Heroes on battlefield

[DaemianLucifer]

One simple way of balancing heroes on battlefield would be stack XP.This would also solve the problem of high level creature armies,by making low levels that have been fighting from the very begining extremly strong.

So,TT decided to devour someone in my name?Though he still has a lot to learn.And if you really want to know if hell is fiery hot,or dead cold,why not just ask me?

[chaosgorgon]

Ah, but those points can be fixed.

Of course they can. But i still don't like the ideea of a tactician getting killed. He should be stationed somewhere away from harms way.

then, TT, u can CHOSE if u want ur heroes into or out the battlefield, there is a idea in equilibris forum to use a special spell ,like a santcuary default in each battle only for heroes, to protect heroes to cast spells and if they dont attack, and always is activated when a battle start

[Gaidal Cain]

Actually, the only H4 innovation that's squarely in there are the separate movement and initiative stats in combat. I'd put down the skill system as a new feature, mostly unrelated to earlier games. One can also agrue that the spell learning system is very similar to the H4 one, but from that point on, most of the game justs screams "H3 remake". It's still a fun game, but if it hadn't been for the new skills and combat systems, it wouldn't be brining me many novelties.

[DaemianLucifer]

Yes,the separation of movement was the best improvment in strategy.To bad we have chains again.

[LordHoborgXVII]

One simple way of balancing heroes on battlefield would be stack XP.

Whaaa? First of all, stack XP isn't quite that simple, because if you want to devise a good way to implement it you'll have to deal with the old 'what-if-I-merge-two-stacks' argument. It's a matter that needs to be given a great deal of attention before it is ready to be considered for being put into a game.
Second of all, stack xp does not have much of an effect on balancing heroes on the battlefield. Sure, the low-level stacks will be stronger, but that will just result in them being better at possibly mobbing some heroes, and freshly recruited armies would still be wiped out by high-level heroes. Stack xp just serves to complicate matters in this case.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at there.

[Gaidal Cain]

First of all, stack XP isn't quite that simple, because if you want to devise a good way to implement it you'll have to deal with the old 'what-if-I-merge-two-stacks' argument.

Simple- when two stacks merge, the Xp is redistrubuted. It works well enough for larger armies, even if it would look strange on smaller ones. I can agree with the complexity of the system and the pondering what it has to do with heroes in battle though.

[DaemianLucifer]

Whaaa? First of all, stack XP isn't quite that simple, because if you want to devise a good way to implement it you'll have to deal with the old 'what-if-I-merge-two-stacks' argument. It's a matter that needs to be given a great deal of attention before it is ready to be considered for being put into a game.
Second of all, stack xp does not have much of an effect on balancing heroes on the battlefield. Sure, the low-level stacks will be stronger, but that will just result in them being better at possibly mobbing some heroes, and freshly recruited armies would still be wiped out by high-level heroes. Stack xp just serves to complicate matters in this case.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at there.

Sigh...How many times do I have to explain?The simplest wayto implement stack XP is to add 1% on every stat of a creature for every level.And for merging stacks,just use the middle value as the new XP(veterans teach the freshmen how to fight).After this,you could consider adding some special feature for different levels.This is the only thing that needs balancing,and its not more complicated that balancing upgrades.

[ThunderTitan]

Hmm... I would actualy prefer not having stack XP or upgrades. I never really like the fact that you had to research certain abilities in a RTS!

But I agree, there's nothing that can't be balaced about stack XP.

[LordHoborgXVII]

Sigh...How many times do I have to explain?The simplest wayto implement stack XP is to add 1% on every stat of a creature for every level.And for merging stacks,just use the middle value as the new XP(veterans teach the freshmen how to fight).After this,you could consider adding some special feature for different levels.This is the only thing that needs balancing,and its not more complicated that balancing upgrades.

Stack XP has little nothing to do with heroes on the battlefield, so I'm still attempting to figure out why you're discussing it in such detail. Oh, but this is an interesing topic. Certainly I have to agree that redistributing stack xp for merged stacks is the best solution to the problem (but don't use the middle value. Take the total xp of both stacks, then distribute it to each unit again. 30 zombies with 50 xp each + 20 zombies with 10 xp each will result in 50 zombies with 34 xp each) I'm not sure if the 1% on every stat is very good though. You'd have to define what the levels are, and possibly make different level cutoffs for different creatures, if the one-fits-all rule proves to be unbalanced. And you'd have to name the 'levels' something different, so as to not confuse them with the Creature Levels. Call them 'ranks' or something. Special Features? Why yes these are very important. Of course you'd have to decide which creatures get what special features and at what levels, which adds still more planning and work of that sort. In short: no, Stack XP is not simpler than balancing upgrades. It requires more work to get it balanced, and is more difficult to test because it is difficult to simulate. Something that requires a lot of gametime to acheive, such as stacks with high xp, take a long time to test, and even then you wouldn't be certain if all end-game battles would work out as they should. Maybe those 10 veteran pikemen could kill a decent-level hero in one blow (it's not off topic!)? Balancing stack xp is more difficult than upgrades. We should in fact continue this discussion in a more appropriate thread, however.

[DaemianLucifer]

Certainly I have to agree that redistributing stack xp for merged stacks is the best solution to the problem (but don't use the middle value. Take the total xp of both stacks, then distribute it to each unit again. 30 zombies with 50 xp each + 20 zombies with 10 xp each will result in 50 zombies with 34 xp each)

Thats arithmetic middle,and thats exactly what I meant.

Stack XP has little nothing to do with heroes on the battlefield, so I'm still attempting to figure out why you're discussing it in such detail.

Well it does have.Since if you have stack XP,then heroes on battlefield wouldnt be so ubalanced like they are now.Take WoG for example.The balance there was nicely done,although it does need some more work on it.And you could use the commanders from WoG as heroes from HIV(thats also why what they were made to resamble).And yes,they should be called ranks instead of levels(also a name used in WoG).