Battlefields Size

[Lyan]

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.

In heroes 3 the battlefields were not really larger than they are in H5...
I'll add that now in heroes 5 except rajahs, each high ini, non retaliation unit is pretty fragile, none is close to what devils were.

For a counter example i will just talk about the stormlords... on the actual battlefields they are just... freakish. They got good enough ini, a devastating power, and thanks the little deployment area, can perform some incredible slaughters on their first turn. Just click on a battle rage rune, send them in front of the enemy lines (in fornt of the more stoky unit, but without choosing them as target) and just look at your lords hitting again and again till almost nothing is alive on the BF. three days ago in a crucial battle i fought versus a friend, my 37 Stormlords slaughters his whole army except one stack on the second turn of the fight, i admit i had the netherworld cross, so if i remember only his BF played before me. And in his army were 19 blackdragons and correspondant numbers of dungeon units... what could i say ? you arranged your units in a pretty bad way ? ahaha looser ? the only thing i had done to win the fight an tho the map was to collect the cross (any ini ring would have worked as well) and place my lords in the center of the Bf, finally click on a rune... and the game was over.
If he speaked english he would tell you himself about how much he appreciated the small deployment zone and the fact my lords could reach him on first turn :p

[Jolly Joker]

I don't see your point. IN H 3 battles often were over after the first action of the battle, no matter the fact that not only the BF was bigger in terms of hexes (165 I think to 120) the armies took less space as well (Between 8 for Inferno and 11 for Fortress, I think, and 16 now) and there was nothing like Gating.
Moreover in your example it took you two turns to get the Warlords into activity, so what has that got to do with the battlefield?

[ThunderTitan]

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 don't see the way the init is implemented right anyway. If you'd actualy care to remember I already complained about it.

This is more like making the cars smaller coz smaller road are easier to build. It's not about gameplay, but effort.

All of the problems are solvable or already exist, your only argument is that implementation would take work.

[DaemianLucifer]

I don't see your point. IN H 3 battles often were over after the first action of the battle, no matter the fact that not only the BF was bigger in terms of hexes (165 I think to 120) the armies took less space as well (Between 8 for Inferno and 11 for Fortress, I think, and 16 now) and there was nothing like Gating.

But you are forgetting that in HIII there were lots of units that could cross the whole field in one turn,plus haste increased how much they can cross.That still implies that its movement of the creaturs thats the problem,and not the size of BFs like you are saying.

[Jolly Joker]

Let's get this in line again, shall we?
You say it should be bigger, but fail to give any other reason except that ine that there should be more time between the actual contact.
I say a bigger battlefield would have some disadvantages for the game as it is now.
You say that wouldn't be a problem of the battlefield, but a problem of something else.
Now, there IS NO problem at this point, at least none that I can see, while a change of BFsize to achieve something, that in itself is debatable, would make drastic changes for other game elements necessary. Changes which are not necessary the way things are now.
A bigger battefield can have only two reasons
1) more wide-spaced deployment. This would make a complete rebalancing of area-based effects necessary.
2) Bigger speed differences. This would lead simply to an overwhelming importance of a) spell casters including damage dealing heroes (and think about sorcery) as well as range penalties/no range penalties for casters as opposed to slow grunts. It wouldn't make sense compensating that by giving Zombies 100 Hit Points, would it?
That would leave making the BF for example 2 or even 4 spaces longer - which would simply lead to one more deployment turn with obvious advantages for high init units and casters including heroes like a Warlock.

So where's the use?

[DaemianLucifer]

Now, there IS NO problem at this point, at least none that I can see, while a change of BFsize to achieve something, that in itself is debatable, would make drastic changes for other game elements necessary.

You see no problem in the fact that a hero with a single sprite can defeat zillion zombies?Or giants?I see that as a huge problem,and already proposed a revision of the system that would make this imposible to do.

1) more wide-spaced deployment. This would make a complete rebalancing of area-based effects necessary.

You mean like something done with quicksand in HIV?I dont see a downsize to this.

2) Bigger speed differences. This would lead simply to an overwhelming importance of a) spell casters including damage dealing heroes (and think about sorcery) as well as range penalties/no range penalties for casters as opposed to slow grunts. It wouldn't make sense compensating that by giving Zombies 100 Hit Points, would it?

Why?Simply decreasing the damage done by spells would be quite enough to render casters less powerfull.Adding line of sight is also a great workaround for this.HIV was on the right path to do this,and only a bit of tweaking was needed.Again,I dont see a downside to this as well.

[ThunderTitan]

Making the BF bigger would make alot of the things ppl want necesary?! Great argument there.

1) more wide-spaced deployment. This would make a complete rebalancing of area-based effects necessary.

Why?! Tight now how many times have you got to hit more then 3 units with a MS?! It would actualy make attacking one enemy stack with 3 of yours a less appealing option, balanced by the need to gather them for bless spells. Could make for some interesting options.

[Jolly Joker]

@DL. 1) Would the Zombie/Sprite thing be different with a bigger battlefield? No. But that's what is discussed here. If you want another init system, make a separate topic, please.
2) I still fail to see any point FOR the bigger battlefield except that it would make a complete redesign of the game necessary which allegedly is what people want?
Where is the concrete gain with a larger BF?
@TT. Same question: Where is the gain?

[DaemianLucifer]

@DL. 1) Would the Zombie/Sprite thing be different with a bigger battlefield? No. But that's what is discussed here. If you want another init system, make a separate topic, please.

I already did before.And why did you say that it would be different with a bigger BF if you now say that it wouldnt?

2) I still fail to see any point FOR the bigger battlefield except that it would make a complete redesign of the game necessary which allegedly is what people want?

More strategic value?But who wants that?Its not like heroes is a strategy gae,right?Oh...wait...

Where is the concrete gain with a larger BF?
@TT. Same question: Where is the gain?

If you fail to see the strategic value of the size of the BF then heroes is not the game for you to play

[Jolly Joker]

@DL. 1) Would the Zombie/Sprite thing be different with a bigger battlefield? No. But that's what is discussed here. If you want another init system, make a separate topic, please.

I already did before.And why did you say that it would be different with a bigger BF if you now say that it wouldnt?

With different I mean better.

2) I still fail to see any point FOR the bigger battlefield except that it would make a complete redesign of the game necessary which allegedly is what people want?

More strategic value?But who wants that?Its not like heroes is a strategy gae,right?Oh...wait...
If you fail to see the strategic value of the size of the BF then heroes is not the game for you to play

Typical bland answer: if you don't see it... then.
No, I don't see it. Do you see chess players demanding a bigger board to have more room and add strategic value? If you think strategic (you probably mean tactic) value depends on BF size, it's you who should stop playing the game.
What I think is, that Heroes V is not the right game for you.

[ThunderTitan]

@TT. Same question: Where is the gain?

Didn't i already give you that link?!

How about the fact that they could implement more variables on a bigger BF (1/4 dmg)?! Or that alot less creatures would be able to cross it in one go? The fact that you get more space to move/place your creatures in? Ranged creatures getting more then one shot?

Then again those are advantages only to me, some ppl prefer combat to be a limited affair.

No, I don't see it. Do you see chess players demanding a bigger board to have more room and add strategic value?

I don't see chess ever getting smaller BF or bigger pieces either.

[DaemianLucifer]

The difference being that chess is perfectly balanced and has just one race.

[ThunderTitan]

The difference being that chess is perfectly balanced and has just one race.

Not to mention that it would turn it into another game. Which is kinda what i want with H5.

[Jolly Joker]

The difference being that chess is perfectly balanced and has just one race.

Not to mention that it would turn it into another game. Which is kinda what i want with H5.

Yes, that's exactly the point. That's obviously not possible: the game exists and won't be redesigned in a way that would need a lot of new graphics: think about their unwillingness to develop a new female hero model. Think about the tests necessary.
However, since it would be more than dumb to make Heroes VI something like Heroes V with slight changes, maybe Heroes VI will be your game.

[DaemianLucifer]

And thats why these are all just idea threads.They arent meant for HV,they are meant for future games.But we dont have a "How would you like heroes to look like" forum,so...

[ThunderTitan]

Yes, that's exactly the point. That's obviously not possible: the game exists and won't be redesigned in a way that would need a lot of new graphics: think about their unwillingness to develop a new female hero model. Think about the tests necessary.

So?! Doesn't mean we shouldn't demand it. And it wouldn't need new graphics to just make the BF bigger, not alot of work on the game either, if they think it over well before starting. So they most definatly won't do it.

However, since it would be more than dumb to make Heroes VI something like Heroes V with slight changes, maybe Heroes VI will be your game.

Let's not bet on that one yet...

[Gaidal Cain]

How about the fact that they could implement more variables on a bigger BF (1/4 dmg)?! Or that alot less creatures would be able to cross it in one go? Ranged creatures getting more then one shot?

None of these depend on battle field size, just other parameters. I think that the sentiment about few creatures being able to cross the field in one turn is a good one, but it doesn't depend on the number of squares there is (simple example: divide each square into four, scale each area effect correspondingly, and double the movement range of all creatures. No difference for anything of what you described).

The fact that you get more space to move/place your creatures in?

That's a valid reason though.

[ThunderTitan]

Ranged creatures getting more then one shot?

None of these depend on battle field size, just other parameters. I think that the sentiment about few creatures being able to cross the field in one turn is a good one, but it doesn't depend on the number of squares there is (simple example: divide each square into four, scale each area effect correspondingly, and double the movement range of all creatures. No difference for anything of what you described).

You missed one.

A smaller BF wouldn't be able to decrease a creatures movement without it becoming akward, which a larger BF wouldn't have as a problem. Of course you could make the creatures on the bigger BF act in the same way as on the smaller BF, and it'd just look better ( ), but you also could do something else, which is a plus imo.

[Lyan]

I don't see your point. IN H 3 battles often were over after the first action of the battle, no matter the fact that not only the BF was bigger in terms of hexes (165 I think to 120) the armies took less space as well (Between 8 for Inferno and 11 for Fortress, I think, and 16 now) and there was nothing like Gating.
Moreover in your example it took you two turns to get the Warlords into activity, so what has that got to do with the battlefield?

I think there's a miscomprehension here, when i say 2 turns, i mean they were the second unit to play on the first turn of combat if you prefer.

Now imagine a larger battlefield, i can't reach his lines with my stormlords, where is this so unbearable advantage to his overboosted sorcer (he had one) you have described ?. Let's say he can cast before any of my units reach his lines, let's say he s lucky and powerfull, and launch a wonder spell at my lords. First he has to be double lucky, Once to trigger luck on his spell, then that my units won't resist it (Dwarven luck, magic res, plus the numerous artifact i wear), let's imagine the guy got it all good and throw some 2.5 k at my lords... i got 40 of em (rounded up), a total of 7600 Hp, 1/3 gone, that leaves me more than 25 alive.
Now Considering those simple facts what is the most fearfull and unbalanced ? Me suffering an 1/3 stack loss before reaching him, or him watching his whole army slaughtered on a single "runed-hit" ?


And i mean, when i'm talking bout BF larger i don't refer to H3 :p if i should take one of the Heroes sequel games to illustrate it would more likely be the fourth.

[winterfate]

I personally like the BF for 3 .

As for the BF in 5, well...it could work either way. IMO, I think it's fine as is, but i wouldn't mind if it got a size upgrade (there'd be more strategy involved).