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

[Reay]

So the souls do not suffer mindless dissolution after turn 50 because they are all leaders? Mindless also never rout, so it seems VOTD is working as designed otherwise they would not have made the souls all leaders.

Oh well I'd prefer if there was only one or two leaders so the souls would all suffer mindless dissolution after turn 50. I guess the developers can argue thematically that this is a dream and therefore can justify time out kills.

[Rathar]

/beatsadeadhorse.

Dude Triqui, you are being a condescending weenie.

[kasnavada]

That's the reason why I asked for the input of others, since he seems to be the only one to see impossibilities where there is none.

Now we have a capitol from one of the players "uncontested".

Yes, so what is the problem exactly if no one controls the capital province ?

More problems: it _IS_ perfectly possible to produce an infinite battle, even with reinforcements. Several SC builds can be done that they cannot die in 50 turns. That will, still, stale the game forever.

. That's the very reason I also suggested a fatigue mechanism for battle that last months, as a balance mechanism...

Also, you seem to forget that Dominions is not made from one single province but a lot of them. The war around would go on, even if 3 or 4 provinces are blocked.

The whole "no need to sleeep item" is a complete non-sense.

Sigh... as is magic or in the most part all fantasy or science fiction games. I mean, gods walking the earth ? battles that are always fought during a single day in daylight ? If you are to remove all that doesn't make sense, you are going to remove just everything. It's to the devs to decide whether it make sense or not.

As far as I know, it might make sense to them that all troops fight in a single day in daylight in a month and all attackers rout at 5 pm and troops that can't rout die at 8 pm.

Your proposal is (...)

Who do you think you are ? All those point are for the game creators to decide, not you ! As far as I know, it's not written "johan osterman" nor "Kristoffer O" in your name tag. You simply do not know whether the solution I propose is whatever you call it, because it's not your decision, and AFAIK, it's not anything you (or I) can know about...

In short, it sucks. I'm sorry if i burst your bubble, but the idea you thougth was so awesome, is not so awesome.

Again, I don't care if you think it sucks. I don't care about it being awesome. I don't care if it's complicated. The only think I'm interested in is whether it works, or not.

Since you seem bent on the idea that it doesn't, and I think the opposite, I asked for other people to point out which one is right.

Sad to see that only a few care ! Well, of course, after a page of discussion, I would also be reluctant to join and write some more...

[Kristoffer O]

Be civil, please.

Rathar: I would have preferred if you said "Dude Triqui, you come out as unreasonably condescending", or something similar. The weenie part is unnecessary.

[Agrajag]

Here's a question for ya kasnavada, what happens when a third nation attacks a contested province?

[kasnavada]

The game currently doesn't support 3 way fights. The battle system would have to change so it can support it.

Ideas : instead of having two sides, you would have the first two 'first' sides fighting each other and having the third one coming from the side. Or, to keep a closer "layout" compared to what exists now, from the back of one of the nations involved (the 3rd attacker could chooses which one ? as a bonus ? ). Or something else.

[Rathar]

My apologies, I trust you will understand what I mean when I say that my impulsive original statement did not include such words as weenie but rather worse terms for the male genitalia.

Anyways..

It has seemed to me that this idea in general and the topic that there are certain "way messed up bugs if you take advantage of them" has been dominating the airwaves recently.

Personally, I think that as long as you spell out the 'Rules' ala Velusion(Really simplistic, common sense structure imho) style then anything goes. Use common sense.

If someone uses a "known" bug then say "uh, thats a known bug. Would you like to reconsider? Due to x,y and z?"

We aren't using Napoleonic law folks.. At least most of us!? Be less quick to judge your neighbors. Give people the benefit of the doubt. If they lie, you get the karma!

At any rate!..

I think that VOTD should peak at actual "in game" souls I.E. those which have been slain during the "normal" game phase. This increase due to slaying the dead is BS!" "Total BS!" he said.

[Agrajag]

kasnavada said:
The battle system would have to change so it can support it.

So basically, completely redesigning and implementing one of the most basic parts of the game?
This (well, all of your change, really) will not happen in a patch. Dom4 is not anywhere in sight (ie it isn't even planned to be released sometimes eventually in the uncertain future).
So why bother with it?
I can understand that it's fun to fantasize, but you have to realize and understand that this is just a fantasy.

[triqui]

Agrajag said:
Here's a question for ya kasnavada, what happens when a third nation attacks a contested province?

point, game, set and match.

And that's just the point of the iceberg of the several and several bugs and complications you could get just becouse you try to introduce a *completelly unnecessary* mechanism to fix something that *is not what is broken*

Start to think about how many complications you could find: several nations fighting there, several ritual combat spells there, people entering an breaking sieges, etc.

What about this?
instead of a third army joining the battle (which would be "solved" by the army entering the battle from a side), TEN different armies join the fight. From 10 different nations (using flying, teleport, cloudtrapeze, and what not). How do you put them in combat? 3 x side?

Or what about this:

2 armies fighting a contested province, in a long, draw battle (2 strong SC very hard to kill). Suddenly, one of the players attepmt an assasination. That also becomes a locked battle. Other player (from a third nation if you want), cast vengance of the dead, which target the same SC. It also becomes a lock battle. So now we have a character that is fighting THREE DIFFERENT locked battles in the SAME PROVINCE, for SEVERAL MONTHS. And we have not even started to playtest it with the really complicated issues.

What about if 10 assasins try to assasinate the same SC, which happen to lock the first one battle. Do the assasins stay there sitting on a rock waiting their turn? do they gangbang the SC (assasins should fight alone) Do the SC enter 10 different locked battles?

Sorry to burst your bubble again but *it doesn't work*. Doesn't. In present tense. It *might* work in another game (be it dominions 4 or The sims 3). In this game, with this ruleset, it does not work.

[thejeff]

Nah, he's right, technically. There are workarounds, or fiat solutions for all these issues. It could be made to work.

But it's a huge fundamental change to the way dominions combat works, that would introduce all sorts of unforeseeable weirdnesses and exploits, in addition to whatever you think of here. All for the sake of fixing a small isolated problem with much simpler solutions.

And it's not going to be implemented anyway.

So can we please stop talking about it.

You're arguing semantics now. Is it theoretically possible? Yes. It is at all practical? No.