Player controlled battles???

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by HJ:
Ah, full control of the battles... What a great wish...

Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone.

No it wouldnt. Or well, maybe it could but I dont see how even an option for controlling the battles can possibly NOT affect the game. If nothing else the tremendous amount of time and effort to put it in. Sorry but Id rather NOT see anything along this line. More options for scripting commanders, or using formations, would be great but not combat control.

Its a PBEM game. One that is done by uploading your turn file. And its one of the few excellent long-living games out there that do it. Im usually diplomatic and middle-ground on things but here Id have to say something that might kindof rude.... there are plenty of those games out there already, please dont turn this into one. Id rather see Dominion continue to be an excellent PBEM game than to see it become a mediocre RTS game.

[HJ]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HJ:
Ah, full control of the battles... What a great wish...

Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone.

No it wouldnt. Or well, maybe it could but I dont see how even an option for controlling the battles can possibly NOT affect the game. If nothing else the tremendous amount of time and effort to put it in. Sorry but Id rather NOT see anything along this line. More options for scripting commanders, or using formations, would be great but not combat control.

Its a PBEM game. One that is done by uploading your turn file. And its one of the few excellent long-living games out there that do it. Im usually diplomatic and middle-ground on things but here Id have to say something that might kindof rude.... there are plenty of those games out there already, please dont turn this into one. Id rather see Dominion continue to be an excellent PBEM game than to see it become a mediocre RTS game.

---

Well, I won't go into the scripting argument. Yes, it would require some major rewriting, scripting the new combat system, AI, etc. That's not my point at all, and I don't see it as a valid argument coming from an end-user. How hard is to script something doesn't really influence what I personally do or do not like.

I don't play PBEM, so that doesn't influence what I like or don't like either. I'm just saying what would make the game even more enjoyable for me personally.

And I never said anything about RTS. Actually, I was thinking about TBS tactical combat. Why do people immediately assume tactical combat has to be RTS as if they've never heard of or played HOMM or AOW, I don't know. I mentioned TW purely because it has the option to autoresolve or fight it out yourself. AOW2 has the same option, and I could've used it as an example as well. I didn't, well, my bad, I still wasn't thinking about RTS. In any case, since you'll be autoresolving battles anyway, I don't see why you would care either way.

There are people who would like the game to stay exactly what it is right now. I myself like many of the game aspects, and in other aspects I see a great potential. That potential means that it would make it more enjoyable for me if some things would change. And this is the only forum I've seen where suggestions, regardless of how polite the tone is, are so vigorously shouted down by the people who play the game that it's becoming ridiculous. Usually, the people post suggestions, and then others add to them. Here every suggestion gets flooded by naysayers in no time. I don't seem to recall that I did the same thing for things I don't care about or think the devs shouldn't spend their time on improving, such as MP or modding tools. Mostly because I find it pointless, and even rude. But I guess I'm in the minority (maybe not in my wishes, but in the described tolerant attitude for sure).

[ October 24, 2003, 14:48: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Vodalian]

What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously.

[ October 24, 2003, 14:43: Message edited by: Vodalian ]

[HJ]

Originally posted by Vodalian:
What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously.

In light of my previous post, I'm tempted to make a joke and start shouting "Heresy!!"

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by Vodalian:
What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously.

There was some work made in this direction for a while, but it was abandoned. The nice thing about it is that you could be able to assign different speed values to different actions, perhaps make some weapons slower, certain spells slower to cast etc.

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by HJ:
Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone.
[/QB]

Well I am afraid it wouldn't please me.

Note that Dom's is not an autoresolve battle system in the pure sense, you do not just get told you killed X & lost Y due to some obscure formula, you actually _do_ issue orders to your guys, it's just that you do it before the battle instead of during it.

To me, this is a much richer system than the autoresolve algorithms from other TBS games that I find simplistic & boring. In a sense, the battle engine is the part of the game I value the most (and have most fun with).

I don't play PBEM, so that doesn't influence what I like or don't like either. I'm just saying what would make the game even more enjoyable for me personally.
[/QB]

The arguments against this have been rehearsed before:
-It would make MP unviable with full control (or simplify it immensely with autoresolve)
-Battles with 50+ commanders & 500+ troops per size would be totally unplayable, even in SP.

The game would need a huge rewriting for this aproach to even be considered (starting with troops operating only in units & finishing by limiting a lot the nº of mages & spells they can use), and I do not think the end result would even improve on what we currently have.

And I never said anything about RTS. Actually, I was thinking about TBS tactical combat. Why do people immediately assume tactical combat has to be RTS as if they've never heard of or played HOMM or AOW, I don't know. I mentioned TW purely because it has the option to autoresolve or fight it out yourself. AOW2 has the same option, and I could've used it as an example as well. I didn't, well, my bad, I still wasn't thinking about RTS. In any case, since you'll be autoresolving battles anyway, I don't see why you would care either way.
[/QB]

Note that 2 of the above examples are games with 8 or less stacks/commanders/units per army, and the other one doesn't even have mages. The difference of magnitude for every single battle is huge.
And no, once again I wouldn't like autoresolve.

And this is the only forum I've seen where suggestions, regardless of how polite the tone is, are so vigorously shouted down by the people who play the game that it's becoming ridiculous. [/QB]

I guess we have a certain clash of cultures here:
-On one side we have enthusiastic newcomers to the game proposing changes left & right to things that actually work in their current estate.
-On the other we have the vet players from Dom I with ample experience in the game (2 years in my case), who feel a sense of 'deja vu' with many of these proposals (ie, they have been discussed already, maybe even many times in previous forums).

The first group doesn't understand why the brilliant (in their minds, at least) proposal gets rejected or disliked, the 2nd group doesn't understand how something so glaring obvious (to them) is not immediately seen by the revolutionary newcomers.

Stuff like control of battles or naval battles fall in this bag, they have been discussed before & the arguments against have not been rebuted yet.

Longer term a FAQ could alleviate this type of conflicts, so that newcomers could get pointed to the previous debate on the topic, for now we will have to do with what we have.

One way or the other, the tone could improve and I am myself guilty of having a too sharp tongue at times.

[HJ]

Originally posted by Wendigo:

Note that Dom's is not an autoresolve battle system in the pure sense, you do not just get told you killed X & lost Y due to some obscure formula, you actually _do_ issue orders to your guys, it's just that you do it before the battle instead of during it.

To me, this is a much richer system than the autoresolve algorithms from other TBS games that I find simplistic & boring. In a sense, the battle engine is the part of the game I value the most (and have most fun with).

Well, I stand corrected for the second time. I was thinking the "autoresolve" to stay just as it is now, what you have described in a greater detail.

The game would need a huge rewriting for this aproach to even be considered (starting with troops operating only in units & finishing by limiting a lot the nº of mages & spells they can use), and I do not think the end result would even improve on what we currently have.

*sigh*
You are the end-user - how can this be your argument, I fail to grasp. No comment...

-Battles with 50+ commanders & 500+ troops per size would be totally unplayable, even in SP.

Note that 2 of the above examples are games with 8 or less stacks/commanders/units per army, and the other one doesn't even have mages. The difference of magnitude for every single battle is huge.

And why assume that the system has to be *identical*? There are plenty of original concepts and execution solutions in Doms, why discard the possiblity of a system that is specifically suited for this game beforehand?

-On one side we have enthusiastic newcomers to the game proposing changes left & right to things that actually work in their current estate.
-On the other we have the vet players from Dom I with ample experience in the game (2 years in my case), who feel a sense of 'deja vu' with many of these proposals (ie, they have been discussed already, maybe even many times in previous forums).

The first group doesn't understand why the brilliant (in their minds, at least) proposal gets rejected or disliked, the 2nd group doesn't understand how something so glaring obvious (to them) is not immediately seen by the revolutionary newcomers.

Stuff like control of battles or naval battles fall in this bag, they have been discussed before & the arguments against have not been rebuted yet.

Longer term a FAQ could alleviate this type of conflicts, so that newcomers could get pointed to the previous debate on the topic, for now we will have to do with what we have.

One way or the other, the tone could improve and I am myself guilty of having a too sharp tongue at times.

First of all, you haven't actually discussed those things with the said newcomers. Fresh minds and perspective, when compared to jaded seen-it-all-and-gotten-used-to-it ones, can do wonders sometimes.

And second, I wasn't complaining about the tone (although both sides sometimes leave much to be desired). It's the atmosphere that I sometimes find preposterous. If you don't have anything to add to the suggestion, why bother posting just to say "no"? Have I said "no" to things I don't care about, went in those threads and said that it's a waste of devs' time? Live and let live, and let the devs sort them out at their own discretion.

[ October 24, 2003, 15:31: Message edited by: HJ ]