in which occasion will you raise taxes

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Jasper:
To put it bluntly, the dominions battle system is over complex, but not very interesting. There are systems that do a decent job of emulating reality, have less complexity, and more viable variety, take less micromanagement, and are just more fun. I would far rather see something emulate history, than emulate D&D.

Would you mind pointing out, specifically, the overly complex portion, and specifically provide a simpler replacement? There are some changes I'd like, but I don't think they make the game simpler. So I'm quite curious as to the nature of your complaint(s), and your suggestion(s)... I like simple, deep things.

If I'm overlooking something obvious in one of your Posts, please point me to it.

-Cherry

[Jasper]

Possibly at the start of the game, during a moment of desperation, or when I know I can't hold a province. It might also be usefull for those nations that need corpses.

I find this much improved over the constant 200%
taxation in Dom 1.

[apoger]

>4 Hypaspists for 60 gold
>14 Cardaces for 140 gold

The resource costs of Hypaspists have doubled!
This now makes the Cardaces much more attractive and the Hypaspists near worthless.

[apoger]

1- I am experimenting with 200% "burn out" strategies. I suspect that we will see some of this in multiplayer. Possibly more than some.

2- Other than the burn out, the only time I would change taxes is either to devalue my assets when an enemy is beating me or to devalue enemy territory while I'm raiding.

Frankly I'm not happy with the economics of Dom II. The issues above combined with Ermor type dominion and a suspected player base that will be using much death scale, leads me to think that population shrinkage is going to be staggering in multiplay. This (and many other things) is going to lead to hardcore super combatants. I don't see this as a balanced nor preferable outcome.

I continue my tests, and hope that there is some mitigating factor that I haven't gleened yet.

[PvK]

The Hypaspists are still the most skilled of the three melee infantry types, so when gold is low, or when you're trying to get the best strength per supply use, they make sense to use.

PvK

[ October 30, 2003, 00:39: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Zerger]

Originally posted by apoger:

Frankly I'm not happy with the economics of Dom II. The issues above combined with Ermor type dominion and a suspected player base that will be using much death scale, leads me to think that population shrinkage is going to be staggering in multiplay. This (and many other things) is going to lead to hardcore super combatants. I don't see this as a balanced nor preferable outcome.

I agree with you.

[I am not a multiplayer, but since the singleplayer AI is annoyed me -it is too weak-, maybe I will play some mp games, if I will have time. I mean TCP games, I don't like Pbem]

[Chris Byler]

Originally posted by Jasper:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
The only use I've found for LI so far is their javelins - they do as much damage as longbows, and because of their shorter range, they have better accuracy. A squad of LI behind a squad of HI can be fairly effective against moderately armored troops. Against Ulm you still need crossbows or magic though.

I got alot of mileage out of my starting 25 LI with Machaka by using similar tactics, although not enough I built any more.

---

Yes - but if there were a heavy infantry with javelins, wouldn't they be even better at it? Come to think of it, Pythium legionnaires do have javelins. Aren't they better at this sort of thing than LI?

quote:

---

Some people on this thread seem to be claiming that it shouldn't take any more money to maintain a company of fifty men with Full Plate of Ulm, a full helmet, tower shield and warhammer (say) than spears, leather hauberks, javelins and maybe hard leather caps. I don't see how you can support this view - if nothing else, war gear wears out or breaks and has to be replaced. That costs something.

[Further stuff suggest gold maintenance cost for high resource troops snipped]

My main arguement here is simply game complexity. I would only support giving them more maintenance in a uniform manner, e.g. by increasing their cost, or by calculating resources in the gold maintenance cost.

---

Ok, I agree. And I also think that if their ineffectiveness on the battlefield could be solved, it might not be necessary to make them cheaper - but as it is, they definitely need an advantage of some sort, and being quick to raise isn't enough when they are also so much quicker to die.

quote:

---

On the other hand, I also think that a large part of the heavy vs. light problem stems from light troops' ineffectiveness on the battlefield (snip)

Historically Light troops got demolished by heavy troops in frontal melee. Furthermore, massed heavy infantry had more staying power, despite what one might guess from heavy armor.

Making Light Troops more powerfull in Melee is not a good solution, IMHO. They _should_ get demolished in melee.

---

Then what do you suggest? Hit and run isn't very effective if you can only hit once a month. Their strategic movement is often blocked by terrain, and even when it isn't, raiding in the enemy's rear doesn't produce enough effect to justify the risk of defeat in detail, even for a quick-to-raise force. (At least in my experience - has anyone tried a serious campaign of pillaging all over the place (possibly with a bunch of Implementor Axes) faster than the enemy's army can pin you down? It seems likely they'd just respond by sieging - but then, heavy troops are no better than light at breaching walls, Ulmish Sappers excepted.)

quote:

---

Finally, historically there were melee weapons specifically designed to pierce armor - pikes, for instance. Why aren't they armor piercing in Dom (I or II)?[snip]

I see no basis for this in history at all. Pikes were used because they were long, that's it.

---

Hmm, maybe I am misremembering. In any case, there are counters to armor in Dom I/II, but they usually cost more than the HI. Furthermore most counters to HI require a way to stop the HI from killing the fragile units that can effectively damage them (i.e. crossbowmen or mages) - which often means more HI, although summons can also be used.

[st.patrik]

I think a distinction has to be made here between Light Infantry and conscripted crappy infantry. That's the point I was trying to make with the hypaspists - they (in Dom I, which is what was my frame of reference) are a light infantry, but still very useful. Whereas on the other hand militia aren't very useful, and I think that's appropriate.

So there are 3 classes of troops (very roughly):

• Heavy Infantry [well-trained, thick armour, poor defense, slow-moving]
• Light Infantry [well-trained, light armour, high defense, fast-moving]
• Conscripts [poorly trained, light armour, low defense, average movement]

You would expect quality LI to have lesser PROT than HI, but greater DEF and AP, and that's exactly the difference between Hypaspists and Hoplites in Dom I [Hypaspists' stats are quite a bit different in Dom II]. It's easy to see the advantages of both, under this paradigm: when fighting slow but strong troops you'd want LI, because their higher DEF score should avoid the attacks altogether. In the same situation HI would do alot worse, because they wouldn't dodge any of the attacks, and therefore get damaged a lot.

Militia would be pathetic in this (and pretty much every other) situation.

In other words: I'm just fine with militia-like troops not being used much - conscripted troops with little training have always been best as cannon (or dragon) fodder, and not much good at anything else. On the other hand, well-trained light infantry should be useful, and if this means a DEF boost, so be it.

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by apoger:
>4 Hypaspists for 60 gold
>14 Cardaces for 140 gold

The resource costs of Hypaspists have doubled!
This now makes the Cardaces much more attractive and the Hypaspists near worthless.

The hypaspists near worthless? If you compare them with cardaces gold10 res6: they have morale +4 attack +1 defense, +1 prot +7. If you compare them with hoplites: gold11 res 28, they have prot -4, morale +2, def +4, strat move +1. I think they fill a niche between the hoplites and the cardaces, especially in the early game where you have a limited number of castles.

[ October 30, 2003, 01:58: Message edited by: Kristoffer O ]

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by PvK:
The Hypaspists are still the most skilled of the three melee infantry types, so when gold is low, or when you're trying to get the best strength per supply use, they make sense to use.

PvK

Hypaspists cost more in gold than hoplites or cardaces. And their basic stats are much the same as the hoplites, barring PROT, DEF, ENC, and AP - all these you would expect to be different, given different armour. The only other difference is MRL, which they of course are superior in.

And apoger, they more than doubled since Dom I: 8 -> 18