.com.unity Forums - Wish List

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

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

- - Wish List (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=17538)

Quote:

AFAIK your first point is already done in the game. You just have to have the ability researched.

Well dang you are right. I always assumed that since they were grayed out you could not click on them.

Well that's great news! Back to my game then!

One more thing ... my only concern left is SuperCombatants. They seem to be pretty gosh darn powerful. If they (SC's) are supposed to be the focus of the game then it's all good. However if the focus of the game is supposed to be armies crashing into each other where the pretenders have an effect on combat yet do not by themselves determine it then it seems that there is a problem.

There are many, many ways to deal with SC's. It's important in my mind for Pretenders, or high magic/items/creature to have a great impact on a battle. There are two lines of the debate. But I believe a good balance has been found with the SC's and their counters. Though they still are a factor; they are much more killable than they were.

Perhaps when in the lab with an item selected, and choosing which commander it should go on, commanders which would get no use out of it (not enough free slots of the right type, already has same item which has only non-stacking abilities, does not have C'tissian lizard head, does not have the magic path which would be boosted when path boosting is the only effect, etc) could be greyed-out.
Repeat-forging would be nice, especially if there were a way to select a research booster and have the game dump it on a random researcher who did not already have that booster.
Repeat-recruitment, especially with a default order ('research', say) would be good.
Speaking of research, researchers should probably go on Defend in the odd eventuality that all magic has been researched. Not much point in staying in the pool, except for being ignored with 'n'-type idle commander iteration.
Messages regarding commanders being arrowed, et al, should mention not only commander name, but province and possibly task.

The #1 feature for me would be "HOLD AND FIRE" YOU STUPID ARCHERS, don't stupidly run up to firing range, wait for them to come to you, for goodness sakes, why are archers so stupid? Someone tell me please before I go on an archer killing spree. Oh wait, I don't need to. They die enough as it is.

Hi all, I'm a noob who has been playing the demo for a litle over a week now (boy is my wife starting to get irritated http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) My copy is set to arrive tomorow! Yay! I'd just like to say that this is the game I've been waiting to play for years now. Man, where was I for Dom 1? Boy did I miss out...

Anyway I do have a major suggestion (which stems from playing Stars! oh so long ago). I do realize that this would probably constitute major changes to the game, but what the heck... I'll throw it out for your amusement anyway:

The ability to set orders for X# of years in advance. It would be nice to be able to set some long term plans that would not need to be messed with (unless the circumstances warented it) and just let the game run its course. This would alleviate the need to micromanage so many things on a per turn basis, and free me up to soak in the overal scope of my campaign.

Several things would need to be implemented in order for this to happen:

1) A production queue for both normal units and heroes. Additional information might be needed when generating heroes such as "Have all casters produced here set to research," or "send this hero to X's army"

2) The ability to script an army's movement for several turns in advance. Even if an army can only move one strategic space per turn I'd like to be able to plot its course over several turns. Assuming that all goes well, then I'd just let the army continue on its way. If something goes bad, well then the player can step in and change orders.

2B) Related to the above it might be interesting if armies that could move more than one strategic space per turn would actually be able to move through multiple enemy territories (conquering as they go). A fast strong army might be able to inflict vast amounts of damage through undefended enemy territory.

3) The ability to script a hero's movement and actions in a dynamic way. What do I mean by this? Say you have a main army out in the field somewhere that you want to keep supplied with fresh troops. Script a hero to goto your fortress, pick up troops, and then goto the army (wherever that might be) and drop them off.

That's all for now. In addition to reducing micromanagement, I think that these types of changes would also make MP campaigns a little friendlier/more forgiving. Say for instance that for some reason you weren't able to make your turn before DomII auto generates. Well, you might be ok if you had scripted your dominion for several turns in advance. This could also help to jump start a game. Players could plan for several years in advance and then quickly host through the first X# of months.

Quote:

Originally posted by Argitoth:
The #1 feature for me would be "HOLD AND FIRE" YOU STUPID ARCHERS, don't stupidly run up to firing range, wait for them to come to you, for goodness sakes, why are archers so stupid? Someone tell me please before I go on an archer killing spree. Oh wait, I don't need to. They die enough as it is.

That's awfully strange. I don't tend to have much problem with archers dying, nor routing. Where do you place them in the squad?

Wish #1: Changing Tactical Orders Should Never Cancel Strategic Movement Orders*

* Though adding new troops with shorter move/different movement abilities is allowed to do so, if, and only if, the new troop composition is unable to obey the old order.

Occasionally, when I set new tactical orders for a commander (e.g. spells, attack, hold & attack &etc), the game cancels any current movement order for the commander and his army on the strategic map.

The two areas of functinality have NOTHING to do with each other. There is no possible change in a commander's tactical orders that can influence its strategic movement orders, so it makes absolutely no sense to cancel the strategic movement order. The current functionality has no benefits whatsoever, but does increase the number of errors made (armies not participating in a planned fight because of Last-minute changes to the tactical orders being the most common cause) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

It may be that it is simply a case of click-through - i.e. the click on the exit-button when closing the army setup screen counting as an additional click on the game screen, as this problem does not arise all the time - but it is incredibly frustrating when it happens.

[ March 10, 2004, 22:47: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

Quote:

Originally posted by fahdiz:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Argitoth:
The #1 feature for me would be "HOLD AND FIRE" YOU STUPID ARCHERS, don't stupidly run up to firing range, wait for them to come to you, for goodness sakes, why are archers so stupid? Someone tell me please before I go on an archer killing spree. Oh wait, I don't need to. They die enough as it is.

That's awfully strange. I don't tend to have much problem with archers dying, nor routing. Where do you place them in the squad? <hr /></blockquote>I actually don't have much of a problem with it either, but I still badly want it. Instead of Hold and Attack for my spear/javelin infantry, I'd like Hold and Fire. It would make them more effective. That way they fire if they can and they don't attack the enemy if they still have javelins left (like in Hold and Attack)

I'd also like to see combat orders like "Retreat if outnumbered 2-1" or "retreat if outnumbered 3-1", etc...

A commander should know when to leave the field.

Is there a central place for the wish list?