Domination Game

Status: Logged Out

Forum » View



Wednesday 18th April 2007, 22:01 GMT
Here's a place to bring up some suggestions for certain things and criticize them as well. I will commence with a few recently discussed items and a couple of suggestions of my own. I'll come up with codenames for each within parentheses, to aid discussion.

- Recent topic (Unidios): Single-account method for joining multiple games
- Advantages: Faster game checking, better rule enforcement for preventing multis, & true cumulative scoring records
- Disadvantages: Labour required to get it working

- An Idea (Holdfast): An inability to abandon territories when an enemy attack is impending
- Advantages: Ceases widespread abandoning of territories during some wars, but still allows strategic abandonment if the enemy is not yet advancing
- Disadvantages: More labouring, and need to work out some special conditions

- An idea (Orbisang): Option while creating a game to eliminate allying, forming deathmatches without the "Alliance Setup" option
- Advantages: More dynamic games possible, knowing you don't need an ally to rival enemies
- Disadvantages: Some labour, and slight possibly for confusing newbies


Thursday 19th April 2007, 18:14 GMT
I think we were also looking at how the alliance setup and breakup will be handled.

One option being that when two people ally, the joining of the third person has to be agreed by all three players.


Thursday 19th April 2007, 21:07 GMT
Yes, that was also under discussion. If unanimous acceptance were required, I would see it something like this (if the invitee were to only be alerted once accepted):

Alliance Setup (not invited)
- Shows yourself and alliance members
- "Your alliance is (not inviting any new members at this time/inviting: <list name>)"
- If it is inviting a member, next to each invitee will be "Accept(ed) | Reject" and once any existing member rejects an invitee, they are removed.

The invitee will have the existing "Accept and Join Alliance" page if all full members have accepted their invitation. If any existing members change their mind and reject him/her, the Alliance Setup will obviously no longer  be marked.

One change I would like to see is the inclusion of a count for alliance invites. Instead of merely a *, sometimes one player gets two invites. So then it would look like the battle report marking in parentheses, and the Alliance Setup page would list the different invitations separately.

Alliance Setup (invited)


Thursday 19th April 2007, 21:08 GMT
Edit: Forget that last line, it is a formatting error


Thursday 19th April 2007, 21:38 GMT
Re Holdfast: I think that the ability to relinquish a territory under attack is a very important strategic option and should be retained, though I admit it can be frustrating at times.


Friday 20th April 2007, 5:23 GMT
Holdfast: I feel that the frustration caused in such circumstances is not worth the advantage. I remember one example of a World game, with every territory being controlled by one of two opposing powers, develop into a two-territory deep "no mans land" which frequently brought to life a confused newbie territory.
Note that abandoning while under attack could be valid when the sent actions are ready to advance. It would favour the more active general - - in the defender's abandoning before the enemy advances AND the attacker's being able to send a steady flow of troops over time to pin the enemy down.
If there were at least some restriction for abandoning, I would feel like much less of an exploiter for using the tactic. (I invented guerrilla warfare in Dom)

- A New Idea (Sorprendido): Delay enemy action reports until halfway through the action delay
- Advantages: Catch your enemy less prepared
- Disadvantages: Being caught while surprised ;)

(I'm going to assume that the Sorprendido idea will not be accepted nicely.)


Friday 20th April 2007, 14:14 GMT
another idea... :)
what about increasing the probability to win if you attack a territory simultaneously from different directions?


Saturday 21st April 2007, 5:39 GMT
(Sorprendido and Holdfast could be incorporated with one another - - not being able to abandon ONLY BETWEEN getting a battle report that you will be attacked & having the said attack ready to be advanced, so the lock-up would only be half an action delay)

As for your idea, Kris, ["Pushka-A"] is a nice one but the problem lies in advancing multiple movements together, in which case. Hmm, that leads me to wonder whether checking multiple movements and telling them to "merge" (with an advance time of the most recent action) would be a good idea ("Pushka-B")...taking the advantage of the best rated territory in the group (attack/conquer bonus). Of course, you would not be allowed to merge movements to different territories. Either take the best rating OR add the bonuses up. It could provide a sinister yet worthwhile strategic element to consider the bonuses. Adding up the bonuses, according to the current code, would be allowable. Although the attack/conquer bonuses are at a normal maximum of 4, higher numbers would allow reasonable advances in strength, as the bonuses themselves merely enhance the perceived strength of a force.


Tuesday 8th May 2007, 2:58 GMT
Well, I have another suggestion. It has something to do with the possible scoring changes brought up...

The more territories held after a victory, the better.
It would promote competition amongst allies.