[Edi]

HoneyBadger said:
Endoperez, Edi, you're both blowing this thing way out of proportion.

Because you say so?

HoneyBadger said:
Yes, each nation might have different ways of going about magical labs, temples, etc. but-except for two nations, Pangaea and Man (and yes, your vision of a temple for Pangaea makes sense at 200 gold, but 200 gold temples to Man patently flies in the face of your very same vision)-they're all the same price, and they all do generic things.

Yes, they do. What's wrong with that? They serve similar functions even if the actual details of worship, labwork etc were different (if we're talking suspension of disbelief here). You need some kind of abstraction and simplification so that you can get on with the actual game.

The thing about Man having cheaper temples at least in the early era sin't too far-fetched since we're basically talking about a circle of stones that doesn't even need to be a full-fledged Stonehenge. That's a lot cheaper relatively to build than e.g. a Mictlan type temple pyramid. But that is not much more than a tangent here.

HoneyBadger said:
You don't have the Mictlan temple, you don't have the Agarthan lab, you have temple, lab. You use the presence of those two buildings to your advantage depending on your particular strategy-which includes which nation you decide on. They may represent different things to different people-which is what I was trying to illustrate above-but they're otherwise almost totally generic, and each one has to be capable of the same thing,

Precisely.

HoneyBadger said:
plus national things, depending on the choices the player makes.

That's already in there because the different nations have different national spells, different mages, hence different forging options etc, so why need more things?

HoneyBadger said:
Not that my argument about the nature of labs and temples has any real relevance, since they're already in the game. I just wrote an example for purposes of comparison-as perfectly valid a comparison as yours, Endoperez.

Your comparisons are valid as such if one ignores the end-goal we're talking about here. The game is supposed to be smoothly playable, and unnecessary micromanagement tends to screw that up. That's why Endo is shooting down your suggestion, as am I.

HoneyBadger said:
Edi, comparing adding one building which can be purchased by every nation in every era, to the gameplay of Space Empires 5 is patently ridiculous.

Care to elaborate how, because what you proposed adding was something that would be building units up from scratch, which needs that kind of infrastructure from the game engine. SE5 has ship design from scratch, how is your proposal of kitting out units as one sees fit different?

HoneyBadger said:
You even state that you don't know about SE5 in your argument, and "afaik" you've never played it, so why are you even making it a part of your argument???

Answer the point instead of blustering and waving your hands. I have very little patience for this kind of evasion, but very well, I'll humor you this time. I'll use an example of games I HAVE played, Master of Orion 1 & 2, which are in many ways similar to Dominions and from what I have heard, to the Space Empires series.

You have essentially provinces (the star systems) with resources and other things that allow you to build ships (units). The difference is that in MoO 1&2 you can design your ships from scratch and build them as you like, which REQUIRES the game engine to incorporate dynamic unit design as an integral part. Dominions does NOT have dynamic unit design as part of the game engine, but your proposed new forge building REQUIRES that to be added to it to work as you envision.

So, in that respect, HOW THE HELL IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE GAMEPLAY OF MOO 1&2 OR THE SPACE EMPIRES SERIES WHERE DYNAMIC UNIT DESIGN IS INTEGRAL TO THE GAME?!

HoneyBadger said:
It's the moon being made of green cheese and the world being flat all over again. You've never been to the Moon and you've never seen the Earth from space, so you're going to argue about it with an astronaut?

False analogy. You're putting yourself in the position of the astronaut and assuming me to be completely ignorant, when both counts are wrong. I've never been to the moon, but I've seen rather vivid footage of it, as well as footage of what earth looks like from space. I may not be as qualified to talk about it as someone who has been there and done that, but that does not mean I am completely ignorant. Next argument, please, or are we going to get more handwaving?

HoneyBadger said:
I haven't played SE5, but I've played a LOT of SE4 (infact I've exchanged emails with Aaron Hall on one occasion, he's a very nice man-SE3 is why I know about Shrapnel Games in the first place), and SE4 had dozens of buildings, hundreds if you count mods. SE5 certainly has that many and probably more, it's something I've researched extensively in preparation to buy it,

Thank you for point blank verifying precisely what I was talking about. You may not have proposed hundreds of new buildings, but you did propose one building that results in hundreds or thousands of new UNITS, so there is no material difference with this game engine. And you have the gall to accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about when it is very clear that I know enough to make a sound argument.

HoneyBadger said:
and it IS micromanagement-hell, in a good way, mind you.

In a good way if you like that sort of thing. If I were to get SE5, I'd expect it, just as I expected it of MoO2 after playing MoO. Dominions is a different sort of a beast in this regard, so why would we want to change it that radically?

HoneyBadger said:
(If you want to argue that, because I haven't played SE5 either, I don't know what I'm talking about, well you can, but you'll be undermining the base of your own argument, and as far as you know, maybe someday the Earth WILL be flat and the Moon WILL transform into green cheese.)

And maybe you will one day stop handwaving and harping on this same fallacious angle.

HoneyBadger said:
What I'm talking about is 1, as in a total of 3, specialized buildings, in addition to fortresses (which ARE distinct from one another). It wouldn't require any more programming than adding temples to the game right now would, because forges wouldn't be doing anything OTHER than what temples do, or labs, already. Ok, that might be a significant amount, considering all the units, but NOT every unit would be affected.

Fine, let's cut the numbers in half so you only have ~1000 units, each with up to 4 weapons (out of ~400 possible) and 3 armors (out of ~100 possible). Run the numbers. Then tell me what the difference is from game engine alteration point of view?

HoneyBadger said:
As far as construction being a little different from the other magic schools-it already is because of the ability to manufacture magical items in place of spells. Construction in the game represents technology combined with magic or fantasy elements, and if you haven't noticed, even without the presence of "working, everyday magic"(I refuse to believe that there's no magic whatsoever in this world, I think just maybe the server goes down a lot). I'm for making Construction more a part of a nation's life, more powerful and diverse, and the overall "intelligence" of our little computer people, more intelligent. <snip list of wishes>

Most of that stuff is already assumed to be in the game as abstractions. It'd be great to have as long as it didn't result in excess micromanagement, but right now that's a pie in the sky wish. There's other games that incorporate all of that and more. Never mind that they actually had working steam engines as curiosities in the Greco-Roman period, though those were lost and never got off the ground, as well as e.g. almost 20th century level medical technology wrt surgery.

HoneyBadger said:
All of those ideas, plus "magic tech" would be connected somehow to Forge, just like holding a dwarven hammer is somehow related to making a blood-soaked parchment more efficiently, as someone stated earlier (I expect the dwarven hammer allows for a cleaner kill, ala 19th century slaughterhouses).

In other words, let's rewrite the whole game - or not. Suspension of disbelief is a good thing, and in this case you might be able to envision the dwarven hammer as representative of some more efficient technique instead of the mage actually using a hammer on parchment. It solves a lot of problems much more easily than adding tons of extraneous stuff.

HoneyBadger said:
By the way, not to complain too loudly-and I have NO complaints against Kristoffer or Johan or Illwinter itself, mind you-but I swear that, for all the often-vaunted "community of acceptance where you can have a voice and where your ideas can make a difference", I'm really finding that there's a great deal of stubbornness and opposition to any "new idea" that doesn't have to do with a gripe that goes back to Dom2 or even Dom1.

You will please point out where I've been invoking Dom1 and Dom2 except in comparisons to Dom3? There might be such stubbornness on some counts, but mostly it's when people start advocating radical changes that require rewriting the game to do and won't take no for an answer.

HoneyBadger said:
I'm not some crazy person who's espousing adding 25 new buildings that each represent 1 unit for 1 nation, I'm trying to open up possibilities, make the game bigger and more fun. I think I'm being pretty reasonable here. I'm also NOT saying that this has to be done RIGHT NOW. I am fully cognizant of the size of Illwinter's development team, and atleast somewhat aware of the pressure they're under. And please NOTICE I'm also not saying that I'm RIGHT.

Then this is perhaps a topic that should be discussed in context with possible sequels to Dom3?

HoneyBadger said:
Edi, what you fail to realize is that I'm your friend when it comes to being a watchdog against micro-management, NOT your enemy. I've certainly played as many or more strategy games per year that I've been alive, as you have, and a great many of those years I've spent designing games and systems and helping others design games and systems. I work with computers and complex systems for a living, infact. I have enough experience to be able to give a fair guestimate of the dangers and the rewards of adding or subtracting a given game-element.

Given the way you tossed off the OP suggestion, it betrayed a rather large lack of understanding of the game engine of Dom3, which is the crux here. It's currently the limiting factor here. In another context, I'd have fewer things to say in opposition.

HoneyBadger said:
And Edi, I'm intelligent enough and emotionally stable enough to understand and consider another's argument, without that argument being served with a gravy of sarcasm.

I'll admit that my opening was more than a bit sarcastic, but I tend to get that way when it seems to me that the most obvious relevant things have been missed.

HoneyBadger said:
If you have an opinion, please share it straight up. I'll give it more weight, I promise. I do agree with some parts of your rant that aren't hostile though, to a greater or lesser degree, but I also think that you could have made the same point without being extremely negative and off-putting.

I've never been known to sugarcoat my opinion. I'm sorry if you took that too personally, but the derision was toward the argument being put forth, not toward the person who made it.

HoneyBadger said:
If people have new ideas that might benefit the game (or even might not), I personally feel that those people should be encouraged and guided, not made to feel that everything is impossible (and not just impossible, the word used was "stillborn" which I consider not only negative but a tad repulsive when used to describe an idea I've invested a lot of time and effort into, for the hopeful benefit of everyone.). This is especially true in a very small community such as ours. We barely have a large enough population to sustain the production of fresh new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and discouraging the growth of that resource is just plain counter-productive.

I'm all for new ideas as long as they are well thought out. If we're talking about things to add to Dom3, we have to take into account the current limitations. If we're talking about things to consider for a sequel, that's a different story entirely. CONTEXT. In the first option, we're wasting time talking about virtual impossibilities. In the second, we're doodling on a relatively blank slate so they are worthwhile. You just put it in the first context in the OP.

Edi