Newbie's first impressions

[Tals]

Give her the manual and point out that F1 keeps track of the commanders. I'm a real non hard core gamer but this game in terms of magic is unsurpassed IMHO. A year on I still pick up the manual and go through it - nicely done and the descriptions and attention put to the spells is very impressive.

I'd also recommend an MP game - I could never go through this game in SP, really holds little interest - but in an MP pbem or network game - great!

Tals

[magnate]

Hmmm. I can see that Dom2's combat would disappoint if you were used to the tactical control of MoM or AoW. I played VGA Planets even before I played MoM, so Dom2's pbem-style combat videos were comfortably familiar, if not as exciting as tactical battles. As least you can script your armies in Dom2 - in VGAP it was hard enough to get them fighting in the right order, let alone telling them what to do in combat.

I missed the first AoW, but I'll look out for it. I quite enjoyed AoW2:SM but it was really *too* close to MoM for comfort, without being an improvement.

Patrick, I have run out of ideas for your gaming geas. I share your desire for an involving theme, but I don't share your impatience with analysis - in fact I generally prefer longer games over shorter ones, so Dom2 works very well for me (until the micro really hurts after about turn 70).

I do have a friend who is a veritable fount of gaming knowledge - I've known him for about ten years and we've hardly ever played the same game twice. I think he might be able to suggest some more games for you to try. If you're interested, PM me with your email address and I'll put you in touch with him.

CC

[Endoperez]

As I am reading this, I can't help thinking that PCarroll and others with lots of experience from both computer strategy games and strategic board games would be the perfect idea factories for Dominions III. Also, he could also tell how to make people like his wife get interested in the game more easily. UI improvements, Hall of Fame list for whole games (% of sites found in onwed provinces, conquered unique provinces, statistics for the game, best SCs/mages, favourite unit/commander/spell/summon etc etc), and possibly Battle Simulator or some other way to experience how directly orders affect battles. I'm not sure if lots of these are doable at this point, with the game slowly(?)coming together, but it never hurts...

What else has been mentioned in this thread? What else can you think of? I think the guys at Illwinter would be very interested in this discussion if they haven't already found this. It has been quite insightful for me, too.

[spirokeat]

Actually I think there comes a point with some people (myself included at times) when you simply burn out on games and no ammount of UI/theme/Styles will do.

You just can't please everyone and its a bad business idea to try. Personally I despise why that is, but thats a different story.

Dom 2 has an audience...Multiplayer. I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.

When I first started I thought...damn no tactical combat. But the advantages outweight anything else. And Im sorry Patrick but to say that you dont get to see spells working is not true...MoM had limited spell effetcs, they reminded me of 8 bit sprites.

Dom is without any debate the successor to MoM....I signed the MOM2 petition with I'm sure the rest of you. But to be honest, I just get the feeling your not in the mood for anything right now.

Good luck in finding something to ring your bell.

Spiro

[sushiboat]

If you like games that can be played quickly yet have some thinking involved, try the games by Freeverse.

[Alneyan]

spirokeat said:
Dom 2 has an audience...Multiplayer. I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.

I have one opening for Jotunheim in a beginner's game: link to thread is here .

[quantum_mechani]

spirokeat said:
I actually play SP only, though if anyone would like to invite me to a game I would love to try.

We are always looking for players every weekend on the #dominions IRC channel (irc.gamesurge.net).

[Scott Hebert]

While I cannot speak for my brother (Wyatt), I tend to agree with him.

To speak to the chess problem... if I miss the fact that you're are threatening my rook, did you out-play me if you take it, or did I miss it? This, to me, is more of a situation of the latter.

OTOH, if you knight-fork my King and Queen, this is more likely a matter of out-playing me than a mistake on my part. True, you could see it as 'not seeing that you could fork me, and thus not defending myself properly', but then it could also be that you are setting up multiple threats, perhaps using a bit of misdirection to confuse me, etc. etc. There is a point where someone can be simply out-played.

I have to say that my biggest problem with Dominions II is that the game rapidly outstrips my ability to focus on all of the different pieces that require my attention. Some people may like the fact that late-game Dominions has 100s (if not 1000s) of commanders that require orders every turn; I do not. However, adding more automation is not the way to 'solve' this problem, IMO. A 'better' way of solving the problem would be to allow fewer commanders to do more, or alternatively add a limit to commanders, whether a hard cap (you may not have more than 20 commanders), or a soft cap (your commanders die after X turns).

Also, at this point, there is very little in the game that can surprise me, and surprise is useful. That may be the reason that R'lyeh is my favorite nation, because of the Void Gate. There is also with the Void Gate something akin to the 'level gain' feeling with role-playing. I can see my priest's summoning skill rising, in a direct way. I guess a good comparison is the HoMM level gain pop-up. It's like, 'Oh wow, my achievements have this direct benefit.' It's not like Dominions where your commanders got a star, whee. It is a nice thrill once you see you can lead more troops, etc. etc., but it's not on the same level.

Anyway, I guess I'm rambling. Wyatt's much better at concise writing than I am.

[PCarroll]

Scott Hebert said:
To speak to the chess problem... if I miss the fact that you're are threatening my rook, did you out-play me if you take it, or did I miss it? This, to me, is more of a situation of the latter.

OTOH, if you knight-fork my King and Queen, this is more likely a matter of out-playing me than a mistake on my part. True, you could see it as 'not seeing that you could fork me, and thus not defending myself properly', but then it could also be that you are setting up multiple threats, perhaps using a bit of misdirection to confuse me, etc. etc. There is a point where someone can be simply out-played.

Is there such a point? Perhaps. When I bought a boxed Go set (back in 1975), I read a curious point of etiquette in the instruction manual: it said that it's not uncommon to allow an opponent to take back a move--or even several moves--even in a tournament game. The rationale given was that it's considered dishonorable to win just by capitalizing on an opponent's oversight.

I've always had mixed feelings about that, and I've always continued to wonder about it. On one hand, I'm all for letting an opponent retract a move or two; I'll even agree to start over. But OTOH, theoretically a game could go on forever that way: every time you get in trouble, you say, "Oops. Can we go back six or eight turns? I think I must've made another mistake."

I'm inclined to believe that *all* games are won by capitalizing on opponents' oversights (or lack of foresight or insight).

And yet, I suspect you're right too: there's a difference between missing a direct threat and missing a setup for a knight fork. But what is the difference really?

Seems to me we're talking about the line between what's considered obvious and what's not considered obvious. Beyond the beginner level, direct threats are supposed to be obvious to a chess player; so if an experienced player misses a direct threat, that's just an oversight.

The trouble is, at an intermediate level, setups for knight forks are supposed to be obvious to players. So if an intermediate-level player misses one, why doesn't that also count as an oversight?

"Obvious" is a matter of degree and experience. Grandmasters sometimes, in hindsight, consider their moves (or their opponent's moves) obvious blunders.

There may indeed come a point where "someone can be simply out-played." But the test of that is losing repeatedly to a given opponent. And even if player A consistently loses to player B, how do you know whether player A is being outplayed or is just prone to making oversights?

I have to say that my biggest problem with Dominions II is that the game rapidly outstrips my ability to focus on all of the different pieces that require my attention. Some people may like the fact that late-game Dominions has 100s (if not 1000s) of commanders that require orders every turn; I do not. However, adding more automation is not the way to 'solve' this problem, IMO. A 'better' way of solving the problem would be to allow fewer commanders to do more, or alternatively add a limit to commanders, whether a hard cap (you may not have more than 20 commanders), or a soft cap (your commanders die after X turns).

Now you're speaking my language. This sounds like the "mental hold" problem I was describing in my last message: a game that's too big, with too many moving parts, to comfortably hold in one's mind.

To me, size (including number of units to command), rules complexity, and game length are the three things that can weaken one's "mental hold."

Also, at this point, there is very little in the game that can surprise me, and surprise is useful. . . .

That's a twofold topic: (1) the joy of learning all the possibilities a game affords, and the pleasant surprise of making a new discovery, and (2) the surprise of a random or unforeseen game event occurring, and the challenge of having to deal with it.

The first type of surprise is, IMO, a big reason for being attracted to games like Dom2 or a good RPG or wargame system: it seems there's always more to discover. The size and complexity of the game gives a player a lot to explore before he's seen it all (whereupon he often gets bored and turns to a new game).

The second type of surprise is what makes backgammon different than chess: there's a factor (the dice rolls) you can't accurately predict; you have to take them as they come and make the best of them. In a sense, each dice roll is a surprise (all the player's calculations notwithstanding).

The latter is a kind of surprise that occurs during the play of a game. The other kind only occurs during the learning of a game (which, for a very complex game, can be a never-ending process).

So, the question is: What do you really want to do--play a game, or just keep learning games? Those who get more joy out of learning games may hate "mental hold"--because if they can comprehend the whole game, there's nothing left to learn. But those who get more fun out of playing will welcome "mental hold"--because once they've got it, they're free to focus on strategy & tactics, on playing well.

Is it dishonorable to know about the Void Gate in Dom2 if your opponent doesn't? Do you really want to win just because you happen to know something that comes as a surprise to your opponents? Theoretically, nothing in the rules or structure of the game should ever be a surprise to players. Yet, there are players who thrive on exploring the game-system and its possibilities; and once they've tried everything, the game becomes like a stick of gum that's lost its flavor.

It's weird when you stop and think about it. What would you say to a person who says, "Chess is boring now that I've learned all the rules"? Learning the rules is just the beginning of being able to enjoy chess. Yet we hear people saying, "The Void Gate was the last thing of interest to me in Dom2; now that I've experimented with that, the fun's over for me." That's a little like someone saying, "I didn't know about en-passant captures in chess, and that was kinda cool; but that was the last rule I had to learn, so now the fun's all over." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Clearly some modern games (wargames, RPGs, etc.) have a very different kind of appeal than traditional games.

--Patrick

[PCarroll]

Tals said:
Give her the manual and point out that F1 keeps track of the commanders. I'm a real non hard core gamer but this game in terms of magic is unsurpassed IMHO. A year on I still pick up the manual and go through it - nicely done and the descriptions and attention put to the spells is very impressive.

I'd also recommend an MP game - I could never go through this game in SP, really holds little interest - but in an MP pbem or network game - great!

I did give her the manual; I pointed out the hot keys and the extensive listing of spells. And I repeatedly called her attention to the F1 key, which she did (of course) find useful.

I also mentioned how all the Dom2 fans seem to be raving about it's magic system being unsurpassed. But her response, which I think I quoted above, was, "So what? If I don't get to see my spells taking effect when they're cast, it doesn't matter how extensive the magic is."

Oh--and I did mention the fact that Dom2 seems to have been designed with multiplayer gaming in mind. She shrugged that off (as I would have myself). One evening I saw her playing a card game against a computer AI, and I said, "You know, you could play this online against real people." She frowned and replied, "I've been extroverting all day at work. The *last* thing I want to do when I'm relaxing at home is interact with other people, even across a virtual game table." Like me, she's very much a single-player gamer.