Unit abstraction?

[Pocus]

Originally posted by CarlG2:
Hey Zen,

Thanks for the follow-up.

I think that reasonably sized forces can be put together via the abstraction that you use.

I believe that an army of 20,000 troops represents a good-sized mustering, and I wouldn't expect that most hosts would get a lot bigger than that (especially when one considers that you could have multiple armies of that size running around). From my reading on the game (and limited playing of the demo) it seems like an epic host in the hundreds of thousands (say 1,500 to 2,000 or more units) could be put together at great cost, as well...but doing so would really focus your power in one location, which would greatly reduce your forces across a larger front.

Again, I appreciate the feedback.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

Imagine 700.000 undeads moving thru the land, as a kind of sea of rotting flesh? Because if you are ok with the scale 1 unit = 100 beings, then you can sight on big AI games Ermorian armies of 7000 units...

I dont know at which point dominions crash, but I think some of us witnessed Ermorian armies of more than 10.000 units!

[licker]

Originally posted by Zen:
DeamonBread, Ice Angles.

Oh man, that killed me

And I believe Dom2 combines the best aspects of a RPG, historically generated fantasy. Some of them are based on history, or at least societies, and others are completely out or based on novels.

It gives a more 'real' feel for me at least.

Err, ummm, yes, well in my defense, English is my 1st language... Uhh no wait that's not a good defense... I know!! 'W' is my president... Yes that's better...

Now for the truth. I spelled them correctly, then said, "that doesn't look right" went back and changed them, said "that doesn't look right either" so I just hit Add Reply since I was too tired to bother figureing out the correct spelling...

Anyway, now we'll have some more fodder (oh the pun ) for how those Abysian armies ignore supply.

Originally posted by licker:
This is part of the strangeness of this problem. Multiplying everything by 10 essentially changes nothing in a beneficial way. It may 'feel' more right to some people, but the impact on game play is zero. Except that if you actually wanted to represent all 10x more troops in the battle replays, or even on the recruiting screen/army set up screens. All it does is add complexity and drive up system requirements (graphically at least) to satisfy the whim of a few.

Maybe it can be determined that a % of the troops in that regiment (100) have had wounds that would impede movement (for a Limp Affliction). Because the law of averages and if you believe in soldiers caring for their brothers in arms (not just leaving them to die on the ground) and the nature of crude weapons on the human body. It's not inconceivable.

I personally think of it as a 1 ratio, but that doesn't mean anyone else can't rationalize 100 per

[licker]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by licker:
This is part of the strangeness of this problem. Multiplying everything by 10 essentially changes nothing in a beneficial way. It may 'feel' more right to some people, but the impact on game play is zero. Except that if you actually wanted to represent all 10x more troops in the battle replays, or even on the recruiting screen/army set up screens. All it does is add complexity and drive up system requirements (graphically at least) to satisfy the whim of a few.

Maybe it can be determined that a % of the troops in that regiment (100) have had wounds that would impede movement (for a Limp Affliction). Because the law of averages and if you believe in soldiers caring for their brothers in arms (not just leaving them to die on the ground) and the nature of crude weapons on the human body. It's not inconceivable.

I personally think of it as a 1 ratio, but that doesn't mean anyone else can't rationalize 100 per

---

Certainly they can rationalize it however they want, but the rationalization begins to fail with undead or other mindless units, and between battles seemingly the units would 'regroup' to become healthy again while 'retireing' the wounded.

Anyway, its an issue that I don't think Illwinter cares to tackle (nor need tackle), but its an issue that will creep up from time to time.

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by Wauthan:
This might sound a bit dorky but at times I feel like Dominions started out as a RPG project that spiraled out of control. There's a lot going on in the game that makes it feel like you're the master of a small band rather than leading armies.

Would be neat if someone actually made an RPG style map, like say a really big dungeon, were every tile represented a room or similar feature. And the pretender as the leader of a party of adventurers.

Actually it started out as tactical combat fantasy engine, that spiralled out of control. So the province map, pretenders, dominion etc. came along later.

[ January 14, 2004, 21:32: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

[CarlG2]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Well, dom2 battles remind me a bit of braveheart. If I remember correctly, they dont field such huge armies as you like in the movie.
Dominions 2 is no pure fantasy game. There are no orcs and no elves, most nations (except maybe ermor and R'yleh, but that one does not count as fantasy anyway...) are somehow related to historical nations/religions. This is a background where such epic scale battles would not fit in, as battles in those ages usualy not involved so many soldiers.

Hi PrinzMegaherz,

Thanks for the feedback!

While I am certainly no expert on the subject, the reading and research I have done over the years has given me the impression that the military forces of the ancient world were often larger than would be expected.

It often depended largely on the nation in question and the age (Bronze, Iron, etc.), but there are examples of immense forces (and also relatively small forces). The ancient Romans and Persians fielded military forces numbering in the hundreds of thousands, while the Greeks only fielded armies of around 10,000 men.

Interestingly, the Europeans typically fielded relatively small militaries following the fall of Rome (in comparison to those of the Middle East and Far East at the same time). I believe the armies clashing at the time of Braveheart numbered close to 5,000 men, and I think this was fairly typical of the armies of Europe at the time.

I recall that Alexander the Great led a host that grew as large as 60,000 men, the Egyptians at one time fielded over 100,000, and the Assyrians could muster close to 200,000.

Getting back to the ratio of men to unit size in Dominions 2, I don't see any way that reasonably impressive forces could be achieved in the game without assuming an abstraction ratio of some type.

In fact, I think that the game would be unplayable if armies of any size were to be represented in the game with a 1 to 1 ratio...it'd get too unwieldly, and the battles would take ages to watch...

I do have to agree with some other posters that this is, at its heart, a fantasy universe based roughly on historical themes for the various nations (as is true of almost all fantasy worlds).

Thanks for a lively discussion, and good gaming!
Carl G.

[CarlG2]

Originally posted by Pocus:
Imagine 700.000 undeads moving thru the land, as a kind of sea of rotting flesh? Because if you are ok with the scale 1 unit = 100 beings, then you can sight on big AI games Ermorian armies of 7000 units...

I dont know at which point dominions crash, but I think some of us witnessed Ermorian armies of more than 10.000 units!

Now that's what I'm talking about!

Imagine in your mind's eye the land blackened from horizon to horizon by the shuffling dead... Then, imagine a struggle of titanic proportions as a host of knights carves a wedge of silver through the rotting corpses of the damned.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

[CarlG2]

Originally posted by licker:
Anyway, no one size (for armies or provinces) is going to satisfy everyone, and I don't think it really should matter that much anyway. But I'm a real proponent of looking at game mechanics first and reality second, which isn't always a popular view

and

Originally posted by licker:
I don't think many people will argue that the scales of armie sizes to populations to province sizes to time are 'realistic', but as far as how everything comes together to provide an entertaining game the devs should be applauded. Of course everyone will have a pet-peeve about this or that and how it isn't realistic, but you simply can't make it all realistic and still keep the same game mechanics as there are. I'd even argue that if you went for more 'realism' game play would suffer greatly.

Hi licker,

Thanks for the comments. I think that where you and I would differ here is that I like to find a closer relationship between realism and game mechanics. I really don't like it when game mechanics trump too many gestures to realistic relationships, as it really ruins my suspension of disbelief.

For example, take Age of Wonders 2: Shadow Magic. All of the AOW games have a scale where 1 turn = 1 day. This completely breaks every system in that game (population growth, training, spell progression, etc.) At that rate, every wizard in the world would be an archmage in 120 days... Also, in the first scenario you start as Julia, a "powerful" elven wizard queen who happens to be a level 1 apprentice...as a great South Park lawyer stated during the Chewbacca defense, "It does not make sense!"

Chess is a good example of my next point. It is basically a wargame, but abstracted to the ultimate level for the sake of gameplay. It is a great game, but completely uselss in its ability to recreate a historical conflict at a "simulation" level.

Which gets me to my other desire in a game system. My wargaming roots go back to the desire to simulate a conflict. In the case of historical wargaming, a game should simulate a conflict in such a way that it has the ability to exactly replicate history...but also with the ability to explore alternate results based on different strategies.

So, I guess that makes me a simulation gamer.

In fantasy games, I like to "simulate" a good fantasy novel in my mind, for each game played to create a new history...and, as such, I need to be able to find some level of reality in the "system" that a game uses (of course, we're talking about a subject that defies reality, as I don't recall the Last time I saw a dragon...but even in a fantasy world, I like to see the "systems" have a realistic relationship). When I look at a game design, I immediately evaluate things like, "Does the magic system have a 'believable' origin or reason for working?", "Does the back story hold up under scrutiny?", "Are the races interesting, or just weird/silly?", etc. If too many of the answers are no, then I am turned off to the game. If the answers are yes (as they are in so many cases for Dominions 2), I look at the game further to see if I'd like to play it (which is why I'm here!).

I do agree with you that taking realism to the ultimate end results in a bad game. Master of Orion III had a grand design plan with an intense amount of realism...but the implementation failed to make a good game (or, at the least, the publisher forced the developers to change the game design and then release it while it was a hybrid between the original design and modified plan...) I realize I'm looking for some kind of happy medium that might fit me, but also might be despised by others.

I'm not advocating that illwinter go and change their game design, because it is THEIR game design. I am, however, trying to see if I can reasonably abstract certain facets of their game (i.e. unit size, etc.) and still be able to "believe" in the "simulation" that I am playing.

Does that even remotely make sense? If you read this far...thanks and I hope it was at least interesting!

Good gaming,
Carl G.

[ January 15, 2004, 04:06: Message edited by: CarlG2 ]

[CarlG2]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
Actually it started out as tactical combat fantasy engine, that spiralled out of control. So the province map, pretenders, dominion etc. came along later.

Hey johan osterman,

So you are saying that there was a bit of scope creep on the project?!?

Anyway, kudos to you and illwinter for building this game. It's a testament to how much can be done by a small team, and how many resources are wasted by the big game-development shops.

Good gaming,
Carl G.

[Arralen]

Originally posted by CarlG2:
Which gets me to my other desire in a game system. My wargaming roots go back to the desire to simulate a conflict. In the case of historical wargaming, a game should simulate a conflict in such a way that it has the ability to exactly replicate history...but also with the ability to explore alternate results based on different strategies.

So, I guess that makes me a simulation gamer.

Did you ever try out HarpoonIII ?
Harpoon Headquarters .com

Why I mention it?

It's the most "simming" conflict simulation I know off. A "professional" Version is even used by the Australian Military. I was beta tester for the civil Version as long as my time allowed.

A.

[ January 15, 2004, 04:23: Message edited by: Arralen ]