New Idea about battlefield size.

The new Heroes games produced by Ubisoft. Please specify which game you are referring to in your post.

Moderator: Moderators

Would you like to get some larger battlefield, time to time ?

yes
23
72%
no
9
28%
 
Total votes: 32

User avatar
Kilop
War Dancer
War Dancer
Posts: 353
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: USA

New Idea about battlefield size.

Postby Kilop » Oct 13 2006, 3:04

I personally find it boring to get always the same size, and to see that quick units ( even more with artefacts and swiftness aura ) can destroy enemy opposing forces in first round, reducing greatly the efficience of shooters( hello emerald dragons on skels/marksmen/etc ... )
So maybe it would be nice to give the attaker the option to choose the size of the battle field , make it 4 squares wider for instance.
Hmmm just an idea, but this could open new possibilities ...
What do you think ?
I support(ed?) Nival... flame on !!!
The truth pure and simple is seldom pure and never simple...

User avatar
DaemianLucifer
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 11282
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: City 17

Postby DaemianLucifer » Oct 13 2006, 4:05

The idea isnt that new,but that doesnt mean its not good.Nival had a very nice idea of scalable BFs,but too bad they scrapped it.

User avatar
okrane
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 1786
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: Paris

Postby okrane » Oct 13 2006, 9:40

Frankly no... I like the battlefield the way it is, and strong creatures are strong because they can cross the battlefield in one move. Imagine the strenght of ranged units on a larger battlefield. What good would dragons be if marksmen could shoot 3 times before a dragon can attack? Ranged units are already very strong...

Maybe I did not understand the question... When does the battlefield should scale? should it scale randomly, you choose it to scale, it depends on terrain or on the type of battle?

I like that when fighting a siege the battlefield gets bigger, because it emphases archer units. In fact I prefered the Heroes 4 siege even more since it made a castle harder to conquer (at least in pvp) - because a castle should be much harder to take. So i guess in this case it's ok.

But the actual small battlefield it's good. I also like the fact that it prevents placing too many large units. Since usually the large units are the strongest I think it is nice that you can't have too many and you should also take small units.

So please detail a bit your proposal.

User avatar
Elvin
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 5475
Joined: 27 Aug 2006

Postby Elvin » Oct 13 2006, 11:32

Definitely but only if the armies are large enough.And just 1-2 tiles larger just to prevent some (charging mostly)creatures from attacking right away in round 1.Once I had made a map with heroes on lvl 20 with 10 weeks' armies and customized skills/abilities.Haven had aura of swiftness and the archangels,paladins and imperial griffs attacked immediately.That's enough to cream almost any army especially those with magic oriented heroes.
Yes ranged creatures would become better but not grounbreakintg.
I, for one, am dying to find out what colour they paint Michael's toenails.
- Metathron

User avatar
evilp
Scout
Scout
Posts: 168
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: China
Contact:

Postby evilp » Oct 13 2006, 11:38

Now I interested in custom battlefield look... :baby:

Image
Image
Image

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

Postby Gaidal Cain » Oct 13 2006, 12:17

Vote no. Scaling battlefields would need scaling speed and shooting parameters as well to keep troop balance in check, and that's a hard thing to get done properly. Even if you simply double the size and then double the speed of all units, you've upset balance between small and alrge creatures etc. So, unless Heroes moves to some other representation of tactical battles, I think there are better things to spend programming and balancing/testing time on.
You don't want to make enemies in Nuclear Engineering. -- T. Pratchett

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Oct 13 2006, 12:38

This time I agree completely with you, GC. Voted no as well.

vhilhu
Druid
Druid
Posts: 862
Joined: 13 Aug 2006

Postby vhilhu » Oct 13 2006, 12:42

voted no too.

the impotance of terrain obstacles would drop. but i like obstacles.

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23266
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Oct 13 2006, 13:08

Gaidal Cain wrote:Vote no. I don't trust Nival to make it work.
Great reason. :devil:
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

User avatar
Jolly Joker
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 3316
Joined: 06 Jan 2006

Postby Jolly Joker » Oct 13 2006, 13:58

Where did you pull that quote from?

User avatar
Kilop
War Dancer
War Dancer
Posts: 353
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: USA

Postby Kilop » Oct 13 2006, 14:24

the impotance of terrain obstacles would drop. but i like obstacles.
Just double the number of obstacles, and they ll keep the same importance ...
Scaling battlefields would need scaling speed and shooting parameters
Of course not, if it wasa just 3 or 4 squares wider, some combinasons of creatures / skills could always reach the opposite side, but not 3 per army ( helll charger, hellhound, Bdrag, furies, grim raiders, etc... )

and it would make you think of an actual strategy instead of being forced to just ruch to get the first strike...
and maybe archers could get a second penalty to 1/3 of normal dommage....
That would make the center the real center of the fight, and give you time to antiipate movement of enemy units, not justsee the fast units always go for you weak one without possibilities to protect tehm.


And lastly I find it amusing that everybody on thiis forum said no but yet, most voters voted yes :devious:

Is this forum a bit conservative???

And in another thread you complained that they didn t keep changes from H IV hehe
I support(ed?) Nival... flame on !!!
The truth pure and simple is seldom pure and never simple...

User avatar
Shuyssar
Pixie
Pixie
Posts: 139
Joined: 13 Sep 2006

Postby Shuyssar » Oct 13 2006, 14:30

Yes. A gigantic battlefield would be good for tactics!
"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for us to decide. All we have to decide, is what to do with the time that is given to us. " -Gandalf

User avatar
Lady Farquad
Scout
Scout
Posts: 179
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Location: Hispanic heaven

Postby Lady Farquad » Oct 13 2006, 15:09

Voted no. To find out the reason just read GC post.
Morior, ergo sum

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23266
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Oct 13 2006, 16:59

Jolly Joker wrote:Where did you pull that quote from?
Unlike Shuyysar you should know where. ;) [size=0]down below[/size]

But seriously, you don't want it because it would involve plenty of work and there are other things that need fixing more badly?! Where did your unbounded optimism go? Not that i didn't hate it or anything. Actualy it was the main reason i bashed the game so much.
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

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

Postby Gaidal Cain » Oct 13 2006, 18:14

Kilop wrote:Of course not, if it wasa just 3 or 4 squares wider, some combinasons of creatures / skills could always reach the opposite side, but not 3 per army ( helll charger, hellhound, Bdrag, furies, grim raiders, etc... )
I wouldn't have anything against a battlefield which no unit could cross in one turn. However, I think that having a battlefield that shifts size would be a problem, because it would mess with the relative strength of units from battle to battle and give another parameter to balance for (instead of with), without it really adding anything to the game.

TT: I'd be very interested in a proposal for how to change it in a manner that doesn't shift balance between units, or if it does, allows the battlefield size to be gauged in advance without being determined by anything the player could do (it would obviously be a very bad thing if you could choose the field size you wanted if it would shift creature strengths).
You don't want to make enemies in Nuclear Engineering. -- T. Pratchett

User avatar
ThunderTitan
Perpetual Poster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 23266
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: Now/here
Contact:

Postby ThunderTitan » Oct 13 2006, 19:07

Gaidal Cain wrote: TT: I'd be very interested in a proposal for how to change it in a manner that doesn't shift balance between units, or if it does, allows the battlefield size to be gauged in advance without being determined by anything the player could do (it would obviously be a very bad thing if you could choose the field size you wanted if it would shift creature strengths).
Didn't JJ already say that that would be pointless, as Nival wouldn't listen anyway?!

And they could make it a shared choice for MP. Then they'd need to balance the units for each size. Give every factions units that have their usefullness maximized on a certain size, and make sure they have one unit for each size. Lots of work, and probably undoable right now, but not really a reason to vote NO. HoMM6 might still come.
Disclaimer: May contain sarcasm!
I have never faked a sarcasm in my entire life. - ???
"With ABC deleting dynamite gags from cartoons, do you find that your children are using explosives less frequently?" — Mark LoPresti

Alt-0128: €

Image

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

Postby Gaidal Cain » Oct 13 2006, 20:14

ThunderTitan wrote: And they could make it a shared choice for MP.
Yea, like that's going to work :hoo:. And what about SP?
Then they'd need to balance the units for each size. Give every factions units that have their usefullness maximized on a certain size, and make sure they have one unit for each size. Lots of work, and probably undoable right now, but not really a reason to vote NO. HoMM6 might still come.


Still doesn't help against neutrals. And yes, it's an excellent reason to vote no, considering I could get for example caravans or less bugs instead.
You don't want to make enemies in Nuclear Engineering. -- T. Pratchett

User avatar
Bonzer
Conscript
Conscript
Posts: 236
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Location: South Coast UK

Postby Bonzer » Oct 13 2006, 20:39

Anyone who has played Age of Wonders will know how well this can work, if done properly.

Though I do agree that there are probably more important / urgent problems to correct first.

Perhaps to be considered for a later expansion? Or even, - what a mod THAT would make!
We will either find a way, or we will make one. Emperor Hannibal.

User avatar
Kilop
War Dancer
War Dancer
Posts: 353
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Location: USA

Postby Kilop » Oct 13 2006, 20:55

This time I agree completely with you, GC. Voted no as well.
we all know that you are allergic to changes :P
without it really adding anything to the game
Are you kidding, half the game is duels...
And what problems would it make if that didn t change anything ??
You ve just contradict yourself ... in the same sentence !!!!

anyway, I didn t expect to find that much prejuges on this boards !! Man, almost nobody talked about what effective changes that would make... just : it would be too complicated !!

Please explain yourself, and try to be creative in your way of thinking...
I support(ed?) Nival... flame on !!!
The truth pure and simple is seldom pure and never simple...

User avatar
DaemianLucifer
Round Table Hero
Round Table Hero
Posts: 11282
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Location: City 17

Postby DaemianLucifer » Oct 13 2006, 21:45

okrane wrote:Frankly no... I like the battlefield the way it is, and strong creatures are strong because they can cross the battlefield in one move. Imagine the strenght of ranged units on a larger battlefield. What good would dragons be if marksmen could shoot 3 times before a dragon can attack? Ranged units are already very strong...
Easy,just add two more ranges:long range(1/4 damage)and out of range.Also,bring back LoS and range for spells,and voila,problem solved.
Gaidal Cain wrote: TT: I'd be very interested in a proposal for how to change it in a manner that doesn't shift balance between units, or if it does, allows the battlefield size to be gauged in advance without being determined by anything the player could do (it would obviously be a very bad thing if you could choose the field size you wanted if it would shift creature strengths).
Want details?Imagine HIV BF in full 3D,and with a bit nerfed casters,and there you have it.


Return to “Heroes V-VI”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests