Non-linear damage of casters

[Jolly Joker]

Now we are busily marching towards the wargame rules of play, and believe me, I've played them a long, long time, and I'm happy to have a simple game like heroes.

Weren't you the one that was saying how it's actualy so complex that the AI has troubles keeping up? And what's so hard if the PC keeps track of all that?

What has that got to do with it?
And the PC keeping track is worth squat because you have to be able to see the consequences of your doing BEFORE you actually do it.

[The Mad Dragon]

I am totally confused by what's being discussed right now :s.

[ThunderTitan]

What has that got to do with it?

Just an observation of mine.

And the PC keeping track is worth squat because you have to be able to see the consequences of your doing BEFORE you actually do it.

And you find it hard to just implement a nice retal dmg counter? All that would be made more complex is the devs job. Something a customer in a capitalist market shouldn't give a sh*t about.

[Mytical]

Can somebody tell me what retail stealing has to do with damage? It is simple really, damage is damage. Regardless if it is cold steel or magic. So why some units keep damage linear while others don't is beyond me. I also want you all to keep this in mind. A square could represtent any ammount of terrain possible. 1 square could equal 1" or 1000000 miles. So you can have as cramped or as open a territory as you would wish for all of this. Now you ask what about 2x2 monsters? That would just explain how they set up their formation. (1-3 creatures would get sticky but that is beside the point). So cramped quarters would be a moot point really. If you do 1 point of damage then logically if there were 100 of you you would do 100 points. Simple as that. Now you say, what about misses in attacks or blocked or whatnot. Then by that same token a unit with 5 attack facing a unit with 5 defense could do no damage whatsoever. So this 'game' considers each attack automatic success except in unusual circumstances (ie ghosts which logically at least SOME of them would fail the check but that is besides the point again). Magic damage is STILL damage. The source doesn't matter. For instance if you are beheaded with a sword, or shot off with a shotgun you are just as dead. (just an example folks).

[Pitsu]

Just some completely random thoughts:

Linear creature spell power and perhaps some interesting perks of destructive magic could be the way to make direct damage spells as effective as bless or frenzy in battles of legions of creatures. As of now, hero and creature direct damage spells are useless in huge battles. One the other hand, that could make the tactics of a small battle as efficient in a huge one, disbling the need to adopt to different battles in different ways.

For blessings and curses spellpower determines duration. Considering the length of a battle in turns and looking at the H5 stack size vs spellpower tables, do you think there is a significant difference when the current system is replaced by linear? I' say no.

[DaemianLucifer]

@JJ
First,I propose three out of the plethora of ideas,and you not only do not consider that plethora,but you focus just on one idea.

First, you'd have to keep track. A stack is sttacked. Okay, let's say you'll need half of the rest of the attacked stack to make a certain kill (incorporealness and other specials?), bad luck considered. That leaves you half of the stack eligible for another retaliation. The stack gets attacked a second time and half of the stack is killed. How many units are ligible for retaliation a) in principal (if a really large stack attacked): 1) All survining units; 2) half of the surviving units; 3) None of the surviving units; 4) a random number of them between 0 and 100%; and b) in case a smaller stack attacks that can be killed with part of the remaining units (and how much retaliation would THAT leave).
Now the more important question is: would that still be fun? I don't think so.

Easy,if half of the stack attacked,half of it retataliates.So if you kill half,half of the rest would retaliate.Thats like asking what if my hit kills only the confused untis,would the rest attack normally?

However, even if you could solve those problems, what about attacking? You have so many movement points and you have an attack. If you attack an adjacent stack that requires only part of the damage your stack can inflict you could go ahead and argue that the stack as movement and attack power left and should get another attack.

Now we are busily marching towards the wargame rules of play, and believe me, I've played them a long, long time, and I'm happy to have a simple game like heroes.

I find it amuzing that you not only accept but vigorously defend one halfly implemented idea(the non-linear damage just for casters),yet so zealosly attack even a thought about considering of implementing another such thing.

Its same as with dracogedon.You were so into bashing dracogedon that you wouldnt even consider an alternate way to prevent warlocks for abusing it.Now when dwarves can use dracogedon,you not only acept it,but defend it.

And the PC keeping track is worth squat because you have to be able to see the consequences of your doing BEFORE you actually do it.

So,when you cast circle of winter,you know where each unit will be after it on the ATB bar?

So this 'game' considers each attack automatic success except in unusual circumstances (ie ghosts which logically at least SOME of them would fail the check but that is besides the point again). Magic damage is STILL damage. The source doesn't matter. For instance if you are beheaded with a sword, or shot off with a shotgun you are just as dead. (just an example folks).

Actually,this is where youre wrong.If a single peasant attacks a dragon,it deals only 1 damage.But if 10 peasants attack that same dragon,it can still do just 1 damage.Doesnt that mean that 9 peasants missed?So the game does count the misses but they are all packed in the damage range and attack and defense bonuses.

[Mytical]

Actually from my understanding, what it does DL is then modify the total damage with the Att/Def difference. So they don't 'miss' they just do less damage because the dragons defense is so high (it connects but bounces off the scale) this is as valid as your way, and hard to argue either way .

[DaemianLucifer]

Actually from my understanding, what it does DL is then modify the total damage with the Att/Def difference. So they don't 'miss' they just do less damage because the dragons defense is so high (it connects but bounces off the scale) this is as valid as your way, and hard to argue either way .

It is modified by attack and defense,but I am not talking about mechanics but how to translate them to,shall we say real world.When 10 peasants git the dragon for the same damage as 1 peasant that translates that 9 peasants have missed/couldnt penetrate the skin/were parried.

[Mytical]

Yes, but it could be any of those, so it is hard to argue that they actually missed . Though it's just as hard to argue they didn't so it may be a moot point. The main point is that damage is damage, and should be consistant regardless of physical or magical.

[Jolly Joker]

@DL
A typical DL: he has no points and counters with an attack.
And you gave the wrong answer to the problem. The way the game works in general a system that would apply something like retaliation in parts would have to apply a randomization. Some thoughts about it:

a) It's not a good idea to start on the assumption that a retaliating stack would know exactly how many warriors will have to retaliate exactly to kill the number of attackers. The defender wouldn't know, for example, whether a retaliation would suffer under bad luck or get a luck bonus. That would mean un unlucky hit might leave attackers standing, even though a retaliation of the full stack might have easily killed it. (Since (bad) luck is luck this would have to be accepted then.) But that means, the first consequence of that rule would be the possible downside, that the defense might suffer a worse result than would have been possible under the old rule. A consequential approach would be to leave it to the owning player how many of the attacked stacks should retaliate (it's a stratege game, after all)

b) Be that as it may, on with the said example. There was an attack that left 10 Angels standing. Out of that 10 Angels 5 retaliated. There is another attack on the Angels killing 5. How many of the surviving five are eligible to retaliate?
Since Homm is a game of chance the answer is a probability answer. There are 252 combinations of which 5 angels are killed and only one of them is for the 0/5 option, there are 25 for the 1/4 option each and there are 100 for the 3/2 option each. So in a roundabout 40% you'd get 2 for retal, and in another 40% you'd get 3, while in 20% of the cases you'd have a freakier distribution.

Now we have the same questions to answer for the attack overkill: if we need something against "retal-stealing" we need something against ground stealing as well, so we need at least overrun-rules: 1000 Angels should somehow be able to simply squash one Imp, so we need the same new rules that we enable for retaliation, for attack as well.

You see what this amounts to. The game gets immediately MUCH more complex and uncalculable. It MIGHT be more fun for a certain type of player (the wargamer, to be specific), but it would lengthen fights massively and the casual gamer wouldn't have fun with it - the game would lose a lot of its appeal.

What I'm clearly disappointed with is the halfbaked way you are throwing in ideas here without really putting much thought into it. It takes me to believing that you do that for the sole purpose of arguing and nit-picking: "oh, but it could be so much better, if only..."

@ not DL specifically
Now the other thing. Let's just have a look at what non-linear in the case of damage casters means by having a look into the rules: Damage casters cast their spells in just the same way than heroes - via spell power. Since there is no fixed rule on how "spell power" is gained it is perfectly possible to make it the way they did - a logarhytmic curve. There is nothing wrong with it. The main question here is not (Mythical), whether damage is damage, but how damage is produced, in this case via spell power. Since all those units have a mundane way to deal damage as well, which works in a more simple linear way this is not really a problem.

[Mytical]

This does not explain; however, why it makes a difference. Take if you would rather arrow conjured by magic and a normal arrow. If you have 100 archers who fire arrows, and a hundred mages who fire these magically created arrows, both should do the same general damage. It doesn't make sense that the magic reduces it's damage yet the mundane way doesn't.

[Jolly Joker]

It does. It's Spell Power the damage-doer are producing, not magic arrows. You could say that a stack of Druids does ONE Lightning Bolt, the spell power of which (and the damage) depends on the number of Druids combining to cast. That's very different.

[DaemianLucifer]

@DL
A typical DL: he has no points and counters with an attack.
And you gave the wrong answer to the problem. The way the game works in general a system that would apply something like retaliation in parts would have to apply a randomization. Some thoughts about it:

No,I didnt attack you,I attacked your reasoning because:I gave 3 ideas(here in writting three),one of which has been very much detailed by me,two have been detailed by other members much much earlier.I didnt throw in a half-baked idea,like you said,because it has been very thoroughly discused at least a year ago,if not even earlier.Your problem for not reading/remembering it.And out of all 3(again in letters three)ideas I mentioned(yes,just mentioned,not detailed)you decided to focus on arguing just one,and then you dare say I have no point.Typical JJ,seeing only what he wants because he knows he is defending a sinking ship.

And those questions in third and fourth paragraph of mine werent attacks,but questions:How can you defend one halfly implemented idea(non-linear growth of damage only for casters),yet you so zealosly attacked only a mentioning of a long ago proposed idea?How come you so vigorously attacked even the posibility of changing IM because of dracogedon,yet now you defend dwarven dracogedon?

a) It's not a good idea to start on the assumption that a retaliating stack would know exactly how many warriors will have to retaliate exactly to kill the number of attackers. The defender wouldn't know, for example, whether a retaliation would suffer under bad luck or get a luck bonus. That would mean un unlucky hit might leave attackers standing, even though a retaliation of the full stack might have easily killed it. (Since (bad) luck is luck this would have to be accepted then.) But that means, the first consequence of that rule would be the possible downside, that the defense might suffer a worse result than would have been possible under the old rule. A consequential approach would be to leave it to the owning player how many of the attacked stacks should retaliate (it's a stratege game, after all)

I said minimum damage,that includes bad luck scenario.Thus if 3 out of 10 angels can kill the attacking peasants with normal minimum,6 would retaliate to compensate for bad luck.

b) Be that as it may, on with the said example. There was an attack that left 10 Angels standing. Out of that 10 Angels 5 retaliated. There is another attack on the Angels killing 5. How many of the surviving five are eligible to retaliate?
Since Homm is a game of chance the answer is a probability answer. There are 252 combinations of which 5 angels are killed and only one of them is for the 0/5 option, there are 25 for the 1/4 option each and there are 100 for the 3/2 option each. So in a roundabout 40% you'd get 2 for retal, and in another 40% you'd get 3, while in 20% of the cases you'd have a freakier distribution.

Why dont you nitpick on confusion that much?It does say some of the units forget.What if you kill just those units?Would the rest of the stack retaliate normally?Same method is used here.If you read my post to the end youd see that I already answered your question.But here,let me answer it again:Simple,use percentages.5 out of 10 retaliated?That means 50% on next full retaliation.5 die,that still leaves 50% of the next retaliation.Its exactly how it works now(read my peasant example above).

Now we have the same questions to answer for the attack overkill: if we need something against "retal-stealing" we need something against ground stealing as well, so we need at least overrun-rules: 1000 Angels should somehow be able to simply squash one Imp, so we need the same new rules that we enable for retaliation, for attack as well.

Again,you defend one halfly implemented idea,and cannot accept another.Why dont you complain that they stopped at making only caster damage non-linear?

You see what this amounts to. The game gets immediately MUCH more complex and uncalculable. It MIGHT be more fun for a certain type of player (the wargamer, to be specific), but it would lengthen fights massively and the casual gamer wouldn't have fun with it - the game would lose a lot of its appeal.

Honestly.And logarhytmic damage of the casters makes the game so simple.And initiative makes it so simple.All those percentages involved with ice ring and master of ice are so simple.Face it,heroes was never a simple game,and it never will be.

What I'm clearly disappointed with is the halfbaked way you are throwing in ideas here without really putting much thought into it. It takes me to believing that you do that for the sole purpose of arguing and nit-picking: "oh, but it could be so much better, if only..."

Like I said,the idea is not mine,its been discused more than once before,at least a year back,if not even further(and it sure must have been discussed earlier,but I dont remember reading it earlier).Besides,I gave 3(and agin in letters three)ideas,one of which I discussed in detail.Yet you decided to argue just the one you found most simple for you to argue.

@ not DL specifically
Now the other thing. Let's just have a look at what non-linear in the case of damage casters means by having a look into the rules: Damage casters cast their spells in just the same way than heroes - via spell power. Since there is no fixed rule on how "spell power" is gained it is perfectly possible to make it the way they did - a logarhytmic curve. There is nothing wrong with it. The main question here is not (Mythical), whether damage is damage, but how damage is produced, in this case via spell power. Since all those units have a mundane way to deal damage as well, which works in a more simple linear way this is not really a problem.

Again,you see no problem in 3 stacks of 4 druids dealing more damage than 12 druids in a single stack?Yet everyone else does.But hey,I understand,its how ubival made it and you are compelled to accept it.

[Mytical]

But combining them should make them stronger not weaker if anything. Take for consideration strings. Alone they are weak, but when you weave many of them together not only do they gain in strength each individual string, but above that by a small ammount. So using your own logic, that would mean that single lightning bolt would do more damage then each individual lightning bolt. Many see the 'weaving' of magic just like that, each person adds their own strength but also helps make each other slightly stronger.

[DaemianLucifer]

It does. It's Spell Power the damage-doer are producing, not magic arrows. You could say that a stack of Druids does ONE Lightning Bolt, the spell power of which (and the damage) depends on the number of Druids combining to cast. That's very different.

And you find absolutelly nothing wrong with that?Split the druids and each casts one lightning,but when you combine them they all cast just one lightning?They must be some very stupid druids for doing such a thing.

[Gaidal Cain]

I have to say that I see very little point in arguing casters from a "logical" standpoint. One could just as easily say that all the extra casters interefers with eachother or something (though why they wouldn't when they're in several stacks is beyond me- the point is that it can be justified if one really wants to), but the fundamental problem I have with it it's that it's not good for gameplay. I can't see how one that wants a "fast and simple" game can like a system which awards you for doing time consuming stuff like splitting your casters in order to do maximum damage (which also requires that you know the maths involved, mind you).

Which of the two seems more complicated: 10 druids always do the same total damage, or that the damage they do depends on how they're split?

[Mytical]

Oh I agree GC, but I was trying to get JJ to see the flaw in his logic. Yes it should not increase damage, yes it should be linear. And yes, it would speed up play greatly not to have to split casters ad nausium. Oh and I don't like the idea that DL has about the retals either . Note: I think both JJ and DL are very good debaters, but in these instances noted above I just think they are wrong.

[Jolly Joker]

GC is right, it makes no sense to discuss it logical because you can defend each point. When you make a rule in a game that rule should fulfill a purpose, otherwise you wouldn't make the rule.
The purpose of this rule seems rather easy to see. Low numbers of spell casters have RELATIVELY bigger impact on the game than high numbers (which is the case with other specials as well; wraiths come to mind, the explosion damage of Demons and others). Personally I find this very good for some reasons: it makes the units something special in the beginning when you have very few units - they immediately have an impact, but they revert back to normal (in case of the Druids level 4) units the more units come into play. Let's not forget here that Druids in combination with shooters have a massive mundane shooting power.

The fact that you will get better results with splitting as such is, as explained, nothing special for the game. It is justified, at least for me, with the fact that you have a strictly limited 7 army slots. Gating is so powerful because you get additional units in (which is kind of getting a chance to split without risking losses). If you could split endlessly it was indeed bad. But with 7 army slots your splitting options are very limited.

It leads to strategy changes as well. For example, if you fight against casting neutrals it is generally better to kill a whole stack even if you could kill more creatures by directing your attacks against different stacks.

So, I defend this, because I can see a good purpose here for what they do. It works well for the game. It gives you a lot of tactical opportunities to try things in the beginning with very few units which makes the game interesting overstepping the "exploit" boundaries given by general splitting tactics for the known purposes of guarding shooters, soaking up retaliations, building walls for fast units to act behind and so on and so forth.

[DaemianLucifer]

Note: I think both JJ and DL are very good debaters,

No,we are good flamers.Big difference

but they revert back to normal (in case of the Druids level 4) units the more units come into play.

"If they become the same as the rest of the shooters,whats the point in having them?"

The fact that you will get better results with splitting as such is, as explained, nothing special for the game. It is justified, at least for me, with the fact that you have a strictly limited 7 army slots. Gating is so powerful because you get additional units in (which is kind of getting a chance to split without risking losses). If you could split endlessly it was indeed bad. But with 7 army slots your splitting options are very limited.

You can clear half the neutrals on any map using only split casters,while the rest of your army builds up in town.Not to mention that it becomes slower when you have to click cast,then select the spell,and the select the target 7 times every turn.If there was the last action select(like in HIV,but lets not forget the rule here ),I wouldnt argue your logic about speeding the game up.This way,however it is flawed.

[Jolly Joker]

No again. No matter how much you split, you cannot split into more than 7 stacks. There is nothing wrong with making use of the number of slots you have when it is allowed to split. There just isn't. If you want to speed up the game, drop a slot or two, forcing players to leave a unit at home like in H 2. But if the game a) allows 7 stacks, and b) allows splitting stacks it's kind of silly to argue against making use of that.

Second, it's completely irrelevant whether you can clear half the neutrals on any map with casters (which is just some statement; I don't think it is right anyway), because half of the neutrals on each map are fodder anyway. The important locations are the problems, and those are what counts.