Should Flee / Surrender be rebalanced?

The new Heroes games produced by Ubisoft. Please specify which game you are referring to in your post.
User avatar
Dublex
Pixie
Pixie
Posts: 137
Joined: 20 May 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Should Flee / Surrender be rebalanced?

Unread postby Dublex » 23 May 2006, 12:28

Does anyone think that the way flee / surrender works should be rebalanced? As although the aspect of Fleeing makes sense, I think everyone should have a chance to surrender, even without the diplomacy skill and even to neutral units.

You could add risks so that non-diplomacy heroes could end up losing the hero the same way as if you'd lost the battle (maybe taken prisoner if they were a "good" side or dealt with another way if they were a "bad" side ) or other failure like penalties.

I think it would be nice in normal combat to still have a choice and even a risk to take, rather than the option just shaded out in some battles (obviously without the shackles in effect) and just having to rely on straight Flee.

User avatar
Gaidal Cain
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 6972
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Solna

Unread postby Gaidal Cain » 23 May 2006, 18:33

I think flee needs to work more like in H4, with regards to loss. That is, even if you flee, you won't have lost the map.
You don't want to make enemies in Nuclear Engineering. -- T. Pratchett

User avatar
Continuity
Scout
Scout
Posts: 190
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby Continuity » 23 May 2006, 23:08

That depends on the map's "loss" condition. If the condition is "don't lose hero", then you can't flee. If the mapmaker wants the hero not to lose when the hero dies, just don't set that loss condition.

User avatar
Gaidal Cain
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 6972
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Solna

Unread postby Gaidal Cain » 23 May 2006, 23:55

Well, I think losing my hero isn't the same as it fleeing. In most cases, a "lose hero" loss condition is in fact unnecessary- you either don't have a tavern to rehire it, or is so set back without him you'd lose anyway,
Last edited by Gaidal Cain on 24 May 2006, 08:31, edited 1 time in total.
You don't want to make enemies in Nuclear Engineering. -- T. Pratchett

HenL
Peasant
Peasant
Posts: 96
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby HenL » 24 May 2006, 01:05

o_O It's lose and losing...

Edit = hax :D
Last edited by HenL on 25 May 2006, 02:45, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gaidal Cain
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 6972
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Solna

Unread postby Gaidal Cain » 24 May 2006, 08:31

I don't see what youo're talking about :D
You don't want to make enemies in Nuclear Engineering. -- T. Pratchett

User avatar
Dublex
Pixie
Pixie
Posts: 137
Joined: 20 May 2006
Location: Hertfordshire, United Kingdom

Unread postby Dublex » 24 May 2006, 09:48

The point is should everyone have access to the surrender option in every situation, but with the condition that the outcome could be worse than fleeing?

User avatar
Continuity
Scout
Scout
Posts: 190
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Unread postby Continuity » 24 May 2006, 10:04

Gaidal Cain wrote:Well, I think losing my hero isn't the same as it fleeing. In most cases, a "lose hero" loss condition is in fact unnecessary- you either don't have a tavern to rehire it, or is so set back without him you'd lose anyway,
While I see your point, if the loss condition is "lose hero" and you can flee to avoid that, it would be very rare for you to actually lose the map since you can always flee unless you're trapped in a castle or the enemy has a Shackles of War-like artifact. Or he kills you before you get a chance to move.


Return to “Heroes V-VI”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests