Dominions 2 Demo Review

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Despite flaws like this, the game is exceptionally intriguing and well worth the effort of playing. So don't use archers. (I don't.) It's not an insurmountable issue.

It is for me. I like having realistic armies with combined arms.

---

Then may I suggest a more "realistic" game such as Stronghold or Lords of the Realm. No one has claimed this game is "realistic". While more accuracy from archers would be nice, they would also become far more deadly and thus imbalance the game because they are cheap compared to armored troops. As was the case historically in the real world, for two armies that "cost" the same, the army with the archers will beat the army with the armored troops almost always.

Here is an example: Jotun Spearman compared to Jotun Huskarl with spear

That 5 gold extra has rarely been a determining factor; it is the 9 fewer resources that often allow more of the Huskarls to be built, which are roughly as strong as the Spearmen indivually. Not very balanced here it would seem.

The Spearmen have 3 more protection. The game is consistent in that increasing armor costs a lot. It makes perfect sense. However, I have found in my own play, that the Huskarl is more cost-effective. Which is what you have seen too. But complaining about it makes little sense. At least to me. My own opinion is that you just don't quite understand the design criteria that has been used by the devs for the game. Or if you do, you just can't accept it. Fair enough. But don't expect a change; it's not broken.

By the way, you can also hire 2 Huskarls for the cost of 1 heavy cav. The giants are by far more useful ...

[ceremony]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Despite flaws like this, the game is exceptionally intriguing and well worth the effort of playing. So don't use archers. (I don't.) It's not an insurmountable issue.

It is for me. I like having realistic armies with combined arms.

---

You might be interested then in this game:

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/POA2/POA2b.html

[Kjeld]

Not to argue about which is best, but the costs make a lot of sense.

According to what I have seen thus far, the gold cost of an unit is more or less tied to its quality, professionalism and special powers, regardless of equipment (at least, when comparing units of the same nation/theme) : thus, units with higher morale, higher base attack, defense, hit points, berserking, or beeing sacred will cost higher.

The ressource cost of an unit is entirely dependant on its equipment, the heavier the armor and the weapons, the more it costs, and every additional items (helms, shields, additional missile attacks ...) add to the cost.

Gold and ressource cost do not have to be tied to each other. That's just why mages leaders costs a huge amount of gold and a very low amount of ressources, heh. Putting an heavy armor on a militia will cost the same (in resource) as putting the same armor on a seasoned soldier. A grizzled veteran will need to be paid more (in gold) than a blue militia

Considering that, the cost of spearmens vs huscarls are completely understandable. Huscarls are quality, elite troops, with higher morale and base (unmodified by equipment) combat stats, but more lightly armored (scale vs chain) than regular spearmen. Thus, a higher gold cost, and a lower ressource cost.

PS : you also forgot upkeep costs (in gold). Huscarls will overall cost you more in the long run, because their wages are directly poportional to their base cost.

Now, anyone is entitled to his opinion about whether *you* value pure protection or better overall prowess more (or whether Jotunheim should have recieved an elite AND heavily armored unit or not), considering the always highly situational choices you have to make (sometimes you are starved for ressources, sometimes for gold). But the costs are completely logical, not bizarre, when you know what resource and gold costs are supposed to represent.

[Teraswaerto]

Another thing to consider with gold cost vs resource cost is that upkeep is dependant on gold. I will often build Huskarls early on when it's important to raise an army quickly. However, recruiting lots of gold expensive troops every turn isn't a good idea, since the upkeep will choke your economy.

With heavily armored low gold cost troops you can maintain a larger, tougher, army, even though it takes longer to build it up.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Arryn:
...
Then may I suggest a more "realistic" game such as Stronghold ...

Stronghold is terribly unrealistic. Couldn't stand all the silly unrealistic things in that one, unfortunately. (RTS time scale from hell, spearmen easily dismantling stone walls, etc.)

PvK

[ January 14, 2004, 18:16: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by PvK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:
...
Then may I suggest a more "realistic" game such as Stronghold ...

Stronghold is terribly unrealistic. Couldn't stand all the silly unrealistic things in that one, unfortunately. (RTS time scale from hell, spearmen easily dismantling stone walls, etc.)

PvK

---

That's why I put realistic in quotes. I was being sarcastic.

The moment someone playing a game like Dom starts spouting words like realism you know the conversation has taken a turn into the twilight zone. I'll never understand how people can play fantasy games and expect anything other than ... fantasy.

Well, time to go see what lovely critter my Starspawn has summoned this turn.


Cheers!

[licker]

Originally posted by Arryn:


snip]

The moment someone playing a game like Dom starts spouting words like realism you know the conversation has taken a turn into the twilight zone. I'll never understand how people can play fantasy games and expect anything other than ... fantasy.

[snip]


Cheers!

Heh, better watch out how you use the term 'realism' around here. PvK and I have already crossed swords on this one once. Its not so much realism as it implies real world realism, as it is realism as it implies a logical order or a logical method. In the latter case there need be no influance from the history of the real world.

Anyway, the game mechanics should come first, the more 'logical realism' that can fit in the better, but historical arguements pro or con have no bearing on the final say of the game mechanics. Or at least they shouldn't...