Only 4 resources. Good or bad?

[ThunderTitan]

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

Nah, blood is just to keep them looking young...

[vicheron]

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.

It doesn't matter that their numbers didn't increase. What matters is that the magic that created them can be sustained for 3,000 years without upkeep. That means if someone knows how to emulate that magic, they can create a permanent undead army.

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.

Except that the limiting factor to undead growth isn't upkeep, it's the fact that necromancers live in sparsely populated areas and there are people, adventurers, paladins, clerics, etc., out there who go around destroying undead.

Deyja, Nekross, and Heresh are all wastelands with tiny populations. The average death rate of a population, even a medieval one, is less than 5%. Even then, you have to account for the usable corpses/souls. Corpses of the very old probably won't make very good soldiers and the corpses/souls of children probably won't make very good troops either. With a population of 100,000, they might get 3,000 corpses/souls per year. Other kingdoms are going to have at least 10 times the population with 2% to 3% actively serving in the military, another 5% to 6% being veterans, and at least 20% of the people ready to be drafted. What's more is that the populations of necromancer controlled kingdoms are going to grow much slower than other kingdoms, assuming they grow at all.

The only way for the necromancers to gather more troop is if they steal it from other kingdoms and that could lead to war.

As for keeping bodies in cold storage, Gauldoth was the only one who did that and he did it because he wanted to have a good relationship with the living.

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. [/quote]

And this would ruin the adventure aspect of the game. Heroes games have always encouraged the player to explore the whole map, fight the neutral creatures and gather the loose treasures and artifacts since that was a huge source of experience and income.

In previous games, the player who explores the map is going to be evenly matched with the player who makes an aggressive push since the experience, resources, and artifacts you gain from exploration compensates for the loss of a town or two. If upkeep is implemented then the risk of exploration is going to be too great. The player who explores is essentially going to have a tax added to all the things they gain from exploration if the other player is aggressive and takes their towns.

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.

Except that no one is foolish enough to hold a town unless they have to hold it or they think they can win. In every heroes game, if one of your towns gets invaded and you don't have a hero or enough forces to win against the invader, you hire as all of the troops in that town and you ferry them to your main hero. If you try to hold the town, you're simply giving away free experience to the enemy heroes.

Even in Heroes 4, it wasn't worth it to hold a town. The damage you cause is not worth the experience you'll be giving to the enemy heroes.

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.

Except that waiting would be a good strategy. It's just a matter of when you recruit the extra troop unless you put a cap on the number of creatures a dwelling can store.

[ThunderTitan]

You know, i for one am against making waiting a bad strategy... it most certainly shouldn't be the best strategy, but it at least should be viable.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

You know, i for one am against making waiting a bad strategy... it most certainly shouldn't be the best strategy, but it at least should be viable.

Why does everyone assume that I am dealing in absolutes here!

You can still wait to build up an army. It's just that there is a realistic limit to the strategy now.

[ThunderTitan]

But the guy with more towns would always be able to get more units and keep them active for more time... making waiting pointless.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

But the guy with more towns would always be able to get more units and keep them active for more time... making waiting pointless.

Not if the creatures we are talking about don't have towns!

[ThunderTitan]

Well sure, if you're talking about one precise situation it could be fine, but you need to take into account all of them if you really want to design a new feature.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Well sure, if you're talking about one precise situation it could be fine, but you need to take into account all of them if you really want to design a new feature.

Hey you are stealing my own words there!



I was going to say the same thing. We mustn't for instance assume that the foes against we are fighting have towns at all.

Or that you don't have more towns than the enemy. If you had like 5 towns and the enemy had 6 and it was your choice to make contact with the enemy, you cannot win simply by waiting for your 1 town advantage to become absolutely and irrevocably massive.

Support limits keep the 6 town player from managing to get an infinite advantage over the other player depending upon how long they wait.

It is not the purpose to make it not a good thing to have more towns than the enemy, it is the purpose to keep players from raising armies that are infinitely larger than their enemies by exploiting any slight advantage in resources they have.

[ThunderTitan]

But you'd still have a great advantage because you can hire more units permanently while the enemy can't... and when you do engage you cna replace your troops easier too.

Not really much of a limit imo.

Could more easily do it like some RTS's and have you build an unlimited supply depots that are used for pop cap... and the limiting factor would be your resources.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

But you'd still have a great advantage because you can hire more units permanently while the enemy can't... and when you do engage you cna replace your troops easier too.

Not really much of a limit imo.

Could more easily do it like some RTS's and have you build an unlimited supply depots that are used for pop cap... and the limiting factor would be your resources.

You still have an advantage ThunderTitan. But not an infinite and ever increasing one.

[Tress]

But you'd still have a great advantage because you can hire more units permanently while the enemy can't... and when you do engage you cna replace your troops easier too.

Well it varies from fiction to fiction, but it would be wrong to assume (or at least it would be highly flawed fiction)that single necromancer could make infinite army give time.
Most likely that infusing bones with energy doesn't last forever or necromancer is limited by troops he can raise, otherwise we would have perpetum mobile and if such thing exists, then world would be alot different.

Dungeons and Dragons is another example, the undead can last forever unless they're destroyed.

Yes but each necromancer can only support 2HD per level, and in most cases crypts and places support them

Tere's no indication that the undead in Heroes need magic to be sustained either.

It would be flawed to assume it. Probably there is limit that single necromancer can sustain. Under same rules single mage with long life span could create and animate infinite ammount of golems, but I dont see that happening. Probably there is limit in energy one mage can imbue in bones or stone. I dont see bracda or deya waiting for some century to raise gigantic army, and most likely it isnt because they lack time. Magnus is immortal but probabbly there is reason why every rock in there is not converted into gargoyle or golem.
Fact is that we often can see that undead armies are rapidly raised, and they rarely appear later, and we can only asume there is some limit to what one necromancer can keep at a time.

Look at Lord of the Rings, the Dead Men of Dunharrow sat there for 3,000 years and they didn't need upkeep

True but they were not your common "imbue skeleton with necromantic energy" undead. Their existence was more like curse because of oathbreaking.

[ThunderTitan]

You still have an advantage ThunderTitan. But not an infinite and ever increasing one.

But that wouldn't actually come up anyway, as no one will wait forever... so what does it matter if you have 40% more troops because you waited one more week vs 30% more troops because the upkeep resource doesn't let you have more....

On the other hand your enemy will also be limited on how many troops he can have which will always be less then the other guy's even if let's say he has way more money...

Most likely that infusing bones with energy doesn't last forever or necromancer is limited by troops he can raise, otherwise we would have perpetum mobile and if such thing exists, then world would be a lot different.

Perpetum mobile, really?! You telling me that if i sculpt statues over and over during my whole life six hours a day that would = perpetum mobile?!

I think it's more likely that the materials and time needed to make something are more of a limit then some ability of the necromancer.

[Tress]

Perpetum mobile, really?! You telling me that if i sculpt statues over and over during my whole life six hours a day that would = perpetum mobile?!

No but arguing that golem or raised skelleton would last forever without outer power source would be.
Nothing lasts forever, 1. and 2. laws of thermodynamic are true even in fantasy world. If they dont, rules and events would be really different from what we see.

[Gaidal Cain]

Dude, you're talking about a world were people can summon giant flaming birds out of nowhere, and you think the laws of physics are going to be the same?

[Tress]

Dude, you're talking about a world were people can summon giant flaming birds out of nowhere, and you think the laws of physics are going to be the same?

Ye, those are fundamental laws in universe and most fiction writers take them in account be it scifi or fantasy(unless noted otherwise), but I am not disputing in fantasy world that someone can summon phoenixes, fireballs, raise undead. Thats fantasy fiction and it ok. But what would you think of fiction where any mage could summon infinite amounts of phoenixes and they would last forever. Magic like everything else must have limits for fiction to be taken seriously, unless it operates outside like some divine intervention. Undead like everything else must have some sort of source to move around, or they would fall over, that can be necromancers own power, captured souls or whatever, but it cant be said that they move just like that.
If they hoverer would ignore those fundamental laws, then world would be alot different, like animals(horses etc) that actually expire(unlike undeads/golems) would be obsolete and so on. If there is unending source of power, then finite ones become obsolete, thus I must assume undeads doesn't last forever without refill, be it fragment of necromancers power or energy they collect from solar power in their staffs or whatever, but that power is finite by the end of the day.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Fact is that we often can see that undead armies are rapidly raised, and they rarely appear later, and we can only asume there is some limit to what one necromancer can keep at a time.

Yes Gauldoth kept about 3000 undead corpses in cold storage using Ice Demons. It is clearly not possible in Heroes IV world to maintain an infinite 'standing army' of undead. Most undead are clearly stored in catacombs of a sort and then raised when they are needed, not kept 'active' forever.

[Gaidal Cain]

But what would you think of fiction where any mage could summon infinite amounts of phoenixes and they would last forever. Magic like everything else must have limits for fiction to be taken seriously, unless it operates outside like some divine intervention. Undead like everything else must have some sort of source to move around, or they would fall over, that can be necromancers own power, captured souls or whatever, but it cant be said that they move just like that.

That's fine, but it's not the laws of physics. It's the laws of interesting fiction. There is really nothing that says that you need to let thermodynamics be what stops necromancers from overrunning the world with their undead hordes.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

But what would you think of fiction where any mage could summon infinite amounts of phoenixes and they would last forever. Magic like everything else must have limits for fiction to be taken seriously, unless it operates outside like some divine intervention. Undead like everything else must have some sort of source to move around, or they would fall over, that can be necromancers own power, captured souls or whatever, but it cant be said that they move just like that.

That's fine, but it's not the laws of physics. It's the laws of interesting fiction. There is really nothing that says that you need to let thermodynamics be what stops necromancers from overrunning the world with their undead hordes.

Yet why haven't the necromancers overran the world with their undead hordes?

[ThunderTitan]

@tress

There's really no point in complicating it as much as you do... the reason why necros don't have infinite troops is the same as why none of the other factions do... they're still limited by time, resources (dead bodies in the stage of decay they're still useful) and their own level of magical power...

There's no need to bring in any finite energy powering them when you can just justify it by more mundane means.

I mean why haven't humans overrun the planet when they have healing spells and spells that could be used to make sure crops don't fail... in RL medicine and modern agriculture pretty much did that.

Yes Gauldoth kept about 3000 undead corpses in cold storage using Ice Demons.

He kept 3000 corpses in cold storage in case he needed to raise troops... if they where still undead keeping them in cold storage wouldn't have really helped with the whole "necro-energy" being finite any more then having them just stand very still.

Yet why haven't the necromancers overran the world with their undead hordes?

Because corpses don't last as long as people seem to think, especially when you bury them without any preparation. There's no infinite number of corpses just laying around, and making more through battles also incurs loses and draws the attention of other factions.

[Tress]

Because corpses don't last as long as people seem to think, especially when you bury them without any preparation. There's no infinite number of corpses just laying around, and making more through battles also incurs loses and draws the attention of other factions.

Actually in each battle he could double his army, after each victory, if we consider that he could raise them all.Also he could probably salvage some of destroyed troops(in homm5 they have eternal servitude for it)
But main thing I argue is that energy that moves non sentient undead(can assume liches/vampires drain energy to support them) cant last forever without some source of outer source. I could accept they could act nearly forever by working in some crypt that or some other such place but generally that would be feeding of place. There is no way to assume that they can work forever just like that. They probably need some upkeep too so their hands dont fall off.

I mean why haven't humans overrun the planet when they have healing spells and spells that could be used to make sure crops don't fail... in RL medicine and modern agriculture pretty much did that.

This aspect is often commented in D&D books that deals in adventure writing. Main thing is that magic in world that is not REALLY high on magic, gap between regular folk and nobles/adventurers(in homm case soldiers) is so big that they cant afford magical support in everyday life. Generally it was assumed that commoner for low job gets 1silver/day while lowest level spell potion or scroll coated at least 25 gold(1 gold - 10 silver)

In our days thanks to that, humans are already overrunning the world. Our count have tripled since ww2.[/quote]