[HJ]

Originally posted by Pocus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HJ:
Sorry to do this, but it's not moral, it's morale...

which is kinda annoying for us french, as your 'morale' is translated to 'moral' in our country, but your 'moral' is translated to 'morale'!

ouch

---

It's cool, and I'm not a native speaker either, I was just saying something along the lines of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Back on topic:
I know it can't be done in DomII, but I don't see why would the introduction of a tactical engine for battles be considered as heresy? I see a lot of requests for better control over the battles, even from people who are not advocating it diredtly, and all this could be done with full tactical control over the battles. Two reasons against it are given:

1) It would hamper the multiplayer - well, not if you still have the option to autoresolve battles. I play only SP, and I really miss additional control. It's slightly depressing to see that everything is already over once the turn starts, and there's nothing you can do about it. I hate relinguishing control of my hard-earned army to the AI's competence.

2) The AI would lose big time - and yet, on the other hand, people are praising the AI, and saying that it's good enough to do battles on its own. If it's so good as you say, then it should have not problems against the player either. It needs no further scripting, the only thing that needs to be scripted is the tactical control for the player. But if it's not so good to do that, that's yet another reason why I don't want to relinguish the control over my units to it.

In other words, I know it's not going to be there for the Doms II, but it would be a shame to discard the idea altogether for the future. Maybe in an addon, a future edition of the game, or an offshoot game based on the general Dominions engine this would be worth considering?

[ October 04, 2003, 16:49: Message edited by: HJ ]