Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Agrajag, have you made it your mission in life to make my life more difficult? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

You're right, I guess I'd better explain it more thoroughly.

1: it doesn't have to be a totally random process, if you're going for big buff warriors, naturally they're going to be larger, the same generalizations can be made for smaller units, and ofcourse, most units are going to be "average" sized, and estimates of size can lead to exact numbers quite easily. Size levels don't translate into centimeters and kilograms, they're categories as in general, but defined, ranges. Sizes outside the "average"
for a race would be used only in special circumstances, like specific heroes for instance. This is what is meant by "general advice".
2: if it's got hp, it's reminiscent of D&D, it's pretty unavoidable, and I've played D&D for long enough to know that it's not really very reminiscent, you're thinking levels, not size categories, and I've put a cap on hp.
3: mages are already quite powerful, and a simple ruling that mage commanders don't get double hp because with all the magical periphenalia they carry around, and with the stress caused by, and the concentration necessary for, combat magic, it negates the double hp commanders normally get, and solves that problem
4: you're right, recruitment/training probably would in many to most circumstances weed out the weak, depending on the specific type of unit (obviously more in ultra-elite units than in province defense militia), which is why you'd want a variety of units in the game to take advantages of different levels of training/quality. This process could be used to explain and increase the usefulness of some otherwise pretty redundant units currently present in the game.
5: I'm ok with hp as they are now, and already said so, this is just a little fun project for me, but some controlled randomness (knowing that a specific soldier is going to have between 7 and 9 hp or a dragon within 135-150) can be a good thing because then there's less complaining by people about how weak humans are in the game, because some humans would now be stronger than others, which is more realistic, and would make battles more realistic.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Reply inside the quote and in bold

EDIT: must have gotten a bold mixed up somewhere.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Also, Agrajag, I think PD is something along the lines of National Guard/Standing Militia. I doubt too many midieval burgs successfully employed the fat and lazy, primarily because the fat were almost 100% necessarily wealthy and would at best have served as commanders. Not many of those would have been lazy if they were successful, laziness would have been a trait of some of the landed nobility and the clergy, if anyone. Real PD would be English Longbowmen with arms literally deformed by the musculature necessary to use their bows, or tough freemen (of which their were few, and the ones serving as town guards would have been specialized to the task, alert and energetic (because the alternative is being impaled by sneaky Mongols while they sell your children) and in good physical shape). The ones with the wide, low range of hp. would have been levees. Others with wide ranges would be dynastic warriors where soldiers serve as a duty for generations in the same family, as landed knights etc. Hp. ranges would depend a lot more on honor, rights, duties, and that kind of thing, in a feudal society than they would one's "place" in society, because either you're poor and weak and diseased, and probably won't survive without being rich or atleast gifted with noble/religious rank and/or an education, or you're tough enough to overcome the conditions of midieval society, which weren't very good for anyone. Now, it's true that the levees would be used for PD, but after you buy the first 20, you're dealing with a healthier class of people, because you're dishing out major loot, and only a complete idiot is going to spend that kind of gold on feeding fat lazy peasants who could be working their fat off in the fields. Don't forget, you're talking societies of fanatical people who are willing to kill, die, and sacrifice by way of flaying 10 year old virgin girls, in the name of their god. They're not gonna let potential fieldhands just stand around holding a spear, especially when the national welfare program is a visit by your local necromancer.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Well, this being a purely thematic discussion, I'll just say that my image of PD is just the kind of guys that are paid to sit on their arses all day long, looking out of their tower for potential threats. But mostly just sitting on their arses since they never actually get to fight anything.
Furthermore, they eat all the standard military issued food (known to be very nutritious), and supplement it with some ale/beer and roast at the local inn.
So yeah, they are fat and lazy, probably dumb as well. (else, why would they be in the Provincial Defence and not the actual military?)
I'm currently reading a book that employs a mildly appropriate description of such men: "Barracks Rats" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Where did you get this from?
I haven't found it in neither the Dom2 nor the Dom3 manual, nor did Kristoffer or Johan ever mention this, AFAIK.
And my own observations tell me otherwise, too.

This is a contradictory statement - in itself and therefore to everything you're posting here.

In fact, I think I have empirical evidence that at least the target of all attacks vs. a square is chosen randomly, if not every single target.
Which one from the following units would you consider "most survivable unit"?:

Light Infantry #29
HP 10, Prot 15/8, Def 13 (actual fat in the test battle: 8, therefore no reduction)

Heavy Infantry #40
HP 10, Prot 17/14, Def 13 (actual fat: 6, no penalty)

Jaguar Warrior #727
HP 12, Prot 6/7, Def 13, regen 1 (actual fat: 4, no penalty)

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

I don't really understand what Graeme is saying about attacks concentrated on the "most survivable unit" in a square. The closest thing to that I can think of is that attacks are targeted randomly until everyone has died except the toughest unit, then the toughest unit is hit for the remainder of the round. Which means that the toughest unit receives most of the attacks because he is left after everyone else has died and there is no one else for the enemies to hit.

This hardly counts as needing to survive 3:1 odds. Even if both your other friendly troops are killed with a single attack each, the chaff factor lowers your odds to at worst 2:1, and that is only if the enemy troops are capable of killing yours very easily. In reality most of the time the difference in infantry will not be so dramatic (your troops might even be better than the enemy) and the friendly infantry will significantly increase the survivability of the commander.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

First reply:
You haven't upset me Agrajag, I was being sarcastic on the first occasion, and teasing on the second.

I've tried twice now to make sense of your hp formula, and I can't, but I'm tired, so maybe it makes sense. I do remain unconvinced that it's simpler to understand than my idea, but it may work as well. As it is, it might as well be written in Yiddish, worse infact because atleast I comprehend how the Yiddish language operates, more or less, and can consult outside sources.
The choice of 12 sizes isn't meant to be relevant beyond being a nice range, a perfect number, and the cultural relevance of the number 12. It's just a good number to settle on, one most people are familiar with from elementary mathematics, and easy to divide.

As per mages, I'll accept that mages are powerful, but I fail to see how my hp. system, even in relation your explanation, can be blamed for this. By cutting mages' hp. in half in comparison to all other units, I think I've done my part to reduce their power. Since you seem to be saying that it doesn't matter how many hp. mages have anyway, then what difference does it make if they have more or less total under a new system, if that system gives them a relative total of half all other commanding units?

My next statement (4) was written to agree with your point and to expand it. I don't feel it's necessary that it exist to support my suggestion, it doesn't implode it in any way, though, and serves to illustate my point that randomness can be used subjectively and in moderation, and that my system can simulate this as well or better than another.

The reason your hp + size, hp - size idea doesn't make a lot of sense is because it doesn't have any reason behind it, there's no system to support it. You're picking size to base calculations on hp without having a reason for picking size. You might as well pick haircolor and base a number off that. You could give them all levels and it would be the same D&D logic. It's the same argument that a very tough human should have half again as many hp, or double hp, or whichever random percentile of hp the arguer feels would be right, and that's all it is, a feeling. Size 1 units would have a randomness of -1 or +1, that's not enough of a variety to illustrate anything, it doesn't say anything about that unit, it's just arbitrary. 6 hp variation on a very large unit amounts to the same or less difference. Rather than having the opportunity to compare humans against each other, you're just bringing it down to size again. It's just not a very useful tool because not very much can be done with it, and what can be done, is done to every single unit. With my system, you can break down races into subgroups. You can do weak groups, elite groups, ultra-elite, groups with a broad range of hp, groups who all have the same hp, anything you like. With your idea, you've basically got slightly weak, average, slightly tough. Larger creatures, for no good reason, have a much broader range of differences than small creatures, while at the same time those differences mean very little and are purely based on size and randomness. It's far less in the "style" of Dominions than my idea because it's a slanted oversimplification. Sometimes simple is just not best.

Second reply:
Agrajag, PD is thematic, but you also have to look at it from a pragmatic perspective if you want to find any facts, or if not facts then sense. The dumb ones (or the ones who don't have a real choice in the matter) are the ones leaving their families and farms to the mercy of whatever comes along. Maybe, like the Vikings, they don't own enough farmland to prosper and are tough people with excellent wartime skills and a need to go out and build up their gene-pool, or like the Mongols, they're a nomadic people anyway, have a chip on their shoulder, and find warfare and conquest far easier than farming. Anybody just out there fighting is doing it for someone else's glory, because they have to, because it's their job, and because they don't have the skills or the inner strength and stoicness to be farmers, or the brains and capital to be merchants. The only really smart soldiers are the ones who have something to gain from conquest, and they aren't that smart because they're taking a big risk in the first place. People back then, atleast poor people with no say, like what would make up your version of PD, went to war for 3 reasons: 1 because they had to, 2 because they were ordered by their liege and they had to, or 3 because they didn't have families, didn't own any property, didn't have any peacetime skills, and they had to. But mostly, they did it because they had to, not because someone was paying them to. The mercenaries were either big-contract guys working for wealthy empires like Carthage, or they were roving bands of homeless people who happened to pick up military skills in the process of preying on farmers. PD would be made up of older, well-established citizens with property, their first and second sons, and those men-at-arms they would hire to protect their property, which men would not be fat and lazy, or the homeland would be at risk and money-valuable solid currency-would be wasted. Your fat, lazy types would run away or be slaughtered.

Whole networks of highly disciplined agents would be minding the borders of a well-established, well-run nation, especially if you consider that in Dom, they wouldn't be on the alert just for wolves or human raiders, but all manner of magic, spells and beings. You're looking at things from a modern perspective at small kingdoms in midieval times that happened to be run sloppily, not at nations like Rome, Greece, and China where being on the alert for enemies was very big business indeed. In Greece and Rome for instance-atleast early Rome, you had to be a soldier just to own land, and a landowner just to be a citizen, and most of those citizens, including Socrates, served in wartime and didn't just suddenly forget how to be soldiers, sit around and get fat. In China, in 300 years, the Great Wall was only overrun 36 times, that's pretty good considering how many miles the Great Wall runs. In a smaller kingdom, providing the ruler wasn't completely inbred, there would be a citizen defense force, well-maintained and trained on a regular basis, and most if not all citizens, serfs, nobles, peasants, everyone who wasn't an outright bottom-of-the-barrel slave, would contribute to that force, because the threat of destruction would be great. All you need are a few dozen horsemen with torches going through your fields at harvest-time and you're burying your kids for Christmas, providing they don't get eaten by the wolves, lions, leopards, coyotes, bears, etc. that your fat and lazy guards let run loose.

I'll probably be suggesting that PD become more complex, once I work out a solid system, and I look forward to you complaining about it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

I just want to announce that my copy finally arrived! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Now you have a very good reason to never work again!