8x10

[ThunderTitan]

I play HIII without the grid as well.Just the shadow.Somehow its prettier to me like that.Easier to look at and follow.

In H3 I prefer ti have the grid with the shadow. Just looks better somehow.

[BenchBreaker]

does anyone like hexes more than squares? i kinda miss hexes

[DaemianLucifer]

EH,both are nice.When they are apropriate size,that is.Not large like this.

[Orfinn]

Yup, these squares are somewhat big for my taste but I can live with it unless it can be changed in a patch, expansion or mod but I doubt its possible.

[Nebs]

Is it just me, or siege battlefield is larger?

If so, wouldn't mind it in normal battles.

[Orfinn]

Is it just me, or siege battlefield is larger?

If so, wouldn't mind it in normal battles.

Yup they are larger than normal size but still small in comparison to previous siege battlefields.

[Ethric]

does anyone like hexes more than squares? i kinda miss hexes

I like hexes If it were up to me a battlefield would employ small hexes, a bit larger than the squares of H4 but smaller than the hexes in H2.

[DaemianLucifer]

Is it just me, or siege battlefield is larger?

If so, wouldn't mind it in normal battles.

It is larger by 2 squares in width,and 2 or more in lenght.But the defender has 2 squares less then the attacker.

[ThunderTitan]

Well there was somebody that said you can edit the BF size if you know where to look.

[DaemianLucifer]

Well there was somebody that said you can edit the BF size if you know where to look.

Yes,it was doable in beta.You couldve made the BF vary from the armies sizes as well.Im not sure if it will still be possible.

[ThunderTitan]

It should still be. I doubt they wasted time to take it out.

[Lord Zeus]

Isn't the battlefield 10x12?(shouldn't somebody fix the thread name?)
I'm leaning twards hating it
Compared to the 165 hexes of Heroes III the HV one feals pretty small.
Most creatures have speeds from 4-6 so in two turns they're across.
A great deal of creatures are 2x2, this also decreses the amount of space, combined with obstacles and the ability to place your creatures on the second line , the number of usable squares is really small.

Comments on 2x2 creatures:
If you have mostly 2x2 creatures in your army or you want to split them into smaller stacks you can find yourself short of space.The only way to make sure that all seven 2x2 stacks of creatures enter combat is to have the width=14 squares.

What do you guys think of a 12x16(I would like it if this was the default value) battlefield or a 14x16(seems kind of huge) one?

[ThunderTitan]

Originaly they wanted it to be 8x10.

Now it's 10x12. And as the game is gold already they can't change it anymore. Well at least it's not 8x10 anymore....

[DaemianLucifer]

Comments on 2x2 creatures:
If you have mostly 2x2 creatures in your army or you want to split them into smaller stacks you can find yourself short of space.The only way to make sure that all seven 2x2 stacks of creatures enter combat is to have the width=14 squares.

Ah,but this is more strategic(read:lasy).I did complain about this earlier though no one seems to care.

What do you guys think of a 12x16(I would like it if this was the default value) battlefield or a 14x16(seems kind of huge) one?

The problem is that those are big squares.Two solutions are to make the BF like in HIV(although this wont happen because of the rule),or to divide each of the existing squares into 4 smaller squares.The second would allow us to have 4 creature sizes:1x1(for example pixies),2x2(demons),3x3(gryphons)and 4x4(titans).

[Ethric]

to divide each of the existing squares into 4 smaller squares.The second would allow us to have 4 creature sizes:1x1(for example pixies),2x2(demons),3x3(gryphons)and 4x4(titans).

Why this obsession with squares? We could have 1x2, and 2x3, 3x4, 2x4 as well

[DaemianLucifer]

to divide each of the existing squares into 4 smaller squares.The second would allow us to have 4 creature sizes:1x1(for example pixies),2x2(demons),3x3(gryphons)and 4x4(titans).

Why this obsession with sqaures? We could have 1x2, and 2x3, 3x4, 2x4 as well

Yes we could have.But I think GC noticed why this is bad.If a 1x2 creature is positioned next to an obstacle and gets attacked from the side,what would happen then?This could be avoided by loosing the grid completely,but Im not sure how that would work.

[Ethric]

I don't see the problem... what is it?

[DaemianLucifer]

I don't see the problem... what is it?

Ok,if a creature is one square from left to right and two from down to up,standing left of an obstacle and gets attacked from the left,it has to turn.But then it will have to squeeze its two squares in one square between the obstacle and the attacker.

[Ethric]

Not much of a problem, just adjust the animation for those cases to a sideways attack. It's 3d ain't it, shouldn't be to hard

[DaemianLucifer]

Not much of a problem, just adjust the animation for those cases to a sideways attack. It's 3d ain't it, shouldn't be to hard

Maybe not for a 1x2 creature,but what if it was lets say 1x4?And its rear gots attacked.It wouldnt be able to retaliate.

Actually,come to think of it,it would be a nice addition to the battles.