Some ideas: raiding, seiging, spell AI and more..

[Tuidjy]

Whine, whine, whine, *****, *****, *****.

There are too many strategies in Dominions II, and I cannot deal with most
of them! I especially cannot deal with more than one applied at the same
time. Lets change the rules we know to something completely untested, and
hardly making any sense! Lets remove any magic strategy that has been used
against me with any success! I wanna play with knights, archers and
groundpounders, although I think that knights should lose the charge bonus,
and the attack rear command should be disabled.

Whahhh!

Guys, if you do expand quickly, you will lose the game. If you do not build
reaction forces, you will lose the game. If you do not make alliances that
benefit both parties, you will lose the game. If you do not have some
hoarding strategy you will lose the game. If you do not have a good idea
about what your opponents are doing, you will lose the game.

If you do all the above, you may still lose the game.

And if all of the above are removed, the people who are kicking your *** will
adapt, and still kick your ***. Only, Dominion II will be a lot less fun...

[Soapyfrog]

Pardon me but it is certainly MORE fun with no hoarding. More possible strategies, less micromanagement. its a NO-BRAINER.

But you belong to the reactionary "nothing is broken" crowd. I'll bet you thought the VQ was dandy.

You seem to think that Illwinter have created the perfect game, perfect in all respects, in no need of tweaking/modding whatsover. Ah yes, truly, ignorance is bliss!

[Arryn]

Soapyfrog said:
But you belong to the reactionary "nothing is broken" crowd.

By definition, someone who believes "nothing is broken" is a conservative and thus the opposite of a reactionary (someone who feels a need for change). You really ought to understand the meaning of the terms you sling.

[Soapyfrog]

Reactionary and conservative are quite synonymous terms.

As a quick source to back up my use of the word, here is a definition from dictionary.com:

"Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative."

The term you are looking for is "revolutionary" which is the opposite of "reactionary".

[Esben Mose Hansen]

Arryn said:

By definition, someone who believes "nothing is broken" is a conservative and thus the opposite of a reactionary (someone who feels a need for change). You really ought to understand the meaning of the terms you sling.

Actually, Soapyfrog's use of the word was quite appropriate. See e.g. wikipedia

[Arryn]

Soapyfrog said:
The term you are looking for is "revolutionary" which is the opposite of "reactionary".

My bad. You're right. I read "revolutionary" when you actually wrote "reactionary". I really am senile today. I should just go back to bed. Either that or go load up on caffeine.

[Tuidjy]

Soapyfrog said:
Pardon me but it is certainly MORE fun with no hoarding. More possible strategies, less micromanagement. its a NO-BRAINER.

Pardon me, but 'cast black servant', 'forge fetish', 'forge clam', and
sticking the Last two on the former is no more micromanagement than any
other strategy requires. And please explain to me how _removing_ a
strategy opens up more strategies? Or are you one of the deluded fools
who think that any strategy is a garantee for success? Because in one
game, I'll end up facing someone who is hoarding at least clams and devils,
and most probably fetishes, judging from the fortified temple in each
province of hers. Oh, by the way, she also is second in provinces and
research, and has supercombatants, and a wished pretender. And you know
what? I do not intend to let her win the game.

But you belong to the reactionary "nothing is broken" crowd.

I belong to the intersection of the 'Win with the tools you're given'
and the 'Can't stand rebels without a clue' crowds. Or so I like to
think. Care to prove me wrong in a 1x1?

I'll bet you thought the VQ was dandy.

I thought that the VQ was a newbie friendly pretender, and possibly
underpriced. At the time, I did not consider myself good enough to be
positive. I have fielded VQs in a MP game twice. Once after the VQ nerf
was announced, to see what the big deal is, and once after the nerf, to
win the tournament's semi-final against the most vocal anti-VQ crusader.
I have not used her since, because I find her horribly overpriced.

You seem to think that Illwinter have created the perfect game, perfect in all respects, in no need of tweaking/modding whatsover.

Certainly in no need of tweaking/modding prompted by the whine-du-jour of
clueless losers.

Ah yes, truly, ignorance is bliss!

I am sure that explains why you are so happy with yourself. But I prefer
finding my own happiness in winning. Once again, care to play a game so
that we can both indulge?

[baruk]

alexti said:
I find it good to have mroe than one battle per turn. It gives more interesting options. Concerning the mage near the lab, it maybe reasonable to replenish gems between the battles, but what is supposed to happen if there isn't enough gems? And in any case 2 battles in the province where you control the lab is really uncommon.

Multiple battles (per army) in a turn are not bad in themselves. It seems a little easy to me for a knowledgable player to use the system against gem-wielding mages. Players can always use their familiarity with the AI against others.

Labs may usually be in fortified provinces, but also consider the more common situation when people use scouts as gem carriers for large armies. It doesn't make sense to me that a mage wouldn't try to replenish his gem supply mid-turn before a major battle (having spent his gems in a magical battle). I doubt that an AI would accomplish this satisfactorily, though (but maybe worth a try). With a limited gem supply, gems may go to the wrong mages, or be distributed in insufficient numbers.

alexti said:
What I don't like about your idea is not the limitation, but "per-province" basis. If now you can just slap clam on the third from the left researher, with your idea you'd have to count how many clams are already in this province (meaning scanning all mages there) and then to take into account possible dominion change. And all these efforts don't really add anything to the game experience. With overall limit, you'd typically know that you're well below the limit, so no worries and counting. I'm still not sure if the overall limit would be a good idea or not.

Its true that it would add a lot of micro-management. Being a veteran of dominions-PPP, I have built up quite a tolerance.

Gem generation would happen before dominion change under my system (not sure what the turn order is currently), so your number of active generators would be predictable from turn-to-turn.

An overall limit may be better in terms of micro-managing. It would, however, allow more of an all-eggs-in-one-basket type approach for the hoarder, made effective by use of domes. A simpler limit could be that any null or enemy-dominion province has a limit of one active generator.

Dominion pushing as a tool against hoarders could be interesting, might add something to the game.

[Soapyfrog]

Tuidjy said:
And please explain to me how _removing_ a
strategy opens up more strategies?

Because you will use those resources with which you MUST otherwise hoard to do other interesting things that never get done because everyone is busy hoarding.

For EXAMPLE: Soul contracts invalidate huge swathes of blood summons. Most never get used becuase it is much much much more cost effective to create soul contracts.

Or are you one of the deluded fools who think that any strategy is a garantee for success?

No of course not. It's all about what you DO with it... however hoarding is a REQUIREMENT. It is something you _MUST_ do. There is no "alternate" strategy. It doesnt improve the game, it just drowns out other possible uses for your gems/slaves. It's badly balanced.

Worse, there is exactly ZERO strategy involved in hoarding. It is simple administrative work. Tedious. But sadly neccessary.

Why not simply have all magic sites double in output every 20 turns? You would get the same effect, and not have to work for it... AND nations which are inherently bad at hoarding wouldn't take it in the teeth as much.

Certainly in no need of tweaking/modding prompted by the whine-du-jour of clueless losers.

Clearly I must fold in the face of your irrefutable logic. Touché.

[Gandalf Parker]

Soapyfrog said:

Because you will use those resources with which you MUST otherwise hoard to do other interesting things that never get done because everyone is busy hoarding.

No of course not. It's all about what you DO with it... however hoarding is a REQUIREMENT. It is something you _MUST_ do. There is no "alternate" strategy. It doesnt improve the game, it just drowns out other possible uses for your gems/slaves. It's badly balanced.

You keep saying the same thing over and over and louder and louder. Most people have moved on. I hope you dont take that to mean that you are convincing people of this "problem" you are trying to fix.