Heroes IV RPG Maps/Campaigns

[wimfrits]

Other AI army options could be:
- adding (and removing upon defeat) artifacts with special bonuses (regeneration, xx ward, freeze, etc)
- play around with combinations of creatures and special creatures at different times. Like a reinforcement of xxx goblin knights in week 8 and xxx champions and death knights in week 11
- set AI heroes entering the map at a specific time
- making AI more aggressive in advancing towards the player
- ..

Map options with timers to enhance tension, exciting quests, secret areas, interesting story twists, challenging player-only parts of the map, etc. can compensate for the less interesting battle against the AI.

But most importantly, stat increases in campaign maps should be very very very carefully managed! In the campaigns I've played, this seems to be a point that does not receive as much attention as it needs if the mapmaker wants to keep challenge at a reasonable level.

Still, creating a campaign that remains challenging towards the end is very hard.

[RobB]

Thanks for the tips; I hope there will be more.

I am sure we all agree about the AI - I used to love it in H3 when the computer player cast Blind on one of my stacks then promptly attacked it and removed the spell, or the way in H4 that it will send shooters who have been causing heavy damage into a melee attack for no good reason. Mind you, I still use the auto-fight option myself when I am sure of winning, but of course never when attacking or defending a town.

I wasn't quite sure what Wimfrits meant about stats - did you mean limiting the level heroes may attain in each scenario? The more I have played around with high level heroes, the more convinced I have become that Combat and Tactics are the key to winning, since the highest level spellcaster can be wiped out in one round before they have a chance to use an Immortality Potion. Since I prefer the magic side, I find this a bit disappointing.

[wimfrits]

Stats: speed, attack, defense, spellpoints.

I agree that the combat tree (except for archery) is key for a strong campaign hero, but if you look at most campaign heroes in the last map, you'll find that the stat increase by the combat tree constitutes far less than half of the total amount of stat points.

Imo a mapmaker should keep careful notes on the effects of the stat increasing buildings present, including in-town buildings (e.g. 1 uncustomized Stronghold town already provides 6 stat points) and single hero boosts (ruby, sapphire, etc).
Defense is the most important stat to manage imo, as it is the primary factor impacting difficulty of combat.
Offense has more effect on the duration of combat than on difficulty.
Speed ofcourse influences strategic level of combat. Speed has a threshold above which creature speed becomes irrelevant compared to hero speed. Without monitoring speed level, it is impossible for a mapmaker to set AI hero speed properly. In most maps, you'll find that speed in later maps has become a non-factor.
Spellpoints pretty soon becomes a non-factor if it is increased much (unless it concerns a map with few wells and towns with mage guilds etc), so basically needs very little boosting.

Note that Equilibris has a different level of balancing. With automatic speed, defense and spellpoint boosts as hero level increases. My personal opinion is that the Equi system does not favor campaigns balancing.

As for Tactics, it could have been important for a campaign hero but I've never played a campaign where hero stats are kept so tight that creatures are required to win. Combat, Pathfinding and 3 Magic trees works bests imo.

[Muszka]

Those who judge other peoples maps should have at least a great map published.

I don't know about that. You have to be a mapmakers to be able to value the amount of work that is done for a map, and perhaps the technical quality of that work.
But as maps are made to be played, ultimately only the player's opinion counts.

The player's opinion counts, and it's needed if it's constructive. But an opinion what only says that it's lame and bad and boring, it's an insult already. The opinion should be: "it's lame because..." "it's lame because...." "it's bad because...". I can't say that I'm a mapmaker, but I helped ByteBandit in a couple of his latest maps and I know that many bitter tears are required in a build of a great map, let alone a great campaign. So correct me if I'm wrong, but rushing here and telling that you've (anyone) made a bad map/campaign is uneducated.

[bot]

Those who judge other peoples maps should have at least a great map published.

I don't know about that. You have to be a mapmakers to be able to value the amount of work that is done for a map, and perhaps the technical quality of that work.
But as maps are made to be played, ultimately only the player's opinion counts.

The player's opinion counts, and it's needed if it's constructive. But an opinion what only says that it's lame and bad and boring, it's an insult already. The opinion should be: "it's lame because..." "it's lame because...." "it's bad because...". I can't say that I'm a mapmaker, but I helped ByteBandit in a couple of his latest maps and I know that many bitter tears are required in a build of a great map, let alone a great campaign. So correct me if I'm wrong, but rushing here and telling that you've (anyone) made a bad map/campaign is uneducated.

Maybe it wasn't fair to say that map was bad, but I said it because I was disappointed, I expected more after such a long break. It looks that campaign was published without a preliminary testing, or the ones that tested the campaign didn't right their job, to tell the author were it is necessary to make some changes. I advise the author to create first a good single map and if it works then he can make more. If Robb hadn't already known, there is a gm life magic spell, divine intervention, that resurrects all dead heroes. It is a really powerful spell. And guardian angel has the same effect as the imortality potion.

[RobB]

To Wimfrits: perhaps I am misunderstanding the effects of Tactics, but my impression is that it gives a boost to speed, not just to overland travel, but also in combat. Having said that, if I am given a hero with only Tactics, I always try to gain and develop Combat as soon as possible - I am addicted to good archers. I have made a note of your other points - I confess I have often despised the crystals - it took me a while before I even realised that the effects were permanent, as I thought they were like the fountains.

To bot: of course I know and use Divine Intervention and Guardian Angel if I have a hero with those spells - just having the resurrection skill is a huge bonus, which I miss if I'm playing something else, but I don't often play Life. All I was saying was that a hero that only has spells can be wiped out right at the beginning of a fight before he/she even has a chance to do anything. Ideally, all my major heroes have Combat and some kind of magic, although this is another reason why I prefer to have 2 heroes in my army.

[Muszka]

@bot
Don't you think that coming out of nowhere and telling to some people that they did a bad job is insulting? I mean have you ever made a map? Had you ever tested a map? If you've done some than OK. Tell us what are the exact problems and how should be solved. And even if you do that you still aren't close to a map-tester's job, let alone a mapmaker's. Don't take it offensively, it's just unjust to rush in with "it's bad", because you were disappointed.
(long break? where? for who?)

[wimfrits]

To Wimfrits: perhaps I am misunderstanding the effects of Tactics, but my impression is that it gives a boost to speed, not just to overland travel, but also in combat.

Only to speed; not to overland travel.
The bottomline with campaign heroes simply is that your most powerful, most durable, most versatile unit in combat is your hero. Creatures may be fun to play with but are not needed.
That is why a campaign hero does not need the tactics-tree.

All that a strong hero needs is high overland travel (GM pathfinding + fast creature stack), high stats and high magic resistance (enhanced by the combat tree) and magic skills.

On lower settings, it does not really matter if your hero has tactics or not. But on higher settings there comes a threshold above which having tactics (and thus lacking 1 other skilltree) decreases your chances of winning in the same way as nobility does.

I am addicted to good archers

This also is a difficulty setting thing as tactics is. Archery will work fine on lower settings. On higher settings it becomes pretty much useless as a difficult combat will easily last 80 rounds, compared to which the 12 rounds of archer shots make little difference.

[RobB]

Wimfrits said: "This also is a difficulty setting thing as tactics is. Archery will work fine on lower settings. On higher settings it becomes pretty much useless as a difficult combat will easily last 80 rounds, compared to which the 12 rounds of archer shots make little difference."

I am sure this is true if you are playing against another human, but in a single player contest, GM archery backed up by a stack of strong shooters like monks or even better, cyclops, can often pick off the most dangerous enemies before they get a chance to move. In a siege, the AI will often, quite inexplicably, move non-shooters into positions where they can be shot at. I don't think I've ever had a battle that went 80 rounds, although I admit I've never counted.

[wimfrits]

I am sure this is true if you are playing against another human, but in a single player contest, GM archery backed up by a stack of strong shooters like monks or even better, cyclops, can often pick off the most dangerous enemies before they get a chance to move.

Archery has its use in single maps (SP or MP); and also in campaigns on lower difficulty settings. If archery works for you, then don't let my comments change your way of playing.

(Note that with 'use' I mean a situation where archery helps turn the tide of combat. So archery does not have a 'use' if a lvl 30 hero fights 10 halflings, even though it helps speed up combat)

But if you want to balance a campaign for all difficulty settings, it is good to know how things work on higher settings. And again, on higher settings you'll find that in a challenging fight the damage archery does is insignificant compared to the total enemy strength.

Simple example: if you can pick off 1% of the enemy with archery before the full enemy army attacks you in melee; it is far more efficient to cast stone skin on your hero.
Another example: if you are fighting a challenging fight against a pure ranged army, then your archery rounds will not be enough to kill the enemy. Simply because otherwise there would not be any real threat to your hero and the fight would not be challenging. So the fight will end in melee one way or the other. In this situation it will be more efficient to either buff/heal your hero to decrease damage taken and wait until the enemy's shots run out or move/teleport to the other side of the field and engage the enemy archers in melee.

On a side note, 95% of any challenging combat will be conducted in close quarters, so melee (that has no round limitations and has far more damage output) will be of much better use than archery.

And note that monks and cyclops decrease your map movement significantly. If you move 25% faster, your enemy army will be 25% weaker at the time you meet it

[Muszka]

The bottomline with campaign heroes simply is that your most powerful, most durable, most versatile unit in combat is your hero. Creatures may be fun to play with but are not needed.
That is why a campaign hero does not need the tactics-tree.

(...)

On lower settings, it does not really matter if your hero has tactics or not. But on higher settings there comes a threshold above which having tactics (and thus lacking 1 other skilltree) decreases your chances of winning in the same way as nobility does.

Not so long ago, I would have agreed this, but after I tested a couple of maps on higher difficulties I saw tactics can be of high use even for a loner hero. Of course it needs another skill like GM Summoning, or M Order, or GM Death, but with one of those you can "turn the tide" to use your words. I know I did it more than once or twice.

I would rather say that using tactics with a loner hero requires some heroes IV experience, but enables a different level of combat

I am addicted to good archers

This also is a difficulty setting thing as tactics is. Archery will work fine on lower settings. On higher settings it becomes pretty much useless as a difficult combat will easily last 80 rounds, compared to which the 12 rounds of archer shots make little difference.

Once I defeated 2000+ leprechauns with medusas and confusion. But this is only one case. Still archery is important I say. Have you ever imagined a combat hero with 500+ ranged attack + bow of the elf king + he's a ninja? Is untouchable. Everything that might reach him will be diminished. I agree that this might not be the best example, but I played many fights where without archery/archers I had no chance.
It's also funny you say that archery cannot turn the tide of a combat when in your own campaign there is specific town defending map (The Frog), and some others where the player needs to defend his town a lot of times and there archery is priceless.

(please consider all the upper lines in a friendly tone )

[wimfrits]

Not so long ago, I would have agreed this, but after I tested a couple of maps on higher difficulties I saw tactics can be of high use even for a loner hero. Of course it needs another skill like GM Summoning, or M Order, or GM Death, but with one of those you can "turn the tide" to use your words. I know I did it more than once or twice.

In some specific cases it can, sure.

But to give a recent example. A L map, 4th in the campaign with 3 campaign heroes starting at lvl 24.
Neutral armies were in the order of 250 champions. I owned the map in 8 days. In 8 days I could have acquired 1 phoenix. Maybe 2. In this setting, tactics is useless.

More specifically, 1 of the 3 campaign heroes had tactics (I thought 1 hero with tactics would be ok). The other 2 heroes could dash through the map effortlessly. The hero with tactics was hampered by the lack of an extra useful skill and had to skip certain fights.

Most campaign maps can be controlled within 1 month. Tactics might come in handy in the end part of such a map, but will hamper progress early on. Unless ofcourse the player starts with a significant army. The problem with this however is that a champion level player starting army should be higher than on lower settings for tactics to be as useful as other skills and this is a dimension of balancing that most mapmakers (including myself) have not dared to enter yet.

As for the combination with other skills you mention: controlling stacks in combat is powerful primarily through the tactical value, not through the damage these stacks produce.

It's also funny you say that archery cannot turn the tide of a combat when in your own campaign there is specific town defending map (The Frog), and some others where the player needs to defend his town a lot of times and there archery is priceless.

Again, this is a difficulty level thing. The argument actually is self-fullfilling: if archery is vital in turning the tide of battle then by definition it is not a difficult battle.

I do agree that in some specific cases archery can turn the tide of battle. Like when facing a strong enemy army with a general with unfortunate defense that can be killed with arrows in 1 or 2 rounds. But in this case I say: there are other ways to achieve the same, so archery is not vital.

[Muszka]

As for the combination with other skills you mention: controlling stacks in combat is powerful primarily through the tactical value, not through the damage these stacks produce.

That's why I said that some time ago I would have agreed you. I use the tactical side of the tactics + summoning. I had many fight lately in which I could not survive without such tactics.

Again, this is a difficulty level thing. The argument actually is self-fullfilling: if archery is vital in turning the tide of battle then by definition it is not a difficult battle.

I do agree that in some specific cases archery can turn the tide of battle. Like when facing a strong enemy army with a general with unfortunate defense that can be killed with arrows in 1 or 2 rounds. But in this case I say: there are other ways to achieve the same, so archery is not vital.

I had many fights where without archery I could not survive. I mean I used up all of my shots, and the fight still wasn't over. Also I needed like 10-20 saves during fight to win. Some of the fights took more than 30 minutes.

All the up mentioned fights were on champion difficulty. But maybe all this is because of my playing style.

[RobB]

I find all of the above quite fascinating, and I am now beginning to see why you stress Pathfinding (an ability I had mainly dismissed in the past). For me, archery was useful when in difficult terrain, where it would take my hero several rounds to reach the enemy while they were picking me off with their arrows. I see now that you want to boost the hero's ability to move in combat.

[wimfrits]

That's why I said that some time ago I would have agreed you. I use the tactical side of the tactics + summoning. I had many fight lately in which I could not survive without such tactics.

I still don't see how tactics is a bigger boon to tactical unit controlling than a third magic skill is a boon to overal combat capability.
Please, give me an example of such a fight you experienced.

Some of the fights took more than 30 minutes.

That's nothing
I remember one battle that took me 6 hours to complete. But that could just as well mean I lack skill

I see now that you want to boost the hero's ability to move in combat.

No.. pathfinding increases map movement speed up to +50%
Like the H3 logistics skill. There is a spell that removes terrain penalties in combat, forgot it's name (terrain walk?)

[Muszka]

That's why I said that some time ago I would have agreed you. I use the tactical side of the tactics + summoning. I had many fight lately in which I could not survive without such tactics.

I still don't see how tactics is a bigger boon to tactical unit controlling than a third magic skill is a boon to overal combat capability.
Please, give me an example of such a fight you experienced.

Oh, come one. I haven't played heroes IV since I tested ByteBandit's campaign TRaFoS. I can't recall any now. So the most you have now is my word

Some of the fights took more than 30 minutes.

That's nothing
I remember one battle that took me 6 hours to complete. But that could just as well mean I lack skill

OK OK. You won. I didn't had 6 hours long fights. My longest ones were around 1,5 hours, but I said 30 minutes, because I had many of those, at least one in every good map on champion difficulty. :p

Now for real, I think all in all it's just playing style. I like archery and Tactics. You prefer a third magic school and good melee fighters. That's why we like HoMM.... because of the diversity

[wimfrits]

Now for real, I think all in all it's just playing style. I like archery and Tactics. You prefer a third magic school and good melee fighters. That's why we like HoMM.... because of the diversity

Actually, that's not why I like HoMM
I get my kick out of strategy games from playing as efficiently as possible. That means the diversity slowly seeps out as I learn what is the most efficient way of playing.

And after all H4 play and champion level balance testing I went through the last years, I think I have a pretty clear view on what combination is most efficient overall for a campaign hero. Which is: combat, scouting (pathfinding), life, nature and either order or death.

That is; in campaigns reasonably balanced for champion level. Of which there are few, unfortunately.

So I will not change my point that tactics and archery can be just as effective as other skills in single maps or campaigns on low difficulty settings (or campaigns that are not tuned enough). But they are not the most effective way of playing and will hamper progress in properly balanced campaigns when played at a high difficulty setting.

Again; if you can provide an example of a situation where tactics or archery saved the day; I'll be happy to change my opinion. But until that time I can't. Sorry

[Muszka]

Sometimes there is more than one optimal path to a goal.

I won't argue you further

[bot]

I remember one battle that took me 6 hours to complete

Do you mind if I ask- just quriosity- which map was that with the 6 hours for a battle. Was it against human or computer? I have to say I've never had the chance to fight against humans, in my family I am the only fan of this game, but I think it is completly different fighting with other people. Every one has a strategy during the game. One of the hardest situations of fighting against the computer I found in "History of struggle against enemies" campaign of Max Engineer - can be found on heroesportal.net- when I had to face two or three 70 level heroes with many -many creatures. One of them had a mind shield, the robe of the guardian and the shackles of war - it was warlord. The other had gm life magic and divine intervention spel, which the computer is able to cast during the combat.(I've never seen computer casting martyr for example). After that battle, which actually were more than one- ran away with town gate spel- I felt not so satisfied, but very tired.

[wimfrits]

Against the computer, don't remember which map/campaign. I do know that one of the ocean battles in the first map of The Hundred Years War by Rakne Fne was a lot of fun and had me on the brink of dying for a large part of combat. During playtest that is, so it might have been altered afterwards.

And I agree that well set up enemy heroes can provide excellent fights!