.com.unity Forums - Some thoughts on improvements to the game

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 3: The Awakening (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=138)

- - Some thoughts on improvements to the game (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43417)

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid (Post 697906)

-Units behave more like units and less like mobs: This is the most profound change I proposed, actually. Its also the most desirable. So, there are two ways you can go about this: (1) define a unit entity which has a depth and facing size, and move that unit entity instead of moving individual guys (this substantially decreases the processor work because it aggregates decisions). Or (2) have individual models know where in the unit they are and check stay in the same position relative to other models in the unit. This is aided by doing things like checking the slowest speed in the unit and capping all model speeds at that speed. I'd vastly prefer #1 for a number of reasons, such as because you can have individual sub-entities which take damage and make attacks, but you don't need to make many AI decisions below the unit level (substantially increasing game performance). I'd need some help implementing this because I'm not used to working with graphical applications, but given a week and someone to ask questions of I could probably figure it out. (Moderate)

Actually, I think individual fighters already know which unit they are part of. If you give an attack order to a 50-man unit, the 50 men will swarm around lone opponents in front of the enemies rather than go through an dfight behind. They swarm around their target instead of staying in square formation (they should have more than a square formation if we wanted more realism)
Regarding point (2),it's not graphic. It's a simulation on a terrain, but graphics don't matter.
Problems happen when units get killed and you want to regroup. If the forward left part of the unit has been killed and they want to stay in square, then units from left back and right must move left and forward to fill the gaps.

I don't think Illwinter's ever going to do something like that.

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDiCesare (Post 697915)

I don't think Illwinter's ever going to do something like that.

This is sort of a pointless thing to state in this thread :]

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

I'm very new here so excuse me, just an idea, but I think it would be nice:

Sets of items, much like in Diablo II, could confer really interesting boni.
Consider, for example, a Lesser Item, a cap (call it: Tarnhelm) which requires N2A1 to build and offers some protection against lightning and darkvision; consider a Greater Item, a cape (call it: Mist Pelt) which requires E3N1 to build, and offers some frost protection and small magic resistance; consider another Greater Item, a ring (call it: Seal of the Secret Priests), it costs S3W2 to build and it gives its wearer a nice patrolling bonus and immunity to rituals which pick the wearer up and transport him somewhere else (friend or foe).
(Just off the top of my head, and I didnt think of balanced costs right now).
But if you wear ALL THREE TOGETHER you unlock a "set", say, "Disguise of the High Priests", and you get, in addition, stealth +5. (Or whatever.) (I realize Stealth is too nice an attribute to get so easily, hence my requirement of many different paths for all 3 of the set and the necessity to block a misc, body, and head slot.)
I can imagine that this could be made in a patch? Just an idea...

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

The mechanics are already in -> Axes of Rulership.

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

Plus you get Awe+0 as a side effect of dual wielding the Twin Spears (leadership+100).

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

Wow! I missed those! Maybe when I am big and strong I will mod my "Disguise" and other sets if I figure out how it works?

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

Sadly there's very little you can do with item modding.

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

Quote:

Originally Posted by LDiCesare (Post 697915)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid (Post 697906)

The things that really annoy me are behaviors like mixed-speed units break up as they charge pell-mell down the field. Disciplined troops should not do that. Ie, anything better than irregulars (irregulars are generally militia or forced conscripts when it comes to shock troops).

As to filling gaps, if you define a unit entity then a massive loss in, say, teh middle would lead to a recalculation of unit facing length/depth. Its not like troops don't move to close holes in the line in shock combat - having a hole punched in your line is bad for you. It means the enemy can separate you and defeat you in detail.

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid (Post 697906)

Supplies:
Local supply by a fort isn't what I'm talking about. The crusaders during the first crusade managed to supply an army in the holy land far from any local supply centers. This seems like an emminently reasonable thing for at least organized civilizations to be able to do.

Yeah. We have magical supply sources. How about some non-magical supplies? It would be a supply wagon unit--a troop type anyone could recruit anywhere. There would probably be a couple of them, say a 10 unit and a 100 unit one. They would only cost a gold but creating them would use up that much supply from the province--this could never cause the supplies to go negative. (Same as with resources--if there isn't enough supply the unit simply doesn't get built.)

If an army is short on food it eats supplies that are tagging along rather than starving.

Quote:

I find tactical flight of the nature i'm talking about distinct from retreat, which is what the fire and flee seems to represent (since it actually cedes control of something the size of a province). You might also consider the experience of the Romans (infantry) agains the Parthians (primarily light cavalry). The Romans couldn't bring the Parthians to melee, the Parthians rode circles around them and annihilated every legion ever sent to fight them.

Agreed. Fast ranged troops should get a basically free victory over slower melee troops.

Quote:

I suppose there are two problems here: 1) the battlefield is so small that rather little force is sufficient to compel a foe to melee. A cavalry unit should be able to keep out of range of a melee unit indefinitely if it so desires. 2) ranged units do not attempt to keep out of range of shock units. Given that classical light infantry (slingers especially) and all light cavalry routinely used their improved mobility to deny shock combat to the enemy, this is a failure of modelling.

Agreed. I think the battlefield should be infinitely long.

Quote:

New - army strategic choices
Speaking of bizarre. Anyone who knows anything of pre-Napoleonic military combat knows that the hardest thing to do was to compel an opponent to fight. Generals should be able to be given strategic settings that tell them when to engage and when to refuse to engage when challenged by another army. The only way to force an army to fight when its determined to flee should be when every route of escape leads to an entanglement with military forces (in which case the initially encountered army should be fought, potentially in combination with whichever military units it tried to withdraw into. And I don't mean go to battle map and have every unit start withdrawing, I mean no battle occurs (the enemy army never gets that close) unless the retreating army is cut off.

This should depend on mobility. A faster army should always be able to bring a slower army to battle.

Quote:

So, for example:
-Starved fortresses surrender: Implement a counter during the phase where you check to see if the walls are breached that counts down until fortress surrender. (trivial)

How about doing it as a morale check? Have two siege modes: light and heavy. In light siege mode the defenders have to make morale checks once the supplies run out, failure causes the unit(s) that failed to flee--they retreat from the province. In heavy siege mode the checks are against a lower threshold but a unit that fails surrenders (disbanded, the other side gets anything it was carrying). In light siege mode the defenders can be ordered to leave the province.

Quote:

-light infantry attempt to fall back when shock troops get too close: Each light infantry unit would need a metric of too close, although you could just make it 'is within movement range of an enemy shock unit'. Unit then moves backwards until it reaches a 'safe' distance and reforms. This is a quick If/Then check at the start of the units action. (easy)

Yup. If there is an enemy unit within range, move away, otherwise shoot. If you're out of ammo and don't also have a melee weapon, keep moving away regardless of range.

Quote:

I don't believe this would work--the formations would keep getting disrupted by the presence of other troops.

Quote:

Or (2) have individual models know where in the unit they are and check stay in the same position relative to other models in the unit. This is aided by doing things like checking the slowest speed in the unit and capping all model speeds at that speed.

This is how I would implement it. At the start of battle each unit notes it's position within it's group and always seeks to maintain that. The group moves at the speed of the slowest mobile unit in it (anything that can't move gets left behind.)

Re: Some thoughts on improvements to the game

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid (Post 697977)

Yes. However, you have to take into account crippled units. If a soldier is crippled, you probably don't want him to cripple the movement of the whole unit. Crippled individuals should be removed from the computation somehow, so the unit would move at the 1st slowest decile speed for instance (means 9 units out of 10 move at least at that speed) rather than the slowest unit. Otherwise, you'd have to remove crippled units by hand systematically, which is a pain when you have big armies late-game, particularly if they get old or have fought a lot.