Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

I know I am a weird person, and I know that I have purchased a "wargame", but....

Would anybody besides myself like to see (perhaps for Dominions III??) more non-violent and /or ethically responsible motives in this most excellent of games? (I hear the virtual choruses of "no!!!" ringing in my ears, but persist nevertheless for the remainder of this post)

I am thinking of something along the lines of:
- Routing enemies could raise little white flags if not mindless and/or undead
- Routing white-flag raising enemies could then be captured by your army and taken as PoWs (Prisoner of War). Being captured means: added to your PoW pool after the battle is over, it wouldnt have to be made graphically explicit. (Note: you wouldnt HAVE to do this if you were "evil" or whatever, you could change your settings at the beginning of the game (at any time?)). Capturing and keeping PoWs cost you Supply but no upkeep.
- You should probably get some form of intra-game incentive for doing so besides pure ethical motives, perhaps even a factor in game-winning (e.g. "standard victory" = "blah blah + XXX PoWs, or "victory by PoW"). Perhaps you get some extra resources when you strip down their armor and melt it or whatever.
- Or you dont get any incentive: You get + XX points in the "dominion Scales setting" screen for choosing the "select special dominion": "Geneva Convention" (haha); taking PoWs costs you small amounts of supply but you get additional scales bonuses but no other in-game advantages.
- Or: White flag-raising guys are stripped of any/all magical items, which are transported to the victor's lab, and are just simply removed from the game without being slaughtered.
- flag-raising guys are not the target of intentional fire
- A new nation which relies very heavily on Sleep and Enslave Minds, plus Charm, Persuasion, ConVersion (all new spells), has lots of priests and spies and big, heavy, defensive-oriented units which are good at capturing others, etc. etc.

Well just a few thoughts.
(Note: personal ramble follows, ignore if you dont like such stuff.) Besides my own humble views on ethics and morals (which obviously are somehow in conflict with my desire to play wargames and other forms of games involving the virtual harming of others), I would sort of like my wife to have at least slightly less abhorrance to my addiciton to such games, and I would also like to have slightly less feelings of guilt when my children get old enough to play computer games and I get torn in two between wanting to be a didactically upright moralist and a didactically inconsistant hypocrite.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

An award for being peaceful and kind is absent from most games I ever played, apart from Planescape: Torment perhaps but then again that was something very different indeed.

A Dominions 2 take on "fighting the good war" then?

Bonuses for being a force of good:

Well being known for taking prisoners and treating them well could lessen the morale of an attacking army. No point in dying for your gods cause when you know that your enemies will stop smacking you around as soon as you drop your weapon.

When the good nation is attacking this morale penalty still rings true. If you know that your enemies will not hurt you or even treat you badly then there's no point at all in fighting to the death against a superoir foe.

Since people usually favor a peaceful and kind god over a vengeful and violent dominion should increase faster for the good guy.

Knowing that you're on the side of a fair and just ruler should make you a really determined defender when the neighbouring God from Hell starts massing your way. Giving up means you'll die anyway and propably a lot worse than the one found on the battlefield.

On a similar account a benelovent pretender should have population increase over time as refugees start appearing at the doors of its temples.

Your casters have a long tradition and skill of using good aligned spells (healing, antiundead, summoning angels etc). They take less fatigue for using such spells and they are cheaper in gem cost.

Penalties for walking the narrow path:

When you're the good guy you can't go around blowing people up in horrid ways. No direct damage spells allowed, save the those specifically focused on fighting the undead. On the plus side there's no "friendly fire" from your mages this way.

No blood magic allowed, nor can you make use of blood magic sites.

Death magic is allowed but only the antiundead and utility spells are available. Undead can not be summoned or created. You respect the law of death and don't force your divine will on the spirits of the dead.

Taking prisoners and treating them well takes a lot of gold and supplies. Basicly you are paying for and army you don't use. Prisoners of war could either be converted to your cause (dominion strength versus magic resistance of unit + enemy dominion strength, doubled for sacred units) or sent back to its home province (for a fee of three times its upkeep cost, six times if its a sacred unit). Note that undead and bloodsummons are not taking prisoners but laid to rest or banished back to hell.

Unrest can not be patrolled away since that means you are executing those discontent with your rule. It can only be lowered by lowering taxes.

As refugees start appearing in numbers they disrupt the normal ways of a province since they need food, work and shelter. This is reflected by a rising unrest level. This means you don't automaticly gain more gold as a good guy but have to take a long term view of your economy.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Brainstorm away.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

I am afraid I have to disagree with the basic concept of the "good" nation.

Every nation proclaiming itself as "good" while on a war of religion actually turned out to be quite the opposite, especially once someone mentioned doing it in the name of that Being we usually refer to as a benevolent, wise and just God.

This goes through the whole history of mankind... the egyptians certainly considered them "good" while happily enslaving and sacrificing the lesser tribes.
The spaniards in America, claiming to bring the word of God to the heathens while slaughtering them for their gold and burning their books.
"Torquemada's Dream" comes to mind, too... burning those different and purging the land from them - all the while the "people" cheered loudly during hangings and burnings. Entertainment had been sparse, and there's nothing like a good mob cheering the headsman on to produce a little bit more blood.
Nazi-Germany, they certainly considered themselves saviours of mankind, and most of the people (those not belonging to any prosecuted minority and those without (unusual for that time) high ethical standards) cheered them on, content in the knowledge that no matter how cruel and dark their masters' ways, it wouldn't affect them for now.
And, to add a bit of controversy, America, in all its self-righteous glory bringing the "good" to Vietnam and the (unspecified for the sake of flames) East.

I am afraid that the Geneva Convention is something blissfully unnatural to Human Nature, and a lot of things had to happen to get that one true.


So much for me showing off historical and philosophical background... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Anyway, I disagree with PoWs being treated well and costing supplies, in a time where the "powers" didn't even treat their own subjects that well. I am all for fanatical, Last-man-standing, death to all heathens war. As long as it remains a game, of course.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

Ah well I was sort of thinking along the lines of the fantasy setting Version of "good". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It's all too true that the definition of good guys all to often is the same as "what the victorious named themselves". But Dominions 2 does of course not take place in a historical setting. The gods are literally walking the earth and raw magic seeps into the mortal world in the shape of oddly coloured gemstones.

Doing anything in the name of god gets a whole lot more problematic when the diety is around to tell you what he thinks about your interpretation of its words. And just think about the presence of angels, devils, the spirits of the dead and the whole cadre of mythical creatures. Doing "good deeds" might simply mean "do what angels do". If no angels are around you can always pop down to the local necromancer. Ask your favorite ancestor about the afterlife and what you should do to get into the less miserable parts of it.

So while your argument is completely valid Karacan it sort of gets stretched a lot in the imaginary setting of Dominions 2. What I'm after is simply a system that rewards me for using a very different style of strategy than usual. It simply makes for a different story than the "I killed everyone and now I am allpowerful". If you happened to play the game "Black & White" you know what I mean. It sort of a wish to be able to be the hero of the story rather than the most successful shade of grey. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

Yeah, I know we're arguing about a game - which always gets problematic when someone starts throwing around arguments based on real history. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Yes, I played Black & White, and I always managed to be sort of white-ish... until I got fed up and started hurling fireballs towards enemy villages http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

However, I like consistency and realism in the system presented. Dominions plays in a world where wanna-be gods walk the earth and lead armies to conquer the unbelievers... however, most of the armies consist of human(oid) beings, and when I think of humans, I have this certain (dark, cynic) image in mind, especially when it comes to Holy War.

Anyway, I probably just argue for the sake of argument (it's fun, isn't it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), for generally, I am very much in favour for being able to do things differently. On the other hand, I think that Dom supplies already enough of those methods. Want a peaceful solution? Preach the heretics out of existence. Indoctrinate enemy provinces. Master Enslave the opposing army (okay, I admit I never managed to pull that off).

Do you really think that adding another level of management (those PoWs) adds to the game, feeling-wise and mechanic-wise? I argued about the feeling of the game for now, I think, I am sure someone else can do so for the mechanics and balance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Real easy solution to that.

GAME is HERE.


------------------REALITY----------------------


REAL LIFE is HERE.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I couldn't agree more. I am (in real life) a committed Catholic, with a family of my own; my wife and I teach very strict morals around the house, and we try our hardest to live up to those same standards - but I have no problem with this game.

Why? It isn't real. It doesn't even try to approximate anything that's real. Certain games aren't good for younger kids to see/participate in, and you might decide that Dom II is one of those. It's okay. Some things are simply made for more mature adults, with a better grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality.

My two cents.

[ March 08, 2004, 00:17: Message edited by: fahdiz ]

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

Hey thanks for these replies so far.

Wauthan, I liked your ideas very much. Those are some good in-game variables which could be implemented. I think, anyhow, that this could add to the game very much. I'd like to see some of those in the future. (Probably very far in the future....!)
Note that my initial idea was to be *able* to use variables such as these, not *have to* do so.
Also note that my original idea didnt necessarily want to employ any (tangible) in-game bonuses for being "good" (as Wauthan says).
Also note that I imagine *one* nation of 18 (a new nation) primarily trying to be moral (I prefer not to use the term "good", for the good reasons that Karacan mentioned) as part of their national identity. This would certainly be a different nation than, say, Marignon, who also believes in its own "good"ness to the point of fanatacism.
As to the reference to realism Karacan mentioned: that is not (I think) the issue at all.
Oh and sure there is something to be said for easy demarcations between game and reality; of course. But anyone who has even begun to read any scientific literature in the areas of cognitive pedagogics, modern didactics, and social psychology will tell you that -- although there is no real consensus at the moment amongst all researchers -- there appears to be at least a slight correlation between the way that persons conceive of their real-life world and the way that persons conceive of their fictionalized worlds; if people like Ricoeur are not completely wrong (and I happen to think that Ricoeur has, despite many points not fully articulated that need further explanation and empirical backing), there is a lot to be said about our identity as a "narrative", which can be interwoven with that which some have simply refered to as "fiction"; Ricouer shows that these seemingly simple boundaries are nifty heuristic devices, but nothing more. Drawing boundaries between real life and, say, gaming worlds requires a high degree of normative work, and cannot be taken for granted, at least not by everybody. So sure: here game, there reality, but no: it's not quite that simple, and certainly not for everybody.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Exactly. That is precisely why I said that some games are for *mature* adults who are capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. Just being an adult, biologically and legally, isn't really enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And of course the things you do for entertainment have a certain impact, no matter how small, on your day to day life. But it works the other way around, as well, as an "outlet".

EDIT: I forgot to add that with a degree in Secondary Education as well as a naturally inquisitive mind, I read enough theories on cognition to turn my eyeballs brown. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OK!
Is turning your eyeballs brown a good or a bad thing (in your eyes -- bad pun not intended)?
So it seems like at least some pacifistic options could thus be not only fun, but also great for a target group of young persons, such as my kids. (right?)

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Heh. I simply mean to say that because cognitive science is full of so many grey areas (like all social sciences, as cognitive theory really doesn't have the hallmarks of "hard science"), there is an awful lot of crap to wade through in order to get to something of any value. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif My eyes are green, for the record. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or your kids could simply play different games, and Dom II could be left where it is, for its intended audience. In Age of Wonders II there are some benefits to pacifism and diplomacy, depending on the race you're playing (the Spirit of Order seems to like pacifists a lot, and it's a crucial part of the strategy for the "life"-based races) and in a game like Civ II or III you can concentrate for a large part of the game on winning by Wonders and diplomacy rather than by war.

Dom II is a fantasy wargame, rather than a civilization sim or so-called "god game". The fact that its niche is so closely defined allows Illwinter to take that niche to its ultimate level of depth.

[ March 08, 2004, 15:41: Message edited by: fahdiz ]

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

OK I'll go along with that.
And if you don't mind me saying so: I think that *EVEN AS A WARGAME*, it would be great if Dom II (or any wargame for that matter) could *also* consider (or: consider considering?) implement a form of "ius in bello" (as opposed to the simple "ius ad bellum"). I won't make a big deal out of it, and I am certainly not going to blame Illwinter or anyone else for that matter for not doing so, but hey -- one can dream, right? I think it could make the game darn interesting. (And isn't it REALLY also functionally important? If I go around (in today's world) slaughtering helter-skelter, there will be repercussions; ius in bello is not *soley* for moral-goody-goody-ness-vs.-boo-war-is-bad-ness distinctions.)

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I certainly wouldn't mind seeing such an option/strategy in a different game. And no, you are certainly not wrong for dreaming, nor for wanting something different.

Games are like holes in the ground. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Some of them are very broad but rather shallow (they're easier to dig, too), while a select few are narrow yet boundlessly deep. Dominions II is obviously of the latter Category. I haven't yet seen a developer make a game which is simultaneously "all things to all people" (broad) and intensely rich (deep). It could happen in the future, I suppose, but I doubt it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

Heh good analogy with the hole.
Well I think you are right. Would be neat to see some of Wauthan's ideas flourish (wouldnt even be that hard to do, I suppose), but until then -- I will just keep quiet, continue dreaming -- and keep having fun playing DomII as it is!

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

I agree it would be nice to have a greater good/evil factor in the style of Age of Wonder II. In fact, this game get lot of evil, but very few good.For example, we have an utterly evil nation named Ermor... but no totally good ones. We have no way to make an in-game alliance(in sp) and create a pantheon. You cannot convert except by military conquest. It's all about conquering the whole world in a bloody war. It's not really bad but I wish there could be another way.

For example, I think an enemy/neutral province that has a dominion of X(put a number) and remain that way for more than Y turns should join your cause. Afterall, you are the one they believe in even if your troops arent there.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

Err, this is a game about fighting a religious war of extermination...

There is no good side. There are a lot of bad sides, and a few worse ones.

(Of course, being personally very anti-religious does not help seeing a "good side" in this game... but still...)

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's a bad thing?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure there is. Your side is the good side, duh! And the streets will flow with the blood of the nonbelievers!

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not a terribly big fan of religion either, but if the religion is about worshipping me, that's enough to make me a believer.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure there is. Your side is the good side, duh! And the streets will flow with the blood of the nonbelievers!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, eye of the beholder and all that...

Doesn't provide too good an argument for giving bonuses to the "good guys"...

(Still, it bothers me a little that, at least in SP, each of my nations ends up summoning either big devils or hordes of undeads, mostly because they're typically not the hungry/greedy types of worshippers... what does that tell about me as a pretender god, I wonder... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif )

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It tells us that you are a wise and prudent pretender that values the lives of your faithful servants. I didn't watch your kingdom closely, but I could see several provinces where the dead were toiling the fields and fighting the wars, while your loyal subjects sat in orchards drinking wine and munchin olives.

Let the dead do the dying and the living do the living.

On the blood magic aspect on the other hand, shame on you! Those virgins should have been serving olives to your wine drinking men, dressed in exotic clothing unfit for anything but serving olives.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What's the deal with olives and swedes? Do you have some special olive-related fantasy, or what?

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

It's way off-topic but to me, war is evil. Religious wars are even worse. Any game which glorify or fantasize one side as good, and thus justify the killing of the enemies, is actually more morally repulsive to me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

The game in its current state is fine.

[ March 08, 2004, 23:40: Message edited by: ywl ]

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

"war is evil."

Well, so I guess a nation which is at war to defend itself against the hords of zombie from Ermor is necessary evil?

I feel this game could be seriously improved by adding diplomacy. And people who prefer it this way could just set the settings as "Total War" and have fun the old way.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Exactly. That is precisely why I said that some games are for *mature* adults who are capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality. Just being an adult, biologically and legally, isn't really enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And of course the things you do for entertainment have a certain impact, no matter how small, on your day to day life. But it works the other way around, as well, as an "outlet".

EDIT: I forgot to add that with a degree in Secondary Education as well as a naturally inquisitive mind, I read enough theories on cognition to turn my eyeballs brown. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ March 08, 2004, 12:50: Message edited by: fahdiz ]

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

I'm new to the forum...I'm just a barbarian so you can take my comments for whatever you think they are worth. I find this thread absolutley fascinating. It's a testament to the game and it's creators that it could stimulate such a dialog and bring folks like you together.

I especially like the discussion about:

Game is Here

----Reality----

Real Life is Here

It reminds me of this book I'm trying to get my head around at the moment 'Godel, Esher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid'. Maybe one of you could help me understand why it does. Or maybe not, who knows?

With regards to young children or even early teen-agers getting into this game, I think they would be the rare exception not the rule. The game is more complex and not as vicerally rewarding as the games most of them would go for. Simply stated, it's not bloody enough! I would actually think if a younger person got into this game it would be a good sign of their character as it would show they had some patience, a lot of curiosity and a vivid imagination.

On a side note when I picked up the game I found myself gravitating toward the Acroscephale precisely because they seemed like the race most predisposed to be "Good". After all, how evil can they be if they've got Healers, Mystics and Astrologers. At least they've got their telescopes pointed in the right direction! And they seem to be connected and concerned with Astral magic which is the source of the other magics and can be manipulated to be any of the other schools. This surely is a promising national quality. The nation with the strongest grasp of astral magic would be standing on firmer ground with all magical principals. This seems to be bourne out by many accounts that they are easy to win with. And would not the people that were the closest to the "source" be the servents of a greater god than the others? Are the Acroscphales a "Moral" good race in the game or at least one that we can use our imagination to easily imagine has principals?

But Geez I carry on and I am just a barbarian. And this is just a game. A fascinating one none the less.

[ March 09, 2004, 08:40: Message edited by: Alarik ]

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

Heheh. Well for a barbarian you seem pretty civilized!
Well seems like the consensus lies far away from my idle views, but that's cool. Thanks for giving me a listen! I suppose I'll just be heading back to having my servents slaughter the hapless routing militia whilst my buddies search for young virgins in my neighbor's fields and I eat their olives (olives?? isn't the metaphore for la dolce vita peaches or something? olives??) ....

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

Tink Thank- I think your ideas have tons of merit. And I agree that it takes some imagination to believe that you are fighting for good. I find the blood magic aspects of the game personally repulsive but I love that they are in the game. I just meter out especially harsh punishment on those kingdoms who would dare use the "forbidden" magic.

I suppose each of us has their own reasons for playing. Some just want to win at all costs. Others, to let off some steam. And it's better to let it off in a simulated environment...( If sacrificing virgins in simulated demonic rituals helps people be good to their loved ones...More power to them!).

Me ( and perhaps you) , I'm more interested in the narrative scope of the story and how and why my avatars are behaving the way they are. And I want them to behave in a way I approve of. In a sense I want them to act like I believe I would act if confronted with the same situation. Even if that means losing. As some of the others were hinting at: games might or can or should be a way for people to explore their phyche( The best ones are). Or at least give them a chance to understand the darker side of their nature. That doesn't have to be a bad thing.

In my case....My tanks don't roll over Poland. And absolutely it would be a better fantasy simulation if everybody wasn't just rolling over Poland. I, for one, want a chance to defend Poland and face the trial by fire.

[ March 09, 2004, 13:53: Message edited by: Alarik ]

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's the point, though...Dominions II isn't a "fantasy simulation", like "Civ II + magic" or something. And it isn't an exploration of "good versus evil". Other games set out to do that, and do it better.

It's a wargame. And furthermore, it's a wargame about power-mad magicians, magical beings, etc. who are so brimming with eldritch power that they dare to think they can become the one and only God. Whatever their reasons might be (I believe the Shedu's flavor text says something about "defending his people", and the White Bull's refers to "restoring the balance of nature", etc.) the pure fact of the matter is that every single one of these pretenders suffers from hubris to the Nth degree.

Dominions is narrow in scope, there's no way around it. Your victory conditions are largely limited so that Illwinter can plunge into every nook and cranny of those victory conditions.

Simply put: Dominions is what it is, and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. And I especially like it for that, since if I want AI diplomacy or scenarios where I get to be the "hero", there are about a million games out there which I can play to get that fix.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

"Dominions II isn't a "fantasy simulation"

Well, I disagree, it's fantasy simulation. You control a whole nation, not just a few regiment. You are a pretender to godness, not just an officer. And as a pretender, it would be logical to be able to do some kind of diplomacy with other gods. You raise armies, you pay them, you research spells, summon creatures, sacrifice virgins, raise or lower taxes. It's much closer to a game such as Age of Wonder 2 or Warlords III than any wargame of my knowledge.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How often does that happen? It's more likely the sacred Wardens of Man versus the holy Paladins of Marignon, while they slaughtering the half-human satyr of Pangaea together without much hesitation.

Even in your case, killing the Skeletons of course is not evil. They're mindless automatons. But killing their masters is another thing. Even though they might be in an undead forms, they're mostly as much a functioning human as the Sphinx of Atlantis or a Void Lurker of R'lyeh. Things are not as black and white as you think.

The equivalency of undead and evilness is not necessarily true even in the fictional world. Hmm and as far as I know, they don't exist in the real world http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Going back to discussion of the game, it's very easy to create a saga of good versus evil for Dominions 2. For example, the first scenario could start with Man and a few knights, defending a small village versus the undead horde of Ermor. The goal of that scenario is to take over and destroy the keep of the undead Warden. To make it realistic, you can even limit your capital production to militia only (since it's just a small village). In the later scenarios, you can lead the whole nation of Man and finally launch an attack on the Ermorian capitals. Alliance with the other nations are also possible if they are set in map or mod file.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In medieval times there was a "market" for POWs. They were released for ransom and that was considered completely normal and regulated by law. Since the families of the POWs weren't as eager to give up money for a man no longer able to work, POWs were usually treated decently (especially nobles). Of course this practice might conflict with what you or the thread starter would consider "good".

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

I agree with Vanedor, this game is definately a fantasy simulation. In fact in mho it outclasses AoW and the like in every aspect. Its better than those games without the diplomatic options. it has more scope, depth, creativity and addictiveness. Are some of you saying that you think the war game elements would be less compelling if some diplomatic options were available in SP? I disagree but then again I understand that different people look for different things out of a game.

And any game that allows blood sacrifice and dark rituals is exploring the issue of good vs evil. To each his own but I would rather run a nation that doesn't resort to those methods to win the game. I would rather run a nation that rescues virgins from a pretender that is using bloody sacrifice. So for at least one player (Moi) the game does have good vs evil implications. And obviously for others as well or this thread would not have the title and much of the content that it does. Just the face that we are discussing it proves it is an issue in the game.

side note (OT)- seems to me the MP options are fine as is. House rules can be set up to create any kind of diplomacy people want. But for SP something along the lines of MOO's Galactic council would be nice. Hereditary hatreds and natural alliances only spice up the action. Do some of you think a "Council of the Gods" would be interesting even if it were just an option?

[ March 09, 2004, 23:15: Message edited by: Alarik ]

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Dom 2 is quite a different game in concept than a typical 4X like MOO3 or Civ3. In them you can win by diplomacy and/or simple domination (having the largest empire). You do not have to win by being the sole remaining race (though you can if you wish). In Dom, you MUST wipe out ALL other "gods". There is NO room for compromise of any sort. Nothing short of the total annihilation of everyone else is tolerable. A "Council" implies cooperation. The idea that more than 2-3 gods would ever agree on anything in a setting like Dom's is ludicrous.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

"There is NO room for compromise of any sort."

Why do some people keep repeating comments like this? We perfectly know that currently, it's a game about total annihilation. We(or at least myself), think the game would be better if it was different. How could some diplomacy make this game inferior to you, especially if it's optional?

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not less compelling, no. But it would change the entire theme of the game. It's what I was talking about earlier - people seem to want one game which does everything they've ever wanted it to do, instead of taking each game's strengths, intent, and such on its own terms. The broader something gets, the more it tends to become shallow.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But that's just it: you are bringing an agenda to the game, and that's perfectly fine. The game isn't bringing it to you. As I said quite a bit earlier, I am a devout Catholic and am quite strict about my own - real-life - morals and those of my daughters - but this game is pixels and data, not real life. This game is a fantasy, and it's a fantasy purely about war and power.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If it was "different", it wouldn't be the same game then, would it? Which renders the concept of "better" meaningless.

Adding diplomacy would so fundamentally alter the nature of the game that you really couldn't consider it to be Dom any more. It would be, at best, a Dom-like game. Or, more accurately, a game with some of the flavor of Dom, but more closely resembling Age of Wonders, etc.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If it was "different", it wouldn't be the same game then, would it? Which renders the concept of "better" meaningless.

Adding diplomacy would so fundamentally alter the nature of the game that you really couldn't consider it to be Dom any more. It would be, at best, a Dom-like game. Or, more accurately, a game with some of the flavor of Dom, but more closely resembling Age of Wonders, etc. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at. Part of the beauty of single-player Dom II is its focus, and it's just as Norfleet has said: "my side is the 'good' side, all others be damned." Not "all others be damned only if they use blood slaves or unless We are feeling most benevolent and deign to traffic with gods who, after all, may be just as godly as We are."

That just isn't...Dominions. It's something else. When I want Age of Wonders, I play Age of Wonders. When I want Dom, I play Dom.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Dom 2 is quite a different game in concept than a typical 4X like MOO3 or Civ3. In them you can win by diplomacy and/or simple domination (having the largest empire). You do not have to win by being the sole remaining race (though you can if you wish). In Dom, you MUST wipe out ALL other "gods". There is NO room for compromise of any sort. Nothing short of the total annihilation of everyone else is tolerable. A "Council" implies cooperation. The idea that more than 2-3 gods would ever agree on anything in a setting like Dom's is ludicrous. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">From the point of view of a monotheistic religion this is certainly true. But with all the pretender gods that are around who says that you couldn't create a polytheistic one.

I think a second kind of victory would be acceptable too: become the King of Gods (like Jupiter/Zeus) in a pantheon of gods. That opens up a whole new world of cooperation and intrigues among the gods like in a greek drama.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree. However, I would like to point out that you only have to destroy the other Gods, not the people who may or may not live under their dominion and may or may not be conscripted to fight for them. This is the classic distinction I was referring to between ius ad bello and ius in bellum. We are often mixed apples and pears in this discussion.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Dom is a strategy *wargame*, not an RPG ...

Dom is, at its core, a MP Version of the old Amiga game Populous. Cooperation and intrigue is the purview of games like Morrowind.

Re: Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm
 

Actually I can see Arryns point. The devs, in most of the text descriptions thru the game, clearly mean it to be a "Last god standing" type of game. And in solo-play that seems to be the "default" obvious method of play. The solo players (like myself) have asked for diplomacy things to be added to the game.

On the other hand, the way the game is played in multiplayer mode tends to be the opposite. Very few games occur without alliances. Long discussions in the strategy newsgroup over Dom1 got rather heated with some players feeling cheated when so many games ended by agreements rather than winners. Eventually we pointed out what many felt was the problem. We all knew each other. It was a small gaming community. We had reputations that go from game to game. Its not a bad thing really but by the time I join a game here Im not just Pangaea, Im Gandalf playing Pangaea.

We did some games in the newsgroup where efforts were made to make sure that NONE of the players knew who was playing a nation. A little more effort to do but it can be interesting. The game went VERY differently. Alliances were made but they were also broken. Sometimes in very devious side-switching back-stabbing ways which didnt seem to appear in the other MP games.

In my humble opinion, one of the things which can most clarify the game as a "Last god standing" for those that want it, is the work being done on creating a web-based game signup site. Having anonymous play of a nation will probably make a big difference (good or bad Im not sure) in the way those games are played. Then diplomacy additions wont "ruin" the game for some players. In fact, it would become another tool for war.