vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+ ?

[johan osterman]

NTJedi said:
I actually addressed a solution for this within another thread. What should be done is the assassin should be placed on the defenders side of the battlefield and the defender on the attackers side of the battlefield. This means the commander/mage would have to run past the assassin while retreating.
If the commander does successfully retreat it still ends up in a different province if one is available plus any units under its command would have been left behind. This provides an effective assassination while still being logically and historically accurate.

I'm not sure why the current assasination is so 'historically and logically' inaccurate though. As vfb suggested an assasination could be taken to represent a scenario where the assasin has attacked a victim where the victim is cornered, with no possibility of escape.

A problem is that assasinations take place in a province that has no neighbours, and neighbours is a function of the map file. Which is why they die when they flee. It is not trivial to add neighbours ingame, and I very much doubt that JK would want to fiddle with it. It is the sort of change that is likely to introduce new bugs and problems. I guess that goes for switching positions on the battlefield as well.

Also I am not alltogether clear on why, as someone suggested, a retreat in VotD would represent awakening from the dream, it might as well be called death from fear, or the soul losing itself in the land of dreams, or any other pat explanation you happen to like.

[NTJedi]

johan osterman said: I'm not sure why the current assasination is so 'historically and logically' inaccurate though. As vfb suggested an assasination could be taken to represent a scenario where the assasin has attacked a victim where the victim is cornered, with no possibility of escape.

It's historically inaccurate because there have been assassination attempts in history where the target has fled successfully! Within dominions it's impossible and thus historically inaccurate.

johan osterman said:
A problem is that assasinations take place in a province that has no neighbours, and neighbours is a function of the map file. Which is why they die when they flee. It is not trivial to add neighbours ingame, and I very much doubt that JK would want to fiddle with it. It is the sort of change that is likely to introduce new bugs and problems. I guess that goes for switching positions on the battlefield as well.

I understand it's very very unlikely we'll see a change within the current game. The issue is important to mention in hopes of providing a more logical and historically accurate game events for future versions(Dom_4) and any other project(s) Illwinter may be working.

johan osterman said:
Also I am not alltogether clear on why, as someone suggested, a retreat in VotD would represent awakening from the dream, it might as well be called death from fear, or the soul losing itself in the land of dreams, or any other pat explanation you happen to like.

Since the retreat is the result of a turn limitation it's not death from fear or death from being lost in the dreams. A target which is killed because of a turn limitation is wrong and illogical.

[triqui]

johan osterman said:
Also I am not alltogether clear on why, as someone suggested, a retreat in VotD would represent awakening from the dream, it might as well be called death from fear, or the soul losing itself in the land of dreams, or any other pat explanation you happen to like.

Is this an official point of view from developers? I mean, the spell is working as it is supposed to work (attackers do not rout at turn 50, and defender die in turn 75)?

I'm asking becouse that might be an easy and clean solution for me. If that is *how* the spell is supposed to work, i have exactly ZERO problems with it. I might find it a spell too good for it research cost, but i also find thunderstrike too god for it research cost, and wont ban it from my game. My grief is that, as i understand it, the attacker not disolving in turn 50 was unintended.

So if VotD is offically working as intended, my problem with it vanishes.

[johan osterman]

triqui said:

Is this an official point of view from developers? I mean, the spell is working as it is supposed to work (attackers do not rout at turn 50, and defender die in turn 75)?

I'm asking becouse that might be an easy and clean solution for me. If that is *how* the spell is supposed to work, i have exactly ZERO problems with it. I might find it a spell too good for it research cost, but i also find thunderstrike too god for it research cost, and wont ban it from my game. My grief is that, as i understand it, the attacker not disolving in turn 50 was unintended.

So if VotD is offically working as intended, my problem with it vanishes.

Well it is working as intended, it is not bugged.. Perhaps it would be desirable that the dead where the attackers. Or that the dead not count as kills or what have you. But those things are not trivial to accomplish. There has been debate abnout this spell since dom 1 days. And JK has resisted all attempts to convince him to change it in either of those ways.

[NTJedi]

Death because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong for any game.

period

[johan osterman]

In response to NTjedi

It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

[NTJedi]

johan osterman said:
It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

I understand the turn has to end. However to kill because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong. A commander/mage powerful enough to survive 50+ rounds during an assassination deserves to live... based on history and logic.

[triqui]

johan osterman said:
It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

I dont get it. How is so? I mean... the turn 50 attackers "should" retreat. Even attackrs that do not retreat (like golems) die. However, in this spell, the attacker do not retreat or die. How is it that this is there to make sure turns end? Wouldnt the turn ends regardless if the attackers could retreat or vanish, like golems do?
EDIT: answered before your edit, didnt know you were speaking to nt jedi. My question remains, though.

[kasnavada]

NTJedi said:
Death because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong for any game.

period

I agree with that. Actually, anything that would have a turn limitation is bad.

Solutions : you could :
- add a cumulative 1 damage from fatigue every turn beyond 50 (this has its own issue, I'm not too much in favor of it),
- or just restart the battle as it were the next turn with the remaining units (and more if they decide to join the battle -> that would be fun),
- or anything else.

The fact that it doesn't make sense that the dead multiply when killed in a dream could be logical in a "dominion" sense, I mean, he did kill them again and could dream of them again. The fact that people just die suddenly when a turn limit is passed ? That cannot make sense.

[triqui]

kasnavada said:
- or just restart the battle as it were the next turn with the remaining units (and more if they decide to join the battle -> that would be fun)

That does not work. Two combatants with spam skelleton and enough reinvigoration can fight forever. Two lighting inmune combatants with lighting damage whips cant kill each other, ever. The game HAS to have a hardset turn limit. The cummulative fatigue might work, but so does the regular turn limit. The only doubt is what happens when a unit that reach its own turn limit rout, does not rout.