8x10

[[T]osHiro]

[quote="val-gaav"] If there is mass haste in game it should be double size of this what we see [quote]
That's what I meant. If I cast Mass Haste or any movement spell(if any), then it's not a game of chess, but a game of 'last man standing', cause everyone would be running around with no obstacles killing each other, know what I mean?

Anyhow, there are strategy tactics like Decoy, Charge, Kami-Kaze, Distraction and many other style that can be applied on a big battlefield. With the current battlefield, everything is narrowed down.

[DaemianLucifer]

Two armies of 7 big creatures(4 squares) would suddenly decrease empty space into just a small stretch of 2*8.So by just imagining how stupidly this would look,there surely will be scalable battlefields.No one is that stupid to make a game where all the battle is done on just 16 squares(not full 16 either)

[thanasis]

If I will not play it I cannot say if it is nice or not.So as I couldn't find this answer as an option I just voted the last one.I am HoMM player since the first one (Kings Bounty actual) and I do care about a good gameplay but without playtest I can say nothing.

[Gaidal Cain]

Two armies of 7 big creatures(4 squares) would suddenly decrease empty space into just a small stretch of 2*8.So by just imagining how stupidly this would look,there surely will be scalable battlefields.No one is that stupid to make a game where all the battle is done on just 16 squares(not full 16 either)

Maybe they've simply not made such a case possible? 7 big units would mean that you're running around with creatures not from your native town, and it could be meant as a way to hinder such things, since morale alone wasn't really able to earlier.

As for scalable battlefields, IIRC, there were some worries about how it would work on the old RT. Maybe they proved true, or another reason appeared that made it necessary to forsake that plan. Or it could just be the magazine that got it wrong...

That said, I don't think the indicated size looks very promising- while a smaller battlefields in theory could make for more interesting battles, there's also the risk that it gets so cluttered with units that it's no fun at all. Let's hope Nival knows what they're doing...

[ThunderTitan]

This new battle style is much more similar to reality than the old HOMM style which was basically only a strategy game. If you think like that than you realize that it is so important to keep your soldiers together because if they get apart the lonely one will be destroyed easily. Also, the archers and other shooting creatures will want to be as close as possible but still stay out of danger. They will follow behind the soldiers closely for closer range and also protection if they are attacked. What does this mean? This means that in the new style battle all armies will move closely together until they get next to each other and then hell is broken loose, just like real battle. What the designers did was they realized this and removed the time of the battle when all the creatures are moving together to fight each other. Now the battle starts immediately. (Also you must remember that each player will be able to set up the pieces just like he wants it before the battle starts)

I think that this characteristic will be what makes HOMM5 so much different from the ones that came before it. You're blood will be racing in the battle! And when it is over you will relax and raise your battle axe at your home and scream the cry of victory!

Go play Starcraft already. Or Age of Empires/Mythology whatever.

No archers don't move close to the other army in RL, coz that would kinda defeat the whole point of being ranged. And armies that just rushed in usually get killed by the one that uses it's head (how do you think the romans toook over the world?), unless they have a huge numerical advantage, and even then their loses are way larger than those of the enemy.

Battle's are exciting enough as they are, no need to make ranged units useless to increase it. Would you also like to play chess using queens instead of pawns? Would make the game faster and make your blood race, but it would also be very stupid.

@Gaidal Cain: Weren't the concerns exprested in the old RT about the smallest BF being too small and making ranged units almost useless? And how would a small BF stop me from having all lvl 7 stacks? It's not like they can trip over eachother.

[Campaigner]

I can't seriously believe that there are people saying that 8x10 is alright!

8x10 is so friggin small that I can have bigger battles in my room!

As someone else said, Griffins take 4 squares. That means that you can't make an army out of different towns! Goodbye Sorceress & Warlock combo from Heroes II!
And what if you can summon additional creatures like in HIV?? Where are you gonna place them??

And what about archers and spellcasters?? On such a small field some units will most probably be able to cross the battlefie..ehrm, battleyard in one turn and kill/block your shooters and casters.

8x10 seems therefore unacceptable.

Edit: I love StarCraft! Anybody up for a game??

[Gaidal Cain]

@Gaidal Cain: Weren't the concerns exprested in the old RT about the smallest BF being too small and making ranged units almost useless? And how would a small BF stop me from having all lvl 7 stacks? It's not like they can trip over eachother.

I think the concern was that archers might work on one of the battlefield sizes, but it would be hard work to get them to work on several- basically, one would need one set of stats for each field. And if you only have two rows to deploy your large stacks in, you'll only have two rows to deploy stacks in, with a width of 8, you can only fit 4 of your large units there... One could also fit 7 units, with some being f width 2, there, if one is allowed to place them as they like in the two rows, so one could be infront of another, though that seems like it would become very cramped.

[DaemianLucifer]

Maybe they've simply not made such a case possible? 7 big units would mean that you're running around with creatures not from your native town, and it could be meant as a way to hinder such things, since morale alone wasn't really able to earlier.

You do know that you dont have to have all the units of the same type in one stack?Or are they going to disable that feature as well?

[ThunderTitan]

I think the concern was that archers might work on one of the battlefield sizes, but it would be hard work to get them to work on several- basically, one would need one set of stats for each field. And if you only have two rows to deploy your large stacks in, you'll only have two rows to deploy stacks in, with a width of 8, you can only fit 4 of your large units there... One could also fit 7 units, with some being f width 2, there, if one is allowed to place them as they like in the two rows, so one could be infront of another, though that seems like it would become very cramped.

Yup, like I said, BF too small = ranged units not work.

Sure it will be cramped, but it would also be cramped with 7 creatures of the same alliagment (we don't know if al lvl 7 creatures take 4 squares).

[frozd]

voted: i don't like it

I don't it's stupid and too small.

[Gaidal Cain]

Yup, like I said, BF too small = ranged units not work.

Sure it will be cramped, but it would also be cramped with 7 creatures of the same alliagment (we don't know if al lvl 7 creatures take 4 squares).

Well, to a point, but ranged units can be just as effective on a field with 80 squareas as one with 800- it's all in the stats. And since level 7 units are supposed to be big and mean, it wouldn't surprise me if they all were large- just as most likely all level 1 units are small.

[Orfinn]

Dont like it, it is just to SMALL! Give us an option to choose between different sizes of battlefields befor the game or turn on a function that determines the size of the battlefield depending on how many stacks there is before each battle. But NOOOO they had to listen to the guy(s) that thinks 8x10 is superb! Its still time to change it I hope. And I hope Nival will listen to others than those 8x10 sized people which thinks its so great.

If we could choose bf sizes like 8x8, 8x9, 8x10, 9x10, 9x9, 10x10, 10x11, 11x11, 11x12 and 12x12 well that would be great!!

[Gaidal Cain]

If we could choose bf sizes like 8x8, 8x9, 8x10, 9x10, 9x9, 10x10, 10x11, 11x11, 11x12 and 12x12 well that would be great!!

That would be terrible. You don't need that many battlefields- changing from 11X11 to 11X12 isn't going to make an enormous difference, but you'd need at least three different set of speed stats for those fields- and balancing just one is hard enough...

[DaemianLucifer]

12*12 is still to small.Again with 7 big stacks in both armies it leaves a strech of 6*12 between them.14*14 should be the smallest rectangular field for such a situation.Especially if you have two ranks available to spread your army uppon.

[Gaidal Cain]

Eeeh? were did you get those numbers from? Are you suggesting that the largest units will be three squares wide?

[DaemianLucifer]

No,I just took the largest unit(2*2),and created an army with 7 of those stacks.So if you want to put all of them in one line you need a width of at least 14 squares.And I said "smallest rectangular field for such a situation",so smaller fields can be available for smaller fights.And it can be of smaller(or bigger)lenght as well,but thats not that important.

[Gaidal Cain]

Well, I don't think that being able to bring whatever units you wish to the battlefield is a necessity. I think that as long as you can place a full town's growth in a line it should be fine in that aspect- whether it gets cramped due to other reasons is something I can't really speculate about.

[DaemianLucifer]

What if,for some reason,you need to divide stacks?For example,two armies of 7 gryphons that are divided in stacks of 1.

[Gaidal Cain]

What do you do when the 7 slots are filled up and you "need" to divide a stack? You either don't, or you kick some other unit out

[Friend_of_Gunnar]

Go play Starcraft already. Or Age of Empires/Mythology whatever...

No I will go play Heroes of Might and Magic 3. This is because HOMM1-3 are different visions of the same idea and HOMM3/WOG is the final product of that idea. You can add ideas but that is only twitching. HOMM5 creatures and strategic map is the same as 3 so if you have a battlefield that moves the same than the game will live in the same part of my brain that HOMM3 is, which will make it boring. This battle style is the "something new" that everybody was wishing for.

No archers don't move close to the other army in RL, coz that would kinda defeat the whole point of being ranged ...

In HOMM1 and HOMM2 there was no reduced damage from distance so an archer could fire from the place that he stands. But in HOMM3 firing from the great distance was such a weak attack! In equal battles if my enemy didn't come to me than I would move all my ranged attack soldiers closer so that they would do more damage for the rest of the fight. So this point depends if Nival wants to do it like HOMM1 & 2 or like HOMM3. Actually everybody is close by anyway so the question is not important anymore.

And armies that just rushed in usually get killed by the one that uses it's head (how do you think the romans toook over the world?) ...

Actually the Romans took over the world because on the battlefield they always stayed together as the group and never let the Roman soldier get lonely. Haha that is one point for Friend_Of_Gunnar (plus they hired lots of German horses)

Battle's are exciting enough as they are...

this is true but Starcraft was so hairy it was upsetting to my metabolism. This is the difference I think this game will be...

with a width of 8, you can only fit 4 of your large units there

This is another aspect that I have not thought about before. If you have only 16 army slots then you have to think carefully about what is in your army. Only four big creatures total or 16 small ones. Big demons are nice but maybe what you really need instead is 4 of the smaller creatures to attack the castle. Yes griffons can fly but they take up 4 spaces so that is a negative to their power. Looking from above this gives the balance to the smaller creatures so that an army of weaker creatures might actually be stronger than an army of strong creatures because you can can carry more different kinds with you and bring them to battle. For example in HOMM3 you could give all the weaker creatures to your stay-at-home hero, but this hero was never really a strong challenge for the main enemy hero when he came to visit. In HOMM5 you can combine all the weaker creatures of two different types of castle and have an army that will challenge the main enemy hero.

I will make a simple prediction and I won't look at the other websites. Each hero can carry 16 slots of creatures with him when he travels.

And also I will make another prediction. Each army will have all seven creatures fill all 16 squares of the battleboard.

I can't seriously believe that there are people saying that 8x10 is alright!

excuse me but they have playtested this completely so far. Until we have played this by ourselves we can't really have a serious emotion about this, no?