For dom3?
 

First, please ignore my hideous image-editing skills, and just concentrate on the point.

Second, wouldn't this be frigging cool?

http://koti.mbnet.fi/vaikkapa/dom.jpg

perhaps add item listing next to magic skills.

The magic symbols on top of the spell list sort the list, and C sorts out all the spell the mage cannot cast.

"Yes, I mean it" means that the mage will cast the scripted speels if there is a legit target no matter how futile it thinks it is.

The scrollbar in the order list is there for a purpose...

In the action list, it is of cource possible to move stuff (drag&drop) and delete stuff from the middle of the queue.

This has always made me wonder: If there is a large screen area to use why waste it with the greyed out backgrounds?

Now, i know that having anything like this actually getting into the game is very unlikely, but one can always wish...

Re: For dom3?
 

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
Well done. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: For dom3?
 

Nice. Add an option to regulate the use of gems/slaves and all's set. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: For dom3?
 

Another nice option would be one to make commanders only rout if they personally fail a morale check. This would be very nice in the case where you send multiple mini-combatants against a single SC. You wouldn't have them all rout just because one of them died.

Re: For dom3?
 

Very nice.

I would also add an ability to save your orders to a file on your computer so you can recall it in future games (or the current one) without entering it all in again.

Re: For dom3?
 

Indeed, very nice. Not something the devs are very likely to thank you for, since they're the ones who have to code the UI (and it's not pure UI; it also means a re-coding of the battle AI, since it introduces new priorities for orders), though. Also, note the increased complexity for issuing orders (try to remember the first time you had to script a commander; would you have like to have such a complex list, or wouldn't you have been more likely to leave it blank and trust the AI?).

If something of this kind is ever implemented, Sergex's suggestion of letting players "save" their "order profiles" or whatever would quickly become very important.

Re: For dom3?
 

Yeh thats shoud be good add, if its not too hard to program.

its allways poor to see mages cast poor spell when they had better. and it will make good for tactic.. to set casing order.and after that Mages dont use gems in to poor spells

Re: For dom3?
 

The UI improvements are IMHO dead on, and would improve the game dramatically. The addition of more complex orders I like, but just isn't going to happen as I believe the devs are against so much control and complexity.

Then again, perhaps a middle ground could be reached with "cast [spell type]" which wouldn't be so difficult and would still allow some randomness.

[ May 09, 2004, 19:39: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Re: For dom3?
 

All those spells would have to be categorized... Grimoire looks good start in this aspect, but it is even more complicated. IIRC right it even separates Flame Eruption, Acid BLast, Burning Hands and other close combat spells from ones with real range. I odn't know whether this would be good or bad if the cast:[type] order was implemented.

Re: For dom3?
 

This is true but such work is easy, if tedious and mind numbing, plus someone other than KO or JK could do it.

Re: For dom3?
 

Very nice! I'm sure some sort of compromise wouldn't be too hard to do.

Wait, I'm not sure, but call it an educated guess.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: For dom3?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe not TOO hard but if anyone REALLY wants it they can speed it up alot by doing some of the work ahead of time. If someone wanted to do a some small groupings of spells into types. Not the whole spel list since that would be too big to check easily. And an effort would have to be made to not favor one group over another (magic, research level, nation).

Probably keeping it to the lower research levels? Would it be better to have all of the defense spells for the first couple of research levels? Or a few defense spells for every level?
And the same for offense of course.

[ May 11, 2004, 22:01: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: For dom3?
 

Nice. I had been thinking of some things along the same line. One idea I had that might fit in with this (or work independently) is if each spell had some checkboxes or some "radio button" options to select the spell priority. So for every spell, you could select how often a spell should be used. ie:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Never (Never ever cast this spell!)</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Once (Cast this spell once at most)</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sometimes (Use spell occasionally)</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Frequently (Use spell frequently)</font>

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
These priorities would kick in after the script finished.

Ideally, if the spell was inapplicable to the battle, its priority would be ignored. (ie: dust to dust in a battle without undead). This would save you from having to tweak the battle orders quite so much based on the expected foes.

As I see it, this priority setting would give a huge benefit (without in itself requiring that radical a change): you could use the priorities to prevent your mages from killing your surrounding mages by casting Breath of Winter of Fire Shield, etc, or casting pointless buff spells you don't care about, or using low-end attack spells when better/preferred attack spells are available.

Edit: oops - I also meant to mention that I second/third Tricon's suggestion to add some options about gem/slave use. Maybe something like
Gems/slaves use:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Never</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Minimum necessary to cast spells</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Standard usage</font>
• <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maximize gem usage to minimize fatigue cost</font>

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

[ May 11, 2004, 22:23: Message edited by: LintMan ]

Re: For dom3?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmmm the more a person flags his spells the longer it would take the machine to figure out what spell would be cast. It also would feel like its moving too much toward full control of the battle rather than a gods giving general orders.

OK I will toss in my own variation. A 10 point priority system. If all spells have a rating of 5 then you get to set certain spells as higher or lower, but only a small set. You can set a spell at 6, or 7, or 8 but only one spell in each slot. You cant assign 6 to 3 different spells. That would be easier on the code, and would give a feel of "my pretender REALLY likes it when I cast this spell" (10) and "my pretender REALLY gets torqued when I cast this spell" (1)

Re: For dom3?
 

Excellent Display example Tuna-Fish !!

Hopefully we will see this feature in Dom_3.

Re: For dom3?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, I can't imagine it taking very long to choose which spell to use, but in any case, as it stands now, the AI has to decide by choosing from the *whole* list - my suggestion would only *shorten* the number of spells to choose from!

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you can only have 1 spell at each number, what about all the other non-numbered spells? Are they ignored or used whenever the AI decides? How often would that be, in relation to the numbered spells?

Other than that, it seems like your suggestion actually seems more towards full control than mine does: As I saw it, my system was also basically a "pretender likes this spell/doesn't like that spell" guideline, but I only had a range of 4 steps rather than 10. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: For dom3?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They would all be 5. The same chances spells had before.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But it seems as though you are sorting all the spells. Turning them all into use/not-use. The infantry folk will want the same comtrols.

Re: For dom3?
 

either way, some sort of spell exclusion/preference and gem usage control really needs to happen in dom 3, or 2 if the devs get really really motivated http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif