Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Okay, just been reading about Standards on pg. 57 of the manual and how utterly useless they r. Why bother even having them in the game? As far as I can tell they r a waste of programming time...

It all sounds really good ie...+10 standard gives a +1 morale bonus to every unit in 10 squares, great, not bad could stop units routing, especially if u have several standards.

Then the killer, "morale boosted by standards will be lowered by 1 per round and can never exceed +5", which really makes them utterly pointless does'nt it?

Feel free to point out if I m in error...

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Sorry, but I just have to:

*put rant mode on*
I have to admire your ability to apprehend to morale system in its full delicate complexity.
I mean - the beta testers didn't, the manual writer didn't, even the programmer (!) only does when he's acutally looking at the code, but is notoriously unsure otherwise ...
But you can tell from a quick glimpse at the manual that the "Standard" ability is utterly useless and "a waste of programming time".

Next time, if you suspect something in Dominions to be "totally pointless", simply assume that you've overlooked something fundamental and important - there are very few somewhat pointless things in Dom3, but those can be fixed by rebalancing them (even via mod), and nothing that is "a waste of programming time".
*rant mode off*


Now, simply assume that the standard boosts the moral of (strenght) number of squares with +(strength) morale each turn, just as if a priest was casting "sermon of courage" - does it still look utterly useless?

Have you considered that the effect from those morale boosting spells might be temporary as well, and that the troops might get out of range of the priests - but the standard bearer is among them?

Still looks utterly useless?

Not to me ....

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Nice rant Arralen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif Hangover? Row with the Mrs?

BUT

U give very little in the way of explanation or improved my understanding on this matter. Of course it can be modded to have a greater effect and is useful as a game mechanic in this way. But without a mod its useless.

Arralen says:-

Now, simply assume that the standard boosts the moral of (strenght) number of squares with +(strength) morale each turn, just as if a priest was casting "sermon of courage" - does it still look utterly useless?

I understand that a +10 standard, gives all units in a 10 square radius +1 morale in round 1, then in round 2 its lowered by 1...ie...no more effect whatsoever.

In order to make standards useful the, "morale boosted by standards will be lowered by 1 per round", should be simply removed.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

A +10 standard give +1 morale to all units in a 10 radius *each round* so in round 2 the units still at range will still have +1 morale (+1 -1 +1), when the units out of range will have +0.

With 5 standards, the units in range would have +5 morale and the units out +4 the first round out of range, +3 the second, etc... So better to use several.

edit : if my interpretation is correct

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Several things http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

There isn't much more I can do then ...

What's so hard to understand about "every turn" ?

Actually, both is not necessary if it works on a per-turn basis.


There are some things I'm not sure about:

- The area of effect. All other effects are measured in "areas of effect" as "squares which are affected", not radius. A +10 standard would effect 10 random squares around the bearer then, not everything within a radius of 10 squares (what would be little bit much with 121 squares, if you think about it)

- The decreasing of its effect over time. IIUC all the morale modifiers from spells (and items/abilities use 'spells' too in terms of game mechanics, AFAIK) are supposed to be temporary. But I've yet to see the morale bonus from "Sermon of Courage" go away again.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Wouldnt +10 with a no more than +5 be to cover possible negatives to morale which might be operating in the area? That would seem to me to be a defense against certain special abilities that others might have.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Well, I still don't have the full Dom3 so I could easily be wrong, but wasn't sermon of courage changed in Dominions 3 to be a permanent (i.e. for a whole battle) effect that could only affect a unit once in each battle?

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

You are correct. That is how I understand the Standard ability to work.

It is a battle-long effect.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Nope, it just prevents morale accumulation. As long as standard bearer is staying with the troops it effectively gives you +1 morale. Without decay you would have morale of surrounding troops going up to +5. For example, for Jotunheim standards are very useful. They don't have numerous troops, so they're easily covered by standard area and those giants [aware of being so expensive] are pretty cautious and usually try to avoid the battle they could easily win if there's a risk of getting a scratch. Standards help to fix this problem.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Problem being that Jotunheim's units are big so only one fits into each square, meaning that they wouldn't be easily covered by a standard. That's probably one reason why they don't _have_ a standard bearing unit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

They have the tiny hero that rides the wolf.

Sammual

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Which I find really amusing, in the Dominions way. Jotun thought process: "Well I would run, but that little guy is charging in, I can't let him show me up..."

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Yes, he's a virtually useless hero... most players would gladly trade him for 100 gold. I wish the heroes without magic were more worthy of a hero title.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Yeeesh. He is a stealthy leader with stealthy units. So yeah, if you dont use him that way then he is virtually useless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

You can always just buy a chief for 50 gold to lead your Vaetti around if you want stealthy units. He's a redundant unit, but at least he's not as bad as the Ulmish heroes.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Surely it's as much about character as it is about usefullness? They're free units that should add extra feel and story to the game, not wipe out enemy nations single-handed. I really like having the Ulmish heroes (with some cheap items) leading charges of black knights. Okay, so they normally only lead one or two charges before they go to a heroic grave but that's the same for normal Ulmish commanders. It would hardly be in keeping for them to be magical super-heroes.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

A hero should be heroic, and many of them simply aren't. Ulm's heroes are hardly better than normal commanders. They don't necessarily have to be super-powered but they should give you something you normally don't have, or be a better version of your regular, commonly used units. That's why Etimmu is such a good hero, because powerful undead are good units to start with, but he's slightly better, plus you can get him earlier than you can summon anything comparable. Ulm's heroes are better than their normal commanders, but the problem is that their normal commanders are not particularly great.

Plus, mortal combat units don't tend to have particularly long lives, another drawback to the Ulms. Mages and immortals are much more valuable as heroes because they last longer. A mortal combat hero needs to be *really* good in order to be of value because otherwise all he will accomplish is dropping a bunch of expensive equipment in some field somewhere.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Sheap:
You should be playing Heroes of Might and Magic 5. I'd rather play a strategy game.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Sporsnjarl has Standard. That's VERY important for successful stealth missions. Ulm heroes would be nice if any other nation got them, but as it is, all armies of Ulm are pretty much the same. The same counters work against all of them. Giving the Ulmish heroes and 100% lightning resistance would help, as would increased magic resistance (although as they happen to be mounted, they can use Lead Shield).

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

What has HoMM5 to do with anything? Besides being a decent game if you have an hour or two to kill.


My opinion on hero units:

They add flavour. Sure, they should be usefull, but honestly. Usually there are a whole lot of commanders in the field, with hundreds of units following them. I don't think a single unit you get through sheer blind luck (haven't had a hero in my two games with Ulm so far) should not be able to turn the tables in a war.

As for being different to normal troops: Why should they be? They are, after all, still part of the nation. They probably were normal soldiers, became leaders and excelled at what they were doing. So, they should be better, but not different.

Staying with Ulm as an example, a powerful mage hero would make absolutely no sense for this nation, especially MA or LA. Simply because he would have been persecuted for being a spellcaster. He would have no had no chance to gain popularity, and that is what makes a hero.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

There is not any hero in the game that can turn the tide in a war by himself, unless you get a very good hero VERY early (the chances of getting a hero are based on your scales, especially your luck scale).

There is a big zone between "what is the point" and "overpowering" and every hero should be in that zone. A hero won't really provide any flavor if you can't do anything with him besides shuttle troops around, maybe his text is interesting but you really need a gameplay effect to appreciate it.

There's more than one way to become a hero - one way is to do ordinary things very well, and another way is to do extraordinary things. There is room for both in the game. Taking the example of Ulm, I agree a powerful mage would not make sense, but a powerful priest might (given that Ulm has lousy priests normally, but doesn't really have a problem with religion other than lack of interest). Or a vampire in the middle era or a mage with the forge bonus in late era, heralding or recalling a different time. These are ways they could be different from the usual without really being out of place. A hero with a really strong siege or fortification bonus wouldn't really be different, but could certainly be better without just having tiny stat bonuses like most Ulmish heroes.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Don't 2/3 out of the Ulmish heroes ride Unicorns and get Recuperation? And good stats also. Seems good to me.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

They do. But they're still just slightly better heavy cavalry. If you try to use them as thugs, they die quickly. A little slower if you give them good equipment, but then that's a big investment on a fragile unit.

The recuperation doesn't help much, since they're just as likely to die outright as to get an affliction.

If you don't use them as thugs, there's no advantage over other commanders since they're just moving troops around.

A boosted Smith or Black Priest would be just as thematic, and much more useful

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

One of them even comes with leather armor, which means that unless you make her some blacksteel pate she isn't even heavy infantry. Ulm Heroes should be in character for Ulm. They should start their life with real Blacksteel equipment and real blacksteel weaponry (such as a Star of Heroes, not a "morningstar"). That would be in character. A hero that has really nice forged equipment.

As is, they are just on the upper end of normal human stats. They don't even win a one on one against recruitables from groups that are specifically superhuman such as Iron Woods or Man.

There are some heroes that really open new vistas - such as Angerboda or the Seer King. But the guys who are just a normal warrior with stat bonuses equivalent to a star or two - that's just lame.

Or to put it another way: Special Character Magicians get the equivalent of dozens of gems worth of empowerment, it is not unreasonable for special character warriors to come out of the box with a handful of gems worth of equipment.

-Frank

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

I really wish there wasn't so much hatred directed towards those parts of the game that make Dominions unique and worth playing. The throwing of armies of mundane troops at each other is not that part of the game. Even the AI can manage to do that.

What makes the game worth playing is the ability to use magic and combinations of magical items to defeat your enemies. If people want a game where mundane troops are boosted by magic, but the actual magic isn't that powerful, there's the Age of Wonders series. I prefer Dominions with magic that actually matters and can win battles by itself.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

The base of the problem is that the game doesn't really support really good "human" warrior types.

Essentially because even with buffs and the best equipment you need enough hit points to survive a few lucky hits.
Given that some of the heroic abilities can give serious hp boosts, why not a hero with 2 or 3 times normal hps?

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Except, of course, that it's not possible to make heroes appear with actual items. And items (other than weapons) are almost impossible to emulate properly on a unit.

The Heroine with Leather Armor has lower encumberance than the other knights, and AP 30 (although that can be a liability as well). Black Plate armor doesn't cost that much, not for Ulm.


Barhulf:
HP 19, str 15, att 14, def 13, mag res 10, enc 5. Armor for 21/20 prot. Def change -1. Giving him a magical weapon boosts him a lot, because he starts with a Morningstar (-2 def).

Raterik:
HP 17, str 15, att 13, def 14, mag res 13, enc 5, same equipment.

Hildegard:
HP 14, str 12, att 15, def 15, enc 4, mag res 13, essentially no armor/helm and just spear/shield. Def change +6, to 21.


In comparison, Demon Knights have HP 20, str 15, att/def 13, mag res 15, enc 1. Prot 22/24, def change of +4 from equipment. Demon Knights have a Broad Sword, Lance, Hoof instead of (weapon), hoof. Demon Knights have other abilities too, but he's here just for the comparison of stats.


Spornsjarl the Wolf Lord is actually useless. He has only Stealth 0 and Standard 10. Because stealth is dependent on the stealth value of the leader and the size of the army (pg 67), his forces are just as easy to catch as every other Vaetti Lord's. If he had, say, Stealth 40, he could lead an army of 40 units and still have as small chance of being caught as a single Scout.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

I think the heroes fit fine. They arent super-heroes or super combatants. They are commanders with a story and history which show up for free.

If they are misbalanced, that might be a different subject. Of course the balance of the heroes would have to take into account the balance of the nations also.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Not to mention that you can get Spornsjarl as a "hero" playing a variant of Jotunheim that doesn't _get_ any stealthy units. (Or at least this was true in Dom2.)

And - heroes should be _heroic_. The default ones aren't - some of them you'd rather get a bit of gold instead of the hero, _especially_ since the heroes cost upkeep. If they aren't heroic, why bother having them?

Thank the Great Pumpkin that Turin seems to be working on a Heroic Commanders again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

But Blacksteel Plate, Blacksteel Kite Shields, Blacksteel Helmets, and Blacksteel Full Plate are all just armor types that you can start units with.

Frost Brands and the like are all just weapon types. Characters can start with those too.

Sure, it's not the actual magic item, but as long as the item in question doesn't do anything except provide a weapon or armor type, it mods in just fine. Flambeaus don't mod properly, but a Star of Heroes or a Blacksteel Helmet totally does.

-Frank

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Whether heroes should be better than other commanders of the nation or not is a matter of taste. I don't think it's that important. There are some things I'd like to add to national heroes, but they are additional mechanics, not changes to their stats.

I like the Heroic Commanders mod. I just wouldn't like seeing few humans achieve something that's disturbingly superhuman in a game where all humans ARE just humans. Double hp compared to a normal humans is A LOT already. It probably isn't enough, but that's a different beast altogether. Same with att/def in the 13 to 15 range. It's already very good for mere humans, but the existence of immensely superior beings play it down quite a lot. Bane Lords have att 14, def 13. The Ulmish heroes are THAT GOOD already. Hildegard actually has better stats then the angelic Seraph, and is equal to uniques like Water Queens in skill!

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

The Seraph has <14hp? Do people use it as a thug/SC or as mage?

The skills of the heroes are generally fine. It's the lack of hp that makes them poor thugs.

I have the same problem with superhuman humans, but heroic abilities already allow that. Why can't heroes come with the equivalent?

What about an item that adds 10-20hp? Wouldn't unbalance existing SCs much, but would make human thugs much more survivable.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Perhaps I've read different mythology, folktales, and heroic fantasy than you - Vainamoinen (spelling), Cu Culain, Robin Hood / William Tell, Lancelot, Roland, even Falstaff, or even Rasputin. Not to mention Elric, Conan, and all the heroes from Zelazny, George R R Martin, Robert Jordan, etc, etc.

Considered what a _human_ mage can accomplish in the game, superhuman abilities in the heroes don't seem that outlandish. Especially when you consider the heroic abilities even "normal" recruitable human commanders can get, and Ulm's heroes don't seem that unreasonable. They're _unique_ where Bane Lords are spawned from a limitless stock of undead

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Yeah. We know how Knight vs. Dragon is supposed to end, especially when that knight happens to be a common born lad destined for greatness who was chosen by a black unicorn and found his knightly arms in the crack of a tree.

-Frank

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Hehe - I agree with most of these, except George R R Martin. His heroes can mostly die a quick and painful death before they become heroes... (which is something I absolutely love about the Song of Ice and Fire series - must be a sadist)

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

There are Seraphs, and then there are Seraphs. I'm talking of the latter. Screenie!

(Scroll down to the very end.)

Hmm. That item would make lot of the lower-tier thugs more interesting... it'd probably come with a drawback, though. Like being a Heart. And those drawbacks usually hurt a human more than they'd hurt someone undead, like a Bane Lord. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Humans are worse than other possible chassises for various items, so there can't be any items that ONLY affect humans, or that'd be good for humans and wouldn't be too good for others.



Väinämoinen did what, exactly? He cast Petrify at Joukahainen. He cast equivalent of Cloud Trapeze on Ilmarinen. He crafted some items. Hmm. A giant (Vipunen) ate him and he made a fire into his belly, thus gaining control over him and trading the Giant's life for his knowledge. Phoenix Pyre?

If various melee heroes came with enough magic to buff themselves, they'd be rather nice thugs. Air for few illusions -> Vanir, etc. Vanir have just few hp, but were used as thugs at least in DomII. Air, Earth and Astral spells, at least, have buffs that would make the melee types much more survivable in melee/against magic.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Except that an extra 15hp is a lot more useful to someone with 10 than to someone who already has 30.

The Seraph looks about as I'd thought. How does Hildegard have better stats? Def is 15 instead of 14, everything else is worse, often much worse?

OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

Yep. I also love the way his characters (with a _very_ few exceptions like Joffrey & the Mummers) aren't black or white - some of my favorites are nice complex shadings of gray, such as the Hound and Tyrion.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

+15 hp is still very good at 30 hp.

Sorry, I meant to use "skills" instead of "stats" when referencing Hildegard... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

Any way, her base attack and defence, her skills at attacking and defending, are both 15. The Seraph's "skills" are only at 14 and 14. I didn't count Fire in, because it's magic, and distinct from martial skills even though it does help in there, too.



And finally...
A Knight against a Dragon

I ran some numbers. It was pretty even... but I had made a few mistakes (applying shield prot to hits that went over def+parry) to the Knight's favour, so I presume he's pulp on turn 3. A single Knight can't defeat a Dragon one-on-one in Dominions unless he has Luck, is decked in powerful magical items and has protection 30 before shield, defence 23 before shield and gets lucky while the Dragon doesn't. A hero (Raterik or Hildegard) with more 2-3 experience stars than the dragon they're fighting against would have a chance, provided the dragon wastes a turn or two on breath attacks/spells that won't work against it, or in killing the childhood friends of the hero (Mr Militia and Mrs Light Infantry) or something. If the Dragon could somehow get a Curse Luck effect (more likely to get hit and to be damaged), a very lucky lone knight might actually succeed. He's still pulp after single straight hit, or after anything after the first (parried) hit.

Re: OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

Don't forget Eddard. He's a bit too good - but his role is mostly as a warning to the reader: "OK, nobody's safe in this story - watch this!"

But, having all characters somehow interesting is obviously part of the plan - you're supposed to like most of them somehow, and then they die.

Re: OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

Yes I am a big fan Robert Jordan and especially George R. R. Martin, his characters r fantastic. Tyrion Lannister is my favourite character, I also like Stannis Baratheon. Cannot get over how he cruely eliminated House Stark in such a brutal fashion, good to see an author willing to create such excellent characters then kill them off in such an evil fashion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

That's crap. The fact that training in Fire Magic also gives you attack skill doesn't change the fact that you trained and your skills improved. You know, that thing that heroes do? Where they train? Yeah, the Seraph did that too.

He just happens to be an 18/14 instead of a 15/15 - to say that Hildegard has better stats is insane. She's +1 to hit the Seraph, the Seraph is +3 to hit her. The Seraph is better.

And it has 5 times her hit points, and amazing magical powers, and a host of special abilities, and blah blah blah. Hildegard isn't even comparable in any way on any level with the Seraph. It rocks her so hard that it doesn't even notice running her over on the way to the 7-11.

Hildegard isn't impressive. She should be. But she really isn't. And claiming that she is better in any way to the Seraph is just blowing smoke.

-Frank

Re: OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

It'd be nice if some heros had some special abilities that made them unique from a normal unit if they are thug chassis the same as the normal unit,or came with special items

EA ulm's hero comes with a blade of sharpness,why can't the MA heros come with something nice,afterall they live in a forge world and they're also doing special things. They would probably pick something to help them survive

Re: OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

In a highly magical world like that of Dominions heroes would have some kind of magic power usually. Most will be mages, some will have unhuman blood in them, etc.

Human heroes should not have superhuman HP across the board, and not all heroes should be on the level of Etimmu, but there's no real reason that human nations must have strictly human heroes. Perhaps, for example, there could be an Ulmish hero with a titan for a grandaddy, gifted with superhuman size and strenght. All Ulmish heroes shouldn't be like that though.

Re: OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

Must be differing views again. For me, base Attack and base Defence are more important than attack/defence after bonuses from mounted, equipment etc. The Seraph would actually be at a malus to hit Hildegard, because she's also mounted (+3 defence). I did overstate her attack and defence a bit, though, because the Seraph also has base skills at level 15. I checked Seraph's stats from the screenshot, and failed to noticed the malus from Fist.

I'm not comparing how likely Hildegard is to score a hit against a Seraph. I'm comparing their skills. Seraph just happens to be the summon with the best attack and defence I came upon when going through the manual. I also disregarded magic boosts like intrinsic Fire/Water boosts, Quickness, equipment, bless, weapon/armor adjustments or miscellanous items different units happen to use. I also disregarded things like Seraph's Fire Shield and resistances.

Hildegard's attack and defence of 15 are extreme, but unfortunately not enough. Her low hitpoints mean that she'll still die against a lucky ranged unit, or against an AoE spell - she's just a human. Humans, even very good humans, won't matter much in Dominions. I KNOW that Hildegard would lose when fighting against a blind, feeble-minded, unconscious, unblessed Seraph. I'm not claiming that she could fight anything like the Seraph. I'm no even saying that if one hit is needed, she could deal it just as well as the seraph, because the Seraph's fire magic helps her there. I still think she's as skilled a combatant as the best of the angels of Dominions. Not effective, skilled.

Re: OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

EA (perhaps MA) Arcoscephale, Pathos the Son of Titans, size 2, Awe, extreme stats compared to a human but still not a thug.

Sorry for posting so many posts, especially so many LONG posts in this thread. It seems I'm having troubles communicating my appreciation of the fluff parts of the game in thread focused on whether or not the mechanics work as some would prefer.

Re: OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

About national heroes. National mages vs Hunter of Heroes: http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...470709-HoF.jpg
Moritasgus - RIP - died of natural causes.
Headless - RIP - froze to death (self-inflicted).

In some nations - everybody is hero http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

Unique but human. Heroes from books or movies could deserve to have +5 att or def or precision perhaps. But the reason main characters survive in books is the same reason James Bond does... the 12 goons shooting machine guns at him just happen to miss through sheer luck. Because otherwise it'd be a sucky story. I'm happy that dominions doesn't have that. A human against many humans... will die.

Re: Standard special ability, totally pointless?
 

A dominion heroe with 30hp against many humans will die too. The hp just represent his extra faculty to survive (but in dominions the heroe will need not only these 30 hp but also regeneration or recuperation to be like James Bond and avoid to have afflictions each time he survives).

The debate here is a very old dead horse coming from RPGs, the original concept of hit points (from D&D) versus the trying-to-be-realist-rpg concept of hp (from chaosium games etc). Note that really realist games never use hp, and that games wanting James Bond like heroes in a game without increased hit points use other systems like heroic points or survival points which like D&D hit points are points representing the ability to avoid dammage.

I think giving 20-30hp to an human heroe is a correct middle ground, not going too far into the D&D concept (in which an heroic human could have more than a titan), but not making the non mage heroes as ordinary/worthless as they are.

Re: OT : Heroes in Fiction
 

The Maverni E2S2?2 Druids beat up the hunter? That's pretty cool. Scripted to do what, exactly?