An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

I would like to see the religious aspect (dominion) play a stronger role; I like the idea that troops get +1 / -1 morale depending on dominion, but I find that not enough. Would you like / dislike the idea of having additional bonuses for higher dominion, such as a percent chance of scoring double damage or a "natural 6" (on the d6 roll) for combat damage or spell effects when cast / used in higher dominions, such as:

+1 dom = 0%
+2 dom = 1%
+3 dom = 2%
+4 dom = 4%
+5 dom = 6%
+6 dom = 8%
+7 dom = 11%
+8 dom = 14%
etc.

or something similar.
what do you think?

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

Marignon Fires of the Faith can have dominion 30+...

Even if it would be appopriate to give bonuses to units in their dominion, that would only help defensive game and I don't think longer games would make Dominions II any better.

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

There are already many ways to use your dominions.

1) It's possible to kill an opponent with your dominions. It does happens, even in an MP game.

2) You pretender is much stronger inside his dominion: +20% hitpoints, +1 strength, +0.5 MR per candle. If you choose to use a non-combating god, your loss. Your prophet has the same benefit also. So, you can make something with a little bit more hitpoints (e.g. Golem, Icedevil, or even a Firbolg) as your prophet and send him/her/it out to kill.

3) If you use the special theme Golem cult, all your constructs will have increased hitpoint inside your dominions. Many other themes are also dependent on your dominions.

4) For Caelum (and to a lesser extent Jotun and Abysia), the temperature of the province matters a *lot*. So, your dominions is your life.

5) Many high level global rituals already work according to dominions strength.

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

Another quick FYI: the Fires of Faith aren't actually supposed to cause so high a maximum Dominion. I believe it'll be capped off at a max of 10 in 2.07, just like all other Dominion types.

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

Interesting topic for me. When I first found out about how "little" the spread of dominion effects the game, I was a bit disappointed also.

However, I've come to change my mind for the most part. As other posters in this thread pointed-out, there are a lot of advantages to it. I also didn't see anyone posting a confirmation that it raises income to have a higher dominion as is stated in the Sabre Cherry's newbie thread/sticky but this would make it even better. Not to mention the fact that you lose instantly if your dominion gets wiped from all provinces.

In any case, the effect is a lot stronger to the outcomes of games than I thought at first and I find myself building more and more temples the more I play.

It is true that if all of the players prefer the same climate, aren't using death/miasma or drain, that the difference can be somewhat small in some cases. But +1/-1 to morale is already a fairly big deal.

I'd like to ask again for a confirmation or denial on the income increase issue. It would be nice to have some increase with higher domain and it would be nice to know how much the increase is.

P.S. I'd like to see a bit more support for defensive play as Dom2 currently seems to reward aggression a bit more that I'd prefer. Defensive options are nice in these games (see Kohan for an example of a game that is bettered by allowing defense as a viable, if not ideal by any means, alturnative). One possibility here I'd support here is to have it be +2/-2 on morale if dominion exceeded something like 6 or 7.

[ January 29, 2004, 03:24: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

AFAIK there is no direct corellation between Dominion Strength and income. Other than the scales you choose and having them impact the provinces you control. Of course Miasma is the one that counters this argument, but it says specifically what it does in the theme description.

IIRC You do need at least a 3 Dominion in order to get up to a 3 in scale. So if your dominion strength is 2, it will only go up to 2 Order even if your scale is Order 3 as it requires at least 3 Dominion to 'come into affect'.

I believe that is what Cherrypie was trying to say.

[ January 29, 2004, 03:17: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Good to know (although a bit disappointing).

Here is the quote from the sticky (under general effect for dominions):

"Provinces get -X unrest per turn, +Y% income and +Z% production for each level of Dominion (please reply if you know X, Y, or Z)."

So, it seems that it is in error and could, perhaps, be changed.

[ January 29, 2004, 03:18: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I just tested... dominion strength does not appear to affect gold or resources. Population also does not seem to affect resource production.

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

Hrm. I just did a test based on Dominion Strength on home province as it raised and I saw no change. I don't know exactly what Cherrypie was trying to say there, but I have never had my dominion impact my income directly outside of scales or in the case of Miasma.

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

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I just tested... dominion strength does not appear to affect gold or resources. Population also does not seem to affect resource production. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thanks! Good to know.

I vote for slightly increasing the power of dominion somehow.

Between all of the sneaking abilities and the general feel that you have to play as aggressively as possible at all times, it would be nice to get a bit of extra benefit out of more deliberate strategies that are more based on dominion and a bit less on military strength or stealth.

The game is called Dominions after all!! I feel this feature really sets the game apart. Besides, temples and taking the time to preach isn't exactly cheap on resources.

The only problem I can see is it would give more benefit to those who use destructive scales.

Tricky issue.

[ January 29, 2004, 03:34: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

Dominion also appears to be related to passive intelligence gathering so having a strong enough Dominion to 'push' into territories you don't own can really help you keep a better idea of what's around you.

~Aldin

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That makes a ton of sense. It is more likely that a "believer" would squeal on enemies than an "unbeliever" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And, yes, I have noticed that advantage and it is very nice. Good point.

[ January 29, 2004, 03:36: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

I'd like to see a minor chance of unrest, if you are in control of a province dominated by an enemy. To show the disruption of people believing one way and the government believing the opposite. Nothing out of control, but minor chance per strength of dominion would be nice touch of 'realism' if it could be balanced out correctly.

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That would help for sure.

However, for my taste, the main issue is that lighting attacks into the capital or "back areas" would be nice to be just a tidge more difficult when dominion is very high and that would help solve the problem of making investing in dominion spread worthwhile in cases where you don't have (or are up against) destructive scales.

I agree that it is very hard to balance all of this stuff http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I also fully admit that, being a fan of defensive play and hardly ever seeing it be half viable in these games has been frustrating for me over the years and that not everyone shares supporting such play-style options.

[ January 29, 2004, 04:22: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

Well in MP Dominion is still very key. In defensive territories if used with the right troops (mainly Pretender, Prophet and SC's) you can cause the advance into your domain to be really painful.

That particular dynamic I don't believe needs to be adjusted as much as map movement and passing through to attack back territories and everything akin to that.

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, since I am one of the few players (it seems) that doesn't like to use an "SC" Pretender, my guy only goes out of town to go jewel hunting on occassion.

However, I fully agree with you that a player who did use an SC with prophet and used a destructive domain the combo is pretty strong already and such a strategy certainly needs no more "help" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So, again, VERY hard to balance this stuff.

Due to this fact, it is probably true that the system is fine as it is and the way to please players like me is to have a few more themes like Miasma that help defensive play (or at least make it remotely viable).

[ January 29, 2004, 04:50: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

If you feel your dominion is not giving you enough benefits there are a few good globals that help - check out wrath of god for example.

Not to mention the obvious ermorian benefits to high dominion, or the relentless aggravation that you can cause your enemies with immortal troops inside your own dominion.

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

I am fairly sure that I have seen unreast increase in provinces under enemy dominion.

Re: An idea for stronger use of "dominion"
 

Hey these are good replies.
I now agree with most of the postings here that the original sugggestions were not appropriate, and that there is some more benefits to dominion than I had realized. However, learning now that there is NO benefit to income and supply for dominion takes away one aspect I thought was in.

The balance does seem to be difficult. The suggestion to make controlling a province in which a foreign dominion rules (conflict: official dogma / current belief) problematic I find good. Perhaps income could sink / unrest be more likely?

Perhaps too there could be some changes as to how or which type of "random events" occur according to dominion? (I dont mean hurricanes, but perhaps there could be "dominion-based" random-like events, such as some familiar ones (e.g. the liklihood of zealots joining your cause or anti-zealots trying to wrest the province from your control) or new ones.)

I would just like to see the religious aspect play a slightly more explicit role.

[ January 29, 2004, 12:47: Message edited by: tinkthank ]