Clarifications from Marzhin (!)

[Angelspit]

In case anyone missed the thread at the Round Table, our very own Marzhin revealed that <a href="/viewtopic.php?t=11281&highlight=">he has been a Ubisoft employee for a year</a>, working as level designer. I had been aware of that exciting opportunity for some time but I couldn't say anything of course. Marzhin also made a few clarifications regarding the demo shown at Gamescon earlier this week. Here are some of the details:

<ul><li>Town screen: there is still a town screen, or more accurately, a town window. Each town still have its own theme music and all. It is a 2D, animated town screen. The Haven town screen was part of the missing elements, that's why it was replaced by a mere screenshot for the demo.

<li>You can see more info about a city on its 3D model on the adventure map (not just its town hall and if it has fortifications). You can learn a lot about your adversary's strategy just by observing how he developed his towns.

<li>There are still mines on the adventure map. You still have to flag them in order to gain resources. The new stuff is now all mines are in the "area of control" of a city or fort. Once you own the fort/city of an area and flagged(?) the mines, the only way to take the mines from you is to capture the city/fort that controls the area.

<li>I know some of you think there are a lot of changes to the classic Heroes formula, and I understand changes can be scary. Truth be told, I reacted the same way at first. I can only advise you to wait until you play it before passing a judgement. I can assure you it still feels and plays like Heroes. It adds some new stuff to the mix, but doesn't try to be revolutionary or turn Heroes into something completely different. However, no, it is not Heroes III redux. And I think it's a good thing.</ul>

I would like to congratulate Marzhin again for this exciting "new" job. He's one of the most knowledgeable and creative Heroes players around, so Ubisoft certainly did the right thing by bringing him in the development team.

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/1282427567

[Kalah]

That third point is actually quite sound. Historically, the one who controlled the local castle, fort or fortified town also controlled the whole area surrounding it. If a king or lord wanted to gain control of an area, he would need to take that fort, not just the area surrounding it.

[vicheron]

The third point isn't really moot. If that's the way it works then it encourages you to send your heroes into your opponent's territory as soon as you can and take those mines before they can. The only way for your opponent to take those mines back would be to take your town, which will be very costly. That means early harassment can give you a big advantage later in the game.

[jeff]

That third point is actually quite sound. Historically, the one who controlled the local castle, fort or fortified town also controlled the whole area surrounding it. If a king or lord wanted to gain control of an area, he would need to take that fort, not just the area surrounding it.

Maybe it will make sense at somepoint, but right now it sounds sucky. If the invading horde has surrounded and cutoff the Fort/Town why should it still control the area. The way I see it, the king has lost control of everything but the fort. Regardless it is early days and again it may make sense later (doubt it!).

However I echo Angelspit's congratulation to Marzhin on his new job. It actually gives me some hope for this game.

[GreatEmerald]

Thinking about it, it would make sense if the player with the town controlled all the mines as long as there is a path to them. If you place a hero near the gates and nobody can get through, then they should lose control of all the mines.

[Ethric]

Or still own them, just not getting anything from them while the mines and/or fort is blockaded.

[GreatEmerald]

Yes, that's what I meant, sorry for poor wording on my part

[ThunderTitan]

That third point is actually quite sound. Historically, the one who controlled the local castle, fort or fortified town also controlled the whole area surrounding it. If a king or lord wanted to gain control of an area, he would need to take that fort, not just the area surrounding it.

You took the fort because otherwise you'd have an enemy force behind your lines... plenty of examples in history where the surrounding area was a lawless stretch inhabited by various pillaging tribes, which was why the fort was there in the first place.

Now having the mines near your castle produce defenders (which you can't remove) the longer they are under your control... now there's an idea.

EDIT: Now that was a bad over-site (see bolded part)

[Marzhin]

Thanks for the kind words guys

[jeff]

Or still own them, just not getting anything from them while the mines and/or fort is blockaded.

That would make sense, however the bigger question in single player games is will the AI even care if it is controlling them or not. Will the AI still builid and buy creatures regardless?

[Kalah]

If that's the way it works then it encourages you to send your heroes into your opponent's territory as soon as you can and take those mines before they can. The only way for your opponent to take those mines back would be to take your town, which will be very costly.

That's not how I read it. Surely the "area of control" will be limited? Running to the other end of the map to flag your opponent's mines should be possible, but these mines should lie withing the area of control of the nearest town, not one located on the other end of the map.

If the invading horde has surrounded and cut off the Fort/Town why should it still control the area. The way I see it, the king has lost control of everything but the fort.

Because simply besieging the fort would not kill off the enemies within. In the middle ages, small forts belonging to local lords etc. were a real nuisance to someone who wanted to control the whole area, because raiding parties could come out from behind the fortifications and wreak havoc. It would be prohibitively expensive to keep troops in the area permanently to stop these raids, since there were many such forts around. A king who wanted to control a whole area therefore needed to take the fort first. And taking the fort required a proper army, since such defensive fortifications were hard to overcome despite their small size. Once the central governments (kings) became powerful enough to effectively defeat all these local forts, they quickly ensured that all such local fortifications were demolished ...

[ThunderTitan]

Nice to see you agree i was right Kalah...

[Shad0WeN]

@jeff



I would have to say probably yes. We all know the AI had to "cheat" in H5 with resource/creature bonuses and such granted to it, largely because it just didn't have the intelligence/strategy of a human player. That's not to say it can't be improved with some good work though. This is one area that just doesn't receive enough attention/development and in a way you can sort of understand why, because it's probably the hardest thing to program.

[astral76minor]

Combining KB AP with HOMM is really the best answer for our beloved game. Just don't forget, we need a LAN mode so that we do not deal with a latent AI. In this way, we can play other human beings instead of a campaign mode which will likely offer autosave and that whole process of repetition. A game is better played when you lose and learn. Oh, the glory of a real battle!!!!

[CloudRiderX]

Its interesting that this is the way they are going to do it, because this is the exact same thing .dat did for Disciples III. I can't say I like it very much.

It takes an important facet out of gameplay, namely the fact that there should be more ways to gain an advantage over your opponents than just building armies faster. If you take attrition out as a viable strategy, then it feels like whats left is just a race.

[ThunderTitan]

<Combining KB AP with HOMM is really the best answer for our beloved game.>

Yes, making it something it is not is always the best answer.

Really, why would you want another KB when you're gonna get a sequel anyway...

[Kalah]

And they are going to get rid of that 3D simulation anyway, right? I always hated that extreme camera rotation thing on the adventure map.

[ThunderTitan]

IMO they should keep the default angle free of any structures that block your view, but optional rotation (maybe off by default in the settings) and better zoom both ways would be welcomed too.

Just have a button to revert you to the default view.

[archcorenth]

My usual strategy in heroes is to race to the enemy and bottle him up in his castle with a secondary hero with lots of troops, while I go around kill neutrals till I hit my level cap. I don't think this will work if the enemy still has resources that can't be taken away. I wonder, will this give the game a more hectic feel? Like Disciples (I and II, haven't played III) where the enemy just pumps heroes at you. Regardless I'm pleased they are trying to make a different game even if there's worry it's in an unwise direction, because otherwise why not just make another expansion to V.

[ThunderTitan]

Because the game needed a better look...

And there is such a think as improvements without changing almost everything...