Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

PCarroll, if you want other games besides Dom2, try the original Age of Wonders, if you haven't already. It has almost none of the micromanagement of AoW2 and AoW:SM, and while it still has some 3D look, very little compared to its sequels. It's also, in my opinion, more beautiful because the maps don't look so cluttered. The magic system also works much better than in AoW:SM, because any spellcaster can cast spells, it's not all dependent on one caster.

There are alsoa couple of mods for the original AoW, Warlock's Ruleset which was done by reverse engineering, and some others that were added when Triumph Studios released the dev editor which made it possible to do modifications without reverse engineering (but was still a lot of work).

Edi

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

I checked their website yesterday, and noticed they made the older version harder to find; it is still available though, under Dugan's Dungeon More Info, or directly from DROD.net here .

It is not really a demo, of course, but simply the older incarnation of the game; it also lacks some of the nice commands from Rooted Hold, including some sword-swinging macros and Undo.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Thanks. Unfortunately I gave my copy of the original AoW away a couple years ago. I barely remember the game now, but I do recall being more disappointed than pleased with AoW2. Until now, I thought I was the only one who felt that way. For a long time after getting AoW2, I kept playing the original AoW. But eventually the scenarios all looked too familiar, so I let it go.

My wife, a longtime Master of Magic fan, plays AoW3:SM while hoping for a MoM2 to come out. The main thing she likes about AoW3 is the random map generator; she hates scenario-based games (including campaign games with strung-together scenarios). The one thing she complains about in AoW3 is that there's no numerical score at the end of a game--no "hall of fame." She wants to know how well she did so she can try to beat her best score next time.

Since I'm rambling, I'll mention that years ago I used to love the game Conquered Kingdoms. Its graphics were obsolete even when the game was first released, but the game played well and was quite challenging and interesting. Evidently, it's due for a comeback sometime soon: http://www.lostadmiralreturns.com/co...dkingdoms.html

I tried the Lost Admiral demo (I hadn't played that game back in its day), and it's pretty good--as a game. The user interface is painfully awkward, though. I'd recommend these games to anyone who doesn't mind ancient 2D graphics and a chesslike feel to their games.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

AoW2 was a dissapointment to me too, but then I found dominions 2 and all was good.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Hi Patrick,

I too have felt like I had a weird attitude towards games. What you are saying really struck a chord for me, games were getting too long and complex and frankly no fun, and yet the simpler, traditional games often lacked that "flavor" or theme which is what really attracks me to a game in the first place. Then I discovered a little German board game called Settlers of Catan. The game was short (around 90 minutes), it was fun (me and my friends laughed constantly about "trading wood for sheep"), it had some depth (there was a variety of strategies, not all of which were apparent at first glance), the theme was a little pasted on but definately present, and some analysis was rewarded but did not dominate the game. That game launched a whole industry around these short (playable in an evening), simple (rules were easily taught and learned), yet involving (more thought was required than, should I be the dog or the battleship this time?) games. Most of the designs come from Germany, so they are often called German style board games. You can find out more about them at a slightly out of date FAQ here. Or the comprehensive resource that is the Board Game Geek at <a href="http://www.boardgamegeek.com" target="_blank">www.boardgamegeek.com</a> (which can be a bit overwhelming at first due to the huge numbers of these games that have come out since Settlers first made it big, and BGG is devoted to all games, not just these German ones).

Good luck in finding your gaming Nirvana!

Teal

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

I own Setters of Catan and Seafarers of Catan--and the Settlers card game. I also have a freeware version of Settlers on my PC. And I used to frequent rec.games.board, where such games are discussed all the time.

Settlers is a terrific game alright. Next time I get together with three other people for a game, that's probably the one we'll play.

However, last time I got together with three other people for a game was four or five years ago. Last time I played the Settlers card game with my wife was a year or two ago (after that, we discovered Caesar &amp; Cleopatra, which she likes better). The people I know don't play games that often, and I haven't wanted to go out and meet new people just for the sake of playing games. To me, that's the biggest personal benefit of the home computer: it enables me to play games anytime I like without having to hunt up other players.

The Internet came along some years after I'd gotten used to playing games on the computer--and I still haven't really warmed up to playing online games yet. I have played some--but there's a part of me that really doesn't like the tension of playing against other people. Playing against the AI gives me the imaginative immersion and intellectual challenge without any of the interpersonal tension or putting my ego publicly at risk.

But the "German" games are mostly designed for social play. On the computer, Settlers isn't much fun. Trading games don't work well as single-player games, no matter how good the AI is. (I guess poker would be another game like that; in poker it's important to be able to see your opponents' faces--so computer poker would be sorely lacking.)

I briefly had another "German" game on my computer: Through the Desert. I found that one so abstract that I might as well have been playing a classic game like chess or go.

Speaking of classic games, this evening I spent an hour or so playing cribbage, backgammon, and dominoes on the computer--and I enjoyed them all! When I'm in the right mood, theme is optional. And one thing I especially like about playing games like those is that I feel I'm practicing so that I'll know what I'm doing next time I play against another person (even if that doesn't happen for another year or so).

Before I started playing those games, however, I taught my wife to play Dom2. More on that in a separate post.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

I taught my wife to play Dom2 this evening. She's a longtime Master of Magic fan--still hoping a MoM2 comes out someday. Meanwhile she's been settling for AoW3:SM.

She seemed interested all while I was teaching her to play, and I sat and guided her through several moves. Then she started losing track of her commanders and getting frustrated, so she quit.

She ended up saying, "I don't see how anyone could say that game is a worthy successor to MoM. It doesn't have any of the stuff I like--such as being able to cast spells and see them take effect." She viewed only one battle, then refused to bother with that; she considered it a waste of time since she couldn't influence the outcome.

She also had the impression that Dom2 is an old game, judging by its plain look and old-fashioned user interface. The UI finally did her in; she's unlikely to play Dom2 again. She'll go back to AoW3:SM and keep hoping somebody releases a new, improved version of MoM.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Give her the manual and point out that F1 keeps track of the commanders. I'm a real non hard core gamer but this game in terms of magic is unsurpassed IMHO. A year on I still pick up the manual and go through it - nicely done and the descriptions and attention put to the spells is very impressive.

I'd also recommend an MP game - I could never go through this game in SP, really holds little interest - but in an MP pbem or network game - great!

Tals

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Hmmm. I can see that Dom2's combat would disappoint if you were used to the tactical control of MoM or AoW. I played VGA Planets even before I played MoM, so Dom2's pbem-style combat videos were comfortably familiar, if not as exciting as tactical battles. As least you can script your armies in Dom2 - in VGAP it was hard enough to get them fighting in the right order, let alone telling them what to do in combat.

I missed the first AoW, but I'll look out for it. I quite enjoyed AoW2:SM but it was really *too* close to MoM for comfort, without being an improvement.

Patrick, I have run out of ideas for your gaming geas. I share your desire for an involving theme, but I don't share your impatience with analysis - in fact I generally prefer longer games over shorter ones, so Dom2 works very well for me (until the micro really hurts after about turn 70).

I do have a friend who is a veritable fount of gaming knowledge - I've known him for about ten years and we've hardly ever played the same game twice. I think he might be able to suggest some more games for you to try. If you're interested, PM me with your email address and I'll put you in touch with him.

CC

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

As I am reading this, I can't help thinking that PCarroll and others with lots of experience from both computer strategy games and strategic board games would be the perfect idea factories for Dominions III. Also, he could also tell how to make people like his wife get interested in the game more easily. UI improvements, Hall of Fame list for whole games (% of sites found in onwed provinces, conquered unique provinces, statistics for the game, best SCs/mages, favourite unit/commander/spell/summon etc etc), and possibly Battle Simulator or some other way to experience how directly orders affect battles. I'm not sure if lots of these are doable at this point, with the game slowly(?)coming together, but it never hurts...

What else has been mentioned in this thread? What else can you think of? I think the guys at Illwinter would be very interested in this discussion if they haven't already found this. It has been quite insightful for me, too.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

I did give her the manual; I pointed out the hot keys and the extensive listing of spells. And I repeatedly called her attention to the F1 key, which she did (of course) find useful.

I also mentioned how all the Dom2 fans seem to be raving about it's magic system being unsurpassed. But her response, which I think I quoted above, was, "So what? If I don't get to see my spells taking effect when they're cast, it doesn't matter how extensive the magic is."

Oh--and I did mention the fact that Dom2 seems to have been designed with multiplayer gaming in mind. She shrugged that off (as I would have myself). One evening I saw her playing a card game against a computer AI, and I said, "You know, you could play this online against real people." She frowned and replied, "I've been extroverting all day at work. The *last* thing I want to do when I'm relaxing at home is interact with other people, even across a virtual game table." Like me, she's very much a single-player gamer.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

I don't think anyone says its unsurpassed just that it is detailed. In fact I don;t think i'd even say anyone is raving - this is probably one of the most self critical publishers forums you'll find http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

But yeah it is for MP - i'd take the opposite view - why the heck do I want to play against a lump of meta with pre programmed responses, far more fun to play against a human - the interaction from the human perspective is as little or as much as you want - it is not by any stretch an fps style chat - far from it in fact http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

My own view is this game sucks in SP and i've seen no comments that would suggest otherwise. But you'd have to try the MP out to really understand it's attraction. I understand it's not of interest but it is where the game sings.

Tals

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

You may want to try Battle for Wesnoth. It is a single player computer game, with a strong theme, it is strategy based so it has some analysis, but is nowhere near the amount of analysis required for Dominions 2 (I would put it down at the level of hearts or cribbage). And it is free! It is a nice little war game with units representing individual soldiers, who get better as they fight through the campaign (if you can avoid getting them killed that is).

Teal

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Sorry to burst your bubble... but I do think it is unsurpassed. And I'm most certainly raving. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Thanks. I've done that too. Somebody else recently recommended it to me.

It is a very good game--especially for the price! Kind of reminds me of the old SSI game Fantasy General (which used to be one of my favorites, though it never got as popular as Panzer General or others in the series).

I haven't played Wesnoth in a couple weeks, though, and I don't know when I'll get back to it. One pet peeve I have about games like this is recruitment. In such a fast-moving game, I find it annoying to have to take care of that "housekeeping" chore every turn. I'd rather just give some kind of general instruction to an AI "recruitment officer" (e.g., "Give me lots of archers.") and then have recruitment happen automatically during the game.

Funny you should say it's "at the level of hearts or cribbage." Cribbage is probably my favorite traditional card game: to me, it has just the right amount of luck vs skill--it holds my interest without straining my brain. Hearts seems like a tougher game to me--but it's probably easier than the likes of Spades or Bridge (neither of which I like, because I don't like bidding games--which is why I'm not at all interested in Shrapnel's game "Gladiator").

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Wow, someone who actually mentions both MoM and Fantasy General... Loved both of those games. Unfortunately, I don't have as much time as I would like to talk about things, but it's just an interesting insight to me. The whole problem I think is that people see computers as the fix to minutiae of a game... which they easily can be... no dice-rolling, no keeping track of counters, just making the decisions. However, the main problem is that with that ease people aren't paying attention to two other major issues: attention span and mental hold. I've noticed in myself that when either of those limits are exceeded, my fun factor starts going downhill.

I also truly enjoy cribbage, and it is an excellent game. Short enough not to drag on, and limited enough in each installment to not have to count all the cards in a deck. This is probably the reason Dom2 is truly better as a multi-player game... and that is because of the episodic nature inherent to the style of gameplay. I only have to hold so much in my head each time I sit to play, and it doesn't exceed my attention span. I believe I have larger than normal attention span and mental hold (by which I mean the ability to hold the current situation clearly in mind). I have managed to _fully_ complete a World War scenario, but it is excessively taxing, and I almost always dominion-kill the last 4 enemies, just due to temple overload.

I don't have a solution to suggest, just the observation, if it helps anyone.

Wyatt

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Classics among turn based fantasy strategy games. Also, mmm, Sword of Aragon and, mmm, a couple of TSR games. (There was also one that wasn't necessarily fantasy, I was playing in, mmm, well, it was between 1985 and 1988, that was just great - in some ways low level like Risk, but without huge stacks of armies, and I think there were 3 kinds of armies, each with their own advantages.) Heck, I even paid a second time for Fantasy General and Sword of Aragon to get them on CD in a collection. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

For some things, it is a panacea. At one point Gemstone III, a very early commercial online RPG, was using ICE's Rolemaster rules. Fairly nice system, except for all the permanent character deaths, and worse, all the very VERY complex tables required. (Example : A full page of a table, maybe .... 2000 numbers, dedicated to the broadsword alone. Then imagine : 40 weapon types. 30 spell types. 20 miscellaneous types of damage, and 20 types of crits. Each with their own page of results. Heh!)

So it was awesome to have it wrapped up and handled via the computer. It was nice to know the system and have some idea what was going on, but not vital. And it was awesome to not have a round of combat take 10 minutes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

But yeah :

MP Dominions doesn't solve this; if anything it makes it worse, because people eventually discover that a game on a huge map like Faerun becomes totally stultifying, in terms of time required per turn == hours per day, etc.

A game of cards essentially has a built in turn limit, with few exceptions (games where a players score can go up or down - said games almost never get boring though because of the possibility of 2 or 3 hands with luck / big points finishing it). Dominions doesn't, with the exception of playing with .... victory conditions generally regarded as lame : research, dominion, etc.

Hopefully Dom3 will see a few new things : cumulative victory points (discussed in other threads, but essentially... Now, if the VP condition is 5, you may not have held a VP _ever_, but take 5 the next turn and have a surprise win. With cumulative, you add the number of victory points held by each player each turn. No stealth victories. No never-ending games, and the game gets more tense / exciting for everyone when they know one player is nearing the victory.

And also : Timed turns. Where a player has a time limit on how long they can play their turn, for one thing. This aids blitzes - it's actually currently possible, but the concept is crippled, because : in game, players don't get warned about how much time is remaining. Nor do orders get uploaded when the time is up. Right now, the concept of playing 10/20/30 minute forced hosting is ... undoable, as turns take longer, people would have to concentrate on doing their turns and updating constantly, then continuing, just so their previous 1-50 orders didn't get lost. No fun.

Speaking of no fun : No beer in the fridge, and the boss sending an email saying "we need to talk - take tomorrow off." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

This thread has moved on already, but since someone mentioned that "Settlers of Catan" started a whole genre of these "german-style" boardgames: This is not true! There are much more of these board games around and most of them are much more entertaining (IMHO).

However, it is true that these games are much less fun on the PC than playing with friends around a proper table with a drink and a snack. Nevertheless it is worth to try www.brettspielwelt.de: One can play several modern boardgames there. It is entirely for free and without advertisments, but requires a Java-enabled browser to play. While it is less fun to play online (against humans only) this site is a perfect place to test a boardgame before actually buying it (nothing against the boardgamegeek-reviews, but a review can never replace the actual test play of a game). Most of this site is available in english as well.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

I know Rolemaster... and yes, that's exactly what a computer can alleviate. However, my point was primarily that if a designer, for example, doesn't take into account the attention span and memory span of the _player_, then a game that utilizes all of the computing tracking can still get very bogged down. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Wyatt

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Thanks, Wyatt! I've never seen the problem put so succinctly before. I think that's exactly it.

I've been a big fan of board and card games throughout all five decades of my life so far, and I've enjoyed games of all kinds. I was an avid board wargamer from 1968 to about 1994 or so--but even during that time I was always struggling with the attention-span/mental-hold problem. Though drawn to big, complex games, over time I found I couldn't really enjoy playing them. I'd pore over a monster game--or a thick-rulebook game like Advanced Squad Leader--and *admire* it; but it was hard to make myself actually play--and even harder to keep playing and enjoying it. So, I kept falling back on simpler wargames.

I think there's some real tension there--between a desire to immerse yourself in a detailed, realistic game-world (participating in the *theme* of the game) and a desire to mentally grasp the game-system itself (minus the theme) and learn to play well. Designer Jim Dunnigan, back in the heyday of SPI, took an extensive survey and discovered that most wargamers were just "reading" the games, not playing them. Admittedly, that's what I usually did: I'd lovingly open the box, look at the components, read the rules, and play a practice game or two by myself; then the game would start gathering dust on a shelf.

The home computer at first looked like a solution to the problem; and as you say, it many ways it was. Setup time has been reduced from many minutes (or even hours, for monster games) to a second. Game play is speeded up. Online help and prompting saves searching through a rulebook. Combat calculations are automatic and instantaneous. And so forth.

But the basic problem still remains: if there's enough of a detailed theme to satisfy one's desire for imaginative immersion, there is also going to be a lot to hold in one's mind for a long time.

Until now, I hadn't noticed how simple the problem is. I don't have a solution either, and I'm not sure there is one. But it's nice to just be able to finally see the problem clearly.

The more I've played wargames and computer games over the years, the more I've come to appreciate the elegant simplicity of classic games like backgammon, checkers (draughts), chess, cribbage, and dominoes. No wonder these games have crossed over into many cultures and remained popular for so many generations. They've been refined to the point where they're just right in terms of size, length, pace, ease of learning, and level of challenge. Some (like chess and checkers) can be daunting to master; but you don't have to master them to enjoy playing them.

Dom2 (or Dom3) can't possibly solve the problem we're talking about, of course. By nature, it's an epic game with a fairly complex underlying game-system. So it's going to appeal to those who still want the imaginative immersion enough that they're willing to strain to wrap their minds around something too big and long to really be comfortable. To each his own. I've been there and done that, so it's easy for me to understand that desire.

At this point in my gaming life, however, I think maybe it's time to turn to some of the classic games I named above.

--Patrick

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

"They've been refined to the point where they're just right in terms of size, length, pace, ease of learning, and level of challenge. ... At this point in my gaming life, however, I think maybe it's time to turn to some of the classic games I named above."

Have a look at the Land of Legends demo - easy to understand, but there's a lot of depth to it.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Actually I think there comes a point with some people (myself included at times) when you simply burn out on games and no ammount of UI/theme/Styles will do.

You just can't please everyone and its a bad business idea to try. Personally I despise why that is, but thats a different story.

Dom 2 has an audience...Multiplayer. I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.

When I first started I thought...damn no tactical combat. But the advantages outweight anything else. And Im sorry Patrick but to say that you dont get to see spells working is not true...MoM had limited spell effetcs, they reminded me of 8 bit sprites.

Dom is without any debate the successor to MoM....I signed the MOM2 petition with I'm sure the rest of you. But to be honest, I just get the feeling your not in the mood for anything right now.

Good luck in finding something to ring your bell.

Spiro

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

If you like games that can be played quickly yet have some thinking involved, try the games by Freeverse.

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

I have one opening for Jotunheim in a beginner's game: link to thread is here .

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

One small clarification to one of the things I was trying to say. When I say 'mental hold', I am primarily talking about the ability to maintain the current _local_ game state in your mind. I have no problems with large and intricate game _worlds_, but the ability to maintain knowledge about what is going is crucial to many games these days.

As an example, I am a long-time RPG GameMaster. I've run about 12 different game systems in my life, and played in more, and I love large and detailed worlds. However, I can maintain the pertinent game information mostly in my head while playing, and this is merely a subset of the world.

To put it another way, I think very few people honestly are upset when they are out-played. I think true anger or disappointment with games is when they believe that it was an oversight on their part that led to the problem or defeat. In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations. In games of the current complexity, trying to keep the game-state in your mind is extremely difficult, and most likely impossible after the early turns. If I lose provinces due to an oversight on my part, I will be upset that I missed it, and possibly at the game engine for not being clearer.

In any event, this was just an attempt to explain what was in my mind when I referred to 'mental hold'.

Wyatt

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Errmmm . . . I thought I understood what you meant by "mental hold" the first time you said it. Now, after your clarification, I'm not so sure.

I certainly agree that the main reason people get upset over a game is that they feel they've overlooked something that they should have noticed. And sometimes (depending on what the player overlooked and other factors) the player will shift the blame to the UI or something outside himself.

But the part I don't understand is when you say, "In chess, it's easy to see the entire game situation at once, and people still miss the winning and losing combinations." That's true, but are you saying that in chess a player does or does not have "mental hold"? Is mental hold "see[ing] the entire game situation at once," or is it seeing "the winning and losing combinations"?

Because if it's the latter, then it seems to me "mental hold" would be undesirable in all games. The whole challenge of playing games is *reaching* for the foresight or insight to see all the winning and losing combinations. As soon as someone attains that level of mastery, the game is no longer challenging. It becomes trivial, like tic-tac-toe (naughts &amp; crosses).

The reason I'm having trouble understanding you this time is that in my mind, there's no difference between being outplayed and making an oversight. If we're playing chess, and you outplay me, it means there were moves and combinations that I overlooked. You may have overlooked some too, but you overlooked fewer of them than I did.

My understanding of "mental hold" from your first message was that either of two things could be a problem: (1) a rulebook too thick to ever memorize in a lifetime, or (2) a game so big and elaborate that it's impossible to consciously take care of *everything* under one's control. In board-wargaming terms, Advanced Squad Leader is an example of (1), and The Longest Day (a monster game with a five-foot-square mapboard and thousands of unit-counters) is an example of (2).

Chess is nothing like ASL or TLD. The rules to chess can easily be memorized, and the most a player ever has to do is choose which one of sixteen pieces to move on the 8x8 grid. Very small and manageable. Perfect "mental hold," in this sense. And yet, comprehending *all* the winning and losing moves and combinations is next to impossible.

So, IMO, it's good when a game is challenging; otherwise it'd be as trivial as tic-tac-toe. But it's bad when the size or complexity or length of a game becomes daunting to one's mental grasp--because then the player tends to give up before he ever gets around to facing the challenge of figuring out winning strategy &amp; tactics.

--Patrick

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

We are always looking for players every weekend on the #dominions IRC channel (irc.gamesurge.net).

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

While I cannot speak for my brother (Wyatt), I tend to agree with him.

To speak to the chess problem... if I miss the fact that you're are threatening my rook, did you out-play me if you take it, or did I miss it? This, to me, is more of a situation of the latter.

OTOH, if you knight-fork my King and Queen, this is more likely a matter of out-playing me than a mistake on my part. True, you could see it as 'not seeing that you could fork me, and thus not defending myself properly', but then it could also be that you are setting up multiple threats, perhaps using a bit of misdirection to confuse me, etc. etc. There is a point where someone can be simply out-played.

I have to say that my biggest problem with Dominions II is that the game rapidly outstrips my ability to focus on all of the different pieces that require my attention. Some people may like the fact that late-game Dominions has 100s (if not 1000s) of commanders that require orders every turn; I do not. However, adding more automation is not the way to 'solve' this problem, IMO. A 'better' way of solving the problem would be to allow fewer commanders to do more, or alternatively add a limit to commanders, whether a hard cap (you may not have more than 20 commanders), or a soft cap (your commanders die after X turns).

Also, at this point, there is very little in the game that can surprise me, and surprise is useful. That may be the reason that R'lyeh is my favorite nation, because of the Void Gate. There is also with the Void Gate something akin to the 'level gain' feeling with role-playing. I can see my priest's summoning skill rising, in a direct way. I guess a good comparison is the HoMM level gain pop-up. It's like, 'Oh wow, my achievements have this direct benefit.' It's not like Dominions where your commanders got a star, whee. It is a nice thrill once you see you can lead more troops, etc. etc., but it's not on the same level.

Anyway, I guess I'm rambling. Wyatt's much better at concise writing than I am. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Is there such a point? Perhaps. When I bought a boxed Go set (back in 1975), I read a curious point of etiquette in the instruction manual: it said that it's not uncommon to allow an opponent to take back a move--or even several moves--even in a tournament game. The rationale given was that it's considered dishonorable to win just by capitalizing on an opponent's oversight.

I've always had mixed feelings about that, and I've always continued to wonder about it. On one hand, I'm all for letting an opponent retract a move or two; I'll even agree to start over. But OTOH, theoretically a game could go on forever that way: every time you get in trouble, you say, "Oops. Can we go back six or eight turns? I think I must've made another mistake."

I'm inclined to believe that *all* games are won by capitalizing on opponents' oversights (or lack of foresight or insight).

And yet, I suspect you're right too: there's a difference between missing a direct threat and missing a setup for a knight fork. But what is the difference really?

Seems to me we're talking about the line between what's considered obvious and what's not considered obvious. Beyond the beginner level, direct threats are supposed to be obvious to a chess player; so if an experienced player misses a direct threat, that's just an oversight.

The trouble is, at an intermediate level, setups for knight forks are supposed to be obvious to players. So if an intermediate-level player misses one, why doesn't that also count as an oversight?

"Obvious" is a matter of degree and experience. Grandmasters sometimes, in hindsight, consider their moves (or their opponent's moves) obvious blunders.

There may indeed come a point where "someone can be simply out-played." But the test of that is losing repeatedly to a given opponent. And even if player A consistently loses to player B, how do you know whether player A is being outplayed or is just prone to making oversights?


Now you're speaking my language. This sounds like the "mental hold" problem I was describing in my last message: a game that's too big, with too many moving parts, to comfortably hold in one's mind.

To me, size (including number of units to command), rules complexity, and game length are the three things that can weaken one's "mental hold."


That's a twofold topic: (1) the joy of learning all the possibilities a game affords, and the pleasant surprise of making a new discovery, and (2) the surprise of a random or unforeseen game event occurring, and the challenge of having to deal with it.

The first type of surprise is, IMO, a big reason for being attracted to games like Dom2 or a good RPG or wargame system: it seems there's always more to discover. The size and complexity of the game gives a player a lot to explore before he's seen it all (whereupon he often gets bored and turns to a new game).

The second type of surprise is what makes backgammon different than chess: there's a factor (the dice rolls) you can't accurately predict; you have to take them as they come and make the best of them. In a sense, each dice roll is a surprise (all the player's calculations notwithstanding).

The latter is a kind of surprise that occurs during the play of a game. The other kind only occurs during the learning of a game (which, for a very complex game, can be a never-ending process).

So, the question is: What do you really want to do--play a game, or just keep learning games? Those who get more joy out of learning games may hate "mental hold"--because if they can comprehend the whole game, there's nothing left to learn. But those who get more fun out of playing will welcome "mental hold"--because once they've got it, they're free to focus on strategy &amp; tactics, on playing well.

Is it dishonorable to know about the Void Gate in Dom2 if your opponent doesn't? Do you really want to win just because you happen to know something that comes as a surprise to your opponents? Theoretically, nothing in the rules or structure of the game should ever be a surprise to players. Yet, there are players who thrive on exploring the game-system and its possibilities; and once they've tried everything, the game becomes like a stick of gum that's lost its flavor.

It's weird when you stop and think about it. What would you say to a person who says, "Chess is boring now that I've learned all the rules"? Learning the rules is just the beginning of being able to enjoy chess. Yet we hear people saying, "The Void Gate was the last thing of interest to me in Dom2; now that I've experimented with that, the fun's over for me." That's a little like someone saying, "I didn't know about en-passant captures in chess, and that was kinda cool; but that was the last rule I had to learn, so now the fun's all over." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Clearly some modern games (wargames, RPGs, etc.) have a very different kind of appeal than traditional games.

--Patrick

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

This is a little out of the blue, and it probably won't apply, but what about the RTS/TBS hybrids? You admitted that, initially you were surprised with maybe a shade of disappointment when you first noted that Dom2 did not allow you to control tactical situations.

Rome: Total War is a game that has a very "board game" like strategy element that is VERY easy to grasp: the economy; recruiting; all of it. In fact, the game right before it in the series, Medieval: Total War, actually played out on a game board map of Europe. In the Total War games, you can choose to resolve the battles instantly (if you aren't feeling up to it) or you can actually fight them out in a turn-based strategy fight. Here is the sweet part: it's nothing like the TBS that is genre-contrived (WarCraft, AoE, etc) because you don't have to fuss with building bases and recruiting units! You already built them in the TBS(main) part of the game. It's 100% battlefield tactics. And if you know you've gotten caught with your pants down because you made a strategic mistake in the first place, you can at least choose to not waste your time by actually experiencing the defeat: just auto-resolve the fight. R:TW does have a few battle AI problems, but from the way you talk, it sounds like a minor quibble for you. Besides, none of them are game ruining.

I hope I've been descriptive enough. I also hope R:TW isn't a curse word around these parts.

=$= Big J Money =$=

Re: roguelikes
 

Thanks for that tip. I'd heard of the game but never tried it. Now I have, and it's very good. My wife's hooked on it too. Her only complaint is that she can't cheat by saving at critical points; it's hard losing a character you've carefully worked up to a high level.

Surprisingly, neither of us has any complaint about the interface (we're using the basic one, not the "tiled" one, mainly because I couldn't figure out how to get the tiled version to work in English--and I don't read Japanese).

My wife thinks it's great, because she has control over everything--casting a spell or using a wand or whatever, and seeing the effect.

--Patrick

Re: roguelikes
 

Patrick (if you don't mind my calling you that),

I do read Japanese, as a matter of fact; if you need any help in that area, just let me know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Scott

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

Since our discussion drifted off to such games as chess and cribbage, I thought I'd just post this invitation here, FWIW:

Just started a group to discuss classic games like backgammon, checkers (draughts), chess, cribbage, and dominoes. If you enjoy such games and care to talk (or read) about them as well as play them, please visit:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/timelessfavorites/

--Patrick

Re: roguelikes
 

Cool! What platform -- Windows? Let me know if you or your wife want to try my new improved Xom. :-)

Re: roguelikes
 

Very interesting thread, all of you! I don't think I've ever seen so many of my favorite games posted in one place, ever, and certainly not such a wide variety.

MoM, AoW, Heroes, Settlers of Catan, Dom 2, and so many others.

The Go example you cite is interesting. Almost all of us bring our own personal/cultural views into the gaming experience. I'm oversimplifying a little here, but let me make a few comparisons. Chess is a pretty Western game--clearly defined rules, combinations and permutations of differing abilities and weaknesses, straight and clean lines of power projecting onto the blank field of a game board, and dramatic moments of victory often come when a mighty opponent is toppled by a destructive attack.

Go is rife w/more Eastern themes. Notions of space are as important to winning the game as are the pieces. Rather than viewing space as an empty nothingness that pieces move through as they assert their power against other pieces, space is as vital a part of winning as are the pieces. The whole duality of Western thinking is replaced by the seamless integration of the whole.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself right here--I have no graduate education in Philosophy at all, but I've lived in both parts of the world, and I recognize parts of each culture in those games.

In many senses, the games we play are both a reflection and an example of our own culture's philosophies. But that is a bit far out from the original topic here!


Dom2 is a complex game, but it's a lot like an onion. Depending on the difficulty level (of SP or your opponents), you can keep peeling the onion back further and further to find another layer of challenge and understanding. From a "mastering the game system" standpoint, it's as complicated as you want to make it.

This also makes things very open-ended. Think your phalanx of Long Spearmen might do well against overwhelming numbers of low-morale militia who would hesitate to brave those long pointy sticks? You're right. Think Crossbowmen are a good match for the heavily armored Infantry of Ulm? You're right again! Want to put off attacking the Undead Trees until you've learned Fireball in hopes of setting them ablaze? That could actually be a very good idea!

Casting Lightning Bolts a good way to stop heavily armored cavalry? Yup. Priests turning undead? Correct again. Shortbowmen proving a cheap and effective way to dispatch crazed Religious Zealots who go into battle with only the Faith in their God as armor? You betcha, unless their God is a God of Air! Nimble Barbarians in loin cloths being a good match against hard-hitting but slow-moving Giants sound worthwhile? Right once more.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but figuring these little match-up things out is a lot of fun, at least for a certain type of player. I found that one of the most pleasant aspects of Dom2.

BUT, one of the more common complaints about the game is the level of micromanagement required. Most of the folks on this forum don't mind sweating the details, but it is VERY annoying to have my star hero killed because I forgot to change his orders when I moved him to a new stack. In the endgame stage, things do get more than a bit unwieldy.

Some of these are UI issues that will hopefully be addressed in Dom3, but others are inherent in such an open-ended game that allows players to do so many things. I've sometimes wondered whether fewer provinces might solve these problems, but I suspect that would change other things?

In any event, Dom2 is a great game, but not for everybody.

Re: roguelikes
 

With fewer provinces, games won't get so far, and as an example, you couldn't have as good SCs as you can in a long game. It changes the gameplay, but leaves out some options others couldn't play without.

But yes, it still isn't for everybody.

Re: roguelikes
 

Thanks. I love reading stuff like that. And since this thread has wandered off in that direction, here are a couple of my favorite articles on comparisons of classic games like chess, go, checkers, and backgammon:

http://www.bobnewell.net/comp.html

http://www.kiseido.com/gatg.htm

--Patrick

Re: roguelikes
 

FarAway Pretender,
I am stupified to find out that you took the words out of my mind even before i had read this discussion.

My point is all about GO, which just has the Crown of games for me in this Hall of Fame of computer / classical games we all enjoyed. As a lowly apprentice in Greek / European philosophy I cannot but agree you FarAway Pretender!

I see it in the way that the game of GO offers more intuitive type of strategy game instead bit more calculative and rigid system of chess. This means a kind of holistic approach instead of Aristotelian type of categorising objects of world according to rules that are created by that gategorising.
GO for it!

About Dom2,
I just recently joined the multiplyer community after enjoying years of single playing with both Dominions. I recommend you trying mp as well.

Re: roguelikes
 

Not to drag this thread hopelessly off-topic, but I can see the above being said about chess as well. A large part of chess is about controlling said space, perhaps that is where the difference lies? I don't know enough about Go to say. But the board in chess is far from an "empty nothingness."

Re: roguelikes
 

Space is certainly a prominent feature in both chess and go. Some writers boil chess play down to three basic principles: force, space, and time (to these, Seirawan adds pawn position). I think the game of go could also be understood in terms of force, space, and time.

But if we zero in on the concept of space, it seems to play a different role in each game.

In chess, the idea is to develop your pieces and advance your pawns so as to control more space on the board (especially the central space or, later in the game, the space around the kings). Doing so maximizes your army's mobility while minimizing your opponent's. And since mobility is mainly what makes one piece more valuable or powerful than another, by dominating space on the board, you weaken the enemy's force. Thus, force would seem to be the main concept--one that's modified by how much space you control.

In go, space would appear to be the dominant concept. Space (eyes, or vacant spaces) gives life to your stones, and space is all (except prisoners) that counts toward victory. Since the stones are immobile, they have no force in the chess sense; what force they do have is determined by their relative position in space. A group of stones, properly placed and connected, can exert unassailable force--but it's more a "force field" which contains the space it surrounds and depends upon for life.

To win at chess, you must exert inescapable *force* against the enemy king. To win at go, you must fence in the lion's share of *space.*

Have we forgotten about the third factor, time? There must be a game in which time (or timing) is the dominant concept. Maybe checkers (draughts) or backgammon or mancala. I'll have to ponder on that.

--Patrick

Re: Newbie\'s first impressions
 

You got my 'mental hold' concept in one, PCarroll, but to be explicit, I would define it as:

the ability to contain and comprehend the current game state.

This could be stated as a percentage, or it could be simply expressed as the required amount of data required to maintain proper gameplay. My primary point, I suppose, is that Dominions 2, on larger maps, inevitably runs into the problem of being out of scope for almost any player. It certainly, in my opinion, gets to the point that missing command opportunities will be more common, and missing optimal plays will be expected. I used Chess as an example because the 'mental hold' required, while not constant, is bounded to a fairly manageable level. Understanding the game state is not a particularly difficult task, particularly for a basic understanding. Extrapolating from that position is the mark of more advanced studies, certainly, and that's where a large part of the skill comes in, but the ability to retain the game state is quite important. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Wyatt