Okay, let's not beat around the bush - Dominions is the hobby project of two Swedish professors, and it shows. It's clunky, the UI is unfriendly, the graphics are beyond dated even speaking as someone who prefers a strong aesthetic over high fidelity, and it's generally bad at onboarding new players. It's a game where instead of a tutorial there's a 449 page manual. In fairness, ~350 of those are appendices and nation overviews, but still - you're really going to want to join the Nexus discord so the veteran players can help teach you. So why is this a positive review, then? A few reasons. One of my recurring issues with a lot of fantasy settings is the way they tend to treat race as the big distinction between factions – more than just having stock fantasy races like dwarves and orcs and elves, the factions are so often sorted into The Dwarfholds, The Human Kingdoms, The Elf Havens, The Orc Horde, etc, and it just feels kind of… thin? Life is messier than that. Terry Pratchett (GNU Pterry) wrote Ankh-Morpork in the 80's as a cosmopolitan melting pot that's really just an authentic portrayal of what cities are like, and it still feels fresh because the contrast is so poor. I said above that Dominions is the hobby project of Swedish professors, and when I said it shows, that wasn't entirely a bad thing. At least one of them teaches religion and social sciences, and you can see that in the strong emphasis on culture rather than race as the defining influence on factions. Caelum, for example, is primarily populated by a race of bird-people, but it's not ABOUT "bird people" the way fantasy dwarfs tend to be so strongly defined by Being Dwarfs. Instead Caelum is about the internal tensions and religious schisms between its clans, and the path that story charts produces offshoots like Nazca and Ragha through cross-pollination with other cultures, and it feels so much more rich and satisfying. Second, I'm a big fan of the sheer breadth of Stuff you can do with the game's mechanics. There are so many moving parts here, and yes the balance is all over the place, but that just means running into something potent is usually cause to rummage through the vast array of possibilities for One Weird Trick to solve it, and that rummaging is great fun. Third, the multiplayer has a lovely setup for asynchronous PBEM play, similar to Solium Infernum; everybody logs their orders sometime in the day, then once everybody's finished, the game resolves all those orders at once. I find it works a lot better than simultaneous play, because it means I don't have to commit an entire evening to play with friends, and it sidesteps the problems about arranging timeslots with people in different timezones – but at the same time, because everybody can log their orders at once rather than going in sequence like a classic IGOUGO structure, games progress reasonably fast by the standards of multiplayer PBEM. My last reasons get deeper into mechanics, so indulge me for a moment yet; most strategy games encourage decisive battle theory. If you recruit combat units you want them out on the map fighting things, and if you recruit utility units (harvesters/workers/settlers/etc), their combat power is negligible if they have any at all. So when two players fight, almost always the outcome is decided by a single decisive engagement, because whoever wins will have crushed the great majority of all the military strength their opponent has in existence. Especially because any halfway savvy player knows this, and knows there's little mileage in fighting the tide. Holding good stuff in reserve just invites defeat in detail. This is not, I should point out, necessarily a bad thing; big decisive clashes make for big, satisfying spectacles. But it is a default, and getting away from it is refreshing. See in Dominions', spellcasting wins wars. Past the early stage, troops without mage support are basically targets of opportunity to a couple of mages who can cast some good spells, but unlocking the good spells requires research – and the game's innovation is that research isn't generated directly by cities. Rather, cities recruit mages, and mages can be ordered to spend their turn generating research. So, mages are not just your best combat units, they're also how you generate resources. So, if you invade someone you might smash an army at the border, you might flip some of their countryside and claim the attendant taxpayers, but they WILL have a deep reserve of mages who can be retasked from research to fighting off a serious threat, and simply by dint of being A Bunch Of Mages they're a big deal. This works really well to encourage actual back-and-forth gameplay – you still have those decisive battles, but you're not hurried into it as the only way wars go, there's room for comebacks and raiding the countryside and sneaky shenanigans, and it feels so much more open. Lastly, related to the above, is the importance of intel and mind games. Because there's so much more scope for comebacks, and because spellcasting is so powerful, it's important to know what your enemy is deploying. The game gives you only limited information on what your opponent has without a battle report, you can't just select enemy units to examine them in detail, and you can't know for sure what the enemy will do this turn, so there's a strong incentive to fight wide raiding campaigns, both to gain territory, and also to fight small skirmishes to get glimpses of what troops they're using, what spells they've unlocked, what magic items they've forged, whether they have hidden tricks in reserve, etc. How many strategy games can you name where the mechanics encourage honest-to-gods strategic reserves, probing attacks, and recon-by-force? Is the game a clunky, dated mess? Yes. Is it heaps of fucking fun anyway? Absolutely.
Read more