Dammit

[Sly Frog]

Arryn said:

I don't know where you got this silly notion. A lone commander will rout, unless that commander is an immortal in friendly dominion, or the commander is berserk. What doesn't make sense about it?

I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.

[Arryn]

Sly Frog said:
I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.

But, as Kris so aptly said a few Posts above, how does the game know that you're a "badass"? The game has no idea what's a SC and what's not.

BTW, I didn't think you were taking a shot at the devs (though I can see how you might think that I thought that). I simply thought that they weren't going to pay much attention to adjectives lacking any further explanation. In the context in which you consider the issue, yes it might appear "goofy". But the system is consistent, once one understands it. And I don't think anyone's ever claimed that Dom 2 is "intuitive". Far from it. If it was, this forum wouldn't be nearly so busy.

[Boron]

Sly Frog said:

I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.

your sc can be totally badass but he still hasn't a chance alone against special armies who are cheaper than the sc but antisc .

but when you take troops with him he is no longer a sc but with the army he is extremely brutal .

if you take with you just a few archers than it is your fault and simply stupid .
you did just wrong scripting / troop chose :
just take a few 50 morale troops with hold orders ( like vine ogres ) or if you want to really support him take with devils or something like this .
this way routing is extremely unlikely .

the only thing you lose is magic movement when you rely on cloud trapeze .


so i don't see why you are all complaining at all because the solutions are so simple :

SC + cloud trapeze against weaker armies

give the sc an army against stronger enemies but lose cloud trapeze . you can still teleport though or fairy trod or stygian path for magic movement .



if you chose the RIGHT troops the army is no curse but a real bless .



an almost perfect routing blocker is the siege golem .
immune to all kinds of magic , high protection + hp + siege ability .
scripted to hold + attack closest even 1 siege golem is haaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddddd to kill .
with the 2 turns of waiting your scs are already in meelee or buffed .
so the siege golem isn't attacked severe most probably at all .


early game : vine ogres as routing preventers , late game 1-2 lone siege golem(s) .

[Kristoffer O]

if you take with you just a few archers than it is your fault and simply stupid .

It's not stupid unless you know how the system works.

There is nothing such thing as common sense in computer programmed actions, only what devs consider rational solutions and responses to given situations. Responses have to be based on anticipated results and problems as well as simplicity.

The current system does not reflect common sense in every situation. It is a rule that is be based on common sense and general utilability (is this an english word at all?).

If you understand the premises the rule is (hopefully) acceptable.

Adjustments could be done, but it would risk making the system opaque and more unintuitive. The current system gives the player control if s/he is aware of how the rules work.

[Boron]

Kristoffer O said:

It's not stupid unless you know how the system works.

There is nothing such thing as common sense in computer programmed actions, only what devs consider rational solutions and responses to given situations. Responses have to be based on anticipated results and problems as well as simplicity.

The current system does not reflect common sense in every situation. It is a rule that is be based on common sense and general utilability (is this an english word at all?).

If you understand the premises the rule is (hopefully) acceptable.

Adjustments could be done, but it would risk making the system opaque and more unintuitive. The current system gives the player control if s/he is aware of how the rules work.

you misunderstood me completely kristoffer

this argument was thought to convince Sly Frog that he just didn't use his scs clever assigning them a few archers and complaining they rout . so i wanted to show him that not the system is to blame but he himself is to blame because he made a "stupid" fault .



[/quote]

the current system is imo really great .
your suggestions would imo be not improvements but worsenings
as it is it is very very balanced .

here e.g. i wrote that i think that the current morale system is really great and can't be improved furthermore

[Sly Frog]

Boron said:
this argument was thought to convince Sly Frog that he just didn't use his scs clever assigning them a few archers and complaining they rout . so i wanted to show him that not the system is to blame but he himself is to blame because he made a "stupid" fault .

Whether something is stupid or not if you know the game rules is complete aside from my point. The point is that as human beings, we have basic expectations as to how certain things should work. We can learn that these expectations are false under a given ruleset, but it takes effort, and things that are unintuitive without good reason often turn people off to the game.

I think it's a bit specious to argue that anything you do that doesn't work under a non-intuitive rule set is stupid because you should have known not to do it under the ruleset. There is a point at which you do not screw around with "normal" order unless there is a good reason. For example, why don't we call units that have missle weapons heavy infantry? Then, if you misuse heavy infantry in the game (don't use them as archers), you are "stupid" because everyone who has played the game for awhie knows that heavy infantry are actually archers, that heavy cavalry is actually weak against archers in the game, that mages don't cast spells, they fight as heavy infantry, etc.

The point is that there is no reason to set things up that are non-intuitive unless there is a good reason. It just serves as a barrier to entry for new players.

[Boron]

Sly Frog said:

Whether something is stupid or not if you know the game rules is complete aside from my point. The point is that as human beings, we have basic expectations as to how certain things should work. We can learn that these expectations are false under a given ruleset, but it takes effort, and things that are unintuitive without good reason often turn people off to the game.

I think it's a bit specious to argue that anything you do that doesn't work under a non-intuitive rule set is stupid because you should have known not to do it under the ruleset. There is a point at which you do not screw around with "normal" order unless there is a good reason. For example, why don't we call units that have missle weapons heavy infantry? Then, if you misuse heavy infantry in the game (don't use them as archers), you are "stupid" because everyone who has played the game for awhie knows that heavy infantry are actually archers, that heavy cavalry is actually weak against archers in the game, that mages don't cast spells, they fight as heavy infantry, etc.

The point is that there is no reason to set things up that are non-intuitive unless there is a good reason. It just serves as a barrier to entry for new players.

good points .

the reason for this is though really good :
BALANCE .
otherwise SCS would be imbalanced probably

i myself have dominions now since 3 months and i have to admit that it took me until now to learn some things and i still learn things in dominions

in the first month e.g. i had no clue about scs .
and until about 1 week ago i underestimated battlemagic severe too
but i am continually advancing and already quite good now i think

my wording was perhaps a bit poor or i misunderstood something so sorry for this

[Sly Frog]

Boron said:

good points .

the reason for this is though really good :
BALANCE .
otherwise SCS would be imbalanced probably

i myself have dominions now since 3 months and i have to admit that it took me until now to learn some things and i still learn things in dominions

in the first month e.g. i had no clue about scs .
and until about 1 week ago i underestimated battlemagic severe too
but i am continually advancing and already quite good now i think

my wording was perhaps a bit poor or i misunderstood something so sorry for this

Your wording is fine, and I understand your reasoning. You've basically said that there is a compelling reason for the system to be a bit unintuitive and goofy, which I can generally accept, so long as the reason outweighs the deviation from normal expectations. If there is no good way to balance the game without using the current morale and routing system, then it is a necessary evil.

[atul]

Sly Frog said:
Whether something is stupid or not if you know the game rules is complete aside from my point. The point is that as human beings, we have basic expectations as to how certain things should work.

I'm not sure how small minority I represent. I happen to read the manual before getting into game too deeply. And I expect that the most important things I have to consider can be found from the manual.

The big deal with current routing system is that they are completely told in four sentences, the fourth being reserved for the special case of immortals. And they're simple if -> then rules, easy to remember and see in action.

With the proposed alternatives the battle becomes a chaos, at least to a newbie. "Why did five of my ten commanders just rout in the middle of the fight?" "WTF, my mages just decided to stay there to be slaughtered?" etc, all explainable by rules and (invisible to player) die rolls. While they might be reasonable in a miniature game where you have to make the rolls and so on, in a game they'd make things just a lot less smooth.

Of course, there are things that might be done differently (the commander-only army rout for one), but I'd think that the intuitivity wouldn't be served well with a change to more complicated.

I think that my point boils down to one question: when playing a turn based strategy game, should one be expected to read the manual?

[The_Tauren13]

i would like to see you stop a 6 AI rush with 10-20 cannons, boron
not to mention when they rush you cant possible on a non-money map have more than 5 cannons

btw sorry about that OT rant... guess i need an anger management course