8x10

[DaemianLucifer]

But you cannot start with the basics in this subject,since with just one unit on each side it sure is big enough of a field to employ any tactics.If you want just one unit on each side then consider the field of 4*6.But even you have two diferent posible outcomes(attack and defend).

[ThunderTitan]

A smaller BF means a faster engagement, which means it's harder for you to position your troops a certain way. If you only consider 1 creature each positioning becomes kinda redundant.

[Gaidal Cain]

What? So you're saing that if you can chose between a million flavors of iccecream it's no choice, but if it's between 2 it's an unique choice?

If you would go to a restaurant that serves Spam; Spam and Spam; Spam, Spam and Spam or Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam, would you have more choices than if you go to one that serves Spam or Bacon and Eggs?

[ThunderTitan]

If you would go to a restaurant that serves Spam; Spam and Spam; Spam, Spam and Spam or Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam, would you have more choices than if you go to one that serves Spam or Bacon and Eggs?

Well no. But a small BF doesn't really add Bacon and Eggs to the choice, it just limits the type of Spam you can choose. Especialy with the 8 sides. You can keep your creature togheter no matter the size of the BF, but a small BF forces you to, it limits your options.

I never though that it's bad because i can't attack it from both left or right, i don't see that as an important choice, and a smaller Bf doesn't really make it more important, it might make it redundant.

[FatalTheRabbit]

What I am talking about, is the actual gameplay. Since the outcome does not dependedt from which side the griffin attacks the pickeman there is no 6 tactics, but only a single one. And the geometrical shape of cells has no effect.

But it does indeed pitsu as DaemianLucifer has tried to point out. Each action you take regardless of how simple it is will determine how the game progresses from that point on. In your example with one single gryphon+pikeman there's nothing complex enough to deserve the title tactical, because there aren't many possible interactions within the limits of each creatures characteristics and the mechanics of combat. That's a good example how the relationship between the battle field, and the units involved determines the optimal battle field size(which nival clearly understood with their attempt at scaling the field size according to army size), but it's not a good example for defending the FIXED size of a battlefield(8x10 in this case), because although when there are only a few units involved a small battlefield and a larger battle field won't differ much from each other, once you have a full army on a small field there won't be any breathing room to accommodate much in the way of tactics such as baiting, or repositioning archers especialy when one creature can occupy 4 squares.

I don't mean to imply that a fixed size is bad, because it's really the most sensible due to balancing things like archers, and spells.

@Corribus

Damnit what's your problem? You know perfectly well that when some one refers to a four sided die they mean the standard unless it is specified otherwise. You are splitting hairs in trying to point out details which are expected to be understood as well as applying special circumstnaces, which I did not include within my example, just to say that according a criterion entirely invented by yourself I am wrong. Everyone else seems to understand well enough...

My reason for bringing it up was simply to help illustrate to pitsu that fewer outcomes are, as a matter of fact, fewer outcomes, and therefore can not offer more complex decisions. It wasn't a completely sound example, but you're just going off on a tangent because you've got something to prove, and I'm not impressed. Stop dragging the thread off topic.

[Contraband2004]

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?

Lol I just like the battles in HOMM 1 more than those of 3 or 4. So I like the battlefield to be somewhat intenser, and I read your post so I just couldn't withstand the temptation of voting 'I like it'

[Corribus]

Damnit what's your problem? You know perfectly well that when some one refers to a four sided die they mean the standard unless specified otherwise. You are splitting hairs in trying to point out details which are expected to be understood as well as applying special circumstnaces, which I did not include within my example, just to say that according a criterion, which you have entirely invented yourself, I am wrong. Everyone else seems to understand well enough...

My reason for bringing it up was simply to help illustrate to pitsu that fewer outcomes are, as a matter of fact, fewer outcomes, and therefore can not offer more complex decisions. It wasn't a completely sound example, but you're just going off on a tangent because you've got something to prove, and I'm not impressed. Stop dragging the thread off topic.

First, there's no need to get nasty. If you can't control yourself, then it's not worth having a discussion.

Second, discussing total number of possible outcomes in the context of complex decisions is meaningless. This is because of the possibility of identical outcomes, which is trivial. Thus you MUST be concerned with unique possible outcomes, which involves stipulating what is one the faces of each die. A regular die is therefore a bad analogy to this case, which I have been pointing out, because a regular die of N sides has N unique outcomes, which is not always the case as far as most games are concerned. Therefore you must consider the possibility that some "faces" of the die are identical, and therefore the larger die does not necessarily imply more unique outcomes, contrary to what you have been "trying to illustrate to Pitsu".

[FatalTheRabbit]

The analogy was this-- When it's your creatures turn(roll) you have 6, or 4 directions of action(sides of the die), and a hexagon(6 sided die) may branch into six separate sequence of events(each side remember), whereas a square(4 sided die) allows for only four separate sequences of events, and therefore it makes as much sense to argue that a 4 sided die has more potential outcomes on that single role(=turn just incase you intentionally forgot in the hopes to write something obnoxious) than a 6 sided die as it does to argue that a square provides more complex considerations than a hexagon in combat. OK?

It wasn't worth having this discussion from the beginning. None of your points are relevant to my analogy as far as it was intended regardless of how ideal it was, or your misunderstanding of it. You're looking beyond the mark intentionally(it cannot be otherwise as the analogy is simple) so that you may argue for the sake of argument, end of story. I will not reply further on this.

EDIT: fixed.

[Pitsu]

To clarify my standpoint from a bit different angle I would quote one of your oledr posts:

It's in small grid that power rules over tactics as there's is no room for maneuverability with which to counter strength!

In my opinion this is only true when there really is no space for maneuvering. Such situation can happen and possibly 8x10 battlefield is one of such cases. I cannot comment it much at the moment for sure. However, when you look to real life, if a small army or guerillas want to be succesful against overwhelming opponent, they have to use natural obstacles like narrow valleys, rivers, forests for their advantage. Proper use of obstacles (including field boundaries like coast or inaccessible montains) and combaining them with the specialties of your units is here more important than the strength. A battle on narrow penninsula with no other obstacles than the coastal line is won by the army with more skilled general, who manages to maneuver there (assuming that it is not extreme case where moving is impossible). On a large field, where coast is far away, maneuvering indeed has still a role, but it is much less decisive.

In conclusion i would love to have variable battlefield sizes and many different types of obstacle patterns, which makes each battle unique and each battlefield require individual approach. In my opinion the freedom of movement on a H3 typical battlefield elliminates a lot of spice from the game.

PS, thank for that little fix in your previous post

[gravyluvr]

While I like the small battlefield for certain aspects (which I voted for) I see how it will make first initiative the key to this game. He who goes first (or last) will be in control of the battlefield. I do see how this battle makes certain creatures easier to target, but for the most part, they are the creatures that will be targetted first anyway. I like the smaller battlefield. But I never thought that we'd ever see it again.

[Friend_of_Gunnar]

I give up
9 pages is too long for me.

oh wait though, I never actually voted...
I'll do that now.

I actually don't care about 8X10 so much but I'm going to vote

Like It!!

[Zombie]

Voted "like it".

Initially i thought it was a bad idea. But recently i read an article that proclaims one of the reasons chess is such a complex game is because of lack of space. Think about it : there are 16 pieces plus 16 pawns (so 32 "units") on a board with 64 squares. Talk about packed! This lack of space creates tension and actually makes the game more complex.

Whether the same holds true for HoMM5 remains to be seen, but there's no reason to think otherwise.

As for squares instead of hexagons though, there's no way i'll ever be in favor of that!

[DaemianLucifer]

But you forgot one thing:in chess all of the figures take just one square,and there are no area effect spells and skills.So 8*10 battlefield in heroes is like ches with 32 figures,but on a 6*6 board.

[FatalTheRabbit]

Initially i thought it was a bad idea. But recently i read an article that proclaims one of the reasons chess is such a complex game is because of lack of space. Think about it : there are 16 pieces plus 16 pawns (so 32 "units") on a board with 64 squares. Talk about packed! This lack of space creates tension and actually makes the game more complex.

Whether the same holds true for HoMM5 remains to be seen, but there's no reason to think otherwise.

Such a conclusion demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the relation ship between the battle field and the mechanics of game play within each game. Any link to chess is entirely superficial as neither game shares the same fundamental game play mechanics. In chess one player may only move one piece during in his turn as there is no initiative system, and each piece occupies but one space, has a defined starting position, does not deal damage, can not travel in any direction, has no special abilities, is simply removed when "attacked", can not defend itself with retaliations, has no HP, and so on! The difference between the two systems of game play is staggering! There is no better example of comparing apples to oranges.

[DaemianLucifer]

There is no better example of comparing apples to oranges.

Exactly.The only thing they have in common are that they are both fruit.

[Zombie]

But you forgot one thing:in chess all of the figures take just one square,and there are no area effect spells and skills.So 8*10 battlefield in heroes is like ches with 32 figures,but on a 6*6 board.

In chess, 1 in 2 squares is occupied. It's less than that in HoMM5.

[DaemianLucifer]

But you forgot one thing:in chess all of the figures take just one square,and there are no area effect spells and skills.So 8*10 battlefield in heroes is like ches with 32 figures,but on a 6*6 board.

In chess, 1 in 2 squares is occupied. It's less than that in HoMM5.

I was talking about unit sizes.All figures in chess are one square big,while in HV some units are 2 and some even 4 squares big.

[Zombie]

Initially i thought it was a bad idea. But recently i read an article that proclaims one of the reasons chess is such a complex game is because of lack of space. Think about it : there are 16 pieces plus 16 pawns (so 32 "units") on a board with 64 squares. Talk about packed! This lack of space creates tension and actually makes the game more complex.

Whether the same holds true for HoMM5 remains to be seen, but there's no reason to think otherwise.

Such a conclusion demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the relation ship between the battle field and the mechanics of game play within each game. Any link to chess is entirely superficial as neither game shares the same fundamental game play mechanics. In chess one player may only move one piece during in his turn as there is no initiative system, and each piece occupies but one space, has a defined starting position, does not deal damage, can not travel in any direction, has no special abilities, is simply removed when "attacked", can not defend itself with retaliations, has no HP, and so on! The difference between the two systems of game play is staggering! There is no better example of comparing apples to oranges.

All of the above only makes HoMM5 even more complex. Therefore if chess can be a complex and strategic game with such a packed board, so can HoMM5. Even more so in fact because of all the things you mentioned.

[FatalTheRabbit]

You completely missed the point. It's not that simple, it's not just about the field alone. It's about the battle field in the context of the entire combat system! You can't translate one game into the other! They are not comparable systems!

... Hopeless.

[DaemianLucifer]

All of the above only makes HoMM5 even more complex. Therefore if chess can be a complex and strategic game with such a packed board, so can HoMM5. Even more so in fact because of all the things you mentioned.

You fail to notice the most obvious thing:lots of those skills in HoMM take a lot of space,so the battlefield needs to be much larger than in chess.