Heroic: heroes

[Groovy]

This topic was spawned from here.

The topic of spells has touched on the potential usefulness of modelling racial attributes explicitly. I wanted to build on that by suggesting ways in which heroes might be able to benefit from the same, quite apart from any benefits that they might derive from skills, spells and artefacts.

Building on my suggestion (from here) that towns house four levels of creatures, each one from a different race, we can extend the same racial distinction to the heroes that are affiliated with the town.

Taking the human town as an example, the heroes that can be recruited there are either dwarf, human, griffin or angel. They become available for recruitment once creatures from the same race settle in the town. In other words, the town needs to have dwarf dwellings for dwarf heroes to become available for recruitment, griffin dwellings for griffin heroes to be available, and so on. Heroes cannot be recruited from towns that have no creature dwellings; their services must be enlisted from more advanced towns or from adventure map structures.

Each hero can have a skill that is unique to his race. For example, a dwarf hero can have Craftsmanship and be able to perform the functions of an Artefact Forge. A human hero can have Estates and contribute gold to the kingdom. And so on.

Hero specialisation (might vs. magic) can be derived from his race (this suggests that the creature line up for the human town – dwarf, human, griffin, angel – is not optimal as it features only one spell caster (angel)).

Because creatures from different races have different levels in the town, their heroes will become available for recruitment at different stages of the game. We can make heroes from higher-level races more accomplished from the outset. This would make them competitive with heroes from weaker races that the player has already hired and been able to improve.

Army morale can be tied to racial differences between the army and its hero. Units whose race level is higher than that of the hero who is leading them lose morale. Low-level units led by a high-level hero gain it. For example, human units have -1 morale when led by a dwarf hero and +2 when led by an angel hero. (not sure what to do about units being led by heroes from other towns; does a morale penalty suffice?)

The movement of heroes and their armies can be tied to racial attributes. An angel hero leading an army of griffins and angels (and no war machines) can actually fly across the adventure map. A serpent (amphibious) hero leading an army of serpents can move across fresh-water obstacles.

We can also introduce the concept of milestone levels – levels that mark a rite of passage for the hero from an old phase of development to a new one. As heroes reach these levels, they come of age and acquire new abilities:
• Milestone level 1: the hero is formally awarded the title associated with his race (Craftsman, Knight, Necromancer, Plainswalker, etc) and acquires the skill unique to his race.
• Milestone level 2: a bonus to primary attributes of all units of the hero’s race in the hero’s army – attack and defence for might heroes, spell power and knowledge for magic heroes
• Milestone level 3: the ability to upgrade and downgrade all units of the hero’s race in the hero’s army
• Milestone level 4: enables all upgraded units of the hero’s race in the hero’s army to wield all of the abilities that they had prior to being upgraded. For example, Seraphim can cast Bless (Angel spell) and Exorcism (Cherubim spell) in addition to Resurrection (their own spell); Iron Golems acquire the mana channelling and spell cost reduction abilities of Stone Golems; Shades can choose which form – bat (Vampire), wolf (Werewolf) or shadow (Shade) to change into
(I don’t have these well worked out yet)

This is more rambling on my part, but I do think that paying closer attention to racial differences can improve the interaction between heroes and other game objects.

[Panda Tar]

The general idea looks fair. I'd like more in depth when you can provide later, of course.

There's something I'd like to ask though, and perhaps it regards the question from a quote of yours below:

A griffin hero? Not that I wouldn't think it's a different idea, I just assume that some really...really...uniqueness in behaviour...eh, the thing is: griffin was always a beast. How a beast can lead an army? Planing of strategies, spell casting (you said only Angels could do it?). I mean, there are beast that have some intelligence characteristics, such as Dragons - old and wise, even spellcasters. And there's also this: only Angels could cast spells? Hum... That wouldn't do. I think people wouldn't enjoy being forced to start playing with might heroes before being able to enjoy magic ones. If that's not what you've meant, then forget what I'm saying. Since it's just an overview, I'll wait further info on that.

(not sure what to do about units being led by heroes from other towns; does a morale penalty suffice?)

I think it depends on the complexity level you want to acquire with such details. If you're developing an idea of allegiance of races within the same town, you might want to do a global system regarding allegiance amongst all races, perhaps regarding their background story, likeness, goal (good, evil, neutral), where you can have moral penalty but also behaviour problems, like units don't act as your hero commands, but act as if berserked, you see. Just as example.

The movement of heroes and their armies can be tied to racial attributes. An angel hero leading an army of griffins and angels (and no war machines) can actually fly across the adventure map. A serpent (amphibious) hero leading an army of serpents can move across fresh-water obstacles.

Hum...perhaps here you might want to tweak things here and there. It can bring situations where you can take your hero to a unreachable place and never be touched, dunno. In spite of hero abilities and the army, wouldn't the Fly spell (and proficiency evolution) suffice?

Regarding millestones, it seems quite a nice approach. Giving it's a resume of a whole, I cannot really express much of that. But the first thing that comes into my mind are grids of skills IN and BETWEEN those millestone levels, something like FFX's evolution grid. Here, if you don't know what I mean.

Keep it up.

[cjlee]

Just a little note:

you weren't around when 3DO wanted to offer the Artifact Forge back in Heroes III were you? All hell broke loose.

The result was that many feelings were hurt and a permanent divide sprang up between 3DO and the fans.

Blizzard has incorporated Dwarves and their technology well in Warcraft, allowing machines alongside magic and fantasy, but there may still be fans opposed to anything like that in HOMM.

This topic was spawned from here.


Each hero can have a skill that is unique to his race. For example, a dwarf hero can have Craftsmanship and be able to perform the functions of an Artefact Forge. A human hero can have Estates and contribute gold to the kingdom. And so on.

This is more rambling on my part, but I do think that paying closer attention to racial differences can improve the interaction between heroes and other game objects.

[Qurqirish Dragon]

Just a little note:

you weren't around when 3DO wanted to offer the Artifact Forge back in Heroes III were you? All hell broke loose.

I don't think the artifact forge here is the same as the forge town.


@ Panda: Do you mean a really extensive grid, with specific paths (as FFX), more free-flowing grid (FFXII) or a smaller grid (as in Disciples 3)?

[Groovy]

How did I know that you would be the first to respond?

A griffin hero? Not that I wouldn't think it's a different idea, I just assume that some really...really...uniqueness in behaviour...eh, the thing is: griffin was always a beast. How a beast can lead an army?

Hmm... I haven’t considered that. It might be because of the fantasy novel that I’m writing, where the difference is obscured. It doesn’t bother me, but it will be a problem if it bothers fans of the genre.

only Angels could cast spells? Hum... That wouldn't do. I think people wouldn't enjoy being forced to start playing with might heroes before being able to enjoy magic ones.

As far as human town creatures from my design are concerned, only Angels can cast spells; dwarves, humans and griffins are warriors. This translates to their heroes being might heroes – they can cast spells, but are not naturally proficient in this area. I thought of having two factions start with might heroes and the other two with magic heroes, but, as you say, that might not be enough to satisfy the players.

In spite of hero abilities and the army, wouldn't the Fly spell (and proficiency evolution) suffice?

The Fly spell works fine. It’s just that it doesn’t make sense to me that naturally flying heroes who lead naturally flying units cannot fly on the adventure map. To me, this should be default behaviour, unless we have good reason (like balancing) to disallow it.

But the first thing that comes into my mind are grids of skills IN and BETWEEN those millestone levels, something like FFX's evolution grid. Here, if you don't know what I mean.

I still don’t know what you mean, I’m afraid. I have no idea how to read that diagram. I’ve never played the game.

Would it help to point out that the idea behind milestone levels is to introduce hero bonuses that stand apart from skill-based ones? In other words, they are not a part of any skill set that the hero can acquire, but are strictly tied to the hero level.

[Pitsu]

It is already a tradition that my vision about heroes is way different. You probably know that in H1-H2 using barbarian with sorc troops was a godly "strategy". H3 had 18 hero classes in total, which made many of them quite redundant. What really mattered was the specialty, and class was a secondary criteria. If you could hire Hack or Tazar you would often prefer them over native heroes. Hence I would suggest disconnecting hero classes from factions. Let there be dungeon, castle, fairy, roughland etc. towns and barbarian, beastmaster, warlock, wizard, artificier, lord etc heroes. A knight hero could give bonuses to any minded humanoid from any town, and a wizard can study magic in any town. The class specific hero skill(tree) should allow some accommodation to town needs (necromancy perk giving mind resistances to human armies for instance). Probably it is not even possible to balance all heroes equal in every mean, but the odd combinations should be viable as counters for certain strategies. For instance. if your thieves guild reports that enemy is building a mind magic oriented wizard, a necromancer who offers mind resistance to his armies, could be the best hero for a human/angel town. Against other enemies this hero/town combination may be below average. With this system you can have many town/hero combinations, some of which are traditional, but the untraditional ones would allow lot more special strategies/tactics and counters.

[Panda Tar]

How did I know that you would be the first to respond?

I couldn't resist.

I still don’t know what you mean, I’m afraid. I have no idea how to read that diagram. I’ve never played the game.

Ah, the way you read it, from where, you mean, there's not really any importance. Just assuming every Grid level you gained, you could travel to and fro by activating those cells and adjacent cells. It was how you would learn new skills/magick and improve stats/hp/mp.

I was saying that in comparison that every level you would gain, a small diagram would open offering choices to pick. Got it?

In other words, they are not a part of any skill set that the hero can acquire, but are strictly tied to the hero level.

Well, that's a very different point of view from what I thought.

@ Panda: Do you mean a really extensive grid, with specific paths (as FFX), more free-flowing grid (FFXII) or a smaller grid (as in Disciples 3)?

Q.Dragon-san, I don't know Disciples 3 grid *running to look at it * ... ... *running back* ... oh, that in fact looks a lot like FF XII grid as well., but I think it's a bit too small, dunno. It all depends on how complex a hero should become, right?

What Pitsu says seems like a good way to go, imho. How it will look like, it's another matter. But taking from that grid from FFX, I was trying to say that every level you achieved, you would have access to a primary cell (a main Skill or a Spell Level). This cell would give means to activate other 6, for example. But, from these 6, you could have only 3 or 4, because one would be at odds with another, making the player have to choose from one to another. This can be arranged to skills and hero regular bonuses. Each class having their own grid, although some regular bonuses would surely be common amongst all classes.

Complicated?

P.S.: the result would be greater than the H5 skill system, for example, evolving both skill/spell and hero/class statistics and faction/kingdom issues...remember Heroes 2? Wasn't there a ruler at our Castle? Like a steward? One could hire stewards with specific skills to take care of the city. Just a thought.

[MattII]

Could someone explain to me how those Final Fantasy skill systems work, because I can't make heads or tails of the things.

[Groovy]

It is already a tradition that my vision about heroes is way different.

That’s why I like it – it keeps my vision in check.

For instance. if your thieves guild reports that enemy is building a mind magic oriented wizard, a necromancer who offers mind resistance to his armies, could be the best hero for a human/angel town. Against other enemies this hero/town combination may be below average. With this system you can have many town/hero combinations, some of which are traditional, but the untraditional ones would allow lot more special strategies/tactics and counters.

I really like having additional, unconventional options available. On the other hand, it really bugs me that units don’t seem to care who is leading them (from the racial/species point of view). Perhaps the optimal solution would be to combine the two? Perhaps we could introduce skills that enable heroes to familiarise themselves with other races, which would both make them more acceptable to troops from those races, and enable them to lead those troops more effectively?

[Groovy]

I was saying that in comparison that every level you would gain, a small diagram would open offering choices to pick. Got it?

Yup! But as you’ve said, this is not what I was aiming at with milestone levels.

I wasn’t going to start a topic on skills because, unlike spells, they are largely passive and so don’t really make game play more tedious as new ones are added. The only change that follows from my design philosophy is to tie skill development with the hero’s nature and behaviour in the game. For example, don’t allow a hero to master navigation without having actually been on a ship; tie advancement in combat skills to combat experience; only allow living heroes to learn leadership; that kind of thing.

[Qurqirish Dragon]

What Pitsu says seems like a good way to go, imho. How it will look like, it's another matter. But taking from that grid from FFX, I was trying to say that every level you achieved, you would have access to a primary cell (a main Skill or a Spell Level). This cell would give means to activate other 6, for example. But, from these 6, you could have only 3 or 4, because one would be at odds with another, making the player have to choose from one to another. This can be arranged to skills and hero regular bonuses. Each class having their own grid, although some regular bonuses would surely be common amongst all classes.

Actually, using FFX's sphere grid as an example, you could have a grid which has general skills in the middle, might on the left, magic on the right, attack/defense on top, and spell power/knowledge on the bottom, sort of like this:

Code: Select all

         AT  DE
          3   4
MIGHT-1-GENERAL-2-MAGIC
          5   6
         KN  SP

Might heroes start on the grid at 1, with locks at 2,5,6. Magic heroes start at 2 with locks at 1,3,4. Some heroes start elsewhere. For example, a wizard may start on the "magic" side of 2, with locks at 1 and 2- possibly with no way to unlock 1 at all.
Vertically, there would be locks for might heroes part way through the kn/sp area, while magic heroes have one part way through at/de. At the extreme ends of each area would be a key to one of the locks- but you need to waste a skill point to get there.
General skills would be things like adventure map skills and spells (pathfinding, scouting, summon boat) the attribute areas would be +2s or % bonuses to the stats, while +1s would be scattered throughout the general areas.
Might /Magic skills would have the appropriate skills, including larger % bonuses.

This way, where a hero starts on the grid makes it easier to develop a particular set of skills, but anyone, if concentrating on a particular skill, can learn anything. (although a magi class who wants the stronger might skills may find he has to skip all the good magic skills to get the key to unlock the might area- and except in larger maps probably won't get there anyway.)

[Panda Tar]

Could someone explain to me how those Final Fantasy skill systems work, because I can't make heads or tails of the things.

Sent you a PM.

Actually, using FFX's sphere grid as an example, you could have a grid which has general skills in the middle, might on the left, magic on the right, attack/defense on top, and spell power/knowledge on the bottom, sort of like this:

Code: Select all

         AT  DE
          3   4
MIGHT-1-GENERAL-2-MAGIC
          5   6
         KN  SP

Might heroes start on the grid at 1, with locks at 2,5,6. Magic heroes start at 2 with locks at 1,3,4. Some heroes start elsewhere. For example, a wizard may start on the "magic" side of 2, with locks at 1 and 2- possibly with no way to unlock 1 at all.
Vertically, there would be locks for might heroes part way through the kn/sp area, while magic heroes have one part way through at/de. At the extreme ends of each area would be a key to one of the locks- but you need to waste a skill point to get there.
General skills would be things like adventure map skills and spells (pathfinding, scouting, summon boat) the attribute areas would be +2s or % bonuses to the stats, while +1s would be scattered throughout the general areas.
Might /Magic skills would have the appropriate skills, including larger % bonuses.

Sounds interesting. This discussion is making me want to start designing a grid myself. Although the way I was going to put it, was somewhat like this (borrowing your scheme):

Code: Select all

         AT  DE
          3   4
FORMATION-1-BATTLE TACTICS-2-PROVIDENCE
          5   6
         KN  SP

Formation is a Might branch. Providence, a magic one. These two are under the lore of Battle Tactics, once you picked this skill. You can boost, for example, BATTLE TACTICS until it reachs 10. 1 boost will universally boost all numbered attributes and branches, but not as much as if you boost Formation or Providence specifically. By boosting Providence, 5 and 6 may open smaller branches of KN and SP, increasing spell power or SP in different ways than just adding knowledge and Spell Power. Providence also has its own effect: Enables spell casting of some spells over the adventure field in prior to battle, so you enter battle under certain spell casting, perhaps some of those cannot be even dispelled (special cases, of course). This scheme can be very detailed.

This way, where a hero starts on the grid makes it easier to develop a particular set of skills, but anyone, if concentrating on a particular skill, can learn anything. (although a magi class who wants the stronger might skills may find he has to skip all the good magic skills to get the key to unlock the might area- and except in larger maps probably won't get there anyway.)

The only thing I would disagree here is the probabiliity, even scarce, of learning everything that's too opposite to one's nature. Unless there should be Racial grids as well, that once you reached certain levels (maybe even automatically), some skills would be locked forever.

@Groovy

I hope we didn't mess up with your main idea, and I think this:

For example, don’t allow a hero to master navigation without having actually been on a ship; tie advancement in combat skills to combat experience; only allow living heroes to learn leadership; that kind of thing.

is an elegant solution.

[Groovy]

I hope we didn't mess up with your main idea,

Not at all. I didn’t really have a main idea to be messed with. But Qurqirish Dragon’s post has given me one.

We can design a single skill tree that links up all of the skills that exist in the game, and then make it available to heroes to traverse in two different ways:
• Unlocking skills when the hero gains a level
• Learning skills from other heroes, adventure map structures, through quests, etc

When the hero gains a level, he will be given an opportunity to learn new skills based on his race, class, etc. So, for example, a magic hero will never be given an option to learn Artillery. A Human hero will never be given an option to learn Necromancy.

On the adventure map, no such restrictions exist. A hero can master any skill that the adventure map structure, etc, is able to teach him, provided that the prerequisites have been met (prior use of war machines for Artillery; prior visit to an undead town or leadership of undead units for Necromancy).

In this way, every skill will be available for every hero to learn (assuming that no skills contradict each other), but actually doing so will be heavily dependent on map design and the actions that the hero takes during the game.

What do you think?

[Panda Tar]

In this way, every skill will be available for every hero to learn (assuming that no skills contradict each other), but actually doing so will be heavily dependent on map design and the actions that the hero takes during the game.

What do you think?

Well, this comes as a good solution. Important to emphasize the mentioned contradiction, so when you pick a certain race for your hero, some skills would "turn on" by default, which could "turn off" others, or make them harder to obtain.

*****
What do you think of this another idea:
You have a hero and an army. Your army is under your command, although they also protect you. If you make heroes enter the fray, not like Heroes 4 (I enjoyed that feature, though ), but closer.

Example:
The first four lines of the battlefield (4 squares long per whole battlefield wide) are, by default, available to hero for positioning him/herself. Hero can move to and fro within that area and take actions within it. That area may increase as your nearest troops move forward into the battle, so hero have a larger area to move. Hero cannot get in the same line of any unit, only behind the front lines.

Keeping close to own troops may bring better coverage against opposite attacks, such as also increasing Commanding power, showing that you're truly leading the army.

If the hero keeps getting behind the battle, troops may falter due poor interest of their leader, and it also shows opportunity of enemy troops to reach hero and engage battle.

The hero can inflict melee damage over enemy troops that are 4-square away from him/her, and can only be targeted by enemy troops if there are no foes within a 4 square-radius around that hero. Hero ranged attacks can reach like 20 squares. Until it comes a range that a hero can actually attack the opposite hero directly.

When only 1 stack of troops remains on one of the sides, the winning hero will gain a bonus to tactics, being able to move anywhere on the battlefield.

The outcome may be:

• If a hero loses the battle without being killed, he'll flee to the nearest town, as if being an invisible caravan, to be hired again.
• If a hero loses the battle and gets killed, he'll be dead on the adventure map for a week. Allied heroes can take the corpse to be resurrected/reanimated/restored within that period. If hero has resurrection spell, that can be cast on adventure map and revive the hero. Same if hero is mechanic, undead or else with their respective raising abilities or spells.
• If a hero wins the battle, but is killed before the end, his troops will return to the nearest town as being a visible caravan carrying the dead hero back home. Troops fighting without a hero won't respond to commands and will act as they think it's best. They'll get a morale penalty along with all passive abilities the hero was providing them. If a unit has a resurrecting/raising ability, that unit will automatically cast it over the hero.
• If hero is not ressurrected back to action within one week after being killed, he/she won't be available to hire anymore.

This way, it would give a bit more importance to the hero in a battle, plus skills and strategies - and also make the player take care of heroes, rather than only care for creatures. In fact, it's Heroes of Might and Magic and not Creatures of Might and Magic.

[Panda Tar]

A huge evolution grid sounds right up my alley. I still remember playing fan-made HoMM 3 maps that felt positively epic – lasting for days and involving clashes of thousands of level 7 creatures (unlike the campaigns that I’ve played, which were comparatively modest in their sweep). A skill tree that can go the distance with that kind of map would be warmly appreciated.

Let's see this example, unfinished though:

A hero has five main skill grids (they would look like they're layered one over the other, with common relations): FACTION, GOVERNANCE, HEROIC, WARFARE LORE and MAGIC SCHOOL. Each of these groups have some Keyskills that open small grids on their own, and these grids are not padronized, which means that some may be larger than others.

I'll pick the example of a HEROIC keyskill named TRIAL.

Heroic grid is based mostly on the hero only (the idea on the previous post is implemented here, so heroes actually battle a bit as well, but not so involved as they were in Heroes IV). By now, I've only settled four Keyskills in Heroic: Trial, Race, Class and Specialty.

TRIAL

The skills of TRIAL from the HEROIC grid are all those related to a hero's combat abilities and attributes.

• Dueling: giving points to Dueling, the grid for Melee Attack and Ranged Attack will become available. Each of these two subjects can have skill points applied to them in particular giving them a fair boost on their results, although giving points to Dueling have a universal strength upon all of them at once. Melee Attack can have points applied to Damage and/or Critical. Ranged Attack can have points applied to Damage and Range. It would look somewhat like this:

  Code: Select all

            Damage     Critical
                  |              |
                 Melee Attack
                         |
  TRIAL ----- DUELING
                         |
                Ranged Attack
                  |               |
             Damage      Range
  

  The feeding of skill points would work like a Class>Object relation as we see in OO Programming. Strengthening class would cover all objects, although objects could also have their own improvements. To make things more interesting, some skills/attributes could only be unlocked by applying a certain number of skill points on a Keyskill.
• Learning: Practice, Armsmaster, Wisdom.
• Leading: Offense, Defense, Leadership, Faith.
• Discipline: Meditation, Concentration.

These are not fully arranged or decided, but this is the main idea.

Skills could be developed up to 10 levels, as each of their inner grid elements. But given that they are too many and you can have like 275 skill points through only leveling up (you could earn skill points by other means, of course, and some skills would activate if some requirements were achieved, quests were done, etc.), it was really important that skills shouldn't be spent foolishly (275 skill points cover around 25-30% of the total grid so far, and perhaps it'll cover even less in future adjustements, giving a far more unique design for a hero). Also emphasizing that racial attributes or faction chosen would lock/unlock some skills.

What do you think?

[Groovy]

What do you think of this another idea:
You have a hero and an army. Your army is under your command, although they also protect you. If you make heroes enter the fray, not like Heroes 4 (I enjoyed that feature, though ), but closer...

Sorry if I focus on just the parts of your post that interest me the most (for now). I think that your idea of including heroes in the combat arena in the leadership role has the potential for greatness. What would work really well with it is to localise the hero’s effect on the army – give attack and defence bonuses only to the units near the hero, the same with morale bonuses, special abilities, enchantments, the works. This way, manoeuvring the hero across the battlefield becomes really important, and adds a crucial tactical element for the player to master.

[Panda Tar]

Sorry if I focus on just the parts of your post that interest me the most (for now).

You're forgiven.

I think that your idea of including heroes in the combat arena in the leadership role has the potential for greatness. What would work really well with it is to localise the hero’s effect on the army – give attack and defence bonuses only to the units near the hero, the same with morale bonuses, special abilities, enchantments, the works. This way, manoeuvring the hero across the battlefield becomes really important, and adds a crucial tactical element for the player to master.

That's the point! For now, a hero is just a thing that cast a spell and bless a foe (bless because it looks like it's touching the foe, not slashing it down).
For a siege, to conquer the castle, hero should ENTER the castle (specially when it's not protected), not only visit an enemy unguarded castle and simply everyone thinking it's ok for that hero to domain them (they have walls for what?), even when the invading hero has no army. It's so lame.

[Groovy]

For a siege, to conquer the castle, hero should ENTER the castle (specially when it's not protected), not only visit an enemy unguarded castle and simply everyone thinking it's ok for that hero to domain them (they have walls for what?), even when the invading hero has no army. It's so lame.

That should be easy to fix. Perhaps have a permanently manned garrison as soon as defensive walls are built, akin to garrisons defending flagged adventure map structures within the town’s sphere of influence.

Example:
The first four lines of the battlefield (4 squares long per whole battlefield wide) are, by default, available to hero for positioning him/herself. Hero can move to and fro within that area and take actions within it. That area may increase as your nearest troops move forward into the battle, so hero have a larger area to move. Hero cannot get in the same line of any unit, only behind the front lines.

The hero can inflict melee damage over enemy troops that are 4-square away from him/her, and can only be targeted by enemy troops if there are no foes within a 4 square-radius around that hero. Hero ranged attacks can reach like 20 squares. Until it comes a range that a hero can actually attack the opposite hero directly.

I’m curious why you think it’s necessary to restrict the hero’s participation in battle like that. Mind you, I haven’t played HoMM 4 extensively, so I don’t have a good feel for this combat model. (on the bright side, I’ve just purchased HoMM 1-5 complete, so I’ll make up for some lost time. )

If a hero loses the battle without being killed, he'll flee to the nearest town, as if being an invisible caravan, to be hired again.

Why to be hired again instead of just remaining in employment?

If a hero wins the battle, but is killed before the end, his troops will return to the nearest town as being a visible caravan carrying the dead hero back home. Troops fighting without a hero won't respond to commands and will act as they think it's best. They'll get a morale penalty along with all passive abilities the hero was providing them. If a unit has a resurrecting/raising ability, that unit will automatically cast it over the hero.

I’m a bit concerned about this scenario. It can give a weaker defending army an effective means of thwarting an invasion by a stronger army by targeting its hero. I wouldn’t want heroes to end up like those in StarCraft – kept safe in a corner because they are too valuable to lose. For the combat model that you propose to be utilised to its full potential, I think that players must feel safe to throw the hero in the thick of things and support the troops in the front line.

If hero is not ressurrected back to action within one week after being killed, he/she won't be available to hire anymore.

Do you have any concerns about running out of heroes on a large map?

[Panda Tar]

I’m curious why you think it’s necessary to restrict the hero’s participation in battle like that. Mind you, I haven’t played HoMM 4 extensively, so I don’t have a good feel for this combat model. (on the bright side, I’ve just purchased HoMM 1-5 complete, so I’ll make up for some lost time. )

In H4, you could have many heroes in the same party. They were just like another unit, but they had skills, spells, etc, so, when they were strong, they could kill 1-3 black dragons per hit, avoid retaliation, do real ruckus, but not overpowered to completely take the place of stronger units. Before playing H4, I'd HIGHLY advice you to download Equilibris mod. In addition to a broad range of interesting features, it fixes many balancing issues making the game fairer, harder, really better.

I think that the hero should be really involved in the battle. The sort of involvement may vary, but the current situation as we see in H5 and H6 is that hero plays a far distant whole. It seems it's not so linked to the troops. One may disagree with me, but that's how I feel about it. Heroes 4 is the opposite. Heroes are too involved, so I thought finding a point between here and there would appease my feelings about this involvement.

Why to be hired again instead of just remaining in employment?

True. Maybe costing only 1 gold? For honour? Surrendering heroes would return still employed though.

I’m a bit concerned about this scenario. It can give a weaker defending army an effective means of thwarting an invasion by a stronger army by targeting its hero. I wouldn’t want heroes to end up like those in StarCraft – kept safe in a corner because they are too valuable to lose. For the combat model that you propose to be utilised to its full potential, I think that players must feel safe to throw the hero in the thick of things and support the troops in the front line.

Yes, you're right. For this matter, it might be better tweak things a bit. But thwarthing another hero with a weaker army is way more effective if the one leading the small army is a stronger hero. Because if it's not, units may get killed fast and the hero won't be able to lead an attack on the other hero. I thought your post about managing the hero at the backlines, getting closer to troops to improve effectiveness in leadership, quite a good solution for this.

In addition to that, I'd propose that heroes could ask for a duel before or while engaging a battle. How the duel system would work...that must be discussed.

Do you have any concerns about running out of heroes on a large map?

Here, I'd suggest a Mercenary's Guild. If you run out of heroes (which would mostly blame you as a lame player or very unlucky one), you can visit the Mercenary's Guild to hire a Neutral Hero. Neutral heroes would be a non-faction bunch of people with some different skills but with less advantages while leading an army, less synergies with the army. These mercenaries could be really numerous and if they were taken down in battle, would respawn at the Mercenary's Guild, all their evolution lost, as if they were a new hero.

[Groovy]

A huge evolution grid sounds right up my alley. I still remember playing fan-made HoMM 3 maps that felt positively epic – lasting for days and involving clashes of thousands of level 7 creatures (unlike the campaigns that I’ve played, which were comparatively modest in their sweep). A skill tree that can go the distance with that kind of map would be warmly appreciated.

Let's see this example, unfinished though:
...
What do you think?

I like the structure and size of the skill tree that you propose, particularly the hierarchical nature of improvements.

I’m not sure how complete your model is, so here are a few additional suggestions, in case you haven’t considered them:
• What attracts me the most to skill trees is unusual skills; skills that break the mould: “+X of what you already have”. Being able to share the mana pool with the spell casters in one’s army, for example. Or learning how to negotiate for specific skills, spells or shards with wandering monsters. Of course, these skills are highly dependent on the richness of the game itself.
• It makes sense to me to make skills dependent on prior hero actions, as I’ve mentioned before – not being able to master Artillery without having used war machines before, etc.
• I still like milestone levels . They help break the potential monotony of continuous incremental improvement and give the player something exciting to look forward to.