HoMM is disappointing

[Banedon]

@Pitsu - there's already autocombat. Problem is more often than not autocombat gives you slightly unsatisfactory results.

Exactly on the reason you posted quickcombat is only useful when map culmination is over and you need to do some final cleaning. To speed up MP, quickcombat either has to give so good results which even expert players cannot achieve or be forced. The latter would mean that there is an option to select which causes all PvE battles to be fought by quickcombat and not give you a possibility to play them manually. HoMM multiplayer would become more similar to Warlords game and tactical skills are needed only in PvP battles, but time consumption would drop significantly and all other parts beside PvE battles would still be there.

I vaguely remember seeing the "force quick combat" option in H6, but I don't know for sure. The only problem I have with that scenario is that since you don't have control over how well the AI plays, you should be able to see what the results would be before attacking the stack - and in fact preferably before even walking to the stack. Which opens a whole new can of worms ...

@jeff, I agree, but asking the developers to do things that we can't imagine doing ourselves isn't exactly fair is it?

And rushing is fun and all but it's also generally ineffective. It'll probably be even worse in H6 since you can just stay in the castle and still hold all the mines ...

[ThunderTitan]

I vaguely remember seeing the "force quick combat" option in H6, but I don't know for sure. The only problem I have with that scenario is that since you don't have control over how well the AI plays, you should be able to see what the results would be before attacking the stack - and in fact preferably before even walking to the stack. Which opens a whole new can of worms ...

H6 has a nice replay button after auto-combat.

[jeff]

@jeff, I agree, but asking the developers to do things that we can't imagine doing ourselves isn't exactly fair is it?

Well yes it is; that is why they are in the business. To create new things that will grab/keep the player's interest. Unfortunately most gaming companies have forgotten this and now use the easier path of just tweaking what they have and they create sequels that are barely different. In the case of H-V they went back to H-III as I said great in its day, but that day was long past. To some degree it’s understandable to not be too innovative; you risk financial failure if your new idea is hated. However for me that is why HoMM games now feel ‘so I’ve already done this and I don’t want to do it anymore.’ With H-IV when I grew bored with the gameplay the editor allowed me to continue my interest by creating campaigns. H-V failed horribly with its editor and there is no assurance that H-VI will even have a campaign editor, and as I have not seen the map editor I can’t judge whether I could use it or not. Without a campaign function it wouldn’t matter. Am I becoming bitter over all of this, sadly yes and I hate that. I may represent a very small part of the gaming community, but I am left feeling that UBI has no interest in creating something I wish to participate in. As I mentioned earlier from an economic perspective they may be on the right path, but it doesn’t mean I don’t think it sucks.

@TT I now see what you meant and agree with what you said.

[mr.hackcrag]

The only problem I have with that scenario is that since you don't have control over how well the AI plays...

Judging soley by the youtube videos, the combat AI seems to play like an incompetent sack of crap.

And rushing is fun and all but it's also generally ineffective. It'll probably be even worse in H6 since you can just stay in the castle and still hold all the mines ...

It seems that way. Also, looking at youtube videos, there are people who go ape-$hit over things like losing one hell hound, and if they weren't making a youtube video, they probably would have loaded their game and re-fought until they had zero losses.

I get the feeling that a lot of people have that kind of mentality and it would be hard to imagine that kind of player playing a rush game which usually carries a lot of loss/risk to win.

However, it definitely has a different feeling than how homm is usually played and might be nice if the game encouraged other kinds of play styles.

[Rymbeld]

Well, I must be in the minority, because for me, the HOMM games have never gotten old for me. I don't play them non-stop, but I always come back to them. I played RoE and player-made maps for years, never even getting the h3 expansions for a long time.

For me it's just, a new map = a new situation to explore. I do understand how the games can get boring, but that's when I set the game aside for a while. But I always come back.

[Pitsu]

The only problem I have with that scenario is that since you don't have control over how well the AI plays, you should be able to see what the results would be before attacking the stack - and in fact preferably before even walking to the stack. Which opens a whole new can of worms ...

No, it does not depend on how AI fights as in quickcombat there is no actual fight. It should be pure math. H6 has some kind of threat levels indicating how difficult an enemy is, right? Quickcombat is exactly that. Outcome is for example a certain % casualties to every stack per each threat level. Anyone who bothers or is experienced player can estimate the results fairly well without need for additional tooltips. There may be a random factor too, but not a major contributor to the outcome.

[jeff]

Well, I must be in the minority, because for me, the HOMM games have never gotten old for me.

I doubt you are in the minority, and bored may have been too strong a term, most of us, including me, come back from time to time to play our favorite edition.

[hatsforclowns]

"Too much of anything is good for nothing."

[ThunderTitan]

Outcome is for example a certain % casualties to every stack per each threat level. Anyone who bothers or is experienced player can estimate the results fairly well without need for additional tooltips. There may be a random factor too, but not a major contributor to the outcome.

the autocombat can be pure math and still play out like a real fight, % casualties to every stack or anything... it just needs to skip the graphics and the processor should have little trouble with it...

[Pitsu]

the autocombat can be pure math and still play out like a real fight, % casualties to every stack or anything... it just needs to skip the graphics and the processor should have little trouble with it...

Autocombat is always played out like a real fight. If you meant that quickcombat can be done in the same way, then due to randomness in damage range, morale, obstacles etc. the outcome of such quickcombat is much harder to predict than from a math equation.

[ThunderTitan]

Wow, you actually think the graphics have anything to do with the dmg range and morale?! Those are pure math, easy to do... because that's already how they're done. Computers can't do random, they just fake it with math...

The obstacles are the only thing that might be dependant on the graphics rendering, but you can easily include them if you want... in the end everything a computer does it math... 1 and 0...

[Pitsu]

Meh? What i said was that in HoMM so far (dunno about H5 though) all battles and power comparisons, which do not trigger the battle screen are done by comparing "fight values" or whatever you call these hidden stats. It is a single number per creature and all the randomness of real battle and creature stats do not kick in. From what i understand you suggested that quickcombat could actually go through a battle, just not showing it on screen. Compared to fight value calculation, such approach would give less predictable results.

[MattII]

What if, as well as the main players, each and every town were to act like a player hiring heroes, recruiting troops, capturing mines, etc., but the heroes in such towns didn't step beyond their zone of control? What if, as well as having to deal with fixed troops of neutrals, you could get ambushed by hidden neutral troops? What if not all the mines were built, but instead you had to build some of them yourself?

[Avonu]

What if, as well as having to deal with fixed troops of neutrals, you could get ambushed by hidden neutral troops? What if not all the mines were built, but instead you had to build some of them yourself?

Go play HIV?
It is funny, how one of the weakest games in HoMM series is turning to one with the most brilliant ideas (however, much of which were poorly introduced and it's the reason why HIV is so bad at the end).
How bad HIV is (or not for someones) I miss many of its features.

[MattII]

It is funny, how one of the weakest games in HoMM series is turning to one with the most brilliant ideas (however, much of which were poorly introduced and it's the reason why HIV is so bad at the end).

IMO that's half of what killed it, too much innovation (the other half of course being the absolutely godawful balance).

[jeff]

IMO that's half of what killed it, too much innovation (the other half of course being the absolutely godawful balance).

I agree with you on the balance, but on innovation, we could not disagree more. That innovation in H-IV and the lack of those innovations in H-V and probably H-VI have killed my interest in those games. H-IV's innovations reenergized my interest in heroes, and meant that I would never play H-III and its clones again. Though I did try H-V and HOF, I could not bring myself to play Tribes even though my daughters were willing to buy it for me.

[Banedon]

H4 wasn't balanced that badly; Death was the only overpowered faction. I think innovation in H4 resulted in a different but not necessarily better or worse game. The real plus point though was that you could use an army consisting of just heroes and still stomp your way through the campaigns, making this a lot less stressful. Lol. Maybe I'm just lazy.

I only just discovered that in H6 MP games you can force quick combat for all players. Well and good, bar one thing. The quick combat AI gives you more losses than is necessary. I fought several battles where I lost a few Ghouls and Sceptres by quick combat, yet once I took the reins myself I lost nothing. Although such quick combat will speed up multiplayer games, I don't know if it's worth it.

Bit sad I don't have any more suggestions to offer

[Humakt]

HoMM games tend to offer some of the greatest variances to gameplay around. There are countless different battle setups and limitless scenarios. It only gets repetitive if you let it be so. Take a break, play different maps, or make maps yourself.

Only one big fight? Only if map is duel and/or designed that way. Most (official) duel maps tend to be.

(the other half of course being the absolutely godawful balance).

Lets not forget that beloved HoMM3 also had terrible balance with lots of over- and under-powered stuff.

[Kristo]

Mandating quick combat levels the playing field a bit by removing tactical skill as a variable. Players will have to focus more on the high level strategy and be able to deal with the inevitable losses. Ideally, all players should face the same attrition rate since it's the same AI fighting all battles.

As a side note, if H6 allows you to watch a replay of quick combat, players could provide feedback on how to improve the AI's combat abilities.

[MattII]

The real plus point though was that you could use an army consisting of just heroes and still stomp your way through the campaigns, making this a lot less stressful. Lol. Maybe I'm just lazy.

I think most people considered this as an issue of bad balance.

Lets not forget that beloved HoMM3 also had terrible balance with lots of over- and under-powered stuff.

Yeah, but at least it was just the factions that were unbalanced, not the whole concept of the game (the way heroes were done on the field in H4 was unbalanced in favour of them).