Dammit

[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?