Battlefields Size

[Jolly Joker]

@Lyan.
Has nothing to do with the battlefield. Even if you couldn't reach the opponent, you could use Storm Bolt.

@Everyone else
Well, I have no problem with changing the battlefield in H 6. In fact, I WANT the battlefield being changed for 6 and try something else.
I'd like to see something like number of units in stack take up more space, exponentially. For example, something like 1 map "square" for up to 2 full weekly productions, 2 map sqaures up to 4 weekly productions, 3 for 8 and so on - with more BASIC sizes being possible (maybe from 1 to 4 squares, so for a basic 3 squares it would be 3, 6 and 9 squares for 2, 4 and 8 weeks' production).
I think I would further like something like +1 minimum damage for shooters per target square over 2 or so.
And I would probably like a decreasing damage value IF ATTACKING UNITS ARE SMALLER IN SQUARES THAN THE ATTACKER.
I'd further like a ranged damage modifier per SQUARE distance between shooter and target.
That would probably mean that damage spell-casters could stay as they are.
Since we are at it, I would like obstacles that units can cross with additional mps (more speed per square).

[Lyan]

@Lyan.
Has nothing to do with the battlefield. Even if you couldn't reach the opponent, you could use Storm Bolt.

hum... stormbolt would have done, not even a tenth of the total damage i dealt with storm strike + the rune on the battlefields we have now, and even less (due to a larger deployment zone) on a bigger battlefield. Sorry but this argument doesn't hold. So it has for sure something to do with battlefield. Had it been larger :
1) i couldn't have reached him on my first Stormlords's turn.
2) The larger deployment area would ve prohibited the chain effet that allowed me to slaughter 95 % of his army on a single runed hit

[ThunderTitan]

I really don't get why you argue about stuff JJ. It's not like they're gonna change it if you're not on their side. Are you afraid they won't make H6 if you don't get us to accept H5 or something?

Your suggestions are a bit too much, even if it would be cool if battle tactics would change with playtime.

[DaemianLucifer]

I'd like to see something like number of units in stack take up more space, exponentially. For example, something like 1 map "square" for up to 2 full weekly productions, 2 map sqaures up to 4 weekly productions, 3 for 8 and so on - with more BASIC sizes being possible (maybe from 1 to 4 squares, so for a basic 3 squares it would be 3, 6 and 9 squares for 2, 4 and 8 weeks' production).

It should depend on creature size as well.A week of dragons will be larger than 10 weeks of pixies.But it can be worked out.But having such system would naturally ask for either splitting units during the battle itself or for the units not to be blocked by obstacles,only slowed down.

Still I would like to see a system that would count creature numbers in the stack size.

[asandir]

they would have to look at the dynamics of this closely, with scalable battlefields, cause some end battles would require absolutely massive battlefields .... even if you have an exponential method of managing the "sprawl"

[DaemianLucifer]

they would have to look at the dynamics of this closely, with scalable battlefields, cause some end battles would require absolutely massive battlefields ....

Yes.So?

[winterfate]

Perhaps the development team should take some things from Master of Magic, battlefield wise (I think H4 had some of these things too):

1. Differing cost for terrain movement (make native terrain more of an advantage if you're on it, hostile terrain cost additional speed to traverse).
2. JJ mentioned the range damage penalty PER square...I agree wholeheartedly...that would be good too.
3. Only MoM had this, but I thought it was cool: Roads appearing in battle cost 0.5 speed to move on (if you were fighting on a road or attacking a castle connected to a road).

In the end, we'll have to wait and see .

[aulfgar]

I have a good reason for wanting a larger battlefield with fewer creatures getting all the way accross. Tactics, I want to see a real Vanguard force for my armies and to meet their van and have tactical manuevers which can get my main body into contact with my enemies faster or on a flank.

A larger battlefield could help with this, I don't see this for HoMM5 but maybe for HoMM6. Make the battlefield actually based on the terrain on the adventure map, with the same choke points and lines of fire. Make the weekly growth of creature more a representation instead of having 26 archers I have 26 archer companies.

Now I am not saying I want realism per se so much as more tactical options than x goes first thus I win.

[DaemianLucifer]

So heroes of might and magic VI will have the subtitle total war?

[asandir]

to answer your "So?"

they had enough trouble with what they produced this time .... and you propose something like this??

[DaemianLucifer]

to answer your "So?"

they had enough trouble with what they produced this time .... and you propose something like this??

And they did all this just because they thought its fun and wanted to please the fans?Dont stand on the developers side.They do it for money.If they give you moree and better,they will get more money,simple as that.Now if there was a way to make a mod to increase the BF,or anything like that,Id never have the audacity to demand anything from the modder,but would only be gratefull for what he gave me,because he did it for free,in his spare time.

[Jolly Joker]

Actually my suggestion for battlefield rules are designed to impose penalties on a stack the bigger it gets to encourage having more armies with more heroes.
Upping both number of heroes AND battle complexity wouldn't be good, I think. For a game like heroes, that should be managable even for multiplayer, there would have to be at least something like a quick battle mode (which would a battle mode the way it is now with immediate hostilities). Plus, you don't want to spend fifteen turns on the battlefield battling a dozen peasants. The pace of the game is the main thing, and the pace shouldn't be too slow.

[Shauku]

Actually my suggestion for battlefield rules are designed to impose penalties on a stack the bigger it gets to encourage having more armies with more heroes.

Amen. I believe this is what was atleast partially in their mind when they introduced the extremely small battlefield 8x10. That taking the entire army wouldn't always be the optimal choise, because of the battlefield getting cramped and thus reducing the effectiveness of many creatures. The idea behind it was good, but it became obvious that majority felt uncomfortable with it ,me included.

[aulfgar]

Actually my suggestion for battlefield rules are designed to impose penalties on a stack the bigger it gets to encourage having more armies with more heroes.

I really like this idea, as it seems well thought out and reasonable. I don't however like the extra management on the adventure screen of 8 heroes running around with armies, now if I can combine heroes into one overall army and having detachments and reinforcements and vanguards, now that would be fun.

[Aire]

The initiative system will always deny major strategies, as flanking and similar tactics only work if their is a limited response time... so increasing the battlefield size based on that wont work.

However, it would be nice to have more space to deploy at the start of battles, as you can't have many large monsters... It would also allow you to defend ranged casters better, and intercept attacking monsters...

Increasing stack size based on the amount of creatures would be cool, but it would make killing random creatures easy if they were melee with a large stack, as the terrain would probably block them off. There would need to be a limit on size, as the size increase would severely reduce their effectiveness

[winterfate]

Welcome to the forums, Aire!

However, it would be nice to have more space to deploy at the start of battles, as you can't have many large monsters... It would also allow you to defend ranged casters better, and intercept attacking monsters...

Increasing stack size based on the amount of creatures would be cool, but it would make killing random creatures easy if they were melee with a large stack, as the terrain would probably block them off. There would need to be a limit on size, as the size increase would severely reduce their effectiveness

It is a nice concept, but, IMO, it doesn't feel that Heroes of Might and Magic to me.

[aulfgar]

The initiative system will always deny major strategies, as flanking and similar tactics only work if their is a limited response time... so increasing the battlefield size based on that wont work.

However, it would be nice to have more space to deploy at the start of battles, as you can't have many large monsters... It would also allow you to defend ranged casters better, and intercept attacking monsters...

Increasing stack size based on the amount of creatures would be cool, but it would make killing random creatures easy if they were melee with a large stack, as the terrain would probably block them off. There would need to be a limit on size, as the size increase would severely reduce their effectiveness

I am not necessarily advocating an initiative system as it exists now but a more strategic one.

[Gaidal Cain]

The initiative system will always deny major strategies, as flanking and similar tactics only work if their is a limited response time... so increasing the battlefield size based on that wont work.

Err. No. That would be turnbased combat, not initiative, coupled with lack of bonuses for attacking from the flanks/rear.

[Mytical]

I think this is one of those things that players should have a little control over. Have the 'standard' BF a set size, but when starting a map have a slider (that has to be agreed on in MP) that controls battle size (smaller, bigger ect). Then again I think there is a lot of things that should be customizable for replayabilities sake.

[Gaidal Cain]

Dear, no. Not adjustable BF size. Ubival has trouble enough keeping the game balanced with one size...