Only 4 resources. Good or bad?

[Tress]

For one I think it will make feel on adventure map more empty. As for gameplay aspect- I think it narrows down situations where things like mystic pond in homm3 cant be built because you lack some secondary resource, thus preventing from expanding.
Narrowing down resources also makes basing strategy upon magic less random since mage guilds traditionally require plentiful of resources for highest levels.

[ThunderTitan]

I simply don't understand this. Though I work so much with optimization and organisational tasks that having variables that serve no purpose is something I always hate to see.

I am a casual gamer nowdays myself, and I don't play just to win, I play to enjoy. That doesn't meant that having ten buttons that I can press somehow magically equals to a better game than one that has only five buttons.

If you have 10 functions and only 5 buttons (or even one missing, remember the Wait button in H5, which a modder implemented in a day) i for one see a problem... (i do have to note, i do like how H6 seems to have buttons for everything)

And again i bring up RPS, it's a nice game, but i for one do feel the need for more complexity... whether or not the game end up being good is another thing... the most simple of games can suck just as easy as the most complex.

One additional thing that having fewer resources accomplishes is the developers being able to spend more time on other things than juggling the resource system around. I hope you do realize that there is only a limited amount of resources they can use on this game. That's why the meaningless extra fluff is not something I care to passionately about.

As you should have learned in economics class, that isn't our concern as customers...

Plus, that can justify anything... "sorry guys, we only had so much time, so here's 2 factions and 1 resource for each"...

Plus, it's a proven fact that people work better under some pressure... heck, just look at DNF, for 12 years it was in development hell and then after it all went belly up (last? / this?) year a guy that worked on DN3D and at the beginning of DNF that had his own company now bought the rights and even had a playable demo at PAX of it. Having a deadline and extending it once it's clear you can't make it is the best way to do things.


Also, this isn't a decision that they took during development, it was there for the start, and with all the other stuff that screams "making it friendlier to people with attention deficits" is making me think that it's not the lack of time or resources that prompted the decision.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

1. Razing Mines. A player can elect to raze the mine to the ground. This makes it produce no resources whoever 'controls' it. This is useful as it allows you to deny resources to a conquering enemy that are particularly important to the enemy but not to you and makes raiding enemy resources an effective strategy.

This sounds a lot like the Haunt spell from H2. I used it once in one game just to see what it did. It's not an effective strategy. All it does is increase the cost to you when you're strong enough to conquer another player's territory permanently. If you're going to use an enemy town at all, you're going to want those resources.

What about when the enemy digs itself into a town; in heroes IV the epitome of Heroes strategy it can be a nightmare to dislodge some enemy armies from town, so razing their resources is a good way to 'starve them out' while you go off.

Also, you can destroy your own resources, to deprive the enemy from getting resources primarily useful to them.

2. Fortifying mines. A player can fortify a mine (including a razed mine) in order to retain control of it and keep it either intact or razed) and place heroes in any mine along with troops. Mine fortifications function like city fortifications.

Can't you already do this? I thought you could leave troops behind to defend a mine you owned. Did they remove that feature for H5?[/quote]

I mean fortify as in expend resources to build fortifications like the one's in towns. This makes it worthwhile to put troops in mines unlike at the moment.

3. More resources. Add special resources which are needed to support large armies and build units in the first place. The former effectively adds a support limit controlling the number of troops a player can field, a player is forced demobilize troops in excess of this limit after say a week.

There was upkeep costs in the original King's Bounty, and then it disappeared. I'd love to try a Heroes game with upkeep. It's an effective tool for game balance. For example, just because you can afford to buy that big scary Dragon, you can't necessarily afford to keep him employed. I don't think you need a special resource for it though.

There would ideally be construction resources, money and support resources.

Construction resources are the traditional 6 resources,

Wood.
Ore.
Crystal
Mercury
Sulfur
Gems

Money is Gold.

Three additional resources are support resources. They are used to support troops.

Food.
Food is used up at a constant rate by living units. Large units eat more food than small units but all recruited units eat, save mechanical and undead units.

Wool
Only small amounts of wool are used by recruited units but is consumed in large quantities by newly recruited units.

Water
Water is used at a constant rate by living units. Large units drink more water than small units but all recruited units drink, save mechanical and undead units.

Food and wool can be produced by farms which may be pre-existant and may be captured but can also be built at a cost in production resources and gold. One kind of farm (grain farm) produces lots of food and another (sheep farm) produces lots of wool but little food. Water is produced in a large quantity by towns and also by wells and springs but is a finite resource and cannot be expanded.

Blood
This resource is used specifically by vampires. Each vampire unit has a blood store which it will try to keep at 10X the number of vampires by draining your blood stockpile (which can only be increased by sacrificing living creatures). Each vampire drinks 1 unit of blood a day. While in non-necropolis towns vampires do not necessarily need blood, instead they will slay a number of living creatures whose daily water intake is equal to the amount of blood the vampires need (starting with the weakest).

In combat a vampire will steal the water requirement of each living creature it has personally slain in blood.

Power
Power is required by constructs and non-vampiric undead in varying quantities. It is produced by towns in finite quantity but can also be generated by special buildings (that cannot be built). Necropolis, Inferno and Wizard towns produce the most power, Barbarian towns the least. You can also sacrifice spell-points of your hero to generate power.

Effects of shortages
If a unit does not get water, power, food or blood, it will perish after a certain amount of time. Larger creatures tend to take longer to die as they have a shortage of blood.

[ThunderTitan]

Meh, upkeep would probably work better as a separate thing instead of having it based on new resources. But imo it's really not needed, and it would just be easier to implement leadership per hero.

The best way to do it would be to find new uses for the old resources, like spreading them out over all buildings, and giving us more options in converting towns (like converting single buildings etc.)

[MattII]

Meh, upkeep would probably work better as a separate thing instead of having it based on new resources. But imo it's really not needed, and it would just be easier to implement leadership per hero.

How about working it realistically, you don't have to start paying upkeep until you hit a certain threshold (threshold would be dependent on the number of towns you have, and the level of each of the towns)?

The best way to do it would be to find new uses for the old resources, like spreading them out over all buildings, and giving us more options in converting towns (like converting single buildings etc.)

IMO the first step on making the various resources more useful is to make them more numerous, since right now they're just too rare to do much with.

[theLuckyDragon]

Meh, upkeep would probably work better as a separate thing instead of having it based on new resources. But imo it's really not needed, and it would just be easier to implement leadership per hero.

How about working it realistically, you don't have to start paying upkeep until you hit a certain threshold (threshold would be dependent on the number of towns you have, and the level of each of the towns)?

*Additional Supply Depots required*

[ThunderTitan]

How about working it realistically, you don't have to start paying upkeep until you hit a certain threshold (threshold would be dependent on the number of towns you have, and the level of each of the towns)?

Still not something i'd like to see, but whatever.

But any upkeep should be payable with the normal resources instead of any special ones just for upkeep.

IMO the first step on making the various resources more useful is to make them more numerous, since right now they're just too rare to do much with.

That's easily done by increasing the income each mine gives you.

Adding new resource types when the old ones aren't fully utilized isn't the way to go.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

How about working it realistically, you don't have to start paying upkeep until you hit a certain threshold (threshold would be dependent on the number of towns you have, and the level of each of the towns)?

Still not something i'd like to see, but whatever.

But any upkeep should be payable with the normal resources instead of any special ones just for upkeep.
[/quote]

The main reason for special resources is to make them non-zero sum by expending construction resources. One resource (water) is zero-sum so as to provide an adjustable independent permanent cap on how many troops a region can support.

I have my reasons.

[MattII]

Still not something i'd like to see, but whatever.

Hey, I'm not saying I like the idea either, I'm just coming up with ways it could be done without breaking the game.

But any upkeep should be payable with the normal resources instead of any special ones just for upkeep.

Totally agree, I imagine levels 1-6 would use a "X gold per week on day 1" system with level 7 using "1 (rare resource) per week on day 1", or spread it out over the week if need be, so ~14% each day.

Adding new resource types when the old ones aren't fully utilized isn't the way to go.

Agreed, although I'd like to see Mana become a bit more useful, say, for recruiting certain units, or giving heroes a temporary combat boost with the area of control. Of course, using resources like this woul mean limiting how many could be generated, but I was always a big proponent of that anyway.

Oh and BTW Slayer, I have to say no, I don't like sticking an actual cap on things, just a practical cap (ie, too expensive to go higher).

[ThunderTitan]

The main reason for special resources is to make them non-zero sum by expending construction resources. One resource (water) is zero-sum so as to provide an adjustable independent permanent cap on how many troops a region can support.

Like i said, might as well just introduce leadership and be done with it...

I have my reasons.

Everyone does... doesn't mean they're logical reasons.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

The main reason for special resources is to make them non-zero sum by expending construction resources. One resource (water) is zero-sum so as to provide an adjustable independent permanent cap on how many troops a region can support.

Like i said, might as well just introduce leadership and be done with it...

I have my reasons.

Everyone does... doesn't mean they're logical reasons.

Except that water is stored unlike 'leadership'.

It is possible to raise an army bigger than your water supply but that is allowed but only for a certain period of time, which is determined by your stockpile of water. It represents the limitations on raising vast armies over long periods of time, which have never been represented in any Heroes game.

As I said, I have my reasons for suggesting the adding of a few extra resources. It works better and is fairly simple. The basic construction gameplay works like this.

Flag all available resources.
Expand construction resources on structures in cities than build troops.
Use construction resources to build farms in order to get resources to support an ever-larger army.
Reach the limitation of available water supply, must therefore expand to support larger army.

[Mirez]

I really wouln't like upkeep in a herous game.

[Kristo]

So what does this get you other than making the game more complicated? The maps made for the 3D engine don't have enough towns to make it interesting. You basically have to conquer another player to get more water (or food or whatever). With this new rule, now you'd be winning even more than normal. You have two home towns to everyone else's one, and you can (in theory) field twice the army that everyone else can. That's a big advantage.

I guess what I'm saying is that it'll be very hard to win if you get behind. Under the old rules, someone could bide his time and build a large enough army to at least challenge the leader. With your new rules, I see him running out of water before he can produce a big enough army.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

So what does this get you other than making the game more complicated? The maps made for the 3D engine don't have enough towns to make it interesting. You basically have to conquer another player to get more water (or food or whatever). With this new rule, now you'd be winning even more than normal. You have two home towns to everyone else's one, and you can (in theory) field twice the army that everyone else can. That's a big advantage.

I guess what I'm saying is that it'll be very hard to win if you get behind. Under the old rules, someone could bide his time and build a large enough army to at least challenge the leader. With your new rules, I see him running out of water before he can produce a big enough army.

It means there is something to do with resources once you have built everything in all the towns under your control. That is what it does.

You can destroy enemy farms and capture at least for a time enemy water supplies. Yes the game does now punish sitting around on your rear-end building an army if you have inferior resources, but it does reward guerrilla tactics, sending mobile forces to destroy or capture the resources of the enemy rendering them unable to sustain their large army.

Remember that rebuilding stuff requires not only resources but troops as well.

It's Water (indestructable, zero-sum) along with.
Food (destructable, expandable at expense of construction resources and troops).
Wool (destructable, expandable at expense of construction resources and troops.

Water is there to provide an adjustable upper limit for extremely large armies.

By destroying food and wool supplies it is possible to defeat a powerful but slow enemy by denying them the resources they need to sustain their large army. Having done so, it would then become possible to defeat them on the battlefield.

[Kristo]

Oh ok, I didn't understand that farms were separate from the towns. That makes more sense now. I think for the guerrilla tactics to work though, you have to exempt farms from the Area of Control rules. Otherwise, you have a sound plan there.

FWIW, when did we regularly start running out of things to do with resources? Back in the H2-3 days, if you ran out of stuff to buy, it usually meant you were winning.

[vicheron]

Upkeep is a bad idea. It doesn't make the game more realistic. In fact, it doesn't even make any sense since it's a fantasy game and there are plenty of magical creatures that don't need upkeep.

Undead don't need water or food or gold. They only need whatever resource it takes to raise them.

I'm pretty sure that demons don't need water or food either.

Most Sorceress/Rampart/Preserve/Sylvan creatures probably don't need food or water either since they can live off the land or have magical abilities that sustain them.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Upkeep is a bad idea. It doesn't make the game more realistic. In fact, it doesn't even make any sense since it's a fantasy game and there are plenty of magical creatures that don't need upkeep.

Undead don't need water or food or gold. They only need whatever resource it takes to raise them.

I'm pretty sure that demons don't need water or food either.

Most Sorceress/Rampart/Preserve/Sylvan creatures probably don't need food or water either since they can live off the land or have magical abilities that sustain them.

What makes you so sure that undead don't need upkeep? What about vampires, they need blood. And undead need magic.

I stated it before, undead (and golems) would be limited by a resources called magic which is generated by a combination of the total available wizard and necropolis towns and the total power of the spell-casters on a side.

They simple have their own upkeep limitations.

[Kristo]

Why is upkeep a bad idea? It adds another dimension to the cost of fielding an army. You might be able to buy a huge army, but how long can you afford to keep it? If you're worried about the unchecked super army growth in the previous Heroes games, upkeep is one way to limit it. Upkeep acts like a tax. It's much harder to reach the "infinite resources" state if you have to keep spending money every week.

I'm sure the writers could contrive a reason for any creature to require upkeep. It's a fantasy game after all.

[vicheron]

Upkeep is a bad idea. It doesn't make the game more realistic. In fact, it doesn't even make any sense since it's a fantasy game and there are plenty of magical creatures that don't need upkeep.

Undead don't need water or food or gold. They only need whatever resource it takes to raise them.

I'm pretty sure that demons don't need water or food either.

Most Sorceress/Rampart/Preserve/Sylvan creatures probably don't need food or water either since they can live off the land or have magical abilities that sustain them.

What makes you so sure that undead don't need upkeep? What about vampires, they need blood. And undead need magic.

I stated it before, undead (and golems) would be limited by a resources called magic which is generated by a combination of the total available wizard and necropolis towns and the total power of the spell-casters on a side.

They simple have their own upkeep limitations.

Undead don't need upkeep in mainstream fantasy. Look at Lord of the Rings, the Dead Men of Dunharrow sat there for 3,000 years and they didn't need upkeep. Dungeons and Dragons is another example, the undead can last forever unless they're destroyed. Even in fantasies where undead don't last forever, the magic that animates them can be sustained for a very long time, years if not centuries. There's no indication that the undead in Heroes need magic to be sustained either.

As for vampires, they can't come out during the day either so should they be excluded from half of the battles?

Having different kinds of upkeep for different factions can lead to some obvious balance problems, especially when it comes to mixing troops.

Why is upkeep a bad idea? It adds another dimension to the cost of fielding an army. You might be able to buy a huge army, but how long can you afford to keep it? If you're worried about the unchecked super army growth in the previous Heroes games, upkeep is one way to limit it. Upkeep acts like a tax. It's much harder to reach the "infinite resources" state if you have to keep spending money every week.

I'm sure the writers could contrive a reason for any creature to require upkeep. It's a fantasy game after all.

But it won't really prevent people from fielding a big army. The player with the biggest army will be able to capture more towns faster, raising their supply limit and allowing them to recruit more creatures. All it'll do is make it much harder for a player who's suffered a setback to get back on their feet.

With the way it is now, if I take one of your towns, you'll lose some income and creatures but you'll still have the rest of your army. If upkeep is implemented, when I take one of your towns, you'll not only lose the income and creatures from that town, you'll have to downsize the rest of your army or you won't have the resources to support them. In the end, the player that can field the biggest army becomes even more powerful than in previous games.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Undead don't need upkeep in mainstream fantasy. Look at Lord of the Rings, the Dead Men of Dunharrow sat there for 3,000 years and they didn't need upkeep. Dungeons and Dragons is another example, the undead can last forever unless they're destroyed. Even in fantasies where undead don't last forever, the magic that animates them can be sustained for a very long time, years if not centuries. There's no indication that the undead in Heroes need magic to be sustained either.

As for vampires, they can't come out during the day either so should they be excluded from half of the battles?

Having different kinds of upkeep for different factions can lead to some obvious balance problems, especially when it comes to mixing troops.

The dead men of dunharrow might have hanged around for 3000 years, but they weren't increasing in numbers were there.

The undead are kept in check by the available supply of necromancers, which is why the upkeep requirement for undead is created by a combination of the total undead towns under the players control and the magical power of the heroes of that side.

There must a magical limit to the number of troops that an undead faction can field. This is clear by the fact that the undead do not keep all their undead active at all time, they keep them in cold-storage.

If they had a permanent standing army of undead that required no upkeep they simply would be invincible, as they could continually increase in numbers without limit.

But it won't really prevent people from fielding a big army. The player with the biggest army will be able to capture more towns faster, raising their supply limit and allowing them to recruit more creatures. All it'll do is make it much harder for a player who's suffered a setback to get back on their feet.

With the way it is now, if I take one of your towns, you'll lose some income and creatures but you'll still have the rest of your army. If upkeep is implemented, when I take one of your towns, you'll not only lose the income and creatures from that town, you'll have to downsize the rest of your army or you won't have the resources to support them. In the end, the player that can field the biggest army becomes even more powerful than in previous games.

Yes, it does mean that if you have a large army and you allow all your towns and resources to fall into enemy hands you will no longer be able to sustain that large army. If you want to play by a strategy that involves sacrificing towns and resources to the enemy, it is now necessarily to stockpile resources before hand in preparation for this.

And you have to remember that there are losses involved in taking more territory. If the sieges are a harsh as say Heroes IV sieges, it is quite possible to devastate a stronger army in a siege even if you lose.

The principle virtue of this idea however, is connected to neutral armies. If you have to defeat some powerful creature, because the number of towns and amount of water is limited even if you conquer the entire map, you cannot win a mission simply by waiting until you have a big enough army.

You can raise a huge army based upon stockpiled resources, but you can only field it for so much time. Essentially the only real effect this has is to mean that 'waiting' is not a good strategy any more.