I have for a long time a somehow similar yet also different consideration on the battlefileds, their size. For those which played H3 and H4, you will prbably agree that battlefeilds where probably one of the main originalities H4 offered. I really loved H4 for it's combats, the 3d iso added something o the combat map as it somehow damaged the adventure map.
The larger battlefields are indeed needed in H5, this would somehow allow more strategy deploying troops. u could imagine having different fronts where 3 or 4 stacks are involved while somewhere else on the battle field the remaining stacks fight another battle. It could as welll make fight more interesting. I mean right now, late in games, when the stacks comme really big, initiative take the upper hand on all other factors. Who strikes first, answer as well the question who will win ? That's somehow normal and indeed pretty realistic, but a larger battlefield would allow other factors than a simple statistic to decide it. Imo any unit should use at least 2 turns to reach the enemy starting position, with maybe some excpetions (including the tactical skill, and maybe one or 2 units which speed is the main attribute)
RIght now the fight are too simplist, most of the unit can cross at leat half of the battlefield in one turn, this makes almost no "save point" or "retreat point" possible. But retreat then rallying is a factor of an utmost importance in a battle. One unit should be able to break the fight using is higher speed to escape his direct opponent without having the certitude that 3/4 of the unit on the BF can reach them. This makes that right now it's better to deal one more hit to make some more damages at a stack that will certainly kill you than fleeing and waiting for a better spot to attack.
Imo smaller battlefields makes battles, quicker and way more simple. It's no secret but when a company like Ubisoft decide to buy a franchise like Heroes, it's not to please the fan, but only because they see a good opportunity to make money without too much inventivity. And everytime such scenarios happens, the big new franchise holder try to make the sequel game more "accesible", thus easyier.
I don't want to glorify 3DO (even if i personnaly think they deserve it) but with heroes 2 and 3 they created a new reference in the video game universe. A successfull game that proffesional and players together acclaimed. Even tho ! they decieded to take some risk in heroes 4, not a simple translation of the succesfull H3. This brought some reprehensible and critisized inovations, the buidling town structure, the non upgradable units, the morale system, and much more... but in the end heroes 4 was a very good game to each who make the effort to adapt ans try it furthermore than the inital suprise of seeing too many changes. heroes 5 Take exctly the opposite path, taking back everything which made H3 a fantastic popular success, and totally what H4 brought. Well i dare say that the battles were more interesting in heroes 4 than in heroes 5 and yeah than in heroes 3 as well.
So as a conclusion, i will ask or larger battlefields, tho extended possibilities in battles
