Quote:
Nope, i would refute any solution that DOESNT work. Like yours 
|
You have refused the solutions because you do not like them, not because they fail to achieve the wanted result : "getting rid of the unlogical kills caused by time limitation", which cause the problem here. Maybe I should have stated the objective of the solutions I proposed before. I simply thought that vengeance of the dead before the time limit causes no problem, and that the combinaison with the time limit causes the problem. Therefore I set out to destroy any way I can that time limit.
As I said, this system I propose exists in other games and but a copy of something that works. But let's examine more closely how does the system I proposed work ? Here is an example.
Player1 is in possession of province called A.
Player2 is in possession of province called B.
Both attack a province called C.
Month 1 :
The attack ends up because of the time limit (let's say 50 turns). With the system I propose, the game saves all parameters (fatigue, position...) once the 50 turns end.
As far as I know, the game calculates the battle turns one after the other (that's what the turn counter and review of battle suggests), and passes every units one after the other in order of initiative, so restarting a fight means getting a new turn, and getting reinforcements would basically work like a summon. In short : restarting a fight every turn just means saving all parameters somewhere it can be taken again (which the game does at the end of every battle turn anyway) and running a new turn.
I might be wrong on that point of course, but it doesn't matter much. Even if it doesn't work that way, enabling a battle to restart just means storing informations and reloading it, before resuming the battle script.
Month 2 :
The province is in contested mode. That means the things I've written above are in effect (no one controls the provinces, both armies are in the province, no one can recruit and so on). I know that it currently doesn't exists, and that currently the provinces always have a controller. That's the very reason that cause the system to be a solution : it changes the game. That seems pretty obvious, if you do not change anything, the problem will not solve itself.
But the problem is not here anymore : since reinforcements can arrive during turn two, the battle results, locked before the reinforcements, don't have the same result. It could be anything from another lock to a victory on either side. Let's take the example of the 2 mages that skelly spam during the first month. During the second month, one of them is joined by a few priests that spam banishment, while the other is left alone. One mage wins.
Since other units can join the battle, the situation where there was a "infinite" battle never occurs unless both player want to. That shouldn't happen because it's bad for both players to block the game that way. Another idea to place here is fatigue : after all, the characters have been fighting a whole month. Well, months in dominions seem to last 1 day anyway, since there can only be 1 battle in an entire month and without magic help, the battle happens always during a single day (the sun never sets) and always during the day. Items that enable you to spend the entire "month" without sleeping are therefore nothing special, especially since it could be a side effect of using those items at all. For all I know, those items are put off so the people can sleep on usual days.
Another proposition that could be added for this idea : adding a cumulative malus to fatigue when the battle lasts for more than a month, to simulate the stress of battling for long. A special affliction or malus to morale might also work. That would be good for balance reasons.
Now, tell me, what in the concept I propose is so flawed that it doesn't "work". I hope that this time I won't get stupids answers like "you change the game" or "it's not going to be this way because it requires too much work", because it's off-topic. The only way I can put those arguments in single terms would be : saying that you can't sit on a chair with 4 legs, because the current chairs have a single leg and it's too complicated to make chairs with 4 legs. That's the reason why this argument (the only one you have put, apart from the fact that you don't like it) has no weight in my opinion. In simple terms again, you can sit on both.
I'm interested only on the concept, not the realisation. What is it, in that system, that does not "gets rid of the unlogical kills caused by time limitation", which is the objective of that change ? I truly wish to know that.
By the way, if others than triqui could also try their luck and point out something that doesn't work, I'd be glad to hear it. After all, I could really be wrong, but since the only counter-argument that was opposed was off-topic... Thanks in advance.
In the case of VoTD, this change would mean that the victim of that spell would be locked in a nightmare for a few game months when the spell penetrates the spell resistance, and he would then come back (if he is powerful enough to beat all the ghosts of course), rather than die.