I dunno, guys...

[PvK]

I've been playing Dominions I and II for over a year (bought both), and am still loving them. Of course, it hasn't prevented me from continuing to play (and mod) SE4.

They are similar and different, and Fryon demonstrates that not every SE4 fan will love Dominions. Personally, I find it easier to say mean things about SE4 than D2, but I think both are great.

My one main gripe with D2 was the one Fryon mentioned first. They seem to have implemented pretty close to my suggestion for how to fix that issue, in a patch I assume Fryon hasn't tried. Friendly fire and wild missile dispersion is now much more under control than it was.

I like the morale system, and think it works well except for the case where someone tries to use only super-fighters with weak troops that get wiped out.

I also quite like the "infrastructure" system and find it interesting.

Fryon's "lack of customization" comment is only true if you expect the same kind of customization as in SE4. Personally, I find the "customization" in Dominions II quite rich and interesting. Certainly the characters in D2 can become at least as unique and interesting and storied as the ships in SE4.

Saying D2 isn't a good game is just Fryon's typical trademarked "egocentric truth" mode of expression. Of course everyone can dislike certain elements of a game, or the whole thing, but to say it's not a good game is trolling. Heaps of us have been enjoying the heck out of it. For every game, some people love it and some hate it. Both of these games have been loved by many. Give the demo a shot and see if you like it or not.

PvK

[Fyron]

PvK said:
My one main gripe with D2 was the one Fryon mentioned first. They seem to have implemented pretty close to my suggestion for how to fix that issue, in a patch I assume Fryon hasn't tried. Friendly fire and wild missile dispersion is now much more under control than it was.

That is good to hear. Of course, never having purchased the game, I am not privvy to patches...

I like the morale system, and think it works well except for the case where someone tries to use only super-fighters with weak troops that get wiped out.

All I am saying is that the extremes need smoothing out... too often my troops would begin to flee and run to different territories after having routed the enemy... When you have won or are about to win, half of your troops should never begin to flee.

Fryon's "lack of customization" comment is only true if you expect the same kind of customization as in SE4. Personally, I find the "customization" in Dominions II quite rich and interesting. Certainly the characters in D2 can become at least as unique and interesting and storied as the ships in SE4.

I was refering to the lack of ability to choose what your troops have... Who is to say that I can't train troops with slightly less than optimal equipment to save time and money? Why does every soldier have to have the exactly specified equipment? Why can't I give a particular soldier better equipment if I can afford it? Sure, I can train overall inferior or superior troops, but the grades come in big chunks (in terms of abilities), without any option to go into the middle ground...

Saying D2 isn't a good game is just Fryon's typical trademarked "egocentric truth" mode of expression. Of course everyone can dislike certain elements of a game, or the whole thing...

Slick asked for the opinions of others on the game, I posted mine. Due to the nature of this medium of communication, it should be assumed that pretty much anything posted is an opinion. Thus, it is pointless and a waste of time to type "in my opinion" in every sentence... There is no "egocentric truth" present. There is no assumption that because something is true for me, it is true for others... There is merely the expression of my opinion of the game. Are you saying that a positive assessment is not an "egocentric truth," but a negative one is?

...but to say it's not a good game is trolling.

Saying that it is not a good game for various valid reasons is not trolling in any way. Trolling would be posting something like, "Dominions 2 sucks." And that is it. "It is not a good game" is the same statement as "I do not like it." Why else would you not like a game than you believe it is not a good game? Other people enjoy the game and would say that it is a good game. This does not mean I have to lie and say it is a good game when I certainly do not think that it is. It would be entirely pointless to have a discussion forum if nobody ever posted a contrary opinion... Posting a negative assessment is not trolling by any measure of the word.

[Slick]

Imperator Fyron said:
...Of course, never having purchased the game, I am not privvy to patches...

It amazes me how you could have such a negative opinion of a game that you never purchased - and that you didn't mention that in your response. That fact certainly is important to me. My fault, I guess I didn't ask for opinions from people who owned the game. But thanks for the opinion anyway. From what I have played so far, the jury is still out. Looks to me like there is a lot of the game I have yet to experience. I'll give the demo a fair shot, even if that means a steep learning curve.

Slick.

[Fyron]

Slick said:
It amazes me how you could have such a negative opinion of a game that you never purchased - and that you didn't mention that in your response. That fact certainly is important to me. My fault, I guess I didn't ask for opinions from people who owned the game. But thanks for the opinion anyway. From what I have played so far, the jury is still out. Looks to me like there is a lot of the game I have yet to experience. I'll give the demo a fair shot, even if that means a steep learning curve.

Well I would only have purchased it if I had a positive impression from the demo... While not having the full game precludes one from experiencing everything, the demo is good enough to get a grasp on the fundamentals of the game.

[deccan]

Imperator Fyron said:
I was refering to the lack of ability to choose what your troops have... Who is to say that I can't train troops with slightly less than optimal equipment to save time and money? Why does every soldier have to have the exactly specified equipment? Why can't I give a particular soldier better equipment if I can afford it? Sure, I can train overall inferior or superior troops, but the grades come in big chunks (in terms of abilities), without any option to go into the middle ground...

Hmm? I never played the demo so I don't know how it is different. But in the game, for Ulm for example, you get to choose whether to build infantry with chainmail (lighter, less resource intensive) or plate (heavier, more resource intensive), and you get to choose whether they carry mauls, morningstars, flails etc.

If anything, the problem with national troops is not that you can't choose how to outfit them, it's that it doesn't matter how you outfit them except in the very early game, because after that they will all get owned by magic and summons and supercombatants no matter what gear they have.

[Suicide Junkie]

I'm pretty sure Fyron was looking for a finer level of control than that, perhaps training in boot camp for 4 months instead of 6, say.

But if the details get stomped out by the big beasties, I suppose it dosen't really matter in most games.

If you were trying for a more conventional tech mod/map, with little to no magic available, I imagine the fine training detail would be useful though.

[PvK]

Imperator Fyron said:
...

All I am saying is that the extremes need smoothing out... too often my troops would begin to flee and run to different territories after having routed the enemy... When you have won or are about to win, half of your troops should never begin to flee.

You may stick to that opinion, and I would agree it could be a good heuristic to include in a morale system. I wouldn't object to such a change, but personally, I don't find myself wishing for such a change. It seems to me that the player gets a much more omniscient view than soldiers on a battlefield would have. There are plenty of actual examples of real battles where some elements have retreated at the wrong moment. Part of what I appreciate in a morale system is the contribution of unpredictable and sometimes illogical effects. Even if unpredictable and with many causes, I find the system works quite well for my tastes in most situations.

I was refering to the lack of ability to choose what your troops have... Who is to say that I can't train troops with slightly less than optimal equipment to save time and money? Why does every soldier have to have the exactly specified equipment? Why can't I give a particular soldier better equipment if I can afford it? Sure, I can train overall inferior or superior troops, but the grades come in big chunks (in terms of abilities), without any option to go into the middle ground...

Well, the designers decided to say that, and I at least don't mind playing within some limits to my choices, especially since the provided choices were carefully chosen and tend to leave many choices, and interesting limitations. If everyone could tweak their weapons without limits, some of the interesting differences between nations would be lost. Which is not to say I wouldn't enjoy a little more freedom to tweak things. I would, and I do enjoy using the many choices there are. Some nations have more than others - I like playing with all of Ulm's various equipment combos, for instance, which are rather subtle.

However, to answer the question "who's to say..." well, the designers did decide to limit the choices, and I think the limits are interesting, and reasonable, and I think they add flavor. If you are a wizard (or whatever) studying the greatest magic secrets, and making a gambit for godhood, you may not have the time, interest, inclination, nor the folly (...), to spend your time trying to insist that the warrior culture you have selected suddenly change its doctrine to suit your petty fancies about the ultimate equipment to use. It's not likely to be efficient to try to rule the world from Shogunate Japan, by starting out trying to convince the samurai they should forget swords and use hatchets, or even bokken, even if Miyamoto Musashi would approve! Or if you are that kind of god, then you choose the nation to rule to match your tastes, perhaps one that has a mix of the various equipment types you like. There are tons to choose from, and after over a year of play, I haven't even tried all of them yet.

However, if you really want to tweak your equipment, and aren't satisfied with any of the dozens of nations and themes available, you can make or modify one using the mod commands. In single player or with a GM, you could even do it during play. You could add equipment variations to your heart's content.

... Slick asked for the opinions of others on the game, I posted mine. Due to the nature of this medium of communication, it should be assumed that pretty much anything posted is an opinion. Thus, it is pointless and a waste of time to type "in my opinion" in every sentence... There is no "egocentric truth" present. There is no assumption that because something is true for me, it is true for others... There is merely the expression of my opinion of the game. Are you saying that a positive assessment is not an "egocentric truth," but a negative one is?

No, I just felt you were overstating, and making assertions that could just as easily be expressed as opinions, to a degree that it seemed to me probably exceeded your actual knowledge of the other players' thorough enjoyment of the game.

... "It is not a good game" is the same statement as "I do not like it."

What? Not at all, and that's exactly the distinction I was making. You need to add "for my tastes" or "to/for me" to the end of the first one, or else you are suggesting that it's not a good game for others in general.

I don't understand how you could seriously suggest that.

Why else would you not like a game than you believe it is not a good game?

There are NO games that everyone likes, but that doesn't mean there are no good games. However there are some games that are so broadly disliked, that it may make sense to call them bad games in general.

For instance, you don't see me objecting when you say MOO3 is a bad game. However, even though I don't like GalCiv or Civ3 myself, because they aren't my kinds of games, I do think there are many players who have enjoyed them a lot, so I wouldn't call them bad games outright (or at least, I'd want to know more about them before I said so, except I don't 'cause I know enough to know I wouldn't like them).

However, taking a game that many players like very strongly and just calling it a bad game, and making statements like ""It is not a good game" is the same statement as "I do not like it"" seems to me like just causing needless confusion and annoyance and mostly wasting people's time. Writing your opinion more clearly could avoid that. Either you can really use this information, or you're just being difficult.

Other people enjoy the game and would say that it is a good game. This does not mean I have to lie and say it is a good game when I certainly do not think that it is. It would be entirely pointless to have a discussion forum if nobody ever posted a contrary opinion... Posting a negative assessment is not trolling by any measure of the word.

Egad. I never said you should lie or that you had to call it a good game. Just seems to me that the way you overstated your opinion was overstated in a way which would tend to mislead people who weren't familiar with what seems to be your style. You seem to think everyone should know that when you write "It is not a good game" you mean what others mean when they say "I do not like it." I guess I should make something like that a macro, instead of writing "Fryon's typical trademarked "egocentric truth" mode of expression"?

PvK

[PvK]

Suicide Junkie said:
...
But if the details get stomped out by the big beasties, I suppose it dosen't really matter in most games.

If you were trying for a more conventional tech mod/map, with little to no magic available, I imagine the fine training detail would be useful though.

The players who say things like that tend to be exaggerating, or playing certain styles of games. As in SE4, if you play low-magic sites and/or slow research rate, or if you play smaller maps or use an early conflict strategy, the mortal troops can be very important. Conversely, if you play with big maps, lots of magic sites, fast research, and/or wait till you have all the most powerful magic before starting to fight seriously, etc., then the magic can dominate and make mortal units seem fairly unimportant.

Many of the D2 forum posters though tend to get fixated and opinionated and will post massively overstated and often contradictory opinions about something being super-great or super-lame or broken or the best thing or whatever, because something worked well or badly in a specific instance. Generally, they just don't have enough experience and are used to simpler games that are much easier to analyze.

PvK

[deccan]

PvK said:
Many of the D2 forum posters though tend to get fixated and opinionated and will post massively overstated and often contradictory opinions about something being super-great or super-lame or broken or the best thing or whatever, because something worked well or badly in a specific instance. Generally, they just don't have enough experience and are used to simpler games that are much easier to analyze.

Ouch. It's one thing to claim that something is super-great in the sense that it's a guaranteed game winner. No one seriously claims that. On the other hand, as Zen's pretender and spell balance mods have indicated, there are clearly things (pretender chassis, SC chassis, battlefield spells) that are super-great in the sense that they render competing options of roughly equal resource costs / difficulty of obtaining invalid because choosing the super-great thing is such a no-brainer, in the same way that in stock SEIV choosing the beserker trait is a no-brainer (and that you've tried to address in your own balance mod).

I'm ok with your statement that the usefulness / uselessness of national troops depends heavily on game settings, but it would be nice if the army buffer spells were easier and less expensive to cast and resistance wards could stack properly.

[Atrocities]

I bought the game. It is a fun demo, but the game itself lacks a lot of the control that we enjoy in SEIV. I do hope the developers for Dominions take note of this lack of control and build in some master que and other unit managment and construction tools. Then again there are those who will argue that the game is better playd on the micro-managment level.

For me, having to tell each and every province what to do each and every turn was way to much. A master build que, or unit managment tools would have been god sends.