Dammit

[The_Tauren13]

Arryn and everyone else egging him on: chill out. this forum doesnt need any more flamewars.


back to the subject of the post. here is magnate's suggestion which was buried in all the babble:

magnate said:
Not if your mages have morale 10 and your SCs have morale 30, which is what I tend to find is the case ....

I'm not saying that troopless commanders shouldn't have to make a morale check when another commander (or army) routs, just that it shouldn't be an automatic fail. That defeats the point of having high morale on your SCs!

Also, the PD thing is very important - having that single point of PD is really useful for getting a look at the exact composition of an invading army, so you want to be able to build PD without fear of them screwing up your SCs.

I like Panther's suggestions. When any friendly army routs or dies, all friendly commanders have to make a morale check. If they fail, they rout too. If not, they keep on fighting. Then again when the 2nd army routs etc. That seems both realistic and intuitive. Your mages will flee after a couple of armies rout (they're tired and scared, even if undamaged), but the SCs won't unless badly damaged. It also doesn't require the sort of recoding that the rout-yes and rout-no option would.

Can anybody find anything wrong with it?

sounds like a good solution, but if the devs dont feel like changing it i must admit the current system works well enough

[magnate]

Arryn said:
It is "supremely arrogant" of you to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is "stupid". It's also childish of you to resort to name-calling in order to make your point.

You have an interesting tendency to try to score points by twisting what other people write. I never said you were stupid because you disagree with me. I said you were stupid because you gave a serious response to an obviously jocular post.

If you really want to be pedantic, stupid is an adjective, not a name. Was it childish not to use a euphemism instead? Perhaps.

You also try to make people feel small by quoting their own text back at them, usually out of context. I can really see why some people dislike you. You give female gamers a very bad name.

Arryn said:

I never said it was closed. I *implied* that it's a waste of time. A distinction that you don't seem able to grasp. Perhaps if you'd ceased ranting at me long enough to actually read what I wrote, you wouldn't have missed that small, yet important detail.

Again, you are trying to present yourself as in some way superior, this time by drawing utterly an spurious distinction between your choice of words and mine to describe the same thing.

If you actually allowed people to disagree with you, you wouldn't have to argue so hard.

CC

[Arryn]

Boron said:
oh what is ja2 : wildfire ?
i loved basic jagged alliance 2 and i even bought 1 expansion disk for it which was not too good but i don't remember the name .

An expansion pack for $20, which is essentially a buggy-as-hell and unsupported-by-anyone mod. You'd do much better, by far, to download the excellent mod Urban Chaos from this site .

Boron said:
what do you not like with victoria ?

The list is long. It begins with the massive lack of documentation for a game that is very complex (much more complex than HoI) and not at all intuitive. It continues with the enormous number of major bugs the game continues to have. And it ends with the fact that underneath it all is the lame Paradox AI which is in all the EU-engined games and that cripples SP play in EU2, HoI, and Victoria. I've condensed my gripes into 3 brief sentences, but the depth of my dislike for the game is much more detailed and lengthy. This isn't the forum for airing such, so I'm trying to spare disinterested readers a long rant on it.

Boron said:
hoi is great but after researching all techs it becomes boring too

It's too easy as a human to conquer the world in HoI SP, even with pathetically small nations, nevermind military/economic powerhouses like Germany. As Germany, I have won "WW2" by the end of 1939, by the end of 1940 I have an empire that would have been the envy of Imperial Rome or Alexander, and by the end of 1941 there is nothing to stop me from total world conquest long before the game's deadline (or anyone else's possible development of atomic weapons, not that even atomic bombs could stop me). The AI is just not even remotely up to the task of handling a game this complex. But to Paradox's credit, they've at least exposed the AI to user modification, which has turned a game that I otherwise would have shelved 2 years ago into something that still resides on my HDD. I wish that IW would do likewise and open up the Dom 2 AI to user modification.

[magnate]

The_Tauren13 said:
Arryn and everyone else egging him on: chill out. this forum doesnt need any more flamewars.

Oops, sorry, replied too quickly. Promise I won't respond to the next one. Arryn is a she, btw.

The_Tauren13 said:
back to the subject of the post. here is magnate's suggestion which was buried in all the babble:

sounds like a good solution, but if the devs dont feel like changing it i must admit the current system works well enough

Thanks for bring that back to the foreground. I played my first few games with standard troops and only really got into SCs thanks to Boron suggesting I check out ice devils. Only now do I see how odd it is that they flee when the chaff is killed even if they themselves are untouched. I'd really like a word from the devs on this. Maybe there's a reason why it wouldn't work. In the poll thread Boron said it would make battlemages too powerful, but I don't understand that. They don't usually have very high morale - and even if they did stay on the battlefield, they might well die once all the cannon fodder is gone.

CC

[Arryn]

Boron said:
arryn how long did you play eu 2 , hoi , victoria ?
have you ever finished a wc in any of those 3 ?

No. I haven't that much patience for something that's inevitable.

Boron said:
i was always bored before i reached that . in hoi i stopped as germany after russia + britain were dead and the usa had no airforce left and was ripe to invasion .
in eu 2 i always stopped after controlling about 150 provinces ( about 2/3 of europe ) because i saw no further challenge .

In HoI, about the same point. In EU2, once I've knocked out 2 of the 3 major powers (Spain, France, and Britain) the outcome isn't in doubt and it's only a matter of time. I played EU2 just to read the passing event Messages. The game itself presented no strategic challenge in SP. I stopped playing the game because Paradox never fixed some rather glaring bugs (bugs other than the lame AI).

Boron said:
victoria i haven't played so much because shortly after getting victoria i discovered dominons

I, too, discovered Dom 2 shortly after getting Vicky. Dom 2 saved me from wasting countless hours trying to work around Vicky's problems.

[The_Tauren13]

Arryn said:
I wish that IW would do likewise and open up the Dom 2 AI to user modification.

that would actually be really cool. i mean, that way you can always have a semi-balanced game vs the AI by modding it to be similar to your skill level

[Arryn]

The_Tauren13 said:
that would actually be really cool. i mean, that way you can always have a semi-balanced game vs the AI by modding it to be similar to your skill level

I hadn't considered that particular application. Not a bad idea at all.

What I had in mind is such things that people complain about such as AI spellcasting behavior, AI troop-building preferences, that units commanded to attack the enemy's rear actually attack the rear (and not the rear of the closest unit), etc. etc.

Oh, and we could throw routing behavior into the pot while we're at it. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon24.gif[/img]

[Boron]

Arryn said:

I, too, discovered Dom 2 shortly after getting Vicky. Dom 2 saved me from wasting countless hours trying to work around Vicky's problems.

a question :
did you play all paradox games with the newest patches ?

they get more challenging this way.
i am not sure but i think you haven't perhaps .

in eu 1.08 you earn much less money and inflation is harder to combat . diplo sliders are much better too .
so it becomes a bit more challenging .

hoi in 1.06 the greatly improved the ai .
russia has there normally about 300 divisions in 1939/40 so the early victory with germany is not so easy anymore .
and the ai lands more than 1-2 units on beachheads .

it is still from good but a big improvement to all patches before .


finally curious about vicky :
with 1.03b the latest patch i played it it was quite good most bugs were gone .

i don't really get your point about the manual .
for victoria fans made wickyvicky or called similiar it is like the manual addenda from liga .
and the discussion on victoria board was good too so with victoria manual it is exactly the same like with the dominions manual it is ok but leaves many questions open .

the ai in victoria is probably the worst though still

what i hate with all paradox games that they only force you indirect to not grow too big too soon .
not the ai stops you but in eu 2 revolutions from different religions + really huge stability costs .
in vicky the same but more severe .


the real problem though is that they ALL lack depths :
everybody has the same armies when he researches all techs .
so it is simply getting a bigger army + using the right troops but thats really easy since there are only about 10-15 different types .

unfortunately you can reduce it to 1-2 types :
in hoi the light 12 speed tanks for encirclement + marines with artillery brigade .
in vicky guards , tanks/artillery for special purposes .

all disappointing [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

the only game which comes close here to dominions 2 is master of orion 2 (perhaps space empires is similiar i haven't played it though because iirc it is realtime and i prefer turn based )

[Boron]

magnate said:
Thanks for bring that back to the foreground. I played my first few games with standard troops and only really got into SCs thanks to Boron suggesting I check out ice devils. Only now do I see how odd it is that they flee when the chaff is killed even if they themselves are untouched. I'd really like a word from the devs on this. Maybe there's a reason why it wouldn't work. In the poll thread Boron said it would make battlemages too powerful, but I don't understand that. They don't usually have very high morale - and even if they did stay on the battlefield, they might well die once all the cannon fodder is gone.
CC

if they would stay without troops i would guard them with some antisc SCS .
the battlemages would be quite save and do all the killing with their spells .

your point with 1 pd and then the SCS routing is very good .
If you attack you can send more than 1 SC in . it is dangerous though because if one is killed all flee .

for the PD issue there is only 1 solution which is expensive : make immortal SCS they don't rout in positive dominion which you should have in your own provinces .
wraith lords are excellent scs but very expensive .


panthers suggestion is bad because as you said this way SCS would never rout because they never fail a morale check . this would make them too powerful .
furthermore it would make one key feature of immortality useless : not routing in friendly dominion !

illwinter has really done an impressive job here with the current routing system . it is not intuitive and perhaps not realistic but balancewise it is perfect .

[Cainehill]

magnate said:

You have an interesting tendency to try to score points by twisting what other people write. I never said you were stupid because you disagree with me. I said you were stupid because you gave a serious response to an obviously jocular post.

You didn't use a smiley. And you're bloody stupid if you think or expect that people can tell when you're trying to be jocular in a pure text medium when you _don't_ use emoticons or some other means to display the mood in which something was written.

This is a longtime problem with the internet and text mediums. Intelligent people, and even rutabagas if they're been on the net long enough, figured this out and use things like " " or " <sarcasm> ... </sarcasm> " or whatnot.

You don't have the clues of tone of voice, of body language, and usually not even the benefit of some knowledge of the other person.

And you posted a one liner that was at least as easily interpretted as sarcasm or bitterness than good natured humor / joking.

That's ... not particularly bright. And even worse is your response of indignity because someone didn't have the telepathy to know how you meant it!

Oh - that'll be five pounds for the tutoring in basic communications theory 101.

You also try to make people feel small by quoting their own text back at them, usually out of context. I can really see why some people dislike you. You give female gamers a very bad name.

Oh, Goddess forbid that anyone use what someone wrote against them! Maybe you'd prefer that they editting your words, misattributed who said what, and used subtle innuendo in conjunction with the words that you didn't exactly say?

I'm also curious how Arryn used what you wrote out of context. After all - it _was_ just a one line sentence of a post. Hard to use that out of context.

But hey! On a lighter note, I appreciate the fact that you're working to make _my_ gender look bad, because it makes me look better in comparison.

Cheerio!