Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

PHEW! Thank god someone was able to reason it out.

I have to agree that the moral system is a little wacky and probably should be changed I seriosuly doubt it was designed this way.

Also I seriously doubt that the game was designed with the idea that it would revolve around SC's *by themselves* in the end game. I'm sure that they wanted some units to be very powerful and for these well equiped units to be the center pieces of the massive armies but not to be the whole army.

I still think that Esben Mose Hansen 1st post ( the 1st post on the whole thread!) fixes basically everything by itself. Heck the human pretenders start to become better with his change as well ( however the ghost king is still probably a better choice for almost all nations ).

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

You can't build anywhere near enough of them to make up any significant part of your army.

They can kill one or two units at most, like I said. They have very little real effect on the battlefield. Fireball for example, would have to have about a fifth to a tenth of the cost to be really worthwhile.

I've played AOW2 enough to know what the major problems with its design are. Unless the game rules have been completely overhauled from the ground up in Shadow Magic, the basic problems are still going to remain.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

If you aren't using your national troops, then you will almost certainly be beaten by somebody who is, unless you have an absolutely massive blood economy. In that case, you've traded the gold from those provinces for magical ability.

This is not a problem.

No, it shouldn't. That's an overly simplistic system that leads to ridiculous results.

Why should you be able to beat one with only normal troops and no magical backup?

Air mages should be using thunderstrike, not false horrors.
You should make up your mind about what kind of equipment your banelord has. If it has fire and lightning immunity, then it's MR will be low enough to kill it with the instant kill spells. If it isn't fire and lightning immune, then you can kill it with incinerate or thunderstrike. 20 Lamias can also often hold off a completely equipped bane lord for more than 50 turns.

Are all of your strategies based around your opponents sitting there and not doing anything to affect how well your plans work?

Astral mages that can teleport or gateway are not at a serious risk to mind duel attacks. They should probably be dueling themselves.

Once again, how is this a problem, and what are you planning to use for summoned troops. There are very few that will replace your normal troops.

I think you need to play more games and spend less time theorizing. You might also want to avoid playing games on huge maps, and not put magic site frequency above 50%. Both Atlantis and Carrion Woods have everything they need to defeat the nations you've just listed.

Destroyed you mean, since there would no longer be any point in summoning them.

I have looked at it. I've already outlined a few of the many numerous problems with the game. Another one is that unit upkeep is far too high.

Are you now complaining that there are choices that are better in many situations? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You paid for the better spells with research, and put a huge amount of resources into that research. Why _shouldn't_ it give you real benefits?

Hardly. Tartarians require you to be able to hold on to either gift of health or the chalice, and to have a nature gem income of more than 20 per turn for gift of reason. You won't be able to keep gift of health for that long in most games, and the chalice moves around anytime someone wishes for it.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Trust me, I've played more computer games than you can imagine under heaven and hell. Yes, I've played AoW, AoW2, AoW2SM. The first one was the best, SM was seriously flawed right down to the campaign system. Worst of all, like the Disciples series of games, units had to _kill_ an opponent to really gain experience, making you play stupid arse games (in the game) to get the good units / heroes to get the kills. In this, it was rather like several of the Final Fantasy video games, where even if you could kill a group of enemies right away, you had to dick around and swap in each character if you wanted them to advance / get experience.

No it wasn't. Certain races and heroes were definately better than the others. The campaign mode helped to disguise this by _forcing_ you to use certain races.

You point out that you only played it for 1/2 a year, because you know it all too quick.

So - why do you want to dumb down Dominions2? Yes, it gets frustrating seeing your carefully crafted army get toasted by an SC or a couple of mages. So _LEARN_ from it. I'd like to think that at this point I'm a solid intermediate Dom2 player; there's still a lot of things I _know_ I don't do well enough, and personally, I like that.

My SCs don't match up well against the really good players yet - I don't forge enough items. Oh well - solution, forge more. I didn't scout enough - solution, build more scouts. I didn't use summoned troops well enough - solved.

Proper use of summoned troops, of SCs, of powerful spells (not counting Wish (half-joke) , is a huge part of being a good Dominions2 player. I've been playing _very_ steadily for over half a year, and there's still a lot to learn and improve on.

So, again - why do you want to cripple the parts of the game that give it such a long lifespan?

Okay. Now I'm going to give voice to my inner feelings based on this. Is your nickname "Boron the Moron" by any chance?

My reason for this is: "The majority agrees"???? You gave three names - Tauren is certainly a 4th. This is a bleeding majority?

Second - you're an idiot if you think that what you, Tauren, and even Panther (no moron there) propose are "small changes". You obviously aren't a programmer, aren't a grognard, aren't an analyst or anything close. "Small" changes have big ripples, especially in a game with such widely varying factions as Dom2 has. And what y'all propose aren't small changes.

You propose having reduced upkeep for national troops. Why? I've served in my nations military. They don't get paid any _less_ as the years go on. Why do you think knights would take 1/4 salary as they got better at their trade?

And you want _upkeep_ for all summoned troops? Where in Dog's name is this justified? If I summon ... undead, I slit a throat, and I have zombies. Why would they cost upkeep? If I conjure sea monkeys, I enticed them with the gems I offered in the casting. Demons, I offer some souls up front - I don't offer them "20 souls, plus 5 souls a month amortized and averaged over the per diem cost per soul in Ulm."

And you're on bad drugs. MoM's approach was totally different, as was AoW's. They have different game systems, different mechanics. If you want a MoM style game that's better - write it. Two amateurs (programming wise) did a damn fine job with Dominions and Dominions 2. Why can't you do the same? Especially since "the majority" agrees with you.

( Note : I just spent 3 hours on the phone before I completed this message, so it might not have the overall coherency I usually prefer. Then again, I'm not debating coherent people. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif )

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Ad Hominem never helps your case.

A proper RTS analogy for this idea would be, in order to stop the rush, rush yourself. This attitude however devolves the game into nothing but rushing, and is a big sign of a design flaw.

He's not attempting to "dumb down" the game, his intention is to make the game a richer experience by not making national units completely obsolete in the late game.

It just seems to me there's something wrong with how things are working. However, like many people have already pointed out, the game setup migh have a huge part to do with it. Easy research, lots of magic sites, over-sized maps for how many people are playing, etc. contribute to an SC/mage-heavy type of setup.

Even so, I'd like to see research and gems, items, etc. be able to benefit troops as well. Create a series of flag standards that would be forgeable and give bonuses to the units under the bearers command. Strengthen troop-bonusing spells, or give bonuses to the national troops when they get buffed. These troops are after all your loyal subjects. Trolls and Ice devils are all fine and dandy, but they aren't building your temples and worshipping you day to day.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Whoa, a flame-fest. This kind of reminds me of the debate I ran across on the White Wolf forums. Basically there was one group going: werewolves are slice 'em and dice 'em killing machines, vampires are pale-skinned effetes who drink blood, an average werewolf should kill an average vampire in, like, two seconds tops.

Then the other group was going: no, no, no vampires are "IMMORTAL LORDS OF THE NIGHT" and werewolves are mortals who can shapeshift into wolves, werewolves should be pet *****es for vampires etc.

What was amusing of course is that neither vampires nor werewolves exist in reality, everything lies in how the individual wants to conceive them as being.

In the same way, there's no universal, end all, be all, fantasy strategy game. Inevitably, different players will conceive of what is for them the ultimate fantasy strategy game in different ways.

On the one side, we have Graeme Dice and Cainehill whose idea of fantasy is fantastic, high fantasy, the stuff of legends, like Middle Earth in the First Age, when there were lots of dragons and balrogs about, when Morgorth walked the earth in physical form, when the Ents were awake and the power of gods like Tom Bombadil were in full bloom, and mortal humans could do no more than stare at them in open-mouthed awe.

On the other side, we have people like Panther and FM_Surrigon whose idea of fantasy is a more subdued, subtle kind, where ordinary joes can and do play a part in the great scheme of things. Sort of like Middle Earth in the Third or Fourth Ages. This is the age of mortals, where force of arms determine the fate of the world. Magic is rare but when found, always prized. I have to say that I tend to lean towards this camp.

But that doesn't mean that we can't agree to disagree. This is simply a matter of taste. I agree that at this point Dom leans heavily in the direction of high fantasy and it may well be that this is what the developers prefer themselves.

But surely, we of the latter camp can make suggestions and say what kind of game we'd like to have. After all, not everyone has the time, inclination, dedication or talent to make a game as good as Dom2.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

I second that. Cainehill's remarks were totally uncalled for.

Great ideas. I miss the MoM mechanic of enchanting the equipment of ordinary troops, or having troops builts in places with mithril deposits have better weapons / armor.

However, I agree that changes of this magnitude will be impossible in Dom2. These are all things for a future Version of the game or some other game entirely.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Makes perfect sense to me, thematically anyway. This way if I don't keep my 7/7 flying trampling Lord of the Pit well fed with blood slaves, he will come to my capital and personally kill my pretender. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Boron:

If summoned troops start to cost upkeep it will skew the game in favour of items and gem guzzling spells. This will, if items are not made upkeep dependent as well, amongst other things make SC's more prevalent, render far summons and army killing spells relatively more effective etc, in short result in a number of balance changes whose merit is debateable. Besides the balance changes upkeep would also introduce gameplay changes. For example it would render early summons with bad gem for punch ratio that much less interesting. It would also make you very reluctant to cast summoning spells with gems from which you do not have a reliable income, if as was suggested units without the gems to keep upkeep were to depart. There are more problems of this sort. Besides balance and gameplay changes there are implementation problems that are quite a bit more demanding than what you seem to imagine. First of all there is no hardcoded gem cost for a unit like there is for the gold. This means that each summonable unit would have to be assigned a gem cost induvidually. If this was derived from the summoning spells most commonly used to summon the unit it would mean that units that are summonable in different quantities dependent on outside factors would have to be subjected to some consideration, take a troll for example, part of the cost for the troll is that it requires a lvl 3 mage to spend a whole turn sommong it, should it still cost just 1/15 gem in upkeep? or should it be calculated based on the troll court? While these problems are not insurmountable the gains of the change is not readily apperent either, especially since part of what you appear to desire can be achieved by fíddling with starting parameters. In other words, upkeep for summoned units is not going to happen in dom2.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

written without seeing johans posting ..

supplies:
One big problem with standard troops is the lack of supplies in most provinces. (As someone stated above)
This not only makes it impossible to use more than, say, 100 human troops in one army, it almost 100% assures that the AI will attack you with an army of starving and diseased units, if it ever gathers a strong enough hord of its medium inf to do so. (That it doesn't build castles isn't that much of a help, either)

This supply issue stems from the fact that units in Dom2 eat at least as much as in Dom1, but provinces have noticeable less pop, and therefore less supplies, too. Furthermore, on most of the popular maps you'll notice a overuse of the terrain feature. But anything else than grass land and plains has poor pop, and modifiers from terrain plainly add up, so you can "ruin" a grassland prov by marking it as forest .. .


upkeep-free troops
There are, obviously, 3 types of upkeep-free troops:

At first the auto-summons which are rather week and sometimes cause more problems than they help. Charging a, however small, fee for them will simply kill some themes. (Pan CW, Pan w. turmoil, Ermors etc.)

Then there's the second type: Troops/commanders you can summon using gems. Some of them are quite costly for their stats etc., some are one-shots-only as they don't heal etc. Those aren't that much of a concern, balancing-wise. The problem is with those which are better than all buyable commanders/troops and don't have a glaring weekness within the area of their "intended use" - as soon as you have the gems and the path level, there's few reason to buy any regular commanders/troops any more.

But worst of all are those commanders/items which can summon upkeep-free units .. so you basically all you pay for commanders and units is the starting gems .. speak of deminishing cost, exponential returns here.

excursus:
Midnight Games ruined their Module "Realm of Immortals" for their PBEM "Legends" that way: Every unit had a race and a magical status. Some stati where able to inflict lesser ones from their "chain" onto soldiers for free - and on commanders, which in turn could inflict lower stati themselves, than. Units were upkeep-free in general. Game ended up after 100 turns with armies of tens of thousands "Vampire Lord Elven Guards of xy" - soldiers or similar crap. Each of them as strong as the avareage fighting commanders where - but the game was designed with a clear emphasis on those commanders/characters, which where only useful as troops trainers in the end. (And mages, using a handful of critical spells).
Been there, tried it, suffered horribly .. why should we repeat this in Dom2?


suggestions for solutions
Temporary solution to fix (and test) the suppliy issue is to use a scale mod that ups supply production by 200..300%. I'm running 150% at the moment, and it seems it could use more. Creates an interesting strategical effect: Because it's a %-tage, mountains and swamp don't get that much improvement, so there's the choice to take a smaller force through the mountain and/or make a detour with the big horde.
(ATM, you'll either forge supply items en masse or use non-eating summons)
Maybe one wants to beef up gold income, too .. would tip the scale in favour of buyable units as well.

Using max. 40% magic sites and very difficult research will let players test how the game plays without über-magic and -summons.
To really fix the problem, making those summons limited in number definitly isn't a solution. Quite the contrary: this does encourage rushing for "tech".
Upkeep in gems most likely poses too much programming problems.

One possible solution would be that the summons simply leave after a while (this mechanism is already there).
"Secondary summons" shoudl be either very weak, or completly removed, imho.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

uhm : normally 1 city gave you about 60-70 gold and between 30-50 mana ( depending on nation ) and about 20 research points .
since once you have researched all spells research points were converted in mana too it was normally the following :
while researching gold to mana ratio was 2:1 .
at the end it was about 1,5 : 1 .

normally i had about 60% of my army composed of national troops and 40% of summons lategame .
if they would have fought each other they would have given a very close fight .


[quote]
Graeme Dice said:
you have missed the main point of spells in aow :
e.g. a chain lightning normally always hitted 5 enemies .
the purpose was not to kill the enemy totally but to weaken it that much that you can kill it with the first blow .
thanks to the good dice roll system in aow 2 too if e.g. a karrag ( goblin lvl 4 unit ) fought against a dredd reaper ( the undead lvl 4 unit ) in about 50% of the cases the karrag won and in 50% the dredd reaper .
if you used battle tactics / spells better than your enemy you changed the odds to 90% vs 10% for you .



[quote]
Graeme Dice said:
you played only aow 2 ?
with what patch ?
in aow 2 shadow magic with the latest patch the game was really overhauled .
most strong attacks like a fire breath of a dragon were reduced to 3/battle , same with the making immobile attacks like entangle from druid , grasp from rock bird , web from spiders etc. etc.

spells were fine tuned etc.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

I third that. This forum is the worse for such immaturity.

On the subject at hand, I think Esben has made a number of excellent (if provocative) suggestions in this thread. The two that I like the most I think are impractical to implement in Dom2, but well worth consideration in Dom3. Those being:

1) Increase the penalty for being surrounded.
2) Add maintenance cost for summons. I'd also like to see a maintenance cost for Ritual spells with continuing affects.


Both of these changes would make for an underlying mechanic that "feels" more realistic. I believe that while both really require a ground up rewrite for balance to be achieved (especially #2), I think that both of these changes would provide a basis that is cleaner, and if anything easier to balance. While Johan's comments are undoubtedly correct if this change is made to the current system, there's no reason why magic maintenance cost can't be incorporated without unduly favoring SCs or items, if this is considered from the ground up.

So, that said, I don't think either of these changes are a good idea for Dom2. Dom2 as it stands is a wonderful game. Otherwise we wouldn't all be spending such time and energy in this forum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And, to me, the best thing about Dom2 is it's extraordinary richness and complexity, measured against the fact that despite all that complexity, it is still a very well balanced game. Maintaining balance in a game as complex as Dom2 is no easy feat, and it goes to the credit of the designers/devs for Dom2 and no doubt to the Dominions community as well. These changes are dramatic, and I think will be problematic to accomodate, in terms of game balance.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

well cainehill since you started name calling me again as you did cohen before once you need to use such things and can't keep it rational you proof with this that you have run out of arguments and it lets luck you just bad .



can anyone of you name me a game where an upkeep mechanism is included but about 50% of your troops ( nationals) cost upkeep and about 50% (summons) are upkeep free ?

since you state you know so many games caine :

a nearly perfect balanced game is starcraft broodwar :

there the troops with the lowest tech levels can beat some high tech troops .
to win you have to mix your troops but all troops have a role in the whole game .

example : a terran marine is tech wise the cheapest troop , it is your first one .
a proton scout who is very lategame tech wise and has huge costs is easily defeated by marines for the same cost .

the protoss base unit , the berserker wins against 2 marines , the same costs .
terra can advance then to flamethrower infantry .
they win against berserkers .
they lose against the next toss unit , the dragoon .

the dragoon though loses against marines again .


if you combine marines with medics they are rather horrible . then you need e.g. reavers to properly beat them .

reavers beat everything on ground expect good managed terran siege tanks .

both of this units have no anti air capazities .

so against a few fliers they lose .


most fliers again lose against Medics + Marines .

the medics + marines lose though against a reaver .




so it is well balanced and depending what your opponent uses you need to build a counter but normally your cheapest troops techwise : marines , berserks and zerglings are useful in the whole game .


in dominions this is simply not the case .


and a few REAL LIFE history examples which show that new tech is not always better :

world war 2 :
surely in a 1on1 comparison a king tiger was much better than the german mark 4 tank .
costwise the ratio though was something like 1 tiger to 5 mark 4 tanks though or 3 panther tanks .


the soviet union had about the same capazities than germany .
germany focused on their ultrahuge tanks like tiger , king tiger , jagdtiger , elefant ... and wasted lots of resources .

the soviet union concentrated on the very good t 34/85 .
while in a 1on1 clearly inferior to a tiger tank it was so cheap to produce that it normally fought in a 10:1 ratio against the tiger and won easily .

furthermore 1 infantry with a bazooka could defeat any tank when it came close enough .
a tiger was as vulnerable to an airattack than a t 34/85 e.g.


so though the tiger series was technically far superior than e.g. the t 34/85 or the sherman they could be beat still by them .

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Actually it was a Protoss Zealot. But yeah, SC is great game. I wish Blizzard had seen it fit to make an SC 2 instead of a WC 3.

Yeah, that's my personal preference as well, emphasis on personal. One of the interesting card-design policies that Wizards of the Coast devised (but didn't really put into practice consistently) for Magic: The Gathering was that cards should be balanced, so that rare cards should not be more powerful per resource (mana, card in hand whatever) than common cards, but instead should be more complex. That is, rare cards should have wide-ranging, game-changing effects that are really powerful but limited in application to very specific niches (combos, specific strategies used by an opponent, vulnerable to a prepared opponent etc). Common cards however should be versatile and good just about any time.

But of course, that's something that's easy to idealize after, but very hard (impossible?) to put into practice.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

AMEN !

- Kel

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

OT discussion on tanks ...

Boron,

First, the USSR had a larger industrial base than Germany, and one that wasn't being bombed day and night. The T34/85 wasn't 10 times cheaper to produce than a tiger (as you imply), though it was significantly cheaper. (Perhaps 1/2 or so.) What allowed the soviets to build vast numbers of them was a combination of a much larger manufacturing base, coupled with ample raw materials -- materials Germany was always short of, and an armaments industry that wasn't wasting valuable time and people in designing a plethora of different tanks (like Germany's absurd assortment of models). During the war, the soviets would design one model of medium tank, and one model of heavy, and then build just those. If they found a shortcoming to the design, they'd modify the base design. The Germans, OTOH, designed multiple different medium and heavy tanks, and preferred to design entirely new models to correct perceived shortcomings in their forces (though they also modified old designs too). The net result for Germany is that while their industry suffered from incessant attack and materials shortages, they were also heavily dividing their attention and failing to focus on any one design. The soviets, second only to the U.S., fully understood the concepts of economies of scale.

Second, the German tiger was so superior to the American Sherman that it was all but impervious to the latter. Shermans did NOT win against the tigers at 10:1 odds. Far from it. The single biggest killer of tigers was allied air attack, followed by allied artillery attack. Very few tigers were ever disabled, much less killed, by allied tanks (or even allied tank destroyers). Allied tanks (except the Sherman Firefly 7.6cm and Pershing 9.0cm models) were simply not good enough to get the job done. Sherman armor was pathetically thin and their 7.5cm gun was 2-3 years obsolete compared to what the Germans and soviets were using.

Finally, even had the Germans been able to concentrate on just one cheap-to-produce model of tank they'd've still lost, though the war would have been much bloodier than it already was for Germany's opponents.

In summation, Germany's problem wasn't their new tech, it was that they never had enough of it. I think this is the point you were really trying to make. However, the way you went about saying it implies that had they focused on building older models or just one new model things might have been different. The analogy between Germany and Dominions isn't valid because Germany's reasons for losing the war are much more complex than that.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

And you'd probably have a more effective army if you ignored those summoned units and instead boosted your level 3 and 4 units with various magic spells.

Which is, like I said, the problem with the battlefield spells in that game. They can't actually be used to kill troops, which renders spellcasting heroes rather useless.

That wouldn't matter much, since the basic issues are ones dealing with the economic nature of the game. Take level 1 units for example, where the upkeep costs are ridiculously high.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

I think Cainehill said exactly what needed to be said in this case.

The penalty for being surrounded by size 2 units is currently a minimum of 18 defense points by the end of each turn. That's not small.

I don't know why people have such a liking for this idea, as the very thing that makes the game worthwhile is that magic is actually powerful, unlike the vast majority of fantasy games.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Why should we be dumbing down this game to make it more like Starcraft, where your options are artificially limited?

Like I've said before. You need to spend more time playing the game, and less time making up theories about how it works.

An argument from realism has no place in determining what would make a game more fun.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

I am glad to see the community seek to police itself. Especially anyone who will take offense at the alternative.

So let me again point out that flames force us to examine a post for any real content. Allowing such flames to get out of hand endangers useful threads with the possibility of editing, locking, or disappearing. One person regularly coming to mind for such actions endangers their login.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Agreed.

Because a very vocal minority of players, whose names we're quite familiar with, want to turn Dominions into just another in that vast sea of mediocre games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

Furthermore, Johan has already categorically stated IW's official view on the subject, yet this same vocal (dense/oblivious) minority continue to beat their drum hoping to either deafen or tire the rest of us into submission to their whims. Newsflash: won't happen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/yawn.gif

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

This does not constitute an argument. It is just an observation, and perhaps not even an interesting one.

What bearing does this have upon dom2 upkeep?

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

And since thinking along only one axis is so boring, there are as many interpretations as there are players. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I for one like the feeling of advancement in Dominions. I mean, sure, the game starts with these pretenders thinking too much of themselves leading few faithfuls into battle, relying on the strength of their followers. But as the war goes on, more and more [censored] hits the fan and the pretenders in their pride become more and more detached from the real world. Men who first fought with their kind are first sided with some monsters, later to notice that their God has very little use for common rabble bar taxing them to death. A bit like WW2, starting with Polish cavalry and ending with the two bombs.

And yeah, big spells are just cool, special thanks to IW for including them in the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Can't think of too many games that have anything comparable.

And in respect to items to boost normal troops. I'd say there's a very good way to make normal troops useful in late game: while alone hoplites are no match for say, Mechanical Men, try casting Army of Lead, Mass Regeneration, Weapons of Sharpness and Mist Warriors and watch 'em sweep the floor. Of course there's little reason to recruit troops just to have them sit in the garrisons, but garrison duty isn't the thing to have soldiers do anyway.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

i was unfortunately hindered by a heavy storm to finish my tank posting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

so i continue now :

first with your shermans :
a sherman m4a3e8 hvss , one of the late war models , had the new 76 mm m1a1 gun as main weapon .

he had ap and apcr ammunition .

in close combat ( about 500 metres ) he had even good chances to penetrate a king tigers front armor with apcr ammunition .

on side + rear the king tiger had only about 90 / 80 mm of armour , on front about 220 mm for the turret and 160 for the front .

if a sherman could face a tiger on the side / rear he could kill the tiger at almost any range with his ap ammunition even .


perhaps you know the MAUS panzer .
the germans built 2 prototypes .
he would have had armour of 200-250 mm everywhere .

this tank would have had a weight of 150-200 tons .

the king tiger had already a weight of 70 tons but only about 1/3 of the engine power of a modern 70 ton tank like the leopard 2 / abrahams .

so the tiger was very immobile and strategic movement ( bridges ) was a huge problem .

since the germans built only about 450 of this monsters and most were used in the east front in a normal battle you normally never saw more than about at maximum 20 king tigers .
it is easy to flank them .

furthermore your m26 pershing tank / m 36 jackson tank hunter had with their 90 mm cannons good enough equipment to kill even a king tiger with some luck .


now to your industrial base of the soviet union :

according to a statistic from the "Kriegstagebuch of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht" 1941 the sovietunion invested 8,5 billions of $ in prices of 1944 in total in their total war production of war material in 1941 .
1941 the germans invested 6,5 billions $ in prices of 1944 in their production of war material .

1943 the figures were :
13,8 billions $ for germany
13,9 billions $ for soviet union


so their industrial base was about even and the german one would have been far bigger but you all know how insane hitler was and how many resources he wasted .
in 1944 when the war was already lost germany produced about 40% of its total war production !


in total from 1940-1943 the industrial total production of japan / italy / germany vs great britain and soviet union was about 0,9 : 1 .

until 1943 britain had good air force but bad tanks .
the sovietunion had bad airforce but good tanks .


the huge difference made the us :
in 1943 they produced war material worth 37,5 billion dollars !!!
that is about 2,7 times more than germany produced in total 1943 and about 1,5 times more than the soviet union + great britain produced 1943 in total !!!!!


combined with given how superior the us weapons were already in world war 2 if the usa would have been no democracy but a dictature like germany / soviet union the usa would have been able to conquer the whole world .

luckily that was not their intention http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



but in general :
the british army was far inferior to the german army during the whole war .
the british air force was equal to the german air force .

the russian army was equal to the german army .
the russian air force was clearly inferior to the german air force .

germany had almost no navy so this section is irrelevant at all .



the us air force was even equal to the late war german planes . since germany couldn't build them in large enough numbers anymore the us air force was clearly superior .

the us army was absoulutely equal to the german army .
you had better rifles , sub machine guns etc.
you had the bazooka as really good anti tank weapon .
your shermans were better than the german main battle tank mark IV F2-J series .
they were almost even to the panther .
the pershing / general jackson could defeat all german tanks .


add to this that you had ALWAYS air superiority and with e.g. the thunderbolt excellent ground attack planes the us military of world war 2 was far superior to all participants of world war 2 .



but what i wanted to say there in analogies to dominions 2 :
lets say a knight is a mark IV / sherman / t 34 tank .

a midlevel sc ( bane lord / firbolg ) is a panther tank ( no real equivalents on us / soviet side there )


a lategame sc ( tartarian , airqueen etc. ) is a king tiger / pershing / josef stalin III tank .


finally fodder in dominions ( militia , light inf etc. ) is infantry in WW 2 .


in WW 2 something like 10 medium tanks could still defeat a lategame tank .
something like 5 improved medium tanks ( panther ) could still defeat a lategame tank .

in right terrain ( city , wood etc. ) 100 infantry could defeat any tank with an ambush + a panzerfaust / bazooka .


in dominions though even 500 light inf can't defeat a sc .
all they can perhaps achieve is reach the 50 turns battle limit but then the sc just lost 1 turn , is still alive and killed about 400 of the 500 light inf at least and kills the rest next turn .

even 100 knights can't beat a sc .



as it is once you reach midgame phase the war is just mainly between scs and antisc mage squads .

you need to either build anti sc mages or scs to have a chance .

since scs normally have better strat move overall fully equipped scs are just the best choice .
furthermore lategame your gold base can be damaged indirect ( plague , instill uprisings , utterdark to mention a few ) while your gem income from sites can only be damaged by conquering the province and your itemgemincome ( clams , fetishes , bloodstones ) can only be killed by complete defeat .

combined with that all summons don't cost upkeep at all scs / summonable mages / freespawn creatures ( ghosts , vampires , devils mainly ) make just what you aim at .
given that you have 1 sc from turn 1 with your pretender and can get e.g. equipped banelords at turn 20-25 easy this game mechanism is sorry to say that in my opinion unfortunately really almost "broken" .

you start playing and know that at least after turn 20 most national troops are already useless and after turn 40-50 even blessed ones etc. are only cannon fodder and should be avoided too cause the money you invest in them is better invested in castles , temples , mages and priests .


if you rush earlygame if you don't have fliers no national troop can defeat a single vq on turn 10 even .
even with many mages as support you have problems , e.g. water mages , lightning/fire mages ( a copper plate is damn cheap , so is a burning pearl ) .


while in a real life war it is the following :
infantry can defeat tanks alone . they take heavy casualities but they win .

with artillery support ( bombers , artillery ( e.g. panzerhaubite 2000 , paladin ) you just minimize your casualities .

in dominons 2 though the "only" weapon that comes close to an anti tank weapon for invantry is the fire 9 bless .
against protection 30 this is not reliable though at all .
even with mage artillery support you normally don't win at turn 10-30 at all if the sc is not undead .
so against a properly played nataraja e.g. until you can field a really expensive drain life mage squad you have normally even with mages + troops not the touch of a chance at all .

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

johan i was unfortunately hindered to finish my world war 2 excursion to make a comparision with dominions because of a heavy storm http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

now i finished my arguments .

please don't misunderstand me . i am so critical because i love dominions so much .
you made such a damn great game .



i am just convinced that the upkeep mechanism is a bit "broken" . once you have to pay upkeep for your summons , especially scs dominions is just even greater .



as it is i just get the sad feeling though that the only strategy you do is to try to get your overpowered things quicker than your enemy .

upkeep would balance that definetely though in my opinion .

johan have you or kristoffer ever played either starcraft or age of wonders 2 shadow magic with the latest patch ?

to make a Last starcraft example :

in starcraft if you rush to carriers e.g. which noobs often think are overpowered even if the experienced player doesn't rush you but just builds 120 marines with 30 medics or 150 hydraliks which cost about the same like carriers worth 150 supply and about equal in material costs too the lategame carriers get defeated by the earlygame marines / hydralisks .

in dominions though all kinds of national troops don't win against the lategame troops once you have them .
so they are useless after a few turns .

but it is only because of the different treatment of upkeep .
the few summons who cost upkeep ( though gold , the trolls + water trolls ) are not very popular .


maenads e.g. since they cost no upkeep as one of the few national troops at all though are because of this always useful as fodder .


so the different treatment of upkeep is afaik quite unique in dominions i know no other strategy game where an upkeep mechanism is included and about half of the troops cost upkeep and the other half doesn't .



so finally again i think just the different treatment of upkeep is the point .
as it is dominions is very entertaining and fun but unfortunately not well balanced .

with this change though i am sure it would become well balanced .


perhaps this is a reason why so many noobs are deterred from dominions .
it is so complex but a few things , mainly the routing system without army as panther said in the beginning and what was the topic of the thread before AND the upkeep are both just :
non-intuitive and they ruin the balance .


you say that nations are balanced within each other this is quite true but :
if you take for 2 nations a pretender like a oracle and the same scales .

most nations would be then :
they win easy against 3-4 nations , lose easy against 3-4 nations and are about equal to the rest .
this is a sign of good balance i admit .


but now take e.g. atlantis :
they will win against no other nation in this test i am SURE as long as they are not very lucky with their found sites .


i put this effort into this because i love dominions but i think the upkeep issue has to be fixed to result in a fairer and more balanced dominions .

the reason why some nations/themes are so unpopular ( atlantis , tien chi base + barb kings , golden arge arco , new age pan , iron faith ulm to mention a few ) are my above mentioned arguments .
if they have equal conditions and take all the same pretender they will rarely win because their troops + mages are not good alone .


you surely can take paths on your pretender but your enemy can take another nation and doesn't need that much because he can do more with his troops / mages .
so he has better scales and again an advantage against you .

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

arryn how can exactly you say this ?
you play mainly sp and you like jotunheim which is one of the few nations which has half useful national troops .


i remember that norfleet always wanted to invite you to mp-games and he seemed to never succeed .
so unless you played now many mp-games of dominions 2 since the about 3 weeks since norfleet is gone for you such statings are sorry to say that almost unqualified .

in sp you can win by almost everything so there the balance issue doesn't become obvious .

edit : furthermore i think it was you who always said dominions 2 is a worthy successor to master of magic .
since in master of magic you had upkeep for your summons so why do you like this in dominions then that there is no upkeep ?

Continued OT discussion of tanks ...
 

The odds of the 76mm M1A1 gun to penetrate Tiger II frontal armor at even point-blank range (far shorter than 500m) was virtually nil. True, the gun could kill at side or rear aspects, but you first had to survive to get such a shot, and that was problematic at best, given the lethality and range of the Tiger's gun. The Tiger II's main weakness (besides an appalling lack of mobility) is that you never found them in sufficient numbers that they couldn't (eventually and at great cost) be surrounded and thus expose their less-defendable aspects. The Germans, being no fools on the battlefield, understood this and tended to compensate by turning their tanks into semi-mobile pillboxes, forcing the allies to attack from the front. The allies typically responded by just pounding them flat from the air. The best way to get rid of any tank.

The M26 and M36 arrived too late in the war to be significant in any battles, same as for the soviet 'stalin' tanks (the design forerunner to all modern russian tanks).

The $ figures you cite for the German and Soviet war economy are meaningless, and ludicrous. They fail to account for real national production. Worse yet, the soviets were notorious for "cooking the books" to hide the true cost of their military. Also, the Germans extensively used slave labor, which lowered their costs significantly. A much better way to gauge economic strength is to measure the quantities of raw materials consumed into the production of armaments, or to simply measure the output (not in units, but in tons). The Germans did not even remotely match Soviet military production of small arms, artillery, and tanks. To claim that by the Germans spending as much as the Soviets (a dubious claim by itself) they had similar industrial capacities is absurd.

American submachineguns were markedly inferior to their German counterparts. So much so that GIs made a habit of picking up and using captured German weapons, despite having ample supplies of their own arms. The US bazooka was also distinctly inferior to the panzerfaust and panzerschrek. The only thing the bazooka was better than was the even crappier british PIAT. Of course, for the GI, a bazooka was better than having no bazooka at all, and trying to face a tank.

The Sherman (75mm models) were by no means superior to the Mark IV F-J models (and not even remorely close to the Panther), combatwise. The german tank had a far better gun and a lower profile, making it harder to hit. The Sherman's claim to fame (besides sheer numbers of them) was it's mechanical reliability compared to the german tanks, and it's superior mobility. Countering this was the Sherman's noted tendency to explode when hit, and the ease of hitting it.

The M26/M36 could defeat all German tanks, but that's meaningless because the same could be said about any German tank mounting a long 75mm or any 88mm gun versus any American tank. What mattered was how many tanks were available. It's that which heavily disfavored the Germans. Losing through being overwhelmed by sheer numbers. OTOH, the numerical superiority of the allies would not have mattered as much had just one of two things been different: had they not had total air supremacy, or had Hitler not been running the war. (In Dominions terms, it doesn't matter how good your units are if the player wielding them is a fool/idiot/moron.)

Can we please stop discussing WW2? It's irrelevent to Dominions, as Johan has already pointed out.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

There you go again assuming things. First, while I do like Jotuns, I also play Ulm and R'leyh quite often. And Marignon. I've also played quite a bit in MP. Perhaps even more than you have, given the sort of nonsense I keep seeing you spout regarding balance issues. I think it was Zen who pointed out to you a while ago that you should theorize less and actually play the game more. Perhaps if you did you'd have a better appreciation of things as they really are, and of the ramifications of some of the half-baked ideas that are being floated.

And that proves what? Did it ever occur to you that I might not have wanted to play in games against him, for any one of several different reasons? And that perhaps I was being polite in turning him down? Or that I might (and do) join games under other aliases? (However, unlike Norfleet, I don't do so with the intent to pump people for secrets. I simply prefer people I play against to not know who it is they are facing.)

Gee, an unsolicited personal attack. Thank you.

The idea that you are an expert in judging the qualifications of anyone else is not only insulting, but it's laughable. I also do not suppose that it ever occured to you that there are many players of Dominions that have been very active in playing the game, yet never (or rarely) post on the forum? Would you call these players "unqualified" as well, simply because you're totally ignorant of them?

Cainehill may have been wrong to actually flame you, but I cannot fault his reasons why he wanted to. It's taking a major effort of willpower for me to not do so as well.

What's amusing to me is despite my having been accused on various occasions of arrogance, in the various flamefests that GD (and others) have had with me, neither they nor I have ever accused the other of "being unqualified". The sheer arrogance you have just shown is astounding.

Wrong. Wasn't me. As a matter of fact, I got chewed on for having compared the two games, because they are quite different in some respects. Also, I think that Dom 2 is by far better than MoM ever was, and I've been semi-flamed for that opinion.

Re: Continued OT discussion of tanks ...
 

arryn : try steel panthers world at war .
they have every model included and used the REAL penetration values and armors of all tanks of ww 2 .

btw the "panzerschreck" and the "panzerfaust" were built AFTER the bazooka from the germans .
they developed them after captured bazookas from africa !

same with the panther . it was intended as a copy of the t34 tank .


the germans were good at target optics e.g.
and their cannons were a bit better than the american and soviet ones .
but not the british 17 pounder gun .
both the panther gun and the 17 pounder gun were 75mm / 76,2 mm so the same caliber .

until the firefly and the quite unsuccessful challenger the brits just couldn't build their 17 pounder gun into a tank .




ok lets stopp ww 2 discussion .
i just took it as a real life history example that in world war 2 every single soldier did his part for victory .

if you say that was world war 2 .
now in iraq some iraquis/terrorists who have old russian anti tank weapons etc. still defeat abrahams main battle tanks with special guerillia tactics .


in dominions 2 this would be the militia / light inf .
but in dominions 2 you can't make them a decent weapon in endgame no matter how hard you try .


the problem is just that a FOOL doesn't win against a experienced player in dominions .
but so he doesn't in CHESS OR STARCRAFT TOO .


in chess or starcraft though all units are useful during the whole game for something .
in dominions e.g. militia is always useless , most national troops are quick useless and lategame it is only who can field higher amounts of scs / battlemages .




heck dominions is great but i am more and more convinced that i have a point with my upkeep demanding .
hopefully johan or kristoffer will realize this and at least consider it for dominions 3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Continued OT discussion of tanks ...
 

Not to kill an OT thread (really, its not a problem, there are so few) but if you REALLY want to discuss this there are some other game here at Shrapnel which make extensive use of tanks. The developers and players in those Groups have extensive researching/opinion backgrounds in that area. If you do a "search" in all forums for some of the units you feel familiar with you will get an idea of what forums will flock to the topic.

Just a thought. If not then please carry on.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

And in practice it turns out to be totally insufficient. There is a reason why there is a mad dash for the powerful SC's and it is not becuase people like to use 4 or 5 of them in a battle to cover each other's backs.

I was playing a newbie game with Cohen where he was mopping up the floor with everyone by using an army which was backed by mages. It was really fun to watch those battles and it was far more interesting than watching SC's take on whole armies.

But to each their own. It's a matter of taste. If people prefer rushing to the special summons and equipping them and using them as their main attacking force who am I to judge.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

As far as I can see the mad dash for SC's is done by the same people thinking the same way. Or some more experienced people who know they are playing with people who will try to fight fire with fire). The fix for SC's is often in the units that those people consider "worthless"

If a persons idea of a super combatant is based on damage it can do, and the only acceptable "fix" in their minds is something else based on damage, then you are looking at a spiral which is self defeating and game destroying.

Re: Continued OT discussion of tanks ...
 

I have this game already, but have not played it in several years. BTW, I cite historical behavior of arms, not game behavior. Even the best of games sometimes fail to get things right. Games use theoretical (ideal), or proving-ground data, not real-world (statistical) data. Even SPWAW. Real-world performance is never as good.

The panzerfaust predates the bazooka. They were developed independently by the two nations, with the Germans starting development several months ahead of the US. The Germans did, however, copy the bazooka to create the panzerschreck.

The issue with the brit 17pdr wasn't so much a case of not being able to build a tank around this good gun (which was, indeed, a problem due to its recoil), but more a question of the allies failing to see the need for a high-velocity cannon to counter the latest German tanks. Pretty much a case of the allies repeating the mistakes the Germans made a couple of years earlier in underestimating the Soviets.

Re: Continued OT discussion of tanks ...
 

To all who have contributed to the WWII discussion here:

tank you very much!

Re: Continued OT discussion of tanks ...
 

<groan>

Re: Continued OT discussion of tanks ...
 

Actually, he's quite ingenious. The best way to end an undesired topic is to throw a monster pun into the gears. He's scored a mobility kill as we're too busy coughing, wheezing, and/or clutching our sides to drive on (continue posting). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/skull.gif

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

sorry arryn i didn't want to attack you personally .
i play as many games as i can .
i am in in 8 games on mosehansen + on sheaps server http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


i never said i am an expert but i just wanted to share what i thought i discovered . cohen though is an expert and he comes to my mind he always claimed about similiar things than i did .

these nations you have to admit though have all gotten rather good national troops .



i am just trying to share my viewpoint that the dominion experience would become even stronger with my suggested small modifications .

it is just unfair as it is that you have to pay no upkeep for your summons .

since especially starcraft is such a good example how attractive (almost) perfect balance is and i don't see any point which would make scs useless when they cost upkeep i wonder why my ideas meet so much dislike .


my theory is though since it takes you some time to realize how overpowered scs currently are and this is an unique feature of dominions so i think most ppl just complain because they have developed perfect strats to rush at e.g. air queens + equip them .

with my proposed upkeep this would still be true but they would have to pay something for this too .

but so the variety of dominions would greatly increase and it would be more fair .




name me 2 players who have about the same experience .
then let 1 of them play atlantis and one of them any other nation .


if anyone thinks he could win playing atlantis against any other nation against a player with about the same skill level in a standard 50% magic sites / normal research game then i will be (perhaps) quiet .


but since scs are overpowered and mainly the air queens and the ice devils are particular attractive caelum , abysia and jotunheim and vanheim are taken all very quickly in a new game always .
these nations have furthermore in common that they have lots of free extra points by scales since they have cold/heat and most of them can take sloth scale + watchtower easy too .


in starcraft i can play either zerg or toss or terra just the nation i like but i know that i have the same chance to win with every of them .

if i would like e.g. atlantis or tien chi ( base + barbarian kings ) i am forced to play them in sp only .
if i want to play them in mp it is like i voluntary handicap myself .

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

i have made so many arguments now why there should be upkeep cost for summons .

can anyone of you give me 1 conclusive argument why summons + national troops should be treated different upkeep wise or why the current upkeep system of dominions is fair ?

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

its boring and makes no sense to charge summons upkeep.

neither is it necessary, nor would it solve any fundamental problems, as conventionaly troops would still be as underpowered (when they are, which is usually).

quoted for emphasis, or perhaps hilarity ;-)

I do generally agree that conventional troops lose their potency too quickly and too easily. Making SC's somewhat less efficient would be the route I would take - for instance, lowering the lifestealing effect for items/spells.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Most assuredly NOT! There's about a half-dozen names that come to my mind, and he's not only not on that short list, but not even in the top 20. My advice is to find better role-models than you've been quoting for the past few days.

Unfair? How?

If ever there's a case for a meaningless comparison between vastly dissimilar things, this is one of them. You cannot draw any sort of valid comparison between Dom 2 and Starcraft, other than that they are both computer games, and that they both involve some element of strategy in playing. The similarities end there.

Several people have tried, repeatedly, to explain this to you -- including one of the game developers -- to no avail. You just are not listening to what they are saying. You are too busy arguing your own point.


Not true. And this has been hashed out and beaten to death in quite a few threads. But you (and others) refuse to be swayed from your firm beliefs, in spite of the detailed explanations you've been given by various people as to why you're mistaken. Yet you continue to harp on this, and then some folks take offense when I use the term "whine" to describe such irrational behavior.


Would you please, please quit comparing Dom 2 to SC? It's not only a bogus comparison, it's also getting quite annoying. Dom 2 isn't SC. Get over it. Or go play SC.

That's your own lack of experience showing. Zen had no such problems. I know this firsthand. Please don't cite your own shortcomings as any sort of reason to change the game.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Summons and national troops are different.
Much of your discussion is based on personal opinion.
As in many threads Ive seen, Illwinter made a response early on. No matter how much discussion has followed, I would consider that to be the response until you hear otherwise.
How many responses do you need?

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Thank you.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

and you are to busy to see the obvious i could say too arryn .

zen as an example for he had no problems with atlantis is a brilliant idea too .

first zen is gone from dominions probably forever .
second zen and norfleet were always handled as the most experienced dominions 2 players .
since norfleet cheated probably zen was .


and why can't i compare starcraft with dominions ?
starcraft is the best example that comes to my mind to show how really good balance should work expect chess .



a big factor maybe since i am still quite new to the community as panther e.g. is too you just say i am still to inexperienced .

if zen would have said what i said probably not as many ppl would have argued against me i guess .

and zen always said water is too weak .



but how can't you find it unfair that a summon costs no upkeep while a national unit does ?
furthermore the rule no upkeep for summons is not strict :
trolls cost upkeep .


so if you were an arch demon wouldn't you complain to have to work for no MONTHLY WAGE at all while a lousy knight gets a quite high wage of several gold ?!?
in most fantasy worlds like dsa or ad&d especially the evil mighty creatures ( monsters like dragons , demons ) demand continious new tributes to keep them working for you .
in dominions a poor arch demon doesn't get even a lousy blood slave / turn as payment .

this is nothing but unfair !

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

Well I think there are some experts there. They are experts in one style of play. I dont mind that discussion as long as they arent trying to change the entire game based on one style.

I think StarCraft is a very bad comparison for balance. Its a unit-to-unit balance which is fair and supports tournament ladders nicely. Id much rather that Dom2 maintain a paper-rock-scissors balance at national level. Yes it makes tournament ladders difficult but there are plenty of those games out there already.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

when johan posted i haven't posted my best / most convincing arguments myself .

and so far illwinter has fixed balance issues like the vq .

so i do my continious posting with the hope to convince johan or kristoffer that my idea is good and at least considerable for dominions 3 .

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rant.gif Continued whining isn't going to change anything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rant.gif

BTW, Zen and Norfleet may both be gone, but I'm confident that they *both* would have disagreed with you, however much they tended to disagree with each other. Regardless, since they're not here, and you need someone to listen to, why not Johan, the ultimate arbiter of the game? And he has already spoken. You just aren't listening. As Gandalf has politely pointed out in his carefully-phrased post.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

And you still haven't, since you've yet to effectively counter any of the Posts that various people have made explaining to you why you're mistaken in your opinions.

Johan has already stated that they disagree with you. All that continued posting will do is annoy them (and waste their time). The game has other, important issues to be addressed. Let them do so, and cease badgering them about something that isn't broken.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

As I have said before: your "fix" would simply reduce the number of summoned troops and those gems would go into heavily equpped SC's.

Summoned troops are not a problem in dominions2. Heck you don't see that many of them going around ( other than a notable few ).

I really doubt that the direct solution to SC's is with units that are considered "worthless". I would love to hear of an example.

I have seen lower end SC's killed by normal units ( Banelords in particular can often be killed by elite units 'en mass). However higher end SC's ( ice devils for example ) simply can not be killed by normal units. One equipped ice devil using no artifacts can kill an unlimited number of devils. I can't think of any more combat capable unit than devils.

Heck one specifically equipped Wraith Lord ( again with tech 6 and below items ) can also take on any number of devils number of devils.

I have no problem with an SC with a couple of artifacts taking a nigh-infinite number of units, that is very thematic. But one powerful summon equipped with "run of the mill" ( ie: not the types of items that books are about ) taking on any number of troops is not thematic.

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

so far only you continue arguing against me though .

2 possible explanations :
-either all others got bored or just think i tell nonsense and gave up because they think it is impossible to convince me .

-or most start to see that my argument about upkeep is good and they see that there are no things that speak against .


probably it is explantion 1 but hope dies always Last http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

the closest game to dominions which is of the same genre and about the same age is age of wonders 2 shadow magic .

1 months ago i would have rated dominions clearly better than aow 2 sm . but that is perhaps because i overplayed aow 2 sm .
now i would say they are about equal . dominions is overall better but aow 2 is a bit more balanced .


this is still a big praise on johan and kristoffer . aow 2 had most likely a far bigger budget and at least 20 ppl working at it .

no matter which system is included in dominions 3 i buy it anyways 100% sure .
i just hoped to at least show that upkeep for all would have advantages too compared to the current system .


i hear almost everybody complaining that lategame is boring . perhaps this is because of the upkeep issue .


but since i like playing a game with 8-10 players most this forces you to go to a map with at least 200 provinces to have a nice game imo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
with 200 provinces if i survive until lategame though it is reduced to who has a bigger gem income and who uses them better .

but since variety is always good and i know no other game with a upkeep approach as dominions i stop this now and thank illwinter once again for making one of the best games i know http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
that i put so much effort in my postings shows only how i concern about this game and how much i like it already.
my suggestion was still just a minor detail change imo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Poll: morale and routing
 

And you, Boron, are a very hopeful man! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif