Countering Master Enslave...

[MaxWilson]

Did I just happen to pick the only three random factors in the game? Surely you can think of some more--I can. Dominions is intentionally probabilistic. I just think it's odd to see a player of a probabilistic wargame arguing that there's a irreconciliable tension between random elements and strategy and that wholly random elements ruin the game. I can understand why people play e.g. Low-luck Axis and Allies, but I can't imagine such people playing a game which is INTENTIONALLY set up so that a lowly slinger can kill a Tartarian with the right DRN roll.

-Max

[Ironhawk]

While I'm not supporting any change to the combat system yet (I still need to get wrecked by these spells first) - I would favor randomly picking which side goes first rather than randomizing at the squad level. Doing at the squad level would just be too chaotic. You'd lose even the minor semblance of control over your formations that you currently have now.

[sector24]

I think if it was 50/50 whether the attacker or defender went first, that would just reduce the defender's advantage to blind luck. Either he enslaves me and then fog warriors and rain of stones and I lose, or I do it and he loses. That's kind of silly.

Do you guys play SRPGs? The Final Fantasy Tactics series in particular allows your units to move based on a speed/initiative score. This would be possible using existing dominions stats (AP).

Basically at the beginning of each combat round, each commander and formation rolls 1d6oe + AP to determine the order in which everyone acts. So there it's random, but it's also predictable.

The unit with the lowest AP in a formation sets the formation's speed. Commanders have their own AP value. Unit composition would also become important. High morale infantry mixed with elephant would take their turn based on the infantry unit's AP value, etc.

Obviously this would completely unbalance the current game, but it sounds like that's what some of you are looking for.

[JimMorrison]

Hah Max, I wasn't intending to claim that there are no random factors in the game (Luck scale, anyone? Would you like barbarians with that?), but simply that these random factors become inherently inconsequential in the face of a "final cataclysmic battle". Yes, obviously DRN is capable of doing anything it wants to, I still remember one of the first threads I read on this forum (long before I registered) about someone losing their Cyclops or other SC pretender, to a single flagellant scoring two critical hits. But that is a REMOTE possibility, nowhere near the order of a 50% chance of things happening one way or another. Even taking into account all of the many DRN rolls in an enormous battle, statistical probabilities will bring them closer to a predetermined outcome the larger the battle becomes - the difference being the spin that the players place on the factors that CAN be directly controlled. All other meaningful random factors in the game are, through recruitment, equipment, or scripting choices, mutable by the player. Adding in a straight 50% variable that can in no way be influenced, only serves to break stalemates that I have already postulated to be caused by human error in game setup - at the expense of reducing the level of strategy demanded in the other 99% of confrontations that will happen during the game.


And Iron, as I said, I think the mundane troops (all non-casting movement) should be done with defender first as it is now, and alternating as a whole, as is currently done. I was just suggesting that rather than randomizing the entire initiative (and crippling strategic choice, as well as removing defender advantage), that perhaps the spellcasting could be interleaved, which would serve to actually add a strategic element based on what is known about caster ID and such, where the player who is relying on the larger communion will take longer to get the spell off, etc.

But at the same time, to make that work the best, you would need to be able to set your casting order, so you don't get some fruitcake popping up with an Air Shield or a Flying Shards, costing you the loss of the game-deciding battle.

[MaxWilson]

Okay, Jim. I agree with your and Sector 24's point that 50/50 attacker/defender goes first would not be satisfactory. (I guess you were concentrating on the 50/50 scenario and not on the broader picture.) I still like the idea of squad-level initiative for thematic reasons, but Ironhawk dislikes that for valid reasons and some other people might too. Since I haven't ever actually been bitten by this problem in my SP games, I won't be worrying too much about this in the near future.

I hate the idea of alternating, though. It's neither thematic nor a solution to the current problem--you'll simply scramble to find low-numbered casters and lots of high-numbered chaff casters to pad them with. Look to BattleTech for an example of how those kinds of systems play out; I think it's artificial.

-Max

[cleveland]

Keep the non-magic combat the same.

My suggestion was to, at the beginning of each turn, have ALL mages from BOTH sides cast their spells in a random order.

It's simple.

It makes sense.

It's aesthetically pleasing.

[JimMorrison]

Well I simply brought up alternating, because it's the closest you can get to simultaneous, without running the battles in some sort of real time engine. In lieu of real time running, there are serious snags with any potential setup - including what the game currently has - but at least what we have now doesn't require a significant change of game mechanics, AND can be mitigated somewhat by slowing research so as not to get all magic schools at 9 by turn 50-60, which is the only reason that this issue should ever come up. With slower research, forcing choices in spells means that even in the "late game" you are struggling more often with checks and balances, rather than playing a game of "lets all do everything all at once until we get sick of it or someone just wins, possibly because the other guy staled from being sick of it".

Ultimately though, I think that perhaps the most elegant solution to this actual problem, is to analyze the spell itself. Perhaps the best way to avoid this problem, is to change Master Enslave from affecting the entire battlefield, to simply having a huge AOE, such as the massive endgame evocations. In this way, one person having the spell is still a huge boon for his war effort, but both sides having it leaves much more room for an actual magical tug of war for supremacy, and it makes multiple casts of the spell into something that is much more vital to its effective use.

[JimMorrison]

cleveland said:
Keep the non-magic combat the same.

My suggestion was to, at the beginning of each turn, have ALL mages from BOTH sides cast their spells in a random order.

It's simple.

It makes sense.

It's aesthetically pleasing.

Okay, well that actually makes sense. Anything that gets you closer to simulating simultaneous casting is definitely good in my book. And total side by side randomization of casting would surely be better than interleaving. Though I would think you'd still want -some- of the defender advantage left in place. If it's just the mundane troops that get to move first, that's the part that is easiest for the attacker to manipulate directly through placement and spell choice. I still think that defending casters should get some sort of distinct advantage, though something less than "cast a spell that wins the fight in the first round" would be preferable.

[Twan]

For me the ideal system (for dom 4) would be an individual initiative based on ap, or better on a new initiative stat for commander/mages, a little drn for some randomness, a *little* bonus for the defenders (and attackers with adequate survival skill) based on province terrain (so they finally start to matter), and a malus for mages based on the level/requirements of the spell they intend to cast.

Of course some mechanics like communion can't work the same with this kind of system (retro communion isn't an intended mechanic anyway and contribute to astral overpowerness, and suppressing all the micro gestion related to mages id would be a good thing).

For dom3 I think the best way to make late game more interesting would be a simple mod replacing battlefield instants by large ae spells. It would be extremely logical for enslave spells, considering the insane progression they have between level 6 and 9 (level 6 : one spell enslave one guy, level 9 : one spell enslave a whole army, and nothing in between...). Even an aoe 10 master enslave would have been considered an extremely powerful spell, if it was made so instead of aoe = battlefield. And spells like rain of stones have no reason to have a bigger ae and range than the fire/water/air endgame instant spells (or it would be more logical to make RoS a BE working like wrathfull skies, a rain of stones has no reason to be instant when a rain of lightnings isn't).

Personnally I'm so tired of endgame round one victories or boring stalemates that as soon this kind of mod start to be used in MP, I stop playing vanilla games.

[baruk]

The problem as I see it is a combination of the defender advantage and the power of the battlefield wide offensive spells.
I will offer up a new solution: introduce a simultaneous resolution phase solely for the battlefield wide offensive spells.

How it would work:

Defender's turn: Defender moves and casts spells as normal. However, battlefield-wide spells do not take immediate effect.

Attacker's turn: Attacker moves and casts spells. Again, his battlefield wide spells do not take effect just yet.

Battlefield spell resolution phase: Takes place after both sides have moved. All defensive spells resolve first followed by the offensive spells.

eg. In the case of both sides casting master enslave - each unit makes the first MR check against the enemy spell. If the unit fails, it then makes another MR check against the "friendly" master enslave, to see if control of the unit is regained.

Essentially this would make the battlefield spells work a bit like one shot battlefield enchantments, in the sense that they do not necessarily take immediate effect.