|
| Thread: New Attacking System | |
|
GenieLord
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
posted August 09, 2007 10:32 PM |
|
|
New Attacking System
This is a new idea for melee attacks.
First of all, to depart walking and attaking. First you walk and then you attack, but you can't attack and then walk.
It is needed to separate them in order to build this new system.
The point is having a range where you can attack from. As I see it, Melee attacks don't have to be always when the creatures are adjacent to each other, they can attack each other from a small distance.
Each creature should have his own attack range.
I'll show some examples:
Adjacent (regular):
(The current attack range)
Cross:
X:
Zone:
Square:
And might be more.
Ofcourse, shotters damage is on all the battlefield.
After the creature walks, the player choses a single tile to attack in, out of the one available tiles.
If the creature isn't Adjacent to the creature it attacks, it won't suffer retaliation.
I think this option gives another strategic level to the game.
Ofcourse, it won't fit in to HOMM5, but maybe in HOMM6.
|
|
Tenaka
Famous Hero
Makes sense
|
|
posted August 09, 2007 10:41 PM |
|
|
Well, the adjacent and cross thing already exist, and I'd love to see some more! (such as an attack from 2 tiles away or something?)
But I don't think devising a complete new system would be a good idea...
If all creatures would have big attack ranges like that, it would turn the battlefield into a insanely complicated chess game. Certain ranges are ok, for certain creatures, but this system here would require the whole gameplay to be altered.
I would enjoy some more ranges, though, like creatures with long weapons, or creatures with short range, maybe? Halflings with their slingers? As soon as they're not in close range, they can't shoot? (Of course, they'd get the no melee penalty, then...)
But a whole new system? No, sorry, that would go too far...
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted August 10, 2007 06:51 AM |
|
|
I agree with this, but once moving is done, unless you can attack multiple directions, this will just unnecessarily complicate things.
In other words, bad, but I like it.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 10, 2007 08:58 AM |
|
|
I'm not quite sure I see the purpose of this, although I do agree I miss the reach-attack of the H4 Pikeman. I guess my biggest gripe with this would be that it does not really make sense - why would some units attack in a cross for instance? I also think we have a pretty good variation in attack patterns - we have spray attacks, line attacks, breath attacks, and surrounding attacks, and TOTE will bring some pretty fancy new ones.
One part of this I think would be very good, however, the idea of having the unit move after it attacked if there is movement left and it has not already moved that round. I'm not quite sure how to implement it, but it would make sense and be useful.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted August 10, 2007 03:31 PM |
|
|
Implementing movement is easy, we already have it! The heroes move with a little green line being depleted, so, why not Creatures?
The gremlin has just fired, so it should have used 2/3rds of its initiative, but haste was cast on it, so movments take less speed. Also, it was firing on a nearby unit, so it did not need as much time to aim. Now it can move or defend (it cannot shoot again, since it does not have the rapidfire ability, which allows creatures to keep shooting unitl they are out of speed points) if it defends, it will add less defense than if it had defended to begin with. Defense uses all speed points.
Some creatures have less speed points, and some have extra.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Tenaka
Famous Hero
Makes sense
|
|
posted August 10, 2007 06:15 PM |
|
|
What Daystar is suggesting, is an awesome idea! 
But again, the whole system would probably have to be redone for that, so I'm not sure if it'll look as good in action as on paper.
____________
Houseism of the week:
As fascinating as our bodies are, they're also stupid.
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted August 10, 2007 06:53 PM |
|
|
Agreed, it would have to be tested. It would add to realism, but then again it would add complication, and adding too much can be a bad thing.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 11, 2007 01:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Implementing movement is easy, we already have it! The heroes move with a little green line being depleted, so, why not Creatures?
The gremlin has just fired, so it should have used 2/3rds of its initiative, but haste was cast on it, so movments take less speed. Also, it was firing on a nearby unit, so it did not need as much time to aim. Now it can move or defend (it cannot shoot again, since it does not have the rapidfire ability, which allows creatures to keep shooting unitl they are out of speed points) if it defends, it will add less defense than if it had defended to begin with. Defense uses all speed points.
Some creatures have less speed points, and some have extra.
Why, even though this borders on thread hi-jacking, it's actually a very interesting idea. Of course, there are a number of things that should be taken into account.
What you suggest is actually a bit of what was in the later game D&D RP system, where a "turn" consisted of either a "full" action or two "partial actions". Thus, moving could be a partial action, and attacking could be a partial action, and you could distribute these as you wanted - i.e. move -> attack, or attack -> move, but not move -> attack -> move, even if you only spent some of your movement range on first move, because that would take up three partial actions. Also, attack -> attack is not allowed, even if you don't move; whereas move -> move could be allowed (double move).
Ranged attack should be a full action, because otherwise you could move -> shoot, which would destroy the concept of blocking archers. Defend could be a partial action, so that you could move -> defend for a partial defence bonus (+15 %?), or take a full defence action (no move), for the full 30 % bonus.
There is little doubt as I see it that this could actually add strategical elements to the game. We could have a spell that gave you an extra partial action (for a total of three, allowing you to attack twice, or move -> shoot). It can also "explain" some of the current abilities. For instance, strike-and-return could be incorporated as an extra partial action reserved for move only (so creature can move -> attack -> move), rapid shot could allow creature to shoot as partial action, i.e. creature can move -> shoot in same turn (this is what Centaur of TotE can do), and double shot can allow you to take shot as partial action if you don't move (also allowing you to shoot -> shoot, which is what Hunters do). Details would be have to worked out, but this could be really interesting.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted August 11, 2007 04:11 AM |
|
|
|
Ooh, Rune of Berserking + MInotaur + Quickstrike spell.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 20, 2007 04:38 PM |
|
|
In the light of D&D, dare I mention attacks of opportunity with this system? 
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 20, 2007 07:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In the light of D&D, dare I mention attacks of opportunity with this system?
I had actually considered making a new thread about this, going into the details on how the D&D system could be imported into Heroes, but never got around to it. I think this could be the most exciting new feature since the Initiative system, with huge impact on how we play battles.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
yasmiel
Supreme Hero
Former Chessmaster
|
|
posted September 23, 2007 05:26 AM |
|
|
This system reminds me of Gorky 17 game, tho type of attack pattern depended on weapon, not character (since all characters were the same).
Tho unrealistic, it was very fun and playable system.
|
|
dschingi
Famous Hero
the guy with the dragon golem
|
|
posted September 23, 2007 12:31 PM |
|
Edited by dschingi at 12:31, 23 Sep 2007.
|
Quote:
What you suggest is actually a bit of what was in the later game D&D RP system, where a "turn" consisted of either a "full" action or two "partial actions". Thus, moving could be a partial action, and attacking could be a partial action, and you could distribute these as you wanted - i.e. move -> attack, or attack -> move, but not move -> attack -> move, even if you only spent some of your movement range on first move, because that would take up three partial actions. Also, attack -> attack is not allowed, even if you don't move; whereas move -> move could be allowed (double move).
I have no doubt that this would indeed add strategic depth to battles. However I don't think this can be implemented easily to the current system.
The battlefield in H5 is rather small. With the option to move twice per turn, many creatures could reach the other end of the battlefield right away and thus block any neutral shooters immediately. What's the point in fighting ranged creatures if they can't shoot anyway? Factions that have creatures with high initiative would be even better off here because they have a very high chance to act before those shooters.
In hero vs hero battles the problem wouldn't be so bad because you can protect shooters with your own creatures, but even here sometimes these protectors have to move or are just killed, making the way clear for the enemy. E.g. an Obsidian Gargoyle could just move from one side of the battlefield to next to the shooter.
Now you could say "let's make the battlefield bigger", or "decrease creatures' speed!", but both create new problems. The fact that some creatures can charge to the enemy in their first turn is imo a very important aspect of heroes 5 tactics, and it also helps to speed up battles. This concept would have to be dropped and that would be a pity.
Maybe it would be outweighed by the new possibilities the D&D system offers, I don't know. It would for sure be interesting to see in action.
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted September 23, 2007 04:03 PM |
|
|
In my mind, it would be like:
Creature MISSINGNO has a speed of 7. It moves 3 spaces, and being a large creature, is able to check for mines (the enemy hero just cast Land Mine) As there are none, MISSINGNO can keep going another 4 spaces, move back, or use defend, which will only have 4/7ths effect.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 24, 2007 10:44 AM |
|
|
I was thinking a bit more on a new combat. I suddenly thought about the way Rome: Total War does its battles: you actually field entire groups of tens (or even hundreds) of soldiers and then "duke it out" against an enemy army. Right now, the Heroes games has always been about a symbolic army representation. It has caused strange issues like armies of Tier-1 units ranging in the thousands, taking up the same space as a single unit.
I think the next big move for the Heroes game would be to move onto a more realistic battle map, akin to the Total War series. A system like that, while still maintaining the turn-based nature of the game, could bring a whole new mindset for battles to the game. I think this would automatically also force a maximum number on stack size; if you want to field more, then you need to create another stack.
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted September 24, 2007 01:12 PM |
|
|
In order for that to work Necromancers would need like 40 slots. This is sortof what happens in Fantasy Wars, and it is not quite as fun, I'm sorry to say. Besides, it would be a HUGE break from tradition.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 24, 2007 02:18 PM |
|
|
Why would Necro's need 40 slots?
And yes, I realise very well that it is a break with tradition; I am not a big proponent of that either, it was just a thought that I had. But it's a development that might happen sooner or later; Heroes V has already made the world map more realistic and interactive, where it was mainly symbolic in previous installments (perhaps also due to its 2D nature in previous titles).
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted September 24, 2007 09:51 PM |
|
|
Necros have like several thousand troops by the end of the game, so they would need lots of slots to put them in. Or did you mean groups could be only so large on the battlefeild exclusively?
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 25, 2007 12:37 AM |
|
|
|
I would suggest that stack sizes would depend on the units of which they're made up, with the idea I posted above. So you could say you can field a stack of 1000 Conscripts, or 1500 Skeletons, or 1250 Imps, etc (numbers just to illustrate the example). If you would want to field 1001 Conscripts, you could fit 1000 in one stack but then you'd have to use up another stack (i.e.: spot on the battlefield) to fit that last one in.
|
| |
|
|
