Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

The game is mostly built around PBEM so its true that solo-play makes it feel like its too much micromanage. Sometimes I wish the game had an option where the AI would surrender.

There are ways to make solo-play more interesting. Smaller maps, or randomized independents. Try the Poke in the Eye map.
http://www.techno-mage.com/~dominion...2/Poke_Eye.map

Or if you have the Miirunst map downloaded you can try the randomized Version of that.
http://www.techno-mage.com/~dominion.../MiirunstX.map
Both are re-randomized every day.

[ February 04, 2004, 13:35: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

SP endgame isn't much fun, since there's too much stuff to do each turn. I never finish SP games on big maps.

In MP, it's a whole different matter. At a turn a day at the most, there (usually) is plenty of time to fine tune commanders, make battle plans. etc.

Solution: play smaller maps, or start getting into PBEMs.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

OK.

How do I get into those MP games, btw? I don't know any gamers, my RL friends / wife / etc. do NOT game. Is there a matchmaking thingy anywhere? I suppose some layer of trust is required too, if we are mailing each other attachments all the time -- any tips here? thanks

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

Makes me think of Medieval: Total War. There's just not many ways to keep a player happy toward end-game in SP. It's similar to Dom2, and the way the programmers decided to "make it more interesting" toward the end of the game was to wait until you owned about 90% of the map, then all of a sudden nearly every province on the map would spring into revolt, and half a dozen of your enemies would reappear (an heir was in hiding or some such). While the logic behind it was to prevent you from becoming bored, knowing that winning is inevitable, it really became annoying to be thrust right back almost to a starting position by these events. I don't see how it would be possible to make end-game in SP a more fun experience. Probably a victory condition of owning 75% of the provinces or some such would be a good idea.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Err, the option is there. Just play around with Victory Conditions. Set to 40% of Provinces, for example. In SP, this is where victory is about guaranteed.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

When will we have the ability to rename/put notes on commanders? With my disintegration strategy it is very important that I know what group a mage belongs to and what magic it has. Once you have 30 mages, this gets extremely hectic.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ctrl-click the commanders you want to be grouped. Thereafter, when you click on one, they all become selected. Not gonna get any easier than that.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

Endgame?

That has been the single most important feature of Dominions II at least for my group.

Now we have the option of setting victory by victory points. Select the 1 vp/capital and no other sources of victory points. Then select how many capitals one has to take to be the victor. (about half is what we use)

This has improved play immensely. Before this we never played until the end. Standard victory conditions is no fun.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

Renaming commanders will be included in the next patch.
There will, also, be an option in Game Creation menu to turn it on/off.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

I like the endgame more than anything. But I also love micromanagement, so . . .

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have a habit of pressing CTRL + A. Once you do that, all your hard work is flushed. This feature only covers 20% of what I need. The other 40% would be notes. the OTHER 40% would be having the ability to tell the game exactly how to sort the mages.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">and... please only state the obvious when it seems one needs the obvious.


Edit: one more thing. YOUR AVATAR IS DRIVING ME INSANE! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[ February 04, 2004, 22:08: Message edited by: Argitoth ]

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't think there are too many things about this game that are "obvious". Besides which, I have no way of knowing what you know and don't know. If you didn't find my post useful or helpful, then ignore it. I'm sure there are many readers out there (both registered and guests) who aren't very familiar with the game, and can use any tips they can find. That's one of the main purposes of this board...to pass on knowledge of the game.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Moloch made me do it!

At the risk of stating the obvious... there's an option in your user profile to hide avatars of other Users. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

EDIT: At any rate, it's only the avatar of the week, and she'll be gone soon. Then you'll surely miss her.

EDIT2: For those of you who are fans of Boris Vallejo, the renowned fantasy artist, feel free to click on the link in my signature file and save the pictures to your hard drive. I'll be linking a different one each week (for a while, at least).

[ February 04, 2004, 22:34: Message edited by: Targa ]

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">WHAT!! ever... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">See? I obviously needed something obvious. But since the avatar will be gone soon and since I dunno how to hide the avatar, I won't bother.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I thought that butt was a man's butt until a few minutes ago when I saw the whole picture. No, I won't miss a perverted avatar of a butt, thanks.

[ February 04, 2004, 22:36: Message edited by: Argitoth ]

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you thought that was a male butt then you "obviously" (since you like that particular word) haven't seen many female ones. The hips are an obvious giveaway. And only a prude would think a tastefully done pic is "perverted".

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That would "obviosly" be a good thing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ohhh ohh, no. I don't think the art is perverted at all. The artist did a good job...

You just can't take only the butt, use it as an avatar, and call my prude, "obviously"

[ February 04, 2004, 23:13: Message edited by: Argitoth ]

Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

Maybe it's just me, but I dont like the end game in comparison to the start and midgame. Under normal victory conditions, it seems to drag on, and depending on what nation I play, I just have way too many commanders.
Maybe it is the interface, but I even have problems remembering who is where and who has what item. If god forbid I should click on someone and see he has an item, transfer it, I usually have to go back and reset his action command because it resets to "defend", but sometimes I forget that if I have 20 commanders in that province.
I get sloppy -- and the bad thing is, it doesnt seem to matter. I like the game because of the attention to detail, and at a certain point it doesnt seem to matter much anymore.
The economy seems so weird, too -- I usually have way too much gold, so I then ignore all of the bizarre events -- who cares about hurricanes and all that. Which means that all the great spells you finally get to use at that point but couldnt before because you hadnt researched em -- they become much less meaningful.
When games go to about turn 100 or so, I usually have two schools fully completed researched -- but rarely find the spells useful anymore.
Maybe I should try different victory conditions? Or make the world "poor"? Or play smaller maps? Or what is my problem?

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree and only play on smaller maps. Works for me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

On the other hand, IF you happen to like the PBEM option, I can see some players WANTING to get an hour worth of play out of each turn. If it is only one turn a day, it might get just as frustrating to have only 10 minutes of "twiddling" to do with your troops. I don't know since I don't like PBEM, but I can see it...

[ February 04, 2004, 12:46: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

Most of my problems with Dom2's endgame is the busywork. I think the endgame would be much improved if we could get rid of some of the busywork. This might include:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A Continue Forging this item command.</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A Continue recruiting this commander/units command. New units in this mode should automatically be assigned to the new commander.</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A MoveTo a province command.</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Being able to set a 'rally point' for any units produced within a province.</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Being able to easily demote commanders (to unit).</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Being able to stack commanders (with their armys) under other commanders on the Army Setup screen. This way, multiple armies could be represented and managed by a single commander.</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you can set a 'refill' flag when you transfer gems to a commander. From then on, he will automatically refill with gems if there is a lab or available jems on another commander.</font>

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
The single player game also needs some massively overpowered toys to reward the endgame. Something like MOO1's mauler beam. Or MOM's 'Mastery of Magic' spell. Or XCom1's supervehicle.

These things would devastate multiplayer. However, they would be extremely rewarding in singleplayer. Ideally, they would be an option on the game setup screen. They should only be revealed at endgame. Their purpose is to entertain the player and bring a swift end to the game. They might include:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nuclear powered golem...(Just set it to OVERLOAD and 5 rounds later the province is a smoking hole.)</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A Spell that makes EVERY OTHER PROVINCE a neighbor to this one.</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A DOMINATION spell that causes every other pretenders domination to drop by 1 every turn.</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A Summon Rainbow Mage spell.</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A Summon Fully equiped Super Combatant spell.</font>

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
You get the idea. The endgame tedium would be a lot less if you could end it with a 'BANG' if you wanted to.

Miles

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

I thought the high-powered magic and all were pretty condusive to a fairly easy end game. If you have most of the map and lots of research... how hard is it to administer the coup de grace?

Aren't there already ways to repeat actions and group commanders?

PvK

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The sort of these things that we already have include:
Master enslave: Convert 1/4 to 1/2 or more of your opponent's army to your own side.
Utterdark: Anything not undead has attack and precision reduced to near-blindness levels.
Wish: Go for doom horrors and watch the fireworks.
Arcane Nexus: Gives you an income of hundreds of gems per turn.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I like this first list -- great. Things that would be good for everyone. Rallypoints -- oh god yes. Keep forging -- please. All good stuff. Not so keen on the huge killers at the end, but that#s just me.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've read somewhere that you can do that with rituals, but it's not obvious from the UI, and I don't understand why they didn't add the same feature for forging. Or allow me to set a forge queue or something. It's not like I'm suddenly going to move them around or something.

[quote][*]A Continue recruiting this commander/units command. New units in this mode should automatically be assigned to the new commander.[/list]

Exactly! You can make a huge build queue for normal units, but you have to add the commander by hand each turn. I'd like to queue my commanders.
It would also be nice if queued units that won't be built this turn, didn't cost me money right away.

</font>

• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A MoveTo a province command.</font>

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Or being able to set waypoints, so you can specify the exact route to take. In any case, movement should be easier, because moving large distances is really redious as it is right now.

</font>

• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Being able to easily demote commanders (to unit).</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Being able to stack commanders (with their armys) under other commanders on the Army Setup screen. This way, multiple armies could be represented and managed by a single commander.</font>

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Both also big on my wish list. Armies, Groups, or whatever often consist of several commanders and mages, but they belong together and need to move and do stuff as a group. Allow commanders to be subcommanders under another commander. Let me group my 2 dozen sages, so I can move them if they're threatened, and I can find the occasional priest, mage or enchanter or huge army a bit easier.


The single player game also needs some massively overpowered toys to reward the endgame. Something like MOO1's mauler beam. Or MOM's 'Mastery of Magic' spell. Or XCom1's supervehicle.

These things would devastate multiplayer. However, they would be extremely rewarding in singleplayer.

Not necessarily. If everybody has access to the same super items, it can still be balanced. Just don't lag behind.
In Stars!, the end game hull, the Nubian, is way better than anything else. Being the first to reach it is a huge advantage. Fighting Nubians with Battleships is a lost cause. So everybody makes sure they don't lag behind, and suddenly everything is okay again. The same goes for weapons tech, actually.

It depends on what the tech/spell/whatever does, ofcourse. It doesn't have to be a "you win" spell, just something that lets me move my huge armies around a little faster. The Vanheim commanders are great for this, if you're on a watery map. Magic items, enchantments and whatever that would allow me to teleport/fly a huge army to any friendly province within a certain range, would be great.
Ofcourse all players should be able to do something similar, so it can't be just a single high level astral spell, the effect should be
reachable by different routes. Perhaps earth+construction allows you to build some sort of railroad, air magic allows you to forge something that can fly an army from A to B, perhaps a nature spell leads you across a hidden, magical path to a forest province of your choice. That sort of stuff.

There are a couple of things that do something like that already, but The Flying Ship is unique, making it inherently unbalanced if it actually increased your speed on the map (which I think it doesn't, does it?), Cloud Trapeze and Teleport work only on the caster, and not on an entire army (I think they arrive too early in the game for that), and Stygian Paths kills your army. (I'm sure there are more, but I had to search to find even these.)

So the idea is there, but they didn't dare to do anything with it, for fear of making it too powerful. However, at least travel through your own territory can get really slow and tedious on a big map, and making that a bit faster would only help the game. Civ has railroads that do this, MoO had stargates, Stars! has stargates quite early in the game, even, and it doesn't hurt the game a bit. I think something with a similar effect would keep the endgame of Dom2 a lot more playable.


mcv.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Mouse over the caster and press SHIFT-M to cast a monthly ritual.

The short answer to why the folks at IW haven't done various UI-related things is they (by their own admission) dislike UI coding, and prefer to code AI or do other gameplay-related stuff. The aVersion to UI coding may be a perversely Swedish thing, because Paradox (another Swedish outfit, which also began with 2 programmers) has had ongoing UI issues (for years) with EU, EU2, HOI, and Victoria. But unlike Paradox, IW actually has produced a good AI. If the HOI AI was half as good as Dom's, I'd still be playing HOI.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Gateway (page 117) works on the caster and all troops assigned to him. The L8 Construction magic item Gate Stone (page 61) works just like the Gateway spell.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

If memory serves, the Gateway Stone now casts Astral Travel, which is basically the Dom I-style Gateway -- unlike Dom II Gateway, the destination does not have to be a friendly province with a lab.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

Also, there is Death spell Stygian Abyss, a portal with some risks, and Nature spell Faery Trod that takes an army and lets the mage and all troops in his command to move through hidden, magical paths to a forest province of his choice. Also, there is Earth-Astral + Construction route for the Gate Stone, which also all-troops-on-my-command effect. What else did you want? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Oh, there is a (nature-air?) flying ship too.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

The comment that the end game is busy work is pretty accurate. The solution, from my point of view, is to ignore a lot of it. I stop worrying about every little thing, push the big things, and rush through turns. Sure, I win on turn 100 instead of 95, but I finish about three hours earlier. Once you reach the end game and you know you will win, either call it a night or rush through. If you are really strong enough, cutting corners will not matter. Your grand plan is in place and usually just needs a few more turns to work, rather than more fine tuning.

I resisted this for some time, but gave in Saturday night and raced through five turns in the time of one. Lo and behold my dominion based strategy crushed Vanheim, even though I had ignored the strategy, only moving the big armies against Ulm. I took a few minutes longer on the next turn to snap up the now empty provinces, then fast forward again. I pumped in all the cash I was not spending into overly high provincial defenses, it was quick and protected me.

I guess what I am suggesting is that if you really want to play the game to the end, change your approach. It is fun and fast.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then you would gather incorrectly, since I don't think anyone has ever said anything other than that the two programmers do it all in their spare time.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then you would gather incorrectly, since I don't think anyone has ever said anything other than that the two programmers do it all in their spare time. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Are you serious?

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

He is !

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then you would gather incorrectly, since I don't think anyone has ever said anything other than that the two programmers do it all in their spare time. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Are you serious? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">He is serious... don't confuse (or merge) Illwinter with Shrapnel, they are entirely different entities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

Makes you wonder what Dominions 3 might be like if they cooperate with a larger company. Such as Strategy First. Known for their good looking but somewhat simplistic games. Would be neat to have Dominions gameplay with Etherlords or Disciples graphics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Saxon is correct.
There is no need to change the orders of units which will have little or no effect to the end game results. Use your time wisely.
As every thread of gold is valuable so is every minute of time.

Or change the victory conditions so the game ends sooner.

[ February 09, 2004, 18:55: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure.
But I think our tastes may differ. I like this game because of the depth to it. I don't "really" play to win, but to unfold my plans at various levels and see how they flourish -- or perish. I think some of the suggestions made here and other places could really be helpful. I can only imagine what UI coding is like, but who knows -- if I gather correctly, Dominions II is not something the people at Illwinter are doing in their spare time, but is a commercial enterprise complete with post-sale support, client binding and customer relations management -- well, it is at least a commercial enterprise (hence: us paying for their services), and although I hope UI coding isnt all that awful, I really do hope too that some of the less pleasant work will also get accomplished. It would be great for their excellent game and great for a lot of customers who think like I do.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then you would gather incorrectly, since I don't think anyone has ever said anything other than that the two programmers do it all in their spare time. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Are you serious? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">He is serious... don't confuse (or merge) Illwinter with Shrapnel, they are entirely different entities http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is news to me. It is certainly not the impression I get, or feel I am supposed to get, but perhaps that is because I feel that a 50 dollar price tag lends the impression that the product isn't to be treated like shareware. Ditto for the purchasers (clients) of the product (company).
Well hats off to a bunch of blokes who made this great game in their spare time. And ok for them for getting a publisher too. But boo! on Shrapnel then, because somebody is doing something with some money which should be going into post-sale client support, and I suspect it is Shrapnel. When I purchase software -- also from a small publisher or firm -- for 50 dollars, I expect at least some tacit agreement between buyer and supplier common in the game industry, and it seems to me if what you folks are saying is true that this is not the case here. Maybe I am a conservative boor (probably), but I find that irksome. I don't think it is right to put out a game and expect whomever (whether two guys sitting in their garage or 40 people in a well-furnished office) to bring out patches in their spare time or out of the goodness of their hearts. I think the game (like *any* software release) needs some work, and I feel it is the right of the customer to be able to say that without putting poor programmers under pressure who would rather or who have to do something else. Well I am sure no one here agrees with me, but unless you are joking with me I think this situation is not right.
Well this has nothing to do with the endgame issues, sorry. (They are secondary.) Hmpf well excuse me I think I just ranted there. But tell me honestly and as objectively as possible why I am wrong, if so.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

my favorite part of the game currently is the endgame. I am not a "vet" of the game. I have a set tactic i use for expansion when i don't do this i fall behind(i play with independents strength 9). I play ulm(usually normal but sometimes black forest or iron faith). I don't know all the iteam/spell combos. This is the part when i can test them and see if what works in my mind also works in the game.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">1 I think you are overestimating the kind of money dom 2 generates, and shrapnel actually passes on a relatively large chunk of the proceeds from dom 2 to illwinter. Also while there are not enormous amounts of cash being generated by dom 2 sales there is still some cashflow that passes unto illwiner, even after the punitive swedish taxation, so you do not have to rely solely on the goodness of Kristoffer and JK for them to put out patches to keep theirs and shrapnels customers
happy.

2 Considering the patch that is allready released and the patch that is on it's way I do not think that illwinter is providing less post game support than most bigtime developers. And the general consensus after the release of dom 1 seemed to be that illwinter provided more post game support than many other bigger companies, and at this point I see no reason for anybody to claim that these standards have fallen.

I am not even certain if I have adressed what you are ranting about, since I don't really get what the target of your rant is. As far as I can tell your basic complaint is that you believed illwinter to be bigger than it is. I do not think that anyone has tried to give you this impression, and of the games that shrapnel publishes it appears that they are generally made by 1 or 2 person companies, Malfador consists of Aaron Hall, Stormcloud creations of Derek etc. I do not even understand why you imagine shrapnel and or illwinter would want to give you this impression.

[ February 10, 2004, 11:49: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

OK.
Well good to hear that the Illwinter folks get some of the money. That was what my rant was about: My (mistaken) impression they do patch work in their spare time because they get no money. I don't want people slaving away in their spare time to keep me happy. I don't want people slaving in their spare time period. Hence the rant.
Now I am just confused as to why they do it in their spare time (since if they are receiving funds, then they are being payed for their work -- I hope).

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because they do not earn enough money from Dominions to survive on that alone, they have to work normal jobs like most other people. Thus any work on Dominions must be in their spare time.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because they do not earn enough money from Dominions to survive on that alone, they have to work normal jobs like most other people. Thus any work on Dominions must be in their spare time. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think we are talking at cross-purposes. Perhaps we just have vastly different ideas of how the world functions or should function, and we probably won't understand each other on this point.

Re: Anybody else dislike the endgame?
 

Well I think the point that is trying to be expressed is: If IW could afford to spend the amount of time that most other larger developers could on the game and project because of having the funds to allow them to do it, they would. As it is current, they do not have the funds it would take to represent 8-12 hours of work a day into their gaming business because it has not provided enough profit that they can do so without fear of stability of the income.

How often would you go to work for no paycheck? Then on top of going because you loved your job, how would you survive financially for you and your family with that job?

The best you can hope for is that Dom2 becomes a mammoth success, gives enough assurance of stability and potential income that JK and KO would even think about committing to it beyond what they can spare.

Of course, I'll discuss this with them when I go to their yacht party and maybe they'll think about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif