Player controlled battles???

[HJ]

First of all, my post wasn't intended against anyone in particular, and it wasn't based solely on comments made in this particular thread. I was expressing something of a general feeling I have gotten so far about the discussions, and those at the same time stem from the arguments, not from people. I also stated that I am addressing *some* of the arguments, not all of them, as I don't find all of them contributed to the feeling I was expressing.

I see that a lot of people got hooked on my little exaggeration with which I opened my post. By saying that it's an exaggeration, I admit I overstated things, but I also admit it was intentional. In literature this is called hyperbole, if I'm not mistaken, and is used to overstate things so as to emphasize them, and is not intended to be taken literally.

As far as the rest of my post is concerned, as I said, I have every intention to rest my case. I think I pretty much said what I wanted to say in that post and the one preceeding it, and to continue would be a pointless tug-of-war. What I actually want to say now is thanks for consideration. In addition, the majority of the Posts that followed my own have a very different tone than the one I described in it, and I'm glad to see that they have.

Cheers,

[ October 24, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: HJ ]

[WraithLord]

I do prefer the battle control the way it's implemented now.
Sure, small improvements to this system are welcomed. however I really don't want tac combat.
This will shift the emphasis from strategically to tactical, allow AI exploits and will hurt/kill pbem.
DOM-I is a great game. I would like to see it improve in Depth (more units, spells, nation etc) and less Micromanagement.

[Zerger]

Originally posted by izaqyos:
I do prefer the battle control the way it's implemented now.
Sure, small improvements to this system are welcomed. however I really don't want tac combat.
This will shift the emphasis from strategically to tactical, allow AI exploits and will hurt/kill pbem.
DOM-I is a great game. I would like to see it improve in Depth (more units, spells, nation etc) and less Micromanagement.

Actually Dom 1. is far from great. It is average.
It is a very simple wargame. More units and spells wont make it more complex.
IMHO with a diplomacy system, or with that weapon / armor system the game would have more potential. It is just a simple wargame now, as it is.
1000 different units? Seriously who cares? You wont use 90% of the units at all.
I dont really understand IW. Instead of the +400 new units they should add diplomacy just for example. Or anything strategical addition would be lot better than +400 units. (Yes, including the wep-arm system.]
This is why I wont order the game. I will try the demo, and wait for some add-on packs. If there will be any..
Right now I dont feel that I must preorder this game.

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by Zerger:
Actually Dom 1. is far from great. It is average.
It is a very simple wargame.
[/QB]

It's not a wargame,its a 4X game, a 4X fantasy TBS game if you want ot be nitpicky.

Simple as compared with which other games in its genre? Certainly not the Heroes, AoW or warlords series...those are far simpler games despite being better known.

How many 4x games have you played that account for morale, experience, afflictions, a dozen different stats per unit, supply, battlefield magic, ritual magic,overland spells, religious influence...? And that with 14 different sides + independents.

[Nerfix]

Originally posted by Wendigo:
How many 4x games have you played that account for morale, experience, afflictions, a dozen different stats per unit, supply, battlefield magic, ritual magic,overland spells, religious influence...? And that with 14 different sides + independents.

And Dom is a fantasy 4x TBS with no overused generic cliche nations and races like Elves or Orcs. Dominions has huge amounts of content when comparing to other fantasy TBS games. 1000+ units and 400+(not sure on this) spells makes a big diffrence when comparing to the IMHO rather pathetic amount of units and spells some FTBS games offer. I don't see what SP diplo would add, excluding that it lets you to exploit the AI. Wep/Arm system would be nice if it would be done realy good and would be balanced, but i am more than content with the current system. You guys realy should see some 500+ unit battles and then say if player controlled battles are a good idea. Even if we would have autoresolve option or it would be squad commanding, i would end up using autoresolve most of the time, making the option to controll battles useless for me. And this game is build for PBEM, people!

If you are not happy with Dom II there are always other games.

[ October 26, 2003, 17:17: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by Zerger:
Actually Dom 1. is far from great. It is average.
It is a very simple wargame. More units and spells wont make it more complex.
IMHO with a diplomacy system, or with that weapon / armor system the game would have more potential. It is just a simple wargame now, as it is.
1000 different units? Seriously who cares? You wont use 90% of the units at all.
I dont really understand IW. Instead of the +400 new units they should add diplomacy just for example. Or anything strategical addition would be lot better than +400 units. (Yes, including the wep-arm system.]
This is why I wont order the game. I will try the demo, and wait for some add-on packs. If there will be any..
Right now I dont feel that I must preorder this game.

I might agree that Dom I is not *great* just due to the interface and level of micromanagement required in the late game, but to claim that Dom I is "a very simple wargame" is foolish. The strategic depth of this game is immense; this is what makes up for the interface etc.

As regards not using the 1000+ units, well of course in no single game are you going to use anything like that, because you only are 1 of 14 nations [in Dom I], and your magic choice won't enable you (in all likelihood) to summon all summonable creatures. But the advantage of 1000+ units is replayability - you can play 14 different games and have them be pretty different in battle tactics, because each time you are fielding a different army, with different strengths and weaknesses than the one before.

This level of replayability is what brings people back to Dominions over and over again, and makes it a great game. Now with the improvements in interface and micromanagement in Dom II, this will be even more the case.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but If you don't like this kind of game, play something else that you do like, rather than complaining that you don't like this one.

If you have new positive suggestions that might improve the game, rather than just general statements that you don't think it's that good, please share them.

[HJ]

I guess there is an essential difference in what people like about the games like this one. Some like tactics, some like to overview things. I myself consider the battles to be the "meat and potatoes" of this kind of game, and everything else is pretty much leading to them. That's why I was never really able to like the abstracted combat of wargames, where your hex is attacking my hex and you see some smoke and that's it, or Warlords series, for example. This is also a major complaint I had about the Europa Universalis, that the fate of the painstakinlgy built empire is decided by two guys doing "piff-paff" to each other, and me not being able to do anything about it. Also, I see the example of MoO games - MoO3 didn't allow you do to anything as the AI was actually playing the game - very bad from my perspective when compared to the previous titles. I like empire building games, but I also like to do the dirty work myself, and not leave it to the AI.

From this difference in what people like stem the different views about the game itself. Some people like it the way it is, while others see a great potential in it. I mean, I'd really like to play a game where I have as many different options at my disposal as in Dominions, but one that is also expanded in other terms as well (incidentally, I also like the diplomacy, weapon-armour system, and tactical control ideas). I like plethora of options and variablilty, afflictions, individual treatment of units, etc. but I like other things beside that which are not in as it is now, and some solutions that are in I actually find frustrating. Hence my advocation of these aspects as well as keeping the ones I like at the same time.

As for some of the arguments used yet again, well, I said enough about them already.

[ October 26, 2003, 18:57: Message edited by: HJ ]