Too much luck in the Tactics phase!

[MrSteamTank]

Their is simply too much luck in the tactic phase at the moment. Considering almost every faction has that one round in your face unit tying up one of their ranged units in the first round can simply be too gamebreaking early game. And the worst part is that it's ALL luck.

Hope you don't position your units in the wrong spot or else your toast and there's nothing you can do to foretell what he's going to do as you can't see how he sets up his troops.

It really needs to be fixed in my opinion. Either up the battlefield size by 2-3 squares in hero vs hero battles or at the very least guarantee an obstacle so you can hide your fragile units behind it and not have a 1 round engagement before you can even move a single unit in battle.

Now some of you might say well you can position your units and you can avoid this some of the time. Yes, I am aware of this but the main issue is that it's still 100% luck and luck is something NOT needed in a strategy game. I prefer not to have to gamble in my strategy games as it definitely kills the excitement for me knowing that I won/lost mostly due to lucky initial combat placement. Wow aren't I lucky that my group of cavaliers lined up with his arch-mages/master hunters/succubi mistress'/archdruids so I could start with a 1 round knock out.

[juventas]

There was a similar thread about the battlefield being too small. It'd be a surprise in real life if a bunch of cavalry charged across a battlefield without getting so much as an arrow shot at them.

[Alamar]

I tend to agree that even with Tactics involved I'd still only like to see one or two creatures in the whole game able to cross the battlefield in one turn. [Devils & one or two accepted ultra-fast units would be plenty]

As it is I find it not worth my while in most fights to even field large units on the fear that one will be hit just hard enough to take losses.

It would have been nice if the game were developed & balanced around this sort of a concept. It may have made things like balance of Large vs. Small creatures, magic, etc. flow much better.

[ThunderTitan]

[Devils & one or two accepted ultra-fast units would be plenty]

The Phoenix is the likeliest candidate.

This would have been ever worse if the BF was left as small as they wanted.

[cornellian]

I agree that Tactics involve a lot of luck it shouldn't, but many times it is the only chance of attack for those units that can cross the BF at once.. Aside from Paladins and Nightmares all the units that can reach the enemy are usually easy to kill mobs, and their main purpose is being shock troopers; after all, if blood furies had 6 speed instead of 8 (9?) it has, then they would most likely die before having the chance to attack..

You know how it would have been better in my opinion? If the grids occupied by enemy troops were shown before the battle but not the units themselves, you would at least have an idea of their army placement and still it wouldn't be a huge bonus..

[ThunderTitan]

Aside from Paladins and Nightmares all the units that can reach the enemy are usually easy to kill mobs, and their main purpose is being shock troopers; after all, if blood furies had 6 speed instead of 8 (9?) it has, then they would most likely die before having the chance to attack..

Then how about putting them on the second row where no one can reach them (except Devils, but not Phoenixes, who should only reach the second row).

[cornellian]

'Them' being who, might I ask?

[MrSteamTank]

I tend to agree that even with Tactics involved I'd still only like to see one or two creatures in the whole game able to cross the battlefield in one turn. [Devils & one or two accepted ultra-fast units would be plenty]

As it is I find it not worth my while in most fights to even field large units on the fear that one will be hit just hard enough to take losses.

It would have been nice if the game were developed & balanced around this sort of a concept. It may have made things like balance of Large vs. Small creatures, magic, etc. flow much better.

I definitely agree with your statement. Devils and pheonix' seem like the only unit that should cross the battlefield in one round. Also some of the initiatives seem a little wonky in the game and that could be fixed as it gives units that are fairly powerful to begin with too many actions and attacks. However, that is another can of worms and I'd much prefer them to fix at the very least hero vs hero battlefield size.

[ThunderTitan]

'Them' being who, might I ask?

The " easy to kill mobs" you were refering to.

[innokenti]

What could happen is that depending on a hero stat (and possibly with a skill improving it or guranteeing it) a hero would set-up last on the battlefield seeing how his enemy had arranged his.

Thus vs. neutrals you would always set up last while vs. heroes it would depend on who had the highest... 'strategy rating' (or whatever). If it was matched then you'd have setting up at the same time.

[DaemianLucifer]

Then how about putting them on the second row where no one can reach them (except Devils, but not Phoenixes, who should only reach the second row).

Because they have high initiative,a good punch,but low HP.So they should attack as soon as posible.Cerberi are a nice example.You put them in front,attack and forget(gate if you have time).They are used mainly as range units destroyers.

The BF is ridiculously small.But considering there is no LoS,making it any larger would overpower the shooters.So what we need is bigger BF and LoS.

[ClownRoyal]

What could happen is that depending on a hero stat (and possibly with a skill improving it or guranteeing it) a hero would set-up last on the battlefield seeing how his enemy had arranged his.

Thus vs. neutrals you would always set up last while vs. heroes it would depend on who had the highest... 'strategy rating' (or whatever). If it was matched then you'd have setting up at the same time.

How about the Tactics skill? If you have no Tactics but your opponent has Basic, he/she sets up after you. If you have Basic and are fighting Neutrals, you set up after seeing them. If you have Advanced and your opponent has Advanced, you both set up at the same time.

[ThunderTitan]

The BF is ridiculously small.But considering there is no LoS,making it any larger would overpower the shooters.So what we need is bigger BF and LoS.

As far as i can tell putting shooters on the second row means no creature can reach them in their first turn, so if you only make it bigger and have most non-shooter creatures be able to cross it in 2 turns it shouldn't make shooters any better then they are now.

[ClownRoyal]

The BF is ridiculously small.But considering there is no LoS,making it any larger would overpower the shooters.So what we need is bigger BF and LoS.

As far as i can tell putting shooters on the second row means no creature can reach them in their first turn, so if you only make it bigger and have most non-shooter creatures be able to cross it in 2 turns it shouldn't make shooters any better then they are now.

Yeah, that's good for most creatures, but for instance, Liches are 2x2 in size, so they can be hit first thing in battle. Titans as well. I think increasing the size of the battlefield would give those large shooters an advantage that they really don't need.

[ThunderTitan]

Yeah, that's good for most creatures, but for instance, Liches are 2x2 in size, so they can be hit first thing in battle. Titans as well. I think increasing the size of the battlefield would give those large shooters an advantage that they really don't need.

And that's why they have those nifty little spells of theirs. But LoS would also be nice.
And anyway a bigger BF looks better, they can just balance it again.

[ClownRoyal]

Yeah, that's good for most creatures, but for instance, Liches are 2x2 in size, so they can be hit first thing in battle. Titans as well. I think increasing the size of the battlefield would give those large shooters an advantage that they really don't need.

And that's why they have those nifty little spells of theirs. But LoS would also be nice.
And anyway a bigger BF looks better, they can just balance it again.

I agree. I would like a larger battlefield if they re-balanced it.

They could just reduce the movement of some of the "faster" units overall. Increasing the battlefield size would cause much agony to fans of Zombies, Horned Demons, Footmen, Skeletons, and Hydras.

So if they increased the battlefield size, I'd like so see the faster units keep their move ranges as they are now, while the slower units got some sort of movement increase. They already take about 1 turn every few years as it is, at least let them get to the battle before it's over.

[ThunderTitan]

So if they increased the battlefield size, I'd like so see the faster units keep their move ranges as they are now, while the slower units got some sort of movement increase. They already take about 1 turn every few years as it is, at least let them get to the battle before it's over.

They could use it even with the current BF size. Heck, you can kill a stack of no matter how many Zombies with just one fast unit and ur hero.

[MrSteamTank]

Yeah, that's good for most creatures, but for instance, Liches are 2x2 in size, so they can be hit first thing in battle. Titans as well. I think increasing the size of the battlefield would give those large shooters an advantage that they really don't need.

And that's why they have those nifty little spells of theirs. But LoS would also be nice.
And anyway a bigger BF looks better, they can just balance it again.

I agree. I would like a larger battlefield if they re-balanced it.

They could just reduce the movement of some of the "faster" units overall. Increasing the battlefield size would cause much agony to fans of Zombies, Horned Demons, Footmen, Skeletons, and Hydras.

So if they increased the battlefield size, I'd like so see the faster units keep their move ranges as they are now, while the slower units got some sort of movement increase. They already take about 1 turn every few years as it is, at least let them get to the battle before it's over.

Units like zombies, horned demons, footmen, skeletons, and hydras are pretty bad to begin with unless you have teleport so adding 2-3 squares to the battlefield length would be no biggy. The only thing I'd do is add 1-2 extra initiative to the slower 'weak' units and then it would all balance out in the end.

The game isn't all that balanced anyways so I see no real issue upping battleground size at least in hero vs hero battles anyways.

[ClownRoyal]

So if they increased the battlefield size, I'd like so see the faster units keep their move ranges as they are now, while the slower units got some sort of movement increase. They already take about 1 turn every few years as it is, at least let them get to the battle before it's over.

They could use it even with the current BF size. Heck, you can kill a stack of no matter how many Zombies with just one fast unit and ur hero.

That is very true.

[Gus]

I agree that the BF needs to be increased in size, and that no creatures but a few chosen ones should be able to cross it in one turn. As it is now, the random order at the beginning of the fight can make or break an entire game, and that is wrong. Oh so wrong.