|
| Thread: Alternative Combat system |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
posted January 22, 2010 03:29 AM |
bonus applied by alcibiades on 09 Mar 2010. |
Edited by Moonlith at 03:50, 22 Jan 2010.
|
Alternative Combat system
First of all, this is just a random thought that lingered in my mind. I have no clue about the technical details or anything, nor do I know if I would actually LIKE this... Basicly I just want to share this idea and see what people think of it.
Roughly put the idea resolves around making the battles seem more realistic. I never understood how it is possible 500 peasants would have to choose wether to attack the single woodelf or single pixie standing right next to each other.
So I wondered if it could be possible to completely animate every single unit and control them in large blocks, varying between 1x1, 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, 8x8, 9x9, and 10x10. Thus if you take 500 peasants to a battle, you would have to devide them into at least 5 individual blocks. Though a player might be able to decide what kind of blocks to use.
Here's an example:
Blue (84 peasants, 21 archers) VS Red (24 goblins)
The first 16 peasants are put in a 4x4 block, then 49 in a 7x7 block. The remaining 19 peasants are set in an 8x8 block, so the front rank is more stretched. The 21 archers are set in a 5x5 block. And as for the goblins, they are split in 2 blocks of 5x5, 12 in each.
It would look something like this:
As I said I have -no- clue about the technical details about this, such as in, would the rear rank be able to strike the enemy? Would a block be able to fully attack -every- unit in for example, a 10x10 block? Or would the first and second ranks fall first, and the following ranks shuffle forward? Would there be different block size limits for different tiers? Would a block be able to attack more than 1 block depending on positioning? What if there was 1 line of space left inbetween the second block? Would a block suffer more damage if it was attacked in the flank or rear? Etc...
One possible alternative option I just considered could be the blue and red armies walk on -different- grids, which allows units to slide alongside enemy units, so they can attack units on the other grid, but never move onto that grid. What that would mean would be that blocks of opposing teams could move into one another, which makes it more realistic. But then you get issues again... For example if you use puppet master.. how would the enemy, controlled stack be able to slide into an enemy block on the same grid? etc...
Mind, I don't think it would actually be possible to feature this in a game. H5 animates around 14 units usually in end-game battles; this system would require hundreds to be animated. Then again, various battlefield games show it's possible to animate such huge numbers.
Anyway, it should be clear I haven't worked out any details about this idea, but all the same it's an idea I wanted to share and see what people think about it. Frankly I'm not even sure if it would make gameplay more fun or not. What do you folks think?
*EDIT*
Another example; try and imagine how a fireball would work. Definately not 3x3. It could be that the mastery determines the size of effect, for example:
Basic: 2
Advanced: 4
Expert: 7
Like this:
Could smack it right on top of a 10x10 stack of peasants and fry 99 orso. I don't think that would be very overpowered considering if you do that you almost exclusively hit peasants. A fireball might not fry more than 40 peasants in H5, but in H5 when you do that, it can still damage up to 8 other stacks.
Alternative you can aim it at the side of a block to hit another block.
Just tossing in random ideas.
____________
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted January 22, 2010 09:18 AM |
|
|
This is something that I've thought of as well 
Heroes 6 could totally have thousands of units on the battlefield. Having hundreds of units who fight at the same time and have to manage their pathfinding etc can be really demanding on your CPU, but since Heroes is turnbased there isn't any problem of that sort. As long as things only move on at a time I don't think it would be that demanding.
Units that are adjacent to the enemy units should be able to attack, but some units could have a "reach" ability (pikemen for example) that allows them to attack over 2 squares, meaning that you can have your shielded infantry in front on defence while your pikemen attacks.
Heroes would gain much more depth imo.
You would of course need a formation system for the units, and maybe even custom made formations that the player can make and save as templates.
Imo, they might as well throw in the heroes in battle as well (meaning that they can take hits and even get defeated before their army) since Heroes would take a step towards more realism. The leader doesn't always have to stand at the side. Protecting your leader would become an important part of the battle (for example, creating a formation with the leader surrounded with Squires to reduce ranged damage)
Heroes would be so epic *dreams away*
____________
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted January 22, 2010 10:44 AM |
|
|
it certainly would be interesting... It also proves that someone been trying to rip off warhammer just a litte. in a good way, of course.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 22, 2010 10:45 AM |
|
|
|
Too complex, formations, especially big ones, really require a RTT (real-time-tactical) as opposed to a TBT (turn-based-tactical). Think Total War, they have TBS but RTT.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted January 22, 2010 01:52 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 13:55, 22 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
Imo, they might as well throw in the heroes in battle as well (meaning that they can take hits and even get defeated before their army) since Heroes would take a step towards more realism. The leader doesn't always have to stand at the side. Protecting your leader would become an important part of the battle (for example, creating a formation with the leader surrounded with Squires to reduce ranged damage)
I was thinking the same  Might be difficult for some heroes though, like Knights and Barbarians, who would be fairly distinctively melee-focussed. I don't see them attacking from large range. Speaking of shooters, I'm tempted to think they would attack simular like a fireball; in a set area instead of a single block.
Quote:
it certainly would be interesting... It also proves that someone been trying to rip off warhammer just a litte. in a good way, of course.
A little bit, yeah  It made me ponder the idea of units starting to flee whenever 75-99% of the block dies off in a single attack, unless the hero has a high leadership skill or morale or something. But granted, it wouldn't be quite like Warhammer since in Warhammer the blocks can face any direction; here they can only face 4, maybe 8 if you allow diagonal formations.
@ MattII: That's one issue I had been pondering about as well. If for example your 10x10 tries to attack an enemy block of 3x3 and 4x4... but the hind rear of the 3x3 block is at the same row as the hind rear of the 4x4 one.. It means your 10x10 block wouldn't be able to attack the 3x3 one, unless you go with a double grid system where it could move into both blocks. Then again, it could also be considered tactics to leave one block a bit in front of the others to 'block' the advancement of large enemy blocks.
I'm not too sure if I agree with you though. Yes those massive battles have so far only been used in RTS games, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work for TBS  It would only be a bit more tricky I think.
Note the damage output of individual units would have to be increased significantly if only the front row or front two rows can attack the first or first two rows of an enemy block, so as not to make battles last too painfully long. If only front rows can be attacked in melee it puts an actual cap on how many units you can kill each attack. Unless, for example, an attack goes in 5 waves.
Blue Attacks Red.
Red retaliates
Blue attacks the second time
Red retaliates
Blue attacks the third time
Red retaliates
Blue attacks the fourth time
Red retaliates
Blue attacks the fifth time
Red retaliates for the final time
Instead of the single attack and retaliate way that H5 uses. That would speed up a battle as well, as it raises the kill-cap from 10 (or 20) to 50 (or 100).
Note if troops would die the remaining troops in a block should shuffle forward and refill the front ranks.
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted January 22, 2010 02:08 PM |
|
|
I think my biggest problem with this idea is that I can't actually see what it would add to the game!
I agree that it some way it will help on realism - because a big stack will become just that, which seems logical. I guess what it might also add was an option to solve the "super peasant" problem - which I think might benefit the game a lot by preventing abuse.
On the other hand, it might add some serious problems to what is currently tactical elements of the game. For instance: How do you cover up a big stack of archers? How do you predict and maneouver the battlefield? Remember that Heroes 4 tried to implement some more fluid battlefield features with rather disastrous results.
I think if this should work, the system should be more flexible - i.e. allow you to shape and form the stacks. This would add a huge tactical element! For instance, imagine you have a stack of Archers and Peasants. You place them in the following two ways:
AAA PP
AAA PP
AAA PP AAAAAAA PPPP
AAA PP or AAAAAAA PPPPP
AAA PP AAAAAAA PPPPP
AAA PP
AAA PP
The difference between these two examples would be that in the first, you have a wide front. Thus, it would be hard for the enemy to block the whole line of Archers (notice, that each Archer would count as an individual unit, and hence you can block part of the stack!). On the other hand, because you have spread your peasants thin, it would be easy to go through the line of peasants to reach the Archers.
In the other example, you have a narrow formation, which means it takes more time to get through the peasants to reach the archers. However, once you reach the archers, you can easier block their ranged attacks (notice that one would have to come up with a suitable solution to how to count the rows behind the first - are they blocked or not blocked when front row is?).
Of course, to implement something like this, you would have to come up with a whole new combat system! Obviously, your unit would not need to use 5 turns to cut through a line of peasants 5 units deep - that would just be to make the super peasant problem even worse than it already is!
Oh, and area spells should have AOE depend on Spellpower (or Knowledge) rather than mastery - so that in late game, you can cast really biiiiiiig fireballs to damage the enemy's really biiiiiiig stacks.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted January 22, 2010 06:59 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 19:05, 22 Jan 2010.
|
I still like how you start off pesimistic but gradually start to brainstorm about it regardless
I have a few more additional points:
Melee Combat
With this system there is a limit to how much damage can be dealt. In H5, your stack of 500 peasants can attack 200 imps, and each of those peasants will deal its damage. With this system, there is a limit to how many units can attack and how many can be attacked; that limit is obviously the unit's maximum melee reach. The main problem is that this could make melee battles last really long and become a drag. There are several options I considered to counter that.
For one, the reach of the melee units could be greater than 1. So you have melee units that can attack units standing 1, 2, or maybe even 3 (higher tiers) or more squares away. This way, not only will the first two rows be able to attack, but also more rows can be damaged, increasing the max kill-cap per strike.
For another, number of strikes. The standard H5 method is that a unit attacks, and suffers a retaliation. In a system in which only a part of the group can actually attack, it might make more sense to have each side deliver more than one strike (kind of like the H3 Crusader). Say for example, 5. To not make it too much like the H4 simultaneous strikes effect, one could say the defending unit can only retaliate twice or thrice, instead of all five times, which makes it more benefitting to attack.
So it goes like:
Blue attacks
Red retaliates
Blue attacks
Red retaliates
Blue attacks
Blue attacks
Blue attacks
This could possibly compensate for the inability of 100 units to strike the target all together, and possibly kill it entirely. Also, different units could have more or less than 5 strikes; blood furies 7? Zombies 4?
Now there's an obvious little issue; what if the first two ranks of a block are killed, does that hinder the battle? I thought of a possible solution for this, which also counters the abuse of using several 1x1 peasants to block massive charges.
Imagine for example, a 10x10 block of imps attacking a 10x10 block of peasants. The first two rows attack, and bam, they kill 12 peasants, woozah! The first row is entirely gone and 2 peasants die on the second row. Now there are two things that could happen to create close melee again:
A) The peasants shuffle forwards to fill up their front ranks again, and retaliate.
B) The imps move forwards, and the peasants retaliate.
In this example, I would imagine it to be a combo; the imps shuffle 1 line forwards, and the 2 open spots on the new first row are filled up with peasants. As a general rule; the block that kills off an entire first row, gets to shuffle forwards. On the second row only 2 out of 10 peasants had died, so it's the peasants that get to fill up that row again. Likewise, if the imps had only killed 9 peasants, the imps wouldn't move forwards. Like the reach, different units could have a maximum distance they can move before completing their close combat attack. Imps 2, for example. Cavalry, maybe 4 or 5 even. So basicly, for every strike, imps first move 2 tiles forwards (if they can), and then perform a strike.
For example:
Imagine the imps attack the line of peasants.
1. First strike; imps kill 7 peasants.
2. 1 peasant retaliates, killing none.
3. Second strike; imps kill 1 peasant, destroying the block.
4. Imps move 2 tiles forwards, but are not engaged, so their third strike is lost.
5. Imps move 1 more tile forward, and deliver their fourth strike to the new stack of peasants.
6. Peasants retaliate, imps perform their fifth strike, and peasants retaliate again. End of the attack.
That's how I could picture it to go.
This is, again, to prevent the abuse of using 1 single peasant to stop the charge of 40 cavalry; since after their first hit to that peasant, they move on. Just an idea.
Stack shape and Manouverability
Alcibiades pointed out a good concern about a lacking manouverability when you're dealing with stacks the size of 10x10, even on a larger field with more necessary speed. One possible solution I thought of would be that blockshapes would be 'dynamic', so they can squeeze inbetween smaller gaps and even surround smaller blocks gradually, so more units in the block can deal damage. Naturally shifting back into their regular shape whenever possible and not fighting.
Though I have no clue yet how this would make it possible for part of the units in one block to attack units in another block standing adjecent to the attacked block.
Battlefield size
Uhm yeah, I tried to depict what a full lineup could look like.... Like this:
That being a big army with 3 heroes.
P= Peasants
M= Marksmen
S= Squires
G= Griffins
Z= Zealots / Monks / priests
C= Cavalry
A= Angels
H= Hero
That army stands roughly in a 25x110 field... The battlefield would have to be quite a bit bigger to accomodate all that AND allow enough manouvering options. For small battles, say, 83 units vs 24, the field would obviously be smaller. I'd think the battlefield size would change depending on how many units there are in total, and their sizes.
Initiative
I'd probably picture something like final fantasy Where units have an initiative bar which slowly fills up to 100, and the moment a unit's bar hits 100, the owner's turn it becomes. What happens then is a bit like chess I would think, where players can choose which "Ready" block to use, after which that block's initiative is reset to 0. That way you can avoid having players needing to deal with for example, 5 blocks of squires standing there defending archers. It's already painful in H5 to repeatively hit Defend for them, let alone to do it for 5 blocks.
Consideration for the stack number differences. I think players should be encouraged to use large blocks instead of numerous small ones, but in general, if player A has 5 blocks, and player B has 7 blocks, then player A should be able to move blocks 5 times in the time that player B can move 7.
Also certain units, like cavalry or bloodfuries, could start the battle with a little boost to their ATB bar already. That way you can have cavalry and bloodfuries most likely ready to strike first, without needing to give them a higher initiative value.
Unit sizes
In the pic above I used 1x1 and 2x2 units, but certain units like Titans, Dragons and Behemoths could even be 3x3 in size.
Heroes and warmachines
Unlike in H5, melee heroes wouldn't be able to strike their enemy. Casters can cast, ranged heroes like Rangers can shoot, but for melee heroes, they need a different goal. Perhaps more like the Barbarian in H5; shouting, morale boost and all, to many surrounding troops.
Heroes should probably have a 75 / 90% mitigation against ranged attacks and spells, as long as there are still friendly troops alive.
Warmachines, like the heroes, would probably be on the battlefield, with the ammo cart providing ammo to ranged units in a limited radius, and the first aid tent periodicly healing all friendly units in a radius around it.
Mixed blocks?
Probably a bad idea
Just tossing in a few more options that went through my head. I don't have anything better to do.
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 22, 2010 09:03 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 21:09, 22 Jan 2010.
|
Still too complex for a casual player (like I am), if not for a pro.
I did once have the idea of giving stacks (but not slots) maximum sizes, so that having a large number of one type of creature would result in having several stacks.
eg, maximum stack size is 50, but you have 75 Peasants. By default they'd be divided into 2 stacks (37 and 38), but you could chose to divide them up further, into 3 (25 each), 4 (3 * 19 + 18), 5 (15 each) or even more stacks.
I've also thought for a while that the current sizing system it too vague having simply normal and large, so I wouldn't mind introducing some extra sizes; long (1*20), large long (2*3), and perhaps even massive (3*3).
BTW, what program did you do your grid-work on, that is neat?
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted January 23, 2010 12:20 AM |
|
|
Paint
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2010 10:22 AM |
|
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted January 23, 2010 10:38 AM |
|
|
Copy/Paste will be your friend.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2010 10:57 AM |
|
|
Yeah, but even then that's over 400 pastes for Peasants alone in the big army lineup.
Anyway, back on topic, what do people think of my ideas of maximum stack size and extra creature sizes?
|
|
mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted January 23, 2010 02:50 PM |
|
|
My only problem with this is complexity.
It looks like a mix between heroes 4 and supreme commander but how long will the battles take?
How many clicks will you need to perform?
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted January 25, 2010 05:38 PM |
|
|
Not really I make the blocks outside of the grid and then copy-paste them onto it, so I don't need to paste each and every individual one.
Quote:
My only problem with this is complexity.
It looks like a mix between heroes 4 and supreme commander but how long will the battles take?
How many clicks will you need to perform?
How am I supposed to know ? Preferably same or less than H5.
@MattII: I had such a simular idea as well. The 7 slots would show the total number of creatures mayhaps, or just the first 7, but an extended view would show many more slots, 49 orso mayhaps. I like it, though it suffers the same problem this system I propose would have; you'd have to deal with 20+ stacks, many no doubt not being used and just defending. Also I'd personally like a lower limit for higher tier units. Something like tier 1 100, tier 7 10.
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2010 01:29 AM |
|
Edited by MattII at 01:38, 26 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
I like it, though it suffers the same problem this system I propose would have; you'd have to deal with 20+ stacks, many no doubt not being used and just defending.
Well a) you need something preventing fast enemies getting at your archers, and b) you'd be stupid to carry too many slow units on an adventuring hero.
Quote:
Also I'd personally like a lower limit for higher tier units. Something like tier 1 100, tier 7 10.
I dislike the idea, because lower tier units get more stacks than higher tier units would, so it would all even out anyway. Also, the intelligent person would split high-tier stacks up anyway so as not to get them wrecked by enemy spells and so that the numerous low-tier enemy stacks won't be able to absorb all their retaliations better kept for the glass cannons.
|
|
Nebdar
Promising
Supreme Hero
Generation N
|
|
posted January 27, 2010 01:40 PM |
|
Edited by Nebdar at 13:47, 27 Jan 2010.
|
yes i was thinking about the same for a long time ago...
We need just take you idea add weather, different terrain and shapes of terrain natural obstacels, morale, units expierniece, health water and food supply, illness and diseases, the quality of weapons and armour and so on... and my dreams would also come trough..
I don't know that you had played to the Lords of The Realm I and Lords of the Realm two... they are old games but there are...:
- formations,
- each warrior figure represents a fixed number of your units for example 1 figure on the battelfied equalls 20 peasants
- morale that effects the effectivity
- you can move the whole formation as one or just one figure
- there also health \
- the difference between number of soldiers in two opposite armies affecting the morale(when you have more soldiers then enemy your mean will have morale bonus and the enemy morale penalty)
i would really like to se that idea in action
and of course that would take maybe too much time to preaparations(maybe formation and action tactics templates preapred earlier would help) but to see the same positive effect like in Lord of the Rings II or supremme Commander it is worth it.
And yeah seeing the Heroes in action priceless
____________
|
|
Borton
Hired Hero
A lemming in my pocket
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 12:41 AM |
|
|
Hi everyone! This is my very first message here among the Heroes fans!
Let's get straight to the point: I also see this system too complex, but it just brought to my mind an idea: What about a classic Heroes combat system adding the option of spending one unit's turn on splitting herself into two units, or on merging with another unit made of the same kind of creature? Once the combat ends every unit previously splitted returns to one single unit, and the merged ones become separate units again.
____________
The HOMM4 vampire is Dave Gahan!!!
|
|
sylvanllewelyn
Hired Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 12:51 AM |
|
|
I am a huge fan of the Total War series but this won't work in HOMM setting. If you like, there is a fantasy game with Total War combat system coming out this year, forgot the name but will try to find out because I will definitely play it.
1) You need time to track of the hit-points and any magical effects on each single unit. Total War does that for a specialised "duel mode" and even then it lags. Now imagine doing that everytime you creep, for every turn of the game. Most Total War units only have 1 hit-point (maybe 2), no status ailments and only a "valour" modifier. Morale is for the whole "stack".
2) For large battles, the battlefield will have to be massive and that takes time to load. Total War addresses this by artifically limiting the total number of "stacks" on each side to 20 and the size of each full-strength stack fixed. This is a serious complaint that cannot be fixed. I can lead 5000 spearman but I cannot lead 10000 peasants WTF?!
3) The probabilistic nature of "attack" and "defense" will lead to some stupid results way too often with bigger creatures. I can easily imagine a 5% chance of 1 dragon beating 3 angels, something no gamer will accept.
4) Rules-based limitations for a computer game makes for some silly situations. For example, in the real world, 5 peasants will not even slow down 5000 charging horseman, but 1000 peasants will. What about 50 peasants? 234? The problem with computer games is its a simulation with a precise mathematical model, which means you need a precise relationship for each of the millions of different possible physical interactions. The real world is an extremely intricate processor with a lot of sub-atomic particles, each one storing a piece of information. We can't do the same on our computers. 1 peasant in a stack stopping 10 dragons is silly but its the best we can do.
HOMM is defined by the stack system, it's going to stay.
What I do suggest is this:
a) I want the hero to be on the battlefield but with slight adjustments from HOMM4. I suggest "attaching" the hero to (the bottom of) a stack, and you can only start hitting the exposed hero once the stack is killed. The hero will move along with the stack, or it could switch stacks to hide behind. A little bit like the "martyr" spell of HOMM4, except by default. If you choose to, the hero can also stand alone or stand in front of the stack (to protect archers) if they feel invincible. At least, this will also discourage the use of 1 superhero to lead a massive army.
b) More stacks allowed, please. I do want to mix units from different towns.
____________
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 09, 2010 03:44 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 03:46, 09 Feb 2010.
|
@ Borton:
First of all, welcome to the forum 
As for your idea, personally I'm not sure if I like it too much. First of all it would be an extra hassle to be needing to waste initiative just to get your stacks split, when you might as well start off with split stacks to begin with. Second, the only moment where I can see it having an actual advantage is when you're on the defense, and don't need to make your way over to the enemy, which usually is when you have superior ranged firepower to begin with. It only consolidates an advantage. So I'm personally not too sure if it actually adds anything, other than annoyance over having to split your stack again in the next battle.
Quote:
1) You need time to track of the hit-points and any magical effects on each single unit. Total War does that for a specialised "duel mode" and even then it lags. Now imagine doing that everytime you creep, for every turn of the game. Most Total War units only have 1 hit-point (maybe 2), no status ailments and only a "valour" modifier. Morale is for the whole "stack".
Obviously a system like this would require a complete overhaul of creature statistics, let alone which statistics to use. HoMM games have traditionally used stacks, with the amount of damage done ticking off dead creatures untill the top creature in the stack is left wounded. That obviously won't work in this suggested battle system. Personally, I do find the classic HoMM system amusing, but at the same time, often more annoying than amusing.
Besides I'm not too sure if you have to keep track of your units' HPs more than in H5.
What -would- heavily change is the whole stack-damage-dealt-to-stack. Take imps attacking peasants for example. With a range of 2 only the front 2 rows can attack, so the damage output is already capped at 20 imps. Suppose they do 60 damage to the stack of 100 peasants, who each have 1 HP. Technically 60 would die, but due to the max range of 2 for the imps, only the first two rows can be targetted, thus capping the maximum killed peasants in a strike by 20. Hence I suggested the multiple strikes per attack to counter the slowing of combat in this system.
Quote:
2) For large battles, the battlefield will have to be massive and that takes time to load. Total War addresses this by artifically limiting the total number of "stacks" on each side to 20 and the size of each full-strength stack fixed. This is a serious complaint that cannot be fixed. I can lead 5000 spearman but I cannot lead 10000 peasants WTF?!
When was the last time you had actually cumulated more than 5000 creatures in any HOMM game? Your army is already rolling over anything if you get 2000 creatures total. Weekly growth in HoMM5 is roughly.... 20+10+7+4+3+2+1 = 47 x 2 = 94. Takes at least 50 weeks to cumulate 5000 units. And that's counting HoMM5's weekly growths. You can adjust them still.
That said, the issue you bring up is a technical problem of today, which has no place in a discussion about a concept of tomorrow
And, also note, Rome total war is an RTS. HoMM is still a TBS. I'm not sure if Rome Total War would be this heavy on a PC if it were a TBS.
Quote:
3) The probabilistic nature of "attack" and "defense" will lead to some stupid results way too often with bigger creatures. I can easily imagine a 5% chance of 1 dragon beating 3 angels, something no gamer will accept.
You're thinking with classic HoMM statistics in mind. As said, values need to be tweakened and reworked to fit with a system like this.
Quote:
4) Rules-based limitations for a computer game makes for some silly situations. For example, in the real world, 5 peasants will not even slow down 5000 charging horseman, but 1000 peasants will. What about 50 peasants? 234? The problem with computer games is its a simulation with a precise mathematical model, which means you need a precise relationship for each of the millions of different possible physical interactions. The real world is an extremely intricate processor with a lot of sub-atomic particles, each one storing a piece of information.
Uhm, I can tell you several silly situations you'd encounter in HoMM5, HoMM4, HoMM3, etc. That's not a new issue with this concept
Quote:
b) More stacks allowed, please. I do want to mix units from different towns.
Seconded. Though part of the problem in HoMM5 with that lies in the fact the racial skills are town / creature specific, which comes on top of the morale penalty.... I would prefer that town-specific racial skill system removed personally, to enable more free mixed armies again.
That said, I do admit I'm not too sure if more than 7 stacks should be used. Yes it's stupid that you can't have peasants join your army when you have militia, but with many more army slots you get a more chaotic battle, as you have less oversight on which unit is going to be available next, and too many to deal with perhaps. Admitted that might be a plus point, actually.
Initiative
The main issue with this system I am personally struggling with is the idea you have 20+ stacks you need to deal with. In H5 it is already annoying to repeatively have your single stack of squires defend every time their turn comes up; in this setting you would have to do it several more times, every time their turn comes.
This is probably why I considered a more final-fantasy based initiative system, where from the start of combat, every 'game turn' a unit's initiative value is added to their ATB bar untill a stack has 100. Only after the stack is used, will it reset to 0.
If multiple stacks are at 100, the player gets to choose which stack of the available ones he uses. This eliminates the need to repeatively click defend on squire stacks, at least untill every other stack has been used and only squire stacks remain 'ready' in your turn.
Morale bonus would instantly add +50 (or more, perhaps depending on skills) to the ATB value (so it resets to 50 instead of 0).
It also eliminates the trouble of one player who has 1 stack getting to use it 10 times while the other player, with 10 stacks, uses his stacks once; the single stack will be regaining initiative while the opponent has more available stacks to use.
Essentially, after a player uses a stack, and more stacks are available, the game should add one more game-turn worth of initiative to non-ready creatures before the next player's turn is up. If no stacks are ready and available, the game will keep adding gameturns without pause untill a stack is available.
Again requires tweaking of the initiative value though, since with units having 10 initiative, you would be able to reuse 10 stacks endlessly while leaving all other stacks unsued. The bar generally should reach 100 in less turns than the amount of stacks that would be on the battlefield.
Also certain units that are "first strike likely" would have a bonus to their ATB value at the start of combat, like Haven's Cavalry or Dungeon's Harpies/bloodfuries, or Sylvan's archers. Such a bonus would eliminate a need for a higher initiative value.
____________
|
|
LordGodric
Known Hero
The Griffin Rider
|
|
posted February 16, 2010 10:56 PM |
|
|
my ideia:
you can have only 7 different creatures, but you can have
20 stacks, that you can assign on the adventure map, or at tactics mode. of course this setting is save, so you dont have to make it at the start of all the fights.
the thing about huge stacks (shuch as 10x10)... i think it would be too much complex...
if you say at least until 4x4 (come on! 16 is a high number) it could be...
i agree with the thing about if the first line dies the second go to replace.
AAA BBBB
AAA BBBB
AAA BBBB
A atacks
AAA BBB
AAA BBBB
AAA BBB
b reagroups
AAA BBB
AAA BBBB
AAA BBB
B retaliates...
and about 5 attacks...
i thinf its too much, isent is? (of course isnt if you realy has a 10x10 stack...) i would say that 2 attacks are prtty good...
|
| |
|
|
