Surrender, Routing, and Pacificm

fahdiz · #1 March 8th, 2004, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tinkthank:
OK!
Is turning your eyeballs brown a good or a bad thing (in your eyes -- bad pun not intended)?

Heh. I simply mean to say that because cognitive science is full of so many grey areas (like all social sciences, as cognitive theory really doesn't have the hallmarks of "hard science"), there is an awful lot of crap to wade through in order to get to something of any value.

My eyes are green, for the record.

Quote:

So it seems like at least some pacifistic options could thus be not only fun, but also great for a target group of young persons, such as my kids. (right?)

Or your kids could simply play different games, and Dom II could be left where it is, for its intended audience. In Age of Wonders II there are some benefits to pacifism and diplomacy, depending on the race you're playing (the Spirit of Order seems to like pacifists a lot, and it's a crucial part of the strategy for the "life"-based races) and in a game like Civ II or III you can concentrate for a large part of the game on winning by Wonders and diplomacy rather than by war.

Dom II is a fantasy wargame, rather than a civilization sim or so-called "god game". The fact that its niche is so closely defined allows Illwinter to take that niche to its ultimate level of depth.

[ March 08, 2004, 15:41: Message edited by: fahdiz ]

tinkthank · #2 March 8th, 2004, 05:53 PM

OK I'll go along with that.
And if you don't mind me saying so: I think that *EVEN AS A WARGAME*, it would be great if Dom II (or any wargame for that matter) could *also* consider (or: consider considering?) implement a form of "ius in bello" (as opposed to the simple "ius ad bellum"). I won't make a big deal out of it, and I am certainly not going to blame Illwinter or anyone else for that matter for not doing so, but hey -- one can dream, right? I think it could make the game darn interesting. (And isn't it REALLY also functionally important? If I go around (in today's world) slaughtering helter-skelter, there will be repercussions; ius in bello is not *soley* for moral-goody-goody-ness-vs.-boo-war-is-bad-ness distinctions.)

fahdiz · #3 March 8th, 2004, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tinkthank:
OK I'll go along with that.
And if you don't mind me saying so: I think that *EVEN AS A WARGAME*, it would be great if Dom II (or any wargame for that matter) could *also* consider (or: consider considering?) implement a form of "ius in bello" (as opposed to the simple "ius ad bellum").

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing such an option/strategy in a different game. And no, you are certainly not wrong for dreaming, nor for wanting something different.

Games are like holes in the ground.

Some of them are very broad but rather shallow (they're easier to dig, too), while a select few are narrow yet boundlessly deep. Dominions II is obviously of the latter Category. I haven't yet seen a developer make a game which is simultaneously "all things to all people" (broad) and intensely rich (deep). It could happen in the future, I suppose, but I doubt it.

tinkthank · #4 March 8th, 2004, 06:28 PM

Heh good analogy with the hole.
Well I think you are right. Would be neat to see some of Wauthan's ideas flourish (wouldnt even be that hard to do, I suppose), but until then -- I will just keep quiet, continue dreaming -- and keep having fun playing DomII as it is!

vanedor · #5 March 8th, 2004, 06:28 PM

I agree it would be nice to have a greater good/evil factor in the style of Age of Wonder II. In fact, this game get lot of evil, but very few good.For example, we have an utterly evil nation named Ermor... but no totally good ones. We have no way to make an in-game alliance(in sp) and create a pantheon. You cannot convert except by military conquest. It's all about conquering the whole world in a bloody war. It's not really bad but I wish there could be another way.

For example, I think an enemy/neutral province that has a dominion of X(put a number) and remain that way for more than Y turns should join your cause. Afterall, you are the one they believe in even if your troops arent there.

PhilD · #6 March 8th, 2004, 09:57 PM

Err, this is a game about fighting a religious war of extermination...

There is no good side. There are a lot of bad sides, and a few worse ones.

(Of course, being personally very anti-religious does not help seeing a "good side" in this game... but still...)

Norfleet · #7 March 8th, 2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PhilD:
Err, this is a game about fighting a religious war of extermination...

That's a bad thing?

Quote:

There is no good side. There are a lot of bad sides, and a few worse ones.

Sure there is. Your side is the good side, duh! And the streets will flow with the blood of the nonbelievers!

Quote:

(Of course, being personally very anti-religious does not help seeing a "good side" in this game... but still...)

I'm not a terribly big fan of religion either, but if the religion is about worshipping me, that's enough to make me a believer.