Battlefields Size

[ThunderTitan]

Did I say that? The battlefield wouldn't fit all units in some cases -
which in my book is a superior technical reason to make it bigger.
Which they did.

And now they have one, thanks to Corelanis!

But not being able to fit all creatures on the BF isn't a great reason, one could argue that it's more tactical being forced to choose which creatures you want on the BF. So it's still pure personal preference™

[DaemianLucifer]

You still cant fit 7 stacks of dragons on the field. So now they have a good reason to make the field bigger. So they didnt make it big enough.

I remember saying this...It was long before the beta even.

[Caradoc]

I like the size of the battlefield as it is.

It might be interesting to enlarge the battlefield to allow armies to be better scaled. Instead of a single square, a group of 100 Footmen might occupy a 3x3 square. Truly massive armies might reach 4x4. This might mean rethinking some creature powers like Cerberi and Hydras.

[Jolly Joker]

But not being able to fit all creatures on the BF isn't a great reason, one could argue that it's more tactical being forced to choose which creatures you want on the BF. So it's still pure personal preference™

I agree for size issues. But not for racial ability issues. If there are two Inferno armies facing each other, both heroes with a full army and expert gating you should be able to make use of your ability and gate. I don't think, that's worth a discussion.

Mod note: fixed quote. GC

[Pitsu]

Still there's a thread about implementing new BF, ruins, special combat situation ect... but yet it's not the point. New Bf of the same size would change absolutely nothing, they can add as many obstacles as they wish, it wouldn't change the escence of the problem.

The point is that the battlefields must vary from battle to battle in order to require different tactics. Tight obstacles requre careful maneuvering, while on large open field one can always move in which ever direction one wishes. Thus, tactically are small and crowded fields more challenging. I do not mind the field being slightly, like 1 or 2 squares larger, but a huge field would be a big no-no for me.
The main problem of current field is the creatures who cross it in one turn during the first round (and do not get even retalitated simultaneously), deciding sometimes the battle without giving the other side any time to prepare.

[ThunderTitan]

If there are two Inferno armies facing each other, both heroes with a full army and expert gating you should be able to make use of your ability and gate. I don't think, that's worth a discussion.

Still a matter of strategy... neither side would be advantaged, so it's not game breaking or even unbalancing. And you could still use gating against the other factions, so no disadvantage there either.

So i guess in the end the BF size is all a matter of taste.

[Lyan]

Not a surprise here, but I disagree with the initial post. Massively.
1) Larger battlefields allow fast no-retaliation units to beat each number of slower opponents. With a very big battlefield you need only a unit that has MARGINALLY more initiative than another and ONE more speed and you can beat EVERY number of opponents. This would be a pretty bad idea.
2) Larger battlefields would make ranged units much more important than they are now - which would be bad as well. I'm really very happy that this game involves decent non-ranged tactics as well. Safe points? No, thanks.
3) Battles may take very long as it is. Try to pit two high defense low attack armies against each other - Sylvan and Necro, for example.
4) The Magic makes all the difference and battles are not as simple as they seem, not nearly.

Remember, this was designed always as a FAST game; you are not supposed to think two minutes before retreating some unit out of range of another.

I see your point on this, but somehow i ve always prefered chess of tetris
To your first point about the importance of inititiative on larger battlefiel, i don't really see your logic. YOu talk about supremacy about fast non retaliation unit... ain't the number of those units very residual ? Sprites, vamps, Rajas (well they have not a awsome move but still good ini and no ret) and cerberi. And even tho if you notice on a larger bf such an unit heading somewhere there's plenty measures you can take to counters it. First of it is your ranged power, or opposing em a "rock unit" or an always retaliate unit, use preparation skill, use your magic against em... The mechanical dragons were far from the best final unit in the larger h4 bfields, yet they had high ini and no retaliation skill...

About what your supposed ranged units domination you can imagine to add a supreme factor, well not as easy as the "broken or not" arrow, but fraction system like in h4. I mean shooters with an 1/8 penalty is 1) realistic considering distance, atmospheric considerations, 2) not really fearfull. SO it would be up to you to choose between using a turn to bring your shooters closer to the action, envolving the risk to make them more vulnerable. But as a protection u can use an high ini unit to escort them.
I just see more possibilities, different strategies.
I just take Warhammer 40k as a classic example, dunno if u played some, i used to when i was younger. An army called space marines had an incredible teleport ability, allowing choosen units to teleport to the enmy lines. These units were quite powerfull. Any beginner facing this would simply get slaughtered, and just say fuck it how could i just beat those bastards ? i play spacemarines from now on ! and the first time he plays with his army against another player which has some experience of it, he gets his teleported fast and strong troups quickly killed or made ineficient by his opposent strategy, and the lack of reinforcment his troops suffered.

I'm not talking about making huge battlefields where you have to scroll the screen to see your enemy (gosh i think i would love it :p) just a bit larger would be enough to create a full new range of possibilities.

About your end 4) magic makes all the diff ect... I love it, it's a nice "listen and learn" but i began playing heroes 10 years ago, i think i have enough experience to make my own opinion on the importance of magic in a battle

[Jolly Joker]

If you play Heroes since 10 years you'll know that 1 fast no-retal unit in Heroes III could beat any number of slow units. For example an Arch Devil could beat any number of Skeletons.
With the initiative system this is even more pronounced and the only limiting factor is the size of the battlefield if you don't want to have only slow low initiave no-retal units.

[DaemianLucifer]

I just take Warhammer 40k as a classic example, dunno if u played some, i used to when i was younger. An army called space marines had an incredible teleport ability, allowing choosen units to teleport to the enmy lines. These units were quite powerfull. Any beginner facing this would simply get slaughtered, and just say **** it how could i just beat those ******* ? i play spacemarines from now on ! and the first time he plays with his army against another player which has some experience of it, he gets his teleported fast and strong troups quickly killed or made ineficient by his opposent strategy, and the lack of reinforcment his troops suffered.

Reminds me of pre HV devils

Oh,and heres a good enought reason to make BFs larger:

With current setup,a lot is based on luck in the tactics phase and initial ATB set.If you place your palladins so that they can reach enemies devils on their first action,you may gain a crucial advantage.But if it happens that you can only reach demons and imps with them,you have to waste a turn to move to a better spot.Now with larger BF tactical phase and luck are much less crucial because you position your troops during the battle itself.And even you JJ have to agree that HV relies a bit too mych on luck.Imo,a (good) strategy game should include some 40% skill,40% planing,15% intuition and knowing your opponent,and just 5% luck

[ThunderTitan]

With the initiative system this is even more pronounced

Again, that's because of the way the init system is implemented.

[Caradoc]

Everyone knows you can beat fast nonretaliation creatures by controlling the center of the battlefield. When they retreat to the corner, you move in and on the next move they will be in range. If necessary, you can deploy multiple stacks to cover more area.

[ThunderTitan]

But that would involve too much strategy.

[Jolly Joker]

With the initiative system this is even more pronounced

Again, that's because of the way the init system is implemented.

What I really hate is when someone says something should be changed, then someone comes up with a point against that and the answer is, well, that's only because something else is wrong.
Aren't sou seeing that is no way to discuss specifics of anything? If you have to change a ton of game aspects just to get one specific thing halfway right why discuss it in the first place?
I mean: Cars should be a lot bigger. But thenstreets would be too small. Yes, but only because they have been implemented the wrong way. Don't you see that it is completely absurd to demand or ask for something that would be good only if you would change another thing(s) that have been made so becaise they fit well with the way things are?

[Jolly Joker]

Everyone knows you can beat fast nonretaliation creatures by controlling the center of the battlefield. When they retreat to the corner, you move in and on the next move they will be in range. If necessary, you can deploy multiple stacks to cover more area.

No, it always is a fuction of speed and battlefield size versus stack numbers. I don't think that it is possible to program an AI without massive work to always cover all routes once a double turn for the attacker is due. Obviously, the bigger (BFsize/attspeed)*(attspeed/defspeed) the more stacks you need and the more difficult the process is.
With speeds beeing as they are, on a 16x14 BF, for example, I think a Blood Fury could beat any number of speed 4 creatures no matter what.

[Corelanis]

Hence the multiple stacks you even quoted it.

[DaemianLucifer]

What I really hate is when someone says something should be changed, then someone comes up with a point against that and the answer is, well, that's only because something else is wrong.

But your point wasnt aiemd at why BFs shouldnt be larger,but at how initiative is wrongly implemented.No matter the size of the BF,the way its been implemented is what creates the problem you mentioned.It already is present now(treants against sprites,for example).So you didnt present an argument against the size of the BF,but against the initiative system.

[Jolly Joker]

Hence the multiple stacks you even quoted it.

No. Stack number is limited, BFsize not per se.

[Jolly Joker]

What I really hate is when someone says something should be changed, then someone comes up with a point against that and the answer is, well, that's only because something else is wrong.

But your point wasnt aiemd at why BFs shouldnt be larger,but at how initiative is wrongly implemented.No matter the size of the BF,the way its been implemented is what creates the problem you mentioned.It already is present now(treants against sprites,for example).So you didnt present an argument against the size of the BF,but against the initiative system.

No, that's not true. The point was that a bigger bf would lead to the undesired effect. THE BIGGER BATTLEFIELD. Which means, that the system of unit characteristics in combination with the Initiative system gets ever more problematic the bigger it is. You see the variable: BATTLEFIELD SIZE. Very easy to see. The bigger the battlefield the bigger the effect.
EDIT: making it a bit more clearer. With the example of streets and cars I brought up, you are telling me that my point, streets would be small if cars would be bigger, was actually a point against the size of the streets and not those of cars, since there ARE already some streets that are too small anyway. I think it's rather clear that this is not true.

[DaemianLucifer]

No, that's not true. The point was that a bigger bf would lead to the undesired effect. THE BIGGER BATTLEFIELD. Which means, that the system of unit characteristics in combination with the Initiative system gets ever more problematic the bigger it is. You see the variable: BATTLEFIELD SIZE. Very easy to see. The bigger the battlefield the bigger the effect.

Not true.If there isnt a single unit that has twice the initiative of any other unit,you can increase BF all you want,you wont have the problem.Thus the problem is in initiative,not the size of BF.

[Jolly Joker]

No, DL, that's not true. A marginally higher Initiative is already enough. You move in circles up to and until your marginally higher initiative results in a double move. You don't need to get double moves all the time, you know.
I edited my last post, btw.