pepak wrote:I consider H4 to be the one closest to the ideal of "each unit should be useful".
Id say that HV did a better job here.
Jolly Joker wrote:H3 has a lot of "mass" in terms of simple material and "features". SoD has a brilliant editor. There's an rmg and so on.
Jolly Joker wrote:H 4... is a CONCEPTUAL change that has consequences on how low level units interact with high level units no matter your tactics hero. Simply put, a level 1 unit has no place in your army (except maybe Halflings).
Jolly Joker wrote:This makes one third of your available units a waste (and this is CONCEPTUAL).
Jolly Joker wrote:You don't want wasted units.
Jolly Joker wrote:Heroes in IV are basically back to those in Heroes II; gone are the specials.
Jolly Joker wrote:Yes, exactly my point. Disciples (and AoW) are a lot more... let's call it personal. In Disciples you groom only very few units, while in AoW it's single unit fight.
Now compare that to Heroes. Does it make a lot of sense to have one Hero alongside of a stack of 100 Vampires in H 4 or Cyclopses? I mean, the destructive power of 100 Vampires or Cyclopses (or think of any other comparable stack) is so big, what kind of single being would withstand it? And then the Life Potion: smashed to pulp by the rocks of a hundred Cyclopses and, poof, there he stands again. Ridiculous.
Okay, there's the implementation argument, but the logic is the same: when thousands of Skeletons are battling dozens of Dragons, a mere human (or elf or demon or whatever) looks a bit forlorn.
Mytical wrote:Actually yes DL it is, though not just the germans couldn't use it. Making weapons of mass destruction is always a bad idea. You get into the BBD syndrome. Everybody is still trying to make something bigger and badder. Of course you like that idea, but most of us sane people don't
DaemianLucifer wrote:So,using the power of nuclear fusion to build a weapon is a flawed concept because germans couldnt make it.
Jolly Joker wrote:Gaidal Cain wrote:I'd say it makes more sense than having knights galloping through walls and hitting a stack on the other side...
(Oh, and in case you're forgetful- there are plenty of examples through history of generals or even kings falling in battles. Being on the filed isn't the same as having the same destructive power as the other stacks).
To quote DL: it makes no sense to justify something stupid with something that is equally stupid. And it doesn't make even less sense to sell human idiocy as good game concept.
Jolly Joker wrote:GC, we don't talk about the sense it makes that "Heroes" are fighting on the battlefield. In fact I already did say quite a lot of time that this concept works well in AoW and Disciples. So it's not the general principle that's under fire here, it's only the principle in a game environment that has certain key features of the HoMM game.
Militarily spoken, Homm organizes battle on at least regimental level. On that level a single unit can and should not make a difference in direct combat.
IN all Homms except IV the hero is basically what I would call HQ support, technical development, artillery strike, moral support, help from the gods (Luck) and so on, concentrated in an icon called a hero (a very good concept, actually). It makes no sense to put all that into the line, and into an actual fighting hero.
Jolly Joker wrote:Why Homm IV's HoBF didn't work as well as the others? Because Odysseus didn't fight a hundred Medusae at the same time, but just one, to answer on some people's points here. And Siegfried didn't beat a DOZEN Wyverns, but just ONE. And so on. A hero may beat a dozen thugs, but not a dozen Wyverns in one battle. That doesn't make sense.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests