Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm

[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 ]

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Alarik:
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?

Dom 2 is quite a different game in concept than a typical 4X like MOO3 or Civ3. In them you can win by diplomacy and/or simple domination (having the largest empire). You do not have to win by being the sole remaining race (though you can if you wish). In Dom, you MUST wipe out ALL other "gods". There is NO room for compromise of any sort. Nothing short of the total annihilation of everyone else is tolerable. A "Council" implies cooperation. The idea that more than 2-3 gods would ever agree on anything in a setting like Dom's is ludicrous.

[vanedor]

"There is NO room for compromise of any sort."

Why do some people keep repeating comments like this? We perfectly know that currently, it's a game about total annihilation. We(or at least myself), think the game would be better if it was different. How could some diplomacy make this game inferior to you, especially if it's optional?

[fahdiz]

Originally posted by Alarik:
Are some of you saying that you think the war game elements would be less compelling if some diplomatic options were available in SP?

Not less compelling, no. But it would change the entire theme of the game. It's what I was talking about earlier - people seem to want one game which does everything they've ever wanted it to do, instead of taking each game's strengths, intent, and such on its own terms. The broader something gets, the more it tends to become shallow.

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.

But that's just it: you are bringing an agenda to the game, and that's perfectly fine. The game isn't bringing it to you. As I said quite a bit earlier, I am a devout Catholic and am quite strict about my own - real-life - morals and those of my daughters - but this game is pixels and data, not real life. This game is a fantasy, and it's a fantasy purely about war and power.