Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[Psitticine]

Originally posted by Nerfix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Two of our beloved betatesters have proofread the manual as well as all descriptions in the game.

All the units have descriptions this time?

---

Man, do they have descriptions!!!

[HJ]

On the other hand, you have zounds of units that are all too similar to each other (DomI Ulm roster, e.g.), and you might end up using only one type, and never bother with building the rest.

Diversity is good, in my eyes, and I like complexity - the more the better, and it keeps me interested in game for longer.

[Nerfix]

Originally posted by Psitticine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nerfix:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Two of our beloved betatesters have proofread the manual as well as all descriptions in the game.

All the units have descriptions this time?

---

Man, do they have descriptions!!!

---

Pythian Legionaires didn't have, Atlantian Great Mother(sp?) and Dwarven Smiths of Vanheim lost their descriptions when they became prophets, and i think few other units missed their descriptions too, so:
Do all the units have descriptions this time?

[Mortifer]

Uh huh, I dont think that this would add that amount of micro...In fact this would add lot more strategical diversity, which is always better.
I think that this sytem would be nice to have, and if the devs want to make an addon pack or something similar, this might be a great addition in it.

[licker]

Originally posted by HJ:
On the other hand, you have zounds of units that are all too similar to each other (DomI Ulm roster, e.g.), and you might end up using only one type, and never bother with building the rest.

Diversity is good, in my eyes, and I like complexity - the more the better, and it keeps me interested in game for longer.

Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing. How does that change anything? Just because you have more units to look through before you make your final selection does not mean that there is *better* strategy in the game.

I agree that diversity is a good thing, but with 1000 units how much diversity is really reasonable to expect? Actually its not so much the units themselves, but the weapons we're talking about here. And I maintain that you can tweek the existing values of those weapons (especailly resource cost) to give you this added diversity, rather than adding a more complex system that in my mind adds only more complexity. The proposed system may not infact add any more micro to the game, or more precisely no more than any other system that further differentiates the units, but it does add more complexity and requires more logistics (perhaps) that don't really make the game that much more interesting.

I can see what the appeal of such a system is though, it makes for more of a rock/paper/scisiors approach to armies. That's not necessarilly a bad thing, but I just feel that the system as its been described would be more of a head ache than a boon to the overall strategy. It think it moves in the direction of trying to add more 'arbitrary' realism to the mechanics of the game, and that is not always a good thing.

[HJ]

I like the idea as stated, because it suits my taste and my style of play. I like long single player sessions, and the more I have to think in game, the better it is for me, and the longer the appeal Lasts.

My point of view stems from the following: What I see now is a lot of pretty much very similar units: when you add the large random dice bonus to the stats, all the units perform pretty much the same. Apart from them looking a bit different, it doesn't matter all that much which ones I build when compared to the impact of how many of them I have. The idea proposed would add to strategic variety of units, and importance to each respective unit would increase, depending on the situation. I don't see how this would increase micromanagement, since you'll again build them and stack them the same way. What it will add is that you'll have to put more thought on composition of your armies. Which is a strategic element, and has nothing to do with micromanagement or interface. And I don't think I'll face only a single type of oponent, since they'll have the same diversity in weaponry and armour included as well. Moreover, you can still just simply compose your armies of a single type units, or add a little of each type, if you don't want to exact a very precise control over it. But it will be different if my flail-armed infantryman hits someone with leather armour or an undead unit this turn, although they might have the same defense/protection stats, his effectivness will be different. This will also add to the uncertainty of a victory a bit, as sheer numbers might not mean anything if you face good counters. I am not too fond of rock/paper/scissors setup actually, such as one found in AoE e.g. or any other similar game, as I find it oversimplified. I enjoy the shades of gray when I play, but distinctive shades, not just uniform blur.

Lastly, we can argue as much as we want and still never reconcile our views, but it's up to devs what they want to implement or not. Hence, no need to take this discussion to heart, I hope.

[ October 07, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by licker:
I might add that if what you are really after are better differentiators between otherwise quite similar units (though I don't have a big problem with the similar units, I mean there are over 1000 units, you can't make them all *that* much different from each other) a more reasonable approach is to simply change some of the statistics for the weapons that they currently have. Changing the resource cost(down) would be a big incentive on most units, as would tweeking the length of some weapons (expanding the length scale a bit would help here).

These are simpler changes that could achieve the same end result, and be done much more easilly than adding an entirely new damage and resistance system.

Well, I guess we disagree on a fundamental level. I do not think there is ANY way, other than adding physical damage subtypes, to achieve the same end result, and I won't think so until one is described. I want the differentiation between the large numbers of units to be more realistic and engrossing, giving each unit, weapon, and armor a unique flavor, instead of simply "A maul is identical to a greatsword, but more clumsy" and "A skeleton is damaged just as effectively by arrows as by maces". Seriously, have you ever *TRIED* destroying a skeleton with a bow or spear? Not that I have, but if I was attacked by a skeleton, and there were an icepick, crowbar, and glock 19 nearby, I'd pick up the crowbar.

Furthermore, this would not result in additional "micro", assuming you are using a common abbreviation of micromanagement. It would result in additional strategic descisions, and would alter some behaviors - like relying on only one type of unit for an entire army. This is currently quite acceptable, but if physical damage types and physical damage resistance were present, fielding such a homogeneous army would become quite risky against an astute opponent. So, yes, there would be more factors to consider. But micromanagement? Sorry, no. This would not require additional clicking, just additional awareness.

I know that this would be a substantial amount of extra development work, and I consider it worthwhile to propel Dominions to a greater level of diversity, immersion, and combat-mechanical realism. But if the devs felt it was too much work, I would understand a reluctance on their part to implement it. However, reluctance on the part of players for the combat model to become more realistic, without making it more difficult to use, really blows my mind. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm just extremely surprised.

-Cherry

P.S.

but I just feel that the system as its been described would be more of a head ache than a boon to the overall strategy.

I'm not claiming that I described the perfect system I just think that damage types would be nice, and if you have a better/easier/simpler system that would achieve the same goal, I'd love to hear it!

[ October 07, 2003, 22:04: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]