Dud units / monsters / summons

Methel · #1 April 24th, 2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Well I'm willing to go with the flow regarding flaggies. People here seem to think they're useful and I'm no expert, so I'm not going to argue that one any further. If the description explained about their afflictions I suppose that would make it less bothersome.

They're flaggelants, they hurt themselves for religious purification/proof of faith/penance/whatever. Seems logic that a good bit of them cant fight as well as unhurt soldiers.

Sombre · #2 April 24th, 2007, 09:14 AM

I don't think they were into lopping their own arms and legs off, but ok I can see the reasoning.

vfb · #3 April 24th, 2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Sombre said:
I don't think they were into lopping their own arms and legs off, but ok I can see the reasoning.

They got infected and were forced to amputate

.

Gandalf Parker · #4 April 24th, 2007, 11:35 AM

Some people will only be happy with a strategy game that involves perfectly matched pieces that are a different color. Like playing Chess. Nothing wrong with such games. They are the true test of strategy-vs-strategy. They also tend to want chess-board maps with nothing random which might cause a game to be won by luck. This is an extreme group and can be supported by maps and mods. (hmmm mods that create a dozen duplicates of Ulm so the Ulmers can play against other Ulmers. One mod for each nation...)

Of course there is also the other extreme. Those who prefer random and chaos. The game is to best handle the things thrown at you. Also supportable by maps and mods (one day I will update Leif's Dom2 mod that changes one randomly chosen stat on every unit in the game so that you have to rethink your strategy each time you play with it. And recreate my chaotic randomized maps). Yes Im in the chaotic group.

OF course, MOST players are someplace in between and seem to be having a great time with the game. I will continue to suggest chaos and random in the beta-test group. And we have our representatives in this thread who will continue to post there in the name of balance and equalizing.
And the poor devs will continue to watch us go back and forth.

Gandalf Parker

Sombre · #5 April 24th, 2007, 12:07 PM

What's chaotic about units so bad they'll always punish you for using them?

I'm not into uber-balance. I don't even play MP. I like variety and if certain units are just bad that cuts down the variety, even in SP. It also weakens the AI, since it can't tell a good buy from a bad one.

Dedas · #6 April 24th, 2007, 12:50 PM

That is a very good post, Gandalf. I'm entirely with you.

Jazzepi · #7 April 24th, 2007, 12:58 PM

Even some people who play chess think every side having the same exact start is dull.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960

Jazzepi

quantum_mechani · #8 April 24th, 2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
Some people will only be happy with a strategy game that involves perfectly matched pieces that are a different color. Like playing Chess. Nothing wrong with such games. They are the true test of strategy-vs-strategy. They also tend to want chess-board maps with nothing random which might cause a game to be won by luck. This is an extreme group and can be supported by maps and mods. (hmmm mods that create a dozen duplicates of Ulm so the Ulmers can play against other Ulmers. One mod for each nation...)

Of course there is also the other extreme. Those who prefer random and chaos. The game is to best handle the things thrown at you. Also supportable by maps and mods (one day I will update Leif's Dom2 mod that changes one randomly chosen stat on every unit in the game so that you have to rethink your strategy each time you play with it. And recreate my chaotic randomized maps). Yes Im in the chaotic group.

OF course, MOST players are someplace in between and seem to be having a great time with the game. I will continue to suggest chaos and random in the beta-test group. And we have our representatives in this thread who will continue to post there in the name of balance and equalizing.
And the poor devs will continue to watch us go back and forth.

I think that's a pretty false dichotomy. As Sombre points out, the goal of balancing (at least as far as I'm concerned) is more variety, thus in a sense more chaos. As far as the random element, personally I can't stand chess very because of the lack of any randomness. I'm the last one that will complain about too much randomness in a game, as long as your actions still have some impact, it's all in good fun.

What I'm getting at here is there two kind of balance, what's out of your hands and what is under your control. I don't mind things being 'unbalanced' by being screwed by a random event early or playing on a crazy map, what I can't bring myself to do is to buy obviously inferior troops. In a way, balancing is bridging the gap between the hardcore players and those that players that are just along for the ride. It helps the players that want to try all the options not be so disadvantaged, and opens up all kinds of new strategies for hardcore players to work with.

Gandalf Parker · #9 April 24th, 2007, 01:46 PM

Most of the obviously inferior troops that get fixed by peoples mods are units that I enjoy playing with quite abit. Some are very RPG and having them non-inferior would be non-thematic. They are meant to be crappy swarmers. I also dont tend to play with a spreadhseet in my head comparing single points of hp or armor or defense with the unit next to it. To me, knowing exactly which unit is the best choice making the others "duds" is akin to a cheat sheet.

If you want to twiddle-diddle every point of every unit then feel free to (There is a mod for that?). But it seems to me as if it would be a never-ending project which is like a pendulum swinging back and forth until it finally ends up coming to a complete stop in the middle. Chess pieces.

quantum_mechani · #10 April 24th, 2007, 01:58 PM

Well, if you are arguing some units should not be worth buying for thematic reasons, there's not much I can say to that. Because I can't think of any units that would fall into that category, militia are supposed to suck but they can also be thematically made much cheaper than other troops, light cavalry may suck but thematically/historically they have their uses even if it's hard to model in dominions.

In any case, I hardly meticulously compare every units stats while playing a game, it's 90% just a sort of intuition based on past games. The only place that really comes into play at all is when I have a number of very similar national troops, and really the only difference at all is one or two points of defense.

And you can balance dominions for the next century but I doubt you will come up with anything resembling chess by tweaking units stats.