Forthcoming patch notes

[llamabeast]

Today has probably the best set of fixes I have ever seen:

20th july
* Improved move order validation.
* Battle enchantments expire when caster retreats from battle ground.
* New switch: --nocheatdet.
* nation mods are now properly recognized when starting network games.
* Increased maximum number of maps allowed in the map folder.

The first two fix probably the biggest two gameplay bugs remaining - excellent news I think. But the 4th one - well, I am absolutely over the moon about it. I don't imagine it means much to anyone else, but it means that the LlamaServer will be able to start games with mod nations itself. Previously I'd have to start them manually through the GUI, and that was the one outstanding thing that could not be done automatically. Now everything can be automated! w00t!

*dances*

Honestly I'm sure you'll all think I'm mad, but that's the fix I've been dreaming of. It may also be really helpful for the making mods more mainstream in the long run.

[Foodstamp]

This whole patch is shaping up nicely. I am pretty excited about the new mod commands and the attention the devs are giving modders in general, great stuff http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

[HoneyBadger]

Yep, great work, guys!

[Herode]

Huh ? A new patch ? Where ???? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[WraithLord]

In the oven.

And the aroma is great http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Herode]

Haha ! The title has been edited !
I was wondering why I didn't see anything about the Thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Yummy then. There comes an Age of Revelry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Sombre]

Interesting re: mod nation games.

I don't think that was the main reason they don't happen though. They just don't seem very popular.

[Gandalf Parker]

Really?
I thought they were great. I figured it was just that solo players arent really as interested in deadly AIs as they say they are.
Not being able to play multiplayer allied against killer new nations kindof held it up. Now the cap is off the ceiling. There is no need to design a nation that can be beat by a single player but is harder than the AI that comes with the game. Now we can have nations that REQUIRE a pantheon of player gods to beat it.

[mac5732]

I would like to see hard AI nations to beat, most games I play are SP (time restraints etc) So i love to see challenging AI players, the harder the better, makes for a lot more fun if the AI can beat the human player, makes the human player have to really work to win, instead of taking it for granted that he'll eventually beat the AI....

[Micah]

I'm going to go on record to say that I'm really not a fan of the BE change, outside of the effect it has on MoD. I have always liked Dominions because it wasn't just a matter of two huge armies beating on one another. Even with all of the magic and options the game often comes down to a game of resource management, and I believe this change takes away some of the most powerful tactics available to deal with an enemy in an elegant fashion.

The current tactic of teleporting a BE caster which can then flee the battlefield and a unit to stick around and entertain the enemy army while the BE does its work is one of my personal favorites. While it can be brutally effective it also carries a lot of risk, as a reasonable blocker unit will have to be fairly well equipped, and if the blocking unit is taken down the BE will end. I don't think many people have a problem with this working the way it does.

The current 50-turn battle limit is another reason this tactic is so important. Having an army that's simply large enough to absorb the losses inflicted by an SC should NOT be a valid tactic, but it becomes one as soon as this change goes live. It's a joy seeing golems at full HP evaporate on turn 50 in the middle of chasing down a couple of crippled stragglers from the enemy army, believe me.

By forcing the caster to stick around (necessarily behind a large wall of chaff to keep them alive) the game devolves more towards a phyrric style of play, in which tactics become a secondary concern to resources. It becomes quite difficult to defeat an opposing army without suffering significant losses unless you have appropriate resistances on your troops, and the ability to respond to a distant threat is severely curtailed, since mobility spells become insufficient to move enough chaff to protect the caster.

Granted, many of these things aren't bad in and of themselves, but they certainly change the flavor and balance of the game in a major way beyond what a simple bug fix ought to, IMO, and it does it by removing a large section of available tactics, not by adding or adjusting ones that are in place.

I don't think this will change the minds of those in charge, but I wanted to at least have a eulogy for one of my favorite things about the game.

[Lingchih]

I agree with Micah that the overall nerfing of battlefield enchantments, so that the caster cannot retreat and still have his spell active, is too much. True, this would fix the Mists of Deception cheat, but it also severely limits other tactics that are not considered cheats.

I would ask that the Devs rethink this before they release the next patch.

[Jazzepi]

Personally I'm glad to see air queen 1 + air queen 2 = army anywhere on the map destroyed, gone from the game. The whole process of having a mage who can cast a BE enchantment, and then leave, without maintaining it, but then if they die while they're still there, it goes away, seems nonthematic, and silly to me. If you're going to cast heat from hell, grip of winter, quagmire, solar brilliance, then you better be damn well willing to risk that mage in the fight that the mage is bringing his value to. By letting mages retreat from battle, that risk/reward ratio is severely impaired by simply removing a good deal of risk.

If anything, it just seems like your complaint is more about the low turn limit. Since armies can get so large, especially in the late game, I wouldn't mind seeing the 50 turn limit raised.

I mean, the whole reason you put a turn limit is to prevent fights from going on into infinity, but the cap should be something high enough that you only reach it /when/ fights would go onto infinity. Right now the problem is that you reach the cap with a regular army.

I think a 200 turn hard limit would probably be fine.

Anyways, bravo on resolving a long standing bug.

Jazzepi

[Lingchih]

And what would a 200 turn limit do to those of us with slower processors? I agree that it would be nice, but would it be playable?

[Jazzepi]

Lingchih said:
And what would a 200 turn limit do to those of us with slower processors? I agree that it would be nice, but would it be playable?



I don't think it would do anything but effect the turn processing time. The battleview itself would run at the same speed, though it might take longer to watch the whole thing.

The change would be mostly transparent for people playing MP since the turn processes would be done on the host machine. Also, you probably wouldn't hit that 200 turn limit cap too often.

Jazzepi

[Micah]

Upping the turn limit would help, it's true, although an SC taking 150 turns to clear things out wouldn't get any of the mages, which is one of the nice things about the BEs...you actually do some real damage to your unprepared opponent.

And the key here really is that they have to be unprepared. I certainly wouldn't drop a pair of AQs into an enemy army that was slinging around any of the myriad SC-killer spells (Life for a life, gifts from heaven, enslave mind/soul slay, weapons of sharpness + strength of giants, Stream of life/CHARM...and all of those have excellent range aside from charm, there are plenty more short range ones) so your claim that any army on the map can be killed by a couple of queens is pretty laughable.

The other reason just fixing the turn limit still isn't what I'd like to see is because of cheap summon chaff. Skel spam is already incredibly powerful in a lot of situations, and if you have critical mass of mages they can keep it up for 50 turns or 5000. I've been buried in imps from lifelong protections. An unending supply of ghost wolves should not be enough to fend off an avenging nephilim until he gets bored and wanders off. BE's are supposed to be the ultimate answer to over-bloated but improperly constructed armies. Hell, it's in the rulebook. Let them do their job.

[Jazzepi]

Micah said:
The other reason just fixing the turn limit still isn't what I'd like to see is because of cheap summon chaff. Skel spam is already incredibly powerful in a lot of situations, and if you have critical mass of mages they can keep it up for 50 turns or 5000. I've been buried in imps from lifelong protections. An unending supply of ghost wolves should not be enough to fend off an avenging nephilim until he gets bored and wanders off. BE's are supposed to be the ultimate answer to over-bloated but improperly constructed armies. Hell, it's in the rulebook. Let them do their job.



I don't see how that has anything to do with the BE http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Obviously the quote about two air queens killing any army was an exercise in hyperbole, but a properly equipped air queen can push her MR to something like 28 or so. All she needs then is regen and two shields to hold off chaff indefinitely. Especially if the opponent has their mages to the far back (which tends to be the default position).

About the only thing I'd be afraid of then would be petrify and drain life, and that's only if the chaff doesn't move fast enough while the air queen is buffing that the mages don't get caught in the back casting self-buffs, and then spamming useless spells.

Jazzepi

[quantum_mechani]

Jazzepi said:
About the only thing I'd be afraid of then would be petrify and drain life


Personally, life for life and gifts from heaven are what terrify my SCs the most.

[Tifone]

Really I don't understand all this hatred against the turn limit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

As this game is supposed to work well even on low-level systems, pumping up this limit would render the waiting between turns a lot longer... can you imagine 200 turn battles in a large map with 15 nations? Heeek! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rant.gif

2nd, I think a not so long turn limit makes perfect sense. After all, a turn just represent a month and (unless teleportations, which still take time for magic preparatives) involves the preparatives for the equipment tents and stuff, the trip from one region to another, the battle which takes days... And it's not easy to fight and stay in a province under the direct control of the enemy - after some time, you want or not, an army has to fall back for resupplying, regathering troops, reorganize formations. And both the attacker and the defender have their right to see their reinforcements on the march from the neighbour provinces come after some time battling - they are not fighting endlessy in a limbo separed from the physic world.
As it is IMHO, the turn limit gives plenty of time for a strong attacker to kill many, many units. But if it is unable to kill/rout all of them before 50 turns, he just wasn't strong enough to do it in just one month. He reorganizes, receives the reinforcements, the defender does so, and the fight begins again.

The only minor problem came from MoD (solved) and the other few tactics - usually spells - not working as stated, with units non-retreating after their time and the defender dying. Vengeance of the Dead i.e.

[WraithLord]

I'm all in favor of increasing the hard coded turn limit to something in the range [100,200].

I can relate to some Micah's points. Yes, I think the change has huge impact on game play, much beyond what a simple bug fix should do, and Yes, it will eliminate a favorite tactic of using SCs to eradicate armies.

Having said that I must confess that I'm still in favor of the BE change for the following reason:
A. Consistency. As Jazzepi pointed out, it doesn't make sense that the mages death will stop the BE while his fleeing the battle won't.
B. Flavor. IMHO, MP end games deteriorate too much into SC slug fest where mundane armies lose their relevancy. I don't really like having the spend so much of my thinking at the end game to analyzing what SCs the enemy has, how they are equipped and scripted and then have to come up with counters (in the form of my SCs) to those. And this process takes place every turn b/c a capable opponent will always adapt. The game is about nations and their gods battling for supremacy and not a glorified death match.
Given, its all about the balance of things. I like SCs, I like the role play feel to them and their ability to take and deal sever punishment. But I think the scale has tipped too far towards SC dominance.

The change will not invalidate SCs at all. A group of SCs, some blockers and some BE casters could still eradicate unprepared armies. But it will be a bit more difficult to execute and the risk will be greater (as Jazzepi has pointed out).

I don't think this will make end game less about tactics. tactics would still be there, from raiding, assassinating, casting artillery spells and so on and so forth. The tactic of casting and BE and retreating will not be there, and the end of the day, I like it better that way.

[llamabeast]

Gandalf - I think the most common use will simply be to add more, interesting nations to multiplayer, where they are of similar strength to the base game. e.g. Sombre's Skaven, Arga Dis, Ulm Reborn and so on. I've really enjoyed the games I've played with them in.

Sombre: Well, the games I've started with mod nations included have always filled up. I just don't really have time to start many games.

[NTJedi]

WraithLord said:
I'm all in favor of increasing the hard coded turn limit to something in the range [100,200].




I'm also in favor of increasing the turn limit. Ideally this should become an adjustable game setting.

As time passes eventually patches for Dominions_3 will stop, however computers will continue to become more and more powerful. Dominions_3 will live longer for all gamers if the game can continue to adjust to the computers of tomorrow.

[Zeldor]

Tifone:

How many battles go beyond 50 turns? Just a few. So from time to time you'd have a battle that lasts 100 turns. It would be like counting 1 more battle, almost no difference. And those battles that end with turn limit really limit tactcs and screw some pople unfairly.

[Tifone]

To me this is just not a "computers' power" issue... It is a logical issue - that battles that last a long time aren't placed in a limbo out of the world, but it's normal that after a while both defenders and attackers have their reinforcements arrive, and need to reorganize.

For the battle's timing too, 50 seem a lot, and just right. I mean, after 3 turns waiting, the most of the troops need to attack or retreat. That's maybe one turn to reach the enemy and then 44 to bash each other. It doesn't seem so restrictive.

I just would like someone to tell me what can an upper turn limit add to the game experience - actually, I see no advantage. While the things as they are have the advantage are:

-low-systems friendly for no long waits
-logical for the needs of the armies to reorganize
-a balance issue as the troops you have in the proximities of the battle (near provinces) should be able to join the fight after some time.

Really, why do you ask for an upper turn limit?

Even an adjustable issue - I dunno. Wouldn't that create a lot of confusion for the MP games? I mean, having battles ending at 50 turns or at 200 goes for a ground-breaking change in gameplay. Deciding a turn limit for every MP game, while many adjusts it in SP the way they like, could end up being uncomfortable for people used to different battle tactics.

I don't wanna do destructive criticism for that. I would like someone explaining me the point, if there is any. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif Peace

[Tifone]

Zeldor: why a battle should last more than 50 turns? Because the attacker didn't bring the necessary amount of... let's call it "firepower", to get rid of the defence in that province.
He went deep into enemy territory, where the PD, the paesants keeping the supplies, everything is against him - and he wasn't able in a 50 turns fight to clear the province of the defenders. The battle lasted more than one month. Isn't it obvious that now his soldiers need to retreat to a friendly province (or at least try to) to reorganize, resupply, have reinforcements? Don't the defender after 50 turns have the right to receive the reinforcements coming from the friendly provinces?

Historic realistic example everybody know: WWI. The war of attrition - no faction having at the borders enough soldiers to conquer the enemy territory. The fights didn't last forever till one side won the territory - they lasted months, with the dying soldiers being replaced continuously.

If you tell me that some spells and some situations bring this "turn limit rule" to a bug/exploit level, I can agree that it is unfair. But I think maybe those spells need an adjustement, like it is gonna happen for the MoD phantasms, not the whole turn limit system.

[Omnirizon]

many ppl complain of the VoD turn limit exploit.

I recall once exploiting the turn limit by using tons of fatigue spells (heat from hell, curse of stones, rigor mortis) + LaD to cause both armies to fall asleep until the turn limit hit and I won. The LaD was just there to resurrect my units who died from fatigue, so I could hold out a little longer.

the battle ended with a legions of sleepy Hydras fleeing from three (yes, farking THREE) soulless. It's one of my most memorable battles ever. Even better, I moved in a flying SC to the province that the attacking army was leaving; turn order worked out so that they left, and I captured that province. When they fled due to the turn limit, they all got auto-killed. It wasn't elegant, but it worked.

I don't think what I did was an exploit though, it took planning and execution, the VoD is just cheap ***.

Also on another note, I'd like to see turn order randomization improved. In this particular game, I moved AFTER this person basically every move that we made into each others territory (not from friendly to friendly). In ten such cases of movement, I swear this nation moved before me everytime. It would be nice to see smaller armies, non-stealth, and flying armies get a bonus in the random move order, or something. I don't understand why my flying cyclops can't ever intercept an army of 50 Hydras.

[Zeldor]

Nah, 50 turn really promotes undead, as they don't rout with turn limit. Or paralyzing someone for 30 turns. Or berserk troops. Losing sides get some of that and battle goes on to turn75 because of that and winner routs.

Another thing is mindless commanders vanishing at turn50. That is not funny.

Many battles just deserve to be resolved on battlefield, not by some virtual turn limit that forces whole army to spread into neighbouring provinces.

[Tifone]

Omnirizon - I support you in that.

Zeldor - I don't want to be critic, but we are discussing and you're still not bringing me a reason on why aren't those situations you mentioned to need some kind of adjustement, but the whole turn-limit system http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Am I wrong? Peace friends

[Zeldor]

Tifone:

I said it -
"Battles should be decided on battlefield. "
You kill the enemy or force him to rout, so you won. But being lucky or just using ways to stale [even if they also require planning] is not how battles should be won.

[Tifone]

mmh... but why not? staling tactics, waiting for 1) your reinforcements to come from the rear lines keeping the enemies at bay or 2) your rear lines to organize better the rearmost defences, are the bread and butter of the military campaigns.
Have you ever played Call of Duty, seen Saving Private Ryan (last battle), seen the movie 300?
If you did you know what I'm talking about http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Sometimes battles last more than one month because the defenders of one territory, even if doomed to lose on the long time, just doesn't want the enemy to pass through a point immediately and come out with tactics to slow him. Even in real world, without fatiguing magic http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif So why to change this well-implemented feature in the game?

[Omnirizon]

dom3 is a game more about options than realism. that said, i'd ask first what allows for more options: 50 turn limits or 100? or 200? or whatever.

realism is decentered term anyway. does making a game more 'real' actually make it more real?

[WraithLord]

I don't think anyone here suggests nerfing fatigue or delaying battle tactics.

If you could delay for 50 turns, with longer limit you'll need to delay for 100 turns or more. Its doable.

The turn limit need to be upped so that mindless SCs will have more time to win (if they can); so that huge armies could battle it out and most importantly for the game to scale well and be playable in the long future.

[Sombre]

Bottom line is the devs apparently didn't intend for BEs to stay up after the caster retreats.

The MoD issue brought this into focus, but they fixed what they considered to be wrong, which wasn't just MoD, it was the way they all worked with retreat.

I agree with them but even if I didn't I'd just have to get used to it.

[Zeldor]

Tifone:

Your other army sits in a different province. That is tens of miles away! There is no way they can get in time for that battle, no matter how much staling you do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif 50 turn would be few hours max in real time. So not even realistic approach works here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

In late game I had way too many battles ending in turn limit, that was just frustrating [and opponent didn't try to stale, he just put his armies, I put mine and we both tried to win].

[Tifone]

- Do you think the game will not be playable in the long future if the mechanics don't involve endless battle to take place in a month, instead of how is now working? What, Monopoly is now unplayable because after so many years, we didn't change the mechanics to the option of throwing the dices 100 times a turn, because our dice factories are better and we can now afford a bigger number of dices so mechanics of the game must adequate? Is the number of turns which made the quality of this game in the long time?
- Do you think if a mindless SC needs more time than 50 turns, it's not because he wasn't adequate to beat the defending army, but because the turn limit is not higher?

Sorry, don't want to seem sarcastic or mean or angry or whatever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif I'm not and I'm just explaining my points in the discussion and try to understand the reasons behind your ones, as actually I can't. Peace brothers, I really love you alllllllz http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

P.S. I know it is annoying losing mindless units after many battle turns. Exactly like it would be annoying if you sent unsupported mechs or tanks in enemy territory, and after much killing they don't own the territory and end their autonomy or fuel behind enemy lines. The people there would just dismantle them. I think this makes the same sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Zeldor]

Tifone:

I have one suggestion - think before posting! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif If you want to convince anyone to your arguments don't humiliate yourself with examples that are neither funny or good.

Mindless commanders like Golem vanish! on turn 50, not retreat. They suddenly stop to exist.

As I said, you are the attacked, you win the battle, but do not manage to kill few enemy units. Ha, it gets even worse - your enemy routs, but does not manage to do it before turn 50 [say he has many crippled or low AP ones], so routing triggers for you and you have faster/flying ones, so you rout faster and you lose. Many battles get resolved on turns 30-45, but they need some edge to end properly [routing, killing last units, killing paralyzed units].

[Tifone]

Zeldor - saying that no matter how much you can stale, nobody will EVER arrive in time to take part in the middle of a battle, makes me ask so how armies intercept each others, or how they just MOVE from one territory to another (even 3, 4 provinces far if they are fast) in one month.

For the comment about your late game, well it is so realistic that it is self-explanatory to me. There were huge forces in your battle, balanced, none of them preponderant. Were they supposed to kill each other completely in one month if after 50 turns probably some unit didn't even come in contact to the enemy? probably not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif You and your enemies tried to win of course, not trying to stale, but still it takes too much time to huge armies to completely annihilate each other - in the game as in real war. The biggest clashes of the 100 years war weren't resolved in just one month, or it would have been called the A Couple Of Months War http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Zeldor]

You don't have real armies in Dominions. Biggest medieval battle had over 100k soldiers fighting. Here huge ary is 1k people http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

And you can win the battle, even big battle, before turn50. But as I said, slow routing, trying to kill remaining units etc etc change the result.

[Tifone]

I think a lot. That was exactly what I was saying, so maybe that is you who need to think better to what I said before going against me that way. Mindless commanders vanish - they are MINDLESS, they need some influence on them to make them work probably? So they don't escape or retreat, they just stop working and you can imagine people destroy ("dismantle") them. Same example, not "humiliating" myself.

And you're still trying to counter my simple logical examples with some examples of some dubious mechanics. So instead to have those mechanics (like the ones about the few, slow retreating units) resolved logically, you want to change the whole system to a less logical way to resolve them. This just doesn't make sense to me.

And my examples ARE funny http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Peace

[Edi]

Zeldor said:
Another thing is mindless commanders vanishing at turn50. That is not funny.


Has been explained in the bug discussion thread. It's WAD and it's going to stay that way. Just how many mindless commanders are there? The golem? With the golem it is, as per the bug discussion thread explanation, thematic. The soulless from Army of the Dead? Those two are the only ones I can think of.

If someone happened to use the Life After Death spell to get upkeep-free soulless mages and lost those to rout, it can also be interpreted as the magic keeping them around as soulless puppets unraveling due to being overstrained. Exceptions can't be coded for every specific instance, so people are just going to have to live with it.


Zeldor said:
Many battles just deserve to be resolved on battlefield, not by some virtual turn limit that forces whole army to spread into neighbouring provinces.


So let's say the turn limit is raised to 75/100, which is about the most realistic we could expect. Does this alter the situation at all? Not much, and there must still be a way to resolve a combat that does not stretch to infinity. The salient point is that every player is expected to bring enough resources to bear to actually finish things and if they don't, then it's too bad for them.

[Zeldor]

Edi:

I will have to talk with KO about that when I have a chance http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And yes, it means the Golem, the easiest alternative to Tartarians. The SC of choice for earth nations. I also think that gargoyle is mindless.

And yes, 25 turns more will change a lot. Probably resolve 75% problems with losing because enemy routed too fast etc.

[Tifone]

I still don't understand why should it be raised but if the devs think it's necessary I will of course adapt even if not understanding http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif Long life to pacific solutions - Peace at you Zeldor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif (I think KO reads our threads and makes his consideration by himself? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif but good luck with it, what else can I say)

[Sombre]

I think the arguments as to why it should be raised are fairly clear. I don't mind it that much but there are definitely pros and cons.

[Twan]

Tifone said:If you tell me that some spells and some situations bring this "turn limit rule" to a bug/exploit level, I can agree that it is unfair. But I think maybe those spells need an adjustement, like it is gonna happen for the MoD phantasms, not the whole turn limit system.



Try playing the Jotun with a E9N10 bless and use werewolves in shroud of battle saint + ring of regeneration (40% regen), with reinvig boots and MR amulet and buffed with luck and body ethearal of course.

These berserk unkillable werewolves make any battle against a big conventional army last 50+ rounds, in most situations they win in defense about as surely as a MoD spell (hum yes there are some % of chance to counter them with slaying spells or some lucky critical hits, K will probably post an example). But due to their berserking their superpower turn against them in attack were they are often autokilled in attack in round 75, if opponents are numerous enough.

A turn limit around round 100 would make more of these battles end by a real victory or defeat instead. A "conventionnal end" being the matter of some lucky critical hits or unlucky moral check finally rolled by the troops surrounding the werewolves, any turn added would reduce the chance of auto-victory/defeat.

[Tifone]

I don't want to sound an unrequested "adviser" or "i-am-the-smart-guy". But a (humble and just one of the possible ones) solution came maybe to my mind, so I'd like to expose it at the attention of you experts for any comment - stone me alive if you wish http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif .

Wouldn't it be nice if, regardless of the turn, when the whole enemy army has been routed (the "The armies of XXX has routed"), it has, let's say 5 or 10 more turns to retreat all the units, and then the ones remaining on the battlefield of the defeated side - the slow, fatigued ones, the mindless, the phantasm, the unretreating ones, the immobiles - disappear? They didn't make it, they were unable to rout or "out of autonomy", so the winning army and even the paesants of the nation killed/dismantled them?
Wouldn't it be logical and resolving all the problems you have with turn limit?

I feel in real discomfort suggesting things that might take too much time to the devs to implement, or changing the gameplay (that I really like).
But if you guys think at this issue as a problem, maybe this needs to be repaired someway, and imho this one could be a nice, logical solution which doesn't create endless battles (sorry, an hyperbole to talk about the 200! turns long battles someone talked about)

Peace, with humility your friend Tifone
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

[Zeldor]

Tifone:

The problems is that maybe it would be better, but we should make reasonable requests for devs. Increasing turn limit is easy. Changing mechanics take a lot of time and we can get many other things coded instead.

[Tifone]

Twan - I take your point. You sent your SC to slaugthering the enemies in a province, he is in the good position but the time ends. The month is finished and he didn't kill everybody. If this game was having a system in which a province can has an ingoing battle on, this should be this way. But this is not the case at all. So, should your werewolf be closed with the enemy army in an endless limbo where he can kill everybody in all the time he wants, and the enemy being unable to receive reinforcements for all 100 turns (which is the double of the current battle-time)? mmh. It doesn't seem the solution to me. neither mine is very valid in this situation, I admit, but neither the limbo one. So? We don't have a solution. Maybe someone else has one in mind?

[Tifone]

Zeldor,


Tifone said:
I feel in real discomfort suggesting things that might take too much time to the devs to implement, or changing the gameplay (that I really like).



quoting myself, what a pity ^_^
I'm one for asking reasonable things ONLY to the devs. But asking them to change the somehow realistic gameplay of all the battles, because now has its flaws in some situations you pointed out, in a imho LESS logic and realistic way, just seems weird.
I see I'm the minority, I am not playing the devil's advocate. I just defend the way the game works and suggesting that maybe a more logical solution is possible.

[Zeldor]

Tifone:

Really, 1 turn battle may be 15-60 minutes of real battle. Reinforccements argument doesn't work. And it's not about not killing some regenerating/berserk units, but not killing them fast enough before turn limit.

[vfb]

Tifone said:
... You sent your SC to slaugthering the enemies in a province, he is in the good position but the time ends. The month is finished and he didn't kill everybody. If this game was having a system in which a province can has an ingoing battle on, this should be this way. But this is not the case at all. So, should your werewolf be closed with the enemy army in an endless limbo where he can kill everybody in all the time he wants, and the enemy being unable to receive reinforcements for all 100 turns (which is the double of the current battle-time)? mmh. It doesn't seem the solution to me. neither mine is very valid in this situation, I admit, but neither the limbo one. So? We don't have a solution. Maybe someone else has one in mind?



One suggestion was for attacking armies to retreat to a random neighboring friendly province when the "battle timer" runs out, instead of just evaporating in a puff of bodily vapours. That's only for awake, mobile units in the attacking army, of course, and only helps if you have a province to retreat to. And it doesn't do much to help VoD.

[Tifone]

Oh, I didn't know you were a "real battles" electric stopwatcher Zeldor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Your argument is the one which doesn't work. Those are SAMPLES of battles. Real battles for what that matters aren't in turns, aren't often in full open field, aren't without difference in terrain, aren't without units taking cover... but surely real warfare IS involving the use of reinforcements coming from the back lines and the barracks of your nation, even by aircraft (and we /have/ fast air units here) to replace the dead and the wounded. If this must be eliminated by a strategic game, it loses some of the pure strategic part, you can't deny it, really.

Peace

[Tifone]

vfb, this one would be viable too, a minor flaw is how did a maybe surrounded unit to escape (there would be plenty of angry players too because their soldiers surrounded completely the enemy Pretender and he just vanishes and appears in a sure place some miles far, as they are now because /their/ Pretender disappeared). But this is a nice suggestion, maybe to improve a bit?

[NTJedi]

Tifone said:
To me this is just not a "computers' power" issue... It is a logical issue - that battles that last a long time aren't placed in a limbo out of the world, but it's normal that after a while both defenders and attackers have their reinforcements arrive, and need to reorganize.



It's illogical units and commanders are being auto-killed because of a game turn limit. It would be nice if defenders and attackers could reorganize unfortunately the game turn limit causes an auto-kill for the golems and other mindless SCs.

I just lost another golem who was auto-killed because of the game turn limit because the enemy could not flee the battlefield in time. Illogical and frustrating to not only lose the battle where I was declared the winner, but to also have my SC killed!





Tifone said:
For the battle's timing too, 50 seem a lot, and just right. I mean, after 3 turns waiting, the most of the troops need to attack or retreat. That's maybe one turn to reach the enemy and then 44 to bash each other. It doesn't seem so restrictive.



50 turns is very restrictive... take a look at these battle results because of the restrictive game turn limits.

Friendly Combatants
Commanders: 2, killed 1

Enemy Combatants
Commanders: 4, killed 1
Regular Units: 91, killed 53
Magic Beings: 1, killed 1
Undead Beings: 64, killed 48


Thus my two SCs barely killed over 100 before one was auto-killed. YES, barely over 100 enemy troops killed from two SCs. All remaining enemy troops were fleeing yet I lost the battle because of the game turn limit.


Tifone said:
I just would like someone to tell me what can an upper turn limit add to the game experience - actually, I see no advantage. While the things as they are have the advantage are:

-low-systems friendly for no long waits
-logical for the needs of the armies to reorganize
-a balance issue as the troops you have in the proximities of the battle (near provinces) should be able to join the fight after some time.

Really, why do you ask for an upper turn limit?



-utilizing high-systems means being able to play larger maps with larger battles on a more realistic level. It's unrealistic for battle turns to end so early considering each game turn is several months!
-each game turn is several months, yet the current battle turn limit is less than one day when examining battlefield actions.
-Your third statement would make sense if each game turn was a few days instead of a few months! You haven't played the game long enough to understand the needs.

* Now the needs for the increased game turn limits:
Allows for larger battles where the attacker isn't pressured to battle against an unrealistic clock which forces retreat.
Helps prevent SCs from being auto-killed when victory was so close.
Provides a game which can better utilize the computers of today and tomorrow which won't recognize any delay from increasing the game turn limits.


Tifone said:
Even an adjustable issue - I dunno. Wouldn't that create a lot of confusion for the MP games? I mean, having battles ending at 50 turns or at 200 goes for a ground-breaking change in gameplay. Deciding a turn limit for every MP game, while many adjusts it in SP the way they like, could end up being uncomfortable for people used to different battle tactics.

I don't wanna do destructive criticism for that. I would like someone explaining me the point, if there is any. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif Peace



You're too new(green) playing Dominions_3 to have identified the importance of increasing the game turn limit so I'll try and explain the points. The main reason is forcing an auto-retreat and auto-kill after 50_turns is unrealistic where each game turn is several months. Second SCs are being killed by not enemy units or spells but because of a game turn limitation which is illogical and painfully wrong. Third it prevents gamers from attacking some large armies knowing they will be also fighting a game battlefield clock which is not even close for matching the several months of each game turn.

Ideally a battlefield turn limit should be adjustable.

[atul]

This talk about increasing turn limit by some fraction reminds me of Murphy's Law. Anyone know why the lost thing is always in the last place you look into? Because you stop looking afterwards. Why some stuff appears to always happen in conjunction with something else totally unrelated? Because you only make the mental note when the conjunction happens, not when it doesn't.

My point being, if the limit would be set to 75/100 it wouldn't do much. Soon people would complain it's too little since they always remember the instances when there was only two crippled guys fleeing too slowly, or something. Seriously, if berserking thugs without a fear aura or area effect weapons kill chaff for 75 rounds, they've caused huge amounts of damage. Maybe they just drop dead from exhaustion after that, but surely they've done a lot. Killing opponent's thugs by flooding them under your own dead corpses is costly and really last-ditch effort, not something easily and cheaply done (like those blessed giants with minimal gear).

With Golems, well, their mindlessness status makes them immune to so many conventional Bad Stuff, that they might get some malus.

Anyway, my opinion in a nutshell: let the little guys accomplish also something. But people can and will disagree, it's probably just a matter of opinion.

EDIT: Oops didn't notice a new page of posts. Meza green! Anyway, given the examples, it would seem to me that there is a huge focus on defences in those thugs. Shouldn't they try to put some into, you people know, offence too? Shouldn't be a surprise they can't take big armies by themselves, they're just holding back.

[NTJedi]

atul said:
But people can and will disagree, it's probably just a matter of opinion.



That's why the battlefield turn limit should be an adjustable game setting set at the start of the game.

THUS EVERYONE IS HAPPY.


Another painful point is the auto-kill which should be changed to an auto-retreat.
The game shouldn't be auto-killing mages, commanders and SCs just because of a battlefield turn limitation.

[Sombre]

Each game turn is several months? What makes you say that? I don't think we have any information at all on how long the game turns that isn't related to seasons, do we?

[NTJedi]

Sombre said:
Each game turn is several months? What makes you say that? I don't think we have any information at all on how long the game turns that isn't related to seasons, do we?



After all 4 seasons have finished one year passes. Each season is has three game turns... roughly 1.33 months for every game turn.

[Tifone]

NTJedi,

I don't have much time now 'cuz I gotta go. I hope you will excuse this green player if he doesn't have the time to quote and comment your points one by one.

I'd just like to say that your points, about sending 1 or 2 SCs against hundreds and not being able to kill more than 100 units in one turn, possibly means that you sent a too little force, with not enough killing potential in 50 turns, against a too big army for the given amount of time for a battle, and not that the gameplay mechanic is broken. In poker I wouldn't say that a two pair doesn't beat the three of a kind because the hand of 5 cards is restrictive. I just didn't have enough "power" to beat the opponent's hand. This one is a very limited example, but just a thought about the complaining about the "restrictive mechanics" and not that maybe you got used to send not enough SCs, or not strong enough, into the battle, and not that the battle is broken.

2nd, your examples about mindless units have been discussed a bit yet by me and atul, and vfb actually talked about a possible solution for them that don't require to change the whole battle timing mechanic.

3rd, isn't a year 12 turns? 4 seasons x 3 turns each... 12 turns... no? And in this time the army does the preparatives, reaches the enemy province, reaches the enemy army, possibly after an honorful "date" of the battle a couple of days after comes the (sample of) battle, and has the time to retreat back to another province. Seems to take whole weeks to do everything. And I don't think the *sample* of a battle can tell you how much time does it take. Does Check, as a well-known *sample* of a battle, tell you that a battle took one day?

[Xietor]

I favor the changes. If there is an army of mages spamming skellies, then use different spells to targets the mages.

Or have an sc cast the spells you want to cast so he does not need to flee from skelly spam.

There are many options to using tactics that are already banned in many current mp games.

[NTJedi]

My math is off, since I didn't sleep last night.


My little force of 2 SCs fought less than 200 units... and since each game turn is a month it's more than enough time to kill 200 units. The worst part was the enemy was routed and fleeing, my remaining SC wasn't even wounded chasing down the routing enemy... yet auto-killed because of a game turn I lost. This result is illogical and wrong.

Dominions_3 cannot be compared to poker... both are extremely different on multiple levels.

[NTJedi]

Tifone said:


3rd, in this time the army does the preparatives, reaches the enemy province, reaches the enemy army, possibly after an honorful "date" of the battle a couple of days after comes the (sample of) battle, and has the time to retreat back to another province. Seems to take whole weeks to do everything. And I don't think the *sample* of a battle can tell you how much time does it take. Does Check, as a well-known *sample* of a battle, tell you that a battle took one day?



The firing of arrows is one method of identifying the timeframe of a battle, the fatigued generated by soldiers wearing armor on the battlefield is another method, look and you'll find more.

Even KO could not justify an explanation for the auto-killing of units on the battlefield after the battlefield turn limit expires. Simply it was the decision so the battles don't last forever. I estimate the auto-retreat would have been implemented by now, however it's probably too late for the programming code.

[Sombre]

NTJedi said:

Sombre said:
Each game turn is several months? What makes you say that? I don't think we have any information at all on how long the game turns that isn't related to seasons, do we?



After all 4 seasons have finished one year passes. Each season is has three game turns... roughly 1.33 months for every game turn.



1. Why do you think they have a 16 month year?

2. How does 1.3 = several even if they do?

Edit: Seems I was lagging behind a bit here and you've already said your math was off. Question 2 still applies. I feel like you're trying to strengthen the impact of statements in support of your argument. But saying a turn is 'several months' when you thought it was 1.3 goes beyond the usual hyperbole.

[NTJedi]

Sombre said:
1. Why do you think they have a 16 month year?

2. How does 1.3 = several even if they do?



Discussed in previous post... it's actually 1 month per turn as pointed out by Tifone.

Night without sleep. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif Thus I shouldn't have used the word 'several'. Again... last night I had no sleep.

-----

A game turn is one month... still a huge difference verses 50 turns on a battlefield. Literally the attacker(and sometimes the defender) are sometimes fighting against a game clock during large battles because of the 50 turn limit. Increasing the game turn limit helps remove this unrealistic variable for battlefield strategies.

[Xietor]

without a new game engine, i imagine increasing the length of battles may make the delay between turns unbearable in large games.

But that is just a guess.

[NTJedi]

Xietor said:
without a new game engine, i imagine increasing the length of battles may make the delay between turns unbearable in large games.

But that is just a guess.



Depends on the computer, which is why an adjustable battlefield turn setting would work best.

[Tifone]

NTJedi,

You are obviously a much more expert player than me (really, no sarcasm, it's true) so I hope you don't mind if I say you one things about a couple of your words.


NTJedi said:
My little force of 2 SCs fought less than 200 units... and since each game turn is a month it's more than enough time to kill 200 units.



Obviously NOT, for this game's chosemn mechanics there is NOT plenty of time in one month (or better, in just the time that the movements of one month leave to the battle) to kill 200 units if your SCs (one of which died) weren't able to do so.


NTJedi said:
The worst part was the enemy was routed and fleeing, my remaining SC wasn't even wounded chasing down the routing enemy... yet auto-killed because of a game turn I lost. This result is illogical and wrong.



This is a different issue we should discuss imho in a different way than the "long battle limbo" idea. I exposed the idea of routing, defeated enemies just dying regardless of the turn if they aren't able to leave the battlefield in a given time, 5 or 10 turns. Another option -while not maybe completely realistic in some other situations, for sorrounded units in fact unable to retreat and even because you won those fight anyway - was to let your SCs retreat in another province instead of disappearing. Suggestions quite more logic than changing the gameplay of all the battles negating the possibilities of reinforcements, and huge battles lasting /more/ than just a month.

P.S. Really - this game has a very nice, interested, respectful community. So it just strikes me that people complain the game mechanics of battle because they don't find appropriate that a mindless SC, instead of retreating like the "minded" ones, just stops working after one month of fighting if he wasn't strong enough to win. Isn't sending *more* or *stronger* SCs more appropriate and tactical and "pro", instead of asking that he is given the "limbo" advantage? ^_^ The other, surely important, issues (berserkers, slow retreating units) can't be possibly treated another better way?

[WraithLord]

I second NT Jedi and concur with his reasoning.
I suggest a humble increase of the turn limit to 100, and optionally (hopefully also) make it adjustable.

[Gandalf Parker]

Keep in mind when you talk about increasing things that you are talking globally. You arent talking about increasing the number of units and turns in a battle. You are talking about increasing the number of units and turns in 1500 battles.

Actually I guess its even more than the # of Provinces limit since you can have 2 or 3 battles in some provinces.

[llamabeast]

Only a small proportion of battles last 50 turns, so only a small proportion would be affected. Also, the majority of the processing time is often spent on the early turns of a battle, when there are more units alive and more mages awake.

So I would suggest that the effect on the processing time of a turn would not be that large.

Personally, I would be very much in favour of including an option for the battle turn limit. I can't see any disadvantages, and I expect that the majority of multiplayer hosts would choose a higher limit than the current 50 turns.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im not sure how such things are handled in the code but if any part of it involves having to have an array large enough to handle the maxs then it would have overflowing impacts. We didnt realize all the different maxs that had to be increasd when we increased the number of provinces. It took a long time to find all the crashes that could generate.

But in general I also wouldnt mind a setting for it.

[Baalz]

Meh, this is such a non-issue.

Mindless units and leaders have a weakness that they can't retreat, so you need to deploy them with that in mind and avoid armies that they can't damage fast enough. I'm ok with that, that's a strategic decision when deploying golems. I'll also get screwed if a non-fire resistant SC stumbles upon a bunch of summer lions. It's just a weakness to keep in mind.

50 turns is plenty for most battles. One of the considerations for SC builds *should* be outputting enough damage, not just regenerating fast enough. If you're using a frost brand and your opponent spams you with undead - well you just got outmaneuvered.

I think it's kind of silly to complain that the turn limit isn't realistically modeling warfare. Come on guys, we're playing a game. Flying units teleport around the battlefield and can be attacked by melee, you die if you run away from an assassin, and its impossible to command your mages *not* to cast a specific spell. You plan your strategies around the boundaries of the game, it seems rather silly to carry on at length about reinforcements and how long the fights last. This is a turn based game, combat lasts 50 turns. Plan your strategies accordingly.

[Tifone]

It takes me ages to explain my thoughts about things. Then Baalz comes and is able to say almost everything I think better and faster than me. Life is so unjust http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Rathar]

Baalz, that was perfectly put imho. Play within the parameters set before you not play with the parameters.

Although I would bump the turn limit up by a touch as the current limit is left over from previous editions of dominions and average army size has changed a bit for the greater.

[NTJedi]

Tifone said:

NTJedi said:
My little force of 2 SCs fought less than 200 units... and since each game turn is a month it's more than enough time to kill 200 units.



Obviously NOT, for this game's chosemn mechanics there is NOT plenty of time in one month (or better, in just the time that the movements of one month leave to the battle) to kill 200 units if your SCs (one of which died) weren't able to do so.


Yes, and hence lies the illogical problem which needs to be fixed.


NTJedi said:
The worst part was the enemy was routed and fleeing, my remaining SC wasn't even wounded chasing down the routing enemy... yet auto-killed because of a game turn I lost. This result is illogical and wrong.



This is a different issue we should discuss imho in a different way than the "long battle limbo" idea. I exposed the idea of routing, defeated enemies just dying regardless of the turn if they aren't able to leave the battlefield in a given time, 5 or 10 turns. Another option -while not maybe completely realistic in some other situations, for sorrounded units in fact unable to retreat and even because you won those fight anyway - was to let your SCs retreat in another province instead of disappearing. Suggestions quite more logic than changing the gameplay of all the battles negating the possibilities of reinforcements, and huge battles lasting /more/ than just a month.



[/quote]
I've been asking Illwinter for awhile to provide the auto-retreat instead of the auto-killing. Increasing the battle turns was another related issue. I would hope one of these issues is addressed within a future patch so those playing SP games and MP games can less battles where the fight is against a battlefield turn clock.

I do both MP and SP games, within my current SP game I have an enemy army of 450 troops sieging and important castle which they will storm if I don't stop them. Due to its location I only have the option to teleport 3 SCs and 1 mage(Hero- Delgnat) to try and stop them, yet here my biggest threat is the battlefield turn clock which will kill my last three golems if I fail. It's illogical for the greatest threat facing my SC golems is a game mechanic.


Tifone said:
P.S. Really - this game has a very nice, interested, respectful community. So it just strikes me that people complain the game mechanics of battle because they don't find appropriate that a mindless SC, instead of retreating like the "minded" ones, just stops working after one month of fighting if he wasn't strong enough to win.


2 SCs with a time of one month logically should be able to kill more than a 100 units during battle. Increasing the battlefield turn limit is one option for reducing this issue. If the province cannot be conquered then either they should follow instructions of the pretender who controls them and walk back to a neighboring province OR remain in limbo above the province to attack again the next turn. Nothing justifies instant death for multiple types of mindless SCs. I've even lost non-mindless SCs to a later battlefield turn limit which also kills.



Tifone said:
Isn't sending *more* or *stronger* SCs more appropriate and tactical and "pro", instead of asking that he is given the "limbo" advantage? ^_^ The other, surely important, issues (berserkers, slow retreating units) can't be possibly treated another better way?


Sending more SCs isn't always an available option... and SCs and armies should not be auto-killed from a game mechanic which cannot be explained if the game is later written as a story such as the AAR(after_action_reports).

Any improvement would be appreciated. Ideally an adjustable battlefield turn setting would provide the best long term satisfaction. Secondly the changing of auto-killing into auto-retreating would remove the injustice of wrongful deaths and is more logical as well.

[Micah]

In response to Baalz:

Improperly constructed and supported armies have a weakness in that they can't deal with SCs, so you need to deploy them with that in mind and avoid situations where they are a tempting enough target to use an SC on. I'm OK with that, that's a strategic decision when deploying armies. They'll also get screwed if a non-fire resistant army stumbles upon a bunch of abysians casting Fire Storm. It's just a weakness to keep in mind.

The current SC counters are plenty for most battles. One consideration for army builds *should* be dealing with SCs, not just having enough troops to absorbs 50 turns of losses. If you're using spearmen and your opponent hits you with a high-prot SC - well, you just got outmaneuvered.

You plan your strategies around the boundaries of the game, it seems rather silly to carry on at length about what has been a hallmark of the game since the days of its predecessor (the utility of SCs, which I understand has been toned down quite a bit, in fact.) This is a game that makes extensive use of SCs. There are a variety of counters to them. Plan your strategies accordingly.

[NTJedi]

Baalz said:
Meh, this is such a non-issue.

Mindless units and leaders have a weakness that they can't retreat, so you need to deploy them with that in mind and avoid armies that they can't damage fast enough. I'm ok with that, that's a strategic decision when deploying golems.


Not retreating is fine, yet nothing justifies or explains the instant death of these units and commanders on the battlefield. As mentioned earlier a limbo state should occur which already exists as seen when using map edit commands and placing three nations within one province.


Baalz said:
50 turns is plenty for most battles. One of the considerations for SC builds *should* be outputting enough damage, not just regenerating fast enough. If you're using a frost brand and your opponent spams you with undead - well you just got outmaneuvered.



True and since a draw occurs between both sides either the attacker should be moved into a nearby friendly province or left in limbo on top of the province to attack again next turn.
Nothing justifies or explains the instant death which occurs.


Baalz said:
I think it's kind of silly to complain that the turn limit isn't realistically modeling warfare. Come on guys, we're playing a game. Flying units teleport around the battlefield and can be attacked by melee, you die if you run away from an assassin, and its impossible to command your mages *not* to cast a specific spell.



Flying units appear to teleport because the game doesn't provide a vertical map movement, dying from an assassin by retreating is another illogical flaw discussed on the forums which conflicts with historical assassinations, and mages *not* casting a specific spell is a game limitation which should be improved possibly within Dom_4 since it's too late for the current game engine and it's been requested by many gamers.
Just because the game has illogical flaws doesn't mean they cannot be improved as seen with the current game settings verses game settings from DOM_2.


Baalz said:
You plan your strategies around the boundaries of the game, it seems rather silly to carry on at length about reinforcements and how long the fights last. This is a turn based game, combat lasts 50 turns. Plan your strategies accordingly.


It's more with creating a more logical fantasy environment. The battlefield turn limits cause illogical and unjust retreats plus some unjust deaths. Allowing the game to evolve into a better and more realistic fantasy realm is a good thing.

[Wrana]

Unjust deaths of mindless automatons which could kill many mortals but have a finite time of activity? Come on! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif That's among the most easily explained and logical things - if they don't have weakness in morale, they should have something else instead of it! Actually, I know a tabletop wargame which uses similar mechanism and it's quite popular.
And if Golems wouldn't have this weakness, they should be much more costly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Micah]

Somehow I don't see a colossal fetish attacking into +10 dominion running out of juice on turn 50 of a battle and evaporating...

[esd29a]

In an ideal world a battle that times out would result in a pseudo-seige with both armies present in province, neither side getting income or recruiting there, PD gone, each army having access to ~50% of supplies and the battle restarting on next turn. The exact units taking part in battle would depend on its place in turn order - armies present and not ordered to move away would be considered as making a distance 0 move towards the enemy, but there could be a chance for a fast army/summon reinforcing one/both side(s).
Speaking of which: what happens when a farsummon ritual is cast during a fort seige? Do the new units attack or seige? What if the walls are broken and/or the army present is set to storm fort?

[NTJedi]

Wrana said:
Unjust deaths of mindless automatons which could kill many mortals but have a finite time of activity? Come on! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif That's among the most easily explained and logical things - if they don't have weakness in morale, they should have something else instead of it!



These mindless automatons can survive over one thousand game turn years why the heck do you think battlefield turns would cause them to vanish from existence?
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Based on their current age and old age the golem should easily survive for many many future battles.


Wrana said:
Actually, I know a tabletop wargame which uses similar mechanism and it's quite popular.
And if Golems wouldn't have this weakness, they should be much more costly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif


It's not just golems which are killed. The automatic killing is illogical and unjustified considering golems and other mindless survive over a thousand game years.

[Tifone]

I exit that discussion. It's like trying to explain why a soccer match must be won within 90 minutes. Like Baalz said, this is the rule of the game, play keeping it in mind. No, let's change it! As the shoes are becoming better, players can run for 180 minutes, this will keep the game alive for years, not its flavour. If your team doesn't have anybody in attack, but everybody in defence, the match should not finish until you have done all the goals you need to win.

You can't lose a mindless SC because of the turn limit. You can even let him with just a 1dmg attack only, firepower is a useless addition. Just keep him with high regen and defense, he must fight for possibly 200 turns in just one month, if nobody is able to kill him he should never stop working - even if being mindless gives him only the disadvantage of being unable to route and plenty of advantages.

Next thing to change: the Rituals. That's "illogic" a mage casting one ritual in one month, not a rule of the game, that's a "boundary"! You can't plan your strategy around this, this has to be changed. Mages should cast as many ritual as the PC, becoming always more powerful, lets you do before imploding.

Sorry, I just became tired of this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif It just doesn't seem me this big problem, but for many is so, and still can't understand why, it makes perfect logic into the game mechanics.

[llamabeast]

I think there is a big skill to just withdrawing from discussions once they become tiresome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The way of the internet is that you will rarely persuade anyone to change their mind, so sooner or later you just have to agree to differ.

Personally, I think it would be good if the turn limit was 75 or 100 turns. I guess we'll see what takes the devs' fancy.

[NTJedi]

Tifone said:
I exit that discussion. It's like trying to explain why a soccer match must be won within 90 minutes. Like Baalz said, this is the rule of the game, play keeping it in mind.



Game Rules is one thing as these are clearly defined within a manual and when reviewed will logically make sense.
As mentioned earlier these are not 'game rules' these are game limitations causing painful and unjust results. These current game limitations exist to prevent battles from going on forever, however these limitations should be improved to provide a more realistic fantasy and more justified battle results.


Tifone said:
No, let's change it! As the shoes are becoming better, players can run for 180 minutes, this will keep the game alive for years, not its flavour. If your team doesn't have anybody in attack, but everybody in defence, the match should not finish until you have done all the goals you need to win.


You are comparing game rules with game limitations... these are completely seperate. Even KO explained the 50_turn battlefield limitation is to prevent turn processing from lasting forever. A game rule of 50_battlefield turns would be if the game manual spoke of some all powerful third entity(God_of_War?) which destroyed all things on a battlefield beyond 50 turns.


Tifone said:
You can't lose a mindless SC because of the turn limit. You can even let him with just a 1dmg attack only, firepower is a useless addition. Just keep him with high regen and defense, he must fight for possibly 200 turns in just one month, if nobody is able to kill him he should never stop working - even if being mindless gives him only the disadvantage of being unable to route and plenty of advantages.



Golems already survive over one thousand game years... there's no logical reason which justifies a game mechanic killing them when more realistic game mechanics can exist.
To better understand this scenario... let's say(hypothetically) mages could only cast 5 spells during battles because the game engine couldn't handle any more spells. This wouldn't be a game rule... this would be another unrealistic game limitation. Luckily this is not the case.


Tifone said:
Next thing to change: the Rituals. That's "illogic" a mage casting one ritual in one month, not a rule of the game, that's a "boundary"! Mages should cast as many ritual as the pc, becoming always more powerful, lets you do before imploding.



A casting ritual can realistically take a month since many variables go into casting a ritual. A more complex game would allow different time variables for rituals where one ritual may take 12 game turns yet another ritual might be able to be casted 12 times within 1 game turn. This would be more suitable for let's say DOM_5.


Tifone said:
Sorry, I just became tired of this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif It just doesn't seem me this big problem, but for many is so, and still can't understand why, it makes perfect logic into the game mechanics.


It's not a big problem, but it's a very painful problem when it does occur since the result is unjust and illogical. I hope Illwinter has a chance to improve upon this game limitation.

[Tifone]

llamabeast said:
I think there is a big skill to just withdrawing from discussions once they become tiresome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

The way of the internet is that you will rarely persuade anyone to change their mind, so sooner or later you just have to agree to differ.




I know, but hey, that is you the one convincing people that several means about 7 and many about 12, llama http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[NTJedi]

An optional battlefield turn game setting would be the most pleasing for everyone.

[Tifone]

You're just too lazy to make a better strategic decision in placing golems... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif ok, ok, I'm joking I swear http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Peace NTJedi. Everybody has his own ideas. Let's just wait and see what the devs prefer. Can we just go on now? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

[WraithLord]

Baalz said:
Meh, this is such a non-issue.

Mindless units and leaders have a weakness that they can't retreat, so you need to deploy them with that in mind and avoid armies that they can't damage fast enough. I'm ok with that, that's a strategic decision when deploying golems. I'll also get screwed if a non-fire resistant SC stumbles upon a bunch of summer lions. It's just a weakness to keep in mind.

50 turns is plenty for most battles. One of the considerations for SC builds *should* be outputting enough damage, not just regenerating fast enough. If you're using a frost brand and your opponent spams you with undead - well you just got outmaneuvered.

I think it's kind of silly to complain that the turn limit isn't realistically modeling warfare. Come on guys, we're playing a game. Flying units teleport around the battlefield and can be attacked by melee, you die if you run away from an assassin, and its impossible to command your mages *not* to cast a specific spell. You plan your strategies around the boundaries of the game, it seems rather silly to carry on at length about reinforcements and how long the fights last. This is a turn based game, combat lasts 50 turns. Plan your strategies accordingly.



I don't agree its a non-issue, I don't think its a big issue but I would like to see the turn limit raised a bit. Frankly I don't understand the adamant objection, why would someone object to having this as a setting. If you don't like it, set it to 50 and be done with it and allow the players that like to raise it to do so.

I do agree with all the rest but I find the reasoning incomplete. Yes, I also find it silly to look for realism as justification for wanting a change to rules esp. going to nitpicks such as analyzing how many minutes are represented by a battle turn. And yes, I also agree that a player should accept and adjust to the game rules. However, and this is where I think the reasoning to be incomplete, players are entitled to have their own minds on what rules they like and what not. And also, game rules can and do change according to what the audience likes (see NBA for example).

So it all boils down to what players like. I personally would like to see the turn limit raised to 100 (as default) and hopefully be made adjustable (so that anyone who is particularly fond of the 50 turn limit can set it).

IW are probably reading this thread. No comment from them could mean they're not decided which probably means this is not going to happen. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of players find the turn limit annoying and limiting for the rare epic army vs. army battles and the SC vs huge armies battles.

[Zeldor]

KO will surely read that threat, he cannot miss something with that name. The other thing is if he will dig through 6 pages of discussion.

And the most important thing that will decide if it gets changed is how hard it will be. If it's just a simple thing then we have big chances of getting it. If it's complicated we can add it to Dom4 wishlist.

[Gandalf Parker]

Well if it did get imcreased I would DEFINETLY want it adjustable. The hosting times are long enough for me now. Those of you playing on maps of a couple of hundred provinces and 4-8 players could live with an enforced increase much better than I can with 1500 provinces and 20+ nations. Keep in mind that even the independents have combats.

[thejeff]

I still suspect that very few of the AI's battles would run past 50 turns anyway. Maybe some of the very largest armies.
Even with large forces, you only tend to get the really long battles when both sides are buffed to the point of not being able to hurt each other easily, or when you've got SCs that are invulnerable to what the other side is dishing out, but can't kill fast enough. And the AI is not very good at either combining battlefield buffs or building SCs.

[WraithLord]

Yes, but how many battles last more than 30 turns anyway, or 40 or 50?

I can speculate that the frequency of such battles is (probably close to an inverse right hand side of a parabola) going down towards 0 as number of turns increase. I'm not sure the change will have a big impact on turn processing time.

[Kristoffer O]

Did read six pages.

Bored.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[johan osterman]

He is the chairman of the bored.

[Sombre]

After 6 pages he's forced to retreat. If he's immobilised he will vanish after the 8th page.

[johan osterman]

Are you implying my brother is mindless?

[Endoperez]

johan osterman said:
Are you implying my brother is mindless?



I laughed! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

You win, sir, you win!

[johan osterman]

I usually do, I am a supercombatant of the internet, you are the pitiful mewling hordes that mill around me.

[Sombre]

No, no JO. If he was mindless he'd vanish on page 6.

I know it's ridiculous isn't it? UNJUST even.

[johan osterman]

I'll use my moderator powers to delete his later posts, and then your pitiful quibbles will come to shame.

[Jazzepi]

<insert joke about sleep vines here>

Jazzepi

[JimMorrison]

NTJedi said:
I do both MP and SP games, within my current SP game I have an enemy army of 450 troops sieging and important castle which they will storm if I don't stop them. Due to its location I only have the option to teleport 3 SCs and 1 mage(Hero- Delgnat) to try and stop them, yet here my biggest threat is the battlefield turn clock which will kill my last three golems if I fail. It's illogical for the greatest threat facing my SC golems is a game mechanic.



Ummm, to clarify, the most dangerous thing facing your SC golems which exist only within the framework of this game, will always be a game mechanic.

I think the illogical part, is this sort of unstated assumption that there should be no reason that the -only- (read: single, no other options) thing you have available to break this siege, must be sufficient. Yes it's just the AI and all, but if your SCs are not built in a way that can handle an army of 450 under pre-existing and well understood game mechanics, why would you send them in there and then complain?

You routed KO, you should be able to route 450 AI chaff. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Tifone]

uhuh Jim ^_^

[NTJedi]

JimMorrison said:
I think the illogical part, is this sort of unstated assumption that there should be no reason that the -only- (read: single, no other options) thing you have available to break this siege, must be sufficient.



They are sufficient for breaking the siege, however they are not sufficient to break the siege within the fixed 50 turn time limit. So it has nothing to do with whether they are strong enough, it's do they have enough time before being auto-killed?


JimMorrison said:
Yes it's just the AI and all, but if your SCs are not built in a way that can handle an army of 450 under pre-existing and well understood game mechanics, why would you send them in there and then complain?


It's because they are being killed by an unrealistic source unrelated to anything from my enemies on the battlefield.



JimMorrison said:
You routed KO, you should be able to route 450 AI chaff. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Yes, I could route 450 AI chaff... if I just had enough time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Several options for improvement exist... I know Illwinter is busy, so any improvement would be nice.

[HoneyBadger]

I'd like to vote yes to adjustable combat turn limits as a selectable feature at the start of the game, since it's a huge factor in how games play out, and makes Kristoffer bored-should imo go from 50-300, just like supply, resource, gold, etc.

[Chris_Byler]

Extending the turn limit without anything more will just prolong the problem (literally). However, this gives me an idea:

A game rule of 50_battlefield turns would be if the game manual spoke of some all powerful third entity(God_of_War?) which destroyed all things on a battlefield beyond 50 turns.


What if something nasty *did* start showing up after 50 turns? Like horrors attracted by the carnage (actually, if the battle is still going after 50 turns it's probably a *lack* of carnage that is the problem, but whatever). Regular (greater) horrors show up at turn 50, 55, 60, 65, and 70. Doom horrors at 75, 80, 85, 90, and 95. Current auto-retreating behavior starts at turn 100, if anything is still alive at that point.

Horrors autospawned by long battles would clean up the mess of paralyzed and crippled units unable to retreat in time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif They might also allow your golem to be killed by something less frustrating than a game mechanic (actually, it's still a game mechanic, but a less arbitrary seeming one).


Mindless commanders, even with 0 leadership, have always seemed like a bug to me. If they can't decide on a course of action for themselves, and they aren't given orders by a commander, how do they take any action at all? Even a dog has some mind, otherwise it wouldn't know whom to bite. Or even how. An entity with no mind at all couldn't even swing a sword, let alone swing it with a skill that made it possible to hit an opponent defending itself intentionally (i.e. with a mind and responding to conditions around it).

I'd remove mindless from the golem and fetish and give them 30 morale instead. Maybe some kind of "strange mind" ability that makes them immune to many ordinary forms of mind altering (certain other beings might qualify too, such as some void monsters).

[elbnar]

I still want my tactical combat mode!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif Like in Master of Magic!

If only as a side minigame.

[Taqwus]

Meh. If you wanted the limit changed, it should probably be changed to have a different mechanic and not just an arbitrary higher number -- like allowing the battle to continue some N turns, and after that threshold allowing it to continue as long as at least one side has a monotonically declining moving average of total hit points.

[JimMorrison]

Chris_Byler said:
I'd remove mindless from the golem and fetish and give them 30 morale instead. Maybe some kind of "strange mind" ability that makes them immune to many ordinary forms of mind altering (certain other beings might qualify too, such as some void monsters).



Oh that's good! At least with the Berserk units, we can just assume that they finally exhaust themselves completely and die of heart attack.


But really, otherwise all the issue requires is use of imagination. I know, I know, my roommate hates that too, if he imagines something should work (that's usually the direction his imagination goes..... imagine that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif), then if it doesn't work, he gets -pissed-, and refuses to listen to any of my "oh damn that sucks man, what are you going to do differently next time?" sort of encouragement. In his mind since a computer only does what you tell it to do (technically), that the software/game not doing what HE wants it to do tends to have some sort of horrible reflection on the programmers, as the obviously totally infallible and omniscient beings that they must be, if they can manage to successfully write such a complex program. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

WHEW! Though I think a big part of why he gets so mad, is that while I devour the game, and incorporate all of the little quirks into my gameplay - he tries to dominate the game, and rails against those quirks like tartarian chains, holding him down. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif And thus he is enraged by construing my comments as saying "it's mostly a personal problem". Which, maybe it is..... maybe it is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Though I'd personally agree completely on two points. The first being that the 50 turn limit may in fact be a tad restrictive. Not just taking into account SCs, but if you look at armies of 1000+ on each side. At this point even "normal" elite soldiers who have berserking (or were made berserk with spells) will be left behind to die. And also the processing factor - for the most part battles do not make it to 50 turns, so it doesn't even matter how large your map is, or how many battles are fought, few of them ever cross that limit as it is. Besides, the vast majority of battles drastically speed up processing after turn 10-20, it's very rare that I see one not just zoom to the end at that point.

However I'll agree on a third, contrasting point - since people cannot agree on the validity or necessity of a change, it's incredibly unlikely that there will be a hardcoded change to the turn limit - almost as unlikely that we'd actually get a custom setting added for it at this point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

<3

[chrispedersen]

I vote against increasing the turn limits. I *hate* SC's.
While we're ranting:

A. I really wish strategic spells did more. Hurricanes <ho hum>. Rain of Toads - big deal. Frankly its a design flaw when accidents of nature <random events> are FAR worse than most spells.

Proof: Whens the last time you heard of someone winning by casting economic spells?

B. Same argument, different verse.
Fires from afar = ridiculous waste of gems, most of the time.

Proof: Various wants and scepters will allow you to destroy turn in and turn out MUCH more than any fires from afar ever will.

The game would be *much* more interesting if there were more spells that could be used on a strategic basis. Call of the wild, call of the winds, are marginally useful.

How about things like: Bad weather delays attack (winter spell that prevents movement into or out of a province).
Ice Storm - makes one sea hex passable due to an ice bridge.

Dysentery: Spell that afflics 22+ units with dysentery. It reduces map move by 1.

New Action by bards: Investigate rumors. Each turn there is a cumulative chance of uncovering a hero.

[Lingchih]

I'm getting tired head on this post.

For the record, I would remove the turn limit completely. We all have modern computers. Let them fight it out till the end.

[Zeldor]

Chris_Byler:

Mindless tag is really good thing for many situations. Especially great against nature nations [charm]. The only stupid thing is that it vanishes without any reason at tutn50.

[NTJedi]

chrispedersen said:
I *hate* SC's.




SC's have existed throughout fantasy history... everything from the ancient story of Beowulf to Superman to even Lords of the Ring !! If the SCs are removed from these stories, there's not much remaining. If you prefer games without SC's you'd have to lean towards games which are purely military historical with not even a tiny spice of fantasy... yet these games still have thug types.

[NTJedi]

JimMorrison said:
However I'll agree on a third, contrasting point - since people cannot agree on the validity or necessity of a change, it's incredibly unlikely that there will be a hardcoded change to the turn limit - almost as unlikely that we'd actually get a custom setting added for it at this point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

<3



Yes there are differences of opinion, but the custom setting would please everyone. The custom setting allows the game to become flexible with the more powerful computers of today and tomorrow. I'd love to have a battle of 80000 defenders verses 90000 attackers at a castle sometime on a computer I'll own in the future.

A custom setting for the commander limit and unit limit would be another great feature thus virtually removing these topics from the forums.

[Tifone]

NTJedi said:
I'd love to have a battle of 80000 defenders verses 90000 attackers at a castle sometime on a computer I'll own in the future.




This discussion continues to shock me. You don't just want the huge battle, you want that a huge battle featuring thousands of unit... ends in a plain little month. Really, how does that improve the game? This is the unrealistic matter to me. Meh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[NTJedi]

Tifone said:
This discussion continues to shock me. You don't just want the huge battle, you want that a huge battle featuring thousands of unit... ends in a plain little month. Really, how does that improve the game? This is the unrealistic matter to me. Meh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif



Thousands of units(people) have fought and died within a few days throughout our history. Nothing unrealistic about the battles from history! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif There's no reason for battles within a game to be limited to small numbers considering the many battles from history where the computers of today and tomorrow are able to make it possible.

[atul]

Considering realism, one of the hardest to believe things in this game, apart from magic, is the fact that a single being could conquer and hold a province so big it takes a month for an army to cross.

Single being.

I'm so not buying that.

:-P

[Karlem]

Is that really one of the hardest thing to believe? I mean, hardest that conquering a Niefel fort by Caelum and suddenly all the population going from gigants to Wingedmen? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

A powerful being can control a quite big land after he destroys the armies there. There will be some people unhappy (unrest) until you prove the that living under your government is better than previous condition (tax=0).

Of course there aren't historical examples, but just thing of greater acomplishments made by small numbers of people. 300? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Or conquering South America with a couple of spanish people http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

[Sombre]

He was probably thinking of a single scout or even a spawned maenad taking over a province if there are no pd there.

[Tifone]

Oh please, don't make things so difficult, it's a game, really ^_^ and pretty fun also

[Svamptripp]

I'm with chrispedersen, I hate SCs as well. And if limiting the turns helps to limit SCs power then I'm all for the turn limit. However NTJedi has a point as well. I'd really like to see big battles as he describes. Hmmm I guess that in the end whatever the developers do we'll just have to accept it.

[thejeff]

Lingchih said:
I'm getting tired head on this post.

For the record, I would remove the turn limit completely. We all have modern computers. Let them fight it out till the end.



There has to be some kind of limit. Given fast enough computers it can be arbitrarily large, but it is possible for a battle to reach a stalemate (2 SCs with high regen and reinvig, but only weak attacks, or attacks that the other is immune to, say both with 2 shields and trample) Even the fastest computers do not finish infinite loops quickly http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Tifone]

Meh, SCs are one of the funniest things of this game ^^

[Makinus]

Didn´t read the enitre thread, so if anyone alreadya nswered this, sorry:

Any turn processing speed improvements? I´m still playing mostly dom2 as dom3, even with minimal graphics, is still too slow for my notebook, and i most play in it as i´m constantly traveling...

[Edi]

No word on speed improvements. Just on the basis of the progress page. The attempt at speed improvement with the 3.17 patch did not succeed because it caused a fatal crash and had to be removed.

[Loren]

Gandalf Parker said:
Well if it did get imcreased I would DEFINETLY want it adjustable. The hosting times are long enough for me now. Those of you playing on maps of a couple of hundred provinces and 4-8 players could live with an enforced increase much better than I can with 1500 provinces and 20+ nations. Keep in mind that even the independents have combats.



How often does the battle time limit trigger due to truly insoluble situations?

[Loren]

Taqwus said:
Meh. If you wanted the limit changed, it should probably be changed to have a different mechanic and not just an arbitrary higher number -- like allowing the battle to continue some N turns, and after that threshold allowing it to continue as long as at least one side has a monotonically declining moving average of total hit points.



I think it should be based on a peak over a period of turns rather than an average but both are probably workable.

Whatever the exact mechanic, the basic idea is the battle continues so long as progress is being made. So long as there are no loopholes in the progress detection the battle *WILL* end at some point and that's really all we need.

[Edi]

Anytime the AI sends two incompetent mages to the arena, for example, which is often. I've seen it happen more than once that two AI mages keep spamming each otehr with spells they just can't make hit or can't do any damage and it ends with the attacker autorouting due to turn limit.

[Gandalf Parker]

I would hate to have my game held up waiting on the results of combats involving independents attacking independents. And having a ton of IF statements to decide when to quit wouldnt help much either.

I dont mind the AI and Independents having chances as us, but Id prefer a limit on them and us to having some sort of "continue until someone wins". (which I guess is ok as a max setting on an option altho I dont think Id ever choose it)

[chrispedersen]

NTJedi said:

chrispedersen said:
I *hate* SC's.




SC's have existed throughout fantasy history... everything from the ancient story of Beowulf to Superman to even Lords of the Ring !! If the SCs are removed from these stories, there's not much remaining. If you prefer games without SC's you'd have to lean towards games which are purely military historical with not even a tiny spice of fantasy... yet these games still have thug types.



I didn't say I hated hero's and anti heroes, or characters.

I hate SC's. To be specific, Dominions(x) implimentation of battlefield heros.

Why? Hmm.. because there doesn't seem to be anything *heroic* about them. The game doesn't set up as a MMRPG; its more spreadsheet and battle tactics. Were it otherwise, I would strongly enjoy them. We argue whether frost brands are more effective than fire brands due to the 2 extra pts of damage....

Why? Because we have 8-10 army units - each supposedly crafted to reflect their nations strengths and tastes. And yet uniformly all but 1-2 of them are pointless in just a few turns.

Why? Games, like theatre, involve a suspension of believe.
We play in a certain fantasy world - with a certain map.
As part of those rules - we are told that these nations exist, and their militaries are primarily composed of these units.

You can imagine a history of military combats - of battles won and lost. Only you can't. Because those army units would never exist. Nations would have evolved SC's - not army units.

The logical disconnect - the loss of 'suspension of disbelief' is irritating. Its like interrupting the writing of Xanadu, or more prosaicly, someone interrupting your favorite TV show. Every time I play.

Now THAT would be an interesting Mod.
A Mod where there were no army units - only starting SC's, and starting equipment you could make. Starting spells.

[llamabeast]

Presumably the nation has been making do with mundane units and primitive spells before the pretender arrived to Inspire their research.

[Sombre]

Sounds like you'd enjoy a game set up with very hard research and no level 9 blesses allowed.

[JimMorrison]

Loren said:

Taqwus said:
Meh. If you wanted the limit changed, it should probably be changed to have a different mechanic and not just an arbitrary higher number -- like allowing the battle to continue some N turns, and after that threshold allowing it to continue as long as at least one side has a monotonically declining moving average of total hit points.



I think it should be based on a peak over a period of turns rather than an average but both are probably workable.

Whatever the exact mechanic, the basic idea is the battle continues so long as progress is being made. So long as there are no loopholes in the progress detection the battle *WILL* end at some point and that's really all we need.



Well all it has to do is check once every 10 turns or something, and compare overall HP figures. It needs to compare 3 samples in a row, to account for variations from damage and regen, but if over 3 samples the figures are too similar, attacker auto-routes at this point.

However, I would argue that in such a case, "mindless" units should not die. The point is that whoever or whatever is driving them, decides the battle cannot be won on current terms, and calls them back. I don't think a golem is fire-and-forget weaponry. In fact, the ONLY reason that they are made commanders, is so they can be geared out, it has not a thing to do with autonomy.

I think if a mechanic were worked out to require a mage on the field for Mindless commanders, it would resolve the whole problem. Hard to ***** if the controlling mage dies or runs from the field, though if a commander runs, even Mindless units should follow him - wouldn't he call them back with him? Or would he sacrifice them for his own life? Oh the dilemma!

[TheMenacer]

I didn't say I hated hero's and anti heroes, or characters.

I hate SC's. To be specific, Dominions(x) implimentation of battlefield heros.

Why? Hmm.. because there doesn't seem to be anything *heroic* about them. The game doesn't set up as a MMRPG; its more spreadsheet and battle tactics. Were it otherwise, I would strongly enjoy them. We argue whether frost brands are more effective than fire brands due to the 2 extra pts of damage....

Why? Because we have 8-10 army units - each supposedly crafted to reflect their nations strengths and tastes. And yet uniformly all but 1-2 of them are pointless in just a few turns.

Why? Games, like theatre, involve a suspension of believe.
We play in a certain fantasy world - with a certain map.
As part of those rules - we are told that these nations exist, and their militaries are primarily composed of these units.

You can imagine a history of military combats - of battles won and lost. Only you can't. Because those army units would never exist. Nations would have evolved SC's - not army units.

The logical disconnect - the loss of 'suspension of disbelief' is irritating. Its like interrupting the writing of Xanadu, or more prosaicly, someone interrupting your favorite TV show. Every time I play.

Now THAT would be an interesting Mod.
A Mod where there were no army units - only starting SC's, and starting equipment you could make. Starting spells.



I always assumed that the empires that we were playing were literally composed only of their capital province (plus however many you set in the game settings). It sort of makes sense, they've got so much more population than their neighboring kingdoms that you could reasonably say that they're a world power. Indy provinces all have their own unique cultures and army lists, but we don't get to see them because they're all too insignificant in terms of the movers and shakers in the world. Plus they didn't have a pretender god come a'knocking and telling them to become aggressively imperialistic, seizing independent kingdoms and claiming their money and, more importantly in the creation of SCs, the magical resources lying inside of their territory.

[chrispedersen]

Regardless,

Dominions is supposedly a 'deep' game with hundreds of options. But I really believe it has hundreds of options - but only 2-3 of them are even remotely competitive in an MP environment.

I mean, when was the last time someone won a game soley through Dominion? Soley by his virtuoso economic performance?
Instead it comes down to Diplomacy, SC's and spell research, maybe toss in bless strategies.

I've no beef about the diplomacy. But even spell research really comes down to a few dominant themes: Tartarians. Wishes. Master Enslaves.

[Jazzepi]

chrispedersen said:
Regardless,

Dominions is supposedly a 'deep' game with hundreds of options. But I really believe it has hundreds of options - but only 2-3 of them are even remotely competitive in an MP environment.

I mean, when was the last time someone won a game soley through Dominion? Soley by his virtuoso economic performance?
Instead it comes down to Diplomacy, SC's and spell research, maybe toss in bless strategies.

I've no beef about the diplomacy. But even spell research really comes down to a few dominant themes: Tartarians. Wishes. Master Enslaves.



I don't feel like digging it up, but someone beat 4-5 other opponents in 2 turns on a large map by super dominion pushing with Mictlan.

Jazzepi

[Gandalf Parker]

There does seem to be some groups that play continually together on pretty much the same maps. Their results do tend toward certain standard endings. They seem to have fun with it though.

[Micah]

2 turns Jazzepi? That seems a bit much to swallow... even with temples in every province, H2 priests with jade daggers at each temple and 10 dominion that's still only 8 candles worth of dom spread per province he had...a whole heck of a lot, to be sure, but hardly enough to snuff out the entire rest of the map unless he controlled over half of the board. (And if he did have that much territory the specifics of the victory don't much matter, since he had the game won regardless.)

[Chris_Byler]

NTJedi said:
SC's have existed throughout fantasy history... everything from the ancient story of Beowulf to Superman to even Lords of the Ring !! If the SCs are removed from these stories, there's not much remaining. If you prefer games without SC's you'd have to lean towards games which are purely military historical with not even a tiny spice of fantasy... yet these games still have thug types.


None of those are anything remotely like the Dominions "take on 500 men by yourself" SC. Well, maybe Superman *could* kill 500 men by himself, but he probably wouldn't. And if the 500 men were armed with kryptonite, then he probably couldn't kill them by himself - he just has a better version of ethereal making him immune to the wrong kind of weapons. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Beowulf heroically defeated two opponents - one at a time. Dangerous monsters, yes, but there weren't hundreds of them. Given the amount of difficulty he had with one sea troll at a time, it's hard to believe he could have faced a single casting of Sea King's Court (let alone the kind of armies Dom SCs regularly solo).

Lord of the Rings - armies are defeated by other armies. Do you think the battle of Helm's Deep was won by *just* Legolas and Gimli, with no other friendly units? That would be like Dominions SCs - except that's not what happened in Tolkien, because it would be totally unbelievable. Heck, even Sauron is defeated by an army and has the Ring cut off his finger by Isildur (although this is ancient history and doesn't take place during the books).

If Leonidas had been a Dominions SC, he would have outright WON at Thermopylae. Personally killed half the Persian army and routed the other half and then gone home for dinner. That's not what happened.

Nearly every legend of a hero ends with that hero's downfall, often death. Sometimes from something as simple as a poisoned arrow. Generally, humanoid units in Dominions are quite faithful to this tradition of mortality. Some of the monstrous units just don't have a significant enough weakness, or it can be covered too easily by items.

[JimMorrison]

Well to be fair, all of these heroes whom you describe, are more like specialized thugs, than true SCs. None of them could "take the damage" as well as dish it (except perhaps Sauron, but that was so obviously a lucky critical strike http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif). For example, Legolas may be analogous to Lugh the Long-Handed perhaps, and well geared Lugh can really wreak some havoc - but put him solo against 500 men and he'll be someone's ***** right quick. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

If Leonidas had been a Dominions SC, he'd be 20 feet tall and have Boots of the Behemoth - then maybe he'd have won Thermopylae, but as it was, he was just a very capable leader, and a good soldier. As far as we know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif But, I think we can safely rule out the 20 feet tall part, and the F9/E9 bless. >.>

[Taqwus]

Achilles is much closer to a Dominions SC than any of the Spartans; he has Olympian ancestry (not too unusual in the Trojan Cycle), is favored by certain Olympians (also not too unusual), has such a reputation that he would likely have both Fear and Standard effects at a high level, and at one point receives equipment forged by Hephaesteus himself.

And when he does commit, no Trojan stands against him other than Hector (who also has l33t skills and Olympian assistance for most of the Iliad), and even Hector is rather pessimistic about his own odds.

Later in the cycle, Odysseus and Telemachus completely slaughter a small army of suitors, again with Olympian intervention on their side.

[Jazzepi]

Micah said:
2 turns Jazzepi? That seems a bit much to swallow... even with temples in every province, H2 priests with jade daggers at each temple and 10 dominion that's still only 8 candles worth of dom spread per province he had...a whole heck of a lot, to be sure, but hardly enough to snuff out the entire rest of the map unless he controlled over half of the board. (And if he did have that much territory the specifics of the victory don't much matter, since he had the game won regardless.)



Like I said, I'm not going to dig the game up, it's out there though if you feel like combing through the archives. It was in two turns though, and the opponents described having their provinces go from black to white in a single turn.

And the Mictlan priests he used were H3.

Jazzepi

[chrispedersen]

But you make my point for me.
It might have happened .. once.
And even then dominion wasn't the only tool.

Shrug - all I'm saying is I'd like to see 30% of the games won by dominion. And 30% by armies. And 10 % by economics.
And 5% by SC - and 10% by magic - and and and..

[NTJedi]

Chris_Byler said:

NTJedi said:
SC's have existed throughout fantasy history... everything from the ancient story of Beowulf to Superman to even Lords of the Ring !! If the SCs are removed from these stories, there's not much remaining. If you prefer games without SC's you'd have to lean towards games which are purely military historical with not even a tiny spice of fantasy... yet these games still have thug types.


None of those are anything remotely like the Dominions "take on 500 men by yourself" SC. Well, maybe Superman *could* kill 500 men by himself, but he probably wouldn't. And if the 500 men were armed with kryptonite, then he probably couldn't kill them by himself - he just has a better version of ethereal making him immune to the wrong kind of weapons. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



I would disagree the Balrog from Lord of the Rings was clearly a SC as no ordinary weapons could even harm him, not to mention his rock_like skin and internal fire. Now with Superman those 500 men would need kryptonite yet according to the history of superman finding this kryptonite resource is more rare than finding a diamond mine in your backyard, so it's not as easy as you make it sound. Finally Beowulf, where he may not have been a full SC he was at least a very powerful thug to defeat Grendel, Grendels Mother and then later a dragon combined with the fact of magic items and magic armor. When fighting this dragon only one other soldier was brave enough to provide some help.


Chris_Byler said:
Beowulf heroically defeated two opponents - one at a time. Dangerous monsters, yes, but there weren't hundreds of them. Given the amount of difficulty he had with one sea troll at a time, it's hard to believe he could have faced a single casting of Sea King's Court (let alone the kind of armies Dom SCs regularly solo).


It's wrong to compare heroes and SCs outside of Dominions to creatures/beings within Dominions for many reasons, such as there's no way to accurately distribute magic paths, research, hitpoints, statistics and so on.



Chris_Byler said:
Lord of the Rings - armies are defeated by other armies. Do you think the battle of Helm's Deep was won by *just* Legolas and Gimli, with no other friendly units? That would be like Dominions SCs - except that's not what happened in Tolkien, because it would be totally unbelievable. Heck, even Sauron is defeated by an army and has the Ring cut off his finger by Isildur (although this is ancient history and doesn't take place during the books).


The Balrog was the SC... and all those 500+ goblins knew it as they fled for their lives upon his approach. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Gandalf was immune to fire otherwise he would most likely have perished as well.