Simultaneous retal?

[DaemianLucifer]

Heres a thought:Lets increase the battlefield and put in simultaneus retaliation.This way having the highest initiative wouldnt be the most important thing.Oh,wait...Thats a bad idea.Simultaneus retaliation is a HIV feature,and increasing battlefield size would make combat too long.Sorry for that,didnt think it through.

Mod Note: This thread was split off this from the Sylvan thread

[Infiltrator]

Simultaneous retilation does stink, and the battlefield size may not be final just yet.

[DaemianLucifer]

Simultaneous retilation does stink

Of course it does!It is so stupid to have to fear for your units safety when you attack.It just is right for you to be able to oblitherate your enemy before they strike back at you.Why would they be given a chance of defending themselves?That simply isnt logical!

[RK]

when u play a duel game and the black dragon gets to move first u basically are screwed.

because it's BD hit stack. Stack retaliates at....30% strength? ...

with simulatenous retaliation ,it's more fair since both collides head on at 100% strength. it's more fair this way for defense. else defense gets so shafted simply by higher initiative units..they never get to employ their defense rating. so what if ur def is 100...u might never get to use it if you die in one blast.

higher initiatives should simply give u the first choice on picking target, not the ability to eat dmg that is soooo much way way way lesser from a retaliating stack.

[Infiltrator]

RK, that's a problem of bad initiative starting positions and small battlefield, has nothing to do with simultaneous retilations. Heroes 3 was much more balanced and it didn't include simultaneous turns. The attacker should get the priority over the defended as bringing a battlefield to someone else exposes that unit to risk, for example I cross the field with my black dragon to attack, he's clearly vulnerable now, but I have the first hit in my favour. Now imagine that with sim. retilations ON - oh yea, a turtlers dream come true.

[DaemianLucifer]

RK, that's a problem of bad initiative starting positions and small battlefield, has nothing to do with simultaneous retilations. Heroes 3 was much more balanced and it didn't include simultaneous turns. The attacker should get the priority over the defended as bringing a battlefield to someone else exposes that unit to risk, for example I cross the field with my black dragon to attack, he's clearly vulnerable now, but I have the first hit in my favour. Now imagine that with sim. retilations ON - oh yea, a turtlers dream come true.

HIII was balanced?Please!Having a no loss streak until the very end is way of balance.And why should the attacker have the advantage?He crosses a distance and attacks,while the defender prepares his attack and just waits.So its the defender that should have the first strike.But I think we should have attack initiative.Whoever has the faster attack attacks first.If those are the same,they strike simultaneus.Attacking should decrease this by 1 or 2,while each round spent defending should increase it by 2 or 3.

[Corribus]

H3 was very balanced, especially where it counts: multiplayer competition. There were problems with the game on singleplayer - what game doesn't have them? - but they didn't have anything to do with balance. They had to do with exploits. H4 was pretty well balanced, too, for that matter, but it had many other problems, as we well know.

[DaemianLucifer]

H3 was very balanced, especially where it counts: multiplayer competition. There were problems with the game on singleplayer - what game doesn't have them? - but they didn't have anything to do with balance. They had to do with exploits. H4 was pretty well balanced, too, for that matter, but it had many other problems, as we well know.

Hmm...Why do I hear about necro and conflux being banned in MP?That doesnt sound like balance to me.

[Infiltrator]

I never really played conflux like most people in MP as Armageddons blade was there more like a single player add-on, SoD was the version of choice for MP matches for a reason. And anyone banning necro from MP whatsoever is pretty sad, as their strength comes directly from the type of map and number of monsters etc., so there are maps that render necro weak and strong, but you can always make one that makes him on par with the other towns.

And why do I hear so many people shunned away from Heroes 4? That's right because it was a disappointment in almost every aspect.

[RK]

I just find 2 niggly things about the game now : no wait option and no simultaenous retaliation.

I don't mind the latter, I'm a big fan of rampart. LOL I just find it unfair.

[Gaidal Cain]

If it was disappointing, the main fault for that lies in the fact that it came out unfinished. Some people would probably not enjoyed the changes even had everything worked as intended, but for some the very same changes made the game much more interesting. Oh, and if you wish to discuss the banning of towns, you should try this thread. Try and see if you can convince csarmi to change his position

[DaemianLucifer]

I never really played conflux like most people in MP as Armageddons blade was there more like a single player add-on, SoD was the version of choice for MP matches for a reason. And anyone banning necro from MP whatsoever is pretty sad, as their strength comes directly from the type of map and number of monsters etc., so there are maps that render necro weak and strong, but you can always make one that makes him on par with the other towns.

Personaly I find both towns quite playable,and not imbalanced at all.But some spells are imbalanced.Town portal,fly,etc.

And why do I hear so many people shunned away from Heroes 4? That's right because it was a disappointment in almost every aspect.

No,its because it came out too early so none of the new ideas was implemented as well as it should be.

[Infiltrator]

Some things can be blamed on it launching early (like bugged grid) but some don't have an excuse - the whole game looked like it was taking place in a plastic world with rubber dragons. The fact remains, the mix of some bad ideas and early release, H4 spelled disaster.

[DaemianLucifer]

Some things can be blamed on it launching early (like bugged grid) but some don't have an excuse - the whole game looked like it was taking place in a plastic world with rubber dragons. The fact remains, the mix of some bad ideas and early release, H4 spelled disaster.

Almost every thing can be blamed on early release.Unbalanced heroes,unbalanced creatures,bugs,bad battlefield view(if it had a proper testing like the one we had for HV,it would be changed,like this one(hopefully)will be),real time FoW(tracks anyone),etc.Graphycs was rather good,though some creatures could be better.And what bad ideas are those?FoW?Heroes on battlefield?Simultaneous retaliation?Heroeless armies?All of those were actually quite good ideas,but were lousy implemented.

[Infiltrator]

And what bad ideas are those?FoW?Heroes on battlefield?Simultaneous retaliation?Heroeless armies?

Exactly.

[DaemianLucifer]

Ok,then explain why those ideas were bad.

[Arzang]

But the goldies can also be buffed!

the difference is that blackies can't be deffed. unless the opponent also has invocation in which case I can't understand why he has gold dragons.

I think it's nice that the blackies aren't the best creatures around.

RK, that's a problem of bad initiative starting positions and small battlefield, has nothing to do with simultaneous retilations. Heroes 3 was much more balanced and it didn't include simultaneous turns. The attacker should get the priority over the defended as bringing a battlefield to someone else exposes that unit to risk, for example I cross the field with my black dragon to attack, he's clearly vulnerable now, but I have the first hit in my favour. Now imagine that with sim. retilations ON - oh yea, a turtlers dream come true.

I can give reasons behind why it doesn't stink:

1. initiative is easier to balance. sure they'd act more often but at least a fast level 7 unit that can attack multiple creatures wouldn't obliterate the opponent.

2. tactical depth. having simultaneous retaliation gives units more tweakability since some can have first strike and so on..

3. creatuers that attack twice wouldn't be as powerful. since the first retaliation would be a full retaliation; the second attack wouldn't be as powerful. still powerful, but less so.

as for your arguments.. I don't get it. just because a unit is fast, does it deserve to be retaliated against with less than full force? and why would simultaneous retaliation make it easier for turtlers? turtling has more to do with what kinds of stacks you bring into battle, not who gets to retaliate when.

I'd be fine with alternate retaliations if some units had the ability to retaliate simultaneously.

and infiltrator; I'd love to hear why H4 was so bad. and why doing something new is so bad. the execution of H4 was poor but saying the ideas were bad by default? that's just lame.

auto flagging of waterwheels, simulretaliation, caravan and creature choices were all excellent additions. which, IMO, did not remove the homm feeling at all. heroes on battlefield can be discussed but I doubt that the first four things I mentioned would make anyone shun away from the game, by default.

[ThunderTitan]

the difference is that blackies can't be deffed. unless the opponent also has invocation in which case I can't understand why he has gold dragons.

I think it's nice that the blackies aren't the best creatures around.

Yes, and because the Goldies are normaly better it evens out! At least that's how it sounds on paper.

[LordHoborgXVII]

Never mind the first one.
Heroes on the Battlefield, Heroless Armies, and Simulaneous retaliation are bad because... they have to be, to justify ubi's position.

But really, heroes on the battlefield was implemented ridiculously in H4, and while I agree that it is possible to do it well, it doesn't make sense for Ubisoft to take the risk right now, while they are just getting some practice making Heroes games. Another nightmare like H4 would surely be fatal to the series.

Simultaneous retailiation just reduces the advantage of the attacker, forcing people to rely on ranged stacks and camping. One of the charming things about H3 and before was that a slightly weaker stack was able to overcome a strong one if it managed to attack first and take the bite out of the enemy stack's retailiation. With simultaneous retailiation, the order of attacking doesn't matter anymore, making the battle be more about numbers and less about strategy. I exxagerate, of course, but there is a certain degree of validity to it.

Heroless armies were bad because... well, I don't really see why they are bad besides the fact that they are, well, new? Actually I kind of liked them, not only because they allowed you to send small scouting/reinforcement parties without pack-muling, but also because they did not destroy the "No-army-without-hero" rule, but simply made it less forced. You would still have to be mad to send a heroless army into battle, but you were not forced to send out heroes running around with 1 goblin either. It was a very artful implementation, even if it was an annoying concession to those 'modern trends.' It was a pity they got rid of it, though I understand that they wanted to stick to the 'classic formula,' and I'm perfectly fine with that too.

[DaemianLucifer]

@LordHoborgXVII

Ubi seems to have made a fine compromise with heroes off the battlefield,but giving them initiative.But giving them attack is a bad idea.

Simultaneous retaliations actually does give more to strategy and realism since you cannot have flawless victory with just fast melees.You either bring lots of archers and casters,or prepare to loose some troops(unles you have the first strike).

The best thing that heroeles armies brought is actually the prevention of chaining.

Also lets not forget the LoS and ranged retaliation.