What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Recently I downloaded and tried the Dom3 demo
but for my suprise one thing that is still missing
is the ability to interactivaly control the combats.

Someone refered that the game developers would read this forum.

Altough for multiplayer games the "interactive"
tactical combat would be a bit cumbersome, I think that
with that option for single player would enhance the entire game experience.

A small patch would make the following proposal workable.

A small option asking before a combat start or even as a global option would be nice.

I have several ideas to implement without being (I suppose...) to hard to code.

During the combat each turn every commmander/mage/ (pretender god) would be asked (simple Y/N option) which kind of action to take.
A small internal "stopwatch" could activated one of the options if the user did not noticed to choose any.

For instance each mage/ god would have the ability to select one of the available spells.
I know that each turn the AI would have to recalculate the complete stats of each group or unit.

Another idea would be the ability to simply decide if a group or unit would move or not.

When a group is rotted the ability to control it would be non-existent.

So those units/ groups within control would have the option to flee away with or away the rotted group...

So for some single player the depth brought by such options could revitalize and make more sense than sending a massive bunch of units only to see them dizimate or being dizimated in a small (beatiful) movie clip.

A small change like this could bring a more tactical game community to the wonders of Dominion.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Eh, this is one of those features that a lot of people bring up... Thing is, it's far from being a small change - it's a huge change that would basically mean an entirely different game.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool - just that it's a totally different game.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

But as I stated first the ability to maintain as it is for those "hardcore Dominion fans" would still exist.
The ability to activate the tactical mode would be a personal choice...
I suppose the combined gain of having it "On" would surpass the "classical" Dominion mode adding to more deep Dominion experience.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

And the AI would perform even worse. And it'd be completely unusable in PBEM. So we'll almost certainly never see manual tactical in Dominions unless Illwinter does an RPG or an FPS.

Balance.
 

Balance would be *completely* different if there's player-controlled targeting and movement.

Re: Balance.
 

PLEASE I do NOT want to see interactive combat.
I play games that have it, and I do enjoy it. But there are many many of those games. There are so few good PbEM games that they tend to stay years and years on someones machine. There are many advantages to PbEM which I would rather Dominions pursued further.

Now if the devs want to do a different game then I would buy it. But I dont want to see this one turned into something different.

Re: Balance.
 

Regarding PBEM games that would true so the tactical option is to be disabled in that kind of game.
But regarding balance the only thing that I talked aobut is decisions regarding "when" during combat to apply a spell nothing about movement or targeting...
For single player ONLY or even small MP , the Simple tactical option of choosing to "attack / spell or Defend" would bring a deep strategy to this fantastic game.

Of course this would change a LOT this game...
But for best I think ...

Re: Balance.
 

It's not a trivial change at all.

Ignoring the balance issues, since many things would balance very differently depending on whether this option was on or off, this would be a massive rewrite to the turn processing code. Currently the same process handles MP & SP games. This would need a very different process for SP.

Making the SP game even more different from the MP game isn't a good idea. This will also handicap the AI, even more than it already is, making the game less challenging and thus less fun.

Not at all an easy thing to do. Not going to happen in a patch.
And the devs don't want it. They haven't even expanded the order scripting, which would be a step in the same direction and which has been asked for. They like it the way it is.

Re: Balance.
 

Just buy Medieval 2 if you want tactical combat http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

In Dom tactical combat wouldn't fit too well imho, the current system is working well enough. Imagine all the MM you would have to do if you could control everything. I think Illwinter would have to make a completely new Dominions for that from scratch. I doubt that this redone new Dominions would be more enjoyable than than the current Dominions though because they would have to use an approach like CA for TW i think, otherwise it would be a MM nightmare.

Medieval 2 is great, but it cannot be compared to Dominions. Dominions is also great, but those games are two different subgenres, so they cannot be compared at all.
So just decide to your liking, or if you have no strong preference enjoy both games.

I am currently in gamers heaven with MTW 2 and Dom 3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Actually, I kind of like that there is no option for manual tactical control - because if there was, I'd be using it in solo play, and that would make moving to MP that much harder. Yeah, I know, I've been saying the exact opposite (on the "save vs no save" thread), that additional options don't take anything away from people who don't want to use them - but then, coding what is being suggested would be much more work than coding a simple "save and backup" command.

Now, I still think the game could have many more tactical options, and this is the big thing that is missing from Dom3 to really make it a great improvement over DomII. Things like battle formations, some coordinating of orders, more scripting options would be real great; a better UI for setting the tactical orders (like, I don't know, moving little puppets on the battlefield, saving/loading battle scripts, whatever) would also be a great bonus (though I'm not holding my breath - the switch from DomII to Dom3 was the place to introduce such changes, not a patch).

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I would be happy with some more advanced options for the current combat model.

For example, in my current game I play Kailasa. I like archers, but the archers kill more of my troops than the enemy would kill if the archers weren't present. Why can't I order my archers to 'shoot closest two turns, shoot rearmost two turns, stop shooting'. That would be enough options for them for me...

Or just "don't shoot at routing enemy".

I don't need the ability to control combat interactively, but I'd really really really want even a slightly more advanced commands.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

... addition to the previous post.

Enough for archers actually would be "shoot whatever as long as it's not within 5 squares of any of my troops".

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I'm very happy with the current combat model. For example I can never get into the Total War series because I have to micro the combat or watch auto-resolve ruin it all.

Of course if some tactical control was allowed but not forced in the form of an option I'd be happy but I wouldn't use it.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

If the combat is to be changed (my impression being IW doesn't want) I would prefer to be able to set the duration of the tactical/preparation phase (number of scripted orders for commander before the AI takes control, number of rounds before troops attack) over interactive combat. This option as a setting would probably be easier to implement, and will have an use for pbem as well as for solo games.
A probably harder to implement but other very interesting idea would be 2 list of orders for each commander/group and the possibility to determine the conditions of activation of the second script, according to the ennemy forces composition (consign will be like "if they are more than ... troops of type y", ie "activate script 2 if there are more than 50 missile troops in the ennemy army").

I often find the dominions combat a little too much out of control (especially as the tactical AI Ftaghn a lot) but I wouldn't like a total control either.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I also don't want to see interactive combat...but what I would love to see is a combat simulator, where I could pick and choose from my available forces, make an army, and then send them against another army I picked out, and then watch the otherwise regular combat ensure...this would help me, a lot, to learn how strategies work, what the strengths and weaknesses of units are, etc...

But...I fully realize that purists will say that half the fun of the game is finding out, in "real games" what the various units are really capable of, etc...

...and half the time I agree with that sentiment, alas!

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

The current combat model is excellent. Playing tactical battles would take a lot of time. We have enough micromanagement already without that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I,too, like the current model. The only thing I'd like is the possibility to create a separate script for assasinations, and a box to enter how many gems to use max. The first because even the least bright commander ought to see a difference between an assasination and a battle; and the other to reduce annoying micromagement. Bringing along scouts are not exactly hard, but nor is it fun to move those gems all the time.

Another thing I'd like would be to eliminate the unit scripts completely, and moving them to the commander... "order charge" would make commander and his units to charge e.g. Again, this would cut down on micro (only need one script per commander instead of per squad+commanders), and I love the idea of commanders giving orders. Of course, if the commander dies, chaos (=AI) happens. A side effect would be a bit more control over units, as hold,hold,hold,charge e.g. would be possible.

The last totally unrelated thing I'd love would be squads of wizards :p

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Interesting thought on using commander + squad orders.

You'd need to use a lot more commanders, since one couldn't effectively control squads with different tactics. You'd also have a lot more commander attrition, since they'd have to go into combat.

Mages couldn't effectively lead troops.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Interestingly enough, this (low-level, IIRC) simulator was in Dom:PPP (the first one), and for some reason was left out of DomII and not brought back in Dom3. Too bad, really.

The thing is, if you really want it, you can set up mostly anything you want, by scripting a map and making some "test" game with enough filthy rich nations and whatever (although actually limiting spell availability would be more tricky, I think). It's just that it's boring as hell to do.

All this talk of "learn the hard way" is fine, but some people like to experiment in controlled settings. With an easy to use battle simulator, I'd probably run some tons of tests to see, say, how many of troop X or Y I need to beat such and such poptype - which, as I never manage to really pay close attention to troop stats and what it means, might help me get a better feel for which troops I should use in which situation. But as it's so boring to set up, I just don't.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I'd love to see a combat simulator that came with a fully featured input mechanism that would allow you to run hundreds and thousands of test combats based on an easily set up input file. I think that's just the researcher in me talking though.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Hey, I don't want to turn experimenting in dominion into real work, but yeah, some automation would be nice. I'd still prefer manual setup (with a possibility of editing your last setup, say - that would be good enough; being allowed to copy things over from a game in progress, like an army and total research, would be gravy).

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

A combat simulator would be useful, provided it did include such things as research, gem allocation, a palette of items, scripting, et al.

Regarding orders, I'm still seeing some fairly silly friendly-fire -- ex. a death mage casting Soul Vortex when surrounded by living friendlies with no enemies anywhere near, and no real prospect that there -will- be enemies near (given the 'surrounded by living friendlies' instance). Wouldn't mind non-routing units also not playing Follow the Hydra, running straight into Clouds of Death, et al. *shrug* And nature mages are a wee bit happy with Touch of Madness... casting it on one's pretender seems slightly sacrilegious. ;p

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Another thing such a huge change would do is kind of slow down the multi-player. Seems like it would be a pain to need to wait for an opponent to input commands for every turn of a battle.

And I also like the current method. One cool feature would be to give units more commander-like choices for actions as they get more experience. And it wouldn't be that hard to make a 'Fire carefully' command, would it?

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

The simulator that Johan uses is horrible.
Personally I found this to be easier
http://www.dom2minions.com/Mini.shtml

It gives you a mini map of just a few provinces and two test armies. You start an Era 1 game selecting the Mini map, start as Arcos and Ermor (human players on both), then have the armies both attack then empty province next to them.

Edit the .map file (its plain text) for different armies armies to try other simulations. You can use any units, give equipment, give gems, give spells, give experience. Prior to the combat you can set combat actions to try different tactics. This is a fairly easy way to test it over and over.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Currently there's a bug with giving nations spells at the start of a game via map edit commands. Basically the spells are only available for the first turn... then PoooOF the spells are no longer available. This is probably effects battle spells too.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Well first turn is about all I need to test an army against another army. Or does it poof before that first combat?

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I think a combat simulator would be a bad thing.

People would use it in MP to optimize and calculate odds. Sure, it's hard to get exact information about the enemy but it's doable with scout forces(attack, station a few cheap squads near the middle of map, with retreat order(s)). And once you have approximate information and approximate information abuot enemy orders - you could just brute force the 'perfect' tactic for yourself pitting the army you saw against your 'main army'. Definitely this would be a huge advantage compared to if you weren't using it.

Thus, I find combat simulator a bad thing.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Considering how you can already do that if you really want to, this isn't a good reason not to add a combat simulator...

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Err... I think you just said that the fact that we can already do everything a combat simulator would let us do isn't a good reason not to make a combat simulator.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Yep, I just did.
Because a combat simulator will make it a lot easier and more comfortable.
Just like we can already give a unit special abilities using #copystats, but its still much better to have a new command for what we want.
Or just like you can make 5000$ if you work hard enough, but you'd still rather get the same amount of money and work less. Or do you like working for 1$ an hour? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

You know, I agree with that concern, and it worries me also. But the real reason I would like one is to understand the strengths of units, and how the various characteristics interact and make a difference. I mean, I can read about what precision 15, or strength 5, or spell X and spell Y mean, but I really don't have a good intuitive sense...maybe I'm just alone in this, but what I would use a simulator for is to educate myself about things like that.

I think what I'm really talking about is an Arena, where I can see how a few units of my choosing can stack up against a few other units of my choosing.

So, I guess that is my revised suggestion: how about a Arena Simulator, or a "Gladitorial Pit" where we can pit one or two of our chosen heroes against some other heroes. Maybe it could be made in-game, so that I can issue a challenge to other players or the AI empires and send 1-3 of my heroes against theirs - they would choose who they send...and the losers die. Just like the Arena event, but between two empires, and there is no concrete reward except the death of your enemies...

Just thinking out loud, I haven't thought through the ramifications. But it sounds fun.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I don't like working for 1$ an hour. Most people don't. That's why having a battle simulator would make it feasible to test multiple different strategies and scripts until you know exactly what you should do, in a way map scripting won't.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

A controlled arena or something would be a solution. One to which you can't put just any armies you like, but for example only three squads and only two commanders. Or something like that - anyway something that can not be used to optimize complex MP combats.

I find a free simulator a legitimate threat to the fun of MP. I'd almost be forced to use it myself, since I'd be scared my enemy are using it, and thus not using it would put me in a disadvantage.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I really cannot understand such concerns, since, as has been pointed out, the possibility of doing this does exist, in the form of map scripting and fake MP playing. Someone who really wanted to do it, could. They could write their own tools to make map scripting easier, and would not have to let you see them. Then you wouldn't know about them, but they'd be able to use their tools - but you wouldn't.

All a battle simulator would add, would be ease of use. Maybe.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Well, the use of ease is key. Certainly you can try to brute force optimal tactics with pen and paper - but it's not easy enough:) If it's trivial with a few button presses to simulate a combat with an enemy to find the optimal combinations and orders - it might get nasty.

How easy is it now? I'd guess kinda hard to run 100 combats and see average results?

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

But map scripting can do all that a battle simulator will do, it just takes a bit more setup.
The difference between an extra 10 minutes to optimize your battle isn't that big of an obstacle, however the benefit of a battle simulator can be huge.
The obvious advantage is making the game easier to learn for newbies, which is a department in which Dom3 is seriously lacking.
Another advantage, which is why I'd personally like a combat simulator is that it can be a huge help in modding by making sure your new nation is balanced. Sure, I could just set up different scenarios with the map editor, but if I want to compare my nation to all the rest in its age, its going to take longer to set up and observe, to the point where I'd rather just have an unbalanced nation and be done with it...

I'd also like to remind you we already had a fan-made combat simulator in dom2, and it didn't ruin MP for anyone.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Maybe you just didn't see it ruin it for anyone!:)

But I don't think we're talking about an extra ten minutes here. To get good advantage you need to run dozens of combats or more. If it's fast or even trivial with a simulator compared to hours when doing it manually then I wouldn't give the simulator to the public...

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

But we are talking about an extra ten minutes here, you can try it for yourself even without map commands.
Just start a new sp game with you as two nations (and no AI), giving both of you (:P) half the provinces in the map (by way of starting provinces at game setup). Just Host a few turns (without actually doing anything) untill you have enough gold to buy everything you want, buy it. Host a few more turns because it probably will take more than one turn. Send everybody to the front. Save the game. Now try different settings and reload as you see fit.
Getting the right spells is also easy, just get a few mages and host until you research whatever you want to.
It might get a bit more tedious if you want hunderds of specific summons that take very hard paths to summon, but even that's not that hard.

And with map modding commands its even a whole lot easier, since you can just spawn almost anything you want to test.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Well, still that's something I wouldn't be bothered to do. But with a simulator I might be:)

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Why not? You are at a disadvantage to someone who does bother http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Because I'm a kind of person who values comfort over work:) If something is easy/comfortable enough for the gain, I do it, if it's not I skip it.

If using such an advantage is mandatory to be competitive and it causes too much discomfort, I quit playing. I doubt we'll ever reach that situation, although a careful planner AND user of this feature (simulating incoming battles) would have an enormous potential advantage over people who don't do it.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I think a battle simulator would be a great advantage, to certain players. And a bad thing for the game overall.

That said, did anyone notice that I posted a link to a battle simulator? I dont think Johan needs to bother making the editor simulator into something user friendly and adding it to the game tools menu.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

There is no possible way that a battle simulator could be construed as a bad thing unless you don't want the players of the game to have accurate information on the capabilities of various units. Accurate information is not a bad thing in a strategy game, no matter how much the anti-powergamer crowd wants it to be. Accurate information is the only thing that makes a strategy game worth playing, as without it your decisions are not meaningful and might as well be randomly assigned.

No, you did not post a link to a battle simulator. You posted a link to a map that can be used with some difficulty to create potential battles directly in the dominions game. It's nothing like a properly featured simulator that could be used to run the few thousand test casts that are needed to properly balance the gold costs on the vast number of overcosted units in Dominions.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Accurate information is good you say? This taken to the extreme -> The game tells you "You will win" or "You will lose", even before you submit your turn (if orders/army compositions don't change). That's accurate information, and it would utterly ruin the game.

An easy to use battle simulator would be one step towards that. Certainly not even close to all the steps, but one step nevertheless.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

With the amount of option in Dominion is unlikely that a "Perfect" strategy will ever be found. Sure there are optimal strategies in specific situations. Finding these and being able to actually create the scenario to your advantage is what strategy gaming is all about.

I think Graemes post sums it up perfectly. I would simply add that there are already people that ENJOY building custom maps to run battle tests. So in essence that advantage already exist to the dedicated (obsessive) player... having an easy to use simulator will lower the bar on the how much effort it takes to learn the "tricks" and allow more players access and UNDERSTANDING of the mechanics.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

To me what they're all about is seeing the advantage yourself, not bruteforcing it with a computer. In other words, outwitting your opponent instead of out-tooling him.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

No way, because this is a simultaneous turn game. If you can see your opponents' orders, then you can potentially (theoretically) prepare an optimal strategy against them, and a very powerful simulator would help you with that.

But we're not proposing a cheating device, we're proposing a tool that would make it possible to ask, "hey, what would happen if I had an army of X, and gave it such and such orders, and pitted it in such and such conditions vs an army of Y". This is completely different, and would be used, to various degrees, by people, depending on how much they want to get a feel for how the units' stats turn into performance on the battlefield. Depending on how much they wanted to get better at the game, some people would spend a lot of time with the simulator, and others wouldn't - and it's absolutely not certain that those who spent the most time with it would end up winning more, because some have a better tactical or strategic mind than others.

But it would make the option available.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

I'm not really against that. I'm just against the fact that some people (probably not too many) would use it excessively in multiplayer games.

I'm personally against all 'unfair advantages' in all games, very heavily against. As you might see since I consider this one.

I have zero problems doing that kind of analysis just for fun for yourself or perfecting your strategies. I however have a problem with it if you are pitting your army against what you know about my army, and win because of that. It's a problem of principle, nothing else.

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

Actually, this is all possible right now, by scripting a map and playing two nations. Anyone who wants to do it, can do it - and it's probably possible to actually script a map where almost any two armies could be recruited and sent to fight each other in a few turns (you wouldn't be able to easily control dominion or things like that, but most of the rest would be doable). People are probably not doing it right now, because getting reliable information for large battles would require a huge number of runs and trials ("what if I move this squad two squares forward?"), and this will always be tedious to do.

As it is now, the lack of integrated tools makes scripting a map as a learning tool, just as tedious as scripting a map to do some powergaming testing. I'm pretty sure that a reasonable tool would make the learning tool usable without taking the boring part out of the powergaming testing.

There is no unfair advantage in a widely available simulator, other than that some people have more free time to use it than others. But that's already true - some have more free time to play games than other.

Yeah, but you cannot prevent me from writing down what I know about your army, and scripting a map with that, and doing some testing - if I have the time and inclination to do so. So the game's all ruined up for you, already. Now what?

Re: What about interactive Tactical Combat ?
 

In all likely hood any sort of automated battle simulator would not account for things like orders and spells. Or even accurately representing how units target and gange up on each other.

However you could do some basic functions for MELEE combat (by simulating the mechanics) where you could see things like "how much difference does adding 4 protection (Legions of Steel) to my army make".

Something like that you could set to run 50 times and get the average results.

For a "REAL" battle simulator you will likely need to use the MAP method. I've got an idea for a tool that would help automate the map creation with the units you want, but you would still have to manually position the armies and assign all the orders.

I suppose if you could recreate the Battle field placement and order assignment in your program, build the turn files manually, send and run them through a Dom3 server for processing, parse the battle results and automate this entire process you could get something more advanced... but that sounds like A LOT of work.

Frankly if someone is willing to spend time "practicing" things why shouldn't they be a better player then those that don't want to "practice". I think almost any game or sport works that way.