Unit abstraction?

[CarlG2]

Hey all,

I've just recently begun looking at the demo for this game again after reading some great reviews on it (CGW, others). I'd heard about it awhile ago, but at the time was turned off by the inability to mod the nations in the game (as I was looking for an engine that would let me create a Conan/Hyborian War scenario). However, I saw that it was certainly deep and rich in content, and the new patch that adds the ability to mod the nations may very well entice me to buy it (since I've been unable to find a good game to create said scenario, although Civ3 Conquests looks promising due to how much can be customized).

However, I am having a real problem with one facet of this game, which is impacting my "suspension of disbelief" to the point where I'm not sure I could really enjoy the game.

It has to do with unit scale and the size of armies. From the reading I have done, and from the demo, it appears that each unit is meant to represent one man, monster, etc. It is probably just me, but I feel that there is something wrong with the size of the forces that are then being represented. How awesome is it to imagine my mighty "army" of 200 heavy spearmen having a "climactic" battle with 10 enemy giants and 50 archers (just a random example)? Even if an army were to reach 1,000 units and fight a similarly sized force, it'd still be small when compared to the epic battles that I want to see in my mind's eye, or that are frequently depicted in fantasy literature.

So, that being said and without making this too long, is there an abstraction built in to the unit sizes mentioned anywhere? Does a single infantry unit really represent 50 or 100 men, for example, or did they really design this game with the idea that it's just a bunch of platoons and companies running around fighting each other? One thing I loved about MOM was that units didn't represent just one guy, but were actually an abstraction for larger military formations. As such, attack/defense factors decreased as a unit took damage to represent combat losses. I lost interest in Age of Wonders for similar suspension of disbelief issues, as well...it just didn't feel "real"...4 Elven Archers and an Elven Swordsman conquer the city of X while battling 3 spiders...whoa!!!

I don't want this to sound like I'm bashing Dominions 2, because I can see the intense love of this game by a lot of people. For me to enjoy a game, though, I need to "believe" in the mythos that is being represented, and small bands of troops supposedly conquering a world just doesn't do it for me... "Yes, my lord, we conquered that province with 5 knights...all 50,000 subjects bent their knee to us 5 mighty men because of our big lances..."

Can anyone shed some light on either what the designers are representing per unit, or on how you specifically mentally abstract armies to make them feel more realistic (yeah, yeah, I know it's a GAME and not real, but games are meant to provide a degree of suspension of disbelief, no?)

Oh, yeah, the mercenary screen gets me every time...so and so is available, and he leads 10 men... Remind me not to piss THAT guy off... Does anyone else feel this does something negative for the epic scale of the game? If the text would at least say ten units or formations or something, it wouldn't pull me back to the fact that I'm playing a game, as opposed to experiencing a tale...

Am I alone on this subject?

Thanks and good gaming,
Carl G.

[Gandalf Parker]

Pros and Cons.
True the civilian populations arent represented in the battles if thats what you mean. But Ive seen armies of 1500 hitting a field vs 1500 of the enemy so they seem to have handled that part OK. They had to pick SOME scale to work with and I think this wasnt a bad choice. Since so many of the units are unique ones which should not be represented as 1=10 I dont forsee a change.

[CarlG2]

Thanks for the reply, Gandalf Parker!

To clarify, I'm not really looking for the civilian populations to be directly represented, but for a sense that we're really talking about armies...and not, for the most part, small warrior bands.

1,500 vs 1,500 is still just a skirmish when compared with historical "ancients" battles (and, if my research is correct, it sounds like a 1,500 unit army in Dominions 2 is about as big as they get). It doesn't seem to me that without an abstraction, Dominions 2 could ever recreate a "Battle of the Pelennor Fields" where 200,000 orcs and men descended upon the few defenders of Minas Tirith.

When using an abstraction ratio for units, I think that uniques can be accomodated by figuring in their greater power, implicit bodyguards, etc. In traditional boardgame-type abstraction, a human infantry unit may represent 50 men, a cavalry unit say 30, a wizard w/ apprentices and bodyguards 5, and a dragon/greater demon/etc. just 1 (as a quick example).

Anyway, as you say, I don't see any change coming if it was designed as a 1 for 1 representation. I'm disappointed, and perhaps it's an indication that I'll have to keep looking for "my" ultimate fantasy wargame/strategy game. I know I'm picky...but a system needs to "work" for me to believe in it. Unfortunately, too many systems in Dominions 2 don't "work" for me to really get into it, if it is meant to be a 1 unit represents 1 man system.

Just one example is that I cannot get past the fact that a turn represents 6 months, and in that time I can typically only train a handful of warriors...it just doesn't feel "right". I guess it's just me.

I'm most disappointed because I feel like Dominions 2 gets it "right" for me in so many ways, but scale is probably my biggest "pet peave" in strategy/wargames...if the game scale doesn't sync with what is being represented...well, then "I" can't sync with the game.

I appreciate the support and answers provided on this forum, and please understand that I am here not to criticize, but to find out if this is a game I would enjoy or one where the small details and design decisions would just annoy me (and, in this case, the biggest and perhaps only issue I have found so far is one of scale...IMHO)

Thanks again for your response, and good gaming,
Carl G.

[johan osterman]

A turn is one month not six.

Just a quick answer to your post and I'm in no way trying to counter what you want but,

The demo is availiable for free and download (hopefully you have a decent connection).

There is a map, made by Gandalf (Yay) that gives you a bunch of provinces and 2 castles enough that you can field different types of army (small, medium, large, based on what you are looking to see if fits you) way before the end of the demo and then you can send your armies to battle an opponent, or drive towards a castle.

You *should* run into an army of comparable size some time along the way that will give you the feel of the combat.

I personally don't like 3 Elves and a Swordsman conquored a town mentality, but I don't feel that Dom2 fits that bill. I've had massive battles and heroic encounters where a few units have bested a horde of enemies. It may not be on scale with what you are looking for (20,000 + battles) but it is on par, if not larger than the MoM battles (where there was a stack limit that made even the largest battles, a fight of stacks)

[Pocus]

Strange, because in our group of players, it is accepted that a unit in dominions is not one being, but a group of 10 or 100. Leaders are supposed to be accompanied by a retinue too.

Thats why in the 3 french AAR that we have, we speak of armies of thousands men. I recall my account of my first battle as Marignon, where the Royal Crossbowmen were 5500 (55 units) led by 600 paladins (6 figures).

Frankly, suspension of disbelief should allow you to see whatever you want, if you try

[Johan K]

I guess it depends on which map you use. If you play on the world map you will probably imagine that paladin unit to consist of more people than if you play on a map that only consists of Sweden.

[CarlG2]

Hi all,

Thanks for the quick replies! I do appreciate this community, as it is both active and helpful.

I had played the demo some before starting this thread up, and I do agree that with some effort it is possible to imagine that different units consist of different numbers of men. There are various dialogs (mercenary recruitment screen, for one) and other references which conflict with this ability, but I agree that it is possible.

I guess one of my primary goals in posting this thread was to see how other people playing this game abstract unit sizes, and see if I could find something that could push me over the "mental hill" that I'm feeling when I play the game concerning the represented scale. I do want to like this game, since it does have so many things going for it. As the graphics are definitely utilitarian, I think this is a game that largely is played out in one's imagination.

Thus far I do not see a concensus emerging on what the scales should be, but I do like the 100 men per normal unit, 10 per fantastic unit (summoned non-uniques, for example), and 1 plus retinue for uniques, heroes, etc. (I am assuming that is what was being described by Pocus).

Zen, I was looking to recreate epic battles involving tens of thousands of combatants, and am pretty sure that the only way to do that would be through unit size abstraction. I appreciate your follow-up, though! MoM was limited by stacks, but abstracting what those stacks represented allowed one to believe that epic-sized battles were being waged, no?

Johan Osterman, I must abmit that I thought I read in the CGW review that turns represented 6 months (and hadn't verified this in the demo...note to self...always verify first before posting "facts"!) Thanks for the correction! I still have trouble with the number of recruits that can be gained on a 1 unit 1 man scale for a month of recruiting, though (when one considers that these are entire nations recruiting warriors during a wartime economy). If abstracted, however, it makes logical sense on the number of "units" that can be recruited during that period.

Johan K: Very nice to see illwinter responding so frequently to Posts on this board. I appreciate your insight into abstraction depending upon the size of the map/conflict being represented, and agree that it is something to consider. Based on your statement, I can see that most of the values in the game could be abstractions based on the size of the world map. Food for thought. Thanks!

Again, I appreciate all of the responses, and look forward to any further discussion on this topic.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

[ceremony]

The CGW review doesn't mention the length of time represented by a turn at all.

[Gandalf Parker]

He might mean the example of a played game which is farther into the magazine. Its written in kindof a compressed mode I think