A twist on an old idea
 

People have been talking forever about giving dominions a diplomacy system like most other games of it's type. IMO though, most of these kind of options would detract from the flavor of dominions. But, on the other hand, I think there should be a way to represent pantheons. So, I was thinking of, for lack of a better word, a vassalage system.

At any point in the game, a pretender could swear fealty to a stronger god, gaining a place in that race's pantheon. Weaker gods that no longer had much of a chance of winning would have a chance accomplish something besides getting wiped out. The ruling god could count all of his pantheon's
provinces/victory points as his for the purpose of victory and the pantheon's armies could no longer attack each other.

Joining a pantheon could only be reversed by the death of the ruling god, or perhaps if your number of provinces reached twice that of the ruling god.

Any opinions?

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

This was considered a while during the development dom2.

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

So I take it that it is not on the table for dom3? I am also curious if it was cut because of the time to code, or balance/thematic reasons.

Thanks.

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

It is not currently on the table, but I guess it is not inconceivable it might be resurrected.

It wasn't cut as much as that it never got enough wind under it's wings. Part of what we thought was good about it was that the subservient god could incur some sort of penalties like tribute etc, and perhaps a slightly humiliating covictory end of game text. The idea was that this would keep people from making alliances unless forced into it by more powerfull players during the game, thus keeping as you suggested some of the there can only be one spirit. Another percieved advantage was that it might serve to iron out a few questions concerning how allied armies etc handled moving out and into each others provinces. It never got past the idea stage though.

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

Thanks for the response. I think a system like this would probably top my dom3 wishlist. I understand some of people might not like this system, but it could always be made a startup game option.

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

I'm currently launching a team game -- two gods vs. two gods.

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...amp;PHPSESSID=

I have the idea that a game with only two teams will solve a lot of the "balance" issues. But more importantly, it will be an opportunity to socialize with my friend -- my teammate -- instead of playing lonely solitaire or taciturn all-vs.-all.

Anyway, the idea of game support for alliances would be interesting, but it doesn't seem to be necessary since I can play a team game without and just have an official "Okay I guess you won." victory condition.

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

Well, for one thing I think it would make single player more interesting. And having rules in place where allied armies don't end up fighting would be an improvment. Also, an plain allied game dosn't quite capture the 'pantheon' flavor.

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

Hmm. What about forming a different kind of "pantheon" to _defeat_ the overpowering player, rather than only being able join the biggest bully?

PvK

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

Yes... What fun is it to muck around doing little pathetic things, in the service of making a likely victor even stronger? Much more fun to join forces to bring that likely victor down!

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

Well, as the idea stood the intention wasn't that there would be anything stopping you from allying yourself with a player of equivalent power, just explicitly making all players but one in an alliance as lesser partners. And in the case of allied victory making the head of the pantheon the primary winner, with his supporting cast just getting some sort of runner up mention. Ideally there would also be some problems dissolving an alliance once agreed upon. Also the options to pool resources that allready exist would still have been present, nothing stopping you from coordinating attacks etc.

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

I think that it might be interesting to have an almost "barter"-esque table. Where I could maybe rent out units like mercenaries (appears in a buyer's province and reutrns to me after 3 months or some such). Agreements on moving through each other's terrain, mutual attacking, maybe even allowing my opponent to take resources from my provinces w/ a fort. Or gem donation, item donation, and gold donation. I think that that would cover most all the possibilities. And maybe if I give away some armies and am conquered before their return they become real mercenaries.

I know that this is probably too much and a small thing compared to others, but it would be sorta nice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: A twist on an old idea
 

I think the important gameplay issue to solve is allowing two allied armies to fight an enemy army *together*. I don't particularly mind whether you have a straightforward MoO-type diplomacy system or some kind of vassalage/pantheon system, but the whole point of being able to work together is to defeat people you couldn't defeat on your own. Sequential attacks on a powerful enemy are a lot less effective than attacking together. In fact now I come to think of it why limit the design to two allied armies ... a certain famous Middle Earth battle comes to mind ...