|
|
Abiogenist
Hired Hero
|
posted October 23, 2010 04:11 AM |
|
|
Agent_00_BLeRD: Hey, thanks a lot.  I didn't really get those parts until you explained it to me.
Oh and thanks to Jiriki9 for this wonderful thread. The summary of suggestions is cool.
By the way I have my own suggestion. I want attack animations to be faster. In H5 some creatures attack so slowly that waiting becomes so dull. For instance, those hand movements of those mages become very tiring especially when you divide them into different stacks. Instead of a 5-second attack animation, why not cut them into a second or two?
But if there's a current option to shorten them, then I stand corrected. I'm only a casual HoMM player.
|
|
Agent_00_BLeRD
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2010 12:36 PM |
|
|
|
The only option I know of is to increase the combat animation speed for everything. Then everything happens much faster, movement, walking, attacking, spell animations etc.
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 23, 2010 07:41 PM |
|
|
Hi, I'm new here!
I wish they expand the tactical aspect. I always hate it when I order a unit to attack an enemy from behind and that enemy just turn around. I think we should get a bonus depending the direction of our attack. It makes no sense that charging the enemy head on is the same as attacking from their rear. Also, when you surround an enemy and gang-attack it you should get a bonus too except if the creature is like a Hydra in which it negates that bonus. Another feature that I think is nice is interception. Creatures will have like an "area of control" so ground units can't just dash in pass your frontlines to your backlines. Of course, some creature could be made to bypass the "area of control". Air units obviously can fly pass your fronts but maybe add creature ability that can counter this.
Additions like these can make the combat deeper and open up many new possibilities for creature abilities. Of course, you have to balance them carefully.
____________
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted October 23, 2010 07:44 PM |
|
Edited by Jiriki9 at 08:56, 26 Oct 2010.
|
Hi Mytheroes 
Nices suggestions. In my next edit, will add them to the first post!
I hate hc right now...noone told me I also couldn't edit two threads at a time -.- I wrote explanations and everythign and it's now lost and that's frustrating me. Maybe I'll rewrite this alter^^
|
|
MrDragon
Supreme Hero
Eats people with Ketchup
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 09:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hi, I'm new here!
I wish they expand the tactical aspect. I always hate it when I order a unit to attack an enemy from behind and that enemy just turn around. I think we should get a bonus depending the direction of our attack. It makes no sense that charging the enemy head on is the same as attacking from their rear. Also, when you surround an enemy and gang-attack it you should get a bonus too except if the creature is like a Hydra in which it negates that bonus. Another feature that I think is nice is interception. Creatures will have like an "area of control" so ground units can't just dash in pass your frontlines to your backlines. Of course, some creature could be made to bypass the "area of control". Air units obviously can fly pass your fronts but maybe add creature ability that can counter this.
Additions like these can make the combat deeper and open up many new possibilities for creature abilities. Of course, you have to balance them carefully.
Possibly take a leaf out of Dungeons and Dragon's book, where if you pass through squares adjacent to a unit without engaging it, it gets to smack you in the face with a basic attack.
In Heroes case though I'd say this then is 50% of normal damage or maybe 30%, so you can get passed without effectively giving your opponent a free hit, but it's enough to discourage it.
It had better be worth the effort.
Similarly, a combat advantage mechanic for when you're flanking an opponent might be nice, I'd say just in the form of a small damage bonus, say 10-15%.
The problem with attacking "from the rear" is that units always face a certain way corresponding with their hero, it allows units to not have to deal with things like "team colour" as many strategy games have, just by checking a unit's facing you can see who owns it.
So I'd leave that the way that it is, especially considering that a unit is more often then not composed of a lot of creatures, it's easily foreseeable in a more realistic scenario that they turn to face their incoming opponent before impact as at least 1 member of the unit is bound to have seen them and raise the alarm.
This is a lot tougher when already engaged, which is basically... well... see my bit on flanking.
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 09:39 AM |
|
|
Yes, the problem with the "direction" mechanics in the Heroes series is that the units always face the same direction as the hero (at least when standing by) and we can't change that. Regarding the rear attack, well, usually in real life by the time they realize they are being attacked from the rear it's already too late to react effectively. Of course, this assuming the rear attack has the element of surprise with them. Well trained and discipline front lines troops may not suffer that badly but poorly trained or backlines/supports type of troops will suffer greatly. The greatest nightmare for a troop is to be attacked from all sides except if you are a Hydra of course.
____________
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 10:07 AM |
|
|
|
I have added some explanations to the first post. Would be glad about some opinions about them
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 02:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Regarding the rear attack, well, usually in real life by the time they realize they are being attacked from the rear it's already too late to react effectively. Of course, this assuming the rear attack has the element of surprise with them.
Well the Heroes series tends towards mostly open-field battles, in which the element of surprise will be minimal.
Quote:
The greatest nightmare for a troop is to be attacked from all sides except if you are a Hydra of course.
Infantry squares tend to diminish the effectiveness of this, since it allows units to hit back in virtually any direction.
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Regarding the rear attack, well, usually in real life by the time they realize they are being attacked from the rear it's already too late to react effectively. Of course, this assuming the rear attack has the element of surprise with them.
Well the Heroes series tends towards mostly open-field battles, in which the element of surprise will be minimal.
Open-field battles does not always mean there will be minimal surprise. The only reason it is so in Heroes and other strategy games is that you view the battlefield from above thus allowing you to see almost everything. In real life in the past, this is not the case.
Also, teleporting units such as vampire lord and archdevil will in a sense surprise their enemies regardless of the battlefield type. Vampire lord have the "no retaliation" to reflect this. I'm not sure about the archdevil, I think it will be overpowered if we give it the "no retaliation" ability.
Quote:
Quote:
The greatest nightmare for a troop is to be attacked from all sides except if you are a Hydra of course.
Infantry squares tend to diminish the effectiveness of this, since it allows units to hit back in virtually any direction.
I think it's too complicated to implement individual stack formation in Heroes. Well,I believe infantry squares have disadvantage against concentrated artillery fire or ranged attack so you shouldn't strike it head on with melee I think. Plus, if you want to extend the imagination, there are flying units that can strike from above. That would be a real trouble, of course that wouldn't happen in Heroes.
____________
|
|
MrDragon
Supreme Hero
Eats people with Ketchup
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, teleporting units such as vampire lord and archdevil will in a sense surprise their enemies regardless of the battlefield type. Vampire lord have the "no retaliation" to reflect this. I'm not sure about the archdevil, I think it will be overpowered if we give it the "no retaliation" ability.
It's simple, Devils like to show off, they're total drama queens.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 05:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Open-field battles does not always mean there will be minimal surprise. The only reason it is so in Heroes and other strategy games is that you view the battlefield from above thus allowing you to see almost everything. In real life in the past, this is not the case.
Firstly, this is semantics, secondly, back then divisions employed messengers to do the job, and it's kind of hard to bring a lot of fighting men in behind the enemy while advancing over an open field.
Quote:
Also, teleporting units such as vampire lord and archdevil will in a sense surprise their enemies regardless of the battlefield type. Vampire lord have the "no retaliation" to reflect this. I'm not sure about the archdevil, I think it will be overpowered if we give it the "no retaliation" ability.
The Vampire Lord had the no-retal ability in earlier games when it flew rather than teleported.
Quote:
I think it's too complicated to implement individual stack formation in Heroes.
As I believe it is a realistic flanking manoeuvre to get in behind the enemy.
Quote:
Well,I believe infantry squares have disadvantage against concentrated artillery fire or ranged attack so you shouldn't strike it head on with melee I think.
Against artillery fire I don't believe they're any worse than the densely packed phalanxes used up until the Napoleonic Wars, and against other ranged fire...Well the Romans found it to be a more successful tactic against the Parthians than their normal method of lining up.
Quote:
Plus, if you want to extend the imagination, there are flying units that can strike from above. That would be a real trouble, of course that wouldn't happen in Heroes.
Hey, if you want to extend the imagination that far why not go the whole way and just allow mages to cast virtually every spell you know?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Explanations:
Adventure Map
Random Events:
I'd really like to have some random events, maybe turned off for campaign maps, which could have minor to major effects. Diseases, catastrophes, perosnal effects on heroes, finds, etc. There are billions of options to this and it can bring much variation into the game, that's why i want it in.
With you a 110%. This is badly needed for making simple maps that provide awesome gameplay. As you said the possiblities are endless.
Quote:
various ultimate artifacts instead of just "the grail"/"tear of asha"
The idea is tto not have the same ultimate artifact to be found through the obeliscs on EVERY map, but several possible ultimate artifacts, which could have a lot of different effects and type of effects, but would be equally powerfull, much more powerfull than an ordinary artifact.
I've already said this is a very good idea. We could have obliscs of different shapes and colors that could have an 'artefact' assigned seperately by the map-maker. The Developers would have to expand the number of puzzle maps that could be viewed during gameplay. That might be the only snag with the idea.
Quote:
underground more distinct from aboveground
The idea here is that the underground should not, as you could say now, be pretty much like the ground above, but with other visuals. It should also have ingame effects, which could be of a very different kind - specific only-underground AM-buildings, effects on creatures (especially flying and big?), etc. etc. It would mean that being underground is quite more different from above than it's now.
It already is in some ways. You can't use the map-brush 'raise ground; in making a high underground area I'm curious, what 'other visuals'? I like your idea of creatures being affected by being underground. I.E. 'Griffin's flying' i think would be greatly would be impacted by fighting in caverns, instead of their normal big-sky environment.
Quote:
sometimes underground on aboveground-level
THis means that sometimes there would be underground areas on the ingame aboveground-level. Sense in this would be for example concernign a mountain apssage through really big mountains. The Entrances to Moria in LotR is an example...at first, the fellowship is not descending but pretty much walking on the same ground level as they had been outside. This point should make this possible in HoMM.
You lost me here. You already can put underground tiles on the top map and bulk or dig to get mid-level areas, so exactly what is it you're after?
Quote:
Adventure Map-buildings improving hero skills, as long as you control them
PRetty much as it says here, there woudl be buildings increasing certain skills, as long as they are controlled, maybe only in a radius around them, maybe all over the map. A similar example is the Necromancer special buildign in HoMM3, that increased the necromancy skill for all of your necromancers, yet this was a town building. But why not ahving AM-buildigns doung it?
Seems a great idea. You mean i.e. having say a 'armory building' in a region, that gives a bonus to 'defense stats' of the hero that is controlling that area?
Quote:
uncrossable rivers with crossing options (bridges&fords)
This simply is about having smal rivers (not necessarily, but mainly water, probably), which can't be crossed by your heroes (and probably not travelled over by ships?!), but there are multiple measn to cross them - bridges and fords, for the most obvious ones. Some should have advantages over others, but then again, you may have to take a quick qay. WHat I mena here is that for examples, that it takes longer and may be a bit dangerous to cross a ford - but it may still be better and quicker then travelling two days up the river til you reach the bridge.
I like the idea of a 'Ford'. You can make one now of course, but it would be faster to just place one on the map. I think we should have different bridge types to choose from. Right now, no bridge can be 'crossed' by a ship but I think we should have some that are large enough to be sailed-under. There could also be some rickety looking hanging-bridges where movement is slowed down compared to the nice stately bridges we have now Having a ford would block ship travel on the river of course but a ford would do that in real life.
Quote:
Different water terrains
Pretty self-explanatory. Candidates could be lake, shore, ocean, deep sea, but many others, too.
If nothing else this would be good for a visual variety in gameplay.
Quote:
multiple Ultimate Artifacts per map
Like in Heroes 4, you could have not jsut one ultimate artifact per map, but many, and different-coloured obeliscs, whilst thos eobelsics of the same colour lead you to one ultimate artifact.
Is this on the list twice? I thought I just said that
Quote:
Day and night like disciples 3
This means a Day and Night cyclus divided into some time periods for each day, as far as I understood it, like "morning", "noon", "evening" etc.
imo, 'noon' is overkill, unless of course I have some creatures that are hour-sensitive and will turn into pumpkins at midnightbut I do strongly favor the 'day and night possibilites' in gameplay. A problem that could arise though is; that some of the 'ambient' lighting that was chosen could become very dark at night or a day-light setting very bright during day, as things are now anyway. I think it would have to be possible to check both day and night looks during map making. I know that many gamers probably would not care at all about this and would be fine with day and night and no control in modifying the lighting of a map but I for one, sure wouldn't want that way. I think the ability to impact the environment with color-choice is too important for a good gaming atmosphere.
Quote:
A way to defend your buildings/bases without using creatures
There coudl be different ways of doing that. The suggestion was that heroes can (per skill?) put up some guardians which then defend the mines.
Someone did have a good idea here that I added a little to. Say an 'ability' called 'Realms' that a hero could acquire through the defense skill and make it possible to defend owned-mines with some sort of protection while away. This shouldn't be too hard, since the Necros can acquire 'haunt-mines'. I think the discussion ended with what the defense should be? A single creature or small army, that levels up over time?
Quote:
Simple Day and Night cycle
There would be not only days anymore, but days and night, whilst the time defines some things, probably (vampires hspould better fight than, than udner sun, shouldn't they? 
Is this different than the one above? I think the 'time-factor' is a good idea. Your vampire example is a good one.
I'll try to remember to respond to the rest of your update when you have finished. It's a good idea to do this. They...may be watching
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 06:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Open-field battles does not always mean there will be minimal surprise. The only reason it is so in Heroes and other strategy games is that you view the battlefield from above thus allowing you to see almost everything. In real life in the past, this is not the case.
Firstly, this is semantics, secondly, back then divisions employed messengers to do the job, and it's kind of hard to bring a lot of fighting men in behind the enemy while advancing over an open field.
It is clearly more advantageous to see the whole picture by yourself than piecing together different info from scouts that may or may not be accurate. Scouts can't reveal everything. Plus, scouts take time to relay that info and by the time it got to the commanders the situation could already change. Basically, in Heroes and other strategy games you use a satellite to view the battlefield regardless of game setting.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, teleporting units such as vampire lord and archdevil will in a sense surprise their enemies regardless of the battlefield type. Vampire lord have the "no retaliation" to reflect this. I'm not sure about the archdevil, I think it will be overpowered if we give it the "no retaliation" ability.
The Vampire Lord had the no-retal ability in earlier games when it flew rather than teleported.
Yes, I know. I just think the ability suits the teleporting vampire lord better.
Quote:
Quote:
I think it's too complicated to implement individual stack formation in Heroes.
As I believe it is a realistic flanking manoeuvre to get in behind the enemy.
I always able to get some units to flank the enemy at some point in a battle, same goes with the enemy. It's not that difficult in Heroes, there are only 7 stacks max per side anyway.
Quote:
Plus, if you want to extend the imagination, there are flying units that can strike from above. That would be a real trouble, of course that wouldn't happen in Heroes.
Hey, if you want to extend the imagination that far why not go the whole way and just allow mages to cast virtually every spell you know?
Do they really know every magic the hero knows?
____________
|
|
blizz
Known Hero
of temper grace
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 06:20 PM |
|
Edited by blizz at 18:21, 26 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
It's simple, Devils like to show off, they're total drama queens.
and just maybe they will be kicked from inferno for it 
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 06:57 PM |
|
|
Thanks for replying to my request for opinions, markkur
However, I meant with my wuestion mainly, wether the explanations in their style are clear enough, and fitting, or if you see the point completely different or don't understand at all...
Quote:
Quote:
various ultimate artifacts instead of just "the grail"/"tear of asha"
The idea is tto not have the same ultimate artifact to be found through the obeliscs on EVERY map, but several possible ultimate artifacts, which could have a lot of different effects and type of effects, but would be equally powerfull, much more powerfull than an ordinary artifact.
I've already said this is a very good idea. We could have obliscs of different shapes and colors that could have an 'artefact' assigned seperately by the map-maker. The Developers would have to expand the number of puzzle maps that could be viewed during gameplay. That might be the only snag with the idea.
You misunderstood that a bit. This is not about having multiple ultimate artifacgts on one map (this point comes further below). This is just about that there ARE different ultimate artifacts and not jsut "the grail". Seems I have to get that clearer.
Quote:
It already is in some ways. You can't use the map-brush 'raise ground; in making a high underground area I'm curious, what 'other visuals'? I like your idea of creatures being affected by being underground. I.E. 'Griffin's flying' i think would be greatly would be impacted by fighting in caverns, instead of their normal big-sky environment.
?The "other visuals" meant that underground allready LOOKs qutie different from above...but concerning game mechanics, it is not very different...and that's what this point is about. I will change the structure of the sentence to make that clearer. The other visuals meant "what allready is" not "what is wanted". This suggestion means going further than underground just looking different - it shall BE different.
Quote:
You lost me here. You already can put underground tiles on the top map and bulk or dig to get mid-level areas, so exactly what is it you're after?
What HoMM are you talking 'bout? also, this is not my point. It could become more important when the point mentioned before is also in the game...
Quote:
I like the idea of a 'Ford'. You can make one now of course, but it would be faster to just place one on the map. I think we should have different bridge types to choose from. Right now, no bridge can be 'crossed' by a ship but I think we should have some that are large enough to be sailed-under. There could also be some rickety looking hanging-bridges where movement is slowed down compared to the nice stately bridges we have now Having a ford would block ship travel on the river of course but a ford would do that in real life.
Again,m you should specify which HoMM you talk about HoMM3, for example, has rivers which need no crossing-point at all. Also, as I mentioned, rivers will not necessarily be travelable by ship at all...
Quote:
If nothing else this would be good for a visual variety in gameplay.
It would, or could, be much more. Different movement on different water types, higher effect of the whirlpool, etc.
For the day and night thing: Yes there is a difference between the cycle like it seems to be in Disciples 3 and the simple one. In the former one, you have not jsut night and day, but more stages, as I said, like morning, midday (that's what I meant with noon), etc., for example 4 time ranges lasting 6 hours, or 6 lasting 4 hours... In the simple, you have exactly two, day and night. For me, that would, if such should be implented at all, enough
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2010 08:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Plus, scouts take time to relay that info and by the time it got to the commanders the situation could already change.
Which is why every section of troops also has (hopefully competent) officers, so it doesn't need to be micromanaged by the general.
Quote:
I always able to get some units to flank the enemy at some point in a battle, same goes with the enemy. It's not that difficult in Heroes, there are only 7 stacks max per side anyway.
Except that it isn't like that in real life, since the troops are going to be in several blocks, and thus much harder to flank.
Quote:
Do they really know every magic the hero knows?
Well how else can you explain Mages casting Cleansing at the advanced level?
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2010 01:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Plus, scouts take time to relay that info and by the time it got to the commanders the situation could already change.
Which is why every section of troops also has (hopefully competent) officers, so it doesn't need to be micromanaged by the general.
It's about the bigger picture, more macro than micro. If you are playing chess, would you view it from the same level of your pieces rather than from above?
Quote:
Quote:
I always able to get some units to flank the enemy at some point in a battle, same goes with the enemy. It's not that difficult in Heroes, there are only 7 stacks max per side anyway.
Except that it isn't like that in real life, since the troops are going to be in several blocks, and thus much harder to flank.
I'm not asking for 100% realistic combat mechanic. That's impossible to do in a video game. A small/decent bonus for flanking or attacking from sides is enough. Plus, the interception concept can make flanking much harder.
Quote:
Quote:
Do they really know every magic the hero knows?
Well how else can you explain Mages casting Cleansing at the advanced level?
I don't understand. That doesn't mean mages know every spell the hero knows.
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2010 08:43 AM |
|
Edited by MattII at 10:06, 26 May 2011.
|
Quote:
It's about the bigger picture, more macro than micro. If you are playing chess, would you view it from the same level of your pieces rather than from above?
So why do you want flanking manoeuvres, surely that counts as micro.
Quote:
I'm not asking for 100% realistic combat mechanic. That's impossible to do in a video game.
Sure you can't do realistic, but trying to mix realistic (rear attacks) and unrealistic (stacks) looks absolutely terrible, if you're not going for realism then at least try for a set level of unrealism.
Quote:
A small/decent bonus for flanking or attacking from sides is enough. Plus, the interception concept can make flanking much harder.
So which is it, do you want flanking and rear attacks or not?
Quote:
I don't understand. That doesn't mean mages know every spell the hero knows.
No, but then your hero doesn't start with a dozen spells does he? The fact that they're merely units doesn't mean that they aren't as intelligent as your hero, they just have to be rendered that way for the game.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 27, 2010 09:19 AM |
|
Edited by markkur at 04:19, 28 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
Thanks for replying to my request for opinions, markkur
However, I meant with my question mainly, wether the explanations in their style are clear enough, and fitting, or if you see the point completely different or don't understand at all...
In a sense, that is exacty what I am doing. I am discussing with you what you have written and that is testing our communication about your explanations too
Quote:
You misunderstood that a bit. This is not about having multiple ultimate artifacts on one map (this point comes further below). This is just about that there ARE different ultimate artifacts and not just "the grail". Seems I have to get that clearer.
It may just be me I have mixed-up in my thinking, the Grail and ultimate artefacts, i.e. 'the ultimate artefacts idea' from HoMM3'. The Sword of Armegeddon was a combination of artefacts. So my misunderstanding you, had to do with the fact that I would like to see in HoMM6, more than just the Grail (your Ultimate artefact)but also in addition to the one Grail (picked from your list of grail choices) and only one on a map, I want to see "other ultimate artefacts' that are made from combining lesser artefacts You are right, if you only want one grail on a map at a time then the puzzle map need not be changed. But I say let's have what we both want You get to pick a different Grail and I get a 'Super Artefact" that can be on the same map, like the "Power of the Dragon Father" from H3.
Quote:
Quote:
It already is in some ways. You can't use the map-brush 'raise ground; in making a high underground area I'm curious, what 'other visuals'? I like your idea of creatures being affected by being underground. I.E. 'Griffin's flying' i think would be greatly would be impacted by fighting in caverns, instead of their normal big-sky environment.
Quote:
?The "other visuals" meant that underground allready LOOKs qutie different from above...but concerning game mechanics, it is not very different...and that's what this point is about. I will change the structure of the sentence to make that clearer. The other visuals meant "what allready is" not "what is wanted". This suggestion means going further than underground just looking different - it shall BE different.
OK I see what you mean. You want the underground to 'affect creatures where possible' and that's it; like I mentioned with the Griffin example 'not flying as well as above ground'. I think I misunderstood because your thread is about making changes and you used the word "visual", so I was thinking what the underground "looks like" not only what it "plays like".
Quote:
Quote:
You lost me here. You already can put underground tiles on the top map and bulk or dig to get mid-level areas, so exactly what is it you're after?
Quote:
What HoMM are you talking 'bout? also, this is not my point. It could become more important when the point mentioned before is also in the game...
HoMM5
Quote:
Quote:
I like the idea of a 'Ford'. You can make one now of course, but it would be faster to just place one on the map. I think we should have different bridge types to choose from. Right now, no bridge can be 'crossed' by a ship but I think we should have some that are large enough to be sailed-under. There could also be some rickety looking hanging-bridges where movement is slowed down compared to the nice stately bridges we have now Having a ford would block ship travel on the river of course but a ford would do that in real life.
Quote:
Again,m you should specify which HoMM you talk about HoMM3, for example, has rivers which need no crossing-point at all. Also, as I mentioned, rivers will not necessarily be travelable by ship at all...
I thought this thread is in the HoMM6 folder and about wishes for it? I only bring up ideas from H3 like 'Events' or 'Ultimate artefacts to be used in H6. I'm not thinking about crossing a river in H3 but in H5.
If you don't want a ship on a river that's your choice of course but I would like to see rivers be used by ships like they already are in H5. I think you would lose alot in gameplay if you went back to the phoney rivers of H3, where a hero might lose some movement (if that) and that's it. So your idea of a ford is what in H6?
It's just my preference but I think rivers should be sailed and we should have different bridge types to pick from. One large bridge-type that a ship can sail under/past and a smaller one, even a 'footbridge' that ships cannot get under. The rickety foot-bridge (not used with water tiles) could even affect what troops could be taken across a canyon. It could be too small to take larger creatures over it. This could make for interesting choices in trying to conquer a new area. Now combine our two ideas and the griffins are being impacted in two ways. First , they don't fight in the underground as well and second the hero can't take them through a shortcut with a footbridge, he has to go the long way around
Quote:
It would, or could, be much more. Different movement on different water types, higher effect of the whirlpool, etc.
Quote:
For the day and night thing: Yes there is a difference between the cycle like it seems to be in Disciples 3 and the simple one. In the former one, you have not jsut night and day, but more stages, as I said, like morning, midday (that's what I meant with noon), etc., for example 4 time ranges lasting 6 hours, or 6 lasting 4 hours... In the simple, you have exactly two, day and night. For me, that would, if such should be implented at all, enough
I vote for day and night. Like I said though; it could affect mods. Do you make custom maps J-9?
So when are all of these changes going into affect?
Take care
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
mytheroes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2010 12:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So why do you want flanking manoeuvres, surely that counts as micro.
I'm explaining why I disagree that open-field battles mean minimal surprise. Have nothing to do with wanting flanking manoeuvres.
Quote:
Sure you can't do realistic, but trying to mix realistic (rear attacks) and unrealistic (stacks) looks absolutely terrible, if you're not going for realism then at least try for a
So which is it, do you want flanking and rear attacks or not?
Flanking and rear attacks are already in the series. How many times have you ordered a unit to attack from the sides or back? You yourself agree when you said :
Quote:
Except that it isn't like that in real life, since the troops are going to be in several blocks, and thus much harder to flank.
The fact that it isn't like that in real life does not make them not flanking and rear attacks.
They just don't have any difference from head-on/frontal attack in the Heroes series. Adding some bonus damage like mrdragon suggested is nice, imo.
Quote:
No, but then your hero doesn't start with a dozen spells does he? The fact that they're merely units doesn't mean that they aren't as intelligent as your hero, they just have to be rendered that way for the game.
Then you better rephrase the statement that "mages should in sense have roughly the same potential as heroes to learn spells" rather than "they know every spells that the hero knows".
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
