Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[licker]

Originally posted by HJ:
On the other hand, you have zounds of units that are all too similar to each other (DomI Ulm roster, e.g.), and you might end up using only one type, and never bother with building the rest.

Diversity is good, in my eyes, and I like complexity - the more the better, and it keeps me interested in game for longer.

Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing. How does that change anything? Just because you have more units to look through before you make your final selection does not mean that there is *better* strategy in the game.

I agree that diversity is a good thing, but with 1000 units how much diversity is really reasonable to expect? Actually its not so much the units themselves, but the weapons we're talking about here. And I maintain that you can tweek the existing values of those weapons (especailly resource cost) to give you this added diversity, rather than adding a more complex system that in my mind adds only more complexity. The proposed system may not infact add any more micro to the game, or more precisely no more than any other system that further differentiates the units, but it does add more complexity and requires more logistics (perhaps) that don't really make the game that much more interesting.

I can see what the appeal of such a system is though, it makes for more of a rock/paper/scisiors approach to armies. That's not necessarilly a bad thing, but I just feel that the system as its been described would be more of a head ache than a boon to the overall strategy. It think it moves in the direction of trying to add more 'arbitrary' realism to the mechanics of the game, and that is not always a good thing.

[HJ]

I like the idea as stated, because it suits my taste and my style of play. I like long single player sessions, and the more I have to think in game, the better it is for me, and the longer the appeal Lasts.

My point of view stems from the following: What I see now is a lot of pretty much very similar units: when you add the large random dice bonus to the stats, all the units perform pretty much the same. Apart from them looking a bit different, it doesn't matter all that much which ones I build when compared to the impact of how many of them I have. The idea proposed would add to strategic variety of units, and importance to each respective unit would increase, depending on the situation. I don't see how this would increase micromanagement, since you'll again build them and stack them the same way. What it will add is that you'll have to put more thought on composition of your armies. Which is a strategic element, and has nothing to do with micromanagement or interface. And I don't think I'll face only a single type of oponent, since they'll have the same diversity in weaponry and armour included as well. Moreover, you can still just simply compose your armies of a single type units, or add a little of each type, if you don't want to exact a very precise control over it. But it will be different if my flail-armed infantryman hits someone with leather armour or an undead unit this turn, although they might have the same defense/protection stats, his effectivness will be different. This will also add to the uncertainty of a victory a bit, as sheer numbers might not mean anything if you face good counters. I am not too fond of rock/paper/scissors setup actually, such as one found in AoE e.g. or any other similar game, as I find it oversimplified. I enjoy the shades of gray when I play, but distinctive shades, not just uniform blur.

Lastly, we can argue as much as we want and still never reconcile our views, but it's up to devs what they want to implement or not. Hence, no need to take this discussion to heart, I hope.

[ October 07, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by licker:
I might add that if what you are really after are better differentiators between otherwise quite similar units (though I don't have a big problem with the similar units, I mean there are over 1000 units, you can't make them all *that* much different from each other) a more reasonable approach is to simply change some of the statistics for the weapons that they currently have. Changing the resource cost(down) would be a big incentive on most units, as would tweeking the length of some weapons (expanding the length scale a bit would help here).

These are simpler changes that could achieve the same end result, and be done much more easilly than adding an entirely new damage and resistance system.

Well, I guess we disagree on a fundamental level. I do not think there is ANY way, other than adding physical damage subtypes, to achieve the same end result, and I won't think so until one is described. I want the differentiation between the large numbers of units to be more realistic and engrossing, giving each unit, weapon, and armor a unique flavor, instead of simply "A maul is identical to a greatsword, but more clumsy" and "A skeleton is damaged just as effectively by arrows as by maces". Seriously, have you ever *TRIED* destroying a skeleton with a bow or spear? Not that I have, but if I was attacked by a skeleton, and there were an icepick, crowbar, and glock 19 nearby, I'd pick up the crowbar.

Furthermore, this would not result in additional "micro", assuming you are using a common abbreviation of micromanagement. It would result in additional strategic descisions, and would alter some behaviors - like relying on only one type of unit for an entire army. This is currently quite acceptable, but if physical damage types and physical damage resistance were present, fielding such a homogeneous army would become quite risky against an astute opponent. So, yes, there would be more factors to consider. But micromanagement? Sorry, no. This would not require additional clicking, just additional awareness.

I know that this would be a substantial amount of extra development work, and I consider it worthwhile to propel Dominions to a greater level of diversity, immersion, and combat-mechanical realism. But if the devs felt it was too much work, I would understand a reluctance on their part to implement it. However, reluctance on the part of players for the combat model to become more realistic, without making it more difficult to use, really blows my mind. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm just extremely surprised.

-Cherry

P.S.

but I just feel that the system as its been described would be more of a head ache than a boon to the overall strategy.

I'm not claiming that I described the perfect system I just think that damage types would be nice, and if you have a better/easier/simpler system that would achieve the same goal, I'd love to hear it!

[ October 07, 2003, 22:04: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by licker:
Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing.

Uh this is a very wrong statement.
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage.
Example:
You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.]
You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.]
This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed?

If you ask me, this idea is great. Period.

PS. Saber you might want to change crushing to bludgeoning. It sounds lot better

[ October 07, 2003, 22:05: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[MStavros]

NO ****! I LOVE this idea as well!
If you really want to add something in a patch, add this system if it is possible!

[licker]

"I know that this would be a substantial amount of extra development work, and I consider it worthwhile to propel Dominions to a greater level of diversity, immersion, and combat-mechanical realism. But if the devs felt it was too much work, I would understand a reluctance on their part to implement it. However, reluctance on the part of players for the combat model to become more realistic, without making it more difficult to use, really blows my mind. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm just extremely surprised."

You do realize that by saying your not trying to be rude only makes it appear more likely that you are being rude? It doesn't bother me though, whether or not you are rude is a non issue since you can articulate your arguements quite clearly

Anyway, it is a matter of personal taste to be sure. I really don't give two (well you know whats) how well the combat system models reality. All I care about is how well the combat system works as a game mechanic. Often times I have found that the most well meaning suggestions and critiques that focus on improving this area of immersion in the game by 'improving' some game mechanic by making it more 'realistic' only serve to add more complexity and create more division than they are worth.

I suppose my real gripe with a system like this is that it caters more to the power gamer crowd. It adds a new level of complexity (diversity as well, but its not the only way to add diversity to the units, weapons, or armor) that only makes the game more difficult and less approachable to the average or novice gamer. (I should note that this system won't affect my enjoyment of the game at all, it may in fact improve it, but I do like playing devil's advocate, especially when it comes to adding complexity). Given that Dom is already quite complex this addition may be nothing more than another drop in the bucket, but it could also be the straw that breaks the camels back (gotta love those idioms eh? )

Now to look at your three main reasons for wanting to add this system:

Diversity: Yes, if done correctly it should add to diversity, I don't think there would be any more or less issues with balance than with any other system, if the system is implemented correctly. (further note below)

Immersion: This is a matter of personal opinion, the system wouldn't increase my immersion in the game, and for some people it might be too much, for some people it probably wouldn't be enough.

Combat-mechanical Realism: Well it would improve that, but again, not everyone cares about how realistic the combat mechanics are (assuming the existing mechanics are not flawed, which they are not), and you can start down a slippery slope if you make this too much of an important aspect of the game. Next you'll need to redo arrow flights, charging impacts, formations, facings, ... Basically you start down the slope of trying to make every aspect of combat as realistic as possible, and that's a lose lose situation I think. Of course it is possible to only implement small systems, or systems that only look at one (or a few) aspects of this, but the trend can become dangerous.

Some further notes about diversity and the implementation of this system. Firstly, will all nations have equal access to all weapon types and armors? If not, then some are seriously weakend with respect to others. This in and of itself isn't so much of an issue as completely balanced nations would be pretty boring (AoW suffers from this somewhat), however, lest we want to create a situation where some nations are superior to others based on this system (not hard to imagine I think) great care needs to be taken to balance this system appropriately. I'm not saying that can't be done, just that its not going to be a simple process. Furthermore, if some nations (or indeed all nations) are forced to look for independants to recruit to fill their holes, then, outside of scripted maps, there will be even more 'luck' involved in starting postions. Again, that's not necessarilly a bad thing, but it depends on your point of view.

Finally (cuz this post is getting too long) let me say that I'm not against your idea, I'm more looking to make sure that all aspects of it have been thought out, and those aspects are not limited just to the technical details of its implementation, but also the effect it could have on players of all ilks. Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem coping with the added complexity, but some certainly would, and for what this idea adds to the game, I'm not sure that its really worth it. There are simpler methods to improve unit, weapon, and armor diversity (basically changing the existing values, expanding the ranges that they encompass, and tweeking the effects of length and other things) without adding a completely new mechanic. The simpler methods may not give you exactly what you want from the combat realism point of view, but they should be able to addaquately create more diversity among any races set of units.

And no, I'm not taking this discussion to heart, I've been in the minority many times on discussions like this, all I want to do is present an opposing view point, and get everyone to think about the best way to effect a change (assuming the change is needed or desired). Heh, for you AoWers I was a staunch proponent of surrender (with some tweeks), so maybe that will explain something

[licker]

Originally posted by Mortifer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by licker:
Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing.

Uh this is a very wrong statement.
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage.
Example:
You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.]
You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.]
This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed?

---

No not agreed, but that's ok

If your opponent is using one type of unit primarilly you will use the counter to that unit primarilly, thats *one* unit type, unless I've miscounted somewhere...

If your opponent uses units with different armors or weapons combined, you'll have to use combined forces to counter them, unless you have something that is superior to all his units in some way. So either you are using an average of all your units (kinda like Dom1 I guess) or you are using *one* unit again.

All this adds is that you either have to guess what type of unit your opponent is using predominantly and use the counter (rock/paper/scisiors) or you find out one way or another what type of unit he is using predominantly and again, use the appropriate counter. This is simply an added step in actually getting to the battles themselves, which to me, is a bit more management (don't call it micro if you don't want me to) than is needed.

Don't get me wrong though, I think this system is pretty cool, I just don't think it adds much to the gameplay, beyond the cool factor, which isn't enough for me to really support it.

Again remember that simply having more choices doesn't mean that you've added any meaningful strategy to the game, if (and here is where the most disagreement will come in) those choices really arn't difficult choices. Once you find out what you are facing your choice is proably made for you, unless I'm really missing something in this system. There is no additional strategy involved at this point, its just, 'oh he's got rock, I better get some paper'. Ok, thats a bit of a simplification, but until I see a more fleshed out description of how weapons and armor would be balanced between and internal to the races, that's all you've got.

[Maelstorm]

Long and pointless post, licker.
This idea about weapon damages is brilliant.
If you do not like it, that is your personal problem.
The fact is, that it would raise the quality of the game, if this system would be added.
Just my 2 cents.

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by licker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mortifer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by licker:
Even with an addition like this, you'd end up using probably only one unit, as it would be the best for whatever nation you're facing.

Uh this is a very wrong statement.
How does that change anything?? You will have to use different unit with different weapon types than. Why? Because the enemy will be almost resistant to some sort of weapon damage.
Example:
You surely wont attack an army of heavy infantry with Spears [pierce damage] if they have heavy plate mail [20 prot against pierce, 15 against bludgeon, 10 against slashing - examples of course.]
You will surely use units equipped with greatswords [huge slashing damage.]
This is just one example. Lot more strategical than in Doms I, agreed?

---

No not agreed, but that's ok

If your opponent is using one type of unit primarilly you will use the counter to that unit primarilly, thats *one* unit type, unless I've miscounted somewhere...

If your opponent uses units with different armors or weapons combined, you'll have to use combined forces to counter them, unless you have something that is superior to all his units in some way. So either you are using an average of all your units (kinda like Dom1 I guess) or you are using *one* unit again.

All this adds is that you either have to guess what type of unit your opponent is using predominantly and use the counter (rock/paper/scisiors) or you find out one way or another what type of unit he is using predominantly and again, use the appropriate counter. This is simply an added step in actually getting to the battles themselves, which to me, is a bit more management (don't call it micro if you don't want me to) than is needed.

Don't get me wrong though, I think this system is pretty cool, I just don't think it adds much to the gameplay, beyond the cool factor, which isn't enough for me to really support it.

Again remember that simply having more choices doesn't mean that you've added any meaningful strategy to the game, if (and here is where the most disagreement will come in) those choices really arn't difficult choices. Once you find out what you are facing your choice is proably made for you, unless I'm really missing something in this system. There is no additional strategy involved at this point, its just, 'oh he's got rock, I better get some paper'. Ok, thats a bit of a simplification, but until I see a more fleshed out description of how weapons and armor would be balanced between and internal to the races, that's all you've got.

---

Well, I think that this system is lot more strategical, than the current Doms I 'system'. This system can force you to make better strategic/tactical decisions, IE. use the right units always, so you surely wont stick to 1 unit style. This is a very good point in it, agreed? You must always attack with a proper army. Yes I know that we had something like this in Doms I., but that is too simple if you ask me.

With at least 3 weapon/armor types, the tactical palette is lot bigger. That is the whole point behind this system.

[ October 07, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[Saber Cherry]

You do realize that by saying your not trying to be rude only makes it appear more likely that you are being rude?

Yes, I was trying to appear as though attempting rudeness, using an explicit proclamation of innocence prior to any accusation. Thus, rather than countering my main point, I could shift the opposition to a straw-man argument over my possible character flaws. Furthermore, I could start right off on the defensive, and gain a +50% combat advantage, since I'm in wooded terrain... yep! Too bad you saw right through me=)

I understand your point. I don't want Illwinter to make the game less accessible to new players, or add complexity for complexity's sake. But I feel that as long as the protections make moderate changes rather than huge changes, they will be a wonderful addition for obsessive strategists (Dominions' main following, I would think) without excluding anyone. By moderate, I mean that if you completely ignore damage types and have the worst-case army, you'll tend to need 20%-30% more troops to win battles compared to an army designed perfectly to take advantage of the enemy's damage types and vulnerabilities. Keep in mind that an army's power is generally a factor of the size squared, so a 20% larger force is 44% stronger, assuming a broad front.

So, I would say that as long as the damage type system isn't ridiculous or severe (like the way physical immunity and super-high-defense heroes unbalanced AOW1) then it would be present in the background, averaging out to have little effect, in a newby game; while in a competitive veteran game, it would be used cruelly and viciously, with much treachery to be gained from fielding armies of different armor and damage types than expected.

I played a demo of Empire Earth (or was it Age of Kings?) where the damage types (Infantry versus cavalry versus spearmen, or something) were tweaked to an insane degree, so that it was pure rock-paper-scissors and if you chose the wrong troop type, even a 300% numerical superiority (thus 900% relative strength) wouldn't save you. I thought that was stupid, and it made me not buy the game. So, yes, a poorly done or overly severe damage-type system could destroy a perfectly good game. But that's true of spells, too - it only takes one new spell, or new site, or new racial theme, to utterly wreck the game balance... yet I'm not asking Illwinter to stop putting in new spells

Well, that's that. Now, I'll just cross my fingers and hope something along these lines sneaks into a patch someday And if I have to whip out the Holy Grail to make you heathens either see the light, or be blinded by my glory, don't think I'm chicken!

-Cherry