Player controlled battles???
 

I always wanted to control the battles, why won't be that possible in Dominions 2.?

Wait I know the answer...because that way, the AI would be killed too fast? I mean I could control the battles lot better than the AI, that is for sure, so if the AI would be the oppoment, I would wipe him out easily, more than likely.
AI vs. AI battles are better balance wise....am I correct?
I think that this is sad, but true. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

I'll let Illwinter give the "real" answer but I don't think it would feasible to manage a multiplayer game in any realistic time frame this way.

How many turns in a Dominions game? 1000?
How mayn turns in a player controlted combat Dominions game? 100,000?

Now try this PBEM - games would take years.

Over internet - what would player A do while players B and C fight a strat battle? Multiply this times 8 players.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

No, you are incorrect here:
1st reason: Do you REALY want to control hundreds, or possible thousands of units? Yup, armies of over 200 units ain't so rare in Dominions...
2nd reason: PBEM. I believe Dominions was designed for PBEM, so that's the 2nd reason.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Huh, well there should be an option: AI controlled battles or human controlled battles....There are games, where you can choose out the method. Its quite simple, don't you think?

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Well, that would force IW to redesing quite much stuff...
Not worth it, IMHO.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not worth for you...IMHO

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

I am with Nerfix in this one. I never missed the player controlled battles in Dominions. This is an unique game, also the Dom II. combat/spellcasting AI will kick some ***, so dont worry about it.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Aristoteles,

I could see the option giving the game more depth, but I can't imagine a MOM-like player controlled battle with 150 units running I go, You go.

Now maybe Simultaneous Execution like the first PC LAN game in history; (trumpet bLast) RoboSport. Or like the more recent Combat Mission games.

Battles could be divided into 90 second phases where we both give orders and watch them play out.

It comes down to this; where should a small development group like Illwinter spend its precious time? Would player controlled battles bring in more customers? Would it significantly enhance the game for us? Would developing it take Illwinter away from other stuff we all would enjoy more?

[ September 30, 2003, 13:40: Message edited by: Yojinbo ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Well, if the Dominions II AI is realy so good they say in the "Wish List-Targetable spells" thread, i won't miss player controlled batles the slightest bit.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">3rd reason, it's much more gratifying to be in the C-in-C boots, rather than in the corporal's. Do you think Napoleon bothered to manage every man in his army? He preferred to concentrate on the big picture.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">3rd reason, it's much more gratifying to be in the C-in-C boots, rather than in the corporal's. Do you think Napoleon bothered to manage every man in his army? He preferred to concentrate on the big picture.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know, still I would like to command my own troops. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think this is a needed option. Unless it is the type of game the creators want. Have a great day.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">no I dont think so. Saying is one hundred more easy than doing.
Except when you code something. In this case saying is ten thousand times more easy than coding.
in solo play, direct command versus scripted command, wow, if the game was not designed like this, would be a major rework of the tac system of dominions (IMHO anyway)

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Aristoteles,

Do you mostly play multiplayer or single player?

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think this is a needed option. Unless it is the type of game the creators want. Have a great day.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The creators wanted it to be this way.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'd tell you my Win-Loss record against the AI, but . . . eesh. It's a very smart AI. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

I think this is one of those issues that'll never reach a unanimous concensus. Some would prefer direct control; some don't. It's a personal taste thing as much as anything else, IMHO.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Can the AI be...evil?
*evil cackle*

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

I think, that the AI controlled battles are cool.
Well, if there would be an option to turn on/off the AI battles..that would be better, I agree.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Computers are evil. Games are evil. How can AI not be evil? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

The AI can definitely be evil!!!

Did it do the "rampage" thing in Dom I? In Dom II, if it realizes it can't hold secondary territories against you, it will abandon them and charge into yours, tearing down your temples, pillaging and looting, and generally demolishing your infrastructure. You're forced to chase the rampaging armies down, and they're building up front-line troops and defence levels in the meantime. Eesh! It's enough to make a Pretender Parrot weep!

Sometimes I've "counter-rampaged" and charged into their territory to mess it up while trying to stop them from what they're doing to mine. I've yet to be able to press a full assualt in the face of having my interior demolished, however. The AI seems to be able to find any hole in my defenses and slip through!

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

OMG, I really want to see this AI now! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

That’s not all! If AI decides to go at war with you he will place his troops before that and strike at ALL your provinces he can reach simultaneously. I was attacked like that two times so far by Panganea and Atlantis (from sea!). I'll tell you, AI is BAD boy.
And even that is not all. I thought I have figured him out so when 1 of his provinces borders 2 of mine and I have army in one of them while other is undefended (only local force), I would move that army to undefended province and intercept his attack. But noooo! Now he attacks BOTH of my provinces with just enough troops to take down one of them if only my local force is defending. I’ve lost lots of provinces nearly by surprise (more like shock) that way.

Basically AI is teaching ME how to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

And you even aren't noobs!

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

I really like the tac combat of DOM-I.
It's great to be able to script your forces and watch your army of hundreds of units fight a huge battle in less the 2 minutes.
I played HOMM,AOW series and such games and sure enough battles can be tedious and boring. In AOW-SM I sometimes has 20 minutes siege battles http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Truth is DOM-I is the fantasy TBS game I always wanted. Only drawback is micromanage. That fixed (at least to some extent) I am sure DOM-II would be my all time favorite.
can't wait to see the new AI in action http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The old one was a bit too easy, once you learned it's patterns.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

If you could control your troops directly it would be a fundamentally different kind of game - RTS [Real Time Strategy] rather than TBS [Turn Based Strategy]. I personally enjoy both genres, but they are incredibly distinct. The fun of a RTS (for example, Warcraft III) is to try to micromanage your army to maximum effect, using about 6000 mouse-clicks a minute http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

On the other hand, the fun of a TBS is scripting a battle by giving orders ahead of time, and then seeing how well your best effort at guessing the opponent's tactics does against his best effort at guessing your's.

The two are mutually exclusive - you can't have the fun of planning how a big battle will go down if you have the fun of micromanaging your army on the spot. And they are both fun.

I would probably enjoy a RTS game which had the same units and abilities as Dominions, but it would be a completely different experience from playing Domionions itself.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">sound cool, but ... in dominions I it is relatively easy to toast even Impossible AI, mainly because of two big drawbacks they have.

They are totally unaware that a supply rule exists, so every big army they have starves.
They are totally screwed by battlefields spells, because they dont protect themselves with wards, or if they do, you see them coming one hundred miles away (they are unsurprising).

So Psitticine, Daynarr, are these points a bit alleviated in doms II ? Have you checked if the big enemy armies are not starving? Have you tried to prepare for battlefields spells, how the AI reacted???

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

God, I must be smart! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

I beat the AI every time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Well, the fact that you know how The AI works won't affect the outcome...?

BTW, is the AI called "KristofferNet"?
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ September 30, 2003, 19:35: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OMG! I WANT TO PLAY DOMINIONS II. NOW!
*whining* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Well, the Dom II AI only proves that Scandinavian people are evil. Or sadistic. Or both. Or neither.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But seriously, sounds very good.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

The only time I've noticed a problem with the enemy supply situation is when I've got them boxed in with superior forces. Then, they'll often grow and shrink as they try and deal with supplies. Given a normal amount of room, or a less than overwhelming force bottling them up, they seem to deal with it OK. I haven't studied it though, so I'll keep a closer eye on that.

I'll watch their usage of warding spells more closely, but they seem to be quite willing to guard themselves. They lay a lot of protection spells of various kinds about, although not anything that wouldn't actually come into play. (i.e. no anti-missile spells if the opposition has no ranged troops!) I think they actually tend to use more defensive than offensive spells, but that's something I'd have to analyze more closely before being 100% sure.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

More defensive than offensive spells, eh?
Hmmmm, sounds definedly intresting...

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">lol Im glad that someone's spelling is worse than mine! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Ps. It is quite rare. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ September 30, 2003, 20:04: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Well, english isn't my primary language.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yea, I am always mentioning that as well...I know the feeling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yea, I am always mentioning that as well...I know the feeling. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well i am not.
What did i exactly misspell?
If i actualy misspelled something, i'll have to burn my english books.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Don't take it so seriously..
Anyways a few examples:

"definedly intresting" should be definitely interesting?

"And you even aren't noobs!" should be And you aren't even noobs! ??

etc.

Btw as I said my english is bad as well, so its totally ok of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ September 30, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

I just know English, a smattering of Spanish, and some rusty Irish Gaelic. My Hungarian is limited to being able to name the Gabor sisters. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

You all know a bit of Swedish too: Något gick fel!

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">sure, the program keeps crashing.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Player controlled battles?

Yes and No, or , rather, both please!

In pre-info-age eras, communication was difficult and you'd only get news of a won or lost battle days, weeks or even months later.....so the present DOM system of reporting battles is realistic.

HOWEVER, what about when the pretender is present on the battlefield? - the pretender is in a position to fight the battle and makes the decisions - he/she should be able to direct battles in situ

Either that, or more flexibility/options in battlefield deployments

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Whoa old topic! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Hm I think an option to turn on/off controlling battles would be the best, however managing an army of 600+ troops is kinda hard + we have AI vs AI in the battles, so this is the best way to balance the SP tactical combat.

[ October 23, 2003, 09:13: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree with Gandalf on this - sometimes you don't want to watch all the battles. However, if you were only able to control your pretender it would be max one battle per turn. I can also see the role-playing element - which is attractive - here. But it would fundamentally change the nature of the game to implement, plus which, as Gandalf said, totally remove the PbeM element - which is a pretty important part of the game for a lot of people (including, I suspect, the devs).

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Guys I tell you what would be the best: Only allow to control pretenders maybe commanders in the battle. Of course with a turn on/off option.

Anyways, I think that this is not really important, there are lot more important things like the diplo system, the weapon/armor system or the mod tools.

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

I didnt read the whole thread but the answer always used to be that player controlled battles would be non-PBEM.

I rarely watch the combats anyway. In fact Id like to see some changes so that Im not forced to watch as many as I do. Such as Arena Messages say xxxx beat yyyyy on each one so I know which were my guy. And zzzzz tried to assassinate yyyyy could maybe mention if he won. The "there was a battle" might mention xxxx beat yyyy so I dont have to watch it just to see the participants

[ October 23, 2003, 12:42: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

Ah, full control of the battles... What a great wish... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone.

[ October 24, 2003, 08:45: Message edited by: HJ ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No it wouldnt. Or well, maybe it could but I dont see how even an option for controlling the battles can possibly NOT affect the game. If nothing else the tremendous amount of time and effort to put it in. Sorry but Id rather NOT see anything along this line. More options for scripting commanders, or using formations, would be great but not combat control.

Its a PBEM game. One that is done by uploading your turn file. And its one of the few excellent long-living games out there that do it. Im usually diplomatic and middle-ground on things but here Id have to say something that might kindof rude.... there are plenty of those games out there already, please dont turn this into one. Id rather see Dominion continue to be an excellent PBEM game than to see it become a mediocre RTS game. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, I won't go into the scripting argument. Yes, it would require some major rewriting, scripting the new combat system, AI, etc. That's not my point at all, and I don't see it as a valid argument coming from an end-user. How hard is to script something doesn't really influence what I personally do or do not like.

I don't play PBEM, so that doesn't influence what I like or don't like either. I'm just saying what would make the game even more enjoyable for me personally.

And I never said anything about RTS. Actually, I was thinking about TBS tactical combat. Why do people immediately assume tactical combat has to be RTS as if they've never heard of or played HOMM or AOW, I don't know. I mentioned TW purely because it has the option to autoresolve or fight it out yourself. AOW2 has the same option, and I could've used it as an example as well. I didn't, well, my bad, I still wasn't thinking about RTS. In any case, since you'll be autoresolving battles anyway, I don't see why you would care either way.

There are people who would like the game to stay exactly what it is right now. I myself like many of the game aspects, and in other aspects I see a great potential. That potential means that it would make it more enjoyable for me if some things would change. And this is the only forum I've seen where suggestions, regardless of how polite the tone is, are so vigorously shouted down by the people who play the game that it's becoming ridiculous. Usually, the people post suggestions, and then others add to them. Here every suggestion gets flooded by naysayers in no time. I don't seem to recall that I did the same thing for things I don't care about or think the devs shouldn't spend their time on improving, such as MP or modding tools. Mostly because I find it pointless, and even rude. But I guess I'm in the minority (maybe not in my wishes, but in the described tolerant attitude for sure).

[ October 24, 2003, 14:48: Message edited by: HJ ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously.

[ October 24, 2003, 14:43: Message edited by: Vodalian ]

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In light of my previous post, I'm tempted to make a joke and start shouting "Heresy!!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Player controlled battles???
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There was some work made in this direction for a while, but it was abandoned. The nice thing about it is that you could be able to assign different speed values to different actions, perhaps make some weapons slower, certain spells slower to cast etc.