LongDarkBlues wrote:vicheron wrote:How does that sound like increasing competition when that's exactly the way it was in every Heroes game except for 4?
But wait, you saidvicheron wrote:Heroes is not a game where you can have a lot of competition over resources due to the fact that maps are too big.
Which is totally contradictory. Do other Heroes games have resource competition or not? Making the resources equally valuable HAS to create more competition because you need it as much as they do - it's not like how the Haven barely needs sulphur so you only take the mine if it's convenient - with one resource it's become equally essential. Unless the maps are designed by idiots, they will have to take advantage of that.
I said that there can't be a lot of competition, I didn't say that there was no competition.
The problem with the competition over resources in Heroes isn't that the different sides don't need resources, it's that one player cannot easily take away the resources of another player.
Because it takes so long for one player to send their army into another player's territory, any economic competition won't happen until the two sides already have their infrastructure up. By the time when there's a significant conflict, like between the two main heroes/armies, the games is already almost over.
The other problem with competition over resources is that you have no effective way of scouting like in other strategy games. Other strategy games have cheap scouting units you can send into enemy territory to see if how well defended their resources are and make sure that your harassment force don't get intercepted or blown up by defenses. In Heroes, your heroes are the scouts and they are expensive, not to mention the fact that if they get caught by the opponent's main hero, you'll make them more powerful by feeding them experience.
Right, which makes them more valuable, which makes for harder decision-making in defending resources, which makes for a deeper strategy game.vicheron wrote:The problem is that in Heroes your troops are limited. In other strategy games, if you send in a harassment force to attack your opponent's economy and they get destroyed, you can simply rebuild them. In Heroes, if you lose a harassing force, you have to wait a week before you can replenish your forces.
Except the problem isn't defending your resources, it's attacking your opponent's resource. It's much easier to defend than to attack since you can see attacks coming and you can mobilize a bigger force than the attacker. Plus the attacking force will likely just end up feeding experience to your hero.
Harassment works in other strategy games because having more money means you can produce more units. If you damage your opponent's economy, you can outproduce them and overwhelm them. It doesn't work like that in Heroes since your unit production is limited. Having more resources doesn't automatically allow you to produce more units. You can only recruit new units every week regardless of how much money you have. If you sacrifice your units to hurt the opponent's economy, they'll likely end up having a bigger army than you and they'll be able to just steamroll over your forces while you wait for your dwellings to generate more creatures to spend all that extra money you have. That's not even taking into consideration of the experience your harassment force gives to your opponent's hero.
I cannot fathom why people just want things to always stay the same, or simply close their eyes and ears and refuse to consider the idea that there are other ways of doing something that can be just as excellent. I could be wrong and this could be a huge blunder, but, much more likely, it will work fine and make for different strategies than other Heroes games, which is the entire point of a sequel.
There are different ways of making a turn based strategy but that doesn't mean they should use it. They can easily make Heroes into an RTS, it could even be a great RTS, but that doesn't mean it should be done.