An idea for stronger use of "dominion"

[aldin]

Dominion also appears to be related to passive intelligence gathering so having a strong enough Dominion to 'push' into territories you don't own can really help you keep a better idea of what's around you.

~Aldin

[diamondspider]

Originally posted by aldin:
Dominion also appears to be related to passive intelligence gathering so having a strong enough Dominion to 'push' into territories you don't own can really help you keep a better idea of what's around you.

~Aldin

That makes a ton of sense. It is more likely that a "believer" would squeal on enemies than an "unbeliever"

And, yes, I have noticed that advantage and it is very nice. Good point.

[ January 29, 2004, 03:36: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

I'd like to see a minor chance of unrest, if you are in control of a province dominated by an enemy. To show the disruption of people believing one way and the government believing the opposite. Nothing out of control, but minor chance per strength of dominion would be nice touch of 'realism' if it could be balanced out correctly.

[diamondspider]

Originally posted by Zen:
I'd like to see a minor chance of unrest, if you are in control of a province dominated by an enemy. To show the disruption of people believing one way and the government believing the opposite. Nothing out of control, but minor chance per strength of dominion would be nice touch of 'realism' if it could be balanced out correctly.

That would help for sure.

However, for my taste, the main issue is that lighting attacks into the capital or "back areas" would be nice to be just a tidge more difficult when dominion is very high and that would help solve the problem of making investing in dominion spread worthwhile in cases where you don't have (or are up against) destructive scales.

I agree that it is very hard to balance all of this stuff I also fully admit that, being a fan of defensive play and hardly ever seeing it be half viable in these games has been frustrating for me over the years and that not everyone shares supporting such play-style options.

[ January 29, 2004, 04:22: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

Well in MP Dominion is still very key. In defensive territories if used with the right troops (mainly Pretender, Prophet and SC's) you can cause the advance into your domain to be really painful.

That particular dynamic I don't believe needs to be adjusted as much as map movement and passing through to attack back territories and everything akin to that.

[diamondspider]

Originally posted by Zen:
Well in MP Dominion is still very key. In defensive territories if used with the right troops (mainly Pretender, Prophet and SC's) you can cause the advance into your domain to be really painful.

That particular dynamic I don't believe needs to be adjusted as much as map movement and passing through to attack back territories and everything akin to that.

Well, since I am one of the few players (it seems) that doesn't like to use an "SC" Pretender, my guy only goes out of town to go jewel hunting on occassion.

However, I fully agree with you that a player who did use an SC with prophet and used a destructive domain the combo is pretty strong already and such a strategy certainly needs no more "help"

So, again, VERY hard to balance this stuff.

Due to this fact, it is probably true that the system is fine as it is and the way to please players like me is to have a few more themes like Miasma that help defensive play (or at least make it remotely viable).

[ January 29, 2004, 04:50: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

[velk]

If you feel your dominion is not giving you enough benefits there are a few good globals that help - check out wrath of god for example.

Not to mention the obvious ermorian benefits to high dominion, or the relentless aggravation that you can cause your enemies with immortal troops inside your own dominion.

[mivayan]

I am fairly sure that I have seen unreast increase in provinces under enemy dominion.

[tinkthank]

Hey these are good replies.
I now agree with most of the postings here that the original sugggestions were not appropriate, and that there is some more benefits to dominion than I had realized. However, learning now that there is NO benefit to income and supply for dominion takes away one aspect I thought was in.

The balance does seem to be difficult. The suggestion to make controlling a province in which a foreign dominion rules (conflict: official dogma / current belief) problematic I find good. Perhaps income could sink / unrest be more likely?

Perhaps too there could be some changes as to how or which type of "random events" occur according to dominion? (I dont mean hurricanes, but perhaps there could be "dominion-based" random-like events, such as some familiar ones (e.g. the liklihood of zealots joining your cause or anti-zealots trying to wrest the province from your control) or new ones.)

I would just like to see the religious aspect play a slightly more explicit role.

[ January 29, 2004, 12:47: Message edited by: tinkthank ]