suggestion about commanders
 

I just saw the new screen shot. Looks really fine. I would like suggest one idea I had after looking at the commander icons which are diplayed on the left side of the screen. Wouldnt it be good to show the player the name of the province the commander is located in? Maybe you display the province directly under the commanders name (there seems to be enough space on the icon) So the icon would look like the following:

Conan
Hoburg
Patrolling

I think such an info would help the orientation of the player, especially if there are several dozens of commanders and provinces.

What do you think?

KlausD

PS: -Is it possible to rename provinces?
-What about giving rivers, mountains, desert etc own names? this would enhance the athmospheric feeling alot

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

-What about giving rivers, mountains, desert etc own names? this would enhance the athmospheric feeling alot

I agree!

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Klaus,
The screen only shows the commander in the currently selected province, not all of your commanders !
You can have not only "dozens", but HUNDREDS of provinces and commanders, so listing them all is not an option http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

You can see all your commanders and provinces in Nation Overview screen (F1). From there you can select provinces (the game will close that window and center on that province), change taxes and defense from there without going on main map (fastest way of doing it), see all the details about each province like population, resources, supplies, used supplies, unrest level, what level and type of mage has searched for magic sites there, etc. You can see the list all commanders in each province and access their info from there too, and if you get lots of provinces and commanders you can press TAB key to hide commanders for better overview of commanders. That screen is shamelessly useful and it will become your best friend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

>Is it possible to rename provinces?

It was not possible in Dom1. Only solution was to make your own "scenario" for a given map, and choose a name for each and every province in the .map file, using the line #landname.
More on map edition can be found in Gandalf's "mapkit" at
http://www.techno-mage.com/~dominion/mapkit.zip

Cheers

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Thanks alot for the good answers. Looks like the game will be a good one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Just to post some "wishes" I would love to see in dominion.

-sea battles with ships (underwater battles are very fine, but I am a ship lover and up to now no empire building fantasy game has a good tactical solution for ship combat)

-user can name terrain features (rivers, forests etc)

-improvements of fortifications (more towers, better walls or similar)

-ablility to build some economic improvements (not many but some) in a province - resource mines, mills etc.

-more orders for units before battle begins. For example wedge orders for kavallery squads or turtle for well trained heavy infantry. (would look very dynamic if 20 Black Lords are rapidly engaging in a wedge formation...)

-siege machines (maybe they are already in Dominion II, but I miss them in Dom I Demo)

-a dimension like the spirit dimension in MOM

I have it already recommended Dom to some gaming friends of mine. (at least we will buy dom II)

by
KlausD

[ September 29, 2003, 14:39: Message edited by: klausD ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

You have some cool ideas there, Klaus!

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Good ideas actualy.
Siege engines and ships would be nice...
Maybe in Dominions III...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ September 29, 2003, 14:47: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Ships are a very good idea, and siege engines as well!
Upgrade the castle.....mmmmm...would be sweet!
Perhaps there should be like 5 upgrade options for all designs! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

*brainstorming for Dominions III begins*

[ September 29, 2003, 14:52: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ship and sea battles where are not included because we thought it would be odd mixing it with the underwater nations, it also would require a new tactical combat.

There are no more economic or building improvements by design, dominions focuses on war and research. I myself do not like MOO, Civ or MOM like city building.

Formations are difficult to implement at this stage, especially if they are to have an effect such as shield walls or testudoes adding to missle protection.

Sieges machines are not implemented because illwinter believed that they were not a major features of field battles, and in sieges the sieges engines are abstracted. There are however sappers and siege engineers in dom2, the ´game mechanics of these is that they give a siege bonus, this is the abstract way of representing them building siege engines and underming walls etc. There is also a new siege Golem.

If you want a spirit dimension you can create it by parting the map into different sectors and setting gateway provinces as neighbours. See Kristoffers map Hollow world as an example of this. It is downloadable from the illwinter site.

[ September 29, 2003, 15:01: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Siege Golem?
Oh my...

Well, i'm happy with Dominions (II) the way it is.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Many thanks for your reply.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not sure if this would be so odd. Just imagine some chtulhuoids appearing suddenly from deep sea and attacking a full equipped war fleet. Interesting scenario I would say. Of course some new rules adjustments for such engagments would be necessary.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree. But I did not suggest the full range of hundreds of buildings etc like in CIV. Just add 4 or 5. (eg. a mill for income, a mine for resource value, a second fortification type etc. this would be enough I think, without burdening the game with many unnecessary buildings)

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Its not necessary to let formations have some big historic impacts. Formations could just be a +1 to attack, prot, or defend. This should not imbalance the game. I was only suggesting it because of the big picture and for giving the player the possibility to watch in 3D combat a horde or a trained "roman style army". (would be great just for athmospheric feeling) Now its so that every army is somewhat moving around "undisciplined" in combat mode, which is fine for barbaric hordes and trolls etc. but not for ULM or similar armies.

bye

KlausD

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I hope I do not come across as argumentative, but I want to clarify.

About the ships I did not mean that it would be odd that there were both ships and aquatics, it is the implementation which is problematic. If there were to be a tactiacal ship to be ship combat there are a multitude of issues needing to be answered. For example: how would posession be determined of a water province? Should it be layered with one underwater and one surface level water province? How do aquatic troops interact with ships in the tactical combat? Are the ordinary troops and ships on the same scale? How do troops aboard ships interact with ships or aquatic troops? If ship combat were to occur on a different scale than ordinary tactical combat interaction between aquatics and ships becomes problematic. I could go on. I think there are very many difficulties trying to implement ship combat in a way that would fit into the existing system, especially into the tactical system.

I just dont think that economic development would add anything to the game. I prefer if that aspect is kept simple. I guess I do not see why it would be desirable to add to that aspect at all, even if kept simpler than in MOO or Civ.

I am not opposed to formations as such, nor do I think they would necessary be unbalancing. But like the tactical ship combat they are a bit tricky to implement under the current system, perhaps less so than the ship to ship combat but still tricky enough for them to require major work on the tac combat, both rule wise and AI wise. So while I would like formations as well I just don't see it happening.

[ September 29, 2003, 15:56: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Johan - I think, that there is a very good idea.
The possibility to upgrade the castles/towers etc.
Each castle/keep etc. should give additional bonuses, after they have been upgraded.
Example? You are upgrading a fortified city -> Population will grow faster. You upgrade it again -> More and lot stronger militia or other + bonuses, etc.
I think that would be awesome! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[ September 29, 2003, 16:01: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why is it a good idea? I understand that they could be made to add different bonuses but unlike the formations or the sea battles I do not see the appeal. To me it adding more economic improvements would just be adding an additional hassle to the game that would not add to the gameplay and be potentionally detrimental to it, like adding resource management to chess.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Hm...well, I think that upgrading forts/castles arent really economic..its just adds more strategical feeling/value, IMHO.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Upgrading forts is a good idea. I would like it.
Maybe upgradings should give military bonuses only?

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why is it a good idea? I understand that they could be made to add different bonuses but unlike the formations or the sea battles I do not see the appeal. To me it adding more economic improvements would just be adding an additional hassle to the game that would not add to the gameplay and be potentionally detrimental to it, like adding resource management to chess.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, the economic improvements could help if you get a tiny starting province, surrounded mostly by sea and poor provinces...
(been there...)

Also, if you decide for some reason to allow the fort upgrades, i would like to have them as a Kohan-esque "you can't get everything", I.E, you can upgrade a Castle to have either Bonus A or Bonus B.

[ September 29, 2003, 16:35: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I think I agree with Johan on this one. Adding more upgrades and buildings just does not seem to fit into the general scheme of Dom. Already you can upgrade your defense of a province with your castle type, and by uping the defense value of the province. Adding more 'junk' would only complicate matters for the AI I think, and while it may confer some kind of 'cool' feeling to the game, it doesn't really add much to the overall gameplay. Any changes to the system should be kept on a very macro level I think, like the defense for a province. One simple solution would be to split the defense from the castles to the province and call it 'fortification' which could be increased in the same way the local milita is, and give some kind of crude defensive barriers for the defenders to use (pits, trenches, crude wooden walls, ...). The presense of a castle would still give the stone walls and allow for seiges though.

As to ships... I always hate them in every strategy game I play, it is seemingly impossible to get their mechanics right, so I say don't add them in... ever!

Army formations are all fine and well, but I think it would be better to expand the scripting power, add a few more commands (harass from another thread is a good one), and allow for units to also get stackable orders ala commanders, or allow units to follow the commanders orders (more than gaurd commander anyway).

Anyway, I think mostly from a SP viewpoint, and I don't like complications for complications sake, that may improve the feel of an MP game, but wind up shafting the AI because it becomes more difficult for it to keep up with all the new variables.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I was just bringing out the facts at the issue of economic buildings. I realy wouldn't like complications either...

I would like to see ships, not nescesarily ship combats, but it seems pretty illogical that Ulm or Marignon can't cross a simple sea province...
Are Vans the only ones who can make ships in the whole world?

Sige engines could be like some abstraction during siege, perhaps like a militia, but with effect that adds to the abstract "siege power" of the attackers? Of course, the "sticks and stones" nations would not have siege engines... And not Jotunheim...

[ September 29, 2003, 16:51: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I'm sad to hear that formations aren't a possibility - Troop positioning is so important as it is, it seems that formations would only enhance what is one of the most strategic aspects of the game.

It's attractive for 2 reasons (to me at least):

one, because troops with any kind of 'attack' order run in a ragged horde toward the enemy, which makes certain things impossible (like leaving a gap in the middle of your line for potentially routing elephants). I would *love* my troops to stay together a little more

two, defense benefits to certain formations is a *great* idea (although I accept probably very difficult to add). I mean, there's a reason why the romans defeated all the Celtic (not to mention Germanic) tribes in Europe - formations! the Celtic tribes fought essentially as individuals, whereas the Romans teamed up using formations. ok, technology was a factor too, and attacking each tribe one at a time, but formations were (and are) a tremendously important part of strategy.

Having said all that, if it's not going to happen, it's not going to happen, and Dom II will still be a really great game.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I would also like to see formations.
But Dominions II will be a great game, nevertheless.

Hmmmm... If we would start to design formations and their effects... And how to put them in to the game...

[ September 29, 2003, 16:58: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is not lack of ideas about formations or their effects that keeps them from being implemented, it is the difficulty of implementing them. So you can gush formation ideas until you keel over, formations won't happen without a major reworking of the tactical battles and such a major reworking of the tactical battles is not viable before dom 3, and dom 3 might never be made at all.

[ September 29, 2003, 17:05: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Tell me, what are your technical dificulties with formations, exactly.
Yeah, yeah, i'm on a roll, but i want to see if i could figure anything out. I or we(the rest of us).

And yes, i'm willing to sacrifice my precious time for you. And yes, i have too much spare time.

Please, this can't possibly hurt you, can it...?
(as you can see, no smiley=dead serious)

[ September 29, 2003, 17:17: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Hi,

Even though I'm a new Dom player. (I've been playing the demo in anticipation of Dom 2.) I would most violently object to building improvements. We don't need another Civ. I HATE spending forever building up cities, provinces, whatever. Having to do all that stuff before you're fully developed.

Dom 1 (and I presume 2) already have plenty of things to do and consider without this. Not to mention how it would change the balance. Poor Ermor would be in even more trouble and I freely admit they are my favorite so far.

OTH, I do think formations would be good. I'm a bit frustrated at the lack of control of my troops.

Ciao,
V'ger gone

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I think I agree with Vger about buildings - the focus of dominions is not building and I kinda like it that way - I think having more buildings would confuse genres

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Uh? You call a little upgrade - economy?! Or you call that civ like? Eh? Kinda odd if you call a castle upgrade like that...
Anyways I can live without it, but it would be cool to have.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Well, duh.
This is Illwinter's call.
I still say it's stupid that "civilised" nations can't cross sea provinces!

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Well, I agree, ships would make more sense, but its ok if we wont have them.

However formations would be awesome, thats for sure.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

There is the magical item 'Pocket Ship' which enables you to sail over ocean provinces in much the same way Vanheim does (at least according to the manual).

If you think about oceans being pretty big it kinda makes sense that most nations can't sail on them. The technology involved in ocean-going ships is not something I'd expect Abysia (for example) to have - whereas small boats I think are reasonable for everyone to have, which is why you can go short distances from island to island without needing a special ability.

It also makes sense of why two nations sailing over the same sea wouldn't bump into one another - you can't exactly keep scouts all over the ocean to warn you of incursions. [of course under sea is different - outlying kelp villages, etc.]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I'm completely OK with Dominions II the way it is... The lack of ships just constantly jumps straigth to my face... But i agree that formations would be awesome.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Guys,

Formations would be very taxing to the AI compared to the current battle logic. What we need is a borgMod; Dominions 2 strategic map with a call to Total War for the battles. Then you could run your own formations. (flashback; who remembers the game Breach? It had some kind of two-game integration) Now ‘all’ we need is an interface application to move the data and a complete rework of TA to model the monsters and magic.

Sea Battles would really need two phases; ship to ship and boarding. Look how Port Royal handles this; the boarding is all AI (no ability to watch anything but the numbers of sailors per side) while the ship to ship continues. This would drive my crazy; not seeing my boarding operation succeeded (or fail) while I sail around firing arrows and fireballs.

I would like to hear what Illwinter wants to do with Dom III before I have any suggestions. I trust these guys to make games that I like to play already.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

About Dom III, i think IW will more likely make CoE III first...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Or then try something else...
*an image of Dominions JRPG flashes somewhere in the dark mind of Nerfix*
Now, a Dominions JRPG would be awesome!
How to combine heroic and high-lethality fantasy, how to mix Japanese and western RPG's, now that would be some challange for IW!

Of course i am kidding, unless IW is realy planning something like that...

[ September 29, 2003, 20:19: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

didnt knew the wishlist for dominions XVII was already open...

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Well, the problem IMHO is not that we don't have "ships" per se, but rather than sea is impassable to most nations...

So why not implement a simple "Port" structure, that will allow a (limited) army to cross 1-3 sea provinces, in the same way than Vanheim can sail ?

The port could be only allowed to some nations, and its cost, the ship range and ship capacity (size of army movable per turn) could depend on nation : Vanheim would get small cost ports and long range (they could use ships for armies w/o "sailing comander"), Arco could get medium range and capacity, Pythium short range/big capacity, Abysia nothing etc...

This won't be difficult to do, as the mechanics already exist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif , and will solve the problem.
The only big impact is on game balance ...
What do you think ?

[ September 29, 2003, 20:33: Message edited by: PDF ]

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

@Pocus:LOL! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

@PDF:
Hmmmm... Well, that would be one solution...

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

I don't think I would want the kind of addition PDF is talking about. I think I prefer it the way it is.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Well, I guess I'll through my 2 gp into the debate... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

On ships: the technical difficulty of adding ships as strategic or tactical units has already been pointed out, although if there were a way to overcome these problems (possibly for a potential Dom III), then I agree that it would be pretty cool to see monsters coming up out of the waves to board your ships... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

The problem of ownership could be settled by treating ships much like stealthy units, except that they wouldn't be able to attack an underwater province (unless they could breathe water as well), but they would run the risk of being discovered and attacked by the underwater residents of that province (or by enemy fleets). The 'owner' of the province would be whoever controlled the underwater portion.

As far as buildings and such allowing 'abstract' use of ships, I don't really see the need. Not only are most of the cultures used as a basis for these nations drawn from an era when ocean navigation was not possible (or at least, not reliable enough to risk an army on), but there are already several nations that can enter sea provinces, plus the new Water Cult theme... so if you really want to fight in the seas, you've got lots of options.

There could be a few more small things added though... for instance, I could see a national commander, for nations like Pythium for instance, who's a skilled navigator, and can carry his army across seas like the Vanir do... or perhaps a Death spell that summons a 'Ghost Ship', allowing the casting mage to do the same.

I'm afraid I don't really like the idea of improved castles either... mostly because it takes away from the choices you make when designing your nation. Who's going to spend 150 nation points on a great fortress when you can get the same effect by merely spending gold in-game? The same goes for economic buildings really... these things are abstracted into such concepts as dominion scales (one could assume that a strong Order dominion encourages the building of mills and other economic structures for example), starting castle choices (for the administration and supply bonuses) and the 'natural' resource and tax base of various provinces (these places aren't virgin wilderness after all, they do have some infrastructure... you just don't have to mess around with building it yourself).

Formations are another cool idea, but I can easily see how difficult this would be to implement. For one thing, the major counter-tactic to most of them is to break up the formation. The coding for that would be a nightmare... how would the game determine when your shield wall was sufficiently mixed up that it no longer provided its bonuses? Would it happen gradually, or all at once? Also, you'd pretty much have to start accounting for things like which direction a unit was facing when it was attacked... and that's a pretty serious mechanic, especially for something to add in a patch. Would fatigue affect the bonuses you get from formations? What if your squads aren't composed of all the same types of troops? Can mindless troops use formations? Etc., etc....

It's not very often that I argue against the inclusion of new features in a game, but in some cases added complexity breaks more than it 'fixes'. This is especially true when it comes to programming the AI to use these elements... if not done carefully (and preferably in the very early stages of design), it is incredibly easy to 'lobotomize' the AI by adding features only humans can use properly.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That makes sense. Oh well. BTW you seem to have very well thought-out contributions - I give you 5 stars http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

" it is incredibly easy to 'lobotomize' the AI by adding features only humans can use properly. "

Heh, MoO3 anyone? Though there were more problems there than just too much complexity.

Actually the abstracted complexity is fine when the game is more geared to macro... but the testing and proving that the complexity can be handled by the AI must be a pain in the @#$...

I wouldn't mind seeing more robust province modeling in Dom eventually, but I don't think it should be attemped for Dom2. The next step in Dom would hopefully be further improvements to combat, either by allowing for some sort of control during a battle, or expanded orders for scripting.

It would also be nice if there were some assistance in setting your scripts. Say you selected a group of commanders with units and were given some basic choices for setting all of their positions and attitudes. Then you could still go in and tweek specific placements and orders. But the going through every commander and every group of units one by one is quite tedious (at least in Dom1).

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is a new unit that is recruitable in sites that works in a Vanir like way, the navigator. If I recall correctly there is also one navigator with a mercenary band.

I think you succintly summed up the major problems with implementing formations.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

the folded ship can be built too. Ok it costs air gems, and many cool items ask for air gems, but still it is feasible to have at least limited sea moving capabilities.

Very good point Bards about what can represents the admin level of your castle, or your order scale. This is abstracted economics for sure, and I seriously doubt that adding little mills and carries to doms would enhance it.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Ports as createable sites that let you abstractly move units strategically between 2 provinces (that you control) with ports would work in Dominion's current Framework.

You can already do something like this when designing a scenario, but this would be a little nicer and yet not overly complex.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

About the ports : you should try the great "Elric" scenario made by Pocus aka Pythie. It is available on the illwinter pages. 3 large continents are linked by 3-4 ports each. Units in a port may freely move to another port, jumping over the oceans (the connexions are scripted in the .map file). Neat solution IMHO, only minor drawback is that flying units could 'jump' several oceans in one turn using those sealanes.
You'll also see navigable rivers, customized province names and special indeps.
Cheers

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Yes, adding formations wouldnt be easy, the devs would be forced to work a lot on it. It would be worth of it, that isnt a question. The question is, that the AI could handle it properly, or not..

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

Maybe we should wait till we have tried DOM II, before telling IW what they should change in it... In worst case, they will do it, and we have to wait a year more before getting the game...

Besides, even though formations would be nice, would they be useful? If they were just a line, a square and a row, this would allow more versatility in battle planning.
But we can already do this even in DOM I, although because commander can only command five different Groups (in DOM1), you would need one commander for every row/line.

And if formations were like shield wall, charge(for knights) etc., they would be hard to implement but would not add much. Yes, they would be useful, but they would either not be much use or would become so important that you would HAVE to quess your opponents' tactic and choose the best formation versus it. And that would add a lot micromanagement.

Of course, you might not agree, but this is only my opinion.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am wondering that everybody thinks formations are such a great change to the game system. Of course one can invent a whole new tactical combat system with a formation system as the core. But this was not the point of my suggestion. ALL I was suggesting was to give a formation a +1 to Att or defend or whatever. Is this so difficult to implement? Of course if one does not want to implement such things to the game, he can always make an elephant out of a fly. He can always raise problems like "facing" (I never suggested facing options and I dont think that they are necessary at all), complicated algorithms if somebody likes to have "mixed squads" (easy to circumvent - if a player likes to give a formation order, simple dont allow mixed squads for formations) and as Last and the most difficult problem to solve he says "formations poses so a big problem because of those mindless troops..." Well again I have to say that all I wanted was an UNCOMPLICATED order to make one or two formation types (turtle for infantry and wedge/line for cavallery) with trained troops - a +1 to the defense/attack factor or so. (no facing, no brainless units, no mixed squads, no penguin special attack...) The reason was to add to the battle athmosphere. If I dont have control over the troops after battle begins, then I would like to have at least the feeling that my ULM infantry is an disciplined elite and not the same than the wild troll troupe of my enemy. In DOM1 the most troops are running around how they want and as fast as their AP allows - which dont contribute to the game athmosphere.
bye
KlausD

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

klausD,

I understand your position better now. What about somthing even simpler, just a tendancy for certian troop types to move as a group and a +1 bonus to defence for any unit with like units on 2 sides?

You point about not wanting Ulm to advance like the enemy wild hordes hits home.

I may be making this too simple now.

Re: suggestion about commanders
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I, like bard of prey, assumed that formations would include flanks and flanking bonuses for attacking formations in the flanks. This is also the appeal of formations to me. Flanking and facing etc. would require a lot of work on the tactical abttles and tactical AI.

Still, even the more limited formations you are suggesting would require some work on the tactical battles and the tac AI, as well as on the strategic AI in order for it to group correct units into correct Groups etc. But in the end it boils down to the following: JK doesnt like programming AIs, Kristoffer has tried to make JK accept formations (although that was formations with flanks facing etc.) on and of for 6 years without success, ergo it is unlikely that there will ever be formations.

[ September 30, 2003, 15:52: Message edited by: johan osterman ]