Some ideas: raiding, seiging, spell AI and more..

[baruk]

alexti said:

I'm not sure if making defending unfortified provinces from raids easier is a positive thing. Some strategies rely on raiding rather than taking on the clash of armies. And I'm on receiving end of such strategy in one of my MP games. I keep winning major battles with minimal losses and a good loot from the enemy, but I'm still losing the game, because of massive raids. That's an interesting experience, and one thing that makes Dominions 2 great is the variety of different strategies that can lead to success.

In any case, this kind of change would affect the game a lot and it wouldn't be easy to rebalance other things to keep everything in balance.

My suggestion is more of a tweak to the movement system, than an attempt to hurt raiding.

An example: a raiding party is attacking Nation A. It can attack one of 5 provinces. The defenders have one army trying to intercept the raiders. Under the current system, to force a fight, the defenders have to move into the correct province being raided, a 1 in 5 chance of success. Using my suggestion, and assuming both forces are equal, the defenders can attempt to force a fight by moving into the province currently occupied by the raiders. They would have an almost 50/50 chance of moving first, and striking the raiders before they move. Note that in the case of the raiders winning the battle, they would still carry out their movement order and raid their target province.

I think a change to the movement system would be a step forward. At the moment the simultaneous movement system gives the advantage to raiders. With an initiative system, players would have to plan raids more carefully to be successful. They would gain initiative advantages from using faster troops, which would add variety to the game.

baruk said:
- The spell AI ignores my orders.
Solution: Change AI, and the way gems are used in battle.

alexti said:Actually, it was changed in one of the patches (was it in 2.12?) Before, AI tended to waste gems without a reason. Now it is much smarter and uses the gems sensibly (in most cases). The one problem that I see is that sometimes the mages won't use extra gems to bring their fatigue lower. But this is one is not easy to resolve. Sometimes I'd give the mage extra gems, so that he can lower his fatigue and in another situation I'd give more gems because I expect to fight 2 battles in the same turn. Making it configurable would add even more micromanagement, but if AI would just use spare gems only in the castle battles (storming or defending vs storm), which are bound to be the Last I'd be glad.

Generally, spell-casting AI is not that bad if you brought right mages and gems. Several times I was surprised by AI switching to his own plan (better than mine) after running through my scripts.

Fair enough. I would agree that making spell AI more configurable would help. I just sense that Illwinter want to keep the system as simple as possible.

My argument is basically that players cannot adequately control gem usage of their mages over several battles in one turn. Ideally there would only be one battle a turn for each mage to be prepared for, or fresh orders could be given in between battles. Consider a mage in a lab province, with a stack of gems. He gets involved in a fight, and uses all his gems. He will have no gems for the next fight that turn, as I can't give him the gems until the turn is finished processing, even though he has a lab available. Either a super-AI, more configurable orders, or battle-usage-friendly gems are needed to resolve this.

baruk said:
- Gem generators, used every game, by everybody, yawn.
Solution: Add a dominion based per-province limit.

alexti said:
Is there actually a problem here? I highly doubt that there's a problem with bloodstones, fever fetishes is not likely to be a problem either, so only clams are candidates, but there's no agreement on that issue. Maybe the latest change (non-stacking gem generators) will be sufficient to close the whole issue.

Perhaps.

Gem generators are not much of a problem to me. However, some dominions players like to limit their use in games. I have (hopefully) suggested a fun, creative, in-theme way to do this.

The non-clam of pearls gem generators are less of a problem, but it makes sense to put the same limits on them, as otherwise the "problem" simply moves to another item. In any case, if they are not produced in large numbers, they are not affected by my limitation, which affects the total number of productive generators in each province, rather than the ability to produce them. Only the wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth horde fetishists should be hurt by my proposed change.

baruk said:
- Sphinx lost teleport. Effectiveness of magical movement over standard movement for defence and offence.
Solution: Planar sickness.

alexti said:
Personally, I like Sphinx being non-teleportable, it makes him a unique pretender. Magical movement really helps in the late large games. Just imaging dragging that large army of yours across of 15 provinces just to get anywhere close to the enemy. And then the enemy can avoid you infinitively. So in the end it may become just a matter of filling all provinces with a large armies (sooner or later one will have enough gems to do it). But this will cause "army-size-inflataion". Those "large" army will be considered a small forces, while the real "now large" armies will have to be dragged across the map again. So the magic movement is needed at least to avoid horrible micromanagement. If there're too many penalties for teleporting (stands for any kind of magic movement) armies, nobody will use them to engage in a serious battle, which will result in all that extra micromanagement.

Suggested 20 fatigue per size is too much of a penalty, in my opinion. Though just 20 fatigue (or some similar number) can be an interesting option. Another option would be to make teleporting defenders lose initiative, meaning that in this case the turn sequence would be: defending garrison - attacking army - teleported defenders. Dom2 engine probably doesn't support such a sequence, but it can be emulated by making teleporting defenders skip their first round. Attackers (whether they move magically or not) are already at disadvantage, so I'm not sure that any extra penalties would be good.

Good suggestions.

Late game army movement would not be affected by my changes, just the offensive use of some of the magical movement spells would be curtailed. The late game, research level 8 and 9 spells would not have a fatigue penalty. And I suggested in another post that level 8 or 9 fatigue-free Versions of teleport and cloud trapeze would be available.

[alexti]

baruk said:
- The spell AI ignores my orders.
Solution: Change AI, and the way gems are used in battle.

alexti said:Actually, it was changed in one of the patches (was it in 2.12?) Before, AI tended to waste gems without a reason. Now it is much smarter and uses the gems sensibly (in most cases). The one problem that I see is that sometimes the mages won't use extra gems to bring their fatigue lower. But this is one is not easy to resolve. Sometimes I'd give the mage extra gems, so that he can lower his fatigue and in another situation I'd give more gems because I expect to fight 2 battles in the same turn. Making it configurable would add even more micromanagement, but if AI would just use spare gems only in the castle battles (storming or defending vs storm), which are bound to be the Last I'd be glad.

Generally, spell-casting AI is not that bad if you brought right mages and gems. Several times I was surprised by AI switching to his own plan (better than mine) after running through my scripts.

baruk said:
Fair enough. I would agree that making spell AI more configurable would help. I just sense that Illwinter want to keep the system as simple as possible.

My argument is basically that players cannot adequately control gem usage of their mages over several battles in one turn. Ideally there would only be one battle a turn for each mage to be prepared for, or fresh orders could be given in between battles. Consider a mage in a lab province, with a stack of gems. He gets involved in a fight, and uses all his gems. He will have no gems for the next fight that turn, as I can't give him the gems until the turn is finished processing, even though he has a lab available. Either a super-AI, more configurable orders, or battle-usage-friendly gems are needed to resolve this.

I find it good to have mroe than one battle per turn. It gives more interesting options. Concerning the mage near the lab, it maybe reasonable to replenish gems between the battles, but what is supposed to happen if there isn't enough gems? And in any case 2 battles in the province where you control the lab is really uncommon.

baruk said:
- Gem generators, used every game, by everybody, yawn.
Solution: Add a dominion based per-province limit.

alexti said:
Is there actually a problem here? I highly doubt that there's a problem with bloodstones, fever fetishes is not likely to be a problem either, so only clams are candidates, but there's no agreement on that issue. Maybe the latest change (non-stacking gem generators) will be sufficient to close the whole issue.

baruk said:
Perhaps.

Gem generators are not much of a problem to me. However, some dominions players like to limit their use in games. I have (hopefully) suggested a fun, creative, in-theme way to do this.

The non-clam of pearls gem generators are less of a problem, but it makes sense to put the same limits on them, as otherwise the "problem" simply moves to another item. In any case, if they are not produced in large numbers, they are not affected by my limitation, which affects the total number of productive generators in each province, rather than the ability to produce them. Only the wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth horde fetishists should be hurt by my proposed change.

What I don't like about your idea is not the limitation, but "per-province" basis. If now you can just slap clam on the third from the left researher, with your idea you'd have to count how many clams are already in this province (meaning scanning all mages there) and then to take into account possible dominion change. And all these efforts don't really add anything to the game experience. With overall limit, you'd typically know that you're well below the limit, so no worries and counting. I'm still not sure if the overall limit would be a good idea or not.