Re: Interview with Kristoffer
 

One answer to any overpowered nation is of course diplomacy. This doesn't work all situations but in all 5 of the MP games I am playing, Vanheim isn't winning in any of them.

Re: Interview with Kristoffer
 

A single-answer-for-a-single-problem still seems to come from only a few people. Even with my rotten memory I can probably name the main three. And the problem usually comes with specific variables such as map size, map settings, type of game, etc. Feel free to join that thread.

Re: Interview with Kristoffer
 

I'm not sure I would want the game to be balanced.

To quote Kristoffer
"When we first came across PbEM games we were annoyed that sooner or later every nation/faction was able to recruit or acquire the units of other nations/factions."

Quite frankly I know exactly where he's coming from. Too many times so called "strategy" games are neutered to the point of the ridiculous in the name of balance. The inevitable result is that instead of having distinct, different sides with their own strengths and weaknesses, you end up with what is essentially "pick the colour of your troops". Rather than an actual strategy game, you end up with something akin to chess with all the fun taken out.
I'd rather have something with distinct sides than another game like that. If the price of that is a distinct strength which can be overpowering (though I wouldn't claim it was uber, besides which all nations also have their disadvantages) I'll happily pay it.
To be honest, I don't see a problem with it in multiplayer. If you think a nation is overpowered, then ban it from the game. Why rely on the developers to solve your problems for you?

Re: Interview with Kristoffer
 

I agree with this 100%.

I want a certain amount of imbalance in the game. All nations being balance would be boring.

Also any nation viewed as too powerful in MP will often get stomped on early by a 2-3 player alliance. Ermor, Ashen Empire, Helheim and Vanheim have all been stomped for daring to be too powerful in the MP's I play. Diplomacy is a great equaliser. Also in SP you can modify there AI setting to give yourself a challenge but not be too powerful. Put weak nations on a high setting, strong nations on a low AI setting.

Re: Interview with Kristoffer
 

I refer to that as "chess balancing". Which of course means that it can be ok for a game. But I personally dont tend to like games where everyone is playing the same units with different colored uniforms. I know that the type of balance Doms does is harder to do and I greatly appreciate their effort because I enjoy it more.

I would be willing to pre-order Dom4 now.
And Dom 10 (with support for HoloDeck play)
And Dom 20 (a Matrix plug-in)
I want those out before I hit the old folks home and have to live in a bed. It would make living that long actually worthwhile.

Gandalf Parker

Re: Interview with Kristoffer
 

Actually, I wouldn't mind to have to play Dom 21 IN bed in the old folks home http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Interview with Kristoffer
 

I think at the end of the day it's the age old wargaming argument of power play vs. fluff play. If you balance for the power play, the fluff players (and those in the middle) complain about the lack of character. If you optimise for the fluff (background) then the power players complain about a lack of balance. Either way the people in the middle will find something to moan about http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Personally I'm looking forward to Doms 8 - the one you can play on the computer in your flying car http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Interview with Kristoffer
 

Or you can say solo player or MP alliances groups, vs the MP player-vs-player types. Soloers like more random in their maps, events, differences in the sides, and just plain luck. The MP PvPers prefer more balanced maps, balanced sides, low-key events, so that they can claim their wins as total strategy without any luck involved.
In My Humble Opinion of course