|
| Thread: Retreating and artifacts... | |
|
undead_wolf_...
Adventuring Hero
Undead Wolf Wrangler
|
posted September 05, 2001 08:47 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
Retreating and artifacts...
One thing that has continued to bug me, and especially since the inclusion of combo artifacts, has been the retreating system. I can only assume the mechanics will be the same for HOMM4, but I'd like to see some changes (too bad it's too late for HOMM4, but what the heck?)
The retreating system always seemed far too cheap for my taste. There is nothing more annoying than catching an enemy a tremendous distance from his town and having him slip all the way back to their town rotation because you couldn't wipe them out before it was their turn. I would like to see the retreats handled as ACTUAL retreats. Where the cowardly hero exits battle and gets a few additional movement points to put some distance between him and the aggressor. Then, if the coward was caught again, his troops would take a little bit more damage before they again fled. And if the coward didn't make it back to his town or get reenforcements, he would be defeated by the aggressor. I always felt the retreat system didn't penalize cowardice enough. What was the real penalty??? 2500 gold to buy him back and a few experience points to your enemy. That's it. The cowardly hero should've been slaughtered, but he gets away and the aggressor gets a few experience points for whatever enemies he could kill before the chicken bolted. WEAK.
Heroes should keep the option to surrender for a fee, which can either be accepted or not, or they will have to fight their way back to safety. The retreats, as they are now, are too much like a "do-over".
The artifact issue is related. Any retreating heroes holding artifacts (the combo artifacts especially) who weren't "re-purchased" sometimes stayed out of rotation completely or didn't become available until much later at the taverns. This absolutely sucks. Maps designed to include the many combo artifacts became rather lame when a piece or two somehow disappeared from the map via a defeated hero.
Obviously, dropping all your artifacts in a retreat isn't exactly fair, but having them "disappear" from the map is a horrible alternative. The retreat system I propose would fix this problem. Heroes could only be killed or jailed (you get all their artifacts), Surrender (nothing changes hands except money. Although offering artifacts as payment would be sweet also) or run their @ss off to safety (assuming they make it, nothing changes hands). There would be no more need to "re-purchase" a hero and with the great new jail and ressurrection ideas, I think it would be a great option.
____________
"where's a damn werewolf when you need one?"
|
|
StormWarning
Promising
Famous Hero
Archmage of Thunder
|
posted September 05, 2001 10:30 PM |
|
|
Good idea!
I've always been kind of annoyed by it too. (This is why on any custom maps I make, which are pretty unusual, I tend to leave the Shackles of War sitting around somewhere. It eliminates the Surrender too, but it's about the best you can do short of playing on Easy, and that's ... well, too easy.  ) Your system would work pretty well, I think. Offering artifacts as payment might be tricky (maybe if you surrender, you choose artifacts to give up and pay the remaining cost in gold), but if it worked well it could be one of the best changes in the HoMM series. I think if you surrender, you should disappear from the map and arrive at a friendly town in the same number of days that it would have taken for you to get there in normal movement (like the new troop caravans).
____________
The calm before the storm is about to end.
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
posted September 05, 2001 10:50 PM |
|
|
Well I think the retreat system works quite well in H3 except for the possibility of hit and run tactics. Remember the real penalty of retreating is losing your entire army. That's pretty awful, and a major penalty.
The main reason things are like they are though is because in H3, losing your main hero usualy means you lose the game. If your playing multi-player and you accidently let your hero die, then it's game over, you opponent just has too huge an advantage over you for you to recover. If you actually lost your hero when you lost battles, it would take away most of the strategy....it would just mean the first person to lose a battle lost the game. There would be no real strategy, or flow of battle with people winning some and losing some.
In H4 though things could be different, and we don't even know how retreating will work.
|
|
Saruman
Famous Hero
On academic leave
|
posted September 06, 2001 01:19 AM |
|
|
This idea's good...
I like this idea, that retreating system has always frustated me. Surrendering for the AI too, should be changed. If you have a mega-killer army begging for a fight, unless you have the Shakles of War, 99.99% of the time the AI hero will run away like a coward saying: "Mommy, mommy, Red's dragon set my favourite shirt on fire!" The other 0.01% of the time they surrender. I find this extemly annoying because if the AI surrenders you get gold. If he runs, you get nothing but an annoyed hero.
P.S. Do you know how to make a custom avatar? I's like to know (I'm new to this sort of thing).
____________
Thank god I'm an atheist.
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2001 06:58 PM |
|
|
Sarumon,
I don't know if you realize this, but if somebody surrenders to you, you don't actually get the gold. As a result it's much better for you if the enemy retreats because then he loses all his troops.
|
|
Zud
Promising
Famous Hero
box worshipper
|
|
posted September 06, 2001 08:02 PM |
|
|
are we playin different games?
either I do not understand this or we may be playin different games. but when someone surrenders to me in heroes, I get the gold.
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2001 10:12 PM |
|
|
hmmm.......
I wonder if I might be wrong about that.......I used to be positive you didn't get the gold when the person ran away.....but now I'm not sure. Too bad it's so hard to test out.
|
|
StormWarning
Promising
Famous Hero
Archmage of Thunder
|
|
posted September 06, 2001 10:42 PM |
|
|
No, it isn't hard to test. Just set up a hotseat game and play both of them. Attack the "enemy" hero and surrender, then see if the other player gets the gold.
____________
The calm before the storm is about to end.
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 06, 2001 10:49 PM |
|
|
Wow....l was wrong
Well I posted on the 3DO community boards for Heroes and they tested it out for me there (I love that board). Guess I was wrong about that one. I'm glad I found out about that one, that's pretty major. I'll have to think twice about surrendering in multiplayer now.
|
|
undead_wolf_...
Adventuring Hero
Undead Wolf Wrangler
|
|
posted September 08, 2001 01:33 AM |
|
|
quick response
Mostly in response to niteshade as there weren't many who didn't like the idea  ...
Quite frankly, I think this method of retreat opens up MORE strategy or at the very least forces a player to build a number of heroes rather than the "Superhero" tactics. It also puts a stronger onus on playing defensively and protecting your main army/hero with support.
If there were more of a chance of LOSING your favorite hero, and you couldn't simply retreat and buy them back later...I think it rewards careful and intelligent play. Rather than rewarding a player who was way over their head and far away from their town with a "do over".
I tend to equate Heroes with Chess...if someone doesn't protect their Queen, so to speak, they will lose it. They don't get the option of putting it back next to the King just as it was about to be taken...
Sure, you lose your army when you retreat, but more often than not, a player would whittle down the others army as much as they could before running anyway, so it's not necessarily a huge advantage for the victor. And if you were deep into their territory without much of an army to begin with, you deserve to lose your hero.
____________
"where's a damn werewolf when you need one?"
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2001 01:40 AM |
|
|
Well the problem is that because the main hero is so imporant, you always have to fight every battle with him. He must always be the one leading your main army. If you fight a better against your enemy and your not using your main hero, you will lose. Badly. And if you never use your main hero you may as well not have him.
So you have to use your hero in all significant fights. So does your enemy. What this means is that after one significant battle the game will be over. The person who lost their hero will lose, and have no chance of recovery.
I don't know about you but I've played alot of great multiplayer games where the war went back and forth both ways with each of us winning at one point and losing at one point. I'd hate to see the game reduced to just whoever wins the first battle, wins the game.
|
|
Saruman
Famous Hero
On academic leave
|
|
posted September 08, 2001 02:17 AM |
|
|
You're quite right Niteshade, it shouldn't be that if you lose your main hero if you're using the "superhero" method of play, you shouldn't almost automaticly lose. I think that you should always start out with two towns with the same exact buildings and a fort (If not a fort, than the town hall) so that you will have at least 2 main heroes. If you have two main heroes, than your chances of recovering after losing a powerful hero are better because you will have another hero to split up troops with a new hero.
____________
Thank god I'm an atheist.
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2001 03:07 AM |
|
|
You might be in a better position to recover in a map like that, though it depends on the board. On most boards you try to consolidate your troops ASAP. So even if you have 2 towns, you give all troops to one person. Sometimes though you have to have 2 heroes with seperate armies, because you need to expand in 2 different directions. In that case you might actually develop 2 good heroes.
The main problem is that multiplayer maps are usualy played on reasonably small boards, so that there is some hope to finish the game in a reasonable amount of time. As a result your unlikely to be in a board with 2 or 3 starting towns and a large amount of terrain to cover, unless your one of the very brave people who really enjoys playing 20 hour multiplayer games.
Who knows what things will be like in H4 though. It seems like it will be easier to develop a hero who is strong in one area, so it might be easier to recover from hero loss. Also you can ressurect your hero if your opponent does not have a jail. So they might be able to get away with more hero deaths in that. Be interesting to see what the retreat/surrender rule is there.
|
|
buffon_ice
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted September 08, 2001 02:49 PM |
|
|
Stealth.
Hmm...You all right ppl. But in the HoMM4 there will be "stealth" skill, which makes a big differense, now you can make an enemy to attack suppously your main hero, but with another one, who has stealth, you can attack his Town. And if you success in this mission, even if he will kill your other hero, it will be very hard for him to take back his Town.
____________
<<--[url]www.hmm4.com[/url]-->>
<<--IceWind Group-->> 
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2001 12:40 AM |
|
|
|
Well remember stealth will only work for your hero, and not his entire army. It would have to be a powerful hero indeed to take over a town on his own.
|
|
buffon_ice
Tavern Dweller
|
posted September 09, 2001 07:44 AM |
|
|
Yes but...
I know that what you do:
You take your average hero with a big army and start walking around enemy's town, grabbing his mines and else, he will take his whole army and attack you, you meanwhile can take his Town.
____________
<<--[url]www.hmm4.com[/url]-->>
<<--IceWind Group-->>
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2001 09:23 PM |
|
|
|
Well that only works if he leaves his town completely undefended. I suspect garrisons will be more popular in H4 now that there is stealth to worry about.
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted September 09, 2001 10:38 PM |
|
|
Just to clarify:
If you retreat in HoMM III you lose all your troops, and your hero. The hero can be bought back, but not the troops.
If you surrender you have to pay a price for safe passage which depends on your level of diplomacy and also on which artifacts you happen to possess.
The agressor should NOT have the option to refuse the surrender, or there should at least be a game mechanism that prevents him from doing so. (For instance by comparing levels on a secondary skill, say Diplomacy.)
I would possibly be tempted to accept a surrender if the opponent doesn't have any artifacts that reduces the surrendering costs, and if the enemy lacks diplomacy. But if the enemy has these (or I suspect they have them) then I'd certainly not accept the offer! Even in the case I knew I would get full payment for a surrender I'd be prone to refuse the offer, just out of principle. Why do the enemy a favour?
The hero that escapes already pays a very steep price for retreating, and there's no need to add to it. You shouldn't get the artifacts of the enemy hero unless you manage to defeat his or her full army. The artifacts should be seen as a reward for managing to deceive your enemy into not fleeing until it is too late.
In HoMM IV the situation is different to HoMM III because the heroes are part of the battle. If you down a Hero (not unlikely if the stacks are big), you'll likely get the artifact that Heroes possesses even if another Hero manages to flee.
On the other hand I believe the winner of the combat should receive XP not only for the creatures that were killed, but also for the creatures that retreated. My suggestion on how to handle this is as follows: Let the hero exit and handle the remaining creatures as monster stacks which you fight to the finish.
In HoMM III it is realistic that the Hero gets away if he retreats. After all: a Hero with no creatures on the adventure map has maximum movement allowance.
I don't believe HoMM IV will allow opponents to 'buy' other players' Heroes, so the reuse through the Taverns will be stopped. Since Heroes are bound to players, the fee for rehiring may actually be gone. The price they pay is the creatures and Heroes they leave behind.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
niteshade
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2001 11:47 PM |
|
|
I pretty much agree with everything said in that last post. If you were allowed to not accept a surrender, everyone would do it, and surrendering would be useless (as would part of diplomacy, and all the surrender artifacts). And you really should get xps for troops that retreat as well since you effectively did defeat them.
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.
|
| |
|
|
