[quote]Luckily, each player keeps a list of all objects that they know about, including forests and mountain ranges. So all I had to do was go through the list and move them to one that wasn't on a tile owned by the enemy player (or someone you're not at war with). [/quote] What if you know zero tile that are not owned by an opponent? Yes, unlikely. But still, it can happen, most probably in a scenario.
[quote who="Demiansky" reply="16" id="2441589"] Quoting LDiCesare, reply 13 Well, tech and magic in Master of Magic became pretty closely linked, unfortunately. There was no tech research in MoM. You built infrastructure like temples and libraries, but didn't research techs, only spells. Tech was represented by development in cities, which was an interesting twist. Call it development, tech, or what have you--- the more development you had in MoM,
[quote]Well, tech and magic in Master of Magic became pretty closely linked, unfortunately. [/quote] There was no tech research in MoM. You built infrastructure like temples and libraries, but didn't research techs, only spells.
[quote] The relative lack of comments on this topic helped me formulate something that has been in the back of my mind for a while. This backstory, while somewhat interesting, just doesn't really grab me. I will quickly admit that I am not the typical gamer. I am older, maybe interested in different things, maybe different in a lot of ways so my opinion here isn't really that important. I
I'd like the mechanisms for spell research to be different from those of tech: +Tech buildings different from +Magic buildings. Automatic tech growth from population, no automatic magic research. We might use units to do the magic research, but Dominions proves that it can become quite tedious and heavy on the micromanagement side. If it turns out to be unfun, the beta is there for changing that.
Great. So the main storyline question for me is: How does one become a channeler? I mean, they can't just "appear" like that. If they are select, what makes them special? How is it that this guy became a channeler and not his brother? [quote]These days it seems only Bethesda and Bioware are releasing high budget/professional RPGs (well not counting mmos)[/quote]Don't forget CD Projekt Red. The Witcher is an awesome rpg, and it looks like they're doing a 2nd vers
Routing elephants will certainly run all the way back and out of the battle no matter how many troops you have behind. As for humans, I wish a winning side's routed soldiers remained in the province. On the battlefield, it's not important. I like the fact that in Dominions you can't control things on the battlefield. You have to think ahead, and it simulates the fact that you can't really order stuff on a battlefield when you lack communication technology and most units are en
The problem of 1000 archers rolling vs. A 9 defense means you're rolling 10 rolls for each shot. That's going to be 10000 rolls. I think reducing the numbber of rolls will be important in terms of performance, but that's a totally wild guess. Another option to get bell-curves while retaining flat randoms is to just put the bell somewhere else: Square the defense and attack: A 1 attack vs. 9 defense would actually be 1 vs 81. This makes extra defense points much better than early
In Dominions, some soldiers end up being crippled and rather useless for other fights. Or diseased, meaning they're probably going to die within a year. You can't disband units unfortunately, so when one has the courage to micromanage thtem, these cripples usually end up patrolling some rich province (or a province where you do stuff that makes the population angry).
It's probably easy to replace one roll (0-attack) vs. (0-defense) by 2 (or even 3) rolls in the same range. This gets you a bell curve without requiring tens of dice rolls. The 2 rolls is particularly nice since on average you get your attack defense value.
Damn. I was sure I had posted in this thread about the quantity of art needed if you did in-plot rather than between-plot and the fact that the former was harder for art but easier for terrain generation.
MOO system was fun. Even if some techs ddidn't show up in your tech tree, they might appear in someone else's. So you could manage to trade/steal techs from others if you were unable to find it yourself. The problem is these were often uber-techs (black hole generators...) As for the current tech GUI, it's not easy to read. Maybe bars a la MOO which provide information on the current tech level in each domain would be more readable, but then you'd lack details. Why not allow z
[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="123" id="2411658"]I just hope we'll have the european release through impulse.[/quote] I wish that too. If only because I don't want material DRM and have to carry a disk with me when I want to play.
I'll point out something that's not been talked about much: Counters. One way of neutering elite units is to have counters for them, that force you to use meatshields. For instance, if wizards can cast fireballs that ignore armors, are you going to send in a troop of expensive armored soldiers or a mix of unarmored meatshields to take out the fireballs with a few armored soldiers to deal with the enemy elite? Yes, it's rock paper scissors again, except not along the us
[quote]Now lets say we are faced with exactly the same battle in WoM and we keep replaying this same battle scenario. Would the 30 000 armoured knights keep steamrolling the 5000 British mixed army no matter what you did? If yes, then do we think such battle mechanics as fun, no fun, or it is not important?[/quote] Actually, at Azincourt the French armies were as mixed as the English: crossbowmen and knights. The knights struck their own crossbowmen because they 'were in the way'... T
[quote]You know what we're talking about. Juggling around definitions doesn't prove a point. [/quote] Sorry, but to me monolithic armies of, say, all swordsmen, is a problem. However, if everyone uses a mix of knights + pikes + archers because it's the best combo, it's not a problem, because it makes sense. Most medieval armies were very similar (knights + peasants + archers). So when your OP says monolithic armies should be avoided, I understand and agree. When you say that by
[quote]This is a perfect example of a rational player being forced to build a monolithic army.[/quote] No. First monolithic means "of a single stone".If army is made of various kinds of units, it's not monolithic. You're arguing an army shouldn't necessarily be made of the best available units. CtP2 maanged that. As I said, there were bombarding units. You could mix bombarding units stacks, which would often have some melee troops to defend them, with other stacks like the one
[quote]* We don’t currently like how roads are being built but don’t want players to be forced to building “workers” to build the roads. If anyone has any suggestions we’d like to hear it.[/quote] Why not draw the roads on the map? That's the way it was done in Call To Power. (Public works.) That's also what we did in Clash (http://clash.apolyton.net). You could just draw where you wanted your roads to go and then you set up some money to do it an
[quote]One of the things that causes this is stack limits.[/quote] No. It's bad combat system. Consider Call to Power/Call to Power 2. There was a stack limit of 12 BUT 4 kinds of units: bombardment, ranged, melee and flanking. Bombarding units could strike from afar on the strategic map but would be slaughtered alone in melee. Ranged units could fight in first and second row, only striking at those in front of them. Melee units fought only the unit in front of
When clicking an item in the research technologies screen, the various techs get reordered in unpredictable ways. Worse, when I click the 4th item, adventuring, it's the 4th item that gets selected, except now it's warfare!
Chimling in to say there are two things needed: MORALE FORMATIONS Formations needn't be complex. A simple orientation/angle of attack would be enough for most. Typically a phalanx formation is suprt hard to damage from front, hard from the shield-side (its right), and slaughtered from left and back, making mobility something useful.
A random chance of not losing the sovereign is pretty bad in my opinion. What happens when this happens to an AI sovereign you want to kill? 60% chance of not killing your target? So you have to try again, and again, and again, until he stops escaping? Looks boring. Makes assassination strategies useless. Resurrection? This is the Dominions solution, and it looks like it's ruled out. Because to be resurrected, you had to die in the first place, so it was game over. If death = game ove
I'm surprised people answered the question about units stats at all considering that tactical battles aren't in and there's no explanation of what does what anywhere.
[quote]# # A default amount of land vs. water ratio (that can be adjusted by the user) as a % (e.g. 75% water).[/quote] How can we get a random value? [quote] Seed range (e.g. 5 to 7) to determine the number of seeds to start from Number of continents range (e.g. 5 to 7) to determine the number of total continents there should be at the end. [/quote] Same. How do you get random? Is it possible to have somethign different as
Pyrrhic victories exist, but the question si one of balance. A fight between units of equal strength could result in a lot of casualties for the winner, but it really depends on whether routing is in the game or not. If some of the defeated troops can flee, then the winner should not suffer many casualties in order for him to be able to do some mop-up. I'm not really in favor of fleeing units from a gameplay perspective given the kind of map we have. If defeated troops all die