My H5-rant\whine (long post)

[Caradoc]

My, my, this topic has certainly degenerated, hasn't it? Is there a moderator in the house? Or perhaps could we get back to Ethric's thoughtful review?

Well the one helping it stray is a moderator

I was just being snarky.

I agree that Nival missed the boat in choosing to implement only small 1x1 and large 2x2 figures. The size differences are visually jarring. I would think they might have used the intermediate sizes 1x2 and 2x1, which would be more appropriate to the creatures they aim to represent.

A posible,and reasonable explanation would be that if a 2x1 creature was pinned,it couldnt turn to attack.

Maybe, but I've never seen a creature turn to face an opponent. I'd think any creature could attack any adjacent creature.

I also wonder why the large creatures do not take extra damage when they have multiple squares targeted by area spells.

This would make those spells a bit to strong.

They are already strong in that they can attack multiple stacks. For large creatures, you might reduce damage per square to get the right balance.

And finally, I think it was a mistake to disallow the screening of creatures in ranged attack. I would think that an Imp hiding behind an ArchDevil would get some measure of protection.

I agree here completely.Removing LoS was a bad idea.Especially because the BF got simplified.

A return to LOS would give weaker spells like Fist of Wrath (or whatever it is) a purpose.

[Caradoc]

PS: Oblivion deserves all the flaming it can get

A: No it doesn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

[Ethric]

As a duly appointed moderator I command you to cease and desist all such degenerative offtopicness

[DaemianLucifer]

Maybe, but I've never seen a creature turn to face an opponent. I'd think any creature could attack any adjacent creature.

What are you talking about?Whenever they get hit,they face the opponent.

They are already strong in that they can attack multiple stacks. For large creatures, you might reduce damage per square to get the right balance.

I thought about it,but this could overpower the large stacks.

As a duly appointed moderator I command you to cease and desist all such degenerative offtopicness

[Ethric]

A posible,and reasonable explanation would be that if a 2x1 creature was pinned,it couldnt turn to attack.

A believable turn-animation might be have been made for some 2x1 creatures, but probably not all. So yeah, this might not work. But that doesn't tell me that my initial complaint is wrong; it tells me that the use of squares of that size is a bad idea alltogether. With hexagons there was no such problems, with the 6 angles of attack. In H4, with those small squares, it worked out as well, but I think hexagons are the most favourable shape for dividing the battlefield into.

[Gaidal Cain]

With hexagons, It would have been worse. The only symmetrical creature you could have made then would have been 7 hexagons large...

[DaemianLucifer]

Its not the shape,its the size of the grid that matters.Both squares and hexagons can work with small fields.If the smallest unit is 2x2 squares,or 7 hexes large,then there would be no problem in having warious unit sizes.

And aditional animations for 2x1 creatures couldve been made,butthat would require extra work.

[Ethric]

With hexagons, It would have been worse. The only symmetrical creature you could have made then would have been 7 hexagons large...

I was thinking more on the issue of avoiding odd angles. But sure, if the hexagons are small 7 works. Or just the good old creature taking 1 hexagon, a few large ones taking 2 adjacent hexagons.

[Gaidal Cain]

Then you have the same problem as with the 2x1 square creatures. As DL said, it's more about the size of whatever is used.

[Ethric]

I don't follow... what problem?

[Gaidal Cain]

This problem:

A posible,and reasonable explanation would be that if a 2x1 creature was pinned,it couldnt turn to attack.

A believable turn-animation might be have been made for some 2x1 creatures, but probably not all. So yeah, this might not work.

[Ethric]

...ever played HoMM 2 or 3? Plenty of 2x1 creatures, and with the hexagons there are only 6 attack angles as opposed to 8, the creature turning on the spot can "face" the opposing creature from any angle with no "weirdness". It doesn't have to turn off it's position, and getting stuck isn't an issue.

[Bandobras Took]

A small, but hopefully reasonable interjection.

Playing H4, one of things that annoyed the dickens out of me was capturing a town only to find that there were 8 days' worth of incoming caravans to contend with. Not that they were strong, but that they were annoying.

Summon Creatures is good intermediate for troop transport -- instead of getting stronger the more castles you take (as caravans did), it gets weaker. As for getting creatures from external dwellings . . . like I said, I'd rather not have to put up with eight days' worth of piddling creature stacks arriving at the conquered town.

On the other hand, I'm right with you on the flaggable windmills/resource producers.

[DaemianLucifer]

...ever played HoMM 2 or 3? Plenty of 2x1 creatures, and with the hexagons there are only 6 attack angles as opposed to 8, the creature turning on the spot can "face" the opposing creature from any angle with no "weirdness". It doesn't have to turn off it's position, and getting stuck isn't an issue.

Actually its not fasimg the attacker,but the general direction.Im still for small grid tiles.

A small, but hopefully reasonable interjection.

Playing H4, one of things that annoyed the dickens out of me was capturing a town only to find that there were 8 days' worth of incoming caravans to contend with. Not that they were strong, but that they were annoying.

Summon Creatures is good intermediate for troop transport -- instead of getting stronger the more castles you take (as caravans did), it gets weaker. As for getting creatures from external dwellings . . . like I said, I'd rather not have to put up with eight days' worth of piddling creature stacks arriving at the conquered town.

This can easily be avoided by making every creature that arives a slave,thus killing most of the new recruits,and making the rest change ownership to the current town ovner.Only heroes should fight.

[Chorus]

A small, but hopefully reasonable interjection.

Playing H4, one of things that annoyed the dickens out of me was capturing a town only to find that there were 8 days' worth of incoming caravans to contend with. Not that they were strong, but that they were annoying.

Summon Creatures is good intermediate for troop transport -- instead of getting stronger the more castles you take (as caravans did), it gets weaker. As for getting creatures from external dwellings . . . like I said, I'd rather not have to put up with eight days' worth of piddling creature stacks arriving at the conquered town.

This can easily be avoided by making every creature that arives a slave,thus killing most of the new recruits,and making the rest change ownership to the current town ovner.Only heroes should fight.

Not that I have any idea how the Caravan worked specifically, I have a few problems with the Summon Creatures spell:

(1) It requires a fairly powerful magic-oriented hero; however, summon creatures does favor stronger creatures over weaker ones provided the per creature spell cost is the same.

(2) The problem of incompatible creatures arises because the player ends up upgrading his/her original castle (not that I like upgrades anyway).

(3) It prevents certain spell point-related mapmaking gimicks, specifically the 4th map from the Dracon campaign in AB. That map contained no mage guilds and no wells, so the player had to conserve spell points. Believe you me, I spent a lot of that map ferrying troops around, so creature summoning would've been debilitative.

While DaemianLucifer's solution sounds somewhat fun, it seems a little unfair for a player to lose a whole bunch of badly dispatched creatures simply because the destination castle was taken. I mean, money was spent on these creatures, and it shouldn't be wasted for another player's benefit. Also, if a larger army had been sent instead of handfuls, it would make more sense for the player to have to fight it off.

For one thing, a better AI wouldn't send units piecemeal (which isn't really relevant here). Second, it wouldn't be too difficult to automatically reroute the troops to a nearer castle, hero, or elsewhere. Hopefully, it'd make sense given the map. There really isn't an elegant solution here, but generally, magic heroes shouldn't be favored based on poor design and money shouldn't be wasted on creatures.

[Ethric]

Actually its not fasimg the attacker,but the general direction.Im still for small grid tiles.

No, it's not facing any general direction, it is facing it's attacker. That there isn't a specific stance for every one of the angles doesn't make it not so, as there are two stances that are made to represent half the directions each, and the way it works it looks like it's facing it's attacker no matter from what direction the attack comes. And that's the beauty of the hexagons.

As for arriving caravans, it could just be made so that the creatures appear where they "are" on the route to the castle (relative to where they started and the distance between the points), or closest possible point. I for one don't have a problem with loose creatures, though I do think that a penalty to movement and viewrange for heroless creatures might be a good idea.

[Gaidal Cain]

...ever played HoMM 2 or 3? Plenty of 2x1 creatures, and with the hexagons there are only 6 attack angles as opposed to 8, the creature turning on the spot can "face" the opposing creature from any angle with no "weirdness". It doesn't have to turn off it's position, and getting stuck isn't an issue.

Let me straighten this out for you, as it seems your norwegian-ness is shining through more than usual today: Daemian says that there's a problem with irregularly shaped units. You agree, but then goes to say it's a problem with the square board. I point out that it's as much a problem on a hexagon board, at which point you say that there is no problem. I then show you your old message, and you start arguing against yourself.

As for turning: what if the unit stands next to a castle wall? You want it to just place it's back end inside the wall? There was a reason all units in H4 had a round base area.

[DaemianLucifer]

No, it's not facing any general direction, it is facing it's attacker. That there isn't a specific stance for every one of the angles doesn't make it not so, as there are two stances that are made to represent half the directions each, and the way it works it looks like it's facing it's attacker no matter from what direction the attack comes. And that's the beauty of the hexagons.

Hexagons with 2D.In 3D it might look weird.

[Ethric]

Let me straighten this out for you, as it seems your norwegian-ness is shining through more than usual today: Daemian says that there's a problem with irregularly shaped units. You agree, but then goes to say it's a problem with the square board. I point out that it's as much a problem on a hexagon board, at which point you say that there is no problem. I then show you your old message, and you start arguing against yourself.

Go and play a heroes game prior to H4, and note how the creatures taking up 2x1 hexagons turn against their attacker without any problem arising. Then we can discuss this more afterwards.

As for turning: what if the unit stands next to a castle wall? You want it to just place it's back end inside the wall? There was a reason all units in H4 had a round base area.

Why would it place it's back inside the wall when turning? I can't help get the feeling that way are talking about two completely different things here... it wouldn't leave it's original hexes while turning, just rotate in the same place.

Hexagons with 2D.In 3D it might look weird.

It might, and it might not. I daresay it's not impossible to make it look good, if one actualyl put some work into it.

[DaemianLucifer]

Go and play a heroes game prior to H4, and note how the creatures taking up 2x1 hexagons turn against their attacker without any problem arising. Then we can discuss this more afterwards.

It doesnt turn to face the attacker,it faces just left or right and strikes up or down.Bacialy there are just four outcomes.That can work,true,but I prefer unit really facing its enemy.Also,I prefer units not turning their backs to each other like they again do.

It might, and it might not. I daresay it's not impossible to make it look good, if one actualyl put some work into it.

Sure,it might look nice,but I still am in favour of small tiles.Leaves for many different sizes,more movement paths(thus more tactics),and doesnt require that much work(though it does require some work).