|
| Thread: Smaller Armies |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
posted June 23, 2004 02:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
ok your right sorry, I only took that as an way so simplify the thing, though my last post was to Svarog.
but the thing remains that an cap like that wouldn't be prectical in the long run, and still, I don't see any reasons why there should be one in the first place.
only way to have a somewhat working movement cap is to have as they did in the last game to count in the each individual creatures movement and by that decide how far you could go.
but I still think it should be better for it to be depending on te heroes movement as in the old games. it's the hero who leads the army and keep them in track, so it's up to the hero how far they can go anyway,
it's the same thing as in that he gives bonus in strength and defense in battle, he should be able to make them walk further aswell 
i Completely disagree. Lets say you have a dwarf, he can take 10 paces. And you have you're hero, which can take 30. No matter what he does, that freaking dwarf wont take 20 xtra paces! in this case he might lift the dwarf, but what if there was 10 dwarves?
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
Duckie
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted June 23, 2004 02:58 PM |
|
|
lol, i see you point.
but it's the same thing with the hero giving his troops extra strength and defense in battle.
just cauce he is strong and well defensed, and cauce he got a good artifact doesn't mean his troops should have it.
but it's in there cauce it makes the game fun.
one could say that the reason the creatures get an attack and an defense bonus from the hero is cauce he trains them and gives good strategic advice in how to attack the enemy or block the're attacks.
then one could use them same thing when travelling, the creatures on their own, without heroes to guide them would maybe go 10 steps, but with the hero to guide them, reading the map, and giving advice in the terraign maybe they can get further.
I dun know, but there shouldn't be anything bad with having big armies, it would just slow the game down and in the end make it boring. Admit, it IS fun to slaughter 1000 orcs in one attack for example  
everything in the game doesn't have to make sense, it's just how the game is, if it's fun that way there's no reason to change it.
"if it's not broken there is not need to fix it" ^_^
Well, if it makes you feel better, lets just say that they have constructed amazing transporting machines that can easily transport the creatures as far as the hero can go.
sattesfied? 
^_^
____________
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted June 23, 2004 03:23 PM |
|
|
I've also hated that part, but the defence/attack thing is high morality, peptalks, and being TRAINED for combat. And there's a reason they have limited movement, as an exampel: The Dwarf(he is so slow  ) there is NO WAY that he can be trained to walk 3x his normal movement. And thats the truth, espesially when you think that they've had some training.
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
Duckie
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted June 23, 2004 03:48 PM |
|
|
that uncanily makes me go back to:
IT'S A GAME!
does it really matter if everything in the movements thing makes sense?
ya start nerfing the movements it WILL undoubtedly make the game slower, and thus it will get boring.
so if there's a bit of un logical implements in a game that is entirely fictional to make it work better and make it fun
is that not worth it?
____________
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted June 23, 2004 05:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"if it's not broken there is not need to fix it" ^_^
1. to some people it has been a problem. when making homm4 they talked about the player having to use multiple armies and fight more for position on the map. sort of making the players feel more territorial. well, it seems that they elegantly failed to do that in homm4.
2. we are not fixing problems here, are we? we are doing almost nothing (just talking). *sigh*
========
imho it's a very interesting topic, unfortunately everybody is talking about some kind of taxes and discussing the details of movement penalties.
a sufficiently large number of creatures moving with microscopic speed can be solved by just adding a constant to the formula.
i think that the real life situation looks like a messenger vs a caravan. around some number of creatures there should be transition from messenger speed to caravan speed.
also, it could be realistic to implement damage penalties to large stacks: all the creatures in a large stack cannot reach the contact line of two stacks.
whatever, don't enthusiastically support neither of those. imho they are just as good as putting a tax on army movement (not upkeep, you won't loose troops when you don't have money you just cannot move them), but army movement cost would guarantee positive results more likely than large army movement penalty.
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted June 23, 2004 06:04 PM |
|
|
STOP SAYING IMHO AND IMO all the time xD .. u say it constantly .. i DON'T like the damage penalty.
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted June 23, 2004 06:09 PM |
|
|
interesting, you don't like damage penalty, but you seem to like movement penalty. or have i misunderstood you?
damage penalties and movement penalties look almost exactly the same type of solutions to me.
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted June 23, 2004 06:36 PM |
|
|
Yes, you're right about my opinion .. And well that is my opinion like it or not
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 23, 2004 08:34 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 23 Jun 2004
|
Gerdash, movement penalty and damage penalty is not the same IMO. IMHO a movement penalty would slow down the game somewhat, force you to do rational steps on the map and is easier to handle IMO. The damage penalty however, imo is an extremely delicate matter to balance since it imposes the dilemma of a "golden proportion", i.e. the proportion that would offer the player with the best effectiveness of its troops. If it's irrelevant (as it's most ligical), and the biggest effect would be achieved with the total army in all cases, then IMHO it wouldnt give the desired effect of splitting the army. While in the case of the movement penalty, the movement points in relation to the power of the splitted armies is at stake IMO. (But the biggest flaw is the "cheating" as you said)
In the other case (demage penalty) nothing is at stake, since there is no relation, but the best effectiveness is always achieved by the total army. However, that reasoning would be only used in the big battles (which is understandible enough; all the kingdom should be mobilised then), while during the exploration and mid-game battles, I believe smaller armies would be more effective (more directions of expansion; fast expansion) than large and sluggish ones, and hence they will be more often used. I hope you understood me. I changed my mind about it since my initual suspiciousness. I like it now.
And IMHO army movement cost is nothing better than upkeep cost. First, because any movement would require money, NOT GOOD. We need to stimulate movement round the map, especially when its so essential in the early stages of the game when you're broke. And the rest of the reasons are pretty much the same as those I noted about the upkeep, since IMO you're troops are still out of cotrol and whether in the garrison or on the map, it makes no difference really IMO.
Cheers to RealDeal.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted June 24, 2004 06:03 PM |
|
|
one times one is one (no imho).
imho a better solution to the problem is making the player consider the movement distances more carefully.
lol. the second one is my personal opinion that is a matter of taste. hmm.. maybe i should start using 'impo' = 'in my personal opinion'.
========
ok, impo the main problem is that troops are limited by creature growth, so the player wants to travel from one end of the map to the other and back whith his main army to avoid loosing troops in small battles. the player has to wait for creature growth rather than consider the time or resource it takes to move his main army.
if, by any means, we could make the player want to minimize movement (moving from one end of the map to the other and back to get a few treasure chests guarded by a few goblins is ridiculuos impo) and play more territorially (have local armies that move shorter distances), the problem would be solved without any band-aid penalties to movement or damage.
edit: it would be more precise if i had said: make movement on map at least as important as troops
========
the movement penalty thing is not so unrealistic, though, the result will just be small scout armies vs no-matter-how-large caravans (assuming that the player isn't splitting the large armies to small fast armies if he needs to move a longer distance on the map the way i just said was ridiculous). but as it is a penaly, the player will feel penalized, and that will feel like a band-aid solution, etc.
|
|
draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2004 06:47 PM |
|
|
|
well, the cheating (chaining) could be reduced if you simple made it that units lose 25% of their daily movement if they change armies on the map, in the castle it would be free because of all the movement that goes on there.
|
|
barbarian
Famous Hero
|
posted July 12, 2004 04:12 AM |
|
|
hmm i like ur XP idea it can be nice if u got a black dragon that seen and been to so many fights he has grown in strengh cause he has more knowledge about he's enemys and he's capabilities i must say that can be very nice but i see no reason why stacks should have a limit well anyways i still like the XP idea keep those ideas coming .
remember kids HF playing with ur food.
____________
It's optional.
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
|
posted July 12, 2004 04:35 AM |
|
|
Hmmm. Maybe each creature would take a certain amount of gold each turn to maintain. Like it takes 1 gold to support 1 goblin. To limit uberlarge stacks (sorry skellies!)it would take more gold to support creatures in larger stacks, like if you had 500 goblins in a single stack then it would be 2 gold/goblin. I'm not sure what the numbers should be though, I'm just presenting an idea.
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
barbarian
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2004 01:30 PM |
|
|
upkeep dosen't make much since it would cost way to much gold, I mean if there is upkeep then everyone probably will only make armies when they got to much gold, like 200000 then they will stil have a huge army and they will stil have 10000 gold easely for the upkeep later, so it dosen't really eliminate the stacking problem does it, but maybe I'm wrong, and maybe some1 already said this but hey I don't time to read through this entire HC forum to look for a similar post .
Moderator's note:This topic has been closed, as it refers to an older version of the game. To discuss Heroes 3, please go to Library Of Enlightenment, to discuss Heroes 4, please go to War Room Of Axeoth, to discuss Heroes 5, go to Temple Of Ashan.
____________
It's optional.
|
| |
|
|
