Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's not a wargame,its a 4X game, a 4X fantasy TBS game if you want ot be nitpicky.

Simple as compared with which other games in its genre? Certainly not the Heroes, AoW or warlords series...those are far simpler games despite being better known.

How many 4x games have you played that account for morale, experience, afflictions, a dozen different stats per unit, supply, battlefield magic, ritual magic,overland spells, religious influence...? And that with 14 different sides + independents.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And Dom is a fantasy 4x TBS with no overused generic cliche nations and races like Elves or Orcs. Dominions has huge amounts of content when comparing to other fantasy TBS games. 1000+ units and 400+(not sure on this) spells makes a big diffrence when comparing to the IMHO rather pathetic amount of units and spells some FTBS games offer. I don't see what SP diplo would add, excluding that it lets you to exploit the AI. Wep/Arm system would be nice if it would be done realy good and would be balanced, but i am more than content with the current system. You guys realy should see some 500+ unit battles and then say if player controlled battles are a good idea. Even if we would have autoresolve option or it would be squad commanding, i would end up using autoresolve most of the time, making the option to controll battles useless for me. And this game is build for PBEM, people!

If you are not happy with Dom II there are always other games.

[ October 26, 2003, 17:17: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I might agree that Dom I is not *great* just due to the interface and level of micromanagement required in the late game, but to claim that Dom I is "a very simple wargame" is foolish. The strategic depth of this game is immense; this is what makes up for the interface etc.

As regards not using the 1000+ units, well of course in no single game are you going to use anything like that, because you only are 1 of 14 nations [in Dom I], and your magic choice won't enable you (in all likelihood) to summon all summonable creatures. But the advantage of 1000+ units is replayability - you can play 14 different games and have them be pretty different in battle tactics, because each time you are fielding a different army, with different strengths and weaknesses than the one before.

This level of replayability is what brings people back to Dominions over and over again, and makes it a great game. Now with the improvements in interface and micromanagement in Dom II, this will be even more the case.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but If you don't like this kind of game, play something else that you do like, rather than complaining that you don't like this one.

If you have new positive suggestions that might improve the game, rather than just general statements that you don't think it's that good, please share them.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

I guess there is an essential difference in what people like about the games like this one. Some like tactics, some like to overview things. I myself consider the battles to be the "meat and potatoes" of this kind of game, and everything else is pretty much leading to them. That's why I was never really able to like the abstracted combat of wargames, where your hex is attacking my hex and you see some smoke and that's it, or Warlords series, for example. This is also a major complaint I had about the Europa Universalis, that the fate of the painstakinlgy built empire is decided by two guys doing "piff-paff" to each other, and me not being able to do anything about it. Also, I see the example of MoO games - MoO3 didn't allow you do to anything as the AI was actually playing the game - very bad from my perspective when compared to the previous titles. I like empire building games, but I also like to do the dirty work myself, and not leave it to the AI.

From this difference in what people like stem the different views about the game itself. Some people like it the way it is, while others see a great potential in it. I mean, I'd really like to play a game where I have as many different options at my disposal as in Dominions, but one that is also expanded in other terms as well (incidentally, I also like the diplomacy, weapon-armour system, and tactical control ideas). I like plethora of options and variablilty, afflictions, individual treatment of units, etc. but I like other things beside that which are not in as it is now, and some solutions that are in I actually find frustrating. Hence my advocation of these aspects as well as keeping the ones I like at the same time.

As for some of the arguments used yet again, well, I said enough about them already.

[ October 26, 2003, 18:57: Message edited by: HJ ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

The time to win battles is, not infrequently, before they start. This is particularly true given the variety in Dominions, where many tactics can't be countered with mere battlefield manuevering but need decent preparation beforehand.

In any event, human-controlled tactical battles don't mix very well with PBEM, even if you limit control to pretenders. It would also alter balance; there's quite a bit of magic that would be considerably more powerful if the user had fully controlled target selection.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Dominions is a very simple game. Nothing special in it. As I said it is average. Sure I like to play with it, that is not a question.
600 units? Guys don't be clowns. You know that most of the units are useless. You won't use more than 90% of those units. IW put in 1000 to Doms II. It is a great addition? To me: NO
I guess the IW scripter didn't wanted to add more complex things, like diplomacy. Instead they added 400 units. Yes it is lot more easier, that is for sure.
Spells? Heh yeah we have lot of spells. The problem is that you won't use the majority of these spells. Just like the units.
When you know what to do, you won't. Simple as you know what. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
So what we have more other than a huge amount of useless units/spells? Basically nothing. That is the truth.
That is why I am pissed about Doms II. There won't be major gameplay additions. Too bad. New units, new spells....what a joke. Instead of 500 useless units, now we will have like 850. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ October 26, 2003, 20:31: Message edited by: Zerger ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But they do mix well with SP.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Erm, that's a good thing in my book.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

zerger:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For what it's worth I have to say that I strongly disagree with that.
I have only DOM-I to base my opinion on.
I think most of the units/spells have their usage.
DOM-I is full with creativity that is expressed in the units, spells, nations.
The game has a unique atmosphere.
I believe that DOM-II would only enhance that.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In a single game I do not use more than 10% of the units in the game, but if I would like to play the game more than once and with a different nation I would probably use a lot more.

If you are a newbie you might play several games with the same nation before you figure out all benefits and drawbacks of the unit setup of that particular nation. True, some units are less useful than others, but I believe most units have some uses and you might encounter some as independents where this does not matter. I would say that less useful units add to gameplay or the feel of the game. Historically Romans did not use horses to any great extent and their cavalry was inferior to that of Carthage or Numidia, but still there was equestrians in the roman army. The relative strengths of Hastatii or Triarii is and was difficult to measure. Probably one of the two was stronger, but this didnt matter much. The triarii were used as rear guard a long time after the reformation of legionary army.

The uselessness is a matter of strength vs cost. In SP games where competition is less pronounced you might find a unit that you believe is better than other units and therefore avoid other units. On the other hand you can indulge yourself in making units for fun rather than because they are the most cost effective units in the game. In MP games most people try to make the most cost effective units in a given situation. Here you must adopt to your enemies tactics to avoid defeat. What first seemed a good units combination might be worthless because your opponent has come up with something.

Of course it is easier to make new units. It is also fun http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . As an old pen and paper RPG game master I gladly indulge myself in imagining things. Some of these things end up in Dominions. Other ideas are used in roleplaying, yet other ideas I use on my unwary students. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Some spells are rarely useful, but they do not take much coding to add. I can assure you that the amounts of time spent on adding spells is quite limited.

I really do not understand how you can be pissed at something you havn't tried. I have never eaten corned beef, but I couldn't say that I'm pissed at it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . BTW is this language offensive to americans? If so I'm sorry and hope that Zerger also will moderate his tongue.

The most important change I would say is the UI, but perhaps you do not consider this important.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I frankly have no idea why you are pissed. No one is trying to trick you into doing anything. You have no stake in the development of dom 2. You have not paid anything for dom 2. So why are you pissed? Exactly what about a small group of people designing and making a game they themselves enjoy, implementing features they like and selling it to other people that share their tastes, is it that pisses you off? Is it somehow offensive to you that illwinter make their own game the way they want it, and in their own freetime work on changes they enjoy doing?

[ October 27, 2003, 02:40: Message edited by: johan osterman ]