Simultaneous retal?

[Ethric]

Simulatenous retaliation: why I think it is a good thing:

Firstly, it makes fights more interesting. Steamrolling over neutral stacks of equal or even greater strenght than your own army with no losses just because your troops are faster and the opposition didn't get in a single stroke is dull. Much more fun to have to actually *think* before attacking; "If I attack that stack with this, how many will I loose, is it worth it?". Fighting neutrals as well as players will be more of a challenge, and make the game more exciting, as opposed to just spooling fast-forward to the one decisive fight against the opposing player(s).

But for some of course, like Nival, this is exactly why they like sequential retaliation; they enjoy being able to win easy without losses, and simultaneous retaliation will only be an annoying hindrance that slows down battles. I of course don't share that view...

Secondly, the logic behind simulatenous retaliation in a stack-based game. If a fast person\creature attacks someone\thing slower, it is of course not uncommon for the fast to win before the battle is even started. But, if 1000 fast creatures attack 500 slow ones in group-formation, don't tell me that not a single one of the defenders managed to take a swing at one of the attackers during the attack. That I don't buy. And of course it wouldn't work only for fast creatues; if 20 phoenixes see a horde of 10000 peasants come stumbling towards them, the phoenixes won't manage to peck at a single peasant. If you want to emphasise that a certain type of creature has the ungodly speed to make this possible, give them first strike. But having it as a common rule for any creature makes little sense to me.

Now, I'm not saying that simulataneous retaliation in HoMM ought to take the form it had in HoMM IV, there are ways to improve it. For example, give fast creatures attacking slow ones an advantage, in that only some of the defenders manage to strike back. Say a percentage between 75 and 100 based on the difference between the attackers and the defenders speed\initiative. This will make speed even more important of course, so care must be taken and thorough testing and balancing would be required.

And about what's "realistic" or not, the "Oh but there's dragons in the game so anything goes"-argument isn't really constructive IMO. Is is, as I tried to emphasise above in why i think simultaneous retaliation is more logical, about logic. Now, I'm not saying my logic is the "correct" one, but generally, even though it's a fantasy-themed game, a certain measure of conventional logic should apply. For me, picturing an entire army storm another army without a single one of the defenders being able to react during the attack is illogical, while imagining that a good portion of the defenders, being fighting troops on a battlefield in visual presence of enemy troops, might expect an attack and manage to counter it as it happens is logical. Certain mechanics to adjust for troops speed and combat readiness are of course welcomed, but the basics should be simultaneous retaliation.

[Corribus]

Firstly, it makes fights more interesting. Steamrolling over neutral stacks of equal or even greater strenght than your own army with no losses just because your troops are faster and the opposition didn't get in a single stroke is dull. Much more fun to have to actually *think* before attacking; "If I attack that stack with this, how many will I loose, is it worth it?".

Your first point makes sense, although I don't really feel strongly about the issue either way.

Secondly, the logic behind simulatenous retaliation in a stack-based game. If a fast person\creature attacks someone\thing slower, it is of course not uncommon for the fast to win before the battle is even started. But, if 1000 fast creatures attack 500 slow ones in group-formation, don't tell me that not a single one of the defenders managed to take a swing at one of the attackers during the attack. That I don't buy.

This point is the one that I find amusing. Yeah, so it's not realistic. So what? Who cares? Neither is chess, but you don't see people complaining about that, do you? The success of a strategy game is predicated on hard and fast and (most importantly) simple rules. That the rules should be simple should take priority over whether or not they make perfect physical sense. In fact, the only way they are going to make perfect physical sense is if they are extremely complicated, and that's not a good thing.

For example, and I know we've had this conversation before - let's say you have a stack of 1 dragon attacking a stack of 500 peasants. According to the H3 rules, the dragon attacks first, kills what it kills, and then the remaining peasants retaliate. Rule is simple, and it works. Doesn't really make much physical sense, but oh well.

In H4, the rule is different. Dragon attacks peasants, but full 500 peasants retaliate before the dragon's attack reduces their number. Rule is simple, and it works. But again, that doesn't really make much physical sense either (although the advocates of realism don't ever point this out).

Why should all of the 500 peasants be able to retaliate against the 1 dragon? They can't all fit around the dragon, can they? So maybe you shoud have partial simultaneous retaliation that is based on the relative amount of available space for defending units to surround the attacker? But then if you're going to do that, you need to account for the same thing that might happen if an attacker attacks a small unit of defenders. Oh but what if the defender has a friendly stack next to it? That would reduce the amount of available space to be surrounded, right? And flying units should be different, because they can attack from above, so you need a new rule to cover them. Oh and really swordsman should have different rules from rogues, because to be realistic, a sword requires more space to swing than a knife, so you need a new rule to cover that. And....

on...

and...

on...

At some point, you have to sacrifice the "realism" so that the rules are simple enough to facilitate gameplay. When the rules get unnecessarily complicated to replicate "real life", the game also become less interesting. Strategy becomes muddy.

The question is, where do you draw the line? The answer to that question is obvious: as long as the gameplay is good, the rules are fine. Players will accept it. Finding that line is the hard part...

But the point is that invoking realism in the simultaneous retaliation debate is silly given the stack-nature of the game. Stick with a gameplay argument like the first one if you really want to be convincing. That one I can see the wisdom in.

[Ethric]

This point is the one that I find amusing. Yeah, so it's not realistic. So what? Who cares?

I do, else I wouldn't be posting here

At some point, you have to sacrifice the "realism" so that the rules are simple enough to facilitate gameplay. When the rules get unnecessarily complicated to replicate "real life", the game also become less interesting. Strategy becomes muddy.

The question is, where do you draw the line? The answer to that question is obvious: as long as the gameplay is good, the rules are fine. Players will accept it. Finding that line is the hard part...

Yes, and I draw the line a few meters from where you do, and I generally don't mind some complicatedness as long as it serves a purpose. This may or may not be because I put more importance on the rpg-elements of the game than you? Just a thought.

You make good arguments for further complication but I don't think going that far is necessary. Some might of course, and that's ok with me

But the point is that invoking realism in the simultaneous retaliation debate is silly given the stack-nature of the game. Stick with a gameplay argument like the first one if you really want to be convincing. That one I can see the wisdom in.

Weeell I think I'll stick to whatever arguments I feel suits the subject. Some will of course disagree with some\all of them, but that is to be expected

For example, and I know we've had this conversation before -

And that's why I don't post as much anymore; I've pretty much always had the conversation before with someone

[igoraki]

well,am the one for sim retaliation,and agree with ethric 100%.

However stacks does create some unreal situations,like stealing of a retaliation,when one single creature or any really small number of creatures does suicide attack on big stack of high level creatures taking their ability to retaliate.But also the fact that you can protect your archers with same low number of creatures stacks...imagine 100 swordsman running to attack archers,but they stop to kill single peasant who "protect" them....they would simple run over it in real battle(good example that Jolly Joker gived me to show that games dont need to follow real life rules)

but i still think sim retaliation is better suited for homm or any stategy game,slow stacks die way too easy without killing single creatures...played one game with dungeon few days ago,and i have big stack of minotaurs,they didnt die much during the fight with neutrals simple because they are slow and didnt manage to get in contact with enemy in most cases...but when i attacked angels or archangels,not 100% sure, they attacked that stack and kill every single creature.so what,i had big great army(ok,stack in this case) of minotaurs that didnt do a damn thing in battle but simple disapear without any influence on the battle,maybe that all come to equality in the end,both sides having first strike so i kill almost all angels with blackies, but i felt disappointed anyway....

so i believe that its better that some units have first strike,most of the units if battle have sim retaliation,unit that used defend should gain first strike and additional bonus to defence and unit that charged(attacked from the bigger distance) onto another unit should use ethrics idea of having some % (from 50 to 75)of creatures retaliate simultaneous.That would spice battle and open some new posibilities,in my opinion.

[Fyl]

Well, I agree that gameplay is more important one thing or another, but one constructive discussion about a certain aspect of the game might be read by people who can make a definitive decision about whether or not to implement it, and I think that sim. ret. gives more strategical choises during the battles and not only (you want you attacker to act first, give him first strike by stats or spell, develop his melee/archery skill, same for the defender)

and again, things should have some logic to relate to, otherwise why so many stats and formulas to calculate let's say the damage by taking into account attack/defence/HP/...

PS. I guess nobody likes the ideea of having experience-based creatures (sort of at least)

[Gaidal Cain]

The question is, where do you draw the line? The answer to that question is obvious: as long as the gameplay is good, the rules are fine. Players will accept it. Finding that line is the hard part...

Agree with thath. To me, a System where one stack that's potentially big enough to seriously change the battle can be killed before it gets a chance to attack doesn't seem good. This of course isn't only related to retals, but also to ranged attacks and the like. The H3-style retals means a bit too much of "I go first, thus I win" for my tastes.

[Corribus]

Agree with thath. To me, a System where one stack that's potentially big enough to seriously change the battle can be killed before it gets a chance to attack doesn't seem good. This of course isn't only related to retals, but also to ranged attacks and the like. The H3-style retals means a bit too much of "I go first, thus I win" for my tastes.

Right - which is why I'm fine with simultaneous retal. It's simple and leads to balanced gameplay. I just don't think the realism argument supports it as much as people think it does, and even if it did, that's not why I would support its inclusion in the game.

[Infiltrator]

Well, I for one dislike sim.retilation, because I want, like in chess, to have an upper hand in attacking. If I position myself so that the enemy will fall to my attack first he deserves to be beaten, and the other way around, if I expose my troops, then go ahead and take advantage of my mistakes.

Edit: Galactic Gargle Blaster Rank?

[Gaidal Cain]

Well, I for one dislike sim.retilation, because I want, like in chess, to have an upper hand in attacking. If I position myself so that the enemy will fall to my attack first he deserves to be beaten, and the other way around, if I expose my troops, then go ahead and take advantage of my mistakes.

Problem is that you sometime doesn't have to wait for a mistake. You just rush over and kill everything. At least if haste makes you fast enough to take out half the enemy army (won't happen in H5, but still)

Edit: Galactic Gargle Blaster Rank?

Wrong thread, too late

[LordHoborgXVII]

As Infiltrator just mentioned, positioning and movement are of utmost importance because this is a turn-based game after all. What simultaneous retal creates is simply a 'free-for-all' type battle where the winning side is simply the one with the most firepower. This is consistent with the strategy, which dictates that the side which can utilise its resources the best to send the strongest army to the most advantageous battle will win. In essence, simulaneous retal is not really that different from 'auto-resolving' a battle, because it doesn't allow for very much tactics in the battle itself. Yes you can choose which of your stacks go up against certain enemy stacks, but beyond that hardly anything else matters. With simultaneous retal, the battle is simply a comparison of brute force, with speed/initiative simply giving you the advantage of choosing which of your stacks go up against enemy stacks. Considering the very small battlemaps we've seen in H5 so far, this might in fact be precisely the correct way to go, as there won't be much room for maneuvering of forces anyway.

To truly have a system allowing for deep battles, it would be necessary to enlarge the map size, and to get rid of simultaneous retaliation. In such a setup, as exhibited in H3, the upper hand in the battle results not only from brute force but also from movement and position. Of a large factor for this is battlemap size, which isn't the point of the discussion, but we can't afford to forget that the order of retaliation also plays a large part. With simultaneous retaliation, the side with the most brute force automatically will win. With turn-based retaliation, the victory goes to the side which is able to keep its forces out of the enemy's reach (the old '1 tile too far') and hit the enemy from a direction to keep its own forces from being hurt. If fights are resolved by order of attack instead of brute force, much more depends on position and planning, therefore providing an additional tactical layer to the game.

Of course, there is still the 'steamroller argument.' I have to agree that on the 4-inch maps H5 currently has, turn-based retal would certainly always give the victory to the side with the most initiative. It's quite difficult to deny that turn-based retal only works properly on much larger-sized maps, where it works beautifully. As the game stands right now, simultaneous retal might actually be the correct way to go. What is important, is that this would hurt the game, because it would reduce the battles, which are meant to be intricate chess matches, into mere 'acting out' of things that might as well have been calculated in the background. Without any opportunity for maneuvering, the 'auto-resolve battle' option might as well be set to default. The only way to have proper, deep battles where a player would actually have to think to win, would require first of all a larger battle map (as in H4), and second of all turn-based retaliation to go along with it (as in H3). Basically:

Small Map + Sim Retal = Auto-Resolve
Small Map + Turn Retal = Steamroller
Large Map + Sim Retal = Good
Large Map + Turn Retal = Very Good

[ThunderTitan]

Turn retal give too much of an advantage to the attacker. I still say that giving an Attack bonus to the attacker is the best way to go. That way ur 1000 skeletons won't get taken out by the 30 Dragons just because they have higher initiative, but attacking still gives advantages.

[Gaidal Cain]

As Infiltrator just mentioned, positioning and movement are of utmost importance because this is a turn-based game after all. What simultaneous retal creates is simply a 'free-for-all' type battle where the winning side is simply the one with the most firepower.

Not true. Heroes isn't a game with units that only has some different stats. The special abilities' of the creatures and spells of the heroes' can create for a much deeper gameplay with simul retal than without. The most fair comparison here would be between H3 and H4 (it's not entirely fair, but it is the fairest). On a H3 battlefield, being the fastest was half the victory. I've no statistics on how often each spell is used, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if somone made it and Slow came out way before everything else with the possible exception of Haste. This was of course not only a problem of nonsimul retals, but it certainly was a large part of the problem. Haste and slow are strong in H4 as well, but not nearly on the same scale. On the H4 battlefield, using your abilities to the max is more important than on the H3 one, which "only" is a fight for keeping out of the enemy's reach while putting him inside yours. Way too simplistic if you ask me.

[Infiltrator]

Gaidal, the problem you are saying is affected by mass haste/mass slow being too strong in Heroes 3 (which I agree on), and has less to do with sim retilations. If mass haste/slow were not as much powerful I am almost sure no one would have came up with introducing sim turns.

[Gaidal Cain]

Yes, but with simul retal, they would "only" have been very powerful, comparable to f.ex. Bless.

[DaemianLucifer]

@LordHoborgXVII

Youre kidding,right?Simretal gives you free for all and emphasizes sheer brute force?Wait,youve lost me there.I could say the same for turn ratl in this maner:Well,if you manage to get enough force to oblitherate your enemys stack with one attack,than you can just go from battle to battle using the same army + the haste spell.But thats not true.As it isnt true for simretal as well.Simretal isnt constricted with the battlefield size like the turn retal.And with sim retal order of attack is important as well:First the mages,then the ranged units,then the units with first strike,then the slow tanks,and finnaly the weak runners/flyers.It really has a lot diference if youll attack your enemy with a tank that will receive full retal,or with some weaker stack that has first strike,and thus will receive just a portion of damage from retaliation.

[Infiltrator]

@LordHoborgXVII

Youre kidding,right?Simretal gives you free for all and emphasizes sheer brute force?Wait,youve lost me there.I could say the same for turn ratl in this maner:Well,if you manage to get enough force to oblitherate your enemys stack with one attack,than you can just go from battle to battle using the same army + the haste spell.But thats not true.As it isnt true for simretal as well.Simretal isnt constricted with the battlefield size like the turn retal.And with sim retal order of attack is important as well:First the mages,then the ranged units,then the units with first strike,then the slow tanks,and finnaly the weak runners/flyers.It really has a lot diference if youll attack your enemy with a tank that will receive full retal,or with some weaker stack that has first strike,and thus will receive just a portion of damage from retaliation.

He means that there is more room for mistakes with sim retail. Which is true, You step up with your unit, I hit you, but wait, it's the same as if you hit me . That's really not amusing in my opinion. If you are to leave a stack undifended then it should get punished. The order of attack is important if the unit is going to retilate more then once, otherwise, like in all other heroes games, it doesn't mean anything as the unit is not going to strike back. With turn based retilation, it's imperative what units will you use to soak up the counterattack as well and which ones you are going to use against targets open for attacks, I don't understand why are you saying as if only sim retilation offeres a lot of consideration before attacking, in my opinion it's quite the opposite - most of the time you are going to get the same punishment no matter which one attacks.

[DaemianLucifer]

He means that there is more room for mistakes with sim retail. Which is true, You step up with your unit, I hit you, but wait, it's the same as if you hit me .

Oh right,thats really bad!Its way better for you to crush my stack with no damage.Yes,thats way more fun!

With turn based retilation, it's imperative what units will you use to soak up the counterattack as well and which ones you are going to use against targets open for attacks, I don't understand why are you saying as if only sim retilation offeres a lot of consideration before attacking, in my opinion it's quite the opposite - most of the time you are going to get the same punishment no matter which one attacks.

So with simretal it is the same if you attack that stack of behemots with your peasants and your angels because youll receive the same damage in both cases?

[Infiltrator]

Oh right,thats really bad!Its way better for you to crush my stack with no damage.Yes,thats way more fun!

Hey if you like to turtle around, then knock yourself out. That's your opinion.

So with simretal it is the same if you attack that stack of behemots with your peasants and your angels because youll receive the same damage in both cases?

No, you misread. I'm saying that most of the time you are going to get the same punishment if your stack or the stack you attack strikes first, which is perfect for those who like a dull game where you will never catch your opponent off guard.

[DaemianLucifer]

Oh right,thats really bad!Its way better for you to crush my stack with no damage.Yes,thats way more fun!

Hey if you like to turtle around, then knock yourself out. That's your opinion.

So if Im given a chance to actually use my units even if your units are way faster,its called turtleing?Interesting.

No, you misread. I'm saying that most of the time you are going to get the same punishment if your stack or the stack you attack strikes first, which is perfect for those who like a dull game where you will never catch your opponent off guard.

Right,its way better to always catch your opponent off guard.Tell me,how is it logical that a troop expecting to be attacked,in broad daylight,defending a castle,can be caught off guard?

[Fyl]

as I said, if you want to have an edge over the enemy (as in catching one stack off-guard), upgrade your melee/ranged skills, you'll hit first, then he will retaliate ... making this an option not a mandatory feature makes you think twice when you choose what skills to upgrade