patch 2.08 is out

[moodgiesanta]

It's amazing to me that people discuss things like this paralysis stuff about this game. It shows you how nice it really is, as opposed to a certain soul-crushing sequel which killed my love of space conquering strat games for a good 6 months until I got Gal. Civ. You know, where you were finding yourself on the forums saying, "Why does this game suck so much when the prior one was so awesome and who is Quicksilver anyway and why do I have to use a fan-patch two months after the game is released to get any measure of fun out of it?"

Anyway . . . I do have an on-topic query.

2.08 has the Utgard thing, I know, so I try to get around that by creating a god for Jotunheim that isn't Utgard, playing the race I want and Jotunheim as if it were a two player game, and then abandoning the Jotunheim to the computer at turn one. My issue is, what difficulty will the AI be for such a race that is abandoned midstream?

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by velk:
Does anyone think that the following is unreasonable :
If both sides are fully routed AND both sides cannot move AND they are not immobile AND the turn limit expires they should both automatically rout rather than automatically die.

This is completely correct

Units automatically being killed by the game is definitely a design flaw.

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by moodgiesanta:
My issue is, what difficulty will the AI be for such a race that is abandoned midstream?

I've always wondered that. However, a lot of the difficulty is decided by the race's design points... so turning a race into an AI cannot be truly any difficulty but "normal", though it will not necessarily be "normal" either.

[Kristoffer O]

Originally posted by NTJedi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by velk:
Does anyone think that the following is unreasonable :
If both sides are fully routed AND both sides cannot move AND they are not immobile AND the turn limit expires they should both automatically rout rather than automatically die.

This is completely correct

Units automatically being killed by the game is definitely a design flaw.

---

Some units cannot move nor rout. I do not think it is a design flaw that the game kills units instead of hangs. Imagine two life draining beasties fighting forever over their collective life force. These can rout, but others can't (Sphinxes for example).

Edit: strange example, but is happened in CoE where there is no routing.

[ February 18, 2004, 22:09: Message edited by: Kristoffer O ]

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Some units cannot move nor rout. I do not think it is a design flaw that the game kills units instead of hangs. Imagine two life draining beasties fighting forever over their collective life force. These can rout, but others can't (Sphinxes for example).

Edit: strange example, but is happened in CoE where there is no routing.

Having the game hang would be even a worse design flaw. But when a game automatically kills units on the battlefield because X amount of turns passed... that's wrong.
There is no explanation or reasoning for their death. {That's a design flaw}


Possible fixes:
units should be allowed to wake-up and properly flee from battle. (this will fix the issue for most units)
~OR~
instead of auto-kill... change it to auto-flee into friendly neighboring province. (this will fix the issue also)

[ February 18, 2004, 23:55: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

I personally wouldn't call it a design flaw as much as it was a limitation of the engine. You have commonly called things design flaws in the past which were ignorance. Whereas I don't think the solution at current accurately describes some sort of fantasy game which there is no way to describe it would or wouldn't happen logically, but I would hardly call it a "design flaw".

Just the concept that they changed the engine so that the game wouldn't crash when such a stalemate happens means they have thought about it, and this is the solution they have used.

I'm sure you'd get much more of a positive of a reaction from the Dev's if you didn't try to point out everything as a flaw instead of a limitation.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zen:
Just the concept that they changed the engine so that the game wouldn't crash when such a stalemate happens means they have thought about it, and this is the solution they have used.

Whether what IW chose as the solution is a "flaw" depends on perspective, and it also depends on whether the very reasonable suggestion that's been made, namely that of auto-retreating into adjacent provinces, was considered by the devs at the time they decided to opt for auto-kill.

I do agree with you, though, that there are more tactful ways to approach the topic than what we've seen.

Originally posted by Arryn:
Whether what IW chose as the solution is a "flaw" depends on perspective, and it also depends on whether the very reasonable suggestion that's been made, namely that of auto-retreating into adjacent provinces, was considered by the devs at the time they decided to opt for auto-kill.

Well as Kris said, what happens with the immobile units and how are they supposed to Flee? Does that mean that they have to code things specifically for immobiles? And what about if it's in a Castle? Why would the defender flee if he's holding his castle in a titanic struggle? And does he die if he has nowhere to flee to?

There are more ramifications than just blanket ones, which have to be considered and considered for coding.

I'm not saying that something couldn't, wouldn't shouldn't be implemented, but it's hardly cut and dry.

[ February 19, 2004, 01:12: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Arryn]

Zen, as usual you raise valid points. This time in regards to immobile pretenders. Personally, I feel it's silly to just assume that an immobile defender is killed after 50 rounds when the pretender and the intrinsic castle defenses (ie: ballistae, etc) are still alive.

EDIT: The problem comes in that if mobile pretenders auto-retreat, and immobile ones don't (perhaps auto-winning), then game balance goes right out the arrow slit.

[ February 19, 2004, 01:23: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Zapmeister]

Zen is spot on. The devs get to choose between the status quo, or opening a can of worms that will not leave the critics satisfied until every alleged "unrealistic" scenario is addressed.

If I were a developer in this position, I know which I'd choose. There are way more important issues to worry about.