Non-linear damage of casters

[MistWeaver]

Split the meat shields and you cover ground with stalwart units for free with the effect that an opponent cannot reach (vulnerable) units that do damage on distance and less damage hand to hand.
Split the casters and you do more damage while you cover more ground with VULNERABLE units (as opposed to cover ground with meat shields).
Note that you don't have this option with shooters (they could have the same option of doing more damage when covering more ground), however, you can have unlimited shots with mundane shooting units while the spell power of damage doing casters is very limited: if the damage gain for splitting isn't good enough after using up the casters' mana it's usually curtains.

Ok. I see your point. But!
It appears to me that this "innovative" nivals addition to battle strategy is purely of artificial origin. You, JJ, explain why its ok on paper, but it still looks stupid if to project this mechanics on reality.
Meat shield is quite clear - it defends vulnerable units, but I cant see explanation to pure damage decrease of casters (but NOT archers and not even MAGIC archers (same druids, succubi).

[DaemianLucifer]

Nice, so you are seriously saying that with dividing the casters you can keep on playing without losses? Can't you see, you are taking that your example to the extremes into explaining the whole game. Bad DL.

It does work on ~80% of neutral fights,and does help you to minimize loses.A few blade dancers or sprites lost in raiding one mine isnt much,but if you loose them at every mine,youll have almost none in the final battle.Without splitting druids youd have to run back to town pretty quickly,thus will loose the initial momentum.This isnt just theory,its been tested by many.

No.
Split the meat shields and you cover ground with stalwart units for free with the effect that an opponent cannot reach (vulnerable) units that do damage on distance and less damage hand to hand.

Again,its a common thing you do in real life battles.You split regiments to cover your flanks/protect your artilery/etc.You just buy more time using this,you dont get free damage.

There are maps that will allow you to fight with 8 Druids in week 2 and there are maps that you will be allowed 4 Druids only.
The manual lists the following damage for Druids (they have the Mana for 2 Lightning Bolts):
1: 28 5: 98
2: 42 6: 112
3: 56 7: 126
4: 84 8: 140

So let's have a look at the case you have 4 Druids in 4 single stacks. With 2 castings each they will do a total of 224 damage as opposed to the 168 the 4 Druids will do in one stack. That's a gain of 56 damage points per combat which equals, umm, 4 Demons, something like that. With HORDES of Demons normally guarding each pile of dog turd, not to mention mines or something this is really a big deal for giving the neutrals easy targets.

What if you have eight. If you really leave the rest of your troops at home - which would be folly - you'd be able to do 420 points of spell damage - still only a bit more than 30 Demons.

Splitting 4 - 4 which might be more sensible then one stack of 8, will gain 336 damage, 84 damage less . Going in with one stack of 8 will do 280 damage, two thirds or 140 points less. This may sound a lot, but is worth only 10 Demons, again not that much for putting 8 Druids on the line and not being able to deal with a plethora of neutrals.

And if those demons were to near you how much of your troops would you have to sacrifize?Again,its not much when its just one battle,but what if its a battle aftter battle after battle?You run out of meat shield and have to go back or loose valuable troops.

[Shauku]

Yep, are you back to the part where you are saying that splitting the casters do more damage? I don't believe anyone is claming otherwise, so that really doesn't strike as a convincing argument. But also "when not splitting casters, you canno't fight without losses" is another very authorative statement, which has no basis what so ever. The third is that "in real life battles..." and that has been discussed before, it's your opinion that a game should work like in reality to make it a good one, and not a proof of anything else.

Soon it's all back to where it started from. I suggest you give anything remotely similar to JJ:s math above and lessen the opinion part in your proofs a notch, then something good might come out of it.

[DaemianLucifer]

Yep, are you back to the part where you are saying that splitting the casters do more damage? I don't believe anyone is claming otherwise, so that really doesn't strike as a convincing argument.

JJ is.He is claiming that it doesnt get any more damage than splitting meat shield.

But also "when not splitting casters, you canno't fight without losses" is another very authorative statement, which has no basis what so ever.

Thats not what I said,I said that there will be more battles where youll have no losses.Again,it might seem irrelewant to you that you lost a few more meat shields,but when facing your equal it is quite a difference.Dont believe me?Then try an MP with anyone,both of you play sylvan,and you dont split the druids ever,and check the outcome yourself.YOur chances for winning will drop very noticably.

The third is that "in real life battles..." and that has been discussed before, it's your opinion that a game should work like in reality to make it a good one, and not a proof of anything else.

Really?Just my oppinion?They why do they try so much to make it as realistic as posible?Why not paint the leaves purple and grass black?Why arent peasants level 7 and squires level 1?Hey its just a game,right,and logic has no place in it?Wrong.Logic is a part of heroes,and much more than you care to admit or see,wheter you like it or not.

Soon it's all back to where it started from. I suggest you give anything remotely similar to JJ:s math above and lessen the opinion part in your proofs a notch, then something good might come out of it.

I dont have to,he did that math for me.You get an increase of about 40% of damage(splitting 8 druids in 2,2,1,1,1,1),yet claims its not significant.You can get 50% increase even if you go only with druids.And you gain it for free.Is that same as splitting meat shield?No its not.While splitting meat shield gives you an extra attack,thus increasing your damage by another 100%,splitting casters gives you 40% on every attack.Thsu while those gremlins would do 200% damage in 2 rounds,druids would do 280%.While gremlins would do 300% because of the meat shield,druids would do 280%+additional range attack(except for maybe two of them you use for cover),which is way over 300% of one rounds damage.(Of course,percanteges are used wrong here,but I am not doing exact math.If I was,I would be giving the actuall damage ranges)

[Shauku]

Well if you ask me, hell yeah it is significant if you divide the casters (just as it is important to divide the meatshields) I surely do it when the right battles occur. What it doesn't give to Sylvan though, is an unrealistically powerful beginning or anything like that. Sure that army can pack a punch, but it is fragile.

If I am trying to follow your thought here, it is clear that you don't like it that dividing casters does more damage than keeping them in one stack. Why? Is it because you cannot protect them as easily?

Is Sylvan overpowered with Druids being splitted?

Do you find the part inconvenient, that in certain battles (too many battles?) the best strategy is to divide the druids? And why excatly? If the creature is designed to be most powerful working on its own.

Now try fitting a creature with that attitude to the army

And I must admire that somehow you included to the discussion of realism, that I don't want logic in the game. Gotta love it when you do that. Where I come from, these words are not synonyms.

[DaemianLucifer]

Well if you ask me, hell yeah it is significant if you divide the casters (just as it is important to divide the meatshields) I surely do it when the right battles occur. What it doesn't give to Sylvan though, is an unrealistically powerful beginning or anything like that. Sure that army can pack a punch, but it is fragile.

If I am trying to follow your thought here, it is clear that you don't like it that dividing casters does more damage than keeping them in one stack. Why? Is it because you cannot protect them as easily?

Nope.I dont like it because its caster specific.If it was like that for all attacks,I wouldnt mind.If it wasnt like that for any attack,I wouldnt mind as well.

Well,actually when I think about it,I would mind if it was like this for all.40% damage increase just because you split your casters in 2,2,1,1,1,1 formation seems too much to me.Thats 5% for every creature.I did suggest once a similar system for all creatures,but I proposed not more than 10% increase for a weeks worth of creatures.Thats half as it is now.For druids at least.And people complained casters were overpowered in HIV.Like they arent now.It botheres me that its easier to beat giants,a tier 7 creature than sprites,a tier 1 creature.

Is Sylvan overpowered with Druids being splitted?

You dont find a 40% damage increase just because you have split your stacks as overpowered?

And I must admire that somehow you included to the discussion of realism, that I don't want logic in the game. Gotta love it when you do that. Where I come from, these words are not synonyms.

No,of course they arent sinonyms.But in some case the most logical thing is what you can see in real world.Military tactics is one such thing.

[MistWeaver]

If I am trying to follow your thought here, it is clear that you don't like it that dividing casters does more damage than keeping them in one stack. Why? Is it because you cannot protect them as easily?

Damn it. No. Just because its stupid.

Question #1
- Why dividing meat shields can reduce damage done to your casters ?
- Because more of meat shields can protect more of casters.

Question #2
- Why dividing casters increases their damage (but only for book spells) ?
- Err.. well.. because nival made so..


See ? What is next ? Lets make new super strategic rule, check this out:
Every odd square on battlefield counting from the top - gives +48% to attack. Nice ?

[DaemianLucifer]

Question #2
- Why dividing casters increases their damage ?
- Err.. well.. because nival made so..

Not really.There is some logic behind a big group beign less effective.But not by this much though.

[MistWeaver]

EDIT:
Question #2
- Why dividing casters increases their damage (but only for book spells) ?

[DaemianLucifer]

EDIT:
Question #2
- Why dividing casters increases their damage (but only for book spells) ?

Yup,that one hits the spot.

Isnt it funny how they didnt want to half-implement the caravans so they postponed it,yet this one is even less than half implemented?(yes,I know what I promised,but this is not bashing,it has a question mark at the end )

[Shauku]

EDIT:
Question #2
- Why dividing casters increases their damage (but only for book spells) ?

I think it gives a nice emphasis on casters at the beginning, and it prevents them from becoming unstoppable at the end. Damage that doesn't take castle walls, range or any defence into account is wise to be non-linear. I do agree with GC that it doesn't have to be as strict as it is now! But it really isn't a matter of life and death. As I have no problem at shooting with them when they get big enough.

The only problem would be them being too powerful early on, but from my experiences with Sylvan, they are NOT overpowered. Actually this must be one of the rare times I have heard that.

[DaemianLucifer]

Pit them against the rest of the tier 4 units.Only the mages can beat them(oh look,another caster),and that if they get lucky and act first,and griffins have some chance,but not much.

[Jolly Joker]

EDIT:
Question #2
- Why dividing casters increases their damage (but only for book spells) ?

I think it gives a nice emphasis on casters at the beginning, and it prevents them from becoming unstoppable at the end. Damage that doesn't take castle walls, range or any defence into account is wise to be non-linear. I do agree with GC that it doesn't have to be as strict as it is now! But it really isn't a matter of life and death. As I have no problem at shooting with them when they get big enough.

The only problem would be them being too powerful early on, but from my experiences with Sylvan, they are NOT overpowered. Actually this must be one of the rare times I have heard that.

Shauku gives the purpose explanation.

A realism explanation is not necessary, because this game is no simulation and therefore realism (as in similarity with real life; see paragraph below) )has no relevance.

Logic HAS relevance that way that there should be a GAME logic that explains things - a quasi logical explanation (there can be no realism because there simply is no magic and therefore no theory of it).
So the game logic is the fact that all casters in a stack add their power to cast ONE spell (as opposed to shooters; all Archers fire deparately). The mechanism is the same than used for Heroes casting the spells which is logical as well: it's actually not the damage that is raised non-linear, it's the spell power of the creature group.

Mytical said they should have MORE spell power together than as single units. Nothing wrong with that suggestion. If they had made it that way there was no arguing against it, I think. However, since this is completely imaginary, if they make it the other way round, they made it work THAT way. It's the same as if they had written a fantasy book and decided to make it work this way. You cannot argue against it because it's consistent.

So once again, since this damage is produced different than the other damage it CAN - logically - work non-linear.

That leaves the effect and whether it's desirable or not (apart from liking it or not). The main argument against it is, that they do more damage, simply when they are splitting which is supposed to be bad, but only because it's an effect for casters only.

Writing this down now, I can't even see the point of that anymore. It's for casters only? Casters are the only casters as well, so why shouldn't they have different game mechanisms when casting? Heck, it could be a special ability of all casters like whether they would not walk over the battlefield but jump (make that teleport) or whatever.

[DaemianLucifer]

Logic HAS relevance that way that there should be a GAME logic that explains things - a quasi logical explanation
.
.
.
So once again, since this damage is produced different than the other damage it CAN - logically - work non-linear.

Some logic,ha?So the whole world of ashan is populated by morons that dont realise that if every one of them casted a single spell theid provide a better result?Ok,considering the few heroes Ive seen I can buy this one.

That leaves the effect and whether it's desirable or not (apart from liking it or not). The main argument against it is, that they do more damage, simply when they are splitting which is supposed to be bad, but only because it's an effect for casters only.

Writing this down now, I can't even see the point of that anymore. It's for casters only? Casters are the only casters as well, so why shouldn't they have different game mechanisms when casting? Heck, it could be a special ability of all casters like whether they would not walk over the battlefield but jump (make that teleport) or whatever.

So,the fact that they use spell points and not amunition,that they suffer no range penalties and no melee hinderance is not enough,but they have to deal unbalanced damage as well?

[Jolly Joker]

So,the fact that they use spell points and not amunition,that they suffer no range penalties and no melee hinderance is not enough,but they have to deal unbalanced damage as well?

Wait a sec here. Why is it unbalanced? Let's have a look onto the real figures. The most damage Druids can do is as single entity: 28 damage, twice per battle, unmodified.
Now let's compare that with Wraiths. Six single Wraiths can do up to 280 damage each for as many turns as they want. As far as I remember no one ever complained about that. The oinly complaint was that they don't kill anough creatures in higher quantities.
What exactly is "unbalanced" here? Or, to phrase it differently: what "balance" are you talking of that is "unned"

[Pitsu]

A completely random thought again (just to mess up the monotonous debate of some of you)

Creature specials have been non-linear also in previous homm games IIRC. For example mighty gorgons death stare: there is nothing to gain from splitting MGs. 14 MG have almost granted one stare and an average chance for another kill. 2 separate stacks of 7 MGs, on the other hand, are quite likely to trigger no death stare at all. Hence, in opposite to H5 casters H3 MGs are "must keep in one stack". I do not know exactly H4 medusa gaze. It depends on stack size (and also target level) but I cannot swear that splitting them reduces the efficiency.

[Jolly Joker]

A completely random thought again (just to mess up the monotonous debate of some of you)

Creature specials have been non-linear also in previous homm games IIRC. For example mighty gorgons death stare: there is nothing to gain from splitting MGs. 14 MG have almost granted one stare and an average chance for another kill. 2 separate stacks of 7 MGs, on the other hand, are quite likely to trigger no death stare at all. Hence, in opposite to H5 casters H3 MGs are "must keep in one stack". I do not know exactly H4 medusa gaze. It depends on stack size (and also target level) but I cannot swear that splitting them reduces the efficiency.

Pitsu, I'm very sorry to tell you that you are plain wrong here. This is a quote from my own strategy article about Fortress which can be read as it is posted on CH (the exact Death Stare probabilities and effects are listed there as well):

"Another interesting point is the following: Should you DIVIDE your MGs in two or even more stacks (and leave Gnolls or Lizard Warriors at home)? The first rule is: NEVER DIVIDE A STACK OF MGs numbering 11, 21, 31, 41 and so on. With all numbers ending on 1 your chances are best, when you leave them in one stack. Interestingly enough, from a probability point of view you should divide any other number of MGs in at least 2 stacks. Example: You have 2 MGs. If attacking in one stack you have a 19% chance to deathstare one opponent. If attacking with two stacks of 1 MG each, you have the same 19% to deathstare 1 opponent, but now it is an AT LEAST chance, because in reality your chances to deathstare 1 opponent are 18%, while you have a 1% chance to deathstare 2 opponents. A more obvious example: you have 30 MGs (probabilities see above). Now you split it in two stacks with 15 MGs each. You now suddenly have a 20% chance to deathstare FOUR opponents (a chance you don't have, when attacking with one stack of 30 MGs), while your AT-LEAST-CHANCES don't get worse. (By the way, it doesn't really matter HOW you split them, but you shouldn't split them 20-10, obviously.)"

[ThunderTitan]

Yeah JJ, that one was bad too.

Now could you pls stop arguing that getting free dmg is good because it doesn't completly break the game?

[DaemianLucifer]

Wait a sec here. Why is it unbalanced? Let's have a look onto the real figures. The most damage Druids can do is as single entity: 28 damage, twice per battle, unmodified.
Now let's compare that with Wraiths. Six single Wraiths can do up to 280 damage each for as many turns as they want. As far as I remember no one ever complained about that. The oinly complaint was that they don't kill anough creatures in higher quantities.
What exactly is "unbalanced" here? Or, to phrase it differently: what "balance" are you talking of that is "unned"

The fact that they do 40% more damage just because they are being split.Pit a weeks population of druids and any other tier 4 creature and see wholl win.Either mages or druids,both casters.But if you put that population into a single stack,suddenly they have less chance of winning.The bigger the stack,less of a threat they are.Same goes for wraiths.

A single wraith can do up to 280 damage without retal.2 wraiths in a stack can do 280 damage without retal.But to wraiths in two stacks can do 560 damage without retal.Thats a 100% increase in damage just because you did such a complicated task of splitting your units.

3DO realised one important thing(or at least I think they did)in HIV,and that is that abilities that affect the whole stack no matter the size of the attacker arent balanced.They started implementing an alternate solution by making medusas,sea monsters,etc have a chance to triger their ability based on the size of their stack.More medusas,more chance for an instant kill.However,some of the whole stack affecting skills remained.Minotaurs block,for example,was one such ability that had no sense.Chances for blocking the attack of 100 dragons by a single minotaur and chances to block a single peasant by 100 minotaurs shouldnt be the same at all.Alas,all of their work was ignored,thus we have incorporeal,shield bash,death touch,and the like.