Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[Pocus]

Originally posted by PDF:
The proposed changes are neat in themselves and would be Ok for a RPG or small battles tactical system, but I don't find them very fit for Dominions...
It would create a lot of micro-optimizations issues and won't add much to the game. Let's keep Dominion a strategic level game with detailed yet simple combat mechanics (Attack+dice vs defense+dice, strength+wpn damage+dice vs prot+dice) rather than going into Combat Mission type discussion about the penetration of a hurled javelin at 23° angle under rain on a chainmail sloped 15° but previously repaired by a one-eyed dwarf having Earth 2 skill ...

with an hammer the dwarf, or without?

frankly, you already have this rock - paper - scissor effect in dominions. But many players (well initially, when they play more they start to see the details) dont see the triad. Some examples, which are totally overlooked when you discover the game, but which will be taken into account when you have played a bit:

- shielded infantry have an added bonus again missiles.
- flails and/or morning stars (dont remember if it is both, but I think so !) have a bonus against shields.
- against low morale units, it is better to have a longer reach weapon, even if it does less damages. On the contrary, against high morale units, shorter weapon, doing more damage will be more useful.

Thats just some examples on top of my head, but if you play Ulm, each infantry type differ slightly, but differ from an other, and will perform slightly better against a specific enemy. Perhaps you gain an overall 5% efficiency, but when you repeat the process on several subcomponent of the game, then generally you have more chance to win than your enemy

So the various damage types would not IMO be detrimental to the game. Many players would totally forget about these rules, as they already forget about some game mechanisms, and this dont detract them from enjoying the game. Then, when they know better the game, they start to take into account more and more parameters.

[ October 08, 2003, 19:19: Message edited by: Pocus ]

[licker]

Thanks for that post Pocus, it got at what I was trying (unsuccesfully I think) to say about the existing mechanisms existing in Domintions to handle the issue of diversity. I do think that the nubers on the weapons could be tweeked a bit to change your 5% to a 10% or something if that 'feels' better to most players, but for the most part those tweeks are not needed.

Something else lost in this discussion is that we don't even know how much has been changed stat wise in Dom2, so there may be more diversity 'built in'.

I conceed that if the more critical issues are game immersion and combat-mechanical realism, then larger change would be needed. However, I again question whether it is that important to make those changes *simply* for those reasons. The overall effect on gameplay is almost zero if you limit your efforts to addressing the Last two issues, the first is purely cosmetic, and the second is problematic to me in being able to pull it off without upsetting balances too much, or adding too much extraneous information.

Besides doesnt The Operational Art of War allow the user to customize all that kind of junk to his hearts content (or am I thinking of some other war game?) I don't think Dominions should bog itself down with those kinds of details as they don't feel like they belong in Dominions.

[Edi]

I don't really see a need for the SPB division for weapon types. I've read this thread all the way through, and while I initially thought that yes, it'd be cool to have, I changed my mind. The current system works quite well enough for me that the SPB division is not necessary. The added complexity increases micro-management more than I'd care to see really, and it also increases the coding effort required of the devs by quite a bit, with very little return on investment gameplaywise when you compare to some of the other stuff that has been bandied about as suggestions.

In the bigger picture, this issue is more of a nitpick while other, bigger things would probably require less work to accomplish and have a greater impact on gameplay without increasing the need for micromanagement. I'd rather that those got first priority.

Edi

[HJ]

All this reminds me of my students complaining when I give them extra homework....

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by Edi:
I don't really see a need for the SPB division for weapon types. I've read this thread all the way through, and while I initially thought that yes, it'd be cool to have, I changed my mind. The current system works quite well enough for me that the SPB division is not necessary. The added complexity increases micro-management more than I'd care to see really, and it also increases the coding effort required of the devs by quite a bit, with very little return on investment gameplaywise when you compare to some of the other stuff that has been bandied about as suggestions.

In the bigger picture, this issue is more of a nitpick while other, bigger things would probably require less work to accomplish and have a greater impact on gameplay without increasing the need for micromanagement. I'd rather that those got first priority.

Edi

Yes this system is not necessary, but IMHO it would improve the gameplay. You can argue what you want licker, this is my opinion. To me, this would add a lot to the game. Sure I can live without this system, but as I said, the game would be better with the system, than without it.
Yes this would bring more micro etc. but also the game would be lot more tactical, and that is what matters in a strategy game.

[MStavros]

Hmmm I agree. Not necessary, but a good idea. If the devs can add it, I will be happy with it.

[licker]

Originally posted by Mortifer:

Yes this system is not necessary, but IMHO it would improve the gameplay. You can argue what you want licker, this is my opinion. To me, this would add a lot to the game. Sure I can live without this system, but as I said, the game would be better with the system, than without it.
Yes this would bring more micro etc. but also the game would be lot more tactical, and that is what matters in a strategy game. [/quote]

Hehe, I'm glad I'm allowed to argue what I want

Yes yes, it all opinion, its all personal preference, nothing wrong with discussing or arguing the merits of various ideas. I don't think anyone has said that it is a bad system or bad idea, just that it doesn't seem to fit into Dom all that well (in terms of advanceing gameplay in a *meaningful* way).

However I do not think that this addition would increase the tactics at all, it is in effect a much more strategic level implementation. Though before we go down that tangent it helps to define what we mean by tactical and strategic. However, I don't think that increasing tactical options in general is always an improvment to a strategy game, the tactical options need to be meaningful first off, that is to say that the number of reasonable choices must be increased, not just increasing choices while there remain only a few viable selections. I am not yet convinced that the addition of such a system does increase meaningful choices. I think its more likely that such a system creates more of a rock/paper/scisors effect, and in extreme cases that is a bad thing.

I think the take home message that most of the people who are against the inclusion of such a system want to have heard is that simply increasing complexity is not a substitute for increaseing tactical or strategic diversity. Complexity for complexities sake is almost always a bad idea, if you need proof of that take a look at MoO3