Dammit

[Arryn]

Boron said:
did you play all paradox games with the newest patches ?

Yes, I have.

Boron said:
in eu 1.08 you earn much less money and inflation is harder to combat . diplo sliders are much better too .
so it becomes a bit more challenging .

Those are peripheral issues to other things that are fundamentally wrong with the game, the worst being the AI.

Boron said:
hoi in 1.06 the greatly improved the ai .

I play HoI with 1.06c and CORE 0.84. CORE makes the game much more realistic and challenging, yet it still falls far short of being truly challenging in SP. Unlike Dom 2.

Boron said:
finally curious about vicky :
with 1.03b the latest patch i played it it was quite good most bugs were gone .

My BF disagrees, and he still plays the game (unlike me).

Boron said:
what i hate with all paradox games that they only force you indirect to not grow too big too soon .
not the ai stops you but in eu 2 revolutions from different religions + really huge stability costs .
in vicky the same but more severe .

There are some really ugly and ridiculously unrealistic/ahistorical things that happen in Vicky after the turn of the century if you're deemed by the AI(s) as a "threat".

IMO, Paradox is very good at conceptualizing / designing games, but not very good at implementing them. Their biggest shortcoming is a marked lack of usability testing, which would quickly reveal the numerous UI flaws in their games. They also desperately need someone with experience in AI (preferably neural-net AI). Of course, people with experience in AI are in severely short supply in the entire gaming industry. It's just that the games that most need good AI (ie: strategy games) are often the ones with the worst AIs. Probably has something to do with the genre's popularity and typical budgets.

Boron said:
the only game which comes close here to dominions 2 is master of orion 2 (perhaps space empires is similiar i haven't played it though because iirc it is realtime and i prefer turn based )

SE4 is TB. So is GalCiv. You should try both.

The Last RT grand strategy game I played (prior to EU/EU2/HoI/Vicky) was Star Wars Rebellion. A game that should have been TB. RT brought nothing good to the game. Especially since the morons who made the game didn't allow for orders while the game was paused.

[Kristoffer O]

Thanks for bring that back to the foreground. I played my first few games with standard troops and only really got into SCs thanks to Boron suggesting I check out ice devils. Only now do I see how odd it is that they flee when the chaff is killed even if they themselves are untouched. I'd really like a word from the devs on this. Maybe there's a reason why it wouldn't work. In the poll thread Boron said it would make battlemages too powerful, but I don't understand that. They don't usually have very high morale - and even if they did stay on the battlefield, they might well die once all the cannon fodder is gone.

CC

There is nothing that distinguishes a SC from any other commander. Commanders rout when their armies rout. Mages and commanders rarely can stand up to an army by themselves. Therefore commanders follow their routing armies.

SC's are exceptions in that you want them to fight on. The categorization of a SC is highly subjective. Is a Banelord an SC? Is a Banelord with a wraith sword an SC? Is your Wight mage with a wraith sword an SC? The Lamia queen with a wraith sword and an active astral shield might well work as a SC, but you would never want your pretender arch mage with the same equipment to fight on when the enemy army has beaten your troops.

The rout rules allows an exeption to lone commanders. Therefore SC's and pretender monsters can conquer provinces by themselves, but if they follow and lead armies they are subject to the normal routing rules.

There are other reasons as well. Do you want me to elaborate or is this OK for now? (I almost fell in the teacher trap and asked you to come up with two other reasons the rout works as it does )

[Sly Frog]

Arryn said:

I don't know where you got this silly notion. A lone commander will rout, unless that commander is an immortal in friendly dominion, or the commander is berserk. What doesn't make sense about it?

I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.

[Arryn]

Cainehill gets today's Knight in Shiny Armor award { } for his valiant efforts at rescuing the damsel from the perfidious assaults of the vile Saxon ruffian [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon19.gif[/img].

[Sly Frog]

Ironhawk said:
I agree with cheezeninja. Is the system "realistic"? No. Does it work well? Yes. But why get caught up in realism if this is just a game? A fantasy game at that. Balance is all that really matters in the end and the system, as it stands, has that.

I mean, sure, request or even propose a change to the system. By all means! But IMO, its not a crippling issue that requires immediate dev response. As you gain more experience with the morale system you will be able to see past its quirks and appreciate its value.

Because unless you have a good reason for making something the opposite of what is intuitive and normal, you are creating a barrier for entry to new players that doesn't need to be there.

I kept playing the game, but I've got to tell you that I've rolled my eyes on more than a few occasions at having strange things happen in the routing system (oh look, my badass pretender just routed because the lion I brought into battle ran away).

[Arryn]

Sly Frog said:
I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.

But, as Kris so aptly said a few Posts above, how does the game know that you're a "badass"? The game has no idea what's a SC and what's not.

BTW, I didn't think you were taking a shot at the devs (though I can see how you might think that I thought that). I simply thought that they weren't going to pay much attention to adjectives lacking any further explanation. In the context in which you consider the issue, yes it might appear "goofy". But the system is consistent, once one understands it. And I don't think anyone's ever claimed that Dom 2 is "intuitive". Far from it. If it was, this forum wouldn't be nearly so busy.

[Gandalf Parker]

Kristoffer O said:

There is nothing that distinguishes a SC from any other commander. Commanders rout when their armies rout. Mages and commanders rarely can stand up to an army by themselves. Therefore commanders follow their routing armies.

The rout rules allows an exeption to lone commanders. Therefore SC's and pretender monsters can conquer provinces by themselves, but if they follow and lead armies they are subject to the normal routing rules.

So what we have is????
commander with troops
should be done when you want the commander to rout after his troops are gone
commander with no troops
the SC you want to fight on until he is the Last guy standing and takes alot of damage

and then isnt there
commander with guards
not so likely to rout when troops die off but will if guards die off

and of course there is always the random variables in the rolls which make it a chance of happening anyway no matter how the battle is going. It all sounds like a pretty good spread. The only thing left open is some cases where you done get to choose which of the Categorys your commander is in. Such as Moloch with his imps (being discussed in another thread)

[Arryn]

Sly Frog said:
Because unless you have a good reason for making something the opposite of what is intuitive and normal, you are creating a barrier for entry to new players that doesn't need to be there.

No, you don't have to have a good reason at all for making things awkward. It just happens. Typically because the designers fail to give sufficient consideration to a game's usability. This is often most evident in game UI. How many games have we seen which don't allow for in-mission saves (Giants, Starship Troopers, etc.)? Or hotkeys for common actions (Dom 2 is guilty of this to a degree)? Or a need for an excessive amount of clicking and wading through menus (MOO3)? Or a lack of having all the info you need to (micro)manage your empire readily at hand in easy-to-digest screens (Dom 2 could stand some improvement here as well)? As for keeping such awkwardness? That happens when the perceived (by the devs) cost/benefit ratio of fixing such issues is outweighed by the effort involved or other priorities (or, in the case of some games, devs who are blind to their product's shortcomings, or too stubborn to do anything about it, or who won't fix things unless they get paid for it).

[Boron]

Sly Frog said:

I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.

your sc can be totally badass but he still hasn't a chance alone against special armies who are cheaper than the sc but antisc .

but when you take troops with him he is no longer a sc but with the army he is extremely brutal .

if you take with you just a few archers than it is your fault and simply stupid .
you did just wrong scripting / troop chose :
just take a few 50 morale troops with hold orders ( like vine ogres ) or if you want to really support him take with devils or something like this .
this way routing is extremely unlikely .

the only thing you lose is magic movement when you rely on cloud trapeze .


so i don't see why you are all complaining at all because the solutions are so simple :

SC + cloud trapeze against weaker armies

give the sc an army against stronger enemies but lose cloud trapeze . you can still teleport though or fairy trod or stygian path for magic movement .



if you chose the RIGHT troops the army is no curse but a real bless .



an almost perfect routing blocker is the siege golem .
immune to all kinds of magic , high protection + hp + siege ability .
scripted to hold + attack closest even 1 siege golem is haaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddddd to kill .
with the 2 turns of waiting your scs are already in meelee or buffed .
so the siege golem isn't attacked severe most probably at all .


early game : vine ogres as routing preventers , late game 1-2 lone siege golem(s) .

[The_Tauren13]

Arryn said:
Cainehill gets today's Knight in Shiny Armor award { } for his valiant efforts at rescuing the damsel from the perfidious assaults of the vile Saxon ruffian [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon19.gif[/img].

and the flamer of the year award for trying to rekindle another's argument and partake in it himself

Gandalf Parker said:
So what we have is????
commander with troops
should be done when you want the commander to rout after his troops are gone
commander with no troops
the SC you want to fight on until he is the Last guy standing and takes alot of damage

and then isnt there
commander with guards
not so likely to rout when troops die off but will if guards die off

and of course there is always the random variables in the rolls which make it a chance of happening anyway no matter how the battle is going. It all sounds like a pretty good spread. The only thing left open is some cases where you done get to choose which of the Categorys your commander is in. Such as Moloch with his imps (being discussed in another thread)

but what is the problem with panther's suggestion; making it morale based. thus, a commander with 30 morale and hardly any damage/fatigue, probably an SC, will stick around, but a commander with 10 morale and 60 fatigue will run off, probably a mage.