8x10

[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.

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.

I know what you were talking about. But what impact does unit size have on the optimal board size? All it does is take more space, leaving less empty squares. If every creature was 2x2, then this would amount to saying that the board is 4x5 instead of 8x10.

I'm sure that even with two full armies consisting entirely of 2x2 units, the board is still less packed than a chess board (or at least no more so), because there won't be more than half the board that's occupied.

Edit : corrected 4x4 to 2x2. Sorry.

[Zombie]

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.

Setting up a good checkmate may require efficient use of the entire board. Does this mean that chess would be more strategic with a larger board? It would offer more options, yes, but it would actually be less strategic! Please think about it with an open mind for a minute before you reply.

[DaemianLucifer]

No,like I already said with two full armies of big creatures there is just a stretch of 2*8 fields in the middle and two 2*2 fields on each army side that are free.So this means that it is much more crouded than the chess board.

[FatalTheRabbit]

For crap sakes Heroes =/= chess ok? They are not at all the same besides the fact both take place on a grid, and they're both turn based. If you can't understand the distinction between the two no one here has the godly intellectual, and linguistic prowess to explain something to utterly self evident to you.

I'm sorry, but such a mind blowing misconception is way beyond my skill to remedy.

Perhaps the flaw in your logic can be exposed by asking you a question along the very same lines which you posed. If you decreased the size of the board in chess would it make it more strategic?

[gravyluvr]

For crap sakes Heroes =/= chess ok? They are not at all the same besides the fact both take place on a grid, and they're both turn based.

Hmm... Both sides have pieces. It takes place on a grid. You both take turns.

Should we be comparing it to backgammon?

The battlefield is extremely like Chess. In fact, that's one thing that has been true from King's Bounty all the way through HOMM5.

HOMM5 involves lots more pieces and allows for a more creative and unbalanced game on the battlefield (not everyone has the same pieces), but it is pretty much laid out like Chess.

FatalTheRabbit, I think if you stop and think about it, you will see that the game has always been designed with a "Chess board" type battlefield. This is what makes it different from other "rush" style games like Starcraft where it's often just a battle of the fastest button pusher. The turn-based battlefield allows for a more patient and thoughtful player to think out their moves (like in Chess). In other games, if you actually stopped and thought instead of just playing by reactions, you would surely lose. In HOMM, if you rush a decision, you will surely lose.

[Zombie]

No,like I already said with two full armies of big creatures there is just a stretch of 2*8 fields in the middle and two 2*2 fields on each army side that are free.So this means that it is much more crouded than the chess board.

I thought i read that you could only set up creatures in the first 2 rows?

[Zombie]

If you decreased the size of the board in chess would it make it more strategic?

I believe chess is as packed as it can get. Your units fill out entirely your first 2 rows, and there are only 4 rows between you and your opponent.

I believe that chess is made strategic by the lack of space, but that you really couldn't decrease the board size anymore because there'd be no place left to put your pawns and pieces.

[ThunderTitan]

Hmm... Both sides have pieces. It takes place on a grid. You both take turns.

Should we be comparing it to backgammon?

The battlefield is extremely like Chess. In fact, that's one thing that has been true from King's Bounty all the way through HOMM5.

HOMM5 involves lots more pieces and allows for a more creative and unbalanced game on the battlefield (not everyone has the same pieces), but it is pretty much laid out like Chess.

The chess board would not work if it was smaller or bigger. And the reason it works is because the pieces only have certain ways to move, and no stats. Do you really think that chess would still be as strategic if you only had pawns and queens, and they had initiative?

Now if you could chose whatever creature you would like or if the unicorn could only move sideways, the minotaur in an L shape etc. then it would be very like chess. The thing is that chess is the closest thing to the BF, but it's not almost the same.

[Zombie]

Of course it's not the same, but imo it's similar enough to make my point valid.

In fact, years ago when i tried to explain HoMM2 or HoMM3 to the uninitiated, i would say something like "you've got heroes carrying armies from town to town collecting ressources, and everytime you fight it opens up something like a chess board where the two armies fight, and this makes the game very strategic".

My point in this thread was pretty simple : one of the reasons chess is so tactically challenging is because of the small board. It makes positioning crucial. It makes you fight for every inch of terrain. It forces you to consider the impact of the position of every piece or pawn in relation to every other piece or pawn.

In chess, the board is so packed that your troops are initially arranged in a way such that they restrict each other's movement. Restricting movement, and restricting choices, can make the game more strategic. If pawns were setup in the back, and pieces in front, you'd have more possibilities. However, you wouldn't have to make the crucial choices that you do now in order to develop your attack. The strategic depth would diminish.

I don't think it's such a stretch to believe that the same concept applies to HoMM5 as well. The general setup of both games isn't so dissimilar as to preclude that.

[Corribus]

My point in this thread was pretty simple : one of the reasons chess is so tactically challenging is because of the small board. It makes positioning crucial. It makes you fight for every inch of terrain. It forces you to consider the impact of the position of every piece or pawn in relation to every other piece or pawn.

This is exactly correct. If a game has too much space to maneuver, each individual "move" becomes less important to the overall outcome of the game. In a small battlefield, moves at the beginning of the battle are just as important as those in the middle (that is, very important, where a single mistake can really cost you). On an enormous battlefield, you can afford to be sloppy because many of the moves early on don't really matter that much in the overall scheme of things. Thus the game is less strategic.

One of the things I've always liked about the NFL is the fact that there are only 16 games in a season. Many people complain about this, arguing that there should be more than 16, but I disagree. If you add more games, you dilute the schedule and each game becomes less important. You can afford to be sloppy. As it stands with a 16 game season, to win the superbowl every game is vital. (For example, in baseball and basketball here in the states there are well over 100 games in a season - which means that any given game really isn't that important.)

Same goes in Heroes or any game for that matter. If you make the playing field too big, then you dilute the strategy because any given turn becomes less important. As someone suggested, by making things more crowded, you also make tension and make maneuvering more difficult - and important.

Naturally, of course, there's a limit to how small exactly you should make the battlefield, because there comes a point where it is TOO crowded. What really is the optimal size? Well, I'd love to be able to tell you all that the current dimensions of the battlefield work beautifully, but I can't do that. But there's certainly no point in worrying about it - I'm confident that if it is judged that the current size is a mistake, it will be fixed.

[Kareeah Indaga]

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?

Lol.

I don’t have much to add to this discussion but I would like to point out (or possibly reiterate, as I don’t feel like reading through ten pages’ worth of posts just to add one ) two things:

Firstly, the most pieces you can lose in one turn in chess is one, which is often not the case in Heroes because of spells and special abilities. Second, any chess piece can take out any other chess piece, which is almost NEVER the case in Heroes thanks to stats and stacks. I might make a compare-and-contrast list between the two later as the idea appeals to me.

[Zombie]

any chess piece can take out any other chess piece, which is almost NEVER the case in Heroes thanks to stats and stacks

Wrong. A king can't attack another king. A bishop that starts on a white square can never attack a bishop that starts on a black square, and vice versa.

But what's your point exactly? That chess isn't the same as HoMM? That's never been disputed. Yet the general setup is similar enough that some concepts will surely apply to both. In fact, most concepts found in Sun Tzu's Art of War will probably apply to both games!

[DaemianLucifer]

Ok,it seems I need to draw this:

The battlefield of 8*10 has 80 squares.two armies are made of 7 large creatures,each taking 2*2=4 squares.In one row we can place maximum of 8/2=4 creatures,so we need to put them in two rows.That leaves us with three creatures in the back row(or front,makes no diference),which leaves us with 4 empty squares in first two rows.Between the nearest two stacks we have 10-(2+2)*2=2 squares.Since the width is 8 squares,we have 2*8=16 empty squares.So we have a total of 16+4+4=22 out of the original 80 squares empty.Now that means that more than half of squares are taken.As you said,chess is as crammed as it is posible,and half of the board is free.That means that anything less is to cramped.Therefore 8*10 cannot be the biggest field of battle.

[ThunderTitan]

My point in this thread was pretty simple : one of the reasons chess is so tactically challenging is because of the small board. It makes positioning crucial. It makes you fight for every inch of terrain. It forces you to consider the impact of the position of every piece or pawn in relation to every other piece or pawn.

In chess, the board is so packed that your troops are initially arranged in a way such that they restrict each other's movement. Restricting movement, and restricting choices, can make the game more strategic. If pawns were setup in the back, and pieces in front, you'd have more possibilities. However, you wouldn't have to make the crucial choices that you do now in order to develop your attack. The strategic depth would diminish.

Just like having only queens would. In HoMM all creatures can move on all directions, the only different thing is the distance. And you won't have nowhere near as much pieces on the board in HoMM like in chess.

[Zombie]

Ok,it seems I need to draw this:

The battlefield of 8*10 has 80 squares.two armies are made of 7 large creatures,each taking 2*2=4 squares.In one row we can place maximum of 8/2=4 creatures,so we need to put them in two rows.That leaves us with three creatures in the back row(or front,makes no diference),which leaves us with 4 empty squares in first two rows.Between the nearest two stacks we have 10-(2+2)*2=2 squares.Since the width is 8 squares,we have 2*8=16 empty squares.So we have a total of 16+4+4=22 out of the original 80 squares empty.Now that means that more than half of squares are taken.As you said,chess is as crammed as it is posible,and half of the board is free.That means that anything less is to cramped.Therefore 8*10 cannot be the biggest field of battle.

I'm not disputing your math. I just don't believe that players will be allowed to place anything beyond their second row. Therefore if they use only large creatures, they won't be able to set up more than 4 of them.

[Zombie]

Just like having only queens would. In HoMM all creatures can move on all directions, the only different thing is the distance. And you won't have nowhere near as much pieces on the board in HoMM like in chess.

First, it's ridiculous to say that the only difference between creatures in HoMM5 battles will be their speed. Some fly, some don't. Some have more initiative than others. And then there's the whole attack/defense/HP thing which influences who you attack and therefore indirectly your positioning.

But disregarding this slip, i still don't get your point in this post. What are you saying? That HoMM is less strategic than chess?

If you're saying that a smaller board will remove strategy because any unit will be able to get anywhere, then i couldn't disagree more. Obviously, speed will be such that the vast majority of units won't be able to reach the other side of the field in one turn, just as it's always been.

[gravyluvr]

When I was younger, I used to move the queen twice in a row. But they frown upon that. Now I can get my Phoenix to move twice. It's so cool.

[ThunderTitan]

First, it's ridiculous to say that the only difference between creatures in HoMM5 battles will be their speed. Some fly, some don't. Some have more initiative than others. And then there's the whole attack/defense/HP thing which influences who you attack and therefore indirectly your positioning.

Really? i hadn't noticed. More things that are different from chess. The point was that the way they move was the difference between chess pieces, take that away and replace it with stats it's not the same game. Sure Heroes on a small BF would be more tactical then a chess board full of queens, but it works as an analogy.

Oh and flying only gave them more speed as i recall (it was more only during sieges).

But disregarding this slip, i still don't get your point in this post. What are you saying? That HoMM is less strategic than chess?

If you're saying that a smaller board will remove strategy because any unit will be able to get anywhere, then i couldn't disagree more. Obviously, speed will be such that the vast majority of units won't be able to reach the other side of the field in one turn, just as it's always been.

So, what's the point? If the BF is smaller and the creatures have less speed wouldn't it be the same as before? Just more annoying because your creatures only move two squares like they're zombies?

I'm not saying that it will remove strategy, just that it will limit certain strategies.

I'm saying that HoMM is different enough from chess to make a chess board BF not work as well as a normal Heroes BF. They both have different enough rules and stuff so as what works in one would not work in the other.
I didn't like a 9x11 BF, a 8x10 is even worse.

[Gaidal Cain]

So, what's the point? If the BF is smaller and the creatures have less speed wouldn't it be the same as before? Just more annoying because your creatures only move two squares like they're zombies?

A smaller battlefield means that positioning becomes more important- if there's only space to attack with two stacks and you have three, you have to make a choice, AND make sure the third stack doesn't get in the way. However, it is certainly possible to shrink the battlefield to much, just as it could be made too large. The problem is that it will probably be much worse if it's a bit too small than if it's a bit too large- the latter only leads to a less tight game, while the former could make it so frustrating as to be unplayable.

Oh, and could we please cut the discussion about whether chess is a good analogy or not? Chess is probably the classical game that comes closest to Heroes, and comparing the two of them can give useful insights, but it can also lead you wrong. Saying that chess is best with a tight battlefield and that the same thing might be true for heroes as well isn't very farfetched. Trying to compare them with regards to movement and whatnot isn't.

[ThunderTitan]

A smaller battlefield means that positioning becomes more important- if there's only space to attack with two stacks and you have three, you have to make a choice, AND make sure the third stack doesn't get in the way. However, it is certainly possible to shrink the battlefield to much, just as it could be made too large. The problem is that it will probably be much worse if it's a bit too small than if it's a bit too large- the latter only leads to a less tight game, while the former could make it so frustrating as to be unplayable.

Well that only works if there are obstacles on the BF. And it would also work on a large BF is some conditions are met.


And chess works with a tight Bf because of the way the pieces move and whatnot. IMO.