|
| Thread: Pushing the limits |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
posted July 12, 2004 10:29 PM |
|
|
You can't finish a game by month 3?
Was it an XL random?
|
|
Pirahna
Famous Hero
or not ...
|
posted July 12, 2004 10:37 PM |
|
|
I can finish the game in the second week if the map allows ... but i was playing against 5 imperial computers ... so i wanted to be ready for all ... not to mention the periodical raids .... so i stood and thought ... how to kill more efficient ... the answer was to attack in month 3 week 1 day ??
Did i answer your question ?
____________
The Pirahna - wow guys ... my posts keep decreasing ... lol ... i can't post
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2004 02:32 AM |
|
|
Svarog, I can give you the feedback you asked for on challenges against the AI as a fellow singleplayer, but you shouldn’t think of me as a pro because I’m not. The other players that you named -Lews, Haile and Xarfax- are all far better players than I am, though they are more multiplayer orientated than I am. Still, I think I can write quite an extensive (and hopefully useful) post on the subject.
In my opinion, if you want a real challenge you should start with adjusting the game difficulty to impossible (200%). Now you must realize that this changes the nature of the game a lot as well (that is, in standard battlemaps/ cd maps /randoms). The game becomes more a race to catch up with the artificial intelligence in time. Or in other words, it depends on if you can overcome your resource deficit fast enough.
This type of gameplay has a few consequences. Once you have a decent army there is no point whatsoever in continuing the game as there is no way you will lose anymore. This is usually the phase that I get quite bored with the map I am playing. That is also the reason that I don’t like playing large maps, as these are more tedious to finish once you have ‘equalized’ with the computer than small maps. For a more extensive discussion about why I think playing on 200% against the computer is different than multiplayer, I can refer to this thread, where about everybody seems to disagree with me  .
When you play on 200%, it matters a lot what map size you play. Put simply: it is much easier to play on impossible on an XL map than on a small map. In large maps the distance between you and your opponents is bigger, so you will meet with your enemies later, which gives you more time to build up and overcome your initial disadvantage.
What also matters for the difficulty of the game is the richness of the map. Generally, rich maps are easy. If your area is littered with treasure chests, you are hardly handicapped in building, which again facilitates your goal to catch up with your computer.
With these configurations in mind, you can compose a very difficult random map. You should play on 200%, let all your computer enemies ally in one team and most importantly set map size to small without underground. You will now get a map that is very small and stuffed with computer players. In most of these maps, there is simply not much place for other locations than a few mines, so the map is very poor as well. Now the question is: can you beat 7 computer players with these hardest settings?
Well, it depends. Let’s assume that you set the monsters to weak. If you start out with Shakti or Galthran, it is possible to quickly rush your enemies and win the game. On the other hand, if you start with Wystan and his four lizardmen (yes, that is possible!) with no resources in the vicinity of your castle, while at day 2 Ciele knocks on your door with a horde of pixies and a bunch of elementals, there is not much to hope for.
If you set the monsters to strong, rushing will be a bit harder but if you play Galthran and build up his necromancy skill, you can feast well on these throngs of level one units. So in this case too it is possible to complete the map on the hardest settings. But again, if you are less lucky with your starting hero, I think you’re toast.
This would pretty much be my answer to your question about what is the limit in randoms. However, I know of multiplayer veterans who have answered the very same question in other threads, so you may find that interesting as well. Archie for example, who posts here under the name Notmytohhandle and is certainly among the most gifted players in this community, wrote the following:
Quote:
U should try random medium with under, 7 allied AI all with same town to start. At 200 this is tough lol but every once in a while u pull it off 
Still, there is the question how much fun to play these kind of small randoms without underground are. In my opinion, the lack of any locations and the meeting in the beginning of week 1 makes for a very dull game. It appears to be possible to edit the .rmg file to create a random map where your opponents start in a very rich area, while your starting area is poor, but I have no knowledge of how this works. So instead I like to play maps that are not created by the computer and where the AI is given a big advantage (for example in troops, artifacts, heroes or starting area).
Surprisingly few CD maps suffice to these criteria. An RoE map such as ‘The Five Rings’ for example is rated as expert, but in fact it is a large and very rich map where you can build angels + castle in week 1. Actually there are only 2 CD maps that I found interesting and challenging: Barbarian Breakout and Dead and Buried. As you will understand, these are both small maps and relatively poor. I will be very honest about my gaming skills. Recently I played Barbarian Breakout in the following settings: no allies, starting as red, impossible difficulty and completely random. I started with 500 gold, the Inferno town and Calid as starting hero and finished this map without any reloading. I think this game demanded almost all of my capabilities as a Heroes 3 player.
Now that you have a good idea of where my limits are, Svarog, you may want to test your own skills too. You can download and play this map and then compare your first week achievements with the pictures that I posted in this thread.
Happy singleplayer gaming!
____________
|
|
kwahraps
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 23, 2004 03:37 PM |
|
|
Nice post Wub. Like you, I am primarily an offline player. To accentuate my games, I try different themes and variants to move the game along. For example, only casting spells that I have the appropriate skill for (ie no slow or stone skin if I don't have Earth magic).
Like yourself, the key for me is to handicap myself while letting the CPU get stronger. For instance, I only allow myself to split stacks 50/50. By creating those 1 stack fodder armies, you are only taking advantage of the AI, not that there's anything wrong with that . . . but, try playing my way, and you'll have to change your strategies. Naturally, players will argue that these tactics are necessary for speed purposes, and that you shouldn't change the rules around, when, in fact, these same people ban Necro, Conflux, no hit and run, etc. However, if it enhances the online gaming experience, then by all means, have yourself a field day.
And that's the fundamental problem. Everyone has his/her own idiosyncracies when playing the game. Strategies for TOH games are predicated on distinct, resource-rich maps. Certain players don't like small maps because they don't get to build up their army. I don't have the luxury of spending hours on an XL map building up zounds of any one stack, let alone level 7 creatures.
I play random, medium-sized maps, no underground, several CPU players on 200%. 50% stack splits only, spell-casting with appropriate skill, # of heroes cannot exceed # of CPU enemies. I do not expect everyone to play be these rules, but they work for me.
In the end, to each their own. For me, there has to be uncertainty. I don't want to start a game if I know I'm going to win it. Random maps can be very frustrating, especially at 200% with no chests, gold piles, or watermills in sight.
Good luck.
Kwahraps the Noobarian
|
| |
|
|
