A twist on an old idea

[quantum_mechani]

People have been talking forever about giving dominions a diplomacy system like most other games of it's type. IMO though, most of these kind of options would detract from the flavor of dominions. But, on the other hand, I think there should be a way to represent pantheons. So, I was thinking of, for lack of a better word, a vassalage system.

At any point in the game, a pretender could swear fealty to a stronger god, gaining a place in that race's pantheon. Weaker gods that no longer had much of a chance of winning would have a chance accomplish something besides getting wiped out. The ruling god could count all of his pantheon's
provinces/victory points as his for the purpose of victory and the pantheon's armies could no longer attack each other.

Joining a pantheon could only be reversed by the death of the ruling god, or perhaps if your number of provinces reached twice that of the ruling god.

Any opinions?

[johan osterman]

This was considered a while during the development dom2.

[quantum_mechani]

So I take it that it is not on the table for dom3? I am also curious if it was cut because of the time to code, or balance/thematic reasons.

Thanks.

[johan osterman]

It is not currently on the table, but I guess it is not inconceivable it might be resurrected.

It wasn't cut as much as that it never got enough wind under it's wings. Part of what we thought was good about it was that the subservient god could incur some sort of penalties like tribute etc, and perhaps a slightly humiliating covictory end of game text. The idea was that this would keep people from making alliances unless forced into it by more powerfull players during the game, thus keeping as you suggested some of the there can only be one spirit. Another percieved advantage was that it might serve to iron out a few questions concerning how allied armies etc handled moving out and into each others provinces. It never got past the idea stage though.

[quantum_mechani]

johan osterman said:
It is not currently on the table, but I guess it is not inconceivable it might be resurrected.

It wasn't cut as much as that it never got enough wind under it's wings. Part of what we thought was good about it was that the subservient god could incur some sort of penalties like tribute etc, and perhaps a slightly humiliating covictory end of game text. The idea was that this would keep people from making alliances unless forced into it by more powerfull players during the game, thus keeping as you suggested some of the there can only be one spirit. Another percieved advantage was that it might serve to iron out a few questions concerning how allied armies etc handled moving out and into each others provinces. It never got past the idea stage though.

Thanks for the response. I think a system like this would probably top my dom3 wishlist. I understand some of people might not like this system, but it could always be made a startup game option.

[Zooko]

I'm currently launching a team game -- two gods vs. two gods.

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...rt=&PHPSESSID=

I have the idea that a game with only two teams will solve a lot of the "balance" issues. But more importantly, it will be an opportunity to socialize with my friend -- my teammate -- instead of playing lonely solitaire or taciturn all-vs.-all.

Anyway, the idea of game support for alliances would be interesting, but it doesn't seem to be necessary since I can play a team game without and just have an official "Okay I guess you won." victory condition.

[quantum_mechani]

Zooko said:
but it doesn't seem to be necessary since I can play a team game without and just have an official "Okay I guess you won." victory condition.

Well, for one thing I think it would make single player more interesting. And having rules in place where allied armies don't end up fighting would be an improvment. Also, an plain allied game dosn't quite capture the 'pantheon' flavor.

[PvK]

Hmm. What about forming a different kind of "pantheon" to _defeat_ the overpowering player, rather than only being able join the biggest bully?

PvK

[Ygorl]

Yes... What fun is it to muck around doing little pathetic things, in the service of making a likely victor even stronger? Much more fun to join forces to bring that likely victor down!

[johan osterman]

Ygorl said:
Yes... What fun is it to muck around doing little pathetic things, in the service of making a likely victor even stronger? Much more fun to join forces to bring that likely victor down!

Well, as the idea stood the intention wasn't that there would be anything stopping you from allying yourself with a player of equivalent power, just explicitly making all players but one in an alliance as lesser partners. And in the case of allied victory making the head of the pantheon the primary winner, with his supporting cast just getting some sort of runner up mention. Ideally there would also be some problems dissolving an alliance once agreed upon. Also the options to pool resources that allready exist would still have been present, nothing stopping you from coordinating attacks etc.