|
| Thread: Siege analysis... | |
|
PerkTheJerk
Tavern Dweller
|
posted April 15, 2005 09:49 AM |
|
|
Siege analysis...
Hey I'm a dedicated heroes gamer, not online though.
But as I red som topics I didn't notice any bout´ siege questions. I therefore wonder if there gonna be a catapult on sieging a castle like in HOM&M3 or cyclops or other creatures who can break down the walls??
In HOM&M4 it didn't have any of that, u must break down the drawbridge, that really sucked in my opinion..
Would be glad if there could be a discussion bout´this--
____________
|
|
a_rebirthing...
Supreme Hero
with rebirthing power
|
posted April 15, 2005 10:37 AM |
|
|
yea but maybe cut of the catapult is more realistic because a real catapult is hard to transport.
____________
'Tis better to rely on the the wit of your brain rather than the speed of your hands and mouse -me
Being happy isn't just an emotion, it's a choice!-Leo_Lion
It's Gortex!!!
|
|
rapttuz
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 15, 2005 12:31 PM |
|
|
I think may be the some creatures could sige !
meele:
exp: colossos
ent
and range:
exp: cyclos wiht stones(HOMM 3)
gogs (fier balls)
or else:
more specific magic to KO the walls
____________
|
|
vladpopescu79
Promising
Famous Hero
a vampire of taste
|
|
posted April 15, 2005 05:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
yea but maybe cut of the catapult is more realistic because a real catapult is hard to transport.
That is true, but ut's not unconceivable that some dragons might carry some pieces of it on their backs and then some peasants (under the wise supervision of the hero) would assemble it on the spot. 
However, I don't like very much this idea of transport, so I would let the sieging army chop some trees and make the catapult on the spot. It would not be so fancy, but it shoud work. Then you might devise a new skill for the hero, something like engineering as a secondary skill in logistics. If he doesn't have it you don't get a catapult. If he's a beginner you might have it by the end of the 5'th turn, let's say. And if he's expert (or grandmaster, or something....) you would get it right at the start of the battle. This will of course be completely sepparate to the balistics skill.
____________
MANE, TEKEL, FARES
|
|
a_rebirthing...
Supreme Hero
with rebirthing power
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 02:17 AM |
|
|
great idea, im for it
____________
'Tis better to rely on the the wit of your brain rather than the speed of your hands and mouse -me
Being happy isn't just an emotion, it's a choice!-Leo_Lion
It's Gortex!!!
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 08:04 AM |
|
|
there are siege threads somewhere, but they must be quite old by now.
my own preference would be food storage in castles and sieging army having three choices:
(1) try to everrun the castle with a massive amount of troops (flying creatures, some creatures might be able to climb walls maybe with ladders). some creatures might be able to break walls, so you wouldn't need to wait for (2).
(2) stay a night at the gate to construct catapults, maybe another night to construct a siege tower, etc, and attack with troops supported by catapults.
(3) wait at the gate until the enemy in the castle starves (sometimes meaning that enemy is forced to come out and fight). plague as adventure map spell might also help.
i think this would let you give more combat bonuses for creatures defending the walls (or penalties to those trying to climb the walls, rather) and leave less garrison in the castle.
presently it might sometimes be a bad idea to leave any defense in the castle, because the enemy that might come to conquer the castle would just kill those creatures. and you can't loeave too much, because then you cannot explore. increasing the effectiveness of defenders might, in my opinion, solve the problem by making castle defense more effective (leaving a few creatures at garrison would really defend the castle for a few days) while not making the castle invincible (starvation).
|
|
Polaris
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 17, 2005 05:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
there are siege threads somewhere, but they must be quite old by now.
my own preference would be food storage in castles and sieging army having three choices:
(1) try to everrun the castle with a massive amount of troops (flying creatures, some creatures might be able to climb walls maybe with ladders). some creatures might be able to break walls, so you wouldn't need to wait for (2).
(2) stay a night at the gate to construct catapults, maybe another night to construct a siege tower, etc, and attack with troops supported by catapults.
(3) wait at the gate until the enemy in the castle starves (sometimes meaning that enemy is forced to come out and fight). plague as adventure map spell might also help.
i think this would let you give more combat bonuses for creatures defending the walls (or penalties to those trying to climb the walls, rather) and leave less garrison in the castle.
presently it might sometimes be a bad idea to leave any defense in the castle, because the enemy that might come to conquer the castle would just kill those creatures. and you can't loeave too much, because then you cannot explore. increasing the effectiveness of defenders might, in my opinion, solve the problem by making castle defense more effective (leaving a few creatures at garrison would really defend the castle for a few days) while not making the castle invincible (starvation).
An interesting idea, but how far have you thought it out? I think case 2 might work, but case 3 probably wouldn't.
Let's assume you've found a situation where you want to starve the enemy fort. If your strongest army is starving it for several(?) days, that leaves your opponent's army to do whatever he wants without much fear of retribution while you are stuck clicking turn for a few days (which is boring, and boring things should never be intentional game mechanics in the first place). Then once you take that castle, what happens? Do you defend it or leave it empty? How much more advantage does EITHER choice give your opponent? But that's the point of strong defenses right- To slow down the game. However, I think Heroes has superb pacing already, and that's one of the reasons why it has so much more popular appeal than other TBS games.
Depending on how strong you were thinking of making these improved castles, defense may boil down to a brain-dead strategy where you just leave a few untrained guys in a town and whenever a place is about to be attacked you make it starvation-worthy. On the other hand, if you couldn't do this, then would these defenses even change the game the way they are supposed to?
|
|
a_rebirthing...
Supreme Hero
with rebirthing power
|
|
posted April 17, 2005 12:05 PM |
|
|
they are all not bad ideas but i think we are going to much into such a small part of the game. i say just make it a skill (sieging) where it allows u to make a catapult for 10 wood or something and the higher the skill the more shots, less wood and more damage u do. but again i wouldnt go too much into it
____________
'Tis better to rely on the the wit of your brain rather than the speed of your hands and mouse -me
Being happy isn't just an emotion, it's a choice!-Leo_Lion
It's Gortex!!!
|
|
vladpopescu79
Promising
Famous Hero
a vampire of taste
|
|
posted April 19, 2005 11:43 PM |
|
|
Gerdash's option for encircling the castle and starve the defenders is the closer one to the reality of middle-ages. I would love to play a game that would permit this. Unfortunattely I don't think Heroes permits it. A big aspect of the "heroes strategy" is constant balancing between defending the castle and venturing on the map with all creatures you've got. And the maps are small enough to allow (especially a skilled) hero to travel something like 1/5 of a map in one day. So waiting at the gates of the castle would be madness, because the main enemy hero would rush back and attack the sieging army (and in reality we all know it was bad to be cought like that - but that's another aspect).
So the rapid way of the game unfortunattely doesn't allow this tactics. It would simplify the game if you could leave the castle unguarded (or lightly guarded) and rush back when it is under siege.
____________
MANE, TEKEL, FARES
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted April 20, 2005 11:50 AM |
|
|
re: PolarisQuote:
I think case 2 might work, but case 3 probably wouldn't.
....
Then once you take that castle, what happens? Do you defend it or leave it empty?
when you take the castle, you defend it with a small force that is enough prevent the castle being stormed.
Quote:
defense may boil down to a brain-dead strategy where you just leave a few untrained guys in a town and whenever a place is about to be attacked you make it starvation-worthy.
exactly, except that i don't think you should be able to recruit so fast (like it is atm, legions of creatures gather in dwelling and you can recruit them all if you have the money) but more like the production points idea (somerhing like a daily limit).
re: vladpopescu79
Quote:
I would love to play a game that would permit this.
you could try dominions2. imho a good game even in spite of some nasty game mechanics and interface solutions. many ideas that i had been thinking about for a long time i found implemented there. btw i guess the production points discussed in this forum are called 'resources' there. you don't build with resources and you cannot get money for resources, though. btw, upkeep works beautifully.
Quote:
So waiting at the gates of the castle would be madness, because the main enemy hero would rush back and attack the sieging army
i don't think so. if your army is stronger you don't have to fear the opponent army so much. or you could force the opponent army to take the journey back to defend home castle. or you could quit sieging if you really needed to run away.
if you feared that the opponent might attack one of your own castles, you would starve and conquer his castle and get back to defend yours.
========
the whole idea was that you wouldn't have to leave so much garrison because you have some time to get back with your main army if it's not too far away. and i think it would be better if you couldn't travel 1/5 map in one turn. what i also don't like is fighting all battles with the main army. i think armies should be able to split up and join again (no idea how to do it, though), i think it might enable the armies to be more local. and i think hero levels shouldn't count so much that you would want to keep all neutrals for your main hero exp.
|
|
Ellderon
Adventuring Hero
Lightbringer
|
|
posted April 20, 2005 02:23 PM |
|
|
Castles should be a lot tougher.
You should need an army at least twice the size of the defending one to take the castle.
That would improve the game a lot.
____________
elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted April 20, 2005 03:20 PM |
|
|
Catapults... they aren't that realistic, but Heroes isn't a learning sim.
Seige tactics were more archers picking off the army from the castle as they waited below, the army waiting to starve them out. Or, a Lord of the Rings approach would be ladders and flying creatures, both of which sound much more boring.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
vladpopescu79
Promising
Famous Hero
a vampire of taste
|
|
posted April 21, 2005 07:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Castles should be a lot tougher.
You should need an army at least twice the size of the defending one to take the castle.
That would improve the game a lot.
Actually castles were pretty tough in H4. I would not have attacked a Haven with crossbowmen, monks and ballistas in it not even with 50 angels on my side...
But in heroes you have spells that they didn't have in the middle-ages ( ) and that makes it different.
____________
MANE, TEKEL, FARES
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted April 21, 2005 10:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually castles were pretty tough in H4. I would not have attacked a Haven with crossbowmen, monks and ballistas in it not even with 50 angels on my side...
But in heroes you have spells that they didn't have in the middle-ages ( ) and that makes it different.
Sieges with either catapults or ballista in a fully built castle could often be a nightmarish experience in heroes 4.
The heroes 4 WoW might campaign had one map where one town usually was so well defended with catapults and ballista (and two heroes casting spells, aiding in defence) that trying to take it was suicidial even for a high level barbarian. It was a city en route, and you could pass it by since the objective town was usually much less defended.
I think Mongo could kill 50 champions or about 10 mega dragons (though this was not entirely without risk) in a fight at that point. (Just needed some buffing up and say two mortality potions in reserve.), the catapults and ballista had a much lesser XP value than these enemies.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
rapttuz
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 01:11 PM |
|
|
The hole point of a castel is to be dificult to conker.
And i think is easy to break.
(if the prob is wiht the "creatures" catapult and balista that's other matter)
I did like the tower idea, like a sretagy point I think heroes should have more sretagy point's in combat maps
(Maybe my next topic...)
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 [url=http://heroescommunity.com/forumdisplay.php3?FID=6]Library Of Enlightenment[/url], to discuss Heroes 4, please go to [url=http://heroescommunity.com/forumdisplay.php3?FID=17]War Room Of Axeoth[/url], to discuss Heroes 5, go to [url=http://heroescommunity.com/forumdisplay.php3?FID=1]Temple Of Ashan[/url].
____________
|
|
|
|
