Heroes VI creatures proposal

[soupnazii]

yes, but with one race with bonuses on water, one underground, one in air, all of which get penalties on land, and then 5 other races who get no bonuses or penalties or bonuses at all, its pretty clear that any battle on land will be won by the no penalty guys, in water by the water guys, and in air by aair guys. think about that.

[soupnazii]

@BB: yea, but when the underground came, the Dungeon joined, so one would onlyt assume that a sky town will apear along with the sky...

[BenchBreaker]

yes, but with one race with bonuses on water, one underground, one in air, all of which get penalties on land, and then 5 other races who get no bonuses or penalties or bonuses at all, its pretty clear that any battle on land will be won by the no penalty guys, in water by the water guys, and in air by aair guys. think about that.

maybe what we need is to have less creatures in each town (say 5?) so we could spread the creatures out more evenly so that that we could have many towns (like 12+) and each town could be even more race-specific than h5, this way a few special town like water and air could fit in.

so maybe
knights
wizards
dwarves
high elves
dark elves
lizards
orcs
barbarians
mutants
undead
demons
bugs
centaurs
nagas
avians

[ThunderTitan]

You know there already are movement penalties for non-native land in all heroes games. You can just consider water another terrain type and have the water town have no penalty on water and just ignore the rest.

@soupnazii:

The Dungeon was the Warlock town with a small twist. So there's no need for an air town.

[DaemianLucifer]

We dont need an air layer.But,I did suggest to enable winds,and then make units that fly able to fly over buildings,trees,hills,and some of them even over mountains.And doesnt the academy have flying cities?

[BenchBreaker]

Well,there already was a suggestion for an ocean town somewhere.Id like to see it.But without the pirates.It would be very interesting to have a town that has a bonus on water but penalty on land.

you meanthis brilliant suggestion? from which our noble MGW was born

about the pirates: it could be replaced by frogman/giant frogs/some kind of humaniod amphebians

[soupnazii]

We dont need an air layer.But,I did suggest to enable winds,and then make units that fly able to fly over buildings,trees,hills,and some of them even over mountains.?

but once again, wouldnt that require H4 style creaure movement? that part wasnt immensly succesful, and now its out of the series. would be weird to bring it back in H6.

@TT: yes, but before they were just another land town. then when the underground arrived, they figured they should put a town there and instead of designing a new one from scratch they just remade the warlock.

@BB: agredd, pirates cant be part of the town (maybe neutral, maybe), but why humanoid?

Wildbears idea in reply to the mGw (it really was mutated Gaint whale) suggestion by white wizrd of a Keropsi sounds good, and imo should be included.

[BenchBreaker]

@soupnazii: it doesn't have to be a humaniod, that was one of the options

@TT/DL: i still think a third sky layer would be a good idea, you don't have to have a town to in the sky to have sky layer. it would just be like an extension to the map, and give mapmakers more possibilities when designing their senarios. imagine you had a quest to find something and had to search from the temple on the clouds to the infernal chambers of hell to find it

[DaemianLucifer]

but once again, wouldnt that require H4 style creaure movement? that part wasnt immensly succesful, and now its out of the series. would be weird to bring it back in H6.

Oh enough of the HIV was bad so every single part of it was bad!The separate movement of creatures and heroes was a briliant idea.And it can be implemented with creatures chaind with heroes.And why cannot a hero mount a gryphon or a dragon?Hell,even pixies can carry a hero if they are in great nimbers.

@TT/DL: i still think a third sky layer would be a good idea, you don't have to have a town to in the sky to have sky layer. it would just be like an extension to the map, and give mapmakers more possibilities when designing their senarios. imagine you had a quest to find something and had to search from the temple on the clouds to the infernal chambers of hell to find it

Why making a whole layer of map for just a few objects?You can still make something like a sky temple and make it accesible just by flyers.Especially with 3D graphics.

[BenchBreaker]

the sky layer i have in mind is like really high above in the air, and you travel back and forth via portals or "jack & the bean stalk" kinda things. (which by the way would look awesome in 3D)

the basic terrain would be clouds. it would be kinda like the underground layer, where there could be inaccessible areas (area without clouds) like the cave walls in the underground. so you could have as little or as large sky area as you want, and you could build "mazes" in the sky and have lots of different/unique adventure objects associated with the sky layer. it only adds options, i mean you could disable it with an option, like some of the existing maps only use one layer.

[DaemianLucifer]

But wouldnt the air be thinner so high up in the skys?You would suffocate

Just kidding.This could work.And imagine the view youd have by looking through holes in the sky.If HV had this,believe me,Id buy it just because of that view.No matter what I think about the rest of the game.

[BenchBreaker]

And imagine the view youd have by looking through holes in the sky.If HV had this,believe me,Id buy it just because of that view.No matter what I think about the rest of the game.

oh man, that would be AWESOME in proper 3D like h5, i was thinking purely in terms of isometric(whatever it's called) 3D that i didn't realize how good it could be.

i could just imagine it now...

[soupnazii]

Oh enough of the HIV was bad so every single part of it was bad!The separate movement of creatures and heroes was a briliant idea.And it can be implemented with creatures chaind with heroes.And why cannot a hero mount a gryphon or a dragon?Hell,even pixies can carry a hero if they are in great nimbers.

i did not say H4 is bad, even though that is my personal opinion. i was thinking that since they took that idea (seperate creature movement) out of H5, they obviously thought the game was better without it, so why would they bring it back in H6? unless there were like mass protests, which seems unlikely. and the idea for heroes to ride flying creatures is also good, but that would give certain heroes really unfair advantages over others. example: necropolis's only flyer (not counting ghosts) is their 7th level, while Haven gets griffins much earlier. thats pretty unfair. of course, a way could be found to balance it fairly, but then to make it realistic youd have to have like 1 griffin for each other unit in the army, which could be a problem maybe dragons could carry more units, and different units could have different whiet. thats a new creature stat: wheight! so if a dragon could carry, like, 2 tons, and a devil whighd 1 ton, than 1 dragon could carry exactly two devils. but again, that would be hard to balance. also, you could also make this the only way to get to the sky layer. but again, you could only take with you as many creatures as your flyers can carry. the sky town if one is made, has all flying units, so thaey could take their whole army up and down whenever they wanted. going up or down might take up a whole day, but the sky town can go up and down with no penalty, just like the water town (if its made) would be able to get on and off boats with no penalty...

anyway, what i meant to say when i started typing was that i never said what i said to make the point that H4 is bad.

[ThunderTitan]

i did not say H4 is bad, even though that is my personal opinion. i was thinking that since they took that idea (seperate creature movement) out of H5, they obviously thought the game was better without it, so why would they bring it back in H6

No, they took it out because it wasn't in H3. They basicaly just went back to H3, and never even considered H4.

[soupnazii]

either way, i dont see any reason for them to bring it back unless people start protesting that they want it back.

[DaemianLucifer]

@soupnazii

The separate movement was taken out because of the stupid rule:

HIV is bad,therefore everything that was implemented there is bad and is never to be implemented again!

Thats why we lost dweling acumulation,windmill flaging,simultaneous retal,large BF,FoW,separate movement and mobile guards.Is there anyone in their right mind that can say it is better not being able to flag all of the resource structures but instead collecting each of them every week?

And those that say weekly growth is better simply dont know how to play without the first day exploitment.

Also,those that hate FoW simply cannot adjust that your enemy can move without you seing him even if you have no scouts.

And those that say chaning is better are simply too much fond of transfering armies across the whole map in just one day.

And those that hate sim retal simply cannot get used to having some battles in which you must loose some troops,no matter how hard you try.

And those that hate mobile guards simply love to snatch undefended treasure and waltz around the map without worry.

The only advantage that reverting to this obsolete style of playing is that you cant have super hero armies.And this isnt some crucial advantage,since you only could make such armies because the balance was bad.There were plenty of better ways to deal with this,but this one was easiest and required the least brain power to implement.

And if chaning is still in,and you can fly over things if you have a complete flyer army,why would that give you an unfare advantage?Is it an unfare advantage that necro has lvl1 shooters?And loads of them?No,because they are weaker.Is it unfair that academy has lvl7 shooters?No because other lvl7s are much faster and cheaper.Everything can be balanced.

[soupnazii]

thats a pretty good case... personally, i didnt like H4, but that dosent mean i think everything in there is bad. really the only reason i think it is bad is because it was rushed. if 3DO had more time to work on that game, it had the potential of becoming way better that H3. And also, if you dont like the way H5 is made, all i have to say to you is: dont buy it. its not my problem youre unhappy with it. you dont like it, dont spend 50 bucks. i am pretty confident in saying that i will enjoy this game, and will do so whether you enjoy it or not. the game is done, and you get what you get.

[Gaidal Cain]

And those that hate mobile guards simply love to snatch undefended treasure and waltz around the map without worry.

I thought that was the point of the mobile guard- wait till they move away from treasure and go in and grab it
I never played with it oon, though- I found that watching some bloody orc spawned next to my mine move around at the end of the turn was just bloody annoying.

[DaemianLucifer]

I thought that was the point of the mobile guard- wait till they move away from treasure and go in and grab it
I never played with it oon, though- I found that watching some bloody orc spawned next to my mine move around at the end of the turn was just bloody annoying.

Thats because you can set how far the creature will wander of.If you set it to zero or some low number,theyll never leave thing theyre guarding.They will just attack you if you come in range(although Im not sure if they do this with stationary guards).

[BenchBreaker]

mobile guards are different from wandering guards, mobile guards stay in one place unless you finish a turn within their radius, then before your next turn starts they will attack you(if they win, they'll go back and defend whatever they were defending before until next person comes) wandering guards is an option you can set in the editor, it'll make the creatures wander randomly within an area