vengeance of the dead, how it works with 1000+ ?

[johan osterman]

As I recall they are all leaders.

[kasnavada]

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.

[triqui]

kasnavada said:
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.

The problem is that you dont seem to understant where the problem lies. The only problem is vengeance of the dead, not the turn limit, period. There are NOT unlogical kills caused by time limitation anywhere in any other moment. At turn 50 the attacker RETIRES (not die) and in turn 75 the defender retires if the attacker havent done so (he might be paralized for example). They dont die, so there is no "unlogical kills" needed to be solved. You are messing with an akward solution that requires to change the game mechanics (like no recruiting, or taxing, a province) to solve a problem that does not exist. The only problem is that, during VotD, the attacker does not retreat as it is supposed to do, period. So fix the VotD, not the entire game

Now, tell me, what in the concept I propose is so flawed that it doesn't "work".

It would need an entire encyclopedia, but i will state just a few.

In your example you conveniently made the fighters attack a third uncontrolled (Since both attack it) province. What if one of them is attacking a province controlled by another player? The province go "uncontested", as you said. Fine. Now we have a capitol from one of the players "uncontested".

More problems: it _IS_ perfectly possible to produce an infinite battle, even with reinforcements. Several SC builds can be done that they cannot die in 50 turns. That will, still, stale the game forever.

The whole "no need to sleeep item" is a complete non-sense. First, not every character would have it equipped before they enter in a locking battle, mainly becouse they might not know that the battle will be locked. If you mean that everybody has such items "freely", well, then you have just erased Vengeance of the Dead from the game (As the spell attacks you while you sleep, its a nightmare).

Your proposal is complicated, absurd, destroy the suspension of disbelief, is unthematic, do not really resolve the problem of VotD (one month sleeping? ), it's akward and weird, will provoke more bugs and problems, it still might produce infinite loop battles (VotD with a SC that only does poison damage -the UD are inmune- and has more than enough regeneration and protection to be unkillable in 50 turns, just to point an easy one), do not have any single adventage over a hard cap turn limit, is hard to implement, and is just copied from a different game that has completelly different basis.

In short, it sucks. I'm sorry if i burst your bubble, but the idea you thougth was so awesome, is not so awesome.

Feel free to answer or not, i wont waste more time to restate that your idea is not worth it, the hard cap limit is 1000 times better.

[Reay]

So the souls do not suffer mindless dissolution after turn 50 because they are all leaders? Mindless also never rout, so it seems VOTD is working as designed otherwise they would not have made the souls all leaders.

Oh well I'd prefer if there was only one or two leaders so the souls would all suffer mindless dissolution after turn 50. I guess the developers can argue thematically that this is a dream and therefore can justify time out kills.

[Rathar]

/beatsadeadhorse.

Dude Triqui, you are being a condescending weenie.

[kasnavada]

That's the reason why I asked for the input of others, since he seems to be the only one to see impossibilities where there is none.

Now we have a capitol from one of the players "uncontested".

Yes, so what is the problem exactly if no one controls the capital province ?

More problems: it _IS_ perfectly possible to produce an infinite battle, even with reinforcements. Several SC builds can be done that they cannot die in 50 turns. That will, still, stale the game forever.

. That's the very reason I also suggested a fatigue mechanism for battle that last months, as a balance mechanism...

Also, you seem to forget that Dominions is not made from one single province but a lot of them. The war around would go on, even if 3 or 4 provinces are blocked.

The whole "no need to sleeep item" is a complete non-sense.

Sigh... as is magic or in the most part all fantasy or science fiction games. I mean, gods walking the earth ? battles that are always fought during a single day in daylight ? If you are to remove all that doesn't make sense, you are going to remove just everything. It's to the devs to decide whether it make sense or not.

As far as I know, it might make sense to them that all troops fight in a single day in daylight in a month and all attackers rout at 5 pm and troops that can't rout die at 8 pm.

Your proposal is (...)

Who do you think you are ? All those point are for the game creators to decide, not you ! As far as I know, it's not written "johan osterman" nor "Kristoffer O" in your name tag. You simply do not know whether the solution I propose is whatever you call it, because it's not your decision, and AFAIK, it's not anything you (or I) can know about...

In short, it sucks. I'm sorry if i burst your bubble, but the idea you thougth was so awesome, is not so awesome.

Again, I don't care if you think it sucks. I don't care about it being awesome. I don't care if it's complicated. The only think I'm interested in is whether it works, or not.

Since you seem bent on the idea that it doesn't, and I think the opposite, I asked for other people to point out which one is right.

Sad to see that only a few care ! Well, of course, after a page of discussion, I would also be reluctant to join and write some more...

[Kristoffer O]

Be civil, please.

Rathar: I would have preferred if you said "Dude Triqui, you come out as unreasonably condescending", or something similar. The weenie part is unnecessary.

[Agrajag]

Here's a question for ya kasnavada, what happens when a third nation attacks a contested province?

[kasnavada]

The game currently doesn't support 3 way fights. The battle system would have to change so it can support it.

Ideas : instead of having two sides, you would have the first two 'first' sides fighting each other and having the third one coming from the side. Or, to keep a closer "layout" compared to what exists now, from the back of one of the nations involved (the 3rd attacker could chooses which one ? as a bonus ? ). Or something else.

[Rathar]

My apologies, I trust you will understand what I mean when I say that my impulsive original statement did not include such words as weenie but rather worse terms for the male genitalia.

Anyways..

It has seemed to me that this idea in general and the topic that there are certain "way messed up bugs if you take advantage of them" has been dominating the airwaves recently.

Personally, I think that as long as you spell out the 'Rules' ala Velusion(Really simplistic, common sense structure imho) style then anything goes. Use common sense.

If someone uses a "known" bug then say "uh, thats a known bug. Would you like to reconsider? Due to x,y and z?"

We aren't using Napoleonic law folks.. At least most of us!? Be less quick to judge your neighbors. Give people the benefit of the doubt. If they lie, you get the karma!

At any rate!..

I think that VOTD should peak at actual "in game" souls I.E. those which have been slain during the "normal" game phase. This increase due to slaying the dead is BS!" "Total BS!" he said.