The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly: Spells

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Chazar:
What does a range of, say, 25+ mean? 25 squares plus one square per extra path/gem? Does the range affect precision? Where do you place your mages then?

Range reduces accuracy. 25+ means 25 if you exactly meet the requirements, and plus something per level above... it may be +5 squares/level, or +10% squares/level, but I doubt it is 1 square/level which would not be noticable.

[Chazar]

Hmm, I dont have the manual with me at work (which is a good thing, as I am already reading within this forum to much... ), but I recall that while melee was explained, it simply said something like ranged attacks are handled similarly. Well...

So I guess Precision is rolled against Defense with adding the usual open-2D6-roll, and Damage is exactly the same, i.e. Strength+WeaponDamage vs. Protection, +2D6 each. (Alhough most ranged attacks ignore Strength and have a higher Damage-value.)

Can someone add the Range value and the actual Range to the picture? Perhaps ActualRange-Range is used instead of Defense, but then, were does Defense from Shields kick in against missiles?


How do I advance flying mages like those of Caelum without a staff of storms? Attack one turn seems deadly to me with flying mages in good weather conditions, let alone the fatigue flying gives...

(at SaberCherry: Thanks for your comment, but my emphasis was not meant to be on the "+", but rather on the general range-mechanis as asked above now. - My fault, now that I reread my previous-post again.)

[ March 15, 2004, 16:11: Message edited by: Chazar ]

[Tuna-Fish]

iirc, for missiles precision is only used to determine the square that will be hit, and the chance to hit someone in that square is 10+2d6* vs 10+shield defence+2d6*, tried against everyone in the square until it hits or runs out of targets, possibly in an order of size.

Observation to be made is that targets with v.high shield defence, ie nataraja with 2 weightless tower, are practically immune to missiles.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Tuna-Fish:
Observation to be made is that targets with v.high shield defence, ie nataraja with 2 weightless tower, are practically immune to missiles.

Unlike normal defense, shield defense subtracts from the chances of a missile to hit. And even if it does manage to hit, then the victim's full protection rating kicks in and the missile will likely do no damage at all.

In short, shielded targets are very hard to damage with missiles ... unless it's your own troops being shot in the back.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Arryn:
In short, shielded targets are very hard to damage with missiles ... unless it's your own troops being shot in the back.

Well, like in real life, nothing is more accurate than friendly fire.

[Chazar]

Originally posted by Arryn:
... unless it's your own troops being shot in the back.

Do you mean that literally or really just roll-eyed? I mean, this game is so complex, I would not even wonder if they had implemented a rule that shields only work in the direction the unit is facing!!!

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Well, like in real life, nothing is more accurate than friendly fire.

Yes, I already noticed that!!!

Mages do not use gems if the opposition is (or rather seems) weak ... shouldnt Archers cease fire if the traget is already swarmed by friendly units???

I know that this "no-gem-usage-for-whimps-rule" annoys quite some people (or rather the definition of whimp is what annoys them), but this would also solve the missing "fire and hold"-command: Fire = Fire until no sensible targets. Propably it wouldnt even affect balance that much, since its the AI's choice when to cease fire...

(Besides: I'm still not clear about the Range-value then. It's the max range, ok, but how does precision and actual range influence the target square choosen...?))

[ March 15, 2004, 17:41: Message edited by: Chazar ]

[johan osterman]

When the spellcasting AI did not override gem use in dom 1 there was an awful lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over that, since scout attacks could deplete thr gems of spellcasters before a real battle toock place. I think most people that have played dom 1 and can compare the two much prefer the current system. As to what should be considered to insignificant to waste gems on, the chance that a formula will please everyone and be workable for the AI is rather slim. So while it might perhaps be changed in some small way, it will most likely remain pretty much the same.

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
When the spellcasting AI did not override gem use in dom 1 there was an awful lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over that, since scout attacks could deplete thr gems of spellcasters before a real battle toock place. I think most people that have played dom 1 and can compare the two much prefer the current system. As to what should be considered to insignificant to waste gems on, the chance that a formula will please everyone and be workable for the AI is rather slim. So while it might perhaps be changed in some small way, it will most likely remain pretty much the same.

I think Dom II is a great improvement over Dom I in this Category - sometimes my mages actually have gems left over after a battle for the next one. This is way better than them spending all their gems on a scout attack and then having nothing left when they try to storm the enemy castle right afterward. Trust me.

There are times, though, when I would want them to use the gems and they don't. I think the best solution would be to have a checkbox for each mage so you could switch between 'strict orders' and 'lax orders'. i.e. the latter (lax orders) being the way the AI works now, and the former (strict orders) meaning that the mage must follow your casting instructions to the letter, with the consequences (however negative they may be). That way if you knew you wanted to cast a certain gem-requiring spell no matter what, you could do that - and reap the consequences if you made a bad decision. [obviously you'd need to add an alternate command so that if the mage is scripted to cast something that is out of range it would move forward instead, or something like that.]

however, even without this I'm pretty happy with the AI *most* of the time.

[Chazar]

Yes!Yes! I am very happy with the AI deciding whether the mages uses gems or not - please do not get me wrong on that! I like the way it is, and I do not need a checkbox.

All I was saying is, that I would like the AI to decide the same for Archers: A Squad of Archers should look at the target square and its surrounding 8 neighbor squares, and cease fire if the ratio between the number enemy units in these nine square towards friendly units is less than, say, 15%.

I guess that would be a huge improvement, as I loose many units due to friendly fire when the comabt is almost already over! (Fire and Flee is not an option as it scatters your units even in case of victory, especially if you invade the enemies back with flying units!)

[ March 15, 2004, 20:21: Message edited by: Chazar ]

[Sand]

I didn't play Dom1, so I can't compare. What was most frustrating to me in Dom2 is not knowing why my script was being ignored -- was I doing something wrong, was it a game bug? Some message like "your spellcasters are unimpressed by the opposition and will not waste their precious gems" would be very helpful.

In the pipe dream department, a slider ranging from "never use gems" to "always use gems" which informed the current AI might be the best compromise -- combined with the above message, players could at least attempt to tune the AI to their liking.