suggestion about commanders - Page 6

Psitticine · #51 September 30th, 2003, 04:57 PM

Maybe a good solution would be a Hold Position command for squads. They'd stay in place (e.g. right in front of missile units) but fight those who come within melee range. They'd not move unless routed, or possibly beserked, but instead would maintain a defensive wall in front of vulnerable troops.

For me, that'd close the biggest tactical gap. You can Hold and Attack, but nobody can stay back and guard, unless they are Guarding Commander.

It'd also be nice, as has been previously mentioned, if troops ordered to flee (as opposed to those who broke) would stay with the army after victory.

Aside from that, formations would be a great and powerful addition, but additions are very different than things that feel "missing" when not there.

Maybe instead of true formations, the ability to have the troops line up in other than simple boxes? That wouldn't need to have any change for the battlefield aside from different start-up positions, and I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to add AI capacity to know when a line (for defensive men) is better than a box (for massed troops).

All just my 2�, of course.

st.patrik · #52 September 30th, 2003, 07:00 PM

Lots of desirable & good things mentioned. Particularly the following:

1. units staying in their group, rather than dashing off each at their own speed. Or at least to have this as an option.

2. a 'hold' command

3. distinction between 'fleeing' and 'routing'

4. some kind of bonus for units which are flanked on either side by members of their squad - at least a morale bonus, and maybe a defense bonus. Of course the penalties to defense already in the game (at least Dom I) for being surrounded might have the same net effect, if you get my meaning. But maybe a morale bonus?

5. different shapes for squads - can be done manually by subdividing into small Groups and placing alongside, but it would be so much easier if you could just make a line.

Don't know if any of these are possible/probable, but they sound like good ideas to me.

st.patrik · #53 October 1st, 2003, 07:01 PM

I was browsing through the newgroup on strategic games on which there has been much discussion of Dominions and found an interesting discussion about retreating/routing etc. which I think highlights the need for a distinction between the two.

Here's the link: http://Groups.google.com/Groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&frame=right&th=78a826cc26bae4e6&seekm=3b686ab1.34607325%40news.inet.fi#link1

The point raised that grabbed my attention was the guy who tried to storm a castle, while leaving 3 sages on 'siege castle', failed to capture the castle, and had all his troops that routed killed automatically for fleeing into 'hostile' territory - even though he still owned the territory!

of course that doesn't have so much to do with the proposed distinction between routing and retreating, but something's definitely wrong there.

*edit - sorry this is the wrong thread - the one that I meant to post in was "Cavalry archers, and other lost units"

[ October 01, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: st.patrik ]

Nerfix · #54 October 1st, 2003, 07:03 PM

If this gets fixed...
I feel the Illwinter Dominion increasing...

Saber Cherry · #55 October 2nd, 2003, 07:55 PM

Full-featured formations would take a lot of work, of course. However, I think that 2 small changes could add a substantial amount of control and flexibility, for minimal development effort, minimal army-screen micromanagement, without breaking the AI.

The changes:

1) A "Tight" versus "Loose" toggle for each group.

Tight: Default. Like Dom I, units are packed as close as size allows; e.g., 5 hobbits, 3 humans, 2 horses, or 1 troll per square.

Loose: Units are packed less tightly. The number per square is max/2, rounded up. Examples include 3 hobbits, 2 humans, 1 horse, or 1 troll per square.

2) "Square" versus "Wide" toggle for each group.

Square: Default. Like Dom I, the group is shaped like a square on the map.

Wide: The group forms a 2x1 rectangle, 2 tall by 1 wide. In other words, the group shows a wider face to the enemy, but is not as deep.

I think that adding both of these would allow players to better utilize - and increase the strategic differences between - heavy/light troops, cavalry/infantry, and ranged/melee units. Furthermore, it would allow easier and more flexible deployment. Currently, you can achieve both of these effects - mostly - by breaking your army into lots of tiny units. In other words, you can make a "loose-ish" formation by placing units in 4 adjacent Groups rather than a single group, and you can make a "wide-ish" formation by placing 2 Groups vertically adjacent. Both of these are tedious, imprecise, disrupt AI targetting algorithms more than the formations would, and require constant rebalancing after each battle to keep the same number of troops in each sub-group. Furthermore, split subGroups rout very easily compared to large Groups.

This does not, of course, give the "Formations or Bust" party what it wants, but I think it would be a quick and easy way to increase battlefield control while reducing micromanagement. Thoughts?

-Cherry

PvK · #56 October 3rd, 2003, 12:47 AM

I just failed to take a castle in Dom I (two ethereal hydras blocking the breach!), and the surviving men routed to an adjacent friendly province. Seems to me they really should just retreat to the province with the castle, not to an adjacent province, but they didn't get eliminated due to no retreat route.

BTW, I would also like to see some of the men who can't retreat just get scattered and go into hiding rather than be eliminated completely.

PvK

Psitticine · #57 October 3rd, 2003, 03:19 AM

I finished a wild game earlier this week where the final battle was in the enemy's home province. I couldn't seem to dislodge the enemy Pretender from his castle, no matter what I threw at him. I spent a lot of time after each attempt gathering up knights errant, if you know what I mean.

The game finally ended when the Last black candle "burnt out" and my Dominion was everywhere. Big puff of smoke from inside the enemy castle, and it was Game Over!

Daynarr · #58 October 3rd, 2003, 10:14 AM

Lol, I love when I kill enemy pretender that way. In my current game I killed Marignon while I was still preparing to invade his castle. He had only 2 territories and lots of troops in main castle but all of it gone with Last candle.

Strong dominion, never leave home without one.

Pocus · #59 October 3rd, 2003, 03:06 PM

so how you fare now, Psitticine and Daynarr, is the AI still impossible to beat on 'impossible'

What do you think is the hardest difficulty setting, and number of AIs that you can beat reliably? 8 on Normal? 6 on impossible ? I would like to know how the game is in difficulty compared to Doms I.

1) Also, is Ermor still able to walk over the other AI, or are the AI now able to counter the undeads with mass of priests?
2) Are the blood nations operating normally? In Doms I Abysia were not very cute when it cames to blood slave usage. It was perhaps the weakest nation (for the AI to take), because the AI didnt knew how to be a big bad demonist

Psitticine · #60 October 4th, 2003, 05:33 AM

For now, I'm playing on the very small, quick-game maps since I'm trying to test as many nations, themes, etc., in the time left before the gold date. Because of that, I rarely try to take on more than just 1 or 2 opponents. If I add more than that, there just isn't room for us all!

As far as AI setting, umm, "Normal" is rough enough for me.

My game is steadily improving, but I still lose more often than I win.

I'm trying to remember, but I'm not sure I've yet played against a Blood magic-dependent AI opponent, so I'll have to pass on trying to answer that one.