Are we paying more for less?

[Nerfix]

Not to mention units can rack up afflictions from battle or old age, get insane etc etc etc. So much features... >:3

[Mltdwn]

OK let me ask this question then and thanks for all of the input... Does the game essentially come down to (like in Dom2) wipe out all of the opponents to be the victor, OR is there other win options you can accomplish (i.e. Control 50 provinces which must include provinces x, y and Z...) plus the ability to enter into diplomatic relations with other nations/gods in an attempt to subvert their or other gods powers (i.e. making a deal of say "ok I'll open trade with you IF you go to war and begin attacking this other nation), stuff like that or does it largely come down to just wipe out the opposition?

Edit: Essentially what I am inquiring is this, does it esentially come down, like Dom2 to a brute force type game?

[Nerfix]

There's other win options, at least in Dom 2 there was.

If I remember correctly these options were:
- Total conquest OR victory by eradicating all enemy Dominion
- Research victory
- Victory through control of victory points
- Victory through dominion
- Victory through getting a certain number of provinces

And the victory conditions don't exclude each other, you could eradicate everybody in a research victory game and win.

You can't enter diplomatic relations. If this a game breaker for you, then it is.

[Endoperez]

The victory conditions have existed since DomII (control 50 provinces, control 3 spesific provinces, etc), but they currently can't be combined (control at least 50 provinces AND 3 spesific provinces). That would be a nice addition, though.

There is some really simple diplomatic-style stuff (e.g. if you have strong forces where an AI can see, he's less likely to attack you), but winning the games under the settings most often used fall down to conquering provinces, with armies, mages and/or ritual spells.

[Taqwus]

Might be noted that if you're playing at extremes in the dominions scale or there's a big difference in temples / preaching / Skeptics, it's possible for the dominion leader to not be the leader in military power.

[Cainehill]

Someone has previously posted that this time, cumulative victory point conditions are supported. IE, if 4 provinces have a single VP each, and 100 cumulative VPs are required, holding all 4 provinces for 25 turns would win; holding 1 for 100 turns would also win, if no one else accumulated VPs as quickly.

Expect it'll add quite a bit of strategic considerations, not to mention helping to propel a much quicker game pace. Currently, games get into wars of attrition - if 3 nations remain, each with 12 VPs, and 30 are required to win, the game situation can get stagnant, and could still continue another 100 turns with no winner in sight.

With cumulative VP condition, every turn someone has VP provinces brings the game nearer to the conclusion, and can force attacks : I have 12 VPs, he only has 10, _but_ he only needs 19 VP points to win and I need 25. If I don't take some of his VPs _now_, he wins.

[Taqwus]

Among the more obvious differences are the heavy multiplayer and the pre-battle formations and scripting (think about it: tactical battles do not make sense in a 21-player game).

There are a *lot* of battlefield tactics which emerged for D2, many of which required significant preparation to be able to use in terms of mage selection, troop selection, magic items, and research, in addition to the obvious pre-battle assignment of orders and unit placement. Hell, there's everything from mass-exploding (Phoenix Pyre'd) reinvigorating Communicants to flying armies and storm/lightning-zapping the battlefield, to mass enslavement and super-combatants.

In terms of strategic depth, there's supply contraints (including a high-level abstraction of supply lines through the fortress contribution traced through friendly provinces), -substantial- research that offers lots of variety...