suggestion about commanders

[licker]

" it is incredibly easy to 'lobotomize' the AI by adding features only humans can use properly. "

Heh, MoO3 anyone? Though there were more problems there than just too much complexity.

Actually the abstracted complexity is fine when the game is more geared to macro... but the testing and proving that the complexity can be handled by the AI must be a pain in the @#$...

I wouldn't mind seeing more robust province modeling in Dom eventually, but I don't think it should be attemped for Dom2. The next step in Dom would hopefully be further improvements to combat, either by allowing for some sort of control during a battle, or expanded orders for scripting.

It would also be nice if there were some assistance in setting your scripts. Say you selected a group of commanders with units and were given some basic choices for setting all of their positions and attitudes. Then you could still go in and tweek specific placements and orders. But the going through every commander and every group of units one by one is quite tedious (at least in Dom1).

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by Bard of Prey:
[QB]Well, I guess I'll through my 2 gp into the debate...

There could be a few more small things added though... for instance, I could see a national commander, for nations like Pythium for instance, who's a skilled navigator, and can carry his army across seas like the Vanir do... or perhaps a Death spell that summons a 'Ghost Ship', allowing the casting mage to do the same.

Formations are another cool idea, but I can easily see how difficult this would be to implement. For one thing, the major counter-tactic to most of them is to break up the formation. The coding for that would be a nightmare... how would the game determine when your shield wall was sufficiently mixed up that it no longer provided its bonuses? Would it happen gradually, or all at once? Also, you'd pretty much have to start accounting for things like which direction a unit was facing when it was attacked... and that's a pretty serious mechanic, especially for something to add in a patch. Would fatigue affect the bonuses you get from formations? What if your squads aren't composed of all the same types of troops? Can mindless troops use formations? Etc., etc....
[QB]

There is a new unit that is recruitable in sites that works in a Vanir like way, the navigator. If I recall correctly there is also one navigator with a mercenary band.

I think you succintly summed up the major problems with implementing formations.

[Pocus]

the folded ship can be built too. Ok it costs air gems, and many cool items ask for air gems, but still it is feasible to have at least limited sea moving capabilities.

Very good point Bards about what can represents the admin level of your castle, or your order scale. This is abstracted economics for sure, and I seriously doubt that adding little mills and carries to doms would enhance it.

[Jasper]

Ports as createable sites that let you abstractly move units strategically between 2 provinces (that you control) with ports would work in Dominion's current Framework.

You can already do something like this when designing a scenario, but this would be a little nicer and yet not overly complex.

About the ports : you should try the great "Elric" scenario made by Pocus aka Pythie. It is available on the illwinter pages. 3 large continents are linked by 3-4 ports each. Units in a port may freely move to another port, jumping over the oceans (the connexions are scripted in the .map file). Neat solution IMHO, only minor drawback is that flying units could 'jump' several oceans in one turn using those sealanes.
You'll also see navigable rivers, customized province names and special indeps.
Cheers

[Mortifer]

Yes, adding formations wouldnt be easy, the devs would be forced to work a lot on it. It would be worth of it, that isnt a question. The question is, that the AI could handle it properly, or not..

[Endoperez]

Maybe we should wait till we have tried DOM II, before telling IW what they should change in it... In worst case, they will do it, and we have to wait a year more before getting the game...

Besides, even though formations would be nice, would they be useful? If they were just a line, a square and a row, this would allow more versatility in battle planning.
But we can already do this even in DOM I, although because commander can only command five different Groups (in DOM1), you would need one commander for every row/line.

And if formations were like shield wall, charge(for knights) etc., they would be hard to implement but would not add much. Yes, they would be useful, but they would either not be much use or would become so important that you would HAVE to quess your opponents' tactic and choose the best formation versus it. And that would add a lot micromanagement.

Of course, you might not agree, but this is only my opinion.

[klausD]

Formations are another cool idea, but I can easily see how difficult this would be to implement. For one thing, the major counter-tactic to most of them is to break up the formation. The coding for that would be a nightmare... how would the game determine when your shield wall was sufficiently mixed up that it no longer provided its bonuses? Would it happen gradually, or all at once? Also, you'd pretty much have to start accounting for things like which direction a unit was facing when it was attacked... and that's a pretty serious mechanic, especially for something to add in a patch. Would fatigue affect the bonuses you get from formations? What if your squads aren't composed of all the same types of troops? Can mindless troops use formations? Etc., etc....
[QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you succintly summed up the major problems with implementing formations.

I am wondering that everybody thinks formations are such a great change to the game system. Of course one can invent a whole new tactical combat system with a formation system as the core. But this was not the point of my suggestion. ALL I was suggesting was to give a formation a +1 to Att or defend or whatever. Is this so difficult to implement? Of course if one does not want to implement such things to the game, he can always make an elephant out of a fly. He can always raise problems like "facing" (I never suggested facing options and I dont think that they are necessary at all), complicated algorithms if somebody likes to have "mixed squads" (easy to circumvent - if a player likes to give a formation order, simple dont allow mixed squads for formations) and as Last and the most difficult problem to solve he says "formations poses so a big problem because of those mindless troops..." Well again I have to say that all I wanted was an UNCOMPLICATED order to make one or two formation types (turtle for infantry and wedge/line for cavallery) with trained troops - a +1 to the defense/attack factor or so. (no facing, no brainless units, no mixed squads, no penguin special attack...) The reason was to add to the battle athmosphere. If I dont have control over the troops after battle begins, then I would like to have at least the feeling that my ULM infantry is an disciplined elite and not the same than the wild troll troupe of my enemy. In DOM1 the most troops are running around how they want and as fast as their AP allows - which dont contribute to the game athmosphere.
bye
KlausD

[Yojinbo]

klausD,

I understand your position better now. What about somthing even simpler, just a tendancy for certian troop types to move as a group and a +1 bonus to defence for any unit with like units on 2 sides?

You point about not wanting Ulm to advance like the enemy wild hordes hits home.

I may be making this too simple now.

[johan osterman]

Originally posted by klausD:
I am wondering that everybody thinks formations are such a great change to the game system. Of course one can invent a whole new tactical combat system with a formation system as the core. But this was not the point of my suggestion. ALL I was suggesting was to give a formation a +1 to Att or defend or whatever. Is this so difficult to implement? Of course if one does not want to implement such things to the game, he can always make an elephant out of a fly. He can always raise problems like "facing" (I never suggested facing options and I dont think that they are necessary at all), complicated algorithms if somebody likes to have "mixed squads" (easy to circumvent - if a player likes to give a formation order, simple dont allow mixed squads for formations) and as Last and the most difficult problem to solve he says "formations poses so a big problem because of those mindless troops..." Well again I have to say that all I wanted was an UNCOMPLICATED order to make one or two formation types (turtle for infantry and wedge/line for cavallery) with trained troops - a +1 to the defense/attack factor or so. (no facing, no brainless units, no mixed squads, no penguin special attack...) The reason was to add to the battle athmosphere. If I dont have control over the troops after battle begins, then I would like to have at least the feeling that my ULM infantry is an disciplined elite and not the same than the wild troll troupe of my enemy. In DOM1 the most troops are running around how they want and as fast as their AP allows - which dont contribute to the game athmosphere.
bye
KlausD

I, like bard of prey, assumed that formations would include flanks and flanking bonuses for attacking formations in the flanks. This is also the appeal of formations to me. Flanking and facing etc. would require a lot of work on the tactical abttles and tactical AI.

Still, even the more limited formations you are suggesting would require some work on the tactical battles and the tac AI, as well as on the strategic AI in order for it to group correct units into correct Groups etc. But in the end it boils down to the following: JK doesnt like programming AIs, Kristoffer has tried to make JK accept formations (although that was formations with flanks facing etc.) on and of for 6 years without success, ergo it is unlikely that there will ever be formations.

[ September 30, 2003, 15:52: Message edited by: johan osterman ]