8x10

[Gaidal Cain]

Saying thing like "this game is not for you" seems very much like a recommendation not to buy it to my ears. Worrying about the game beforehand is one thing, but I'm quite weary talks of anything that sounds even remotely like a boycott befroe the game is out- such a situation can get quite nasty. As I said, I don't particularly like this either, but until I've seen it in action, I'll try not to tell other people what they should think (arguing with them about it is another matter).

[FatalTheRabbit]

No, you still misunderstand me. I mean that the traditional fundmental mechanics of HOMM combat should not be comprimised to make the game more appealing to players of other genres, or players that weren't really fans of Heroes to begin with particularly if it conflicts with people who are already fans of the game.

[Gaidal Cain]

Ok. Now I see. Sorry

[FatalTheRabbit]

It's no problem. My choice of words was not very clear.

[jeff]

Well I am not ready to recommend the game to anybody including me, and I will admit as we get closer to release and more information is made available many of our fears may be put to rest. However having said that, UBI must wake up and realize the negative impression that is building though their backtracking on things that had been implied (remember they asked us what features we felt were necessary), denials of things that have appeared in statements (i.e. RMG included), and releasing screenshots of a battlefield (8 x 10) that leaves the question is that all there is. Now is all of it their fault probably not, but only they can correct it. I do not enjoy getting fired up when it is not necessary, but they give the impress of being out of touch. Yeah, yeah I know they are busy with the beta-testing (good for them), but the mods on the official site could do a better job. There are at least 2 threads there on the battlefield size and nothing official has been said as to whether this is the largest size or not. I do want this game to succeed, and while I have loved the Heroes games, it’s the M&M series that I prefer. If this fails there will be no M&M 10.

[Merciless.Magal]

of course i will still buy the game and try, but to me this can't be good. I see that this is a tendency in every single game out there, most of the games are getting arcadey, its like if players are getting dumber and because of it everything that demands some thought must be removed from games.

Heroes II and III are my favourite games of all time... Heroes IV was a total disappointment to me and while it seems that HV is in the correct direction in many points this simplification theme scares me to death. I think Heroes III sold good enough, no ? why do you need the game to appeal to much larger audiences... i think making the battlefield so small will be terrible and i really hope that they will fix this before the game is released... just look at the poll for christ's sake, not even ONE single persond voted that they like it... so you basically have to groups, one that doesnt care, and one that dislike it, so basically making it bigger you will please both groups... i think this is a no brainner.

Turn based games are meant to be long, stay close to your roots, ask the long time fans what they want and the game will succeed... ill give 2 examples... look at civilization IV as a GREAT example of someoen actually LISTENING to the fans and releasing an almost flawless game that is better than the previous civ games in almost EVERY way... on the other hand look at Heroes IV and SPECIALLY MOO3 on trying to be too different and stripping all of the fun out of the game... please go the way CIV IV and not the way MOO3... MOO2 was an almost perfect game, would be so easy to just give it better graphics and improve one or other aspect and you would have a winner... but no, ppl must simplify everything and change everything, than if you need to change it all why calling it moo.. that thing wasnt moo at all and i still pray that someone decides to make a Moo4, this time right... yeah i know im far from subject now, i only needed to say this.

[Pitsu]

I think anyone with an ounce of sensible logic will conclude that such a small battlefield only diminishes tactical depth, as it is simply a downgrade, and therefore can not increase, in total, the tactics available to a player.
Fewer variables are fewer variables, and there are no two ways about it.

Tactics is about proper using of your troops. Maneuvering so that your footmen will not walk under fire of your archers, or block the charge of your cavalry. It is about messing up enemy lines and forcing their shooters into melee. The larger is the battlefield, the more separated stacks are from each other and the more freedom of movement there is, the less brainwork it takes to make it correctly. I admit that when reducing the battlefield size from one point it can get too crowdy, but i say that there is an optimal size and no "the more the better". At the same time a very small and crowded battlefield will favour several hero strategy, since a single superhero cannot use all forces effectively. It is different from previous Homm games, but may be a refreshing change.

[Contraband2004]

Fixed. I added another option as well, unlikely as I think it is that somewone will use it.

Oh, but someone will, and i'll either loose all respect for that person or he will just vote and not comment, which will drive me insane. I know you're out there, and i will find out where you live...

Thanks for the edit.

@jeff: Screw hope, we must riot.... and set stuff on fire.

EDIT: Someone already voted Don't care! People like that will ruin Heroes...
And there goes #2... take it somewhere else, you speed combat freaks... (no, really, there are other games out there for people without pacience)

I voted I like it, because I don't like the battlefields of Heroes IV and III. I liked the battlefield of HOMM 1 best, I'm just hoping it will turn out something like that

[DaemianLucifer]

@Merciless.Magal

Just to add one thought.Even though Civ IV has more elements than the previous games,it has been simplified and sped up a lot.So it actually is possible to make a game simpler to learn and play,yet to make it even more complex than it was.

[jeff]

@Merciless.Magal

Just to add one thought.Even though Civ IV has more elements than the previous games,it has been simplified and sped up a lot.So it actually is possible to make a game simpler to learn and play,yet to make it even more complex than it was.

Interesting, I just bought that last week. The first game I have bought since WoW.

[Merciless.Magal]

Deamian, i dont know exactly what got simplified from previous civ games on civ IV... maybe you mean more intuitive ? if so i agree totally... imho civ IV is more intuitive, yet more complex and not simpler than previous civ games, you have quite a lot more of strategies that actually works now, you have the religion system and cities are more expensive to keep... diplomacy finally works... it is faster, yes.. that i agree with you, but not by simplification, it is faster by intelligently making it expensive to keep a high empire and a ton of troops, this is not really simplifing to me as you still have the options to micromanage it all if you like... maybe you can explain me better what you mean by simplificantion on Civ IV and we can maybe discuss it (dont mean to hijack the topic though, so im sorry if im going too far).

Jeff, you gonna love the game, its what is keeping me going untill Heroes V.

[DaemianLucifer]

First of all theres merging of attack and defense.Then its the upkeep system(not deppendent on buildings,but on number of cities).Then the interface has be upgraded so it needs much less of your atention(with all the recomandation and improved automation AI).The implementation of religion was done excelent and didnt complicate the game unnecessarily as it could have.Same goes for promotions.Civ has become more user friendly,and easier for new player,while still bringing lots of new features for the more expirienced ones to enjoy.I guess its what HV developers are also trying to do(unfortunately they dont seem very successful)

[FatalTheRabbit]

The larger is the battlefield, the more separated stacks are from each other and the more freedom of movement there is the less brainwork it takes to make it correctly.

That's about as counterintuitive, and as self contradictory as is possible. A smaller field means that there are fewer paths to follow, and therefore fewer potential outcomes, which means it takes less effort to effectively predict, and execute actions. The new battlefield is almost exactly like the battlefield from Heroes II only 1x1 smaller, without hexagons, and with creatures that take up 4 squares! Would you argue that the Heroes II battlefield was more tactical than the Heroes III battlefield? Hell no. So why do you argue this?

I don't disagree that with the mechanics of Heroes combat there is an optimal battle field size, but that point is largely moot as it supports neither my, nor your argument. Do you mean to say that 8x10 is the optimal battlefield size? I've alreadly played on a 9X11 hexagonal battlefield and I know by simple experience that it's not, so why would an 8x10 quadrantal be? Anyway, your conclusion is tantamount to saying that there is no loss in tactics, or increase in tactics as the size of the battle field decreases, or increases respectively... That's patentently false as can be observed through Heroes 1, 2, and 3, or understood through simple logic as explained earlier, and it is not open to interpretation. I'm a little baffled by your denials, because we know that the driving force behind this decision is simply to hasten combat through simplification(fewer options = less complex decisions = less time), not increase it's depth, and considering what knowledge we have concerning creature size/movement, and all which that implies you'd have to be a right fool to believe that somehow this downsizing does not negatively affect tactical depth within combat itself.

[ThunderTitan]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..............

I told you, didn't I! I said someone will vote that one! But no, you had to put it there, didn't you, Cain. And because of that now i have to bludgeon someone to death. Are you happy? Are you?


So Contraband2004, did any creatures in H1 take 4 squares on the BF? Was the grid square?

[Pitsu]

That's about as counterintuitive, and as self contradictory as is possible. A smaller field means that there are fewer paths to follow, and therefore fewer potential outcomes, which means it takes less effort to effectively predict, and execute actions.

Tactics is not tetermined by number of walking direction. The less paths you have the more carefully you have to plan which troop to move where and when to act so that you do not block yourself. A stack open from six sides can be surrounded by all your stacks and you do not need to think much about maneuvering. It is raw power, not tactics that rules. If there are only 2 sides from where you can attack you have to analyse which troops can move there (the path of some units may be blocked) and which units could do the best and what to leave for backup if the first attackers fail.

Would you argue that the Heroes II battlefield was more tactical than the Heroes III battlefield? Hell no. So why do you argue this?

Absolutely i suggest that Homm 2 and homm1 battlefields are more tactical than the ones in Homm3. Sure theses games have less spells, less creatures and less creature specials that make them somewhat poorer, but the battlefields are better.

Do you mean to say that 8x10 is the optimal battlefield size?

No, I am not saying that it is optimal. It need some playtesting to know how it feels and plays.

I'm a little baffled by your denials, because we know that the driving force behind this decision is simply to hasten combat through simplification ...

And I am baffled by your expressions that "we" know what is behind what and how everyone with an "ounce of logic" should think and how they should not.

[Corribus]

I'm a little baffled by your denials, because we know that the driving force behind this decision is simply to hasten combat through simplification(fewer options = less complex decisions = less time), not increase it's depth...

Sometimes, simpler is better.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Tactics is not tetermined by number of walking direction. The less paths you have the more carefully you have to plan which troop to move where and when to act so that you do not block yourself.

Is that so? So one direction of movement is equal to 2 directions, 3, or 4? There is no distinction? So if triangles were used instead of squares it would make absolutely no difference? Your assertion is wholly nonsensical as each path of direction branches off into it's own set of subsequent events! It's in small grid that power rules over tactics as there's is no room for maneuverability with which to counter strength! For example you won't be able to coordinate your army to give your archers room enough to fire as your opponent reaches the other side of the battle field. If there are only two sides to attack from that means you are limited to two options! Where the hell do you get the idea the fewer options/variables = more information to analyze? The fewer paths you have to take the fewer things you need to consider as your opponent has a very limited set of responses, and as I said earlier are therefore easier to predict. This is why I say you are counterintuitive and illogical! By your "logic" one option would be more complex a decision than two! Why? I don't think you even know yourself because you're not making any sense whatsoever. You might as well try to argue that a 4 sided dice has more potential outcomes then a six sided dice. If you have only two openings in all four directions the action is simple as you will take your nearest most suitable unit to attack followed by the next suitable unit to fill the second position. That's not an increase in the depth of analysis required it's a decrease because you have two openings and their branch of consequences to consider as opposed to 4 assuming the unit occupies only one block. I get the feeling I'm going to have to represent this visually as if I were speaking to a child.

[ramparter]

Voted don't care because I haven't played the game yet. Of course I will have a different answer by the time time I get the game in my hands. Anyway if most people who try the open beta agree this isn't good then maybe ubisoft will consider expanding it before the game's release.

[Friend_of_Gunnar]

Sometimes, simpler is better.

Two examples: Mancala is the cup and stone game that is so popular in Africa. It has simple rules but is infinitely difficult to understand.

On the other hand, the video game Alpha Centauri has one billion rules. I counted. And it was zzzzzz...boring.

Ok now the original idea for my post:

There is a lot of confusion about the initiative system that is related to this topic of 8X10. One person describes it like this: you have a timer and you must make your move soon or you lose it. The other person describes it like this: you have a timer and when the timer clicks you can make your move finally (like Final Fantasy and others). The difference is huge because if the truth is the second case than that is a strong point in my favor. You don't want your fast creatures to get ahead of your slow creatures because they will get damaged most easily, therefore you move closely as a group. Therefore the 8X10 is most suitable to this battlestyle because the early manuevering is out and only the battle is left in. If the truth is the first case though than it is just HOMM1-3 with only a timer and I can understand why some people would be upset. Actually no, I can't understand why anybody would be upset but you what I mean.

I also want to ask the one question that will have the importance to this discussion. Will there be flanking bonuses?(Attacking from the side or from behind)

If there is flanking bonuses than my original idea is strongly advanced. The armies have to stick together and look for weaknesses in the other army (just like the Roman army). You can surround a strong demon and whack him from all sides, bringing him down.

If there is no flanking bonuses than that is minus 1 point for Friend_of_Gunnar with everybody just punching everybody and the strongest army wins mostly.

However before I leave the battlefield though, I should mention this, which is that the creature special bonus attacks are much more interesting and powerfull than previous games. Each individual creature has options that were not available before. If you are looking for the deep strategy and not clickclickclick boom than maybe that will equal the fact that your battlefield is smaller and you can't do your deep strategy manuevers.

[Corribus]

You might as well try to argue that a 4 sided dice has more potential outcomes then a six sided dice.

That depends on how many times you roll each die.