Battlefield Tactics

[Kalah]

Obstacles conveniently placed, the large Rakshasas cannot pass my protectors, and my shooters are safe.

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/show_b ... php?id=186

[Ethric]

The good old remove obstacle spell would be nice in this game.

[Gaidal Cain]

Obstacles conveniently placed, the large Rakshasas cannot pass my protectors, and my shooters are safe.

Pfft. Amateur

There is clearly a much better way to use the obstacles on that map.

[Nebs]

Nice setup. I'd go only with archers, liches and only one of other stacks as a block. With a bit of Raise Dead on said block, no casaulities I guess.

[LordErtz]

I mean absolutely no offense when I say this



Why do you even need to block several raks? You could probably take them out before they even got to you.



91 ghosts would take out a stack, the archers would, rinse repeat they wont hit you but maybe one time.

[Kalah]

The Rakshasas have already been hit once, and they are tough. They are also quite fast, and there was no way I was letting those things get near my archers.

I find it a bit silly that such agile (cat-like) creatures aren't able to sneak by, though. Why couldn't they make the large creatures large like in Heroes 3 - occupying two (horisontal) squares rather than four? That way you would need to physically block every square to stop them.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Perhaps they made them four because you can quickly cross the battlefield. Making large creatures 4 makes the shooters more survivable since it is easier to block access to them.

[Gaidal Cain]

I find it a bit silly that such agile (cat-like) creatures aren't able to sneak by, though. Why couldn't they make the large creatures large like in Heroes 3 - occupying two (horisontal) squares rather than four? That way you would need to physically block every square to stop them.

Because it's much easier to work with symmetrical shapes. You're always sure that they will have enough space to turn and attack stuff.

[soupnazii]

might i ask, GC, in what way you would have used the obstacles?

[Shad0WeN]

Quote: might i ask, GC, in what way you would have used the obstacles?

----------



Looks like if you were to place the shooters behind the fallen log on the left the large creatures would have to walk all the way around the rocks on the upper side and you could block them with only 1 stack. Not only that but by placing them there you have a better chance of the enemy being within range so that there is no distance penalty.
Edited on Fri, Jun 30 2006, 06:10 by Shad0WeN

[Shad0WeN]

Quote: Because it's much easier to work with symmetrical shapes. You're always sure that they will have enough space to turn and attack stuff.

----------



That's understandable, although I think it would have been cool if there was a way to make it work with an additonal creature size, i.e. 2x1. In my opinion a creature like the Hell Charger for example would make more sense being 2x1, and thus would be smaller in size than a very large creature like a Dragon for example, but that may not be all that practical as you pointed out.
Edited on Fri, Jun 30 2006, 06:42 by Shad0WeN

[soupnazii]

@Shdowen

But to get your archers there you would first have to spend a turn or two moving them, by which time the enemy would probably have gotten pretty close anyway.

[Shad0WeN]

Quote: But to get your archers there you would first have to spend a turn or two moving them, by which time the enemy would probably have gotten pretty close anyway.

------------



Now that I think of it you could also leave your shooters in the corner where the archers are in the pic and just setup a blocker to the right of them to block the path behind the rocks.

[Gaidal Cain]

Liches in the corner, Archers next to them, Zombies exposed to the Rakshasa, ghosts ready to strike. You can have a perfect setup without having to move even one of your creatures.

[DaemianLucifer]

Because it's much easier to work with symmetrical shapes. You're always sure that they will have enough space to turn and attack stuff.

That argument would stand if the creatures didnt revert to their original stance after every strike.

But why couldnt they make the BF like in HIV,or similar,with small tiles,with the smallest creature occupying 4 of them?

[Gaidal Cain]

That argument would stand if the creatures didnt revert to their original stance after every strike.

It stands nevertheless. You can't make a 2x1 creature turn in a way that looks OK no matter what it's surrounded by with 3d unless you stend a lot more time on it than what's need for a 2x2 creature.

[DaemianLucifer]

It stands nevertheless. You can't make a 2x1 creature turn in a way that looks OK no matter what it's surrounded by with 3d unless you stend a lot more time on it than what's need for a 2x2 creature.

So?Its still posible,just requires more work.Its same like saying "Heroes need more work,so lets just keep it on chess".

[Gaidal Cain]

Well, I for one would rather see that work spent in other areas. Like giving us a sleep button. Or dialog scenes in campaigns where they don't have to try and distract us by letting the protagonists cast a spell as soon as he says something. Using only symmetrical creatures on the tactical map is a worksaver I'm not going to complain about.

[Shad0WeN]

I kinda wish the battlefield was bigger (would have to adjust creature speeds) and that they brought back the old slow and haste spells as it added another element of strategy, but it's still fun. As far as initiative goes I don't mind the new system but it would be nice if it was more consistent. A lot of times creatures with lower initiative will get their turn before those with higher initiative, which doesn't seem to make any sense.

[ThunderTitan]

They could have spell for both init and movement.