Simultaneous retal?

[Infiltrator]

Ok,then explain why those ideas were bad.

I'm working on ... something more important at the moment (hint hint), later perhaps when I have time.

[LordHoborgXVII]

In Reply to Daemian Lucifer

Giving Heroes attack is not that bad of an idea actually. Its effect is the same as a spell, but the point of it is to merely give the side an advantage based on the strength of its hero. Its actually a brilliant concept, because it loooks like the hero is still in battle, but he really isn't, preventing the whole mobbing and 'kill...that one!' of Heroes4, anda your side still gets an extra 'might arrow, ' so what's there to complain about? The initiative is sort of weird though, I'll have to agree.

Simultaneous retaliations actually does give more to strategy and realism since you cannot have flawless victory with just fast melees.You either bring lots of archers and casters,or prepare to loose some troops(unles you have the first strike).

Which means archers and casters become overimportant. Flawless victory with just fast melees is actually something I would prefer, because it is not as overpowered as it looks. Castle walls and landscapes can still hamper a 'fast melee' army, (well, maybe not in H5, considering the 5-inch wide battlefields, but in general), and a strong defensive 'slow melee' army can defend against them adequately, which makes golems, dendroids, dwarves, and company actually useful in some situations. The attacker should have the advantage in a melee battle, except in cases involving special defenders. In realistic terms, a group of soldiers on foot or on horse, rushing forward, should do incredible damage to a similar group that is standing still, due to the sheer force of the impact. If not then the ancient Greeks and medieval Knights would have been reduced to shooting arrows and casting spells at each other. Unless the defenders are specially equipped, as with pikes or bayonets, they would never stand before a proper charge. The Battle of Arsuf is a splendid example of this. Richard the Lionhearted was leading his Crusader forces south along the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, mostly armoured knights, protected along the landward side by a screen of infantry and archers. Saladin advanced alongside him from a distance, with a force of light cavalry, gradually moving in and harassing the Crusaders with arrows. Richard gave the order to hold formation, and to keep moving. The Christians took casualties, from archery fire, for a while, as they were gradually being forced to march closer and closer together, nearer to the water. Among the cavalry there was a general desire for a charge, but Richard, mindful of the lessons he gained from seeing armoured knights get run around and shot in the sand, ordered them to hold formation. There was an official request for a charge, but it was denied. At length a detachment of cavalry spontaneously broke off and charged, as did several other forces at the same time. Afterwards an official order to charge was given, and the rest of the army rushed forward as well. Needless to say, the Saracens died like flies. Several sections of their army broke down completely and fled back inland, and at length Saladin himself was forced to follow them. As it was said later, "Fear alone added wings to their feet." After a while the Saracens had retreated far enough and began to regroup. The Christians caught up with them again, and engaged in battle. This was the portion of the battle where casualties occured on both sides. In the end both leaders ordered a general withdrawal, Saladin conceding that his troops didn't have a chance and Richard not wanting to pursue the enemy long enough to allow them to reach a favorable position. Although the Christians lost a large number of men, it is to be noted that this was not a 'simultaneous' battle. In Heroes terms:
1. Saracen archers fired.
2. Crusader cavalry attacked.
3. Saracen forces retaliated.
The Crusaders lost hardly any men during the 2nd stage, when their knights simply plowed through and routed the enemy forces right and left. Only when the Saracens regrouped and counterattacked did they take losses again. In essence, there is no point giving a defending force the opportunity to fight on equal terms with an attacking force, as the attacking force will always have the default advantage, unless of course the defeneders are specialized, such as pikemen.

A bit long and unnecessary for an explanation, but it serves its purpose well enough.

The best thing that heroeles armies brought is actually the prevention of chaining.

Yes, I agree completely. And it's a very artful solution too. It's always better to prevent the incentive for something rather than banning the action outright. Of course, one could argue that the creature map speed limit in H4 had more of an effect on chaining than heroless armies did, but I still agree that heroless armies would still reduce chaining even if creatures had unlimited map speed.

Also lets not forget the LoS and ranged retaliation.

LoS is the same thing as Fog Of War, you can't have one without the other, and we've already decided that is definitely a plus regardless of which way you look at it. FoW is good.

Ranged retailiation... is a bit weird. Of course I have to agree that one of the most annoying things in H3 was the constant archers targeting archers that seemed to occur, and ranged retaliation adresses that. (Adresses it, but does it provide more incentive to target archers with archers, or less?)
It is still sort of odd though, for archers to be given extra shots simply because they're being attacked. It's certainly not a completely horrible concept either, but it's not an obvious plus.

[Gaidal Cain]

In Reply to Daemian Lucifer
In realistic terms, a group of soldiers on foot or on horse, rushing forward, should do incredible damage to a similar group that is standing still, due to the sheer force of the impact.

Not quite. For the most parts, the defender has the upper hand. Had the Spartans charged, the name of Thermopylae would not have the kind of fame it does today.

LoS is the same thing as Fog Of War, you can't have one without the other, and we've already decided that is definitely a plus regardless of which way you look at it. FoW is good.

I think he meant LoS as it works for shooters and spellcasters in battle.

[ThunderTitan]

In Reply to Daemian Lucifer
In realistic terms, a group of soldiers on foot or on horse, rushing forward, should do incredible damage to a similar group that is standing still, due to the sheer force of the impact.

This could be easily implemented as an bonus to Attack. And tell that to Boudicea (or however it's spelled).

[LordHoborgXVII]

In Reply To Thunder Titan

Yeah, could do that. But it would be a bit forced, though. It's always better to change the application of something rather than just tweak it's numbers. Leastways that's how I view it. Most games would just change stats though.

In Reply To Gaidal Cain

Not quite. For the most parts, the defender has the upper hand. Had the Spartans charged, the name of Thermopylae would not have the kind of fame it does today.

Yes, you're right. Of course, the Spartans coudn't have done anything either way. They were 'specialised defenders,' after all, and defending was their specialty. The reason they would have done worse if they charged was because of the chokepoint they were holding. If they had charged they would have done some serious damage, but they would lose their position, and would have been engulfed from all directions by the enemy.
Of course, the exception justifies the rule, as they say. There are certainly instances where anything can be disproved. There are still other battles demonstrating the force of a charging army though, like Marathon, where the Greek and Persian armies both advanced into each other, and the Greeks, for whom a large part of their approach was just pushing, plowed over the Persians. Look at Platea, where basically the same thing happened, except with the Greeks playing more of an offensive role.
Of course, no battle comes without its casualties, but the point is that the initial force of an attack is sufficient to overwhelm a non-specialized defending force, if only until they regroup, ensuring that the attackers' direct casualties from the defending force will be minimal, until the melee ensues. If the defenders shoot before impact, they have a chance of reducing the attacking force. If the defenders are specialised, with pikes or bayonets, or a very good shield wall, the attackers will lose their advantage. If the defenders don't let themselves be attacked, preferably by using Parthian tactics, the attackers will lose their advantage. But in a battle between screaming mob of brigands A and bellowing horde of peasants B, assuming they are not specialized, the side which rushes into the enemy will be able to force them backward simply by colliding into them. Of course once their charge slows down and the melee will be joined, it will be more or less even, but the advantage of the charging side lies in the hope that the initial impact will be strong enough to break the enemy, and force them into a retreat. In any case, what I mean is The Initial Impact Matters, which is why I'm largely against simultaneous retaliation.

I think he meant LoS as it works for shooters and spellcasters in battle.

Oh. Yeah, that's probably right. Well, these were interesting implementations. Of course they were only necessary because heroes were targetable, and while they might serve a decent purpose in H5, they are not mandatory now that there will no longer be archers trying to take out the hero anymore.

[ThunderTitan]

. It's always better to change the application of something rather than just tweak it's numbers.

Right. Because it takes less effort to change then to tweek.


To ur other points: The charging thing is more like the Jousting Bonus the who get to Attack first. Pikemen were used against cavalry, not charging footmen.

[LordHoborgXVII]

Of course, pikemen could defend and attack pretty much about everything, except archers, and charging cavalry could ride down pretty much about everything, except pikemen and some archers. Charging footmen without polearms could take care of standing footmen, provided the defenders were without pikes, and if they were adequately armoured they could take care of archers well enough. But let's talk about this in heroes terms.

A group of 100 dwarves charging into a group of 100 skeletons would certainly result in less initial casualties for the dwarves than an equal melee battle between the 100 dwarves and 100 skeletons. Hence, the attacker has the advantage in that case.

[Arzang]

Of course, pikemen could defend and attack pretty much about everything, except archers, and charging cavalry could ride down pretty much about everything, except pikemen and some archers. Charging footmen without polearms could take care of standing footmen, provided the defenders were without pikes, and if they were adequately armoured they could take care of archers well enough. But let's talk about this in heroes terms.

A group of 100 dwarves charging into a group of 100 skeletons would certainly result in less initial casualties for the dwarves than an equal melee battle between the 100 dwarves and 100 skeletons. Hence, the attacker has the advantage in that case.

1. it seems like weapon tiers would be a better implement (supplement to simultaneous retaliation) than alternate retaliation.

2. why does the heroes engine have to be historically correct? I hate to say it but it is really a game. there are of course historical games, that try to be more or less historically accurate, but heroes is not one of them.

3. dwarves charging into a group? that's a good one. I understand your example but it was a pretty funny one.

4. I'm with TT. give some stacks bonuses for charging. other stacks, notably slow ones (like dendroids, dwarves etc) shouldn't have this. individual tweaking is funnier than having a universal system. especially if that system is based on historical facts rather than game play.

[DaemianLucifer]

To the previous debate:

Some units are great better at defending,some at attacking.Thats why adding attack speed would be quite nice.Then the specialty of pikemen could be to get extra on their attack speed when defending.This way hidra could be rather slow,but it could have very high attack speed,sionce it is multy headed,so it would almost always be the first to attack.

[LordHoborgXVII]

1. it seems like weapon tiers would be a better implement (supplement to simultaneous retaliation) than alternate retaliation.

Which would mean classifying units, which could get annoying and seem rather forced. Not weapon tiers, but attack speed, as Lucy says, would actually be quite nice, even if it would result in simultaneous retaliation.

2. why does the heroes engine have to be historically correct? I hate to say it but it is really a game. there are of course historical games, that try to be more or less historically accurate, but heroes is not one of them.

Which is why I used the charging dwarves example. In this case it's not purely historical, but within the rules of general physics and the examples we've seen so far, which are largely historical. Of course, you could look at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, in which the initial charge is a splendid example of the attacker's advantage during the initial impact, and it's not historical. But yeah, you're right.

3. dwarves charging into a group? that's a good one. I understand your example but it was a pretty funny one.

Dwarves can charge, if somebody tosses them...

4. I'm with TT. give some stacks bonuses for charging. other stacks, notably slow ones (like dendroids, dwarves etc) shouldn't have this. individual tweaking is funnier than having a universal system. especially if that system is based on historical facts rather than game play.

Yes I agree that Champions should have a charge bonus. But about the "funnier, " are you suggesting that you would favor whichever game structure was funnier over which one would work better? Funnier? But anyway, this would be very good if attack speed was implemented, and if it were separate from initiative. But charge bonus as an ability is still a logical way to go about it.

[ThunderTitan]

Of course, pikemen could defend and attack pretty much about everything, except archers, and charging cavalry could ride down pretty much about everything, except pikemen and some archers. Charging footmen without polearms could take care of standing footmen, provided the defenders were without pikes, and if they were adequately armoured they could take care of archers well enough. But let's talk about this in heroes terms.

A group of 100 dwarves charging into a group of 100 skeletons would certainly result in less initial casualties for the dwarves than an equal melee battle between the 100 dwarves and 100 skeletons. Hence, the attacker has the advantage in that case.

Dude, pikes were not useful against footmen because they were too heavy. Charges were useful because they could make the enemy break formation thus giving you an advantage. If the defender was trained well enough it wouldn't work and could actualy have the opossite effect, like i said ask Boudicea.
Cavalry charges are completly different, no one on foot could reach the same speed as a horse. And a countered cavalry charge usualy spelled defeat for the charger.

Thus I say the best way is to give the attacker a small Attack bonus, and make First Strike only work when attacking, when attacked just take out the Attack bonus of the attacker. And Defend should give a bigger defense bonus than the Attack bonus to actualy make it worth using it (in H3 I never found any reason to use it).

[Fyl]

for reality's sake I don't agree with some ideeas that most of the people disliked in Heroes4 : heroes on the battlefield, simultaneus retaliation ...

now I know that this series of games is based on a fantasy world with all there is to it, but I usually preffer that some basic ideeas are maintained from the real world

it wasn't fair to have in H4 a high-level hero that would get to the point of taking down huge numbers of creatures, but also the thing that a hero's attack and defence has influence on the creatures is also out of line; at least in H4 that was done by the 'tactics' skill which had some logical meaning, moreover during a battle when the enemy had a grandmaster tactician that one should have been the first target to lower the rest of the creatures; spell power and knowledge I agree with, since they affect only the hero's spells (and I'll close my eyes with regards to the artifacts a hero wear which have effects on creatures); I'd rather see the creatures have some experience points, the more they fight the better they get; it's not really fair to have a high-level hero, go and buy fresh meat creatures from a castle and suddenly the creatures are way better, then you pass them to a lower-level hero and the creatures drop stats ...

I also found simultaneus retaliation closer to reality and it also makes the strategy more complex (I can only hope that they didn't give up on this just because to make the AI good at it it would have been too much work), I'm not looking forward to having quick battles because I'm either pressed by time or because the strategy is plain and simple ... thinking more of it, I have friends that played H4 only with 'quick combat' on, guess what, they never improved, actually it didn't matter to them anyway, they just played to have some 1-2 hours of fun ... this whole series became so popular because it kept people in front of the computer for days and nights sometimes, because of so many user-made maps that were ever more complex, so the people continued to play for years, now they are trying to make a buck or two by making it 'skirmish/quick race' ? come on, it's TBS not RTS ...

PS. I don't even want to get into the ideea that fog of war will be missing, that is such a conceptual must for me, it will ruin all the possible improvements they might come up with

[Bandobras Took]

My goodness, two and a half pages of this thread now have next to nothing to do with the original post . . . weird.

At any rate, I decided long ago that the Sylvan faction would be one of the last for me to try, so I'll ask this question -- how do its economics stack up against other towns? Are its building more or less resource-intensive? How do the creature costs compare?

[Orfinn]

Welcome back Lord Hoborg XVII

Attackers have the advantage of creating fear in the defending army, a defending army trying to scare the attacking enemy away with harsh language seems hopeless. Attackers also have the freedom to use more tactics than the defenders, well in most cases. Even if "Attack is the best Defence", "Defence is the best Attack" because you can as a last effort trap and/or lure the attacking enemies when they strep into the fortified structures by backstab invading enemies from behind, hide in imporetant advatage point buildings etc. Also Defenders have advantages in form of using boiling oils, citadels, killing alot of tropps by pushing down the invaders ladders.

[Gaidal Cain]

Mod Note: Thread split off this thread from the Sylvan thread

[Corribus]

I never really understood the "well such-and-such is more realistic" argument. Whether simultaneous retal is more realistic than the alternative and whether it makes for a better game are two different issues. (Not to mention, I don't know how one can argue about the unrealisticness of the H3 style but then be comfortable playing a game full of ogres, dragons and wizards....) Personally, I'm OK with it anyway, because both ways can be strategically interesting, but whether or not it's "realistic" - well, I could care less.

[conjurer]

Ok just wanted to say that I don't support simultaneous retaliation not because it was a feature in heroes IV, but because it simply can't work in a turn based strategy, the feature itself beeing more real-time. Heroes is based on the rules of the strategy game of all time, chess, and it must remain this way even if somethings are sacrificied (for example the duration of a game) What I have seen in the developement of H5 is a tendancy to make the game more comercial ( impressive graphics e.g.) and not concentrate on giving the game more depth in gameplay and strategy. Don't get me wrong, H5 is an improvement over H3 and of course H4, but it could offer so much more...
The debate around sim retal concerns the fact that fast high damaging units are able to score powerfull hits and not take any significant damage from the stack attacked(emerald dragon e.g.). In my opinion this concerns not the way retaliation works but the statistics of units. Creatures should support eachother in combat more and the conections formed between them should be more complex; just like chess when to defeat your enemy you must build your strategy so that each piece is protected and at its turn protects other pieces, all of them conecting in a system... In concreto: let's say I have a fast, high damaging unit, this unit shoud not have a high HP so that it has a specific role and for its lack of HP it should be supported by a strong unit (slow, tank unit) that complements it and so on (magic units complementing might units etc.)

[DaemianLucifer]

@Corribus

There is a big diference between realism and fantasy.I prefer my fantasy worlds having realism.The only thing in heroes that I dont see any way of making realistic is the stacks.They are the soul of heroes battles,and changing that to something more realistick would be quite a loss.The rest can be changeg(FoW,LoS,simretal(those abbreviations just grow on you,dont they ),etc)

And why do people always say "Oh,please dont add simretal/FoW/LoS/rangedretal/etc!Those things belong into rts"?They dont belong to rts,they belong to all strategy games.They just depthen strategy,they dont turn it into real time.Now real time FoW,of real time shroud,or dynamic battles,or ghost mode,now these thigs belong into RTS(thats why ghost mode and dynamic battles are optional).

[Corribus]

There is a big diference between realism and fantasy.

There sure is a big difference: they are exact opposites!

[ThunderTitan]

There is a big diference between realism and fantasy.

There sure is a big difference: they are exact opposites!

Nope. Reality and Fantasy are opposites. Realism means that very little suspension of disbelive is required.