|
| Thread: Heroes IV: Battle Effects |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted January 04, 2002 02:09 AM |
|
|
Yes, Slava, a morale loss seems reasonable. But if the hero is well advanced, i think it would be letting him off the hook too easily. Since the creatures still continue to figdt in battle, the opponents army will become depleted, and the hero may jut bring his other army to defeat him, and visit a faerie ring on the day so his morale gets back to maximum. I think something more suitable may be to have the fleeing hero return back to the place where he was hired in your castle-so you have to hire him again, but he has retained all his benefits and artifacts. The catch is you have to pay what the hero is worth altogether.
Say a level 1 hero is worth $250.
Then a level 2 with one artifact(weak, average, important) is worth 600, 700, $800 respectively.
And so on. So if you have a level 50 hero with 8 important artifacts, 3 average and 5 weak, he would be worth about $15,800. That i think would be a better way of handling that situation, since you actually have to pay what its worth. I don't think this should be available to other castles since no champion hero would rebel against his own army-would he?
"I think that if a hero flees, the army is on its own. Yes, if you surrender you should be able to keep your army, but fleeing seems to me like you are saying "hey, keep this army off my back, I am out of here!" Somehow I have a hard time believing that your army would want anything to do with you after that"
You are right there, Tristan. The hero is not only fleeing from battle, but fleeing from his own army aswell. Anbd he'll probablygo back to his old castle where you'll be able to hire him for what he's worth, instead of just keeping him with none or little indefficiencies. Although a strong hero may be able to regain confidence and go out to battle once more.
"I heard somewhere, that you had to use your movement to get to a spot you could flee from, not sure if that is true or not, but it does make more sense than being able to flee from right under the dragon's nose in the middle of the battlefield."
This i find perplexing. It would make more sense, but what if you've just attacked a Black Dragon, and he is still convalescing from that attack, you would probable make a run for it then, instead of the Black Dragon being well and seeing you from a distance and hunting you down. Still, the battlefield is large and many things can happen on it. So anything is possible, really. But it seems more logical if you were right at the edge of a battlefield, but when in the centre, it could come as a surprise to some, so it could be relatively feasible either way.
"I even read somewhere (gotta remember to pay attention to where I read this stuff) that creatures will no longer be able to use potions, it was unbalancing the game too much."
LOL, yes you do! 
Well, the unbalancing part of it sounded OK. But i feel now that if creatures had used potions, there may have been too many similarities between creatures and heroes. It seems that they have become pretty alike in many ways in Heroes IV, and that was just another way of getting them closer.
I think this decision would be for the better, and probably for the reason i thought, possibly. But yes, 3DO are very reliable, and i haven't doubted their opinions on Heroes IV. Yet.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
Xenophanes
Promising
Famous Hero
Chief Consul to Queen Mutare
|
posted January 04, 2002 06:44 AM |
|
|
Actually, I don't mind Heroes and creatures becoming more alike. Originally, my favorite aspect of the Heroes series was the creatures, since they were the ones fighting the battles. It wasn't until the specialties of Heroes III that I really started caring about the game's namesake - the Heroes themselves! Now, since I have heard that Heroes no longer have specialties, I welcome the Heroes fighting on the battlefield, and growing closer to the creatures. It will give them the personality that the creatures had and the Heroes lacked in Heroes I, II, and III.
____________
<Dragons rule, Titans drool!>
|
|
DarkTitan
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2002 08:10 AM |
|
|
Excuse don't mean to butt in but
Heroes and creatures becoming more alike is good in many ways like you said Xenophanes. I agree with you that heroes should be more involved on the battlefield and now heroes four can really be called 'heroes' 4 not 'creatures' 4.
Its good having creatures and heroes alike in some aspects, but not in most or all. If you look at the recent info, you will see that creatures can do almost everything heroes can from casting spells and going on trips, the same goes for heroes. Having creatures usin potions, i think that there will be a very small feature in most parts between the two. So i think thats why i think they took the potions away from the creature use. There are small differences like the usage of skills and artifacts but with a combination of capabilties between creatures and heroes, i think that it is fair to say that the expolsion of creatures using potions has rated them just enough to make them both unique.
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted January 05, 2002 05:27 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
Heroes and Creatures alike... ;)
Yes, well, both of you have valid points(Xenophanes and Dark Titan), and i agree in certain aspects, with both of you.
I do agree in the statement that Heroes of Might and Magic IV has involved the heroes much more than the previous series, and its name can really be said truly. Yes, heroes getting involved in battle is one of the biggest changes from HC, and i understand you point when you hear people saying that it possibly shouldn't be that way.
But the message i was trying to get across was it is a good thing to have creatures and heroes become more involved in the Heroes games, but do they have to have the same capabilities. One thing i see is that, heroes are getting more proficient in creature skills, and vice versa.
Since there are so many new things that heroes and creatures can excel in, why did 3DO pick many of the same ones? I think they're trying to reverse this a little bit by restricting the creatures' usage of potions. They feel that this is something unique which can only be accomplished by heroes. The same way they felt about the artifacts. Since some creatures are quite knowledgable, they are able to cast a limited amount of spells, and i do see the logic in that. But creatures handling potions? I did think that was a touch 'iffy' from the beginning, but I tried to keep an open mind about it.... But after all that... I'm glad it has been changed back.
DarkTitan, you have listed just about my exact thoughts on this topic. Creatures which have the same capalities as heroes, such as mages and genies, are very similar to the humans we know today. I really don't think i could quite comprehend a phoenix manipulating a potion with his/her claw. It would seem highly illogical.
But that really isn't the point for me. Its the way that the certain skills of both heroes and creatures are unique. For the better, heroes and creature each came one step closer together. These decisions were very truthful, and they should have been available from the start. Potions and creatures??? They just don't mix.
Thats my 1 cent.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
Xenophanes
Promising
Famous Hero
Chief Consul to Queen Mutare
|
|
posted January 05, 2002 06:53 PM |
|
|
I think this is the only time that a Dragon and a Titan have agreed! 
____________
<Dragons rule, Titans drool!>
|
|
Tristan
Promising
Known Hero
illegally insane
|
|
posted January 06, 2002 03:15 AM |
|
|
OK, I don't KNOW that creatures using potions has been changed, as I can't remember where I read it, so cannot verify the validity. Also, there were limited number of creatures that could/can use potions, the requirement being that they had hands. I really don't know where I stand on it, guess it would depend on all the other factors that I don't know. Of course, the developers know all that, and it was after the playtest that I first heard about changing it, so I have to assume that it will be done right. (or hope anyhow )
|
|
DarkTitan
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2002 07:46 AM |
|
|
Yes Xenophane, i frightened too,
Quote:
DarkTitan, you have listed just about my exact thoughts on this topic. Creatures which have the same capalities as heroes, such as mages and genies, are very similar to the humans we know today. I really don't think i could quite comprehend a phoenix manipulating a potion with his/her claw. It would seem highly illogical.
But that really isn't the point for me. Its the way that the certain skills of both heroes and creatures are unique. For the better, heroes and creature each came one step closer together. These decisions were very truthful, and they should have been available from the start. Potions and creatures??? They just don't mix.
Thats my 1 cent.
Thanx Hydra, i appreciate your support. I cannot see a creature mixing a potion. Imagine a hydra doing it, argueing right through, sounds like something from a cartoon, but a creature like a mage or something with figers is a different story, maybe only certain creatures can control this feature?
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
|
posted January 06, 2002 08:05 AM |
|
|
Potions and Creatures-the increasing debate
"OK, I don't KNOW that creatures using potions has been changed, as I can't remember where I read it, so cannot verify the validity."
Yes, i do believe i was overracting slightly about this aspect being changed. But then again, people dn't just write a random fact on a website for fun, do they? If we've seen it in writing, there is a fairly good chance it HAS been changed, and I hope it is this way, too.
"Also, there were limited number of creatures that could/can use potions, the requirement being that they had hands."
Hmmmm. This could be touchy. An orc has some sort of hands, correct? The question is, if an orc has the knowledge to use a potion with great proficiency? Probably not. If this was the case, only a very selected number if creatures, mostly creatures similar to genies and mages will be able to use the potions in a satisfactory manner, if you ask me.
Because of the added complications of all the prerequisites for having to use a potion, it is better to just simplify it, and eliminate the creatures' usage of potions all together. Yes, as you say, there are many aspects of creatures which will render them unable to use potions. I think creatures using potions is a bit far fetched and impractical, ontop of illogical, so thats why they've taken it out. Also including the creatures and heroes being too similar in many ways. Whew! There are many possible reasons why creatures probably won't use potions.
"or hope anyhow)"
Well really, thats all we can do, hope and predict why. Makes you feel so useless doesn't it?
" I cannot see a creature mixing a potion."
Well, i am not really sure if creatures and going to be physically 'mixing' the potion. (I'm being podantic now, aren't I LOL)
But i can see the point your trying to relay. It seems impractical for a creature to have the knowledge and the capabilities to use a potion. This is why only a selected few can only use spells, and when it comes down to it, the creatures cannot use as many spells as heroes. Knowledge and body structure is really the main difference separating creatures and heroes. Sometimes we cannot even get through that, by using creatures as heroes....
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
DarkTitan
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 06, 2002 08:17 AM |
|
|
Yeah but
Quote:
Hmmmm. This could be touchy. An orc has some sort of hands, correct? The question is, if an orc has the knowledge to use a potion with great proficiency? Probably not. If this was the case, only a very selected number if creatures, mostly creatures similar to genies and mages will be able to use the potions in a satisfactory manner, if you ask me.Quote:
Actually we have no idea if an orc would be dumb. In lord of the rings, orcs were of medium iq. And some may say why lotr? well there are orcs in homm and in lotr, theres orcs riding wolves in both too. Very simular but i think that i also meant to say that they may have had to have been someway related to magic.
Quote:
" I cannot see a creature mixing a potion."
Well, i am not really sure if creatures and going to be physically 'mixing' the potion. (I'm being podantic now, aren't I LOL)Quote:
Actually i can. Homm4 needs some changes and i think even though they have quite a few, this is it.
____________
|
|
Xenophanes
Promising
Famous Hero
Chief Consul to Queen Mutare
|
|
posted January 07, 2002 03:54 AM |
|
|
I think that most creatures are intelligent enought to use potions. After all, it is just taking a swig from a bottle, or pouring it down another's throat. They don't have to mix them. I suppose that a Hydra might have trouble, though, and so would a Behemoth and Phoenix.
____________
<Dragons rule, Titans drool!>
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted January 07, 2002 12:42 PM |
|
|
You can't really say that Heroes and creatures are the same. Creatures have the creature special abilitiy, whereas heroes have the hero skills.
Creatures and heroes are not the same, not even when you would perhaps expect them to be. Two examples:
The matter of appearance. A halfling alchemist looks like an alchemist and has the size of a human, NOT like a halfling.
The matter of creature speciality. A Minotaur hero won't have the creature speciality it would have had had if it were a Minotaur. (At least I assume so.)
As for manipulating potions, can the skeletal hands of a necromancer handle a potion and what use is a potion to an undead?
The bottom line is that we have to draw the line for where reality ends and game-lay starts somewhere. You shouldn't make the game too realistic as it will only detract from game-play.
For potions if we want potions to affect creatures and be used by creatures, then I don't see the hand problem as the biggest one. The biggest problem is related to numbers. One hero can swallow a draught in a bottle with no problems. But I can't see a Throng of Halberdiers sharing the content of one bottle?
Another problem area is that of spellcasting creatures. This is also an area where you either must select an unrealisitc approach or seriously limit the number of creatures that may appear in a stack. To illustrate this compare a stack with one creature with a stack of two creatures.
First, the stack of two creatures can be expected to have twice as much mana available. (Amount of Mana)
Also assume that the creature has two different spells in the spellbook. Then it's entirely realistic to have the stack with two creatures each cast a different spell on a different target in one round. (As this would be possible if the creatures were two separate stacks.) (Amount of spells cast)
Finally a stack with two creatures would do twice the damage if they cast a damage spell. (Although the spell would also have to cost twice as much mana.) In the case a protective/enhancing spell is cast it would be more reasonable if it were as efficient as if only one creature had cast it, but the mana cost would be the same. (Effectiveness of spells.)
All of these problems already existed in heroes 3 (Master Genies.)
|
|
Tristan
Promising
Known Hero
illegally insane
|
|
posted January 07, 2002 10:16 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
Realism and Heroes?
OK, so they are not completely seperate, but you must admit that some things in combat are not realistic. That same throng of pikemen (or was it halberdiers?) could attack ONE dragon and ALL of them do damage? OK, maybe, but increase this to a legion? I think this sort of thing is a trade off we can accept, mostly because we are used to it. The only problem I would have with creatures using potions would be what it would do to game balance. Having not played the game yet, I can't answer that.
I think the only potions I have seen info about are healing or protective ones, but who says a potion needs to be drunk? Potion could just be a catch-all term for salves and such as well. Explosive potions for damage spells? You see it could cover a whole range of things.
The main balance factor I would see with potions is using a few low rank stacks to cast several spells in one round.
Oh, and Djive, nice to see your face back in this thread!
____________
If you learn so much by losing, why am I so dumb?
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
|
posted January 08, 2002 10:49 AM |
|
|
Nice, Djive's back up and posting. ;)
"The biggest problem is related to numbers. One hero can swallow a draught in a bottle with no problems. But I can't see a Throng of Halberdiers sharing the content of one bottle?"
I'm am sorry to say, Djive this is one thing i don't see being a problem. As you were saying, you have to draw the line between realism and a game, and I believe this is one of them. You really can't have 50 halberdiers taking up the whole battlefield, so 3D0 placed them together in one stack. I think this is no trouble to creatures and potions, since the halberdiers act as if in one stack. I don't think one single element of creatures not being able to use potions, but the mass problems with the hands, and the different capabilities of creatures. If the hand problem was the only one, they would have kept creatures using potions, and become like the limited number of spellcasters we see today. So, obviously, there are many different problems preventing creatures using potions, and one of them, could be in fact the one you listed. But if you read the rest of this post, you know why i have other reasonings. Good thinking, though.
"Then it's entirely realistic to have the stack with two creatures each cast a different spell on a different target in one round."
Actually, this point would not be true, as you may only cast one spell per round, but this fact could be different as we move into a new age of Heroes gaming.
Hmmmm. Yes i see your point that is a genie stack had 7 in it, the spell would be seven times as powerful, correct? That is entirely true. I would like to see this change in Heroes IV, or, would like to see creatures only using enhancement spells, as it would display no effect on the outcome.
"The main balance factor I would see with potions is using a few low rank stacks to cast several spells in one round."
So it is said that potions have this capability? This would make creature spellcasting more treasured, and have an effect on what 3rd level creature you choose. If this is the case, I would like to see the non-spellcasting creature to be slightly more powerful in HP and raw damage dealt, as it would help offset this distortion.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted January 08, 2002 11:29 AM |
|
|
The "potion" problem. I don't like games calling things 'Potions' when the 'Potion' is not drunk applied or something similar. It lies in the nature of a potion that it affects only ONE user. So it's basically a problem with names. I would have no problem if they called the 'potion' for a scroll or a ritual which was limited to have one use. This is the way many other games handle this.
"Hmmmm. Yes i see your point that is a genie stack had 7 in it, the spell would be seven times as powerful, correct?"
Depending on the spell, you may have different effects:
- 7 times as powerful. _or_
- Can cast it seven times instead of 1 without running out of Mana.
If you select the first approach for every spell you'll quickly run into troubles of game-balance because creature stacks become too powerful. Some spells are better suited for the first approach, while others should use the second to limit the benefits of a spell.
The reason spellpower became unbalancing in heroes 3 is closely connected to this. A spell may be balanced at spellpower 1-20, but is severly unbalanced at spellpower 50. Then replace spellpower with number of creatures in a stack and you have the same problem in heroes 4.
"So it is said that potions have this capability? This would make creature spellcasting more treasured, and have an effect on what 3rd level creature you choose."
I believe the opposite is true. If spells become available to every stack, then the value of the normal spell-casting creatures would be compromised. That is you would instead hire a tank unit and let the low-level units do the spell-casting. After all some of your troops must be the ones that dishes out the damage and spellcasters are overall high-level units. Spellcasting creatures may still have a certain value because there's only a very limited amount of Potions available, however, if the selection is big and varied enough then Potions will be preferred.
Also having low level units casting spells also reduces the values of heroes since heroes are one of the units capable of casting spells.
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted January 09, 2002 11:36 PM |
|
|
i wonder if homm2 or homm3 would have been better if hero stats influenced creature stats proportionally less. e.g. if skeletons had e.g. 20 offense, an additional 10 offense from the hero wouldn't make so much difference.
hmm.. i would rather have a chance of doing some special damage attack depending on the attack skill of a hero, i.e. sth like luck in previous homms but less powerful. like 130..150% damage or so, and the chance would depend on the differences between attack and defense skills of the opposing heroes. or maybe even better, shifting the random function towards higher or lower damage within the damage capabilities of the creature. i.e. it's nice to win a battle because of a powerful hero, but in extreme cases the unrealism becomes quite annoying.
anyone knows what the chance of blocking an attack might depend on?
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted January 12, 2002 05:03 AM |
|
|
As the 'Battle Effects' thread is lifted away from the shadows once more......
"Depending on the spell, you may have different effects:
- 7 times as powerful. _or_
- Can cast it seven times instead of 1 without running out of Mana."
Hmmm. OK. It seems reasonable enough to work. Of course, this means that there are 7 genies. To cast a different light on the matter (Pardon the pun ) It is possible that having creatures cast spells which are more powerful than the heroes' spells seems a slight bit odd. I don't think it should be just the amount of creatures per stack that determines the power of the spell, but also how a genie fares as a hero. Since there are very many similarities between genie creatures and genie heroes. And 5 genies are not just total carbon copies of each other, as shown when they are portrayed as a hero; i.e. they have different specialties, and hence, they are better at some things, and worse at others. But if the spell effect is rounded off to the combined effort of the power of the hero and the creature together, the spell damage dealt would be reasonably spread out and equal.
"If spells become available to every stack, then the value of the normal spell-casting creatures would be compromised."
Yes, although the reality of the game is that not every creature has the ability to cast spells. Which would make ample sense, as could you imagine a thunderbird for instance casting a spell? From what i've heard, only a level one creature and a level three creature from each town have the capabilities of casting spells. So the message i am trying to realy here is that the creature which doesn't have the ability to cast spells should get HP compensation, since it doesn't have the ability. Because like you said in your post earlier: "creature stacks become too powerful". So having a creature being able to cast spells, AND having the same physical abilities sounds pretty offset to me. Like the H2 towns. Knight top level: 60 HP. Warlock top level: 300HP. I could live with that difference in such an advanced game such as heroes IV.
"if skeletons had e.g. 20 offense, an additional 10 offense from the hero wouldn't make so much difference."
Excellent, Gerdash, i had that thought, too. I'm not usre how it works in Heroes IV, but since the 4 primary skills as we knew them are now gone, there could be a different power enhancing creature stats. But. Heroes have chnged radically in this series, and thats not to say this will change either.
"anyone knows what the chance of blocking an attack might depend on?"
Blocking and attack. Hmmmmm.... I have a feeling it could work similarly to spell resistance in Heroes III. Along with the creatures defences and 'skills', maybe there could be a percentage of which shots are blocked and which aren't. That could even be a secondary skill in an expansion?? Maybe 10% block for all creatures, plus 5% every level. But i've seen the minotaurs special ability is 20% physical block, so i'm not sure how it would work.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted January 13, 2002 08:59 PM |
|
|
posted this in another thread (in much longer version), but yeah.. remembering some old threads, got an idea how catles might work differently:
a castle would have a granary and when there's enemy army sitting at the gate for a while, the castle granary would not get any additional food into it and would become empty and there would be some starvation in the castle. otherways the castle would be very difficult to conquer (as it was discussed before somewhere, in rl it took about 10 times the forces in the castle to take it by storm).
not sure if it would have to be 10 times more forces or 5 or whatever, but it would give your main army some time to arrive at the siege site before your castle and creature generators etc are taken and also enable you to defend castles with smaller garrisons.
anyone has ideas what would happen to the gameplay if the system was like that?
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
Slava14
Promising
Famous Hero
I am 16 now....
|
|
posted January 14, 2002 09:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
posted by Gerdash:
a castle would have a granary and when there's enemy army sitting at the gate for a while, the castle granary would not get any additional food into it and would become empty and there would be some starvation in the castle. otherways the castle would be very difficult to conquer (as it was discussed before somewhere, in rl it took about 10 times the forces in the castle to take it by storm).
not sure if it would have to be 10 times more forces or 5 or whatever, but it would give your main army some time to arrive at the siege site before your castle and creature generators etc are taken and also enable you to defend castles with smaller garrisons.
anyone has ideas what would happen to the gameplay if the system was like that?
Hmmm... I remember it was said (maybe to you) that Food as a resource will complicate the game. Yet, I'm not sure. What would you want to happen to the castle in which there is starvation?
The fact that to conquer a castle with good walls is really hard in RL is right, but in RL they didn't have Magics, Dragons, Devils, Angels... So It's totally diffrent.
____________
I'm always happy to help.. unless I'm helping myself.
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
|
posted January 16, 2002 08:55 AM |
|
|
Castles and Creatures-Are they linked?
OK. This seems quite interesting....
"a castle would have a granary and when there's enemy army sitting at the gate for a while, the castle granary would not get any additional food into it and would become empty and there would be some starvation in the castle."
How are you trying to define an enemy at the gates? Are you trying to say on the outer wall before the castle? Anyway, i'm not sure, but here are my thoughts on this matter.
As you say, there will be starvation, so I get the feeling that this will mean there is no creature productivity since there is no food. That would mean there are less creatures in the castle. (Answering Slava's question) So, theoretically(Everything works in theory), you can have a small army at your gates, stunting your castles creature growth, while you can easily get stronger and overwhelm them. If you ask me, this would complicate the game a small bit, but if this was in the first Heroes game, we'd have no problem with it. Although, i don't like the idea of food as a resource, otherwise you lose the fanatsy aspect of the game, as food serves no real gain in a magical combat like this one. To 'AoEish' for me if you were to ask. And we do know the AoE is not fantasy, but ancient civilisations.
"but it would give your main army some time to arrive at the siege site before your castle and creature generators etc are taken and also enable you to defend castles with smaller garrisons."
Yes, i agree. You are correct in saying that there will be smaller garrisons and it would take a longer time for the hero to reach the siege site. The reason i bleive for this is that the enemy must stand at the gate,and is nailed there until it decides it does't need to be there.
Anyway. One thing i see here, is that creatures would naturally get thier food from the dwelling, since it would probably provide the beneficial nutrients they would need to reproduce each week. But onto the Battle perspective of this topic. Sieges, i believe in Heroes IV will become much more important, mainly because of the ability to learn a new alignment, and gain heroes with different skills, and a wider range of specialties, so in the long term, you will be able to counter any other attack, since if you own 2 castles, you will also learn the native alignment, and 2 other neibouring ones, so in turn, this means you will have the capabilities to learn all 5.
Heroes in sieges will be the 'Queen' of the board if you like. They are amazingly powerful when they are released at high levels, and are dangerous in sieges, as they can cast spells when other creatures have not yet crossed the wall.
Another important element of sieges is the flying abilities of creatures such as Black Dragons and Phoenixes, which will now be able to engage in mid-air combat, to complicate sieges even more so.
I think we can safely say, that sieges and battles have become more important, not because of the new terrain, or perspective, but because of the more important components which actually serve in the battle like heroes and specialty creatures. All battles in Heroes IV will emit a sense of significance, and will not be approached lightly. As every grain of sand in the bucket helps.
{Edited}
This information is confirmed by one of the multitude of interviews that have recently been administered.
The skills that a hero learns such as archery, will not affect the creatures in the army, although, if you learn the 'group' skill such as combat, it will affect the creatures in your army.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
Gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted January 26, 2002 08:11 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
actually food wouldn't necessarily have to be a resource in the way that would complicate the game. you may just see it as the time a castle can handle without starvation when it's connection to the surrounding lands is blocked by an enemy army.
the enemy army blocking a castle might work like in homm2 where an army standing on the square right in front of the gate on the adventure map literally blocked the castle.
imho one of the problems with this sieging thing is that it might slow the game down too much already, so the effects of starvation would have to be more fatal than just stopping creature growth or sth like that. the delay caused by castle granary is just there to allow the opponent's main army to arrive to scare off the siegers. i.e. the behemoths want to eat every day and when the troops camp in the field, they can get food supplies or eat at the local village restaurant, but in a sieged castle they just cannot get any additional food when they have eaten up what they have in granary.
imagine the defenders without anything to eat while the siegers are roasting beef or sth in front of the gate. do you really think the consequences of that should be underestimated?
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
| |
|
|
