Dammit

[Thufir]

Without getting into great detail I just have to say I love Paradox games (but always wait until patch 3+ ). I also love Dom2, but I think Paradox vs. IW is an apples to oranges comparison, and there's no real way to come up with a "winner".

I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games. When you look at their forums and the arguments held there its astounding how passionate (and knowledgeable!) the participants get into the details of historical considerations of proper design/implementation of the game. I think there are flaws in any Paradox game, but I suspect they often arise from designers (and most of their players) tendency that when faced with those inevitable design tradeoffs that must be faced with any game project, they'll often go for a sense of historical accuracy/realism rather than for gameplay or for balance.

By contrast, Dom2 has the pleasant premise that requires absolutely no interest in historical accuracy! Instead, it has at its foundation a profoundly interesting two prongs of development (or better said "orthogonal axes") that constantly force the player to choose between economic/magic development and the spread of their pretender's religious/dominion development. Given how incredibly complex Dom2 is (in terms of number of units, econonomic system, magic and number of spells, choices and configuration of pretenders, etc.), it is astounding how well balanced this game is.

Well, all that said is considerably more detail than I intended, but so it goes

Anyhow, this Last note on balance should serve as a caution to those that would change the routing rules. Personally, I'm sympathetic, but I think there are balance issues here, and that does make this more tricky than it might seem. I've more to say, but I think I'm going to do that on the Poll: morale and routing thread, as that's better suited to specific proposals.

[The_Tauren13]

C&C generals: zero hour is actually quite good, though i didnt much enjoy the earlier ones, not even base generals

kohan also was an excellent game, also, i believe, greatly underrated

[Gandalf Parker]

Thufir said:
I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games.

That was one of the main things I disliked about EU II. It was too historical. It seemed like you could affect things but only within limits which caused the timeline to progress "normally".

If the pagans cant win then I dont want to play.

[Boron]

Arryn said:

I had a great deal of fun with Starcraft years ago. And with the expansion pack for it. I've even occasionally reinstalled and played it over the past few years -- when I'm feeling nostalgic and super-bored.

Fans of Kohan would argue with you over which game is "best". And I'm sure that some C&Cer would chime in if their game(s) weren't mentioned (though C&C isn't even in the same league as Starcraft or Kohan).

SW Rebellion isn't "basically TB" using its pause, since you cannot issue orders while paused, unlike with the Paradox games. I no longer will play RT games in which you cannot issue orders while paused. Rebellion wiped out any tolerance I had for that.

oh i have so far only heard of kohan but never played it

is it a good mp game too ?
i jugded starcraft mainly on mp .

i think still no rts game with really different races is as balanced as starcraft when played in mp .


age of empires 2 / empire earth were good too but they have the same units for everybody so it is easy to balance .


from the viewpoint of user interface the c&c series is very good . but from the viewpoint of balance .
i haven't played c&c generals but in c&c 3 which i wishfully awaited i was disappointed too .


balance was horrible there :
gdi had the grenadierrush .
later nod had the overpowered artillery .





now a positive list :
my first rts game was dune 2 it was good at its time
c&c 1 and 2 were nice too .
starcraft was almost perfect and occasionally i too play it sometimes even now
in sp i liked lords of the realm 2 quite much though it had serious flaws in ai .
master of orion 2 was really great too but the ai there is extremely bad
heroes of migth and magic 1-3 were really good ,
aow 1+2 too but now with my knowlegde of dominions they are just boring

magic the gathering i still play occasionally

other strategy games that are good but have severe issues are :

missionforce cyberstorm ( bad ai ) , mech commander 1 ( no saving during missions ) , mech commander 2 ( too easy / short ) , shogun/medieval total war ( too simple / boring ) and the paradox series where i agree with you on bad ai too .

then imperialism 1 ( buggy though + you win to quick with the diplomatic vote )



i ordered myself now civilization 3 for sp but i am not 100% sure if i will like it i liked master of orion 2 + alpha centauri but civilization 1+2 not really [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]




the only other turn based game which i still like extremely and where the knowlegde of dominions didn't influence this in a negative way is still the steel panther series , mainly SP WAW .

but this is a quite different game to dominions though and has only turn based in common

looking really forward to :

-total war : rome
-hoi 2
-world in flames

and of course dominions 3

[Arryn]

Thufir said:
I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games.

They *are* historical sims, albeit with the ability to create very ahistorical results (including such absurdities as the French conquering the whole world in the 1940s).

[Boron]

Thufir said:
Without getting into great detail I just have to say I love Paradox games (but always wait until patch 3+ ). I also love Dom2, but I think Paradox vs. IW is an apples to oranges comparison, and there's no real way to come up with a "winner".

I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games. When you look at their forums and the arguments held there its astounding how passionate (and knowledgeable!) the participants get into the details of historical considerations of proper design/implementation of the game. I think there are flaws in any Paradox game, but I suspect they often arise from designers (and most of their players) tendency that when faced with those inevitable design tradeoffs that must be faced with any game project, they'll often go for a sense of historical accuracy/realism rather than for gameplay or for balance.

i love the paradox games too and look forward to especially hoi 2 . i own exactly the same like you
i play them occasionally but they are unfortunately too easy / boring when played too long and i think not really adept for mp

Gandalf Parker said:

That was one of the main things I disliked about EU II. It was too historical. It seemed like you could affect things but only within limits which caused the timeline to progress "normally".

If the pagans cant win then I dont want to play.

just look on the AAR board of paradox gandalf
there are reports of ppl who made a wc as maya e.g.


i could do that on my own too probably but not in the timeline only with about 100-200 additional years with no time limit patch .

in hoi / vicky this is much harder
i guess nobody can win as luxemburg in hoi .

[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?