Forthcoming patch notes

[Tifone]

NTJedi,

I don't have much time now 'cuz I gotta go. I hope you will excuse this green player if he doesn't have the time to quote and comment your points one by one.

I'd just like to say that your points, about sending 1 or 2 SCs against hundreds and not being able to kill more than 100 units in one turn, possibly means that you sent a too little force, with not enough killing potential in 50 turns, against a too big army for the given amount of time for a battle, and not that the gameplay mechanic is broken. In poker I wouldn't say that a two pair doesn't beat the three of a kind because the hand of 5 cards is restrictive. I just didn't have enough "power" to beat the opponent's hand. This one is a very limited example, but just a thought about the complaining about the "restrictive mechanics" and not that maybe you got used to send not enough SCs, or not strong enough, into the battle, and not that the battle is broken.

2nd, your examples about mindless units have been discussed a bit yet by me and atul, and vfb actually talked about a possible solution for them that don't require to change the whole battle timing mechanic.

3rd, isn't a year 12 turns? 4 seasons x 3 turns each... 12 turns... no? And in this time the army does the preparatives, reaches the enemy province, reaches the enemy army, possibly after an honorful "date" of the battle a couple of days after comes the (sample of) battle, and has the time to retreat back to another province. Seems to take whole weeks to do everything. And I don't think the *sample* of a battle can tell you how much time does it take. Does Check, as a well-known *sample* of a battle, tell you that a battle took one day?

[NTJedi]

My math is off, since I didn't sleep last night.


My little force of 2 SCs fought less than 200 units... and since each game turn is a month it's more than enough time to kill 200 units. The worst part was the enemy was routed and fleeing, my remaining SC wasn't even wounded chasing down the routing enemy... yet auto-killed because of a game turn I lost. This result is illogical and wrong.

Dominions_3 cannot be compared to poker... both are extremely different on multiple levels.

[Tifone]

NTJedi,

You are obviously a much more expert player than me (really, no sarcasm, it's true) so I hope you don't mind if I say you one things about a couple of your words.

NTJedi said:
My little force of 2 SCs fought less than 200 units... and since each game turn is a month it's more than enough time to kill 200 units.

Obviously NOT, for this game's chosemn mechanics there is NOT plenty of time in one month (or better, in just the time that the movements of one month leave to the battle) to kill 200 units if your SCs (one of which died) weren't able to do so.

NTJedi said:
The worst part was the enemy was routed and fleeing, my remaining SC wasn't even wounded chasing down the routing enemy... yet auto-killed because of a game turn I lost. This result is illogical and wrong.

This is a different issue we should discuss imho in a different way than the "long battle limbo" idea. I exposed the idea of routing, defeated enemies just dying regardless of the turn if they aren't able to leave the battlefield in a given time, 5 or 10 turns. Another option -while not maybe completely realistic in some other situations, for sorrounded units in fact unable to retreat and even because you won those fight anyway - was to let your SCs retreat in another province instead of disappearing. Suggestions quite more logic than changing the gameplay of all the battles negating the possibilities of reinforcements, and huge battles lasting /more/ than just a month.

P.S. Really - this game has a very nice, interested, respectful community. So it just strikes me that people complain the game mechanics of battle because they don't find appropriate that a mindless SC, instead of retreating like the "minded" ones, just stops working after one month of fighting if he wasn't strong enough to win. Isn't sending *more* or *stronger* SCs more appropriate and tactical and "pro", instead of asking that he is given the "limbo" advantage? ^_^ The other, surely important, issues (berserkers, slow retreating units) can't be possibly treated another better way?

[NTJedi]

Tifone said:

Obviously NOT, for this game's chosemn mechanics there is NOT plenty of time in one month (or better, in just the time that the movements of one month leave to the battle) to kill 200 units if your SCs (one of which died) weren't able to do so.

Yes, and hence lies the illogical problem which needs to be fixed.

NTJedi said:
The worst part was the enemy was routed and fleeing, my remaining SC wasn't even wounded chasing down the routing enemy... yet auto-killed because of a game turn I lost. This result is illogical and wrong.

This is a different issue we should discuss imho in a different way than the "long battle limbo" idea. I exposed the idea of routing, defeated enemies just dying regardless of the turn if they aren't able to leave the battlefield in a given time, 5 or 10 turns. Another option -while not maybe completely realistic in some other situations, for sorrounded units in fact unable to retreat and even because you won those fight anyway - was to let your SCs retreat in another province instead of disappearing. Suggestions quite more logic than changing the gameplay of all the battles negating the possibilities of reinforcements, and huge battles lasting /more/ than just a month.



[/quote]
I've been asking Illwinter for awhile to provide the auto-retreat instead of the auto-killing. Increasing the battle turns was another related issue. I would hope one of these issues is addressed within a future patch so those playing SP games and MP games can less battles where the fight is against a battlefield turn clock.

I do both MP and SP games, within my current SP game I have an enemy army of 450 troops sieging and important castle which they will storm if I don't stop them. Due to its location I only have the option to teleport 3 SCs and 1 mage(Hero- Delgnat) to try and stop them, yet here my biggest threat is the battlefield turn clock which will kill my last three golems if I fail. It's illogical for the greatest threat facing my SC golems is a game mechanic.

Tifone said:
P.S. Really - this game has a very nice, interested, respectful community. So it just strikes me that people complain the game mechanics of battle because they don't find appropriate that a mindless SC, instead of retreating like the "minded" ones, just stops working after one month of fighting if he wasn't strong enough to win.

2 SCs with a time of one month logically should be able to kill more than a 100 units during battle. Increasing the battlefield turn limit is one option for reducing this issue. If the province cannot be conquered then either they should follow instructions of the pretender who controls them and walk back to a neighboring province OR remain in limbo above the province to attack again the next turn. Nothing justifies instant death for multiple types of mindless SCs. I've even lost non-mindless SCs to a later battlefield turn limit which also kills.

Tifone said:
Isn't sending *more* or *stronger* SCs more appropriate and tactical and "pro", instead of asking that he is given the "limbo" advantage? ^_^ The other, surely important, issues (berserkers, slow retreating units) can't be possibly treated another better way?

Sending more SCs isn't always an available option... and SCs and armies should not be auto-killed from a game mechanic which cannot be explained if the game is later written as a story such as the AAR(after_action_reports).

Any improvement would be appreciated. Ideally an adjustable battlefield turn setting would provide the best long term satisfaction. Secondly the changing of auto-killing into auto-retreating would remove the injustice of wrongful deaths and is more logical as well.

[JimMorrison]

NTJedi said:
I do both MP and SP games, within my current SP game I have an enemy army of 450 troops sieging and important castle which they will storm if I don't stop them. Due to its location I only have the option to teleport 3 SCs and 1 mage(Hero- Delgnat) to try and stop them, yet here my biggest threat is the battlefield turn clock which will kill my last three golems if I fail. It's illogical for the greatest threat facing my SC golems is a game mechanic.

Ummm, to clarify, the most dangerous thing facing your SC golems which exist only within the framework of this game, will always be a game mechanic.

I think the illogical part, is this sort of unstated assumption that there should be no reason that the -only- (read: single, no other options) thing you have available to break this siege, must be sufficient. Yes it's just the AI and all, but if your SCs are not built in a way that can handle an army of 450 under pre-existing and well understood game mechanics, why would you send them in there and then complain?

You routed KO, you should be able to route 450 AI chaff.

[Tifone]

uhuh Jim ^_^

[chrispedersen]

I vote against increasing the turn limits. I *hate* SC's.
While we're ranting:

A. I really wish strategic spells did more. Hurricanes <ho hum>. Rain of Toads - big deal. Frankly its a design flaw when accidents of nature <random events> are FAR worse than most spells.

Proof: Whens the last time you heard of someone winning by casting economic spells?

B. Same argument, different verse.
Fires from afar = ridiculous waste of gems, most of the time.

Proof: Various wants and scepters will allow you to destroy turn in and turn out MUCH more than any fires from afar ever will.

The game would be *much* more interesting if there were more spells that could be used on a strategic basis. Call of the wild, call of the winds, are marginally useful.

How about things like: Bad weather delays attack (winter spell that prevents movement into or out of a province).
Ice Storm - makes one sea hex passable due to an ice bridge.

Dysentery: Spell that afflics 22+ units with dysentery. It reduces map move by 1.

New Action by bards: Investigate rumors. Each turn there is a cumulative chance of uncovering a hero.

[NTJedi]

JimMorrison said:
I think the illogical part, is this sort of unstated assumption that there should be no reason that the -only- (read: single, no other options) thing you have available to break this siege, must be sufficient.

They are sufficient for breaking the siege, however they are not sufficient to break the siege within the fixed 50 turn time limit. So it has nothing to do with whether they are strong enough, it's do they have enough time before being auto-killed?

JimMorrison said:
Yes it's just the AI and all, but if your SCs are not built in a way that can handle an army of 450 under pre-existing and well understood game mechanics, why would you send them in there and then complain?

It's because they are being killed by an unrealistic source unrelated to anything from my enemies on the battlefield.

JimMorrison said:
You routed KO, you should be able to route 450 AI chaff.

Yes, I could route 450 AI chaff... if I just had enough time.
Several options for improvement exist... I know Illwinter is busy, so any improvement would be nice.

[HoneyBadger]

I'd like to vote yes to adjustable combat turn limits as a selectable feature at the start of the game, since it's a huge factor in how games play out, and makes Kristoffer bored-should imo go from 50-300, just like supply, resource, gold, etc.

[NTJedi]

Tifone said:


3rd, in this time the army does the preparatives, reaches the enemy province, reaches the enemy army, possibly after an honorful "date" of the battle a couple of days after comes the (sample of) battle, and has the time to retreat back to another province. Seems to take whole weeks to do everything. And I don't think the *sample* of a battle can tell you how much time does it take. Does Check, as a well-known *sample* of a battle, tell you that a battle took one day?

The firing of arrows is one method of identifying the timeframe of a battle, the fatigued generated by soldiers wearing armor on the battlefield is another method, look and you'll find more.

Even KO could not justify an explanation for the auto-killing of units on the battlefield after the battlefield turn limit expires. Simply it was the decision so the battles don't last forever. I estimate the auto-retreat would have been implemented by now, however it's probably too late for the programming code.