Non-linear damage of casters

[DaemianLucifer]

No again. No matter how much you split, you cannot split into more than 7 stacks. There is nothing wrong with making use of the number of slots you have when it is allowed to split. There just isn't. If you want to speed up the game, drop a slot or two, forcing players to leave a unit at home like in H 2. But if the game a) allows 7 stacks, and b) allows splitting stacks it's kind of silly to argue against making use of that.

Key word:allows.The game allows splitting.The game allows 7 stacks.However,with non-linear caster damage,the game forces you to split them.If you want to win,that is.

Second, it's completely irrelevant whether you can clear half the neutrals on any map with casters (which is just some statement; I don't think it is right anyway), because half of the neutrals on each map are fodder anyway. The important locations are the problems, and those are what counts.

Really?I never encountered the problem with using just master hunters and druid elders against anyone but the heroes.

[Mirez]

you guy's forget things as morale and luck and magical immunnty and magic protection/resistance

imagine a druid shoots some skeletons, it'll prolly say 3/5 or whatever but when you cast you kill like 4 of them
so it's just what you prefer if you have expert luck I'd shoot if you have bad luck I'd cast

and about splitting your druids, well it's just a good strategy but I don't think it's overpowered, you can only cast 3 times, if you din't finish the opponent by then your kinda doomed, also when you fight an enemy with chain lightning, also when fighting a bunch of neutral archers with high initiative

I can talk a lot about an imbu'd bastillia that never fired it's third shot but got sestoyed because it couldn't kill all the enemy stacks before they reached them, but the truth is splitted stacks are powerfull depending on the situation, so I don't think they are overpowered

[Jolly Joker]

In the games I play, when I can afford the Wood to upgrade to Master Hunters and/or the money to upgrade to Druid Elders the neutrals are cleared anyway.

And stating that you have to split to produce better results seems a bit absurd. It's generally a good tactic to make use of your seven army slots, for example in trying to build higher level dwellings so that you can fill the slots.

[Elvin]

After some months maybe but in the beginning it IS a necessity.The difference shows.

[Jolly Joker]

Last time I checked splitting for examples Gargoyles was a necessity as well in the beginning - to guard the Gremlins. Or the Zombies. How is that different?

[ThunderTitan]

Gargs don't get extra dmg. Duh........

[Jolly Joker]

Of course they do. The splitting of the Gargs means that they can shoot - otherwise an opponent would get adjacent so they could do only half damage and got killed as well. As opposed to that massive Druid splitting makes them very vulnerable as well - they have no cover. So what?

[Gaidal Cain]

Last time I checked splitting for examples Gargoyles was a necessity as well in the beginning - to guard the Gremlins. Or the Zombies. How is that different?

It follows more or less directly from the stacks design (even one could avoid it if one really wanted to). Casters doesn't. Secondly, it's not really the gargoyles that gets stronger, i.e. if you fight an enemy with just gargoyles in the ranks, the difference between meeting one stack with them all in or two with half in each is lesser.

IMHO, splitting should really only make sense if you want to do it to avoid overkills. Even if this probably is impossible to implement fully in Heroes, it doesn't mean I can argue against rules that pruposefully enforces it.

The purpose of this rule seems rather easy to see. Low numbers of spell casters have RELATIVELY bigger impact on the game than high numbers (which is the case with other specials as well; wraiths come to mind, the explosion damage of Demons and others).
Personally I find this very good for some reasons: it makes the units something special in the beginning when you have very few units

I think it sucks, for the very same reasons. You should not be able to get the same results with 3 druids in three stacks as 6 druids in one. Then it's just pointless to have stacks at all.

[Jolly Joker]

Completely flawed line of arguing. You'll always have a better result when splitting 6 Druids 5/1 than 6/0 because the loss of 1 Druid contributing to the Lightning Bolt is offset by the fact that he can cast Endurance on the other 5 (if no other troops are involved).

[ThunderTitan]

The splitting of the Gargs means that they can shoot

Gargs can shoot?! News to me. [size=0]Sarcasm BTW.[/size]

You get to use your normal dmg by protecting another stack, not by just splitting the Gargs. One is using tactics, while the other is getting free dmg.

[Shauku]

GC your argument is not really valid. There still are only those 7 slots. Split a stack - loose a slot. And I still don't understand what is the problem with shooting with the Druids when there are 100 of them? Is it somehow not cool enough?

[Jolly Joker]

The splitting of the Gargs means that they can shoot

Gargs can shoot?! News to me. [size=0]Sarcasm BTW.[/size]

You get to use your normal dmg by protecting another stack, not by just splitting the Gargs. One is using tactics, while the other is getting free dmg.

So what? The result is the same. You split a stack and you deal more damage. Guarding Gremlins with Gargoyles is child's play. Placing single vulnerable Druids on the map is not, at least not in the cases where it matters.

[theGryphon]

Not that I support a single druid making tons of damage, I agree with JJ that there's no way you can stop stack splitting. It's in many cases the weakly dominant strategy, if not dominant. Even if we had smaller tiles and even they got rid of retal stealing, there will be many cases splitting the stacks is a better strategy. And, yes it's a strategy, and yes like it or not it's a part of this game as long as we have "stacks", which is the essence of the series.

For the non-linear damage issue, I don't consider it a problem. It's a feature design issue and Ubi/Nival picked this way. Maybe it's not the best way to go, but it's not a no-no. It's definitely not the worst design decision that they made I think it works fine. Early in the game, druids are more lightning-casters, later they are more shooters. But against incorporeals or when forced to melee, they know what to do. They are one of the most versatile units ever.

For balance issues like 2 druids vs. 2 priests, well, I believe a quality mapmaker would be aware of the situation and take care of it.

[Alamar]

I can't believe after this much time that there are still people that don't object to needless stack splitting cheese.

As far as I can tell there is no rationale for this effect other than they [Nival] don't want spell casting units to be significantly more powerful than heroes. Also note this is another example of Nival [and homers] stubbornly clinging to their vision and not wanting to listen to what fans or others have to say.

[theGryphon]

I don't love it Alamar, I'm just saying that it's there to stay. What ever you suggest, it will be an option and many (not all) times the better one, unless you offer we go to an army formation with no stacks.

Lol, I sometimes think people are even more stubborn on the "Ubi/Nival sucks" perspective. Open your eyes and read my post again

[Gaidal Cain]

GC your argument is not really valid. There still are only those 7 slots. Split a stack - loose a slot.

That is only a valid argument if there would be other units to fill that slot with. Druids are level 4. Even if I bring all lower-level units, I still have three unused slots that I can use. At the point when my economy is strong enough that I can fill all slots, Druids are to weak to be of much use as spellcasters anyway.

And I still don't understand what is the problem with shooting with the Druids when there are 100 of them? Is it somehow not cool enough?

I want shooting/casting a spell to be a choice that I can/have to do through the game . As it is, in the early game, spellcasting will always be better than shooting, and late in the game, shooting will almost always be better, even with ranged penalties. There is a time inbetween when there's some choice to it, especially when you can have goodor bad luck, but I would like that extended to the whole game.

Placing single vulnerable Druids on the map is not, at least not in the cases where it matters.

Yes, it is. Go into the inventory screen, choose the right tab, split druids. Go into combat, deal several times more damage than if you didn't split. Nothing sophisticated about it, just micromanagment.

Completely flawed line of arguing. You'll always have a better result when splitting 6 Druids 5/1 than 6/0 because the loss of 1 Druid contributing to the Lightning Bolt is offset by the fact that he can cast Endurance on the other 5 (if no other troops are involved).

What is? That it's pointless with a stack system if adding creatures to a stack doesn't improve it's performance? the basic rule of the stack system is that with twice as many units in it, it's twice as powerful. This is true for all creatures when it comes to damage, except for casters. I think that's silly. And with your example, I'd have even better reults if I split the druids into 6 stacks and balsted my enemy to smithereens before he could act, bypassing the need of endurance. You do have a point in that it's sometimes justified to split stacks so that they can cast blessings/curses on more than one target quickly, but IMO, that advantages should then be offset by the spells wearing off sooner.

[Jolly Joker]

the basic rule of the stack system is that with twice as many units in it, it's twice as powerful. This is true for all creatures when it comes to damage, except for casters. I think that's silly.

Well, I don't think it's silly in itself, which is the point of argument here. There is no law set in stone that it has to be so. Why shouldn't splitting off of DAMAGE casters be advantageous when splitting off of BUFF/DEBUFF casters is? Even if a single unit would cast a buff only for a very short time it would be enough if it could cast a buff/debuff on the next acting unit.
I don't think that just because something is so with certain units it has to be so for all units.

[Gaidal Cain]

I don't think splitting off duration-spell casters should be more advantageous either. I made a suggestion a while ago about letting duration basically be sN/rM, where N is the number of casters, M is the number of creatures in the recipient stack, s is a parameter for adjusting caster strength and r is some measure of the "unreceptiveness" of the targets.

It's true that there would be cases where you got such luck as to have your caster move just before the stack you wish to cast on, but it would require great luck, and whe armies grow, the chance could turn non-existant. I think it would remove all the unnecessary bonus for splitting stacks, while still allowing to do so if you really want two caster stacks (if you for example has one stack so big that any spells it'd cast would last for more than twice the combat length- similar to what you'd do if your main stack easily can kill of any opponent stack with lots of damage to spare). Similar rules could be applied on other spell-like effects as well.

[Jolly Joker]

That would make buffs a lot easier to cast than debuffs because the receptiveness of the own troops would - logically - be ALOT higher - and it would stack splitting STILL make beneficious: as a rule of thumb a weekly production of, say, Druids should give Endurance to a weekly production of Emeralds for AT LEAST 1 full turn, but to make it worthwhile 2 would probably be better, What does that leave for 1/8 of them for a weekly Production of Sprites? So much that it may be of use.

But I'm not inclined to follow that line of thought because what you say is, that the caster system IN GENERAL should be different or might be better which is not the point here. I don't think you can make a serious point for changing a certain point when the underlying rational is the demand for a completely different system. What you are saying, too, is, basically, that changing the non-linearity makes sense only when you change the whole system.

[DaemianLucifer]

In the games I play, when I can afford the Wood to upgrade to Master Hunters and/or the money to upgrade to Druid Elders the neutrals are cleared anyway.

How come you forgot what you wrote?You said that neutrals arent the problem,but special sites are.I assumed that by this you meant cashes and the like.Those can be cleared with nothing more than master hunters and druid elders.Neutrals,on the other hand,can be cleared with just basic druids and hunters.Most even with just one weeks population.Thats as weak as using a single sprite to outrun a bunch of slow walkers.

And stating that you have to split to produce better results seems a bit absurd. It's generally a good tactic to make use of your seven army slots, for example in trying to build higher level dwellings so that you can fill the slots.

No,it takes good tactics to fight a big fight against AIs primary hero and against a human.Against the rest,it takes no brain at all,you just have to click the book,select lightning,select the target,repeat 6 times,shoot with hunters,then repeat again.

GC your argument is not really valid. There still are only those 7 slots. Split a stack - loose a slot.

Thats only if you bring all 7 tiers,which you dont do untill the very end.

And I still don't understand what is the problem with shooting with the Druids when there are 100 of them? Is it somehow not cool enough?

How can you say that?I mean you?The person that said:

Yeah, but I agree with JJ in this case

if the spell damage is not different from the normal attack why have one?

If you are arguing a point,then at least be consistent.

So what? The result is the same. You split a stack and you deal more damage. Guarding Gremlins with Gargoyles is child's play. Placing single vulnerable Druids on the map is not, at least not in the cases where it matters.

No the results arent the same.Heres a (hypotetical) example why:

You have to fight a bunch of neutral furries.Lets say 10 stacks.Your enemy has to as well.You have 6 druids,he has the equivalent strenght of gremlins(sorry,hate to calculate now),and three gargoyles.

First case:You dont split your druids.You manage to kill a few furries,but they kill of one of your druids.The next one too,and the next one.The next one kills two of your druids.You have to return for reinforcments or youll loose the next fight.Your opponent goes and kills the first stack,but looses a garg.The next one kills a garg too.The next stack kills a few gremlins.The next one as well.He has to return for reinforcments.The result is a tie between the two of you.

Second case:You split druids in 6 stacks of one.You kill the first stack flawlessly.The second one two.The third one,the fourth one,fifth,sixth,seventh,eight and ninth.Your opponent again goes just to four,and returns.Result,you won.

Conclusion:If you want to win,you must split the casters,and splitting casters is much more powerfull than splitting meat shield.You still think that splitting casters is same as splitting meat shield?Oh,and dont you dare to say that such a small difference doesnt mean anything,because it is you who said that HV focuses on much smaller battles than earlier sequels,thus every creature counts.

Not that I support a single druid making tons of damage, I agree with JJ that there's no way you can stop stack splitting. It's in many cases the weakly dominant strategy, if not dominant. Even if we had smaller tiles and even they got rid of retal stealing, there will be many cases splitting the stacks is a better strategy. And, yes it's a strategy, and yes like it or not it's a part of this game as long as we have "stacks", which is the essence of the series.

Splitting stacks to cover more ground is a strategy.It can even be used in a real world(you cover your flanks with small regiments so that enemy cannot flank/rear the middle army while it does the cruical punch).Splitting casters for extra free damage is pure brainless micromanagment.

For the non-linear damage issue, I don't consider it a problem. It's a feature design issue and Ubi/Nival picked this way. Maybe it's not the best way to go, but it's not a no-no. It's definitely not the worst design decision that they made I think it works fine. Early in the game, druids are more lightning-casters, later they are more shooters. But against incorporeals or when forced to melee, they know what to do. They are one of the most versatile units ever.

It works fine you say?Read my example and then tell me if it really works fine.

For balance issues like 2 druids vs. 2 priests, well, I believe a quality mapmaker would be aware of the situation and take care of it.

Yes,why should the developers bother with balance when fans can do it better anyway?

Well, I don't think it's silly in itself, which is the point of argument here. There is no law set in stone that it has to be so. Why shouldn't splitting off of DAMAGE casters be advantageous when splitting off of BUFF/DEBUFF casters is? Even if a single unit would cast a buff only for a very short time it would be enough if it could cast a buff/debuff on the next acting unit.
I don't think that just because something is so with certain units it has to be so for all units.

You split a single buff creature,you loose its damage for one turn,so you have to decide if it would actually benefit you.You split the casters and you get a free extra damage.How can this be non-beneficial to you?