then surely he's just as likely to alter their forces to the 'optimal' build as you are, at least if he realises an attack is imminent.

I doubt a battle simulator would actually be of any benefit to multiplayer in the sense most seem to think it would (in fact, I'd go so far as to say it might actually be detrimental, for the reasons listed above). What it would be useful for is running experimental combats - how many Androphag archers do you need to defeat 300 barbarians. Is it possible for a ***** Queen to kill a VQ if tooled up with the right equipment. That kind of thing...

[Endoperez]

Archonsod said:
The entire thought of a battle simulator being of advantage in multiplayer is somewhat moot.

Is it possible for a ***** Queen to kill a VQ if tooled up with the right equipment. That kind of thing...



Of course, Vampire Queens can have VERY different magics and battle scripts. If your ***** Queen happens to be able to cast Faery Trod, and you know where that one particular Vampire Queen attacked and what her script was, though, would give you the simulated results of a battle and the best item combination (especially when you only choose from items you can make yourself in a game).

It COULD change the game. I don't know whether or not it would - but it could.

A full-flexed battle simulator doesn't work for all the things it has been requested. I'd rather see what my army would look like in a battlefield - because, as Taqwus said, large squads act strangely, sometimes. This has nothing to do with a battle simulator that wouldn't affect the gameplay, because such battle simulator can't be used test squad-positioning (you can't copy squad locations with enough accuracy).

[Archonsod]

In that case, you'd be hoping you either had the items at hand, or could forge them before the VQ moved off somewhere. Your still going to be relying on the random numbers generated too - a single hit doing less damage than it did in the simulator could result in an entirely different outcome.

I'd assume the simulator would be accessible from the main menu rather than from within the game itself. You could then pick your forces, mages, scripts et al without worrying about research (would be annoying if you simply wanted to find out the effect of having a mage cast one spell or another, but had to first research the spell in the game). As a side bonus, it might actually give some purpose to the battlefield designer too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif (by allowing you to use the custom battlefields in the battle generator).