vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+ ?

[kasnavada]

NTJedi said:
Death because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong for any game.

period

I agree with that. Actually, anything that would have a turn limitation is bad.

Solutions : you could :
- add a cumulative 1 damage from fatigue every turn beyond 50 (this has its own issue, I'm not too much in favor of it),
- or just restart the battle as it were the next turn with the remaining units (and more if they decide to join the battle -> that would be fun),
- or anything else.

The fact that it doesn't make sense that the dead multiply when killed in a dream could be logical in a "dominion" sense, I mean, he did kill them again and could dream of them again. The fact that people just die suddenly when a turn limit is passed ? That cannot make sense.

[triqui]

kasnavada said:
- or just restart the battle as it were the next turn with the remaining units (and more if they decide to join the battle -> that would be fun)

That does not work. Two combatants with spam skelleton and enough reinvigoration can fight forever. Two lighting inmune combatants with lighting damage whips cant kill each other, ever. The game HAS to have a hardset turn limit. The cummulative fatigue might work, but so does the regular turn limit. The only doubt is what happens when a unit that reach its own turn limit rout, does not rout.

[kasnavada]

The keywords are "restart" and "others could join".

Restart means that the limit is still here. However, at your next turn the fight starts again. Therefore there could be a 2000 turn battle, over 40 game months (if no one joins, the limit is 50 turns per game month, and no one joins).

It could require (a lot of) work from the devs, but I don't take that in consideration when I propose things, because I have no clue of whether it's hard to do or not.

Please reconsider what you wrote in regard to what I wrote. With what I say, there are ways to finish the battle.

[Foodstamp]

The battle would still not resolve in the examples Triqui gave. As far as the fatigue goes, are you suggesting the fatigue rises after the turn limit until the participants die? If that is the case, the outcome would be exactly the same as the current turn limit system.

[NTJedi]

I'm sure the community could brainstorm ways of improving assassination battles to make more sense, I've provided several good starting examples. Unfortunately we're not going to see anything changing with Dominions_3.

Hopefully assassination battles will be improved within DOM_4 to be more logical and historically accurate.

[johan osterman]

It is not likely to be a dom4 in the foreseeable future.

[NTJedi]

johan osterman said:
It is not likely to be a dom4 in the foreseeable future.

I realize we won't see a DOM_4 for at least 4 years... maybe 10 years, but based on the success of DOM_3 I believe it has a good chance of happening.

[triqui]

kasnavada said:
The keywords are "restart" and "others could join".

Restart means that the limit is still here. However, at your next turn the fight starts again. Therefore there could be a 2000 turn battle, over 40 game months (if no one joins, the limit is 50 turns per game month, and no one joins).

So when the battle ends, who hold the province? Who can rais the taxes, or recruit there? Where does the attacker goes? What about assasinations? would they last for several months or years? It is just not viable. At the end of the turn, resolution must be done. Either the attacker won, and has the province, or lost, and defender hold it. Otherwise you are just provoking much more complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle.

Cummulative fatigue is a posibility, but might lead to a situation where both armies fall asleep and both armies "die". who win then? attacker? defender? Draw and the province become indie?

[kasnavada]

triqui said:
Cummulative fatigue is a posibility, but might lead to a situation where both armies fall asleep and both armies "die". who win then? attacker? defender? Draw and the province become indie?

All of this is details and possibilities. There are a dozen solutions to this, and that's not my game. I can however, tell you a system that makes sense, of course :

The province enters a contested state where no one controls it, nor change the tax, nor recruit in it, assassination targets anyone not of your nation (I assume the assassin is able to see the difference between his own race and the other ones), the contested province could stay that way for years. Both armies would be in the province too, and the contested state would prevent you from giving them orders.

That is ONE solution among many that make it work. It could require too much changes to game mechanics. I propose it anyway, who knows, maybe it'll be there for dominions 4.

Either the attacker won, and has the province, or lost, and defender hold it. Otherwise you are just provoking much more complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle.

The very point of the proposal I made is to change the fact that there is a winner in that fight. As far as provoking more "complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle" that is what every single change to the fight system does, so obviously, this one would also cause some.

For the fatigue system : just make it so the damage is taken unit per unit in order of initiative, or taken attacker first, then defender, solves the problem.

With all due respect, I really don't get why you put a point of stopping any thoughts of an answer that work to point the "impossibilies" that are easily bypassed, and have multiple solutions. Can't you just try to say "that won't work unless you do this and this ? maybe this would solve the problem too ?" instead of purposely blocking the discussion with "that doesn't work". That's how discussions advance. Ho, and don't take it personally. Other people on forums do this. I never understand why.


EDIT : somethings that didn't make sense.

[triqui]

kasnavada said:

All of this is details and possibilities. There are a dozen solutions to this, and that's not my game. I can however, tell you a system that makes sense, of course :

The province enters a contested state where no one controls it, change the tax, control it, assassination targets anyone not of your nation (I assume the assassin is able to see the difference between his own race and the other ones), the contested province could stay that way for years. Both armies would be in the province too, and the contested state would prevent you from giving them orders.

I dont think that makes any sense from a thematic point of view. Two warriors fighting in the same province for years with no rest? That destroy my suspension of disbelief.

The very point of the proposal I made is to change the fact that there is a winner in that fight. As far as provoking more "complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle" that is what every single change to the fight system does, so obviously, this one would also cause some.

I still it does not make sense from a game design point of view. Games HAVE rules to avoid infinite cycles for a reason. Chess have a rule to end the game if there is a perpetual check situation for example.

With all due respect, I really don't get why you put a point of stopping any thoughts of an answer that work to point the "impossibilies" that are easily bypassed,

Becouse of a science principle called "occam razor". It *^might^* be possible to get a solution that avoid every possible danger and exploit in a perpetually stalled province (imagine a battle like that in someones capitol...). The point is.. WHY bothering with it? Finishing the battle at a point (turn 50) is easier and cleaner. The only problem is when some unit does not behave as it is supposed in the turn limit (like not retreating at turn 50). Otherwise, it is a thousand miles ahead a better solution than putting a province in some weird limbo for several months.