Re: What about luck?
 

Actually, you defined natural protection in there. While being big might have that effect in real life, having natural protection 5 would have the same effect in Dominions world. Cutting your throat still kills you, but one hit won't do it. If the arrow to the chest was a crossbow bolt, instead, the big guy would still die.

Re: What about luck?
 

Then why do giants not die to a single hit. Aren't they just big humans by all means?

If big humans equal small humans, why not REALLY BIG HUMANS aka giants don't equal any humans? The logic just doesn't stand. With that logic giants would have 10hp, but have enormously bigger protection value.

Re: What about luck?
 

There are no giants in Dominions that'd be JUST bigger humans.

Firbolgs probably come closest, and they have 26 hp and 17 str, as well as nat. protection 2.
Cavemen have 23 hp, 17 str, but cold/heat resistance and lower magic resistance. And natural protection 2.
Jotun seem to have 32 or so hp, 21 or so str and natural protection 5.

However, I doubt you meant big humans in the size 3-4 sense. I, at least, understood you meant a big human in an Ulmish warrior, the best of the best, with natural talent for killing without being killed, burly and strong and not really slowed down by his mass. Your examples made it sound as if he had natural protection instead of more hp. I'll write down some numbers and compare things:

A tough human using a spear:
11 str, 3 dam from weapon == 14 damage per hit

A tough guy A being hit by the said spear:
18 hp
A tough guy B being hit by the said spear:
12 hp, nat prot 5

A) would take 14 damage (out of 18 hp), and could easily die from the first straight hit.
B) would take 9 damage (out of 12 hp), and could easily die from the first straight hit. But, as you can see, the increase in hp and in nat prot have about the same effect.

If the attacker had better weapon, both A and B would probably die.

Now, let's give misters A and B some light armor. Leather Cuirass and Cap, say. Protection 6 for body and head for Guy A, prot 10* for Guy B.

Guy A would take 14-6 or 8 points of damage, out of his 18. Half of his hp before random factor.
Guy B would take 14-10 or 4 points of damage - a third of his 12! Random factor would have a slightly bigger effect here.

If they had better protection, like, say, Plate Cuirass (14) and Iron Cap (15), like a hero-type might have in MA or LA...

With 14 dam attack, Guy A would take about 0 damage, but with the randoms he would still rack up damage pretty fast, few points at a time, with his protection being only 14/15.
Guy B would have 17 body, 18 head protection (rounded down), so he'd be much less likely to get actually damaged.

If the attacker had a better weapon, and dealt 16 damage... Guy A would be taking damage almost every turn. Guy B would often take a point or two, sometimes a little more, but more than that would be uncommon. I'm not going through that math right now, so let's say they're about equal.

If both had armor with prot 20/20... Guy A would be better off against most guys. Guy B would have actual prot 22.5 (22 or 23, I'm not sure), and the difference wouldn't be that important at this point, as the biggest danger would be armor-piercing and negating attacks, like crossbows and spells.


With no armor, more hp and more nat prot gives us about the same effect. With light to medium armor, nat prot is better. With heavy armor, natural protection matters less and less. The guy with nat prot might get away with a little lighter armor, and thus lower encumberance, but would be more suspectible to AP and AN damage.


* Total prot = Natural prot + Armor prot - (Np*Ap/40) = 5+6 - (30/40) = 10

Re: What about luck?
 

I don't see why an unusually heroic HUMAN couldn't be as tough and strong as a caveman. In dominions it seems impossible.

I see those on Smackdown all the time... big strong men that is... heroic... well..:)

Or why an unusually heroic superCaveman couldn't be pretty close to a giant, etc.


Traditionally this problem is solved with dice in RPGs. Human has attributes between 3 and 18 or something similiar. In Dominions all humans are bound to 10. Why must even the heroes be clones of the ordinary crap militia-humans?:/ Yes, slight exaggerations here but you get the point.

Re: What about luck?
 

Heh. I just realized what made this thread feeling so familiar (apart from the subject being beaten to death every now and then from different angles).

Mel Gibson's character William Wallace in Braveheart.

Especially the scene where some grunts say that he can't be the legendary Wallace as the famous hero is a lot taller and stronger than he is. Instead, WW is just a skilled fighter with good oratory skills (um, high Standard ability) and dies when gutted as any one of us. Nothing without an army, but still portrayed as a Hero.

I like my heroes that way (and do like to send lightly equipped warrior queens to front lines to lead their troops), but DnD-esque players can disagree. Importing a Rolemaster-like system into a Dominions-like game would be a dream come true, but people would probably complain it isn't transparent enough as most of the kills would be due to critical hits...

Re: What about luck?
 

Dominions already has Rolemaster like open ended critical hits. Your militia can score a 1044999 damage hit on your god.

Anyways. If it's William Wallace you consider a fantasy hero instead of Conan, then I agree with dominions 10hp. But I'd prefer Conan for a fantasy hero.

Re: What about luck?
 

IIRC William Wallace survives after several wounds, including a knight attack, he was only killed when he was surrounded in an ennemy dominion province. The pendant of luck his wife gave to him before being killed and the 80% missile deflection kilt he had like most scot sacred warriors (in the movie you even see their strange gestures to activate the power of the item http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ) can't explain all.

Re: What about luck?
 

A militiaman has hp 10, att/def 8-9. A hero has hp 15-19, att/def 13-15.

A Caveman has 23 hp. EA Ulm's Son of Steel (there's your Conan) has 17. Strength 17 against 14, att 10 against 15, def 10 against 13... Warenheris also starts with a two-handed Sword of Sharpness, with att/def 3 and lots of AP damage. That's GOOD!

Warenheris can kill a Caveman, one-on-one. He could do so even without equipment. He could kill a Jotun, too, one-on-one. That's GOOD! It's not good enough to win you a war, because ten Heavy Infantry might kill Warenheris, but he's still an exceptional human who could defeat most size 3-4 giants!


Also, you ask why human can't have as many hp as a Caveman? Caveman has 23. The best, strongest, toughest humans that currently exist in Dominions have 17 hp. 5 more hp would make it 30% increase over the current best humans. It might still work, for few exceptional guys, if they were rare. If other heroes were upgraded to hp 17-19 range, Son of Steel could have 20-21, and an equally tough mounted knight might have 22-23. But I don't think a human can have 30 hp, in Dominions terms. And in my opinion, 20 is a good, round limit for one of the many factors that affect survivability. Why? A Great Ape, a gorilla, has hp 18 and str 15. Son of Steel has hp 17 and str 14. The man's a beast!

But... A Water Elemental will crush him. He could beat a Troglodyte, and would have a good chance against Krakens, Gargoyles and the like, but then there are the Manticores, and the Iron Dragons, and the Wyrms - he doesn't have a chance in a fair fight. And even when he has a good chance, he won't do as well as Iron Dragons and Wyrms and undead monstrosities. The scale is just too big for a human to be too good in any one area.

There are MANY ways to make human heroes better. Increasing hp is one way that works, but I'd rather see something different.

At 20 hp, I'd start lowering enc, increasing natural protection, changing starting equipment to stronger ones, giving special abilities... a human isn't a giant. Human can beat a giant, and some Dominions heroes can. I think humans can even BECOME giants (some strange Foul Spawn via Transformation).

If you really want to make human heroes that survivable, we'd need something like White Ones' reincarnation ability - kill a hero, and there's a chance of him being reborn in a new body. Giving all nations two-three forms for reincarnated leaders would take a lot of time, and we don't have the modding commands, and the afflictions would vanish... but that would be a nice way of modeling heroic humans. Not perfect, of course, because there should be a chance of the hero taking few months to reappear (Lost in Space and Time?), and healing all afflictions a few times is a bit too miraculous in Dominions world... but it'd be a nice start.

Re: What about luck?
 

This conversation however, is pointless.

Some people want tougher human heroes, some don't. Mostly the arguments both ways are more or less good and plausible. People are not too likely to change their opinions over what the others say.

So how about we call it quits and let the game/mod designers decide.

Re: What about luck?
 

Here's another idea, how about someone makes it so (in a mod) all those weak heroes have second forms they turn into when they die? (like Dai Oni into ghost-thingeys)
Make it so the secondary form represents them as unconcious (they can't attack or move, have much decreased stats etc.), that would give them a chance to survive a battle where they take one critical hit, and I think its quite thematic (there are several instances in books where the hero is knocked unconcious and then reawakens to see the results of the battle).
Only in a mod though, of course http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: What about luck?
 

Agrajag: unconcious is interesting, but I'm afraid it wouldn't work too well. In books etc the hero falls to the ground and is assumed dead. AI won't care.

But perhaps some other kind of mild buff, like amulet of returning or something.
By the way, I'm somewhat disappointed that you (apparently) can't make commanders start with Misc items. On one hand, it makes amulets of all sorts more unique. On the other, it would be quite fitting to give some amulets to high end mages/commanders/sacreds. And some of least popular amulets could actually see play.

There's one mildly annoying thing... as far as I remember, if I give a weapon to a commander, his original weapon is simply disabled. This is not a problem for melee weapons, but suppose I'm giving a Thunder Bow to Pathos. I think I did it once. He lost his short sword, or whatever he used to have. And while Storm Bow is nice, it doesn't help in melee, and doesn't have too much ammo.
I've seen independent archers with both bows and short swords, so it should be possible.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Sorry Turin, I wasn't specifically criticising anything in Worthy Heroes mod. I was talking about the suggestion in this thread to multiply the HP of human units that players would like to use as thugs.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Even if you insist on "realism" Dominions human thugs are far too fragile. Alexander the Great fought in the front of his army almost every battle and survived dozens of battles, even without the high-end equipment that won't save a human commander on the front lines in Dom. That would be essentially impossible in Dominions. There would be more variety from a game interest viewpoint if human could be made into worthwhile low-end melee thugs. More realistic, more to play - what's not to like about toughening up at least human heros a bit?

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

A magic bow removing shortsword for some units and not others is a quirk in the data, I think from the order the equipment is listed on the unit.

You can build magic items into units, or place them with map commands, but ya there's no way for player to mod/map items that appear on new units during play.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Yes, but Alexander the Great didn't survive those battles by taking a direct hit from a halberd or javelin, and didn't really turn the tide of battle (Aside from morale, I guess) by being on the frontlines. I half-think the guy had a lot of luck as well as his combat prowess that kept him alive.

And remember, even in most fantasy, a hero rarely manages to alter the outcome of a battle by killing a ton of enemies in pitched combat. Usually they use some sort of magic, use the terrain, (say, triggering a rockslide) or take out an enemy commander, usually the last of the three. Rarely do you get a hero that can stand up to even ten enemies on his own. I'll also point out that these heroes are also rarely targetted by hostile magic and that, when they are, it's frequently a struggle to survive.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

And your also forgot to add that alexander the great wasnt fighting huge dragons, undead monsters and lightning bolts coming down from the sky.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

curtadams, no reason you can't mod that if that's what you want to try.

However, some reasons not to do it to the stock game include:

* The HP stats of units are carefully restrained to a scale where 10 is an average young healthy male human warrior, and 17 is so far about the maximum.

* Even giving heroes 20 HP isn't, I think, really going to double their life expectancy in practice.

* I have been enjoying playing the Dominions for several years with one of the main things I enjoy doing, being using human commanders with or without items and having them enter combat directly and watching their exploits and trying to keep them alive. I've had a great time doing this, and had some nice success, particularly in single-player mode.

Some tips for managing to keep them alive include giving them 2-6 pals who can keep up with them on Guard Commander, maybe putting some more on Guard Commander who are slower than and/or behind the commander, so they can reinforce his position on later turns, and placing them in positions where they will be amidst other friendly troops (and maybe other fighting commanders) instead of getting singled out and killed.
Also, don't be surprised or too disappointed when some of them die sometimes...
Avoiding charging into a battle line of giants with elite mortals may also be a good plan. Numerous disposable light troops work better for dealing with giants. Though, good enough mortals can also take care of them. Early Ages Vanheim can, as long as they aren't Niefel Giants (brrr...).

On the other hand, I would like to see some tweaks to make this style of play more viable and slightly less cruel. I just wouldn't do it by doubling hitpoints. Instead, I'd suggest some game system changes such as:

* Making less injuring wounds more common. Maybe if there were a 50% chance that each wound would only do a fraction of the amount after armor penetration. Of course, that would also probably tend to increase the overall power of giants rather than mortals...

* Allowing some fraction of units who are killed to instead enter limbo for some turns and find their way back to fight again after a while. They were defeated, and perhaps thought dead, but were not actually killed.

* Allowing more units to gain heroic abilities based on their exploits, rather than by being on the top ten Hall of Fame. Any leader who gets some experience stars and participates in combat could have a small chance of gaining a heroic ability. This would be fairer, make more sense, add more personality to the commanders, and encourage their use in combat.

* Add the ability to recruit non-mage/priest commanders at the same time that mage/priests are being recruited in a province, so players don't have to choose one or the other.

PvK

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

I think it's stupid you can get heroic ability for nothing at all. I had one game in demo where - apparently - no one moved on the first turn. Or was it second. It was a small game.

Next turn, I woke up with Heroic Ability on my scout (!!) and another commander.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Because they get experience for living http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Really??? I wonder what fantasy it is that you've read, because I can remember a _lot_ of fantasy heroes who butchered armies (Elric of Melnibonea being a classic example, or at least slaughtering warbands of well over 10 enemies ( Aileron and Arthur at different times in Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry, said trilogy having made it to "best 100 works of fantasty" status, the Morigu trilogy, a number of heroes from the late lamented Paul Edwin Zimmer's books, even the classic "The Worm Ouroboros" from 1922 ).

As far as surviving magic goes, I could give similarly long lists of fiction in which they do just that - some of Glen Cook's works, David Gemmell's, Moorcock, Tanith Lee, etc, etc, etc.

Kindly note that some of those are considered to be amongst the great, seminal, writers of fantasy. And then there's also mythology and fable.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

I didn't say that they don't usually survive a magic attack, but from my experience the heroes tend to really take a hit from magic arrayed against them. On the other hand, you've obviously read more fantasy than me.

Fair enough on the others, though.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Even for the fictional heroes who manage to defeat many enemies in direct combat, are there any pre-D&D examples of heroes who do so because of a non-magical/blessed heroic ability to survive wounds that would drop lesser men? "Wound Sustaining Man"? "Sir Hurtmenot?" "Captain Fleshwound"?

The only "high HP" genre that comes to mind is SE Asian martial arts fantasy, where semi-magic Chi powers give hyper-expert heroic martial artists the ability to survive many blows that would incapacitate lesser men, but also give them the ability to jump 30 meters in the air, and defy physics in various other ways. Edit: Still, those are mostly fights with bare hands and feet or blunt and improvised weapons. When swordsmen are defeated by martial arts masters in these films, for example, they almost always do so by avoiding getting chopped or skewered, not by shrugging off weapon injuries.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Another idea to make human heroes more useful: built-in "heroic luck". Let's say your regular hero fights in the battle, takes a big hit and dies. But when "heroically lucky" hero fights and takes a big hit he only kind of dies - he isn't anywhere on the battlefield and he doesn't participate in the battle in any way, but if your army wins you'll get a message that as the army returned to the camp hero "such and such" appeared out of his tent cursing that some prankster stole his armour while he was sleeping http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Any pre-D&D? Herakles and Achilles come to mind. I doubt they're the only ones. Oh you mentioned non-magical/blessed - the Dom3 heroes ARE blessed and/or magical and/or just HEROES.

They're NOT called militia for a reason, or are they?

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

One more time : the D&Dian original definition of hit points was "capacity to survive" *including all non conventional ways to avoid being hit*. To resume the original hit points are an abstraction representing not only endurance but luck, skill and fate of the character. D&D was based on miniatures strategy game rules, unlike the following RPGs made once they were a specific genre. In a miniature game you would have paid hundreds of budget points for your heroe, so you prefer "the better he is the longer he will survive, but he won't be able to survive without limit if you use him too much" (to resume : he worth his budget) over "he may dodge or be one shoted, if you have luck he will survive for eternity, if you have not... ahah you lose" (to resume : he may worth 0 or ten times his cost). I still can't understand how some strategy gamers may be so convinced that the D&D approach is only a weird RPG thing, and the second the best for strategy games, when it's very clearly the contrary IMHO.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Herakles was not human -- he was half-man, half-god... and was killed with a bit of poison, not by being repeatedly smashed into the ground. He overpowered his opponents with strength, not his damage-taking ability.

Achilles was killed with a single well-aimed blow -- he had high PROT everywhere else, not unusually high HP. And if you read the classics... well, the Iliad is littered with dead heroes.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

You are either factually off or misleading on some of your assertions.

1. While Herakles was indeed killed with poison, it was no ordinary poison but a superabundant dose of poison from a supernatural creature. Even then, he did not die immediately. Compare this to Paris, who died nearly instantly when he was shot with a poison-dipped arrow from Philoctetes--who had been Herakles' companion who had used a much smaller dose of the same poison that killed Herakles.

Further, while I am not sure if Herakles ever took a severe blow from many of his mythical enemies, my assumption is that he must have, given the number of his accounts. In this respect, perhaps it is important to emphasize that the legends usually emphasize Herakles' strength and hardiness, not his agility, in contrast to, say, Achilles, who is usually depicted as swift or fleet-footed.

2. Achilles' near invulnerability came from his mother Thetis dipping most of his body (except the notorious Achilles' "Heel") in the River Styx. One could say that that is an equivalent of his natural armor or "protection" but it could also said to represent his natural hardiness or constitution or--gasp!--HP. To insist on Achilles' near-invulnerability solely as a category of "protection" may be to try to interpret everything according to your convenience.

3. Yes, the "Iliad is littered with dead heroes." But so what? I don't know too many instances where heroes in the Iliad (I can't think of any at the moment) die due to causes other than the might of other heroes or divine interventions. That is, heroes do not die by a lucky stroke from an ill-trained militiaman. And that is the whole point with the dissatisfaction of some who have expressed concern about the human heroes' low HP. We do not mind if a human is killed by a full blow from a Niefel Jarl; but if Pathos--who like Herakles is half-god and half-man--dies by a few militiamen surrounding him getting a lucky thrust, then there is a problem.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Agrajag,

1. And I did say that Arralen is a jack *** only IF that is what he thought.

2. So you think it's normal to accuse everyone who doesn't have the game manual to have a pirated version instead of just a demo version? Even if you subtract the evidence I put forth before that clearly demonstrate that I don't know what happens in late game and do not have full version of the game, I'd suspect just as a percentage thing that the most reasonable assumption is actually that someone who doesn't have a manual only has a Demo copy rather than a pirated copy.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

This is not always true. In many fantasy, heroes do take on and triumph over literally hundreds of men.

In fact, such is the case in even quasi-historical fantasies in the Far East: e.g. The Three Kingdoms novel.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Yes, but Alexander also didn't have all those magical trinkets and other magical boosts to help him either.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

I would love to see a Heroic Luck prowess as well. Perhaps add a Luck attribute that stacks with normal Luck? In other words, if you already had Luck cast on you, you could have 75 percent chance of surviving the hit, instead of the normal 50 percent.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Hmmm. I recant. I am not sure if this is a good idea. Most HoF heroic prowess continues to increase, and this attribute could increase to the point where your hero may be unkillable! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Only the ones marked as such, and therein lies part of the problem. Many of the heroes in Dom 3 are only somewhat better than typical commanders. I and others enjoy them that way, but they really start as people with hero potential, rather than fully-fleged heroes. Once they have experience and heroic abilities and items, they can be quite powerful, if still mortal. But with some exceptions, most of them don't appear from the start at "quite powerful" level. You have to build most of them up, and unless you embrace the challenge and risks of doing so, it's not particularly worth the time and attention, especially from a competetive standpoint when there are more powerful summons you can blink up for a small pile of magic gems.

I think the "Worthy Heroes" mod is really the right approach. The designers offer a built-in set of heroes, many of whom are just somewhat better than national commanders, and many of us find them interesting and nicely restrained in their abilities. If you want more super heroes, you can mod them in and/or use mods than do so. It's far easier to do so now in Dom 3 too because there are much nicer mod commands for heroes than there were in Dom 2.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

As noted, he was also not human -- he was half-god, and not just any god, but the leader of the pantheon known for direct divine intervention. He's therefore not a great example of what should be achievable by humans.

That is the textbook definition of protection. He could not be harmed save by a blow to the one vulnerable location. When he was struck there by an enemy who was forewarned, Achilles died. That's protection, not hp -- hp reflect being hurt. He was simply not hurt when hit elsewhere. His ability to not be hurt when hit elsewhere, was completely irrelevant when he was hit in his one vulnerable location. That is not consistent with any explanation that relies on a global stack of hit points, not protection + critical hit.

...as if a soldier who killed a hero wouldn't be treated as one in the tales, at least tales written by his own side?

Also, consider this: was Patroclus considered a hero in his own right, until he demonstrated the skill of fighting as Achilles did, to the point that his opponents believed his armor? Or was it his (not special!) damage-taking ability that fooled them?

Pathos gets godly protection, just like Achilles. In fact... unless it's been reduced, he's BETTER protected than the average mage who just cast Invulnerability, if memory serves. Like Achilles, if he takes a well-aimed critical hit, he can die. If he gets tired and his skills effectively degrade, he can easily die -- just as, say, Zhang Fei died to two lowly, common soldiers.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

I already knew the history, and I accept that some players are OK with (or even prefer) massive-HP characters for various reasons. Personally, I find it an unsatisfactory and tired abstraction which is far overused in far too many computer games for my tastes. To me, it makes the tactics very artificial and annoying (i.e., I'm pretty invulnerable until I wear out, and then after getting steadily whittled down, I'm almost sure to die unless I withdraw and heal...). I think it's unfortunate how many games rely on high-HP-based damage systems, because I tend to find them really bland and uninteresting, because they tend to just be about wearing down enemies at constant and predictable rates, and don't model situations in a very accurate or interesting way. They tend to remove risk and unpredictability. And so, I tend to cherish the few games like Dominions that model combat results in more detailed and unpredictable ways, that are more like the actual situations they say they represent - more about risk and cause and effect, and less about "my hero can't die on turn one - that's not supposed to happen - he's a hero!" etc.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Taqwus,

I am glad we are having an intelligent debate rather than shouting matches. This is what I expected from this forum, as opposed to a Blizzard forum.

Now let me respond to all three of your points:

1. I am not completely sure Herakles is so exceptional as heroes go. Yes, he is probably the greatest hero in the Greek mythos, but the trait you single out for his exceptional character--his half-divine birth--is not so exceptional in Greek myth or other prominent myths. That is, many of the great heroes of various sagas claim to have half-divine births. In Greek myth alone, many--if not the majority--of the greatest heroes do have such pedigrees. For instance, Achilles himself is born of an immortal mother, Thetis (though she was indeed not Zeus or even Hera or Athena but a nymph).

More germane, Pathos does have the same half-divine lineage, and he is nowhere as overpowering as a Herakles or an Achilles. Achilles, it should be pointed out, was not simply another Joe with high "protection." He battled a damn river god in the Iliad!

2. I concede wholeheartedly that Achilles' near-invulnerability is best defined as "Protection" not HP in the context of Dom III. Nonetheless, it is not "Protection" in the sense of armor you "wear" but what is called "Natural" armor or protection. My point is that it is not so easy to separate natural armor or toughness and high constitution or high HPs. But I suppose this has to do with my own conceptual biases.

3. Most of the Iliad's near-superhuman or frankly superhuman heroes were considered as such prior to the Trojan War. Achilles was long considered the best warrior in the world, and that is why the Greeks fetched Odysseus, the most clever among them, to get him to participate in the war. Ajax or Aias was already considered the next greatest warrior. Hector, likewise, was considered the greatest Trojan Warrior. Diomedes' and other heroes' heroic pedigrees were also well-established.

I do agree that the case of Patroclus is an exception, but exceptions do not make an argument--or at least an argument of a general nature.

Finally, regarding Zhang Fei--he died in old age and rather drunk. Since you appear to be familiar with Luo Guanzhong's tale, you know what kind of rear-end kicker he was when in prime and sober! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

HoF abilities
 

Heroic Luck wouldn't necessarily make a hero unkillable. After all, there's no reason why it'd have to increase linearly and unbounded, rather than asymptotically approaching some sub-100% upper bound. And even if it did reach 100%... that's nothing that Umor can't handle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif (and one might consider perhaps cons6 or cons8 items to weaken luck).

On a related note, it strikes me that it would be useful if a modder could give constraints or hints as to what HoF ability would be given to a specific hero. In fact, for a veteran hero (say, an already legendary one) -- it would make sense to assign both XP and a specific HoF ability (but one which wouldn't increase further unless he remained within the HoF).

For 'neophytes with potential' heroes, constraining HoF ability choice would lower the risk of getting something wildly athematic. For instance, it would be galling for Heroic Stupidity to land on your average heroic sorceror-type, and Unequaled Obesity might not make sense against a backstory describing feats of long-distance running, et al. A great paladin champion and enemy of the undead shouldn't suddenly get Undead General. For a healer-type to get Legendary Cruelty would be rather bizarre, unless she's got a rather odd personality or doubles as an inquisitor... I don't know if the game would ever be perverse enough to assign such, but the ability to give hints to the engine would help.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

By the way, I am surprised at the number of replies and interest this thread has generated.

If anything, that shows that a lot of people do agree with me in feeling that there is a problem with the base human commander or hero HPs.

Re: Extra starting experience would make sense...
 

Exactly, Taqwus!

Edit: LOL! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
We're all posting at the same time. I should have written "Exactly, Epaminondas", about the points about Achilles being a great example of high Prot with human HP, Herakles being like a Dom 3 Prophet, etc.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Actually, my posts are all about trying to point out that the low hit points on humans is not a problem, and that even if it seems that humans have a survival problem, the HP themselves are not the problem. At most, the damage amounts may be a problem, but the HP ratings are in line.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

I wasn't referring to you: It's not all about you, even though I often think that way myself! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Actually he took many, many direct hits and once got stuck alone on the wrong side of a city wall. He was expected to die then, and several other times, but survived.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

I don't have a problem with much of that (other than of course many Dom3 undead are pretty pathetic) but the problem is that it doesn't take anything like that to kill a melee commander. 20 hp heros will accomplish your idea quite nicely as a dragon will still shred them.

Skill vs. strength and parrying
 

One way in which Dominions is a bit weird regarding the interplay of strength and skill is that the effectiveness of a weapon parry / defense skill isn't affected by relative strength.

For instance, to take a fairly extreme case: if a Hoburg with two Main Gauches of Parrying is fighting a Niefel Jarl with a Hammer of the Mountains, is the Hoburg going to bother to block the massively strong attacks, or is he going to rely on ducking and dodging? Unless he's got some incredible strength for a Hoburg... he'd be better off with Vision's Foe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

If relative strength affected defense skill somewhat (just as attacker's strength now impacts shield parries -- against the Niefel Jarl with that Hammer, even a decent shield may not be a great deal of help), then it'd be possible for a hero to have very high defense, turning away opposing blades with ease (until he fatigues...) but still have a rough time against giant-strength opponents.

Re: Skill vs. strength and parrying
 

Increasing HP would be redundant, because we already have 'burning out' mechanic. It's called Fatigue. Fatigued enemies are easier to hit, and after certain point can no longer fight.
Translation: I like the legend about Achilles, but not that part about magical origins of his power. The part about hero is right, the part about magical protection is wrong. Because I say so.

Some quotes from wikipedia:
So, in two first quotes Achilles is said to be nearly immortal. Styx is no ordinary river, and ambrosia is food of the gods. There's also mention of burning away mortal parts of his body.
We see Homer didn't mention Achilles' invulnerability, and there's one case of him being wounded. His elbow was grazed by a thrown spear. You don't easily die from a hit to elbow, much less a graze. If anything, it could be said that Thetis' Blessing gave him heroic defence/reflexes. Because the worst wound he received (before the final one) was grazed elbow.
Doesn't sound like he had a lot of hps, does it ? It's either Protection, or reflexes (Defence) if you listen to Homer.
So in one version he was hit in the heel and it was enough to kill him. In another(never saw this one), he was killed (one shot !!!) by knife in the back.
Even if you assume totally realistic point of view and support the idea that Achilles' tendon was crippled, it seems to imply that it made him lose his Defence and dodging ability.
I'd also like to note that Greeks considered all ranged weapons, especially bows, cowardly. Their military was really centered around heavy infantry. Most probably because bows tend to ignore target's Defence, and you can't show your skill in melee combat.
Either way, Achilles died from a single blow.

As to Herakles, the only instance of him being wounded I remember was a crab that cut into his feet while he was wrestling with a legendary monster, don't remember which one.

Because there's mention of Odysseus, I assume it was Homer who wrote this. It seems to imply that Achilles' power at least partially came from his armor - or so the two Greeks believed. What it doesn't do is support the HP hypothesis.

Let's face it, HP is a crude, old oversimplification in an old and flawed system like D&D. And if I remember correctly, the way AC works in D&D comes from pen&paper Mechwarrior games. (Just to support the idea that D&D). D&D says futuristic giant walking robots have more in common with ancient/medieval combat than history. That's guilty enough for me. And let's not forget D&D was optimised for humans - that is, GM had to be able to calculate everything quickly without help of computers.

Re: Skill vs. strength and parrying
 

Actually, that might be doable. Horned Helmet is both a helmet (adds a new piece of armor to the unit) and a weapon (adds a Gore attack). If Main Gauche of Parrying added a weapon (Main Gauche of Parrying, dam 3, att 0, def 0, lngth 0) and a shield (Main Gauche of Parrying, def 0, parry 5, prot 20), high strength could be used to over-power it. I statted the shield named Main Gauche of Parrying after Shield of Valor, which combines E1 (shield) and A1 (Air shield) items into one. They're at the same level of construction.

Of course, it's a bit far-fetched to do this for ALL weapons of ALL units - but it could work for some of the magical items.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

Compare what I said in italic and what you said in italic.

If anything, that shows that a lot of people do disagree with you in feeling that there is a problem with the base human commnder or hero HPs...

All this means is that there is much debate on the subject. Just because a lot of people discuss something it doesn't mean they think one way or another about it, just that they think about it.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

A little common sense please!

If I want to play giants I play giants. If I want to play munchkins I play munchkins. If I want sea I don't play land.

Each makes for a totaly different playing style. That is what makes this game great.

If you want a mighty commander than give him toys. If you don't like the toys then you can mod some. What more do you want?

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

I don´t think anyone wants humans to be giants. The problem is simply that most human thuggie heroes are practically basic commanders with a trivial stat increase.

Take marius lorca for example:
Unmodded he is an 80gp Emerald lod with +1 hp +1 str +1 att, +1 def, +2 morale, + 2 ap and one less encumbrance.
A recruitable emerald lord with 2 stars of experience is a better fighter than marius, who is supposed to be a living legend.

Shouldn´t a living legend excel the run of the mill recruitables a little bit?

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans
 

One thing popped to mind.

If it's 'unrealistic' or whatever that human heroes have more hp.

How is it not unrealistic if they get it from a heroic ability?

Why can't our HEROES have more than average hp, if our HEROES can?:)