Player controlled battles??? - Page 5

Strategos · #41 October 23rd, 2003, 10:00 AM

Player controlled battles?

Yes and No, or , rather, both please!

In pre-info-age eras, communication was difficult and you'd only get news of a won or lost battle days, weeks or even months later.....so the present DOM system of reporting battles is realistic.

HOWEVER, what about when the pretender is present on the battlefield? - the pretender is in a position to fight the battle and makes the decisions - he/she should be able to direct battles in situ

Either that, or more flexibility/options in battlefield deployments

Mortifer · #42 October 23rd, 2003, 10:13 AM

Whoa old topic!

Hm I think an option to turn on/off controlling battles would be the best, however managing an army of 600+ troops is kinda hard + we have AI vs AI in the battles, so this is the best way to balance the SP tactical combat.

[ October 23, 2003, 09:13: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

st.patrik · #43 October 23rd, 2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
I didnt read the whole thread but the answer always used to be that player controlled battles would be non-PBEM.

I rarely watch the combats anyway. In fact Id like to see some changes so that Im not forced to watch as many as I do. Such as Arena Messages say xxxx beat yyyyy on each one so I know which were my guy. And zzzzz tried to assassinate yyyyy could maybe mention if he won. The "there was a battle" might mention xxxx beat yyyy so I dont have to watch it just to see the participants

I agree with Gandalf on this - sometimes you don't want to watch all the battles. However, if you were only able to control your pretender it would be max one battle per turn. I can also see the role-playing element - which is attractive - here. But it would fundamentally change the nature of the game to implement, plus which, as Gandalf said, totally remove the PbeM element - which is a pretty important part of the game for a lot of people (including, I suspect, the devs).

Mortifer · #44 October 23rd, 2003, 04:17 PM

Guys I tell you what would be the best: Only allow to control pretenders maybe commanders in the battle. Of course with a turn on/off option.

Anyways, I think that this is not really important, there are lot more important things like the diplo system, the weapon/armor system or the mod tools.

Gandalf Parker · #45 October 24th, 2003, 01:41 AM

I didnt read the whole thread but the answer always used to be that player controlled battles would be non-PBEM.

I rarely watch the combats anyway. In fact Id like to see some changes so that Im not forced to watch as many as I do. Such as Arena Messages say xxxx beat yyyyy on each one so I know which were my guy. And zzzzz tried to assassinate yyyyy could maybe mention if he won. The "there was a battle" might mention xxxx beat yyyy so I dont have to watch it just to see the participants

[ October 23, 2003, 12:42: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

HJ · #46 October 24th, 2003, 09:35 AM

Ah, full control of the battles... What a great wish...

Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone.

[ October 24, 2003, 08:45: Message edited by: HJ ]

HJ · #47 October 24th, 2003, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:
Originally posted by HJ:
Ah, full control of the battles... What a great wish...

Something like a Total War system, where you can autoresolve battles or choose to fight them out yourself, would be ideal - and please everyone.

No it wouldnt. Or well, maybe it could but I dont see how even an option for controlling the battles can possibly NOT affect the game. If nothing else the tremendous amount of time and effort to put it in. Sorry but Id rather NOT see anything along this line. More options for scripting commanders, or using formations, would be great but not combat control.

Its a PBEM game. One that is done by uploading your turn file. And its one of the few excellent long-living games out there that do it. Im usually diplomatic and middle-ground on things but here Id have to say something that might kindof rude.... there are plenty of those games out there already, please dont turn this into one. Id rather see Dominion continue to be an excellent PBEM game than to see it become a mediocre RTS game.

Well, I won't go into the scripting argument. Yes, it would require some major rewriting, scripting the new combat system, AI, etc. That's not my point at all, and I don't see it as a valid argument coming from an end-user. How hard is to script something doesn't really influence what I personally do or do not like.

I don't play PBEM, so that doesn't influence what I like or don't like either. I'm just saying what would make the game even more enjoyable for me personally.

And I never said anything about RTS. Actually, I was thinking about TBS tactical combat. Why do people immediately assume tactical combat has to be RTS as if they've never heard of or played HOMM or AOW, I don't know. I mentioned TW purely because it has the option to autoresolve or fight it out yourself. AOW2 has the same option, and I could've used it as an example as well. I didn't, well, my bad, I still wasn't thinking about RTS. In any case, since you'll be autoresolving battles anyway, I don't see why you would care either way.

There are people who would like the game to stay exactly what it is right now. I myself like many of the game aspects, and in other aspects I see a great potential. That potential means that it would make it more enjoyable for me if some things would change. And this is the only forum I've seen where suggestions, regardless of how polite the tone is, are so vigorously shouted down by the people who play the game that it's becoming ridiculous. Usually, the people post suggestions, and then others add to them. Here every suggestion gets flooded by naysayers in no time. I don't seem to recall that I did the same thing for things I don't care about or think the devs shouldn't spend their time on improving, such as MP or modding tools. Mostly because I find it pointless, and even rude. But I guess I'm in the minority (maybe not in my wishes, but in the described tolerant attitude for sure).

[ October 24, 2003, 14:48: Message edited by: HJ ]

Vodalian · #48 October 24th, 2003, 03:41 PM

What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously.

[ October 24, 2003, 14:43: Message edited by: Vodalian ]

HJ · #49 October 24th, 2003, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vodalian:
What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously.

In light of my previous post, I'm tempted to make a joke and start shouting "Heresy!!"

johan osterman · #50 October 24th, 2003, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vodalian:
What would you guys think of a combat system, where commanders and troops are scripted beforehand, but the actual battle would happen real-time. i.e. troops wold act simultaneously.

There was some work made in this direction for a while, but it was abandoned. The nice thing about it is that you could be able to assign different speed values to different actions, perhaps make some weapons slower, certain spells slower to cast etc.