suggestion about commanders - Page 2

johan osterman · #11 September 29th, 2003, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by klausD:
Thanks alot for the good answers. Looks like the game will be a good one.

Just to post some "wishes" I would love to see in dominion.

-sea battles with ships (underwater battles are very fine, but I am a ship lover and up to now no empire building fantasy game has a good tactical solution for ship combat)

-user can name terrain features (rivers, forests etc)

-improvements of fortifications (more towers, better walls or similar)

-ablility to build some economic improvements (not many but some) in a province - resource mines, mills etc.

-more orders for units before battle begins. For example wedge orders for kavallery squads or turtle for well trained heavy infantry. (would look very dynamic if 20 Black Lords are rapidly engaging in a wedge formation...)

-siege machines (maybe they are already in Dominion II, but I miss them in Dom I Demo)

-a dimension like the spirit dimension in MOM

I have it already recommended Dom to some gaming friends of mine. (at least we will buy dom II)

by
KlausD

Ship and sea battles where are not included because we thought it would be odd mixing it with the underwater nations, it also would require a new tactical combat.

There are no more economic or building improvements by design, dominions focuses on war and research. I myself do not like MOO, Civ or MOM like city building.

Formations are difficult to implement at this stage, especially if they are to have an effect such as shield walls or testudoes adding to missle protection.

Sieges machines are not implemented because illwinter believed that they were not a major features of field battles, and in sieges the sieges engines are abstracted. There are however sappers and siege engineers in dom2, the �game mechanics of these is that they give a siege bonus, this is the abstract way of representing them building siege engines and underming walls etc. There is also a new siege Golem.

If you want a spirit dimension you can create it by parting the map into different sectors and setting gateway provinces as neighbours. See Kristoffers map Hollow world as an example of this. It is downloadable from the illwinter site.

[ September 29, 2003, 15:01: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Nerfix · #12 September 29th, 2003, 04:00 PM

Siege Golem?
Oh my...

Well, i'm happy with Dominions (II) the way it is.

klausD · #13 September 29th, 2003, 04:32 PM

Many thanks for your reply.

Quote:

Ship and sea battles where are not included because we thought it would be odd mixing it with the underwater nations, it also would require a new tactical combat.

I am not sure if this would be so odd. Just imagine some chtulhuoids appearing suddenly from deep sea and attacking a full equipped war fleet. Interesting scenario I would say. Of course some new rules adjustments for such engagments would be necessary.

Quote:

There are no more economic or building improvements by design, dominions focuses on war and research. I myself do not like MOO, Civ or MOM like city building.

I agree. But I did not suggest the full range of hundreds of buildings etc like in CIV. Just add 4 or 5. (eg. a mill for income, a mine for resource value, a second fortification type etc. this would be enough I think, without burdening the game with many unnecessary buildings)

Quote:

Formations are difficult to implement at this stage, especially if they are to have an effect such as shield walls or testudoes adding to missle protection.

Its not necessary to let formations have some big historic impacts. Formations could just be a +1 to attack, prot, or defend. This should not imbalance the game. I was only suggesting it because of the big picture and for giving the player the possibility to watch in 3D combat a horde or a trained "roman style army". (would be great just for athmospheric feeling) Now its so that every army is somewhat moving around "undisciplined" in combat mode, which is fine for barbaric hordes and trolls etc. but not for ULM or similar armies.

bye

KlausD

johan osterman · #14 September 29th, 2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by klausD:
Many thanks for your reply.

I am not sure if this would be so odd. Just imagine some chtulhuoids appearing suddenly from deep sea and attacking a full equipped war fleet. Interesting scenario I would say. Of course some new rules adjustments for such engagments would be necessary.

I agree. But I did not suggest the full range of hundreds of buildings etc like in CIV. Just add 4 or 5. (eg. a mill for income, a mine for resource value, a second fortification type etc. this would be enough I think, without burdening the game with many unnecessary buildings)

Its not necessary to let formations have some big historic impacts. Formations could just be a +1 to attack, prot, or defend. This should not imbalance the game. I was only suggesting it because of the big picture and for giving the player the possibility to watch in 3D combat a horde or a trained "roman style army". (would be great just for athmospheric feeling) Now its so that every army is somewhat moving around "undisciplined" in combat mode, which is fine for barbaric hordes and trolls etc. but not for ULM or similar armies.

bye

KlausD

I hope I do not come across as argumentative, but I want to clarify.

About the ships I did not mean that it would be odd that there were both ships and aquatics, it is the implementation which is problematic. If there were to be a tactiacal ship to be ship combat there are a multitude of issues needing to be answered. For example: how would posession be determined of a water province? Should it be layered with one underwater and one surface level water province? How do aquatic troops interact with ships in the tactical combat? Are the ordinary troops and ships on the same scale? How do troops aboard ships interact with ships or aquatic troops? If ship combat were to occur on a different scale than ordinary tactical combat interaction between aquatics and ships becomes problematic. I could go on. I think there are very many difficulties trying to implement ship combat in a way that would fit into the existing system, especially into the tactical system.

I just dont think that economic development would add anything to the game. I prefer if that aspect is kept simple. I guess I do not see why it would be desirable to add to that aspect at all, even if kept simpler than in MOO or Civ.

I am not opposed to formations as such, nor do I think they would necessary be unbalancing. But like the tactical ship combat they are a bit tricky to implement under the current system, perhaps less so than the ship to ship combat but still tricky enough for them to require major work on the tac combat, both rule wise and AI wise. So while I would like formations as well I just don't see it happening.

[ September 29, 2003, 15:56: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

Mortifer · #15 September 29th, 2003, 04:59 PM

Johan - I think, that there is a very good idea.
The possibility to upgrade the castles/towers etc.
Each castle/keep etc. should give additional bonuses, after they have been upgraded.
Example? You are upgrading a fortified city -> Population will grow faster. You upgrade it again -> More and lot stronger militia or other + bonuses, etc.
I think that would be awesome!

[ September 29, 2003, 16:01: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

johan osterman · #16 September 29th, 2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mortifer:
Johan - I think, that there is a very good idea.
The possibility to upgrade the castles/towers etc.
Each castle/keep etc. should give additional bonuses, after they have been upgraded.
Example? You are upgrading a fortified city -> Population will grow faster. You upgrade it again -> More and lot stronger militia or other + bonuses, etc.
I think that would be awesome!

Why is it a good idea? I understand that they could be made to add different bonuses but unlike the formations or the sea battles I do not see the appeal. To me it adding more economic improvements would just be adding an additional hassle to the game that would not add to the gameplay and be potentionally detrimental to it, like adding resource management to chess.

Mortifer · #17 September 29th, 2003, 05:21 PM

Hm...well, I think that upgrading forts/castles arent really economic..its just adds more strategical feeling/value, IMHO.

Aristoteles · #18 September 29th, 2003, 05:27 PM

Upgrading forts is a good idea. I would like it.
Maybe upgradings should give military bonuses only?

Nerfix · #19 September 29th, 2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by johan osterman:

quote:
Originally posted by Mortifer:
Johan - I think, that there is a very good idea.
The possibility to upgrade the castles/towers etc.
Each castle/keep etc. should give additional bonuses, after they have been upgraded.
Example? You are upgrading a fortified city -> Population will grow faster. You upgrade it again -> More and lot stronger militia or other + bonuses, etc.
I think that would be awesome!

Why is it a good idea? I understand that they could be made to add different bonuses but unlike the formations or the sea battles I do not see the appeal. To me it adding more economic improvements would just be adding an additional hassle to the game that would not add to the gameplay and be potentionally detrimental to it, like adding resource management to chess.

Well, the economic improvements could help if you get a tiny starting province, surrounded mostly by sea and poor provinces...
(been there...)

Also, if you decide for some reason to allow the fort upgrades, i would like to have them as a Kohan-esque "you can't get everything", I.E, you can upgrade a Castle to have either Bonus A or Bonus B.

[ September 29, 2003, 16:35: Message edited by: Nerfix ]

licker · #20 September 29th, 2003, 05:41 PM

I think I agree with Johan on this one. Adding more upgrades and buildings just does not seem to fit into the general scheme of Dom. Already you can upgrade your defense of a province with your castle type, and by uping the defense value of the province. Adding more 'junk' would only complicate matters for the AI I think, and while it may confer some kind of 'cool' feeling to the game, it doesn't really add much to the overall gameplay. Any changes to the system should be kept on a very macro level I think, like the defense for a province. One simple solution would be to split the defense from the castles to the province and call it 'fortification' which could be increased in the same way the local milita is, and give some kind of crude defensive barriers for the defenders to use (pits, trenches, crude wooden walls, ...). The presense of a castle would still give the stone walls and allow for seiges though.

As to ships... I always hate them in every strategy game I play, it is seemingly impossible to get their mechanics right, so I say don't add them in... ever!

Army formations are all fine and well, but I think it would be better to expand the scripting power, add a few more commands (harass from another thread is a good one), and allow for units to also get stackable orders ala commanders, or allow units to follow the commanders orders (more than gaurd commander anyway).

Anyway, I think mostly from a SP viewpoint, and I don't like complications for complications sake, that may improve the feel of an MP game, but wind up shafting the AI because it becomes more difficult for it to keep up with all the new variables.