Answering the Critics

[MythicalMino]

I have had a few ppl (one on another forum on these boards, among others I know/work with) that say Dominions is not a very deep game. The problem I keep hearing about, is that there is no city-building. Sure, you can build a fortress....a temple....and a lab. But there is nothing else. No buildings to build to enhance resources/gold collected. No buildings to really affect what units you can buy (although, the lab lets you recruit mages, temples allow you to recruit preists/sacreds, and fortresses usually allow you to recruit your national troops).

To me, the depth lies in the game once you "get" it. Once you have started to play, the game opens up, layer upon layer.

But, that is not the answer that these guys are looking for. I have been told that the game is complex to hide the dumbing down of the gold/resource model. The "economic model", if you will. Sure, there isn't a grand economic model in the game....but, there are resources for heavy troops, gold for elite troops, and holiness for sacred troops....along with all the units in the game. Fortresses (as in, where to place them), the combat engine, dominion spread, magic, ect ect ect ect....

But, all of that is made null and void to them when they simply say, "The amount of units do not add depth, just complexity, to cover up the dumbed-down economic model, the mediocre and crude combat engine, and the lack of 'city buildings'."

So, how would you guys answer these criticisms? Personally, I don't think they are "getting it". But, these are guys that no wargaming and strategy 4X games like the back of their hands....Perhaps Dom3 just isn't the butter to their bread....but at the same time, to pull the game down to "dumbed-down" is a stretch also.

There is incredible depth here....the amount of units allows for so many varied (random) strategies from game to game. Throw in the map terrains, the grand strategy, the warfare planning, each nation's uniqueness....not to mention the magic system....there is just so much in the game. I think that if there was a highly involved economic system placed in the game, the game would crumble. Imagine trying to balance steel, gold, food, population caps, wood, silver, iron, coal, and whatever other name for a resource in a Civ game (or an rts for that matter).

To me, this game is beyond Civ. This game has so much more to offer. Sure, in Civ, you can build a ton of buildings to allow you to recruit specialized troops, or buildings to allow you to take advantage of a specific resource, or to add more gold to you coffers. But that is just it....you build the same exact buildings in nearly every city (granted, Stardocks GalCiv2 fixes this somewhat). In Civ, you do not have the unit spread that Dom3 (or, heck, any of the Dom games) have. But, the amount of units in Dominions is just to "cover up" the lack of economics in the game.

So, how would you guys answer the critisism that I keep hearing in personal discussions?

[The_Tauren13]

The true economics of Dominions is not the gold and resources, it's magic. They complain about there being few different types of resources? There are 7 different types of gems, and blood slaves, all with largely different specialties and uses. They want 'city advancement'? There is site searching and research. You have to balance mage time between progressing your research and finding sites either manually or through spells. The combat engine is crude? Sure, the graphics are from 10 years ago, but any true strategy/wargame player knows graphics are immaterial. The combat engine simulates all kinds of things. There are tons of magic items. There's swarming larger units, morale, weapon length, and armor. All simulated realistically. Then there's magic buffs and of course spell casting. You have to balance gems and mages between rituals and research or battle magic.

[Jack_Trowell]

I agree with The_Tauren13 : magic is what make the depth of the dominions series

Tell to your friends that magic research in dom has nothing to envy to civ4 tech research, and that between site-searching, magerecruting/summoning, dominions preaching, etc ... , there's plenty to do.

From another point of view, the raw number of units/spells can also be compared to magic: the gathering : you build your armies as you would a deck, choosing the right units available (from your national/summing pool available) to counter your opponents.

- Need to defeat a menacing undead army (did you say "Ermor" ?), recruit and/or send an army with lots of priest set to banish, and if available) mage with undead destroying spells (fire, astral or death mage should do the trick)

- Some SC coming your way ?
choose your favorite anti-SC tactic (horror mark spamming, your own SC or thugs, soul slay, etc ...)

[Talleyrand]

I can't answer for anybody else, but for me personally, depth directly correlates with choices, and this game offers me an abundance of choices: in the type of God I have, the nation I choose to play, the units I want to build, the magic path/s I want to pursue, the strategy I take to win wars, the tactics I use to win battles, etc. I don't think these things are meant to "cover up" a weaker aspect of the game but that the design philosophy used in its creation intentionally emphasizes certain areas over others. If economics is what they want I can recommend a plethora of games where that is the main focal point, but then those games lack certain qualities this game has.

As for specialized buildings, they are really just a hassle to me. The Total War series in particular comes to mind as it takes forever to build up a newly conquered province and start recruiting quality troops from it, or recieve an economic boost. I prefer to think of Dominions building as being "streamlined," lol, and I see nothing wrong with that.

[Ygorl]

I'm no game reviewer, nor even (anymore, alas...) a big-time gamer, but here's one little half-formed take on it:
The depth of Dom3 comes in large part from magic. Each nation has different magic available (determined mostly by available paths) and the pretender gives you an opportunity to further customize. Discovered independent mages also help to make two games with the same nation different (my last big game in Dom2, as Tuatha, I ended up strongest in Death, while my big Ermorian neighbor was quite mighty in Nature). The magic available to you gives you choices - which schools to research, towards which spells, towards what strategy? Item forging and army-summoning both depend on and expand these choices, as well. Troops have many stats, and many possible effects, powers, modifications, and item slots, all of which are important and all of which are influenced by magic.

It is true that if you took out the magic, you'd have a fairly mediocre strategy game... It would have the added interest of the dominion system (though you'd have to include priests to get that fully, and then you've already got a more interesting game, though still pretty basic) but it would certainly not have the kind of depth or longevity that inspires strategy nuts to play obsessively for years. On the other hand, you could probably remove all the non-mage units and replace them with "footman", "archer", "flier", "horsey", "zombie", and "big monster", and the game would still be interesting. It's depth is obviously not economic; it is tactical and strategic, because of the rich magic system and everything that springs from it.

edit: looks like it's all already been said. Me type slow.

[MythicalMino]

yeah....this is all things I know already. Just having a difficult time countering the "poor" economic engine

[dirtywick]

Civ fans eh?

They're partially right, the economics is very simple and city building is non-existant. Although, one trend I've noticed lately among RTS games is to get rid of the complicated resource management and micromanagement of peasants because it's not fun, so...

I don't play that many Civ games, but I own Civ 4 and to call the Dominions combat system crude and mediocre when all you do in Civ 4 is move an army to the same square and watch a little animation, well I don't know what to say to that. The deep and strategic combat is the whole point of the game.

[Leif_-]

There's no city building in chess either, yet I've never heard anyone accuse that game of not being deep enough. They might as well complain that Master of Orion 2 isn't deep because you can't equip your commanders with items.

Further they're confusing the terms complex and complicated. Dominions is complex, yes, but that's a good thing. It is not needlessly complicated (well, the GUI is, but the game isn't).

As The_Tauren13 pointed out, gold and resource points aren't the main resources in Dominions by far. In fact, by the late mid game they're not even important resources (well, true for Dominions 2 at least. I'm not entirely sure about Dom 3 yet.)

Just tell them to consider the magic aspect of the game as similar to the base building aspect of other 4x games. Then bludgeon them about the head with the manual until they see the light (or until you're hauled away by the police and charget with gross battery.)

[Chazar]

What's the difference between 'depth' and 'complexity' of a game in their view anyway? Without knowing that, you cannot answer them!

I think Leif_-'s chess analogy is quite good. Expanding it: What about strategic tabletops, like those block games or warhammer? Most have no economics at all, except for a point-buy in the start...

I recall that I got bored with "Master of Magic" just because of all the city building. It's fun to do for your capital, but it gets boring for me because you repeat the same process over and over again for each new province...

Well, I guess some have more fun to build up things in peace, while others have more fun to tear things down and devastate entire worlds in the clashes of epic armies...

Remember: [i]You cannot please (nor convince) everyone...but you might conquer anybody. Ouch!

[PDF]

Yeah, indeed in the surface Dom can look rather "simple", with its "poor economic engine". The thing is that economy/building is *not* the point, which is rather about war and destruction !
I find these critics rather funny, but telling how mainstream games have shaped "public opinion" :deep strategy games have to boast a complicated "building" system and should offer GNP growth ?
Someone took chess as an example, but you can take any deep-as-you-wish wargame also (ever built something in Squad Leader or Combat Mission ? Do they lack depth ?) .
Dominion (1,2,3) is in fact more of a fantasy wargame than a 4X, even if it appears to the contrary on first sight.