Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm

[tinkthank]

Heheh. Well for a barbarian you seem pretty civilized!
Well seems like the consensus lies far away from my idle views, but that's cool. Thanks for giving me a listen! I suppose I'll just be heading back to having my servents slaughter the hapless routing militia whilst my buddies search for young virgins in my neighbor's fields and I eat their olives (olives?? isn't the metaphore for la dolce vita peaches or something? olives??) ....

[Alarik]

Tink Thank- I think your ideas have tons of merit. And I agree that it takes some imagination to believe that you are fighting for good. I find the blood magic aspects of the game personally repulsive but I love that they are in the game. I just meter out especially harsh punishment on those kingdoms who would dare use the "forbidden" magic.

I suppose each of us has their own reasons for playing. Some just want to win at all costs. Others, to let off some steam. And it's better to let it off in a simulated environment...( If sacrificing virgins in simulated demonic rituals helps people be good to their loved ones...More power to them!).

Me ( and perhaps you) , I'm more interested in the narrative scope of the story and how and why my avatars are behaving the way they are. And I want them to behave in a way I approve of. In a sense I want them to act like I believe I would act if confronted with the same situation. Even if that means losing. As some of the others were hinting at: games might or can or should be a way for people to explore their phyche( The best ones are). Or at least give them a chance to understand the darker side of their nature. That doesn't have to be a bad thing.

In my case....My tanks don't roll over Poland. And absolutely it would be a better fantasy simulation if everybody wasn't just rolling over Poland. I, for one, want a chance to defend Poland and face the trial by fire.

[ March 09, 2004, 13:53: Message edited by: Alarik ]

[fahdiz]

Originally posted by Alarik:
In my case....My tanks don't roll over Poland. And absolutely it would be a better fantasy simulation if everybody wasn't just rolling over Poland. I, for one, want a chance to defend Poland and face the trial by fire.

That's the point, though...Dominions II isn't a "fantasy simulation", like "Civ II + magic" or something. And it isn't an exploration of "good versus evil". Other games set out to do that, and do it better.

It's a wargame. And furthermore, it's a wargame about power-mad magicians, magical beings, etc. who are so brimming with eldritch power that they dare to think they can become the one and only God. Whatever their reasons might be (I believe the Shedu's flavor text says something about "defending his people", and the White Bull's refers to "restoring the balance of nature", etc.) the pure fact of the matter is that every single one of these pretenders suffers from hubris to the Nth degree.

Dominions is narrow in scope, there's no way around it. Your victory conditions are largely limited so that Illwinter can plunge into every nook and cranny of those victory conditions.

Simply put: Dominions is what it is, and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. And I especially like it for that, since if I want AI diplomacy or scenarios where I get to be the "hero", there are about a million games out there which I can play to get that fix.

[vanedor]

"Dominions II isn't a "fantasy simulation"

Well, I disagree, it's fantasy simulation. You control a whole nation, not just a few regiment. You are a pretender to godness, not just an officer. And as a pretender, it would be logical to be able to do some kind of diplomacy with other gods. You raise armies, you pay them, you research spells, summon creatures, sacrifice virgins, raise or lower taxes. It's much closer to a game such as Age of Wonder 2 or Warlords III than any wargame of my knowledge.

[ywl]

Originally posted by vanedor:
"war is evil."

Well, so I guess a nation which is at war to defend itself against the hords of zombie from Ermor is necessary evil?

I feel this game could be seriously improved by adding diplomacy. And people who prefer it this way could just set the settings as "Total War" and have fun the old way.

How often does that happen? It's more likely the sacred Wardens of Man versus the holy Paladins of Marignon, while they slaughtering the half-human satyr of Pangaea together without much hesitation.

Even in your case, killing the Skeletons of course is not evil. They're mindless automatons. But killing their masters is another thing. Even though they might be in an undead forms, they're mostly as much a functioning human as the Sphinx of Atlantis or a Void Lurker of R'lyeh. Things are not as black and white as you think.

The equivalency of undead and evilness is not necessarily true even in the fictional world. Hmm and as far as I know, they don't exist in the real world .

Going back to discussion of the game, it's very easy to create a saga of good versus evil for Dominions 2. For example, the first scenario could start with Man and a few knights, defending a small village versus the undead horde of Ermor. The goal of that scenario is to take over and destroy the keep of the undead Warden. To make it realistic, you can even limit your capital production to militia only (since it's just a small village). In the later scenarios, you can lead the whole nation of Man and finally launch an attack on the Ermorian capitals. Alliance with the other nations are also possible if they are set in map or mod file.

[Starfighter08]

Originally posted by Karacan:
Anyway, I disagree with PoWs being treated well and costing supplies, in a time where the "powers" didn't even treat their own subjects that well. I am all for fanatical, Last-man-standing, death to all heathens war. As long as it remains a game, of course.

In medieval times there was a "market" for POWs. They were released for ransom and that was considered completely normal and regulated by law. Since the families of the POWs weren't as eager to give up money for a man no longer able to work, POWs were usually treated decently (especially nobles). Of course this practice might conflict with what you or the thread starter would consider "good".

[Alarik]

I agree with Vanedor, this game is definately a fantasy simulation. In fact in mho it outclasses AoW and the like in every aspect. Its better than those games without the diplomatic options. it has more scope, depth, creativity and addictiveness. Are some of you saying that you think the war game elements would be less compelling if some diplomatic options were available in SP? I disagree but then again I understand that different people look for different things out of a game.

And any game that allows blood sacrifice and dark rituals is exploring the issue of good vs evil. To each his own but I would rather run a nation that doesn't resort to those methods to win the game. I would rather run a nation that rescues virgins from a pretender that is using bloody sacrifice. So for at least one player (Moi) the game does have good vs evil implications. And obviously for others as well or this thread would not have the title and much of the content that it does. Just the face that we are discussing it proves it is an issue in the game.

side note (OT)- seems to me the MP options are fine as is. House rules can be set up to create any kind of diplomacy people want. But for SP something along the lines of MOO's Galactic council would be nice. Hereditary hatreds and natural alliances only spice up the action. Do some of you think a "Council of the Gods" would be interesting even if it were just an option?

[ March 09, 2004, 23:15: Message edited by: Alarik ]