Missing Features
 

I see polls for typo's, bugs etc.. but what about general input? I love this game, but personally think a few features could be added. Some pretty basic things that would enhance gameplay a good deal I think.

i.e. In the magical research window, it would be really handy to be able to "lock" the bars. As in setting your Conjuration research bar to 25 research points, and then lock it in that position so you can modify the other research bars without adding to, or subtracting from the research bars. I personally like to try to streamline my research each turn if needed to maximize the usage of my points etc - it can be a pain when you only need another 14 or so research points, and it keeps changing it on you from dispersing the remaining points amoung other Groups..

Also, spells in combat - I'd LOVE a way to set a list of spells that the unit is allowed to cast, or even maybe a "favorite spells to use" list. But definatly a "never use these spells" list or hte like. Nothings more irritating than having my commander units cast raise dead while my existing 600 are doing just fine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

What about you guys? Anything else you'd like to see in the game?

Re: Missing Features
 

The one you mentioned about a spell DO NOT USE LIST for each commander (and for nation).

And most important, ranged attack AI that doesn't fire when my own men have any real chance of getting hit instead.

More modding toys.

Whatever the devs think is a good idea. They're taste is just fine.

PvK

Re: Missing Features
 

Well I agree with the lock spell points idea but if you start by giving all your points to the Category highest on the list (that you want to allocate points to) the rest will just draw from that one.

Re: Missing Features
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, you're looking for this.

Re: Missing Features
 

Oh yah! That IS a good idea, "Fire for two rounds at closest, then either stop or fire at archers".

Speaking of which that reminds me of another feature I think is probably an oversight... Ranged attack units don't have the option to "Fire" at "Rearmost" units. You can /kind/ of do this by ordering them to Fire at archers... but that's not the same.


EDIT: Ah yeah =) That is what I was looking for.

Oh well.

[ January 26, 2004, 21:02: Message edited by: Lord_Devi ]

Re: Missing Features
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This was removed from Dominions 1, (where it was instead called fire commanders), in favour of play balance, and an improved relationship with historical battles. Archers tended to fire on what they could see, and there's no real way to see where the back of an enemy formation is in many cases.


EDIT: Ah yeah =) That is what I was looking for.

Oh well. [/QB][/quote]

Re: Missing Features
 

If it's for realism reasons, i.e. they can't see the rearmost, what about archers? They are very frequently behind the infantry columns as well.

I think in real life also, that historically, it was very rare that battles occured on perfectly flat plains like they do in D2. I think that's probably an appreciated attempt at realism, but inherently flawed.

I'm curious though about the balance part - That could be a very good reason however. I wonder though how unbalancing it could really be. Properly protected or armoured command units etc shouldn't have much of a problem vs most projectiles. Unless it's a crossbow or an arbalest it shouldn't be too much of a danger - and those don't really have the range to reach the rear.

[ January 26, 2004, 21:31: Message edited by: Lord_Devi ]

Re: Missing Features
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Being able to target commanders right away wouldn't reflect real combat very well I think.

Sure, any army would LOVE to do it, but the commanders aren't going to make this easy for them. Mostly they'd do this by staying out of range.

I look at it that the replay mode is a bit of an abstraction of a bigger space. Fast unit can ride all the way into the command area perhaps, but being able to shoot that far, even with archers forward seems both unrealistic and unbalancing to me.

We've had to deal with this a lot in table top wargaming usually by making special rules that reflect the fact that the troops on the ground don't have the "omniscient eye" of the player.

Picking out a few people in a huge battle is going to be nearly impossible in most cases.

[ January 26, 2004, 21:40: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Missing Features
 

Commanders are always mounted also however, whereas the infantry isn't. That gives the commanders a much higher profile, not to mention the gigantic pretender gods, hah - but yeah I see your point. It would be kinda menacing to have that ability.

Re: Missing Features
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not always... But if they are, you can certainly "fire at large enemy monsters", and nail them. That'll teach them to keep a low profile !

Re: Missing Features
 

Here's a feature that I think is missing and would be very cool, but I'm not crossing my fingers...

Ability to script armies in a .map file.

Actually, I'd like to be able to set full orders and positions for the units in a province. This would let one make detailed scenarios, and, most importantly, use the .map file (and an appropriate program to write/change it) as a battle simulator substitute.

Or maybe it would be simpler to have an option for non-crypted .trn files. I understand the need to have non-human-readable .trn files for MP, but I was a bit disappointed that, in SP games, I could still not hack them.