Dom I Strategies which WON'T work in Dom II

[johan osterman]

10% resource bonus per step from the production scale. Growth and supplies increase from the growth scale.

[ October 16, 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

[apoger]

>While we are at this, I will add that I disagree with Alex' list of whammies. While all those are certainly strong tactics, most of them are countereable &, although powerful in the right setting, you can both win without most of them & you can fight them.

I (nor anyone else, AFAIK) ever said that they were uncounterable. You are reading more into what was said than was there.

>1.- Diplomacy

I wouldn't disagree that diplomacy is incredibly potent.

>I cringe when I see demands of an increase of this in MP games with stuff like 'right of passage', the Last thing we need is to make these gangfest easier. No problem with an increase of diplomacy options regarding the AI in SP, but diplomacy is strong enough as it is in MP.

This I disagree with this strongly.
In any conflict involving multiple nations, diplomacy is critical to success. It's an essential facet of strategy and has every reason to be modeled into a wargame. Particularly one as complex as Dominions.

I understand that some players like the idea of anomymous power-gaming where there is limited interaction. I have no issue with that. Such players would always have the option of turning dippy off or playing in a low interaction game. Just because some players like this however, is no reason to spite those that do like dippy.

I submit that the best path is to give the players as many options as possible, and let them pick and choose what type of game they wish to participate in.

>2.- The full economy+combat pretender with no magic+full taxing/patrolling triada:

>Hopefully this is going to change in Dom II, and we will see funnier designs with more magic & less economy.

While I'd like to see some changes to this as well, I have concerns that the current system (Dom II) that limits the "money" scales will have the opposite effect, making gold more scarce will limit mages and might inspire much more military and early game super combatants. I dearly hope I'm wrong.

>3.- Supercombatants: Wyrms & Nataraja types early on, IDs, Pazuzus, FIs and other breeds later on. This is the way to go for victories with no cost, they are an all or nothing bet, but when they win they win big.

>This is also being tonned down a bit for Dom II, which is good. I like playing with these guys, it's funny to equip them & tailor them to the opposition, but they are too strong as the game stands.

Again, less money and more magic scale will inspire more super pretenders. Lessening the effect of the shields is only a small check on their potency.

I'll be better able to comment once I see the new game.

>4.- The army of summoners backed up with relief. I am surprised this doesn't get complained about more...field 20 mages, have them cast spells as if they were 60 instead, what's balanced about this?

The reason this isn't a huge issue is that by the time you have giant armies of mages and all the research for such combo's, we are also entering the "army bLasting" phase of the game. The army bLasters rip up stacks of mages.

Furthermore, super combatants were always much more in evidence than mage stacks. The mage stacks were one of the few ways to counter super combatants. Hence the lack of complaints.

Indeed, if Dom II has restrictions on conjuration (seems that way), then we will just see a movement towards evocation/relief instead.

This said, much of this is conjecture since I haven't seen the new system in action. I think once we all get the new game and spend some time with it, we will all be better qualified to judge the new balance.

[Saber Cherry]

Oh, I have another favorite DomI strategy that won't work in DomII!

"Getting the demo, and never bothering to get the full Version, because the demo basically is the full Version."

[Nerfix]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Oh, I have another favorite DomI strategy that won't work in DomII!

"Getting the demo, and never bothering to get the full Version, because the demo basically is the full Version."

Yup.
Dom II demo is like tigthened social security.

Ooops, culture specific humor...

[Wendigo]

Me:
>> diplomacy is strong enough as it is in MP.

Alex:
>This I disagree with this strongly.

No surprise here, we have held opposing views on this topic before in the newsgroup.

IIRC you campaigned for:
- Right of passage.
To which I answered same as here: it would only make gangfests easier.

- Exchange of commanders/mages/troops.
To which I said that allowing such would only dilute the differences between nations and result in a duller game, as nations would not have to find ways to compensate for their weaknesses because they could do so easily via diplomacy.

I haven't however seen any argument to counter the above ones, as the one that follows doesn't hold.

>In any conflict involving multiple nations, diplomacy is critical to success. It's an essential facet of strategy and has every reason to be modeled into a wargame. Particularly one as complex as Dominions.

This is a false analogy with RL. In RL it is possible for a nation to 'win' by staying out of trouble or either achieve a mutual gain by submitting to a bigger power. Obviously, this has no place in a game where 'there can be only one ruling God' by definition. You can say that you personally would like to have more diplomacy options in this game, but there's definitely no need for those as you seem to imply in your argument, the game is not a simulation of our world.

I do not oppose cooperative gameplay per se, but the limits of it must definitely be stated beforehand when the game is launched (looks like we at least agree on this), otherwise it only results in fustration as players develop different expectatives of what is, or not, allowed in a game that requires a heavy time investment.

And I definitely do not see any need to increase the power of what is already the most powerful MP weapon with further coding favoring its use (or abuse), for me this would detract from the game, by making it duller and less challenging (as in, your actions & gaming have a much lower impact on the result of the game the more powerful diplomacy is, as taken to the extreme what counts is how many nations you can get under the umbrella of your alliance vs that of your enemy).

I would rather have the devs spend their time in stuff that improved my enjoyment (balancing, micromanagement reductions...) or at least were neutral to it (Diplomacy in SP regarding the AI...).

[ October 16, 2003, 18:12: Message edited by: Wendigo ]

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Oh, I have another favorite DomI strategy that won't work in DomII!

"Getting the demo, and never bothering to get the full Version, because the demo basically is the full Version."

Saber - you are funny!

[apoger]

>No surprise here, we have held opposing views on this topic before in the newsgroup.

Yes, however my view is that both types of players should be able to get what they want. You seem to want to limit everyone to your style of play.

>- Right of passage.
>To which I answered same as here: it would only make gangfests easier.

Since gateway has been crippled in Dom II, I think that offering some method to cross non-enemy territory is apporpriate.

>- Exchange of commanders/mages/troops.

I never asked for this, and don't like the idea.

>In any conflict involving multiple nations, diplomacy is critical to success. It's an essential facet of strategy and has every reason to be modeled into a wargame. Particularly one as complex as Dominions.

>This is a false analogy with RL.

While real life and games are certainly different, this is a multi-nation game of conflict. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue that dippy and cooperation aren't compatible with such a theme.

Again, I'm not saying that YOU must play dipplomatically, nor that dipplomacy should be forced on anyone. What I'm saying is that it's a very important facet to many players and as such should be included as an option for those that want it.

>I do not oppose cooperative gameplay per se, but the limits of it must definitely be stated beforehand when the game is launched (looks like we at least agree on this), otherwise it only results in fustration as players develop different expectatives of what is, or not, allowed in a game that requires a heavy time investment.

I agree whole-heartedly.
Don't you think having the dippy functionality inside the game would help define such limits? I submit that the lack of structured dippy is precisely what leads to the issue you just brought up!

>And I definitely do not see any need to increase the power of what is already the most powerful MP weapon with further coding favoring its use (or abuse), for me this would detract from the game, by making it duller and less challenging

You don't like dippy. Got it.
Don't use it. Stick to games where all players agree to the same. Why force this view on others?

>I would rather have the devs spend their time in stuff that improved my enjoyment

That pretty much says it all.
What about *my* enjoyment? Or the enjoyment of *other* players? The whole idea here is to have a discussion about what many players want. If there is a good deal of support for dippy (as seems the case) then why should IW program for your enjoyment at the expense of others? I don't mean to be rude, but this comes across as a rather selfish point of view.

This is obviously someting that many players care about passionately. As such I see no reason why IW shouldn't implement options for everyone, so we can all play the game we want.

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by apoger:
>>I would rather have the devs spend their time in stuff that improved my enjoyment

That pretty much says it all.
What about *my* enjoyment? Or the enjoyment of *other* players? The whole idea here is to have a discussion about what many players want.

How true, that is why were making polls. We know that most of the players are preferring SP, and that lot of players want SP diplomacy.
Period.

[ October 16, 2003, 19:55: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by apoger:
Yes, however my view is that both types of players should be able to get what they want. You seem to want to limit everyone to your style of play.

Definitely wrong. I do not want to define how others play or enjoy the game. If they enjoy a different set of rules let them play their way via house rules. What I oppose is the hard-coding of something that goes against the very definition of the game. If you want allied victory you can have it via house rules, why do you need any coding to support something which doesn't fit with the world? Do you need an official clap in the back?

>- Right of passage.
>To which I answered same as here: it would only make gangfests easier.

Since gateway has been crippled in Dom II, I think that offering some method to cross non-enemy territory is apporpriate.

So you want totally _free_ passage through enemy lands to replace gateway?. Colour me unconvinced.

>- Exchange of commanders/mages/troops.

I never asked for this, and don't like the idea.

Sorry, it seems after a Google search that my recollection of this was inaccurate, you campaigned for Allied victory instead. My apologies.

>This is a false analogy with RL.

While real life and games are certainly different, this is a multi-nation game of conflict. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue that dippy and cooperation aren't compatible with such a theme.

Because in the Dominions world in the end there canbe only one. You can cooperate up to a point, when your ally will become your enemy. While you can play differently if you feel like it or in a scenario it would make no sense for IW to code such possibility which would not fit the story of the world as defined in the colourful background. In your house games, you are king.

Again, I'm not saying that YOU must play dipplomatically, nor that dipplomacy should be forced on anyone. What I'm saying is that it's a very important facet to many players and as such should be included as an option for those that want it.

You can play diplomatically: You can forward gems, coin, slaves & items, and you can trade information & coordinate attacks. It sounds like quite a lot to me.

That pretty much says it all.
What about *my* enjoyment? Or the enjoyment of *other* players? The whole idea here is to have a discussion about what many players want. If there is a good deal of support for dippy (as seems the case) then why should IW program for your enjoyment at the expense of others? I don't mean to be rude, but this comes across as a rather selfish point of view.

Why so? are you not capable of defending your point of view & what you like? do you expect me to do it for you in addition to defending mine?

I will tell you a secret: I will defend what I like & you can defend what you like, that way we can have...a debate. If we are to 'have a discussion about what players want' why do you label as selfish the opinions that disagree with yours?

Targeting the poster when you run out of arguments to target the post?

[HJ]

House rules are impossible for SP, unless we're refering to ironman rules, therefore the only option is to have them hardcoded. OTOH, they are quite possible to ignore in MP. The option has to exist to be ignored/switched off, so which scenario happens to take more players into account?