Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush [Archive]

Saber Cherry

October 7th, 2003, 05:52 PM

Dominions has a lot of unit types, a lot of weapon types, and several armor types. This yields a large variety of armies to be fielded... and yet... so many of them can be so similar! Take the 2 barbarian classes, for example - greatsword and maul. The greatsword has slightly higher defense and attack, thus is universally better. But is that realistic? Could there be no situation where a maul is better than a greatsword?

In certain D&D games (like Baldur's Gate) and some strategy games (like Warlords: Battlecry) this is handled by assigning a damage type to each weapon. For example, pierce for bows, spears, pikes, and rapiers; slash for swords, daggers, and claws; and crush for hammers, flails, maces, axes, and fists. These would be especially nice to differentiate units of nations like Vanheim, which has a bunch of similar-seeming human infantry, varying only slightly in stats despite their different types of weapons.

To make these damage types relevant, of course, there would need to be different armor types or armor bonuses. The simplest would be similar to the AD&D style: each armor has a base protection, and gets a bonus to each of the three damage types. So full leather might have a base protection of 3, with +1 versus crush and +3 versus slash. The final protection would be 3 versus piercing, 4 versus crushing, and 6 versus slashing. Plate armor, on the other hand, would be relatively flat, with maybe a base 12 and no bonuses.

Furthermore, certain creature types could be assigned bonuses - skeletons (longdead) could inherently have a +5 pierce and +2 slash protection, soulless a +3 pierce protection, and things with no bones like vine ogres might have a +4 crush protection.

That's just one possibility, a simple one, which would make choosing armor types and weapon types a much more interesting process. Going against Ulm, for example, you'd want armors most protective against crush and pierce, since they have no standard slashing units... but Ulm could counter by recruiting independent swordsmen. Suddenly, there would be a REASON for Ulm to seek out independent swordsmen!

The Warlords: Battlecry style assigns a damage reduction percentage to each damage type - so skeletons would get maybe 70% pierce protection, 40% slash protection, and +50% extra crush damage. This would be more in line with Dominions "Wards" - a creature could get little armor icons in the ability list, displaying the percentage increase or decrease in damage from each source.

Well, I'm not going to try to force any specific game mechanics on everyone; I'm just trying to make suggestions about how I would probably implement a "damage type" feature. But I think the presence of such a system would make army design a much more thoughtful process, and add greatly to the game.

-Cherry

DominionsFan

October 7th, 2003, 06:08 PM

In NWN [RPG] there are 3 damage types: Slashing, Piercing and bludgeoning.

If we would have 3 different weapon types with different armor types, that would be awesome!

Example: Scalemail armor: 5 prot against slashing, 7 against piercing, and 2 against bludgeoning. etc. -> More strategic than just 1 damage/armor type.

[ October 07, 2003, 17:09: Message edited by: DominionsFAN ]

Kristoffer O

October 7th, 2003, 06:40 PM

I do like the idea. In roleplaying games it is a nice feature that unfortunately slows down battles a bit. In computer games time is no problem.

I wouldn't mind seeing this feature in Dominions and we have given it some quick thougth. The main problem is that it would take a lot of data editing to implement. Above one thousand units and perhaps two hundred armors would need differentiated protection values and above three hundred weapons would need damage types.

Still, I do like the idea.

Saber Cherry

October 7th, 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Still, I do like the idea.Good, now I'll feel special all day! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

-Cherry

Yojinbo

October 7th, 2003, 07:23 PM

Kristoffer O,

Anything we can help with? Some actual work would keep this group from bothering you with new ideas every 2 hours....

Mortifer

October 7th, 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

Still, I do like the idea.Me too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Kristoffer O

October 7th, 2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Yojinbo:
Kristoffer O,

Anything we can help with? Some actual work would keep this group from bothering you with new ideas every 2 hours....Nothing wrong with more ideas. More is more!

Actual work is not possible at the moment. The game will go gold soon and only small and very useful changes can be made. We don't want to risk adding new bugs now.

Ideas on the other hand can be stored in the Acashic Records and put to use at a later date.

Ergo: keep bothering us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Pocus

October 7th, 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Still, I do like the idea.Good, now I'll feel special all day! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

-Cherry<hr /></blockquote>Nice post Saber. The idea is not new as you already pointed out, but is a good one that add realism & interest, without added micromanagement http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I vote for you if you are candidate in California... mmmh no way? Ok I will give you my stars vote then http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Nerfix

October 7th, 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Yojinbo:
Kristoffer O,

Anything we can help with? Some actual work would keep this group from bothering you with new ideas every 2 hours....Nothing wrong with more ideas. More is more!

Actual work is not possible at the moment. The game will go gold soon and only small and very useful changes can be made. We don't want to risk adding new bugs now.

Ideas on the other hand can be stored in the Acashic Records and put to use at a later date.

Ergo: keep bothering us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Maybe if you could give them the game manuals to proofread?
Or has it been done already?

And yes, this would be nice, but i can see the work what it takes, just for armors and weapons and then for units with inherent bonuses...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[ October 07, 2003, 19:17: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Kristoffer O

October 7th, 2003, 08:30 PM

Two of our beloved betatesters have proofread the manual as well as all descriptions in the game.

Nerfix

October 7th, 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Two of our beloved betatesters have proofread the manual as well as all descriptions in the game.All the units have descriptions this time?

Mortifer

October 7th, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Yojinbo:
Kristoffer O,

Anything we can help with? Some actual work would keep this group from bothering you with new ideas every 2 hours....Nothing wrong with more ideas. More is more!

Actual work is not possible at the moment. The game will go gold soon and only small and very useful changes can be made. We don't want to risk adding new bugs now.

Ideas on the other hand can be stored in the Acashic Records and put to use at a later date.

Ergo: keep bothering us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>This system what Saber has mentioned should be implented in a later patch? I really like the idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Ok ok maybe in an official add-on not in a patch since this will be a huge update.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

licker

October 7th, 2003, 09:25 PM

I've got nothing against this idea per se, but it does seem to be adding a bit more complexity for complexities sake.

What is the true value of making this addition? I've reread Sabers post a couple of times, and I'm passingly familiar with the mechanics of such a system from other games, but I just don't see it as making Dom a better game. I see it adding another level of micro that I personally don't want. Now I have to keep track of what units have what weapon, and unless the gfx for a unit with a maul vs. a greatsword, vs. a mace is really easy to see... well its more of a pain than anything else. Yes I do realize that you can select all 'similar' units easilly enough, but still, I don't see that this adds that much to the gameplay.

Anyway, different nations will always have use for independant units, if for no other reason than that they don't have enough resources to produce only nationals. As cash tightens up this can change, but the location of the recruitment can also be very important. I don't want to see this mechanism further complicated by making the 'optimal' choice of HI a necessary (or more necessary) evil.

Maybe I should rephrase my concern like this. Dom is already a game with a near overwhelming amount of information to process, do we really want to go down the road of increasing this? Its a question that has to be dealt with quite seriously I think, as there is such a thing as too much, and it can begin to detract from the overall quality of the game. The key conecpt for any massive additions (like this would be) is what is the benefit to game play vs. the cost. In this case I think the benefit is small, and the cost is reletivly large, to me its adding micro for micro's sake, and that is simply not a good thing for a game like Dom.

October 7th, 2003, 09:30 PM

Great idea!

There is also another similar system in a relatively unknown RPG called Siege of Avalon, which attributes points of several types of damage for each weapon. So, for example, a sword would have 1-10 slashing, 1-4 piercing and 1-2 crushing. The armours have protection for all types of damage as well, so an armour could have something like 8 prot. for slashing, 3 for piercing nad 3 for crushing. Therefore, if you hit that armour with the sword, you would do 1-2 points of damage from slashing, 1 damage from piercing, and no damage from crushing, resulting in 2-3 damage overall that went through the armour. The system is a bit more complicated than that in fact (you have invulnerability rating on armour expressed in numbers, i.e. an amount of damage that it would stop completely, and a protection rating expressed in percentages, i.e. the percentage of damage above the invulnerability that would also be stopped), but that's the basic jist of it.

And yes, I know this would be even harder to implement, but this is a suggestion thread for ideas, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Nerfix

October 7th, 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by licker:
I've got nothing against this idea per se, but it does seem to be adding a bit more complexity for complexities sake.

[snip]

In this case I think the benefit is small, and the cost is reletivly large, to me its adding micro for micro's sake, and that is simply not a good thing for a game like Dom.Amen(or Ooom) to that.
Also, we have nations with very litle variation on their weapons(Caelum would have mostly piercing and slashing on couple of units, Man slashing and piercing), just send units that has resistance against the nations most common weapon type and *BLAM* the nation is pooped.

Cool, and even nice idea, but no micro for micros sake.

licker

October 7th, 2003, 09:45 PM

I might add that if what you are really after are better differentiators between otherwise quite similar units (though I don't have a big problem with the similar units, I mean there are over 1000 units, you can't make them all *that* much different from each other) a more reasonable approach is to simply change some of the statistics for the weapons that they currently have. Changing the resource cost(down) would be a big incentive on most units, as would tweeking the length of some weapons (expanding the length scale a bit would help here).

These are simpler changes that could achieve the same end result, and be done much more easilly than adding an entirely new damage and resistance system.

Psitticine

October 7th, 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Nerfix:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Two of our beloved betatesters have proofread the manual as well as all descriptions in the game.All the units have descriptions this time?<hr /></blockquote>Man, do they have descriptions!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

October 7th, 2003, 09:50 PM

On the other hand, you have zounds of units that are all too similar to each other (DomI Ulm roster, e.g.), and you might end up using only one type, and never bother with building the rest.

Diversity is good, in my eyes, and I like complexity - the more the better, and it keeps me interested in game for longer.

Nerfix

October 7th, 2003, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Psitticine:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nerfix:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Two of our beloved betatesters have proofread the manual as well as all descriptions in the game.All the units have descriptions this time?<hr /></blockquote>Man, do they have descriptions!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>Pythian Legionaires didn't have, Atlantian Great Mother(sp?) and Dwarven Smiths of Vanheim lost their descriptions when they became prophets, and i think few other units missed their descriptions too, so:
Do all the units have descriptions this time?

Mortifer

October 7th, 2003, 09:52 PM

Uh huh, I dont think that this would add that amount of micro...In fact this would add lot more strategical diversity, which is always better.
I think that this sytem would be nice to have, and if the devs want to make an addon pack or something similar, this might be a great addition in it.

licker

October 7th, 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by HJ:
On the other hand, you have zounds of units that are all too similar to each other (DomI Ulm roster, e.g.), and you might end up using only one type, and never bother with building the rest.

Diversity is good, in my eyes, and I like complexity - the more the better, and it keeps me interested in game for longer.Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing. How does that change anything? Just because you have more units to look through before you make your final selection does not mean that there is *better* strategy in the game.

I agree that diversity is a good thing, but with 1000 units how much diversity is really reasonable to expect? Actually its not so much the units themselves, but the weapons we're talking about here. And I maintain that you can tweek the existing values of those weapons (especailly resource cost) to give you this added diversity, rather than adding a more complex system that in my mind adds only more complexity. The proposed system may not infact add any more micro to the game, or more precisely no more than any other system that further differentiates the units, but it does add more complexity and requires more logistics (perhaps) that don't really make the game that much more interesting.

I can see what the appeal of such a system is though, it makes for more of a rock/paper/scisiors approach to armies. That's not necessarilly a bad thing, but I just feel that the system as its been described would be more of a head ache than a boon to the overall strategy. It think it moves in the direction of trying to add more 'arbitrary' realism to the mechanics of the game, and that is not always a good thing.

October 7th, 2003, 10:41 PM

I like the idea as stated, because it suits my taste and my style of play. I like long single player sessions, and the more I have to think in game, the better it is for me, and the longer the appeal Lasts.

My point of view stems from the following: What I see now is a lot of pretty much very similar units: when you add the large random dice bonus to the stats, all the units perform pretty much the same. Apart from them looking a bit different, it doesn't matter all that much which ones I build when compared to the impact of how many of them I have. The idea proposed would add to strategic variety of units, and importance to each respective unit would increase, depending on the situation. I don't see how this would increase micromanagement, since you'll again build them and stack them the same way. What it will add is that you'll have to put more thought on composition of your armies. Which is a strategic element, and has nothing to do with micromanagement or interface. And I don't think I'll face only a single type of oponent, since they'll have the same diversity in weaponry and armour included as well. Moreover, you can still just simply compose your armies of a single type units, or add a little of each type, if you don't want to exact a very precise control over it. But it will be different if my flail-armed infantryman hits someone with leather armour or an undead unit this turn, although they might have the same defense/protection stats, his effectivness will be different. This will also add to the uncertainty of a victory a bit, as sheer numbers might not mean anything if you face good counters. I am not too fond of rock/paper/scissors setup actually, such as one found in AoE e.g. or any other similar game, as I find it oversimplified. I enjoy the shades of gray when I play, but distinctive shades, not just uniform blur.

Lastly, we can argue as much as we want and still never reconcile our views, but it's up to devs what they want to implement or not. Hence, no need to take this discussion to heart, I hope. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ October 07, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: HJ ]

Saber Cherry

October 7th, 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by licker:
I might add that if what you are really after are better differentiators between otherwise quite similar units (though I don't have a big problem with the similar units, I mean there are over 1000 units, you can't make them all *that* much different from each other) a more reasonable approach is to simply change some of the statistics for the weapons that they currently have. Changing the resource cost(down) would be a big incentive on most units, as would tweeking the length of some weapons (expanding the length scale a bit would help here).

These are simpler changes that could achieve the same end result, and be done much more easilly than adding an entirely new damage and resistance system.Well, I guess we disagree on a fundamental level. I do not think there is ANY way, other than adding physical damage subtypes, to achieve the same end result, and I won't think so until one is described. I want the differentiation between the large numbers of units to be more realistic and engrossing, giving each unit, weapon, and armor a unique flavor, instead of simply "A maul is identical to a greatsword, but more clumsy" and "A skeleton is damaged just as effectively by arrows as by maces". Seriously, have you ever *TRIED* destroying a skeleton with a bow or spear? Not that I have, but if I was attacked by a skeleton, and there were an icepick, crowbar, and glock 19 nearby, I'd pick up the crowbar.

Furthermore, this would not result in additional "micro", assuming you are using a common abbreviation of micromanagement. It would result in additional strategic descisions, and would alter some behaviors - like relying on only one type of unit for an entire army. This is currently quite acceptable, but if physical damage types and physical damage resistance were present, fielding such a homogeneous army would become quite risky against an astute opponent. So, yes, there would be more factors to consider. But micromanagement? Sorry, no. This would not require additional clicking, just additional awareness.

I know that this would be a substantial amount of extra development work, and I consider it worthwhile to propel Dominions to a greater level of diversity, immersion, and combat-mechanical realism. But if the devs felt it was too much work, I would understand a reluctance on their part to implement it. However, reluctance on the part of players for the combat model to become more realistic, without making it more difficult to use, really blows my mind. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm just extremely surprised.

-Cherry

P.S.

but I just feel that the system as its been described would be more of a head ache than a boon to the overall strategy. I'm not claiming that I described the perfect system:) I just think that damage types would be nice, and if you have a better/easier/simpler system that would achieve the same goal, I'd love to hear it!

[ October 07, 2003, 22:04: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

Mortifer

October 7th, 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by licker:
Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing.Uh this is a very wrong statement.
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage.
Example:
You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.]
You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.]
This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed?

If you ask me, this idea is great. Period. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

PS. Saber you might want to change crushing to bludgeoning. It sounds lot better http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ October 07, 2003, 22:05: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

MStavros

October 7th, 2003, 11:08 PM

NO ****! I LOVE this idea as well!
If you really want to add something in a patch, add this system if it is possible!

licker

October 7th, 2003, 11:25 PM

"I know that this would be a substantial amount of extra development work, and I consider it worthwhile to propel Dominions to a greater level of diversity, immersion, and combat-mechanical realism. But if the devs felt it was too much work, I would understand a reluctance on their part to implement it. However, reluctance on the part of players for the combat model to become more realistic, without making it more difficult to use, really blows my mind. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm just extremely surprised."

You do realize that by saying your not trying to be rude only makes it appear more likely that you are being rude? It doesn't bother me though, whether or not you are rude is a non issue since you can articulate your arguements quite clearly http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyway, it is a matter of personal taste to be sure. I really don't give two (well you know whats) how well the combat system models reality. All I care about is how well the combat system works as a game mechanic. Often times I have found that the most well meaning suggestions and critiques that focus on improving this area of immersion in the game by 'improving' some game mechanic by making it more 'realistic' only serve to add more complexity and create more division than they are worth.

I suppose my real gripe with a system like this is that it caters more to the power gamer crowd. It adds a new level of complexity (diversity as well, but its not the only way to add diversity to the units, weapons, or armor) that only makes the game more difficult and less approachable to the average or novice gamer. (I should note that this system won't affect my enjoyment of the game at all, it may in fact improve it, but I do like playing devil's advocate, especially when it comes to adding complexity). Given that Dom is already quite complex this addition may be nothing more than another drop in the bucket, but it could also be the straw that breaks the camels back (gotta love those idioms eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Now to look at your three main reasons for wanting to add this system:

Diversity: Yes, if done correctly it should add to diversity, I don't think there would be any more or less issues with balance than with any other system, if the system is implemented correctly. (further note below)

Immersion: This is a matter of personal opinion, the system wouldn't increase my immersion in the game, and for some people it might be too much, for some people it probably wouldn't be enough.

Combat-mechanical Realism: Well it would improve that, but again, not everyone cares about how realistic the combat mechanics are (assuming the existing mechanics are not flawed, which they are not), and you can start down a slippery slope if you make this too much of an important aspect of the game. Next you'll need to redo arrow flights, charging impacts, formations, facings, ... Basically you start down the slope of trying to make every aspect of combat as realistic as possible, and that's a lose lose situation I think. Of course it is possible to only implement small systems, or systems that only look at one (or a few) aspects of this, but the trend can become dangerous.

Some further notes about diversity and the implementation of this system. Firstly, will all nations have equal access to all weapon types and armors? If not, then some are seriously weakend with respect to others. This in and of itself isn't so much of an issue as completely balanced nations would be pretty boring (AoW suffers from this somewhat), however, lest we want to create a situation where some nations are superior to others based on this system (not hard to imagine I think) great care needs to be taken to balance this system appropriately. I'm not saying that can't be done, just that its not going to be a simple process. Furthermore, if some nations (or indeed all nations) are forced to look for independants to recruit to fill their holes, then, outside of scripted maps, there will be even more 'luck' involved in starting postions. Again, that's not necessarilly a bad thing, but it depends on your point of view.

Finally (cuz this post is getting too long) let me say that I'm not against your idea, I'm more looking to make sure that all aspects of it have been thought out, and those aspects are not limited just to the technical details of its implementation, but also the effect it could have on players of all ilks. Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem coping with the added complexity, but some certainly would, and for what this idea adds to the game, I'm not sure that its really worth it. There are simpler methods to improve unit, weapon, and armor diversity (basically changing the existing values, expanding the ranges that they encompass, and tweeking the effects of length and other things) without adding a completely new mechanic. The simpler methods may not give you exactly what you want from the combat realism point of view, but they should be able to addaquately create more diversity among any races set of units.

And no, I'm not taking this discussion to heart, I've been in the minority many times on discussions like this, all I want to do is present an opposing view point, and get everyone to think about the best way to effect a change (assuming the change is needed or desired). Heh, for you AoWers I was a staunch proponent of surrender (with some tweeks), so maybe that will explain something http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

licker

October 7th, 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by licker:
Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing.Uh this is a very wrong statement.
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage.
Example:
You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.]
You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.]
This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed?

<hr /></blockquote>No not agreed, but that's ok http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If your opponent is using one type of unit primarilly you will use the counter to that unit primarilly, thats *one* unit type, unless I've miscounted somewhere... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

If your opponent uses units with different armors or weapons combined, you'll have to use combined forces to counter them, unless you have something that is superior to all his units in some way. So either you are using an average of all your units (kinda like Dom1 I guess) or you are using *one* unit again.

All this adds is that you either have to guess what type of unit your opponent is using predominantly and use the counter (rock/paper/scisiors) or you find out one way or another what type of unit he is using predominantly and again, use the appropriate counter. This is simply an added step in actually getting to the battles themselves, which to me, is a bit more management (don't call it micro if you don't want me to) than is needed.

Don't get me wrong though, I think this system is pretty cool, I just don't think it adds much to the gameplay, beyond the cool factor, which isn't enough for me to really support it.

Again remember that simply having more choices doesn't mean that you've added any meaningful strategy to the game, if (and here is where the most disagreement will come in) those choices really arn't difficult choices. Once you find out what you are facing your choice is proably made for you, unless I'm really missing something in this system. There is no additional strategy involved at this point, its just, 'oh he's got rock, I better get some paper'. Ok, thats a bit of a simplification, but until I see a more fleshed out description of how weapons and armor would be balanced between and internal to the races, that's all you've got.

Maelstorm

October 7th, 2003, 11:36 PM

Long and pointless post, licker.
This idea about weapon damages is brilliant.
If you do not like it, that is your personal problem.
The fact is, that it would raise the quality of the game, if this system would be added.
Just my 2 cents.

Mortifer

October 7th, 2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by licker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mortifer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by licker:
Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing.Uh this is a very wrong statement.
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage.
Example:
You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.]
You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.]
This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed?

<hr /></blockquote>No not agreed, but that's ok http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If your opponent is using one type of unit primarilly you will use the counter to that unit primarilly, thats *one* unit type, unless I've miscounted somewhere... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

If your opponent uses units with different armors or weapons combined, you'll have to use combined forces to counter them, unless you have something that is superior to all his units in some way. So either you are using an average of all your units (kinda like Dom1 I guess) or you are using *one* unit again.

All this adds is that you either have to guess what type of unit your opponent is using predominantly and use the counter (rock/paper/scisiors) or you find out one way or another what type of unit he is using predominantly and again, use the appropriate counter. This is simply an added step in actually getting to the battles themselves, which to me, is a bit more management (don't call it micro if you don't want me to) than is needed.

Don't get me wrong though, I think this system is pretty cool, I just don't think it adds much to the gameplay, beyond the cool factor, which isn't enough for me to really support it.

Again remember that simply having more choices doesn't mean that you've added any meaningful strategy to the game, if (and here is where the most disagreement will come in) those choices really arn't difficult choices. Once you find out what you are facing your choice is proably made for you, unless I'm really missing something in this system. There is no additional strategy involved at this point, its just, 'oh he's got rock, I better get some paper'. Ok, thats a bit of a simplification, but until I see a more fleshed out description of how weapons and armor would be balanced between and internal to the races, that's all you've got.<hr /></blockquote>Well, I think that this system is lot more strategical, than the current Doms I 'system'. This system can force you to make better strategic/tactical decisions, IE. use the right units always, so you surely wont stick to 1 unit style. This is a very good point in it, agreed? You must always attack with a proper army. Yes I know that we had something like this in Doms I., but that is too simple if you ask me.

With at least 3 weapon/armor types, the tactical palette is lot bigger. That is the whole point behind this system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ October 07, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Saber Cherry

October 8th, 2003, 12:00 AM

You do realize that by saying your not trying to be rude only makes it appear more likely that you are being rude?Yes, I was trying to appear as though attempting rudeness, using an explicit proclamation of innocence prior to any accusation. Thus, rather than countering my main point, I could shift the opposition to a straw-man argument over my possible character flaws. Furthermore, I could start right off on the defensive, and gain a +50% combat advantage, since I'm in wooded terrain... yep! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Too bad you saw right through me=)

I understand your point. I don't want Illwinter to make the game less accessible to new players, or add complexity for complexity's sake. But I feel that as long as the protections make moderate changes rather than huge changes, they will be a wonderful addition for obsessive strategists (Dominions' main following, I would think) without excluding anyone. By moderate, I mean that if you completely ignore damage types and have the worst-case army, you'll tend to need 20%-30% more troops to win battles compared to an army designed perfectly to take advantage of the enemy's damage types and vulnerabilities. Keep in mind that an army's power is generally a factor of the size squared, so a 20% larger force is 44% stronger, assuming a broad front.

So, I would say that as long as the damage type system isn't ridiculous or severe (like the way physical immunity and super-high-defense heroes unbalanced AOW1) then it would be present in the background, averaging out to have little effect, in a newby game; while in a competitive veteran game, it would be used cruelly and viciously, with much treachery to be gained from fielding armies of different armor and damage types than expected.

I played a demo of Empire Earth (or was it Age of Kings?) where the damage types (Infantry versus cavalry versus spearmen, or something) were tweaked to an insane degree, so that it was pure rock-paper-scissors and if you chose the wrong troop type, even a 300% numerical superiority (thus 900% relative strength) wouldn't save you. I thought that was stupid, and it made me not buy the game. So, yes, a poorly done or overly severe damage-type system could destroy a perfectly good game. But that's true of spells, too - it only takes one new spell, or new site, or new racial theme, to utterly wreck the game balance... yet I'm not asking Illwinter to stop putting in new spells:)

Well, that's that. Now, I'll just cross my fingers and hope something along these lines sneaks into a patch someday:) And if I have to whip out the Holy Grail to make you heathens either see the light, or be blinded by my glory, don't think I'm chicken!

-Cherry

licker

October 8th, 2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Maelstorm:
Long and pointless post, licker.
This idea about weapon damages is brilliant.
If you do not like it, that is your personal problem.
The fact is, that it would raise the quality of the game, if this system would be added.
Just my 2 cents.Short and pointless post Maelstorm. The idea about weapon damages is not brilliant. If you like it, that is your personal problem. The fact is, that it would lower the quality of the game, if this system would be added.
Just my 2 dollars. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Sigh... Hey its all personal opinion anyway, no one post is any more or less pointless than any other. Besides I think I made it clear that the system is a pretty good one, just not one that I feel is needed or necessarilly a boon to Dom. If this system or one like it finds its way in I won't be disappointed (unless its butchered in its implementation), quite the contrary, I'll be happy that there was some discussion about it before hand so that any potential kinks and balance issues could be addressed beforehand.

Some of the worst additions to games are those that get trumpeted by the board crawlers, who no matter what they want to think about themselves, are not representative of the total pool of players enjoying the game. Anyway, lets not get off on a tangent here, and lets not get snippy with each other. If you got a question or a comment about the system all the better, if all you want to do is bash on those who have a differing opinion, well that's fine too, I can handle it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

st.patrik

October 8th, 2003, 01:11 AM

There is a certain amount of this kind of thing already in place in Dom I, you know. Of course it's not to the complexity you're talking about, but for example flails (or is it morning stars) do extra damage to targets with shields. And then there is that whole thing about long weapons and morale checks. So what weapon you're wielding does make a difference.

I do like the sound of the suggestion, in terms of realism. But I'm not sure it would be worth it for a couple of reasons:

1. You have to field a diverse army anyway. Practically speaking the only times you'd use this is late game when you're fighting only one opponent who has only one troop type. Early game you're tussling with independants, which are differently armed in each province - you're not actually going to not attack until you've built up the correct 'counter'. Middle game you're fighting perhaps mainly one human opponent, but you can't afford to give yourself a liability by having 90% of your force armed the same way, just in case some other player figures it out and attacks you with the kind of armour you're not prepared to handle. Finally, in the end-game, when you've got fewer nations so you know who you're attacking and such, it would only work against enemies who have the same kind of armour on all their units, unless you have UNGODLY intel about what troops they are fielding. So maybe Ermor, and Ulm, and perhaps one or two more nations - and that's not counting for them hiring mercenaries, or raising independant troops, etc.

2. In practice, in most realistic situations, it wouldn't make that much difference - I mean, if you have skilled 'maul' troops against less skilled swordsmen, and the armour such that the swordsmen had the advantage, it's still very possible that the 'maul' guys would win out, since they are more skilled in general. I think it would only change the outcome of about 1 in 100 battles.

Having said all that I think it would add great flavour to the game, and as such I'd probably be in favour of it - but I don't think it would have a very profound effect on gameplay - and if it were overdone to the point that it did it might very well mess up a good thing. And I think we all agree Dominions has a good thing going.

[ October 08, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

Wick

October 8th, 2003, 02:33 AM

GURPS uses a system like this but I've gradually decided I don't like it. The problem is that what makes a weapon/armor interaction cutting, piercing, or smashing is scale sensitive. If weapon damage refers to kinetic energy then the injury increases first with the depth of penetration then, once the vital organs have been reached, with weapon area. A mace that goes through the target does more damage then a arrow, right? When a Jotun swings a mace at a sprite he _will_ go through it. So it's a piercing weapon. Sometimes.

When a human attacks someone wearing plate armor she wants to use either a piercing weapon like a pick or a blunt weapon like a mace but not a sword. Why? Because a sword, unlike a pick, doesn't concentrate the force enough to penetrate but is more expensive and harder to use then a mace. Why doesn't it penetrate? Because the armor is optimized to resist a human wielded sword. A Jotun is still better off using a sword instead of a harder to use pick or less penetrating mace. A Rimtursar would probably be rambunctiously happy with a mace, unless he's fighting another giant wearing giant armor! Then getting penetration becomes important again and a spear carved from the trunk of the world ash looks good.

Yes, I am neglecting that you must hit small things faster then big things if you don't want them to be simply bounced out of the way.

Anyway, the distinction between piercing, cutting, and smashing has more to do with impact velocity and target depth then weapon shape.

Lastly, Dominions already has more weapon variation then most RPGs. While gilding a lily isn't necessarily bad it's usually wasteful.

Saber Cherry

October 8th, 2003, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by Wick:
Lastly, Dominions already has more weapon variation then most RPGs.A lot of the weapons seem to be different primarily in name and graphics... but very similar in function. I suppose some of your arguments could be overcome with a still-more-complex system that I personally favor, but haven't yet mentioned... essentially, weapons having triplicate damage rankings, just like armor. So a greatsword could do a base of 9 slash damage, or -2 pierce damage, or -4 crush damage (base 9 slash, -2 pierce, -4 crush). Thus, against a skeleton - with, say, +5 pierce protection and +3 slash protection, the greatsword would do 9-3=6 slash damage, 9-2-5=2 pierce damage, or 9-4=5 crush damage. The maximal damage type would be used, and the sword would do 6 slashing damage.

On the other hand, a battle axe of base damage 9 crush damage, -1 slash damage, or -9 pierce damage (base 9 crush, -1 slash, -9 pierce) would do crushing damage versus a skeleton, for 9 damage (since slash damage would yield 9-3-1=5 damage). In this case the axe would be superior to the greatsword.

However, when soulless (+3 crush, +5 pierce) approached, the sword would become superior to the axe, as soulless would have a higher crush resistance than slash resistance. This time, both the sword and axe would deal slash damage, yielding 9-1=8 for the axe and 9 for the sword.

So, yes, every system has its flaws, and a Jotun axeman should always be able to cleave through a size 2 opponent regardless of his damage type. And, yes, if the system was made complex enough, it would model that fairly accurately as well. Still, either way, a Jotun would do more damage to skeleton using a maul than when using a spear� period. And either way, the Jotun would probably kill the skeleton in one hit. Just as one would expect. Personally, I want any new damage system to increase realism and depth without adding stupid artifacts that detract from the game. But just as importantly, I want to rein in the damage system so that it can accomplish that goal with minimal added complexity... And I tend to think that as long as the values are moderate, a simple +X protection for 3 damage subtypes on units/armors, and a single, specific physical damage subtype assigned to each weapon, will be adequate to increase realism, depth, variety, and strategy without particularly adding any unwanted negatives (like Jotuns not chopping people in half because they are using the wrong weapon).

There always has to be a balance between maximizing realism and allowing people to understand what the heck is going on, so I'm not really going to promote the much more complex system that I mentioned above, even though I personally think it would be more interesting and realistic. And I'm not going to suggest that Illwinter buy a mechanical engineering finite element analysis package to model impact effects on different armor alloys from different weapons of different masses at different velocities and angles at various temperatures for every single weapon strike, even though that would be *really* cool, because then mere humans could no longer predict the results of their actions and choices. But it seems that the original, simple proposition, or one similarly simple and effective, would improve the game without creating unwanted side-effects. I guess what I'm trying to say is that any realistically accomplished damage system will not perfectly model reality, but if a simple method is identified to move the current system into greater congruence with reality, it should be taken advantage of - and not scorned, because it is only an incremental improvement, rather than a single leap to perfection.

-Cherry

Psitticine

October 8th, 2003, 04:11 AM

I also think this is a rather good idea, but for slightly different reasons. I think it would encourage combined arms, just to make sure one isn't caught with one's codpiece down, as it were. That would mean units that might otherwise fall by the wayside would have more usefulness as recruiting them into existing armies would help make sure one always has at least some of the most potent counterforces available for whatever they run into.

I tend to agree with St. Patrik in that, during the early game, one goes up against the diverse independents, and that during the middle game, one couldn't over-specialize their troops with this kind of system without becoming more vulnerable. However, I do think that those are things that would go along with what I said above to help insure a useful place for all kinds of different troops.

Pocus

October 8th, 2003, 08:40 AM

DominionsFan

October 8th, 2003, 09:04 AM

WOW! This system sounds damn cool! I would be very happy to see it in game! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

I have a question. The AI will handle the troops properly if we will have a system like this? I mean you will have to build different troop types than, because of the various weapon damages. So if I build troops with good slashing protection, the AI will know that he must build troops with piercing attacks?
If the AI could handle this situation, than I say do not even hesitate to add this system! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Mortifer

October 8th, 2003, 09:33 AM

Yes, I love this system too. If the AI can be scripted properly to use it well, it should be added indeed.

Vger

October 8th, 2003, 09:59 AM

Hi,

OK, I just waded through all this and I have ONE thing to say: TOGGLES!!!!!

Please, please, please, PLEASE make this an option that we can select at game start. (Or a global option. That would even be better.)

Normally I'm a more is better kinda guy and have played these systems many times in CRPGs, RPGs and wargames, but I find myself in the camp that its swatting the coolness of a gnat with a sledgehammer made for Cthulhu. (Who is six miles tall, as I recall.)

But if, in their wisdom, the wonderful people of IW decide to put this in, if they make it optional, then we all get whatever we want. Those who want it, can play with it. Those who don't, don't have to.

Personally, more options that ARE optional are better than all of us having to play a game in lockstep.

Thank you, I feel SO much better,
V'ger gone

WraithLord

October 8th, 2003, 11:59 AM

I've played the warlords series, age of xxx and other TBS/RTS that implemented this system.
Some implemented it very badly some better.
For example, the age of XXX system is horrible. both shallow and extreme. really turned me off and is the main reason I stoped playing them.
OTOH the warlords implementation is more subtle and added depth, diversty and increased the fun factor in the game.

buttom line I agree with saber, this system can add a lot to the game if it's introduced subtly.
If the devs don't have the resources/inclination to do so carefully then I prefer they leave it be.

Aristoteles

October 8th, 2003, 12:17 PM

Warlords or Ages series are pure strategy games. Dominions has lot more RPg elements than those games.
I agree, this system should be added, if the AI can learn, that how to 'use' it in a proper way.

WraithLord

October 8th, 2003, 02:10 PM

Aristoteles said
Warlords or Ages series are pure strategy games. Dominions has lot more RPg elements than those games.
I agree, this system should be added, if the AI can learn, that how to 'use' it in a proper way. I tend to disagree. I consider DOM to be a very good strategy game with some RPG elements.
Now, warlords battlecry and, soon to be released, warlords IV are also strategy games with even stronger emphesis on RPG.

Mortifer

October 8th, 2003, 02:27 PM

Hmmm...I think you cannot compare Doms to those games, since those are very different.

[Just a side note: Warlords 4. will be the worst in the Warlords series IMHO. - Its got some horrible design..]

This system would be very good to have, as I said before, but ONLY if it can be implented correctly. The biggest question is the AI. It will use it properly or not. [IE. Make the right decisions with this system - like do not attack an army with swordsmen [[slashing damage]] if that enemy army has got high slashing protection etc.]

[ October 08, 2003, 14:54: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

WraithLord

October 8th, 2003, 03:48 PM

Initially they planned to make a MOM like tac battle for warlords-IV. I was really excited.
Then they opted for that strange battle resolution http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

licker

October 8th, 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
WOW! This system sounds damn cool! I would be very happy to see it in game! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

I have a question. The AI will handle the troops properly if we will have a system like this? I mean you will have to build different troop types than, because of the various weapon damages. So if I build troops with good slashing protection, the AI will know that he must build troops with piercing attacks?
If the AI could handle this situation, than I say do not even hesitate to add this system! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif This is more than a 'can the AI handle it' issue though. The bigger question should be (and is to me at least) what difference will this system make? Now alot of the difference that it makes will depend on how it is implemented, so before I continue much further I need more specifics from Saber on how he envisions this working.

Questions:

1) How will the different armors and weapons be spread among the nations? Potential problmes I see here are either giving all nations access to the same sets of numbers (boring if you ask me) or risking imbalances in certain nations that cannot handle certain attacks or defenses very well. Furthermore, if you want to provide for more coverage of attacks or defense you will increase the number of units that each nation has by roughly 9 units!!! That seems just insane to me, but it wouldn't kill anything, just make the game more annoying by having to keep track of those ~9 new units.

2) What kind of scale are we talking about for the effectiveness of the three new damage types? Potential problem, if its too big the game really becomes rock/paper/scisiors, if its too small, then its game play value is diminished (other than for the imersion quality, which is not really high on the list of why to add this system I think).

3) If the nations are to rely more on independant troops to fill their holes (assuming they don't get coverage for each area) how is the starting position imbalance addressed? Outside of scripted maps I don't see how this would work. It might be fine for SP, but I can see the MP people taking issue with this potential problem.

4) Not so much a question as a clarification...
There are three new damage types (and the corolary resistances to them) call them S, P, and B. How fine of a matrix would be involved in determining the varing levels of S, P, B and rS, rP, and rB? Would we have 9 different units comprising all the combinations? 18 units? 3 units? What? Moving to a completely different direction in unit creation would fix this somewhat, that is buying the base unit with money, then buying the base equipment for that unit with resources and equiping your base units in a similar fasion as your commanders, however, I expect a solution like that would be fairly unweildy for the Devs to want to implement. That suggestion would definately add to micro too.

Ok that's enough questions for now, like I said, I'm not against this idea per se, I just want to explore it further so that when/if it (or something like it) is implemented its been thouroghly thrashed out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

ywl

October 8th, 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by licker (Licker's arguments deleted):

Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
WOW! This system sounds damn cool! I would be very happy to see it in game! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Some more questions while licker is still at it.

How about the various magical spells and attacks? The armor negating ones (e.g. lightning) are fine. But how about the ones which are affected by protection or only armor piercing (1/2 protection, I guess): various forms of fire, "Geyser", "Cold bolt", "Blade Wind", "Gifts from Heaven", "Acid Rain", "Magma Eruption"?

How about monsters? Life drain of undead (armor piercing only), breaths weapons, crushing of Water Elementals (also armor piercing only)? Also, how much piercing and slashing should we assign to the monster and animal bites and claws? Piercing for longer claws and slashing for shorter?

The problem is classification of damage to piercing, slashing and bashing are only good (to a limited extent) for melee weapons. It fails (badly IMHO) if we want to use it on wider circumstances. Using a single protection number may be rough, but it's at least simple and approximate most situations equally well (or bad).

October 8th, 2003, 05:01 PM

Since we're discussing it, here are some possible answers, if you don't mind:

1) How will the different armors and weapons be spread among the nations? Potential problmes I see here are either giving all nations access to the same sets of numbers (boring if you ask me) or risking imbalances in certain nations that cannot handle certain attacks or defenses very well. Furthermore, if you want to provide for more coverage of attacks or defense you will increase the number of units that each nation has by roughly 9 units!!! That seems just insane to me, but it wouldn't kill anything, just make the game more annoying by having to keep track of those ~9 new units.It might exactly be the point to create slight imbalances. Even now there are slight imbalances: not all nations have the priests of same power and hence cannot handle undead attacks equally, for example. Or thay have mages of different strength, or they don't have cavalry. These imbalances cause you to adapt, and I don't see why would SPB system be any different. It's not like you won't do *any* damage with piercing attacks to the undead, e.g., it's just that you won't do as much as you would with bludgeoning ones. Hence, a very simple solution would be to build more units numerically to get the same result.
And the notion about annoyance to keep track of new units is exactly where we differ. I'm not asking for new units, but if they were added, for whatever reason, I would perceive it as anything other than annoyance, unlike yourself. It seems to me that some people simply don't want to learn new stuff and new tricks in the game system they already know well. Btw, I'm a new player to the Dom series, although not games in general, and I don't find this addition overwhelming at all, with regard to previously stated assertions that it would make the game less newbie-friendly.

2) What kind of scale are we talking about for the effectiveness of the three new damage types? Potential problem, if its too big the game really becomes rock/paper/scisiors, if its too small, then its game play value is diminished (other than for the imersion quality, which is not really high on the list of why to add this system I think).It's kind of hard to tell beforehand, without actually giving it a try, but I certainly wouldn't want to see things like immunities and strict rock/paper/scisiors system, as I already said. The thing to strive for would be to achieve distinctive shades of gray, not black and white system or uniform blur that we have now.

3) If the nations are to rely more on independant troops to fill their holes (assuming they don't get coverage for each area) how is the starting position imbalance addressed? Outside of scripted maps I don't see how this would work. It might be fine for SP, but I can see the MP people taking issue with this potential problem.It would depend on how lucky you are? If you can't handle it this time around, well, better luck next time. Isn't it how it functions now as well?

Btw, I only play SP. And I don't want to get into another discussion on how SP improvements ruin the MP game and vice versa. I'll just say that I liked it better in the old days when all games were SP, and hence it was gameplay that counted. Today, most games don't have gameplay or good AI, since that's going to be covered by other human players anyway, so why bother coding it. Me not like that, in short.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

4) Not so much a question as a clarification...
There are three new damage types (and the corolary resistances to them) call them S, P, and B. How fine of a matrix would be involved in determining the varing levels of S, P, B and rS, rP, and rB? Would we have 9 different units comprising all the combinations? 18 units? 3 units? What? Moving to a completely different direction in unit creation would fix this somewhat, that is buying the base unit with money, then buying the base equipment for that unit with resources and equiping your base units in a similar fasion as your commanders, however, I expect a solution like that would be fairly unweildy for the Devs to want to implement. That suggestion would definately add to micro too.Well, those were my initial thoughts when I started to play the game: "wouldn't it be cool if I could buy the equipment as well". But I'm not asking for that, and I don't believe the initial idea had this in mind either. Apart from that, the answer would be pretty much identical to the answer to question 1).

[ October 08, 2003, 16:19: Message edited by: HJ ]

October 8th, 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by ywl:
Some more questions while licker is still at it.

How about the various magical spells and attacks? The armor negating ones (e.g. lightning) are fine. But how about the ones which are affected by protection or only armor piercing (1/2 protection, I guess): various forms of fire, "Geyser", "Cold bolt", "Blade Wind", "Gifts from Heaven", "Acid Rain", "Magma Eruption"?

How about monsters? Life drain of undead (armor piercing only), breaths weapons, crushing of Water Elementals (also armor piercing only)? Also, how much piercing and slashing should we assign to the monster and animal bites and claws? Piercing for longer claws and slashing for shorter?

The problem is classification of damage to piercing, slashing and bashing are only good (to a limited extent) for melee weapons. It fails (badly IMHO) if we want to use it on wider circumstances. Using a single protection number may be rough, but it's at least simple and approximate most situations equally well (or bad).Why would that be a problem? The same way you attribute damage to melee weapons, you can also attribute it to other things, depending on how someone (the devs) envision them. It's the same thing like saying "how do we attribute defense to different armours?" in the present state of the game. Yet it has been done, and they decided that this shield will have a defense value of 2. In the same way they can say that bite does crushing damage, and that particular spell does slashing damage. That is, if the system works by attributing only a single type of damage only per weapon.

PDF

October 8th, 2003, 05:18 PM

The proposed changes are neat in themselves and would be Ok for a RPG or small battles tactical system, but I don't find them very fit for Dominions...
It would create a lot of micro-optimizations issues and won't add much to the game. Let's keep Dominion a strategic level game with detailed yet simple combat mechanics (Attack+dice vs defense+dice, strength+wpn damage+dice vs prot+dice) rather than going into Combat Mission type discussion about the penetration of a hurled javelin at 23� angle under rain on a chainmail sloped 15� but previously repaired by a one-eyed dwarf having Earth 2 skill http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ...

DominionsFan

October 8th, 2003, 06:16 PM

licker

October 8th, 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
[/qb]I do not agree. Diversity and complexity is always better. Well maybe not for everyone. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif [/QB][/QUOTE]

Diversity and complexity are quite simply not always better, its the old issues of absolutly no absolutes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The pertinant questions about diversity and complexity for this specific system are what we are interested in though. It should be obvious to everyone that the proposed system adds both, the question then comes down to how much value do those additions contain. This is where the differing opinions come in.

Thanks for your answers HJ, I accept them for what they are, but they still don't quite give me enough specifics to be able to provide anymore feedback on the system. My main concern really is how will the new system be divided among the existing units (national and independant). If there are no changes to the existing units, other than to reclassify their weapons and armor, there will be holes in all the nations. You are right to say that adding more imbalance isn't necessarilly a bad thing, but at some point it is, it makes certain nations completely untenable in certain situations, and that holds for both SP and MP. I actually play very little MP myself, so most of my concern with any addition to a game lies on the SP side, and as I've said before, I don't see this system adding much to my game playing experience, honestly, I can see several ways to implement it that would really annoy me. Thats why I posed those questions, I need more information on the specifics of the implementation before I can really decide if I think the system adds enough to the game play to make it worth while.

Furthermore, I still think that if we concern ourselves more with unit (weapon) diversity than with immersion or combat realism (which are unimportant to me for the most part) then the mechanism already exists in Dom to tweek units and weapons to achieve more diversity. I understand and appreciate the arguments about greatswords being less effective against skeletons than mauls, but to me its a reletively unimportant distinction that doesn't need a major rework of the weapons system to solve. Personally I don't think it needs to be solved at all, as the existing mechanisms seem to work fine, but minor tweeks to the existing system seem more reasonable to me than a total change of that system.

Anyway, glad to see more people voicing their opinions on this subject, hopefully the pros will come up with a balanced, interesting, and workable system that everyone can get behind. Its the job of the cons to ensure that that is the end result though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

October 8th, 2003, 07:09 PM

I have to go, so only a short answer this time around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I don't think I can provide you with a more detailed explanation of the system. Even if I gave you all the stats for all weapons and armour, it won't be me who is going to do the coding and implementation, but the devs. We can discuss the nature of the system (will weapons only do one kind of damage, e.g.), but anything more detailed than that is impossible to ask from anyone else apart from the people who are actually making it work.

I also would like to address the "not adding enough to gameplay" argument. Well, not every addition has to be groundbreaking. If it adds to the gameplay, even a little, it has my vote, since it's going to make it a little bit more enjoyable (all caveats included). The strenght is in details, litlle things, that add up to be more than the sum of the parts. Hopefully... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

licker

October 8th, 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by HJ:
I have to go, so only a short answer this time around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I don't think I can provide you with a more detailed explanation of the system. Even if I gave you all the stats for all weapons and armour, it won't be me who is going to do the coding and implementation, but the devs. We can discuss the nature of the system (will weapons only do one kind of damage, e.g.), but anything more detailed than that is impossible to ask from anyone else apart from the people who are actually making it work.

I also would like to address the "not adding enough to gameplay" argument. Well, not every addition has to be groundbreaking. If it adds to the gameplay, even a little, it has my vote, since it's going to make it a little bit more enjoyable (all caveats included). The strenght is in details, litlle things, that add up to be more than the sum of the parts. Hopefully... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I don't really need specific numbers, I want a more general treatment on a nation by nation basis (oh and indies too). More along the lines of what holes and how many will nations have.

As to additions to games... I agree not everything has to be ground breaking, but any addition should add more gameplay than it takes away entertainment from being too complex or adding to micro, or whatever. I'm not saying that that is necessarilly the case here, just that I can envision that being the case, in which case the addition to game play had better be closer to ground breaking than not.

Again, this is a fine idea, just that it hasn't been demonstrated how this improves game play outside of adding more numbers for people to crunch. Sure sometimes thats fun, and sometimes it adds to game play, just to me, as this system stands right now, it doesn't sound like more fun, and it doesn't seem to add much to game play. Obviously others have a different opinion from mine, and that's the entire point of this thread (now) to discuss those opinions and see if common ground can't be found.

Pocus

October 8th, 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by PDF:
The proposed changes are neat in themselves and would be Ok for a RPG or small battles tactical system, but I don't find them very fit for Dominions...
It would create a lot of micro-optimizations issues and won't add much to the game. Let's keep Dominion a strategic level game with detailed yet simple combat mechanics (Attack+dice vs defense+dice, strength+wpn damage+dice vs prot+dice) rather than going into Combat Mission type discussion about the penetration of a hurled javelin at 23� angle under rain on a chainmail sloped 15� but previously repaired by a one-eyed dwarf having Earth 2 skill http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ...with an hammer the dwarf, or without? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

frankly, you already have this rock - paper - scissor effect in dominions. But many players (well initially, when they play more they start to see the details) dont see the triad. Some examples, which are totally overlooked when you discover the game, but which will be taken into account when you have played a bit:

- shielded infantry have an added bonus again missiles.
- flails and/or morning stars (dont remember if it is both, but I think so !) have a bonus against shields.
- against low morale units, it is better to have a longer reach weapon, even if it does less damages. On the contrary, against high morale units, shorter weapon, doing more damage will be more useful.

Thats just some examples on top of my head, but if you play Ulm, each infantry type differ slightly, but differ from an other, and will perform slightly better against a specific enemy. Perhaps you gain an overall 5% efficiency, but when you repeat the process on several subcomponent of the game, then generally you have more chance to win than your enemy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So the various damage types would not IMO be detrimental to the game. Many players would totally forget about these rules, as they already forget about some game mechanisms, and this dont detract them from enjoying the game. Then, when they know better the game, they start to take into account more and more parameters.

[ October 08, 2003, 19:19: Message edited by: Pocus ]

licker

October 8th, 2003, 09:24 PM

Thanks for that post Pocus, it got at what I was trying (unsuccesfully I think) to say about the existing mechanisms existing in Domintions to handle the issue of diversity. I do think that the nubers on the weapons could be tweeked a bit to change your 5% to a 10% or something if that 'feels' better to most players, but for the most part those tweeks are not needed.

Something else lost in this discussion is that we don't even know how much has been changed stat wise in Dom2, so there may be more diversity 'built in'.

I conceed that if the more critical issues are game immersion and combat-mechanical realism, then larger change would be needed. However, I again question whether it is that important to make those changes *simply* for those reasons. The overall effect on gameplay is almost zero if you limit your efforts to addressing the Last two issues, the first is purely cosmetic, and the second is problematic to me in being able to pull it off without upsetting balances too much, or adding too much extraneous information.

Besides doesnt The Operational Art of War allow the user to customize all that kind of junk to his hearts content (or am I thinking of some other war game?) I don't think Dominions should bog itself down with those kinds of details as they don't feel like they belong in Dominions.

Edi

October 9th, 2003, 06:36 AM

I don't really see a need for the SPB division for weapon types. I've read this thread all the way through, and while I initially thought that yes, it'd be cool to have, I changed my mind. The current system works quite well enough for me that the SPB division is not necessary. The added complexity increases micro-management more than I'd care to see really, and it also increases the coding effort required of the devs by quite a bit, with very little return on investment gameplaywise when you compare to some of the other stuff that has been bandied about as suggestions.

In the bigger picture, this issue is more of a nitpick while other, bigger things would probably require less work to accomplish and have a greater impact on gameplay without increasing the need for micromanagement. I'd rather that those got first priority.

Edi

October 9th, 2003, 08:38 AM

All this reminds me of my students complaining when I give them extra homework.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Mortifer

October 9th, 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Edi:
I don't really see a need for the SPB division for weapon types. I've read this thread all the way through, and while I initially thought that yes, it'd be cool to have, I changed my mind. The current system works quite well enough for me that the SPB division is not necessary. The added complexity increases micro-management more than I'd care to see really, and it also increases the coding effort required of the devs by quite a bit, with very little return on investment gameplaywise when you compare to some of the other stuff that has been bandied about as suggestions.

In the bigger picture, this issue is more of a nitpick while other, bigger things would probably require less work to accomplish and have a greater impact on gameplay without increasing the need for micromanagement. I'd rather that those got first priority.

EdiYes this system is not necessary, but IMHO it would improve the gameplay. You can argue what you want licker, this is my opinion. To me, this would add a lot to the game. Sure I can live without this system, but as I said, the game would be better with the system, than without it.
Yes this would bring more micro etc. but also the game would be lot more tactical, and that is what matters in a strategy game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

licker

October 9th, 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:
Yes this system is not necessary, but IMHO it would improve the gameplay. You can argue what you want licker, this is my opinion. To me, this would add a lot to the game. Sure I can live without this system, but as I said, the game would be better with the system, than without it.
Yes this would bring more micro etc. but also the game would be lot more tactical, and that is what matters in a strategy game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif [/QUOTE]

Hehe, I'm glad I'm allowed to argue what I want http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Yes yes, it all opinion, its all personal preference, nothing wrong with discussing or arguing the merits of various ideas. I don't think anyone has said that it is a bad system or bad idea, just that it doesn't seem to fit into Dom all that well (in terms of advanceing gameplay in a *meaningful* way).

However I do not think that this addition would increase the tactics at all, it is in effect a much more strategic level implementation. Though before we go down that tangent it helps to define what we mean by tactical and strategic. However, I don't think that increasing tactical options in general is always an improvment to a strategy game, the tactical options need to be meaningful first off, that is to say that the number of reasonable choices must be increased, not just increasing choices while there remain only a few viable selections. I am not yet convinced that the addition of such a system does increase meaningful choices. I think its more likely that such a system creates more of a rock/paper/scisors effect, and in extreme cases that is a bad thing.

I think the take home message that most of the people who are against the inclusion of such a system want to have heard is that simply increasing complexity is not a substitute for increaseing tactical or strategic diversity. Complexity for complexities sake is almost always a bad idea, if you need proof of that take a look at MoO3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

licker

October 9th, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by HJ:
All this reminds me of my students complaining when I give them extra homework.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif LOL!

If I were your student and you gave me meaningless repetitive homework that was more busywork than anything else I'd complain too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

st.patrik

October 9th, 2003, 04:36 PM

It is important to make a distinction betwen tactics and strategy - there is a very real distinction.

Tactics is about how to win against an opponent on the smaller scale - i.e. if I get this combination of attacks, placed at these locations, then I should be able to defeat 3 of his guys for every 1 of mine I lose. The current discussion is about adding a new tactical element (or increasing the tactical importance of certain factors). I think Warcraft III is a game with a lot of tactics, but next to no strategy.

Strategy on the other hand is big picture - i.e. assuming we have roughly equal losses [or whatever set proportion], where will I attack such that he is forced to open a hole in his defenses, etc. Risk is an example of a game which has strategy, but no tactics (i.e. you can't change the effectiveness of your armies in any particular battle at all).

This change would add to the tactical options, but would not, by definition, add to strategy at all. Maybe the doubt being articulated by several people could be explained as a desire not to turn the game into a primarily tactical exercise, but maintain the emphasis on strategy. Right now I think Dominions has a pretty good balance between the two - enough tactics that you can plan killer combinations of troops and of spells, and yet a certain amount of strategy - it's not just about fielding the largest, most effective army - it's also what you do with it.

Saber Cherry

October 9th, 2003, 05:27 PM

Damage types could open strategic options that are currently unimportant. Choosing which indy province to fort, in order to use the local troops to suppliment your national troops' range of damage types, is one example... and labbing a death-mage province to recruit mages who can summon skeletons, when faced with an opponent who relies too heavily on archers (cough *Man*), is another example.

Damage types would also increase the difference between leather (low pierce protection) and metal (high pierce protection) armors, allowing specific counter-strategies versus opponents who attack with massed cheap leather-wearing units, or opponents who attack with only piercing weapons (spears and bows).

I would say... it increases strategic depth.

Oh, and the more I think about it, the more I think dual-typing is necessary. For example:

Bow: Pierce
XBow: Pierce
Spear: Pierce
Javelin: Pierce
Lance: Pierce

Mace: Crush
Hammer: Crush
Fist: Crush
Flail: Crush
Pincer: Crush
Hoof: Crush

Sword: Slash
Claw: Slash
Scythe: Slash
Whip: Slash
Shuriken: Slash

Dagger: Pierce/Slash
Halberd: Pierce/Slash
Spike Whip: Pierce/Slash
Spike Tail: Pierce/Slash

Bite: Crush/Pierce
Ballista: Crush/Pierce
Mattock: Crush/Pierce
Spike Club: Crush/Pierce

Axe: Crush/Slash
JotunSword: Crush/Slash

For dual-type weapons, the more effective damage type is chosen. This should reduce problems introduced by a new system, while keeping it streamlined and straightforward. It would also make certain units more flexible than than other units... Historically, halberds were an excellent weapon due to their flexibility, and this system would recreate that effect. Currently, a halberd is just a different-looking spear.

-Cherry

ywl

October 9th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by HJ:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ywl:
Some more questions while licker is still at it.

How about the various magical spells and attacks? The armor negating ones (e.g. lightning) are fine. But how about the ones which are affected by protection or only armor piercing (1/2 protection, I guess): various forms of fire, "Geyser", "Cold bolt", "Blade Wind", "Gifts from Heaven", "Acid Rain", "Magma Eruption"?

How about monsters? Life drain of undead (armor piercing only), breaths weapons, crushing of Water Elementals (also armor piercing only)? Also, how much piercing and slashing should we assign to the monster and animal bites and claws? Piercing for longer claws and slashing for shorter?

The problem is classification of damage to piercing, slashing and bashing are only good (to a limited extent) for melee weapons. It fails (badly IMHO) if we want to use it on wider circumstances. Using a single protection number may be rough, but it's at least simple and approximate most situations equally well (or bad).Why would that be a problem? The same way you attribute damage to melee weapons, you can also attribute it to other things, depending on how someone (the devs) envision them. It's the same thing like saying "how do we attribute defense to different armours?" in the present state of the game. Yet it has been done, and they decided that this shield will have a defense value of 2. In the same way they can say that bite does crushing damage, and that particular spell does slashing damage. That is, if the system works by attributing only a single type of damage only per weapon.<hr /></blockquote>The problem is the Piercing/Slashing/Bashing system is not good for anything more than a dagger http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

To be serious, what I meant was if we want damage types and specific armor versus them, we have to incorporate them into the spell system of Dominions. For example, we might need:

Physical (for respect of the original discussion):
Piercing: self explanatory;
Slashing: also self-explantory;
Bashing: for small bludgeon weapons;
Crushing: for large heavy physical objects ("Earth-Quake", "Gift of Heaven")

Magical:
Lightning;
Fire;
Cold;
Life-draining: undeads, "Hand of Death" and variants;
Magical: unclassified spells such as "Astral Fire" (or maybe "Nether Dart"?);
Mental: "Mind Burnt" and related;
Chemicals: how about "Acid Spray"?

It'll be more complicated to my taste...

And also, Dominions has a system to deal with these magical damage already. Fire resistance, for example, grant 100% (in Dom 1) or 50% (in Dom 2?) protection to Fire. Some armors grant it.

The question is why we need different number crunching for different physical damage. A simpler and more compaitible system could be to separate the weapons into "Edged" and "Blundgeon". Some creatures or monsters, e.g. Skeletons, Abominations, because of their lack of vital organs, might have "resistance" and 50% damage to edged weapons.

October 9th, 2003, 08:08 PM

The other types of damage would be characterized according to the devs' perception. It's not like there are no templates to go by: many RPGs, many TBS, many other games as well. If you cast a spell called "Iron chef's swirling blades" that spell will do physical slashing damage, as blades "materizalize" and do damage. As for the rest of the spells, those that negate armour would of course do that. As for the armour piercing spells and those that actually get stopped by armour, I guess you can work them out the same way as fire protections work in DomII. The question in SPB would be do you have a basic protection value, and the resistances are added to it subtracting from all damage that goes above that protection value, or do you just take into acount resistances, and there is no basic protection. If latter is the case, then you would need to attribute protections to all specific types of damage, and characterize them as well (and also rework the current system more thoroughly). If former was the case, then you simply subtract that basic protection from damage, unless otherwise stated, and specific resistances diminish the damage of a certain type that goes over the protection value.

Examples:
scenario 1.
You have 8 prot. and 25% resist piercing, and the damage dealt is 16 piercing. 8 is stopped immediately (as it is now), and 25% of the remaining 8 is also neutralized, hence the actual damage received is 6. If that damage is armour piercing at the same time, you would stop 4 at once, and 25% of the remaining, hence resulting damage would be 9, unless AP means that it halves resist as well, in which case it would be 10 or 11(depending on rounding up or down for unclear cases). If it's armour negating, you receive the full 16. If there is no specific resistance specified for that damage type, but it's not armour piercing, you would stop 8, and get 8.

scenario 2.
If you have no basic protection, and have only 25% resist, the damage would be 12. If it's armour piercing, it halves the protection, hence the damage would be 14 (only 12.5% would be stopped). Armour negating again gives full 16, as well as if no specific resistance for that damage type is specified.

I think I favour scenario 1 a bit more myself. Well, in fact, I would favour an even more complicated scenario, where each weapon can do more than one type of damage etc. , as I described previously when I was talking about Siege of Avalon system, but out of these two, the first is more appealing. Of course, these scenarios don't take into acount the random dice, but it would work the same.

And you can of course have a third scenario, where you would simply have different protection numbers for different damage types that would behave as a current system, i.e. no percentile values, but different basic protections. That would also be ok.

As for the kinetics argument, that giants should do crushing damage in addition to e.g. piercing because of the impact, methinks that's already factored in with addition of strenght to the equation. Against the same level of protection and using the same weapon, a stronger unit will always do proportionally more damage, since the damage = weapon damage + strenght, and that, in my view, covers the difference in kinetics. After all, it's not like the hoburgs fly around when hit by a troll anyway.... Not that I can't think of a system that could incorporate things like that as well, but, since people already have problems with this one, I'll stop now.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ October 09, 2003, 19:32: Message edited by: HJ ]

PvK

October 9th, 2003, 09:18 PM

Not essential, but would be an improvement, if done well. In most cases it would just be a minor modifier, but in a few it could be an important and interesting advantage. It would be possible to implement in an annoyingly wrong way, though so far Illwinter have done a great job. I can just imagine a rock-paper-scissors idiot designer making an annoyingly silly Version, though.

PvK

Mortifer

October 9th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
Not essential, but would be an improvement, if done well. How true.

Anyways what is the difference between strategy and tactics?

Strategy:
The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements; generalship.

Tactics:
The science and art of disposing military in order of battle.

If the tactics part will be upgraded and enchanted via the various weapon damages and protections, the strategy part will change too, it will be more diverse, and complex.

Sometimes complexity is not better, but in a game like this, it is improving the gameplay.
Of course IMHO, since we are subjective, and it is all good.

However, if the devs could make a system like this, what works "perfectly", I see no point that why do not implent it to the game.
All of your opinions and examples were about the same thing: This is a good idea, but not necessary, and I agree with it.
We must step over this, and let the devs think about it.

licker

October 9th, 2003, 09:38 PM

Yes let the devs weigh in (again). I have the feeling though that their opinion will still be that its an interesting idea with some merits that is just too cumbersome to bother adding in.

Thats my impression of the idea as well. Well I also don't think it would add much interesting gameplay, but for now I'll stick with the 'its too big a change to bother with' sentiment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Saber Cherry

October 9th, 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Mortifer:

Anyways what is the difference between strategy and tactics?
Some say, "Tactics are what happen after the bullets start flying".

October 9th, 2003, 10:10 PM

Ok, time out... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Btw, it's great to see so many like-minded people with regard to rock/paper/scissors model. On other forums I usually get shouted down for saying that it's not a God-given-model-to-end-it-all.

Cheers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ October 09, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: HJ ]

MStavros

October 10th, 2003, 01:40 AM

Hmmm I agree. Not necessary, but a good idea. If the devs can add it, I will be happy with it.

Aristoteles

October 10th, 2003, 09:05 AM

Yes, but add this system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Pocus

October 10th, 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
Not essential, but would be an improvement, if done well. In most cases it would just be a minor modifier, but in a few it could be an important and interesting advantage. It would be possible to implement in an annoyingly wrong way, though so far Illwinter have done a great job. I can just imagine a rock-paper-scissors idiot designer making an annoyingly silly Version, though.

PvKyou mean like in empire earth, where you can beat ten units with only one which is the counter?

PvK

October 10th, 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
you mean like in empire earth, where you can beat ten units with only one which is the counter?Exactly. I figured out Stratego decades ago! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Pocus

October 10th, 2003, 09:43 PM

I see that you changed your avatar for a one which fit nicely with dominions. Does it means that the famous PVK will turn his attention toward dominions, and lessen his activities in SE IV forum?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - ...

Maelstorm

October 10th, 2003, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
I see that you changed your avatar for a one which fit nicely with dominions. Does it means that the famous PVK will turn his attention toward dominions, and lessen his activities in SE IV forum?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - ...LMAO and why do you care about him? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Daynarr

October 10th, 2003, 10:59 PM

This is the first time I see PvK with avatar. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Not bad though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

October 11th, 2003, 05:55 PM

Heh. Ya, I didn't bother with an avatar for a long time. I was browsing Mr. Gervais' icons emporium and saw what I believe is the Black Knight from Monty Python and The Holy Grail, and couldn't resist. And hey, space emperors can wear great helms if they want to; theirs probably have life support systems and HUDs (cue Darth Vader breath sound effects). I am a big Dominions fan, but I'm sure I'll stick around the SE4 forum too. Needless to say, I'm very happy Doms found a home at Shrapnel.

PvK

Sandman

October 12th, 2003, 04:13 AM

I don't really like this idea.

Dominion units already have more numbers than your average RPG character. I don't relish having to grapple with a piercing, slashing and crushing damage and the corresponding armor types. More, if the unit has multiple weapons and armor. Not to mention items, special abilities, spells and afflictions.

Pidgeon-holing weapons into different 'damage types' doesn't strike me as particularly realistic. Arrows are different from spears, swords are very different from whips, etc. And, as far as I can see, the only differences in armor are already modeled in the game, that is, strength, weight and cost. Any differences in armor versus the different damage types would be largely invented, and not realistic.

It seems a bit too gratuitous an attempt to inject a blatantly obvious scissors-stone-paper model into the game. I don't like it when games designers do this, I much prefer subtler approaches which give you more choice, and are also more realistic. There shouldn't be a 'best' counter.

The game already features certain variations in the way damage is dealt and the way that it's recieved, apart from the raw numbers. The pikemen moral check, the flail bonus against shields, weapons with a double attack, armor-piercing damage, the knight's hoof attack and so on. I like these, I think that they add more flavor for less complication than damage types could ever do. It would be nice if there were more of them, and they were better explained.

I feel kind of mean for attacking Saber Cherry's idea, especially since he liked my idea about castle resources. Oh well. Sorry.

Pocus

October 12th, 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Maelstorm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pocus:
I see that you changed your avatar for a one which fit nicely with dominions. Does it means that the famous PVK will turn his attention toward dominions, and lessen his activities in SE IV forum?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - ...LMAO and why do you care about him? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif <hr /></blockquote>because PvK made the proportion mod for SE IV, meaning he can put hundred of hours in tools for a game he likes. The more quality gamers we have for Doms II, the better the chances to have great third parties utils and mods.

Saber Cherry

October 12th, 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Sandman:
I feel kind of mean for attacking Saber Cherry's idea, especially since he liked my idea about castle resources. Oh well. Sorry.Yeah, bring it on, you %&$#@! Then, to add insult to injury, you refer to me as a "he"!!! Well, I don't disclose any personal information on public forums, but I can CERTAINLY tell you that my avatar (Cherry) is female!!!

No hard feelings. If you don't like it, you don't like it... your idea about resource priority is good regardless of whether your puny mind can grasp the more subtle complexities of damage types http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

-Cherry

Mortifer

October 12th, 2003, 08:42 AM

Dont worry Saber, I like your idea! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Pocus

October 12th, 2003, 08:15 PM

sure, Spec Ops #18 ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Nerfix

October 12th, 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
sure, Spec Ops #18 ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But he has "only" 3000+ Messages...

PvK

October 12th, 2003, 09:59 PM

But they're so flavorful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Sandman

October 12th, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Yeah, bring it on, you %&$#@! Then, to add insult to injury, you refer to me as a "he"!!! Well, I don't disclose any personal information on public forums, but I can CERTAINLY tell you that my avatar (Cherry) is female!!!

No hard feelings. If you don't like it, you don't like it... your idea about resource priority is good regardless of whether your puny mind can grasp the more subtle complexities of damage types http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
-Cherry[/QB]I can't see your avatar for some reason. So I'm off the hook.

Please explain to me why an army consisting of pikemen, archers and lance-wielding knights should be penalised as being unbalanced, cos my puny mind can't grasp it.

licker

October 12th, 2003, 11:24 PM

Heh, don't worry Sandman, Sabre is just testy cuz his/her/its idea wasn't accepted by everyone immediately as being the greatest thing ever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And no, I don't care if you are male female or neither, just as I don't care which one you think I am http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

LordArioch

October 12th, 2003, 11:42 PM

Honestly, I don't quite think it's a wonderful idea myself. It fits in the Category of ideas that could work out well...or could work out poorly and would take a while to implement either way.

As I hope Saber Cherry doesn't actually have a saber. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif If the being known as Saber Cherry is armed I might need to start running.

Daynarr

October 13th, 2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Pocus:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Maelstorm:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pocus:
I see that you changed your avatar for a one which fit nicely with dominions. Does it means that the famous PVK will turn his attention toward dominions, and lessen his activities in SE IV forum?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - join us - ...LMAO and why do you care about him? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif <hr /></blockquote>because PvK made the proportion mod for SE IV, meaning he can put hundred of hours in tools for a game he likes. The more quality gamers we have for Doms II, the better the chances to have great third parties utils and mods.<hr /></blockquote>That and check his member #!
He is so long here, hes almost a celebrity around these forums. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PDF

October 13th, 2003, 11:05 AM

The more I think more about the idea, the less I like it ...
In fact the distinction between "crush" "slash" and "pierce" damage is quite artificial, weapons apply kinetic forces on a more or less large area, that's all ! Additionnaly it's not very applicable to weapons such as giant's swords, animal bites, elemental damage (unless you add resistance to elements as specific armor values), etc...The concept does not work well either to simulate shield defense.

Overall I prefer the way Dom manages it now, with some weapons/damage types being "armor piercing" or "armor negating", others having bonuses against shields (flails), but with a single damage value, and armor having a single protection values with armor pieces just adding to one another.

Saber Cherry

October 13th, 2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by PDF:

In fact the distinction between "crush" "slash" and "pierce" damage is quite artificial, weapons apply kinetic forces on a more or less large area, that's all ! No... it's force over an area, force over a line, and force at a point.

For normal, human-wielded weapons, you can (making broad generalizations) also say this:

Crush: High momentum, low kinetic energy, area impact.
Slash: Mid momentum, mid KE, sharp line impact.
Pierce: Low momentum, high KE, sharp point impact.

There are exceptions - a lance acts as though it has high KE and high momentum, for example - but these categories work pretty well for normal weapons... and the ones that don't fit perfectly could still be dual-typed. Monster damages have to be shoe-horned, or a "Generic" damage type could be used for things that just don't fit very well.

As for archers, pikeneers, and knights being unbalanced... yep:) Faced with skeletal hordes, you'd be toast, unless the archers had backup maces (like crossbowmen sometimes do) or the knights used blunt secondary weapons. Faced with death-by-zombie, you'd better hope the archers and knights had sword backups, because stabbing and shooting zombies has little effect, regardless of what you may have learned playing DOOM.

Facing that army with living people, I'd use swordsmen with tower shields... another strong anti-pierce unit. Their only fear would be cavalry trample, and DOMII knights don't get trample:) Virtually immune to arrows, and hopefully able to get inside the pike killing zone by deflecting the piercing tips with shields (pikes are long and clumsy, while shields give better leverage), 2 parts of the army would be rendered ineffectual. The knights would have an upper hand based on the hooves, secondary weapons, and heavy armor, but tower shields should be helpful versus lances as well. And at any rate, knights are expensive.

Arioch: I have no saber, but having mastered neko-fu, my hands can crush, pierce, and slash. If only I could make them length 5, I'd be a perfect warrior... but I don't really have to worry too much, as my powered battle armor and Awe +10 keep me pretty safe:)

-Cherry

P.S.

Even though from my descriptions, it sounds like I want my swordsmen to slice through pikeneers like my knife-fist does through the butter that composes mere mortals, I seriously want the modifiers to be moderate. As in, overall, the tower-shielded swordsmen would be able to face down 20% more pikeneers or archers than before, due to the pierce-bonus of a tower shield, assuming that a tower shield gets a pierce bonus.

[ October 13, 2003, 19:38: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

DominionsFan

October 13th, 2003, 08:49 PM

LOL PDF you must be kidding.

I think a spear is causing totally different damage, than a hammer or a sword.....
Example:
Plate mail: A pierce weapon -like a spear- can cause lot bigger damage, than a hammer against someone whos wearing that kind of armor. Just think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

These are valid damage types even in real life. The system would be very useful. I really like to see it in Doms II, if it can be added.

[ October 13, 2003, 19:52: Message edited by: DominionsFAN ]

Mortifer

October 13th, 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
LOL PDF you must be kidding.

I think a spear is causing totally different damage, than a hammer or a sword.....
Example:
Plate mail: A pierce weapon -like a spear- can cause lot bigger damage, than a hammer against someone whos wearing that kind of armor. Just think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

How true. I reckon that this system is a very good idea. I think that this would be a great addition to Doms II. Well yeah, IF it can be implented to the game later on. Why not? If someone than the Illwinter devs can do it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Pocus

October 13th, 2003, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
[QB]LOL PDF you must be kidding.

I think a spear is causing totally different damage, than a hammer or a sword.....
Example:
Plate mail: A pierce weapon -like a spear- can cause lot bigger damage, than a hammer against someone whos wearing that kind of armor. Just think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
the damages are differents, but they are there anyway : an hammer blow against a hard surface as a plate will leave your ribs splited into several parts, along with internal hemorragies. Sure, your stomach wont be pierced, but who cares? You would die anyway.

PvK

October 13th, 2003, 10:35 PM

With enough force any damage type can defeat any almost armor type (and a weak enough hit can fail to almost any armor type), but it's a matter of degree. Weapon and armor types are signifigant factors, but complex ones.

There are historical accounts, for example, of a battle where the knights' fine chainmail was so well and tightly made, that swords couldn't get through it, and the knights had to be bashed. However, many other examples of chain mail have wide enough rings that they are relatively easy to stab through with a pointed weapon. Bodkin arrows were developed with very narrow heads for penetrating armor, although they make a smaller wound on an unarmored target than a wider arrowhead which probably wouldn't make it through a breastplate. Weapons and armor evolved throughout history to counter each other.

However the details of such things are quite complex, and therefore difficult to model well. There are many exceptions, work-arounds, and details to consider. At the scale and level of abstraction of Dominions, it might be best to leave well enough alone. Judging from the quality of the existing work, though, I imagine Illwinter could do a good job of adding such details, if they felt it was interesting and worth the effort.

PvK

Saber Cherry

October 13th, 2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
Judging from the quality of the existing work, though, I imagine Illwinter could do a good job of adding such details, if they felt it was interesting and worth the effort.Yeah!!! So if anyone disagrees, that means they think Illwinter can't do quality work! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

DominionsFan

October 13th, 2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
the damages are differents, but they are there anyway : an hammer blow against a hard surface as a plate will leave your ribs splited into several parts, along with internal hemorragies. Sure, your stomach wont be pierced, but who cares? You would die anyway.Hell no! If you hit a decent platemail with a hammer -or with a sword-, you will take almost no damage. The sword is still better than a hammer for example against plate mails.
All armors have their weaknesses of course. Chainmail is good against swords, plate is good against blunt/crush/blugeoning weapons, scalemail is good against piercing weapons like a spear.
Also Illwinter should add different armors like mithril chain etc. The possibilities are endless! This would enchance the gameplay.
I am supporting this idea with full heart! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ October 13, 2003, 22:43: Message edited by: DominionsFAN ]

Saber Cherry

October 14th, 2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
This would enchance the gameplay.You mean, it would make random chance play a bigger role? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

(j/k)

LordArioch

October 14th, 2003, 01:46 AM

Hey DominionsFAN...if I find some plate mail will you wear it while I beat you with a hammer? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I think you could still be fairly effective...especially if you just knock down the person with the plate mail.

But I agree that applied moderately this idea makes some sense...the question is whether Illwinter wants to make a whole lot of unit changes and rebalance the units or if they think time spend working on Dominions 2 improvements is better spent balancing with the current gameplay and adding new features/units/etc.

[ October 14, 2003, 00:46: Message edited by: LordArioch ]

PvK

October 14th, 2003, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
This would enchance the gameplay.You mean, it would make random chance play a bigger role? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

(j/k)<hr /></blockquote>Grin, yes, like the enchanced sword which makes any attack ignore all factors and be decided by a coin flip.

PvK

DominionsFan

October 14th, 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
This would enchance the gameplay.You mean, it would make random chance play a bigger role? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

(j/k)<hr /></blockquote>Grin, yes, like the enchanced sword which makes any attack ignore all factors and be decided by a coin flip.

PvK<hr /></blockquote>If we are talking about this..Illwinter should add various weapons and armors from different materials. Combining it with this system would be awesome. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The game will be lot more tactical than -> lot better gameplay.

Endoperez

October 14th, 2003, 10:48 AM

I don't think this would be good. I would still be playing Dom2, of course, but I would not like it that much. I thought, at first, that this would be good but now, all these ideas seem to be empty, with no heart in them(sorry Saber) and the cons outweight tthe pros.

Those that are saying yes seem, to me, be saying yes for a system they have sen before, they have liked before, and with which they want to play again. The problem is, Dominions is not, nor will Dominions 2 be, anything like we have seen before.
It is whole, and it is good, as it is. The system that is in game now, while not perfect, suits this game well, and I think the suggested system would not be good for the game.

Even if the new system was not implemented, we would have a game which has very complicated battle system, and weapons and armor that differ alot from each other, as well as many options to use magic to strengthen your warriors in ways too many to write down.
And if this system was implemented, we would have even more things that we would have to take into account when recruiting armies. Even if the scouts of Dom2 can tell you what kind of people inhabit given province, it would be a big mess, and a good guess could give you an upper hand in otherwise even battle. I do not like roulette, but I love Dominions.

What in the latter system makes it better than the first? The fact that it is more complicated? More is more, but more micromanagement is no good. Damage types would make a spear (3,0,0,3) different from an axe(7,-1,-1,1), but they differ alot even with the old system. Aren't they different enough now, when an axe is used if you want to give out more damage, and a spear versus low-morale units. Axe might not hit troops with good defense, so spear might have an upper hand, and axe will also suffer versus spears as they are longer and spearmen have better defence. There are other factors as well, but with these only, with a spear and an axe being the only difference between your units, you have to take opponents' armies' morale, protection, defense, weapons and armor into account. With even more complicated system... *shudder* That would be a nightmare.

This is why I do not like the new system. The old one is complicated enough, and good enough, and new one is not that much better. This is just my opinion, of course. This idea would be very good in some other games, but I don't think it suits Dominions so well.

P.S. I think I should start practising so that I wouldn't write these mammoths all the time.

[EDIT] About mithril and other special metals: What do you think Black steel is? If you want armies with armors and weapons of metals of special quality, stick to Ulm and magic items of earth.

[ October 14, 2003, 09:52: Message edited by: Endoperez ]

Wendigo

October 14th, 2003, 11:41 AM

The current system is broad enough:
We have weapons that differ in damage, lenght, attack & defense modifiers, n� of attacks & standard penetration/armour piercing/armour negating atributes, plus various magic effects.

And we have armour & shields that differ in protection, defense modifiers, encumbrance plus assorted magic effects.

The posibilities offered by combining both of the above are huge, and according to my experience in MP those are already hard enough to understand & master for the playerbase, without adding further complication on top.

The system is both complex & ellegant as it stands in Dom I, IMO the developers efforts are better comitted elsewhere.

[ October 14, 2003, 10:42: Message edited by: Wendigo ]

Taqwus

October 14th, 2003, 02:32 PM

I'd concur that Illwinter likely has better things to do than categorize heck-knows HOW many different attack forms there are in the game. And bear in mind that some attack forms might fall into multiple types depending on use... ugh.

More complexity does not necessarily equal better, but it guarantees a heck of a lot more work.

atul

October 14th, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by DominionsFAN:
Hell no! If you hit a decent platemail with a hammer -or with a sword-, you will take almost no damage.
If I remember correctly, at least some warhammers had been designed two-sided: a blunt hammerhead with a spike on the other side (gyah my english isn't up to this), a little like this:
___
|....\_^___ (poor ASCII to the
|...._____> rescue!) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|___/.||

Anyway, the blunt side for soft targets and crushing the bones below armour. And the spike side to act as a can opener for heavy armour.

So, were the distinction Slashing/Crushing/Piercing damage applied, this particular weapon should act as crushing or piercing, dependent on which kind of armour is attacked (we assume that the soldier wielding a hammer can make an intelligent decision).

Quite makes aforementioned distinction obsolete.

And anyone who has seen the movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon must admit that a spear can very well be used as a slashing weapon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

While different damage types as seen in many RPGs fit nicely to those games, I must also say that I don't think that it would be worth all the trouble. Yes, Doms has many RPGish elements, but personally I think that the ability to make your enemies' capitals suffer the fate of Carthago (destroy fort, plunder, just add salt) is a lot more essential than different damage types of common soldiers.

In the end, it all comes to one's own opinions, of course.

Besides, if talked about immersion and such, I think there are many other ways to add that than just common damage types (time to duck and cover http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ). For example (this being just a hearsay), the thing about ancient Roman javelin was the special way its tip was manufactured. The foremost part was hard iron and just behind it the iron was relatively soft. So, when such a javelin was thrown and blocked by a shield, the foremost part would penetrate it, and latter would bend by the weight of the shaft. End result: the heavy javelin is stuck in the shield which is left quite unusable by the addition of extra weight. Implement that!

(Of course, I'm not imagining such implementation would be usable, if it wasn't clear from the context. The point being, you actually have to stop at some level when making a game, at least if you want to get it ready some day. And I confess, still have traumas from playing RoleMaster)

licker

October 14th, 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Taqwus:

More complexity does not necessarily equal better, but it guarantees a heck of a lot more work.Yep, I think this is the major disadvantage of this system. It requires not only more work from the devs, but more work from the players. While there are certainly some players that want this added tedium, there are (apparently) also several that think its merely complexity for the sake of complexity.

Beyond the difficulty to *accuratly* model a system like this (which isn't all that big of a deal really from a game mechanic point of view), the problem lies in what is the benefit to game play. For some there is a benefit, for some there isn't, and for some the system would actually be a detriment. At this point I think the pro side would be better off asking or hoping that such a system can somehow be added as a mod, and the devs can let the community with its near infinate time (though not wisdom http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) work out the details on their own, if a mod appears which gains popular acclaim, then maybe it can be added in a patch, or saved for Dom3 (should such a project be undertaken).

I remain unconvinced that such a system adds anything meaningful to the game play of Dom and I hope that the pro side of this discussion can find a new line of reasoning to continue with, the more is better arguement is past its time.

Saber Cherry

October 14th, 2003, 05:35 PM

Regardless of whether Illwinter puts damage types into the game...

If the game is made to support different damage types, and armors/units are allowed to have protection bonuses versus different damage types, the game would be completely unchanged, and I would say... with minimal effort expended.

Then, some silly person like me could come out with a mod that does the tedious labor of associating types with weapons, and bonuses with units and armors. And people who think it is fun could use it.

But for this to happen, support must be built into the game code.

-Cherry

Saber Cherry

October 14th, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by atul:

Anyway, the blunt side for soft targets and crushing the bones below armour. And the spike side to act as a can opener for heavy armour.

So, were the distinction Slashing/Crushing/Piercing damage applied, this particular weapon should act as crushing or piercing, dependent on which kind of armour is attacked (we assume that the soldier wielding a hammer can make an intelligent decision).

Quite makes aforementioned distinction obsolete.
No... it would be a dual-typed Crush/Pierce weapon, automatically using the best type for a given armor.

October 14th, 2003, 05:55 PM

There have been a lot of generalizations in this thread lately. Ok.

It's hard for me to understand people complaining about how you cannot model this system realistically, and how this would not add enough variety, and yet they swear by the system that depends on *random dice*.

"Hey John, before you hit me with that sword, let's throw a dice and see whether you'll cut my arm or my ear off". Right. Keep on complaining how this system would be unrealistic and not model things properly.

Furthermore, random dice effectively makes all your units very similar in performance. If you like systems like AoW2, where a halfling slinger can kill a dragon without a problem because of the huge random factor in combat resolution, then we fundametally disagree on what we want to see in games. I want to see difference and gradation between units, you want to see everybody performing pretty much the same. The expensive units are just a waste of resources, since this is not backed up by their elevated performance, and you're better off just massing units instead of doing some decision making in the process.

And yes, let the comp do all the work. All I want to do is click end turn, and the comp can do everything else. This is a game after all, so why bother?

An if you consider tactical and strategical decisions to be classified as "micromanagement", then what do you call browsing through menus and changing orders every turn? I shudder to think what would you say if there were rumours about implementation of tactical control over the battles.

As I said, since the "pro people" should think this or that, I guess I simply don't understand some things.

[ October 14, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: HJ ]

Nerfix

October 14th, 2003, 06:05 PM

This system could/would/will work if it is balanced and well thougth out, but i am fine with the current system, and i see no real need why to add this. Thus, this would require piles of extra work for IW. Of course, if this gets added, and it is balanced(Arco doesn't get totaly pooped when enemy sends pierce-resisting troops/critters) and well thougth out, i would be more than happy.

Zerger

October 14th, 2003, 06:17 PM

Ok here it goes, what Illwinter will have to do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif :

1. Release the mod tools
2. Wait for player input, and tweak the AI if it will require it.
3. Add this system.

I do not really like Saber's Posts, they are usually pointless and idiotic, but this idea is very good, I must agree.

[ October 14, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: Zerger ]

October 14th, 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Nerfix:
Thus, this would require piles of extra work for IW. This is why I thought the time-out was a good idea. Neither can I force them do implement it, nor can someone else tell them not to. Regardless of what we say, please do the work or please go easy on yourselves, it will matter little. An idea has been given, and that's pretty much what we can do - propose ideas. Unless we can mod as well, of course, but then it has nothing to do with the devs, or other people's opinions again.

johan osterman

October 14th, 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by HJ:

Furthermore, random dice effectively makes all your units very similar in performance. If you like systems like AoW2, where a halfling slinger can kill a dragon without a problem because of the huge random factor in combat resolution, then we fundametally disagree on what we want to see in games. I want to see difference and gradation between units, you want to see everybody performing pretty much the same. The expensive units are just a waste of resources, since this is not backed up by their elevated performance, and you're better off just massing units instead of doing some decision making in the process.
If you are saying what I think you are saying, that the randomisation in the combat in dominions makes all units perform pretty much the same, you you are obviously way off base. If you have played the game it will be abundantly clear to you that there is a huge difference between the performance of a knight and a militia. The random dice enters comes into play in many situations so that it would be a very rare occurence indeed for 20 knights to get whipped by 20 militia, I even doubt it would happen very often that 20 knights route from 100 militia. The costs of most units reflect how they perform, there are occasional statistical abberations of course, but dominions isnt chess.

An if you consider tactical and strategical decisions to be classified as "micromanagement", then what do you call browsing through menus and changing orders every turn? I shudder to think what would you say if there were rumours about implementation of tactical control over the battles.
I do not think that anyone considers tactical and strategic decisions as micromanagement per se, but it is not entirely obvious that the slash/crush/pierce additions would result in decisions that will have a meaningfull impact on gameplay that outweighs the additional micromanagement it would result in. This also pertains to the more general discussion on what level of abstraction combat should occur, it is not a given that the most realistic and complex combat system makes the best game. Dominions has allready gone quite a far in modelling induvidual combat compared to most games in the same genre, it is not necessarily a good thing to reduce the abstraction even further, although it might be. Other ideas in this vein has been to model hit locations etc., although hitlocations would not even potentionally add much of strategical or tactical decisions.

And besides the issue of potentional micromanagenment there is the difficulty of implementing it in a balanced way that works well with the rest of the current system.

October 14th, 2003, 08:43 PM

As I said, I won't pretend that I can argue with people who are actually involved in designing the game, and think that I know better than they do what their game should look like. I do however have an opinion on some things, and if they are a bit critical about certain aspects of the game, so be it, that doesn't mean that they are malicious in their intent.

Originally posted by johan osterman:
If you are saying what I think you are saying, that the randomisation in the combat in dominions makes all units perform pretty much the same, you you are obviously way off base. If you have played the game it will be abundantly clear to you that there is a huge difference between the performance of a knight and a militia. The random dice enters comes into play in many situations so that it would be a very rare occurence indeed for 20 knights to get whipped by 20 militia, I even doubt it would happen very often that 20 knights route from 100 militia. The costs of most units reflect how they perform, there are occasional statistical abberations of course, but dominions isnt chess. I am saying that by simply viewing the unit stats, you cannot have a good idea about that unit's preformance due to the proportionally huge random variable involved in it. I'm not particulary concerned about the obvious differences, such as the difference between an iron dragon and hoburg guards, but between a what seems to me a huge spectrum of very similar units in the middle range. From your example, it doesn't matter much whether the knight in question wields a broadsword or a morning star, while I would like to see that it does make at least some difference. I said several times that I am for distinctive shades of grey, not black and white and not uniform blur. What my perception is, and I emphasize the word "my", is that blur is prevalent, and I would rather see that it isn't. That's all.

I do not think that anyone considers tactical and strategic decisions as micromanagement per se, but it is not entirely obvious that the slash/crush/pierce additions would result in decisions that will have a meaningfull impact on gameplay that outweighs the additional micromanagement it would result in. This also pertains to the more general discussion on what level of abstraction combat should occur, it is not a given that the most realistic and complex combat system makes the best game. Dominions has allready gone quite a far in modelling induvidual combat compared to most games in the same genre, it is not necessarily a good thing to reduce the abstraction even further, although it might be. Other ideas in this vein has been to model hit locations etc., although hitlocations would not even potentionally add much of strategical or tactical decisions.

And besides the issue of potentional micromanagenment there is the difficulty of implementing it in a balanced way that works well with the rest of the current system.[/QB]Now, this is purely up to your own discretion. I wasn't saying anything about difficulty of implementation, or time vs. benefit for gameplay. Mostly because I find it silly when people who won't be putting that time in speak in the name of devs: "it's going to take long to implement" or "it will only take a second" as if they're going to be the ones that are going to do it. If IW decides it's not worth the time, that is different than some end-user saying the same thing, and that's something I have a hard time digesting as an argument unless it comes from the person responsible for doing the work. Those who are will actually decide where that time will be spent anyway.

In short, if it was my game, I would welcome this suggestion. Since it's yours, you make the calls. I never disputed that. I was merely a)expressing my point of view and b)providing counterarguments for reasons I see as unfounded.

No hard feelings,
HJ

[ October 14, 2003, 19:47: Message edited by: HJ ]

Nerfix

October 14th, 2003, 08:49 PM

Morning Stars have bonus against shields BTW...
I think it was Morning Stars...

Kristoffer O

October 14th, 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by HJ:

In short, if it was my game, I would welcome this suggestion. Since it's yours, you make the calls. Actually it's not his game. It's my game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif He's just the brother.

licker

October 14th, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by HJ:

In short, if it was my game, I would welcome this suggestion. Since it's yours, you make the calls. Actually it's not his game. It's my game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif He's just the brother.<hr /></blockquote>Heh, well your brother is quite astute http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

His Last paragraph summed up the reasons why an addition such as this system may or may not be a good thing for game play. And in the end, that's all that should really matter. Most people arn't going to care all that much if you called flails noodle splats and swords breadstickers, they can tell from looking at the statistics of them that they are different, and how they should be used to an advantage.

The facts are that there already is differentiation within the weapon system in Dom, what this system wants to do is expand and refine that differenttiation, and while there is nothing wrong with wanting to do that, the question still arises "what do you gain by doing so?" If the main gain is to satisfy some group that wants more 'realism' then its basically a wasted effort in terms of game play. As it is the system won't change much (at least from my understanding of it) other than to potentially clutter up the recruiting screen with more units, and create more potential imbalances. Sure if you spend the time and effort you can get the balance right, but the question is and always should be, what is the benefit of that time and effort? Seemingly the benefit is not nearly as great as some people make it out to be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

October 14th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by licker:
[QB Sure if you spend the time and effort you can get the balance right, but the question is and always should be, what is the benefit of that time and effort? Seemingly the benefit is not nearly as great as some people make it out to be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [/QB]And I guess that it's going to be your time invested in making that? You'll be only reaping benefits anyway. Don't worry, the implementation is not goign to be the part of the homework, only utilizing the end result. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This is like sending subliminal Messages to the devs, instead of making an argument. And if I start saying "it's a piece of cake", it would be the same thing. The devs invest time where they see fit. A lot of things can be labelled as "sorry, it wasn't worth your time" hypothetically, but who are we to tell them that anyway?

[ October 14, 2003, 20:33: Message edited by: HJ ]

LordArioch

October 14th, 2003, 10:26 PM

I think the most IW should do if they bother with this at all is implement a damage type possibility for modders...because it seems based on this and the poll that this isn't a unanimous decision by the community, but rather a few players who want it...and that's a fine place for modding to come in. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
If you modders balance it right we all might play Damage Types Dominions 2...and if not I'm more than happy with the current system. A spear is still not even close to equivalent to an axe or a sword. Small modifiers count for quite a bit.

Mortifer

October 15th, 2003, 01:10 AM

Well the Dominions system is nice enough I must admit that too, but this sytem is even better.
Period.

licker

October 15th, 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by HJ:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by licker:
[QB Sure if you spend the time and effort you can get the balance right, but the question is and always should be, what is the benefit of that time and effort? Seemingly the benefit is not nearly as great as some people make it out to be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And I guess that it's going to be your time invested in making that? You'll be only reaping benefits anyway. Don't worry, the implementation is not goign to be the part of the homework, only utilizing the end result. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This is like sending subliminal Messages to the devs, instead of making an argument. And if I start saying "it's a piece of cake", it would be the same thing. The devs invest time where they see fit. A lot of things can be labelled as "sorry, it wasn't worth your time" hypothetically, but who are we to tell them that anyway?[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Actually yes, it is my time. In as much as we have all already spent time discussing this. In as much as once (if) the new system is out we'll have to spend the time to learn it. In as much as we will all spend time critiqueing it during and after development. Besides who's to say that your 'benefits' are the same as mine? If I see a new system as a threat to my enjoyment of the game I'll be sure to point that out. Now you'll note I wasn't trying to speak for everyone, or even a subsection of everyone, we are all only speaking for ourselves, and while that is normally understood, occasionally its useful to point it out again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I don't see what your bit about subliminal Messages has to do with this discussion anyway. The argument against inclusion of such a system is that it adds needless complexity without a big payoff for that complexity. I suppose by saying that I am also telling them that I don't think it's worth their time to make the effort, but I hardly think that's a subliminal thought, it should be pretty obvious. Furthermore for you to say that it would be 'a piece of cake' (not that you are actually) would be incredibly disingenuous, as most everyone agrees that it would be far from 'a piece of cake'.

Finally we are the paying customers, it is our right (some think its their duty) to tell the devs what we want or don't want, what we like or dislike. In the end its up to the devs to listen or not to the multiple points of view, but I'm sure that they appreciate all the feedback they get, even the occasionally surly replys http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Is there some actual point to your attempts to get the anti crowd to stop putting forth their side of the discussion? Other than the obvious one that is... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif From what I've seen lately there isn't much new coming from either side really, that's why I suggested a while back that people start trying to encourage the devs to somehow make this damage type thing moddable, that should shut everyone up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif