.com.unity Forums - The Dominions 3: "Wishlist"

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

- Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)

- - The Dominions 3: "Wishlist" (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=21348)

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

Quote:

Saber Cherry said:
Hi everyone! Been a while.

As for Dom III, I'd love to see a few things:

First, a new combat engine would be nice, though kind of a major change. But for example... putting all stats in the form of low integer numbers has numerous drawbacks. To make a helmet with better protection than 1, you have to have protection 2... which is twice as good! Thus, there are only 3 standard helmet types: none, normal, and super-heavy. Many weapons come out very similar as well, because there are not many variations of small integer combinations (attack, defense, and damage).

An entirely new combat system that used floating point calculations could retain most of the existing numbers, and simply allow greater variation for new items or old ones that need tweaking (like giving a dagger 1.7 damage, a coral knife 1.2 damage, and a copper cap 0.6 protection and .1 encumbrance). Alternately, extant numbers could be reprocessed and multiplied by a fixed value of 2 or 10 (giving normal humans 20 or 100 HP rather than 10, and increasing strengths and weapon damages by a similar ratio) and altering the dice.

Would this be worth the trouble? Yes, in my opinion. Due to the use of small integers, many units and items in the game are (statistically) nearly identical, and some are exactly identical. Others, like the series of armor types, may not be numerical duplicates, but leave no room for new additions without cloning current stats and simply renaming them. Furthermore, changing or modifying the combat engine would allow the perfect opportunity for a more advanced system, with (for example) locational protection and damage (for example, wearing a helmet would not protect you from taking an arrow in the leg, which would slow down a unit for the remainder of combat in addition to causing damage), damage type modifiers (like chain mail providing a bonus versus slashing damage, and an axe doing slash/blunt type damage, and skeletons being pierce resistant), and so forth.

-Cherry

I double those suggestions.

I would like to also see some more variety in weapons, like anti-airshield missiles (a 10 Anti-Airshield missile weapon would reduce the airshield effect by 10), weapons that have serious bonuses against riders (Guisarmes, Pikes) or some specific type of creatures. If damage types don't get in then it would be nice to see more armor piercing weapons like the Longbows, Rondels or Mauls.

It would be nice if weapons could have the damage types and perhaps even going so far that you could define if the weapon always does mixed damage or if it does damage type x for x% of the time and the other type for x% of time (An Axe could be 70% Slash and 30% Crush and a Spetum could do Pierce 75% of time and Slash 25% of the time), perhaps even separate damage values for the diffrent attack types like 6 piercing and 2 slashing for the Spetum...

And how about diffrent versions of weapons going by the Eras? In the early era Halberds wouldn't differ all that much from big axes but in later eras they would have the spear-head (piercing damage) and the hook (bonus against riders).

There could also be weapons that would disappear or appear by the eras: Spetums, Partisans, Copper and Stone weapons in the early era while the later era could have things like Ahlspiess or Brandistocks.

Repeling could be improved too and it could use the various modifiers of the weapon like Poisoned or Magical in the attack. Some weapons like Pikes could have a repel bonus. Also, didn't pikeneers often historically carry short swords with them because the pike was next to useless in close combat? Perhaps making pikes and some similar weapons an infantry version of lances?

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

"putting all stats in the form of low integer numbers has numerous drawbacks. To make a helmet with better protection than 1, you have to have protection 2... which is twice as good! Thus, there are only 3 standard helmet types: none, normal, and super-heavy."

I consider this a feature, not a bug.

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

Quote:

Zooko said:
"putting all stats in the form of low integer numbers has numerous drawbacks. To make a helmet with better protection than 1, you have to have protection 2... which is twice as good! Thus, there are only 3 standard helmet types: none, normal, and super-heavy."

I consider this a feature, not a bug.

Well yeah, it's a feature but it could be improved.

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

I say NO to decimal combat stats and damage types. Going percentage-crazy and introducing explicit scissors-stone-paper arrangements does not make a game more strategic or accurate, it just makes it more random and fiddly.

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

Yeah, making diffrences other than whether piece of equipment is life draining or not matter and thus getting comments like "Dominions III has the most detailed combat system fantasy game has ever had" from reviewers, making some not-so-used units used and creating a counterweight against magic-strong nations with not very varying troops has always been a bad thing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v50/Nerfix/ja.gif

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

I'd like to have a way to grab all the "will heal" wounded or "permanently crippled" units and move them as a group to another line on the troop screen. I hate picking through all those troops and trying to figure who's worth saving.

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

Quote:

I prefer things like troop placement, logistics, terrain, scouting, flexibility and initiative to matter more than having the right 'counter' for something.

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

Quote:

Sandman said:

Quote:

I prefer things like troop placement, logistics, terrain, scouting, flexibility and initiative to matter more than having the right 'counter' for something.

I understood the "counterweight against magic-strong nations" as something to give Ulm a better chance of winning, if the player is able to utilize the things you mentioned well enough. How can Ulm win against, say, Arcoscephale, when Ulmish Heavy Infantry can be stopped by Hoplites and Astrologers and Mystics easily overpower Smiths. Even worse, Vine Ogres or even Vinemen can stop those units!

An adequate "counterweight" would, IMHO, be increased number of troop-enchancing spells. AoE Iron Will would help Ulm against magic. Currently, I can only think of Legions of Steel, Strength of Giants, Weapons of Sharpness and Astral/Nature spell granting luck, etherealness, magic resistance, regeneration and more protection+fire suspectibility. Fire spell with AoE 3 Range 10 that gives weak Flaming Weapons (4 ap Fire) would help against anything Ethereal, reinvigoration from Earth (Earth Power) or Nature/Earth combination (Strength of Gaia) with AoE would help living units against undead and construcs, etc.

Some, like that reinvigoration, would also help mages to decimate units more quickly, but these exceptions are not balanced, just ideas.

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

Quote:

Sandman said:

Quote:

I prefer things like troop placement, logistics, terrain, scouting, flexibility and initiative to matter more than having the right 'counter' for something.

Yes, it's not like players have to plan any counters now, not especially against magic or supercombatants.

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"

Just for the record, I support making weapons more unique; just not with decimalisation or damage types.

As far as Ulm goes, I'd rather they had a range of different strategies up their sleeve for fighting magically powerful nations, rather than a single counterweight.