What HoMM Needs

[Kristo]

If both sides are playing well, then the total levels of the three heroes will be about the same as the level of the superhero. And if the game is well-balanced, this should be a reasonably fair fight. But I think your point was that the group of heroes should have the advantage, making it a dominant strategy. I still think this is actually less fun overall because it takes mental effort to keep multiple heroes close together on the adventure map so they can fight together. That effort outweighs the fun factor of having two or three different armies fighting side by side in battle.

I rarely play with buddy heroes in H2 or H3 because it's annoying. I'm sure I could be more optimal with my moves if I used them, but it wouldn't be as much fun. I really can't see myself enjoying a game where that was the dominant strategy.

[parcaleste]

Problem is the SuperHero will most like wipe them from the map in a blink of an eye. Remember he is most likely having all of his army with him, why the others are separated.

[Torur]

Problem is the SuperHero will most like wipe them from the map in a blink of an eye. Remember he is most likely having all of his army with him, why the others are separated.

Yeah, but we are talking about AoW style battles. Meaning all 3 heroes would be fighting simultaniously, and having 3 lower lvl heroes fighting 1 higher lvl hero, should balance the Leadership points advantage the higher lvl hero has.

[mr.hackcrag]

Kristo, keeping your armies together all the time may be an obvious strategy, but it may not be the dominant one, especially on larger maps or maps with a lot of opponents where mobility is emphasized.

Also, some armies can't move at the same speed as others, so keeping them together may require sacrficing movement points or managing armies to give them harmony in their movement points. But I know you don't really like that.

Building one super hero would still be a legit strategy. There are tradeoffs between each style of play.

[ThunderTitan]

The point with this system is that you won't be able to have just one main hero. You'll have to buff up the rest aswell.

Which mean that the other guy would also have more then 1 hero, and if he was higher level in one he'll have both more troops and a better hero...

And it will still be pretty advantageous to have one hero that is higher level on account of the fact that XP is limited and you can either have 1 hero at level 30 or three at level 10... and that's a pretty big difference, unless each level only slightly increases it's power, which is unlikely seeing how each level = more creatures, more spells, more mana etc...

Say if a "Super hero" attacks. Which would be better. One High level hero against 3 mid level heroes? He might out do them 1v1 both in unit numbers and spells. But when 3 heroes are casting and commanding you are just out gunned.

Well that obviously depends on hard numbers about balance... so we can't really tell.

But if the superhero is easily taken down by 3 low level heroes then it's clear that the best strategy is to always have a pack of heroes travel together to attack...

And btw, how would defending work, when in a turn based game the attacker is the one doing all the moving, so he could just pick off your heroes one by one, unless you always keep them next to each other...

.....

And this will change Heroes way too much, even if you would make it work (my point above is that it's actually way harder to balance it, and they can't even make it work like it is now), it would be a whole other game, and i'd rather they just make a new series for that...

[mr.hackcrag]

Which mean that the other guy would also have more then 1 hero, and if he was higher level in one he'll have both more troops and a better hero...

I think you over-estimate this. Most maps don't have perfect balance where every player gets the same amount of mines, gazebos, etc, so some dude (or dudette) will usually have some advantage in gold/armies/hero level or whatever. There is a strategy aspect so you have to utilize what you've got whether it's an advantage or disadvantage. It's hard to believe that adding the adjacent attack rule alone (or even with the leadership idea) would immediately break the game.

And it will still be pretty advantageous to have one hero that is higher level on account of the fact that XP is limited and you can either have 1 hero at level 30 or three at level 10... and that's a pretty big difference, unless each level only slightly increases it's power, which is unlikely seeing how each level = more creatures, more spells, more mana etc...

That's not right. There is a huge difference in experience needed to gain levels once you hit the 15-20 Level range (much less 30).

But if the superhero is easily taken down by 3 low level heroes then it's clear that the best strategy is to always have a pack of heroes travel together to attack...

It should be an even fight, like Kristo said.

And btw, how would defending work, when in a turn based game the attacker is the one doing all the moving, so he could just pick off your heroes one by one, unless you always keep them next to each other...

It works the same way as attacking whether you use simultaneous or turn based rules.

And this will change Heroes way too much...i'd rather they just make a new series for that...

I understand. Btw, are you for or against stacks?

[Torur]

And this will change Heroes way too much, even if you would make it work (my point above is that it's actually way harder to balance it, and they can't even make it work like it is now), it would be a whole other game, and i'd rather they just make a new series for that...

I see your point in that and I know it would be hard to balance, if possible at all. But with this you might also see more smaller battles on the map, as one might be forced to spread ones troops to cover more ground, as more heroes with a sizeable force would alost be running around. And playing cat and mouse with a superhero or pack of heroes might not be a viabel strategy. Since a hero would attack you mines in the west and you move your superheropack to defend, two enter from the east. What now?

Would you chase to the east or the west or would you splitt up. Anyways, my point is there are always ways to counter a superhero.

ThunderTitan wrote:
And it will still be pretty advantageous to have one hero that is higher level on account of the fact that XP is limited and you can either have 1 hero at level 30 or three at level 10... and that's a pretty big difference, unless each level only slightly increases it's power, which is unlikely seeing how each level = more creatures, more spells, more mana etc...

That's not right. There is a huge difference in experience needed to gain levels once you hit the 15-20 Level range (much less 30).

And I'd have to agree here. The amount of exp required to lvl up, increase exponentially, so a lvl 30 hero doesent transfer to 3 heroes on lvl 10.

[Kristo]

Torur, you're describing almost exactly my experience with some of the more open free-for-all maps from H2 and H3. You can't close off any one region completely, so you're always fending off attacks from multiple directions. You have to find a way to cover more ground than one superhero can cover by himself. And especially in H3, the AI starts to use the superhero strategy, so you have to find a way to deal with it when your own heroes are spread out. It's the kind of edge-of-your-seat fun that makes the Heroes games so replayable. And I didn't have to make a new style of game or change any rules. You just need the right kind of map.

[ThunderTitan]

I think you over-estimate this. Most maps don't have perfect balance where every player gets the same amount of mines, gazebos, etc, so some dude (or dudette) will usually have some advantage in gold/armies/hero level or whatever. There is a strategy aspect so you have to utilize what you've got whether it's an advantage or disadvantage. It's hard to believe that adding the adjacent attack rule alone (or even with the leadership idea) would immediately break the game.

Actually that's my point, they can't even get it right now... let lone with more possibilities for imbalance...

That's not right. There is a huge difference in experience needed to gain levels once you hit the 15-20 Level range (much less 30).

Yeah, but the example is easier to grasp if i simplify it so...

It should be an even fight, like Kristo said.

Good luck with that...

_____________

And combining the previous two, how would you balance 3 vs 1 hero when obviously the combined levels of the 3 heroes would be higher then of the superhero because the XP needed after lvl 15 is higher then the one to get to lvl 5...

It works the same way as attacking whether you use simultaneous or turn based rules.

Except that if it's tun based like Heroes is now the defender can't move his heroes... and you'd have to do something to change that etc...

I understand. Btw, are you for or against stacks?

You should be able to tell already based on my opinion about changing the game too radically... (Disciples 3 is a great example of why that's bad -ignoring the bugs etc, it just feel like a different game-).

[mr.hackcrag]

Actually that's my point, they can't even get it right now... let lone with more possibilities for imbalance...

Do you mean that the maps need balance or the units or just everything about homm? I'm fine with map imbalance, but the other stuff should be taken care of.

And combining the previous two, how would you balance 3 vs 1 hero when obviously the combined levels of the 3 heroes would be higher then of the superhero because the XP needed after lvl 15 is higher then the one to get to lvl 5...

For example, a super hero would have significantly stronger units because of att/def, access to ultimate ability, more and stronger spells (assuming we're talking about H6 style), where as multi heroes would have more frequent casts, highly unlikely to be able to get ultimate abilities, might be able to outnumber opponent, more opportunities to combo stuff...

But it's not all about levels, there are artifacts (usually better for super heroes), armies, resources, etc. If the core of the game was balance before adjacent attack, adding adjacent attack shouldn't really throw a wrench in the whole thing.

Except that if it's tun based like Heroes is now the defender can't move his heroes... and you'd have to do something to change that etc...

Of course you can move. When you see some Necro heroes off in the distance, each with legions of skeletons, while you only have one peasant, do not end your turn within what you suspect is their movement range.

You should be able to tell already based on my opinion...

Stacks are fine, but you shouldn't be allowed to split units because that brings a lot more kinds of exploits to the game than practical applications. I can't remember if they changed the counter system in H6, but it's another thing that should have been high on the priority list...

[ThunderTitan]

Do you mean that the maps need balance or the units or just everything about homm? I'm fine with map imbalance, but the other stuff should be taken care of.

You tell me... (can a pure might hero take on 3500 Nagas?)...

For example, a super hero would have significantly stronger units because of att/def, access to ultimate ability, more and stronger spells (assuming we're talking about H6 style), where as multi heroes would have more frequent casts, highly unlikely to be able to get ultimate abilities, might be able to outnumber opponent, more opportunities to combo stuff...

But it's not all about levels, there are artifacts (usually better for super heroes), armies, resources, etc. If the core of the game was balance before adjacent attack, adding adjacent attack shouldn't really throw a wrench in the whole thing.

Sure, in theory you might succeed, but in practice it will make it way harder...

Of course you can move. When you see some Necro heroes off in the distance, each with legions of skeletons, while you only have one peasant, do not end your turn within what you suspect is their movement range.

I see you recognized the issue yourself there...

And there's also the fact that splitting up your heroes would mean making them not have a chance against multiple assailants or a superhero... so there's no real gain in possible strategies... except maybe at the start of the game...

________________

And, there's still the issue that all those changes would turn the game into something else, and i'd rather they just make a new series instead...

[mr.hackcrag]

what you suspect is their movement range.

Yeah, that's another thing they should have made more apparent in H6 too.

[Torur]

And, there's still the issue that all those changes would turn the game into something else, and i'd rather they just make a new series instead...

I get you there. And I would say as long as you can stack your units, this change would be to hard to implement well balanced, and the change would be more than I'd personally would liked, as I like the classic HoMM back and forth as it is now. Frustrating at times, but when you outmanouver your enemy it is just so satisfying.

[ThunderTitan]

Well Heroes 4 did prove that you can change a lot of the details while keeping the game basics the same (and i'm not talking heroes on BF, but the lack of Atk/Def stats etc)...


The problem is that what you guys are suggesting is taking mechanics from what it basically another genre within the TBS umbrella, and having HoMM meet it half way, effectively changing the games genre (or sub-genre if you will).


I'd rather see people adapting other ideas to Heroes then trying to adapt Heroes to those ideas...

[jeff]

I'd rather see people adapting other ideas to Heroes then trying to adapt Heroes to those ideas...

You're right and hopefully someone at UBI will decide to follow that advice. I know that may be hoping for too much.

[mr.hackcrag]

I'd rather see people adapting other ideas to Heroes then trying to adapt Heroes to those ideas...

I think you mean you'd rather see people revitalizing homm based ideas to homm? The way it reads is like you want other ideas (like adjacent attack) to be adapted to homm...

You tell me... (can a pure might hero take on 3500 Nagas?)...

What crazy maps do you play? 8

[ThunderTitan]

The way it reads is like you want other ideas (like adjacent attack) to be adapted to homm...

Yeah, the problem is that you can't do it in some cases, like the adjacent attack, it would require changing the basic game mechanics or changing the idea until it becomes something else (ike H4's multiple hero armies)...

What crazy maps do you play? 8

Someone's not been paying attention to the screenshot section: https://www.celestialheavens.com/show_b ... php?id=555

[mr.hackcrag]

Yeah, the problem is that you can't do it in some cases, like the adjacent attack, it would require changing the basic game mechanics or changing the idea until it becomes something else (ike H4's multiple hero armies)...

Well, I wish they kept H4 combat mechanics like sim. attack and range limitiations in H6. Maybe some combat mechanics from other games, such as a minor movement penalty when disengaging a enemy unit or a free attack on disengage (<-- probably too much) would be good too...

Someone's not been paying attention to the screenshot section: https://www.celestialheavens.com/show_b ... php?id=555

Oh, I can't stand those huge maps where you can expect to build a level 99 hero with 9999 of every L7 unit and all ultimate artifacts. I think those are the worst kinds of maps. It's not what I was thinking about when I was talking about map imbalance.

[ThunderTitan]

And that's one of AB's actual campaigns...

[Rymbeld]

What I think would be cool would be the ability to have subordinate commanders--more than one hero, essentially--in an army. You might have one main army marching along, with two or three smaller armies scouting along, flagging mines and such, but when you need to, you can unify all the armies.

Of course, we can already do this, dumping the troops off, but then we are left with heroes having no troops. Why can't we just create armies with command heirarchies? That would be neat.