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

[johan osterman]

triqui said:

I dont think so. In my battle report, the dead are in the left side of the screen. My SC does the first movement. And on turn 50, i get a "the army of Ryleh is routed" message. Just that the undead do not rout at all (or vanish like golems do)

Ok, I was just speculating. Truth be told. The game trys to rout both sides before it kills off.

[triqui]

johan osterman said:
Well it is working as intended, it is not bugged.. Perhaps it would be desirable that the dead where the attackers. Or that the dead not count as kills or what have you. But those things are not trivial to accomplish. There has been debate abnout this spell since dom 1 days. And JK has resisted all attempts to convince him to change it in either of those ways.

Thanks. That finish all my grief with this spell, period

PS: i still would like it worked other way around, but if it is WAD, it is not an exploit to kill anyone with it. So I'm fine with it.

PS: i still believe the attackers are the dead. They get the "rout" message. They just do not disolve like golems do.

[johan osterman]

In response to NTjedi

It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

[NTJedi]

johan osterman said:
It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

I understand the turn has to end. However to kill because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong. A commander/mage powerful enough to survive 50+ rounds during an assassination deserves to live... based on history and logic.

[triqui]

johan osterman said:
It is ther to make sure turns end. If it wasn't there turn resolution could go on forever.

I dont get it. How is so? I mean... the turn 50 attackers "should" retreat. Even attackrs that do not retreat (like golems) die. However, in this spell, the attacker do not retreat or die. How is it that this is there to make sure turns end? Wouldnt the turn ends regardless if the attackers could retreat or vanish, like golems do?
EDIT: answered before your edit, didnt know you were speaking to nt jedi. My question remains, though.

[kasnavada]

NTJedi said:
Death because of a turn limitation game mechanic is wrong for any game.

period

I agree with that. Actually, anything that would have a turn limitation is bad.

Solutions : you could :
- add a cumulative 1 damage from fatigue every turn beyond 50 (this has its own issue, I'm not too much in favor of it),
- or just restart the battle as it were the next turn with the remaining units (and more if they decide to join the battle -> that would be fun),
- or anything else.

The fact that it doesn't make sense that the dead multiply when killed in a dream could be logical in a "dominion" sense, I mean, he did kill them again and could dream of them again. The fact that people just die suddenly when a turn limit is passed ? That cannot make sense.

[triqui]

kasnavada said:
- or just restart the battle as it were the next turn with the remaining units (and more if they decide to join the battle -> that would be fun)

That does not work. Two combatants with spam skelleton and enough reinvigoration can fight forever. Two lighting inmune combatants with lighting damage whips cant kill each other, ever. The game HAS to have a hardset turn limit. The cummulative fatigue might work, but so does the regular turn limit. The only doubt is what happens when a unit that reach its own turn limit rout, does not rout.

[kasnavada]

The keywords are "restart" and "others could join".

Restart means that the limit is still here. However, at your next turn the fight starts again. Therefore there could be a 2000 turn battle, over 40 game months (if no one joins, the limit is 50 turns per game month, and no one joins).

It could require (a lot of) work from the devs, but I don't take that in consideration when I propose things, because I have no clue of whether it's hard to do or not.

Please reconsider what you wrote in regard to what I wrote. With what I say, there are ways to finish the battle.

[Foodstamp]

The battle would still not resolve in the examples Triqui gave. As far as the fatigue goes, are you suggesting the fatigue rises after the turn limit until the participants die? If that is the case, the outcome would be exactly the same as the current turn limit system.

[triqui]

kasnavada said:
The keywords are "restart" and "others could join".

Restart means that the limit is still here. However, at your next turn the fight starts again. Therefore there could be a 2000 turn battle, over 40 game months (if no one joins, the limit is 50 turns per game month, and no one joins).

So when the battle ends, who hold the province? Who can rais the taxes, or recruit there? Where does the attacker goes? What about assasinations? would they last for several months or years? It is just not viable. At the end of the turn, resolution must be done. Either the attacker won, and has the province, or lost, and defender hold it. Otherwise you are just provoking much more complicated issues and endangering even more bugs into the battle.

Cummulative fatigue is a posibility, but might lead to a situation where both armies fall asleep and both armies "die". who win then? attacker? defender? Draw and the province become indie?