Player controlled battles???

[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 ]