The "complexity" of the strategy

[Лысый чел]

Всем Hello everyone. With this topic, I want to explain to the players who constantly complain about the weakening of any troops that at the moment this game is at the difficulty level of the chess problem that I showed in the screenshot. At the moment, to defeat the most difficult defender base, you don't have to think much, get me right, players who constantly complain about weakening troops or rebalancing- we should always start from playing on equal terms, for example, if there is a better attacker and a better defender, then the game should not be at the same level of difficulty as in this chess game the task. Yes, I myself, playing with a far from strong account, will not be able to kill the best defender of this game, but this is a consequence of just the given numbers of the museum and other things. We must start from the maximum performance of the attacker and defender and only then talk about the fairness of weakening any attacking capabilities. I hope you understand me, because I use a translator and he will not be able to convey my thoughts to you in full. This game should be more challenging in terms of strategy and tactics on the battlefield. I understand perfectly well that you put a lot of effort into developing certain troops and a museum for them, but such is the mechanics of the game that nothing can be changed quickly. Here is a screenshot of a chess problem in English that I sometimes solve, which shows the modern complexity of the attacker's strategy in battle to achieve victory. White's move, checkmate in one move.Do you want the same complexity in Dominations? I will say it again- I myself will not be able to kill the strongest defenders of the game, but this is only the effect of the pumped numbers of the game. We should not start from this, we should think precisely about the complexity and interest of the strategy in this game, which is currently very easy, as in this chess problem. Thank you, I hope you understood me.

 

[JuggernautJ]

I don't think that's an accurate example.
A better example would be that, once you've gone to all the trouble of setting up your "Checkmate in 1" position the abilities of the pieces change.
You work hard to maneuver into this position and then, suddenly, Bishops move like Rooks and you have to rethink everything and come up with a new strategy. And, once that is accomplished, suddenly Queens move like Pawns.
Now, add in that you have to buy a whole new chess set every time the rules change and I think you'll begin to understand the position of some long-time players towards this "re-balancing."

My frustration comes not just from this but also from the dexterity requirements.
As I age and my arthritis becomes worse it gets increasingly more difficult to deploy troops effectively.
I don't see why the person with the fastest hand should have an advantage over a superior strategical thinker but that is the way the game works.

Detachments helped with this... changing from having to deploy dozens of units to tree plus groups (plus Mercs, SH Troops, etc.)... but to me, it'd be cool if you could "program" in your attacks instead of having to manually place troops ASAP when the battle begins.

The battle is not to the strongest... but to the swiftest... at least if you're playing offense in Dominations...
We all have our crosses to bear in this game (sorry for the mixed Biblical metaphors) and that's mine.

 

[Лысый чел]

Я не думаю, что это точный пример.
Более наглядный пример: после того, как вы приложили все усилия для создания позиции «шах и мат в одно касание», возможности фигур меняются.
Вы прилагаете огромные усилия, чтобы занять эту позицию, а затем внезапно слоны начинают двигаться как ладьи, и вам приходится всё переосмыслить и придумать новую стратегию. И как только это удаётся, внезапно ферзи начинают двигаться как пешки.
Теперь добавьте к этому необходимость покупать целый новый шахматный набор каждый раз, когда меняются правила, и, думаю, вы начнете понимать позицию некоторых опытных игроков по отношению к этой «перебалансировке».

Моё разочарование вызвано не только этим, но и требованиями к ловкости рук.
С возрастом и ухудшением состояния моего артрита мне становится все труднее эффективно развертывать войска.
Я не понимаю, почему тот, у кого быстрее рука, должен иметь преимущество перед более развитым стратегическим мышлением, но так устроена игра.

В этом плане помогли отряды... вместо необходимости развертывать десятки юнитов теперь приходится использовать дерево юнитов плюс группы (плюс наемники, войска SH и т. д.)... но, на мой взгляд, было бы здорово, если бы можно было "запрограммировать" атаки, вместо того чтобы вручную размещать войска как можно быстрее в начале боя.

Битва идёт не против сильнейшего... а против самого быстрого... по крайней мере, если вы играете в нападении в режиме "Доминирование"...
У каждого из нас в этой игре свой крест (извините за смешение библейских метафор), и это мой.

I fully understand your train of thought and agree that when developers change the "rules" of the game, it's very frustrating after we've put so much effort into something, but without it, it's impossible to improve the game, there have always been and will be changes in any area of life, including this one. the game. This is absolutely necessary, because stagnation = degradation. Even in the same chess, the rules of the game have changed, although it is very difficult to change anything without negative consequences. If you don't understand why players with faster reflexes and without arthritis should have an advantage, then I completely disagree. Do you want to equate game players with players with disabilities? This is complete nonsense. I can only say one thing about this - the Paralympic Games were organized specifically for such people at the Olympic Games. Invite the developers to create Dominations for people with disabilities.I'm not trying to insult you or make fun of you in any way, but the fact that you're unhappy with unequal opportunities compared to healthy players is crazy nonsense and completely wrong

 

[JuggernautJ]

Bohze moi...

My point was... we all have our pet peeves... something about the game that we'd love to change.
It'd be wonderful if it changes (well, in that person's opinion) but it ain't gonna.

(But that's not the same as major changes/"rebalancing.")

You may find this ammusing:

Chess: An interesting concept ruined by too many design flaws | Chess

Chess is a strategy boardgame in which two kingdoms vie for power over a hypothetical 64 square world. Chess is described as the "game of kings" on the box. It is supposed to be a grand game of warfare, diplomacy, and empire management. But does the game measure up to

boardgamegeek.com

 

[nobodyknowsthetrouble]

I agree with Juggernaut, chess pieces should not change their rules of movement during the game.
Futhermore, this isn't a racing/reaction game, it's a strategy game.
However, BHG favors players with wide displays and fast fingers. Both of these are not a strategies. Suggestions to reduce this disadvantage have not yet been implemented (e.g., custom order of panels, narrower panels, grouped view of detachments, etc.). In fact, BHG deliberately worsens the situation, for example by reducing the FOV from 2:1 to 16:9 in the browser.

 

[King Crimson]

there have always been and will be changes in any area of life, including this one. the game.

Changes are good if it improves or evolves. Changes to one thing that negatively impacts 'another' is not an example of a good change - and unfortunately the devs are very good at impacting something while trying to change something else. Very frustrating.
The ideal change is when said change encourages us to improve something else, not force us to improve something else.
But then, how else would they make their money ... ?