|
| Thread: Disable Hero's attacking over Castle walls |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Fang
Hired Hero
|
posted October 10, 2011 03:35 AM |
|
Edited by Fang at 03:35, 10 Oct 2011.
|
Disable Hero's attacking in melee over Castle walls
For more realism and immersion, please remove the possibility for Heroes attacking units in melee over the Castle walls, unless they move outside Castle protection.
But I woudn't mind Heroes with range attack or with magic like lightining bolt attacking units even with the protection of Castle walls.
____________
|
|
Nocturnal
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 10, 2011 11:08 PM |
|
|
I think this is a very reasonable request. It is not logical how a melee hero by his army's side suddenly appears near enemy unit's side beyond the castle doors and the huge closed castle gate.
____________
|
|
LRN
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 11:09 AM |
|
Edited by LRN at 14:43, 11 Oct 2011.
|
Quote:
I think this is a very reasonable request. It is not logical how a melee hero by his army's side suddenly appears near enemy unit's side beyond the castle doors and the huge closed castle gate.
I just assume that the hero makes a quick raid and disappears in classic swashbuckling tradition. She might have climbed the walls, entered through a cataputl-made hole, teleported, perhaps discovered a secret entrance, bribed her way or been summoned by demon cultists.
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 11:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
For more realism and immersion, please remove the possibility for Heroes attacking units in melee over the Castle walls, unless they move outside Castle protection.
But I woudn't mind Heroes with range attack or with magic like lightining bolt attacking units even with the protection of Castle walls.
That would be a huge drawback then for might heroes. To me it makes no sense. Why should magic heroes be able to attack and might heroes not? How would you compensate Might Heroes for that?
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
Sleeping_Sun
Promising
Famous Hero
Townscreen Architect
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 01:19 PM |
|
|
Might heroes could attack with bow and arrow, javelin and other ranged weapons... Then they will be able to attack enemy behind castle walls and there wouldn't be those attack cut-scenes we have now...
EDIT: Some heroes, for example, could have an animal (eagle, raven...) or some other creature (flying imp...) to attack enemy at range.
____________
"The age can be wicked to those who walk alone. When I look into the Mirror, I see myself as I might become..." -Freya
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 01:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Might heroes could attack with bow and arrow, javelin and other ranged weapons... Then they will be able to attack enemy behind castle walls and there wouldn't be those attack cut-scenes we have now...
That's not very realistic either. Because the Hero is one, if he throws one javelin how could he kill dozens? You can by his melee attack, he slashes his way through the entire stack and we just see a token of it. However if you have to think that he throws one javelin per kill in his turn for ranged attack, is kind of silly.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 01:29 PM |
|
|
Suspension of disbelief.
It wouldn't be any sillier than having the might hero somehow ignore castle walls.
|
|
Sleeping_Sun
Promising
Famous Hero
Townscreen Architect
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 01:29 PM |
|
|
Of course it is not realistic, but do you want to say that magic attack is? After all this is all about MIGHT AND MAGIC we are talking about. I believe that might heroes should attack on range as well as their magic counterparts. If not with bow and arrow than with something else, but still on range...
____________
"The age can be wicked to those who walk alone. When I look into the Mirror, I see myself as I might become..." -Freya
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 01:38 PM |
|
|
No, what I'm trying to say is that in this case, screw realism and keep the animation the same. Somehow the Hero gets there and attacks them, end of story.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
Aosaw
Promising
Famous Hero
Author of Nonreal Fiction
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 09:50 PM |
|
|
Personally, I'm not a fan of the Might Hero Attack animation to begin with. I'd rather all heroes attack with some sort of ranged weapon, if only because I don't appreciate my camera being hijacked for my hero's attack every round (when my other creatures don't get the same treatment).
I'd rather an animation that can be seen from the full-view angle. Then I don't care if the hero charges straight through the castle wall. 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 10:01 PM |
|
|
Well, casting spells precisely through walls isn't exactly too logical either
I'd say it's ok to be not realistic to attack through walls.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted October 11, 2011 10:03 PM |
|
|
This would be a perfectly good idea if the ability to make 'ranged' attacks was something you acquired, but no, I guess that was "too complicated", and who cares about realism anyway? 
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Aosaw
Promising
Famous Hero
Author of Nonreal Fiction
|
|
posted October 12, 2011 02:39 AM |
|
|
While we're on the subject of things not making sense, maybe we should talk about how dumb it is that everybody apparently designs their castle in a "back-to-front" layout, and apparently it's just good manners that, when you're storming a castle, you do it from the front.
Or how about this: We've got these really awesome catapults, which we have with us all the time and bring out when we're storming a castle; but LET'S NOT USE THEM IN NORMAL COMBAT, BECAUSE LAUNCHING GIANT STONES AT YOUR FOES DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A GOOD IDEA.
|
|
LRN
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2011 09:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
While we're on the subject of things not making sense, maybe we should talk about how dumb it is that everybody apparently designs their castle in a "back-to-front" layout, and apparently it's just good manners that, when you're storming a castle, you do it from the front.
Or how about this: We've got these really awesome catapults, which we have with us all the time and bring out when we're storming a castle; but LET'S NOT USE THEM IN NORMAL COMBAT, BECAUSE LAUNCHING GIANT STONES AT YOUR FOES DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A GOOD IDEA.
Certainly agreed about the first part, but not about the second. I'd argue that it's not that simple. Siege engines are supposed to greatly reduce an army's mobility. Besides, we're talking about trebuchets, mangonels and the like, which unlike a bolt or arrow-thrower mostly require a siege and a stationary target. They take too long to set up, calibrate, and fire. Besides, a cavalry attack, a far more possible event in open battle, could wipe them out. They're heavy siege weapons, not mortars(hell, I've fired mortars-to use the catapults that way you'd need them to be far more light, easy to carry and to load). Where catapults actually used in open warfare? Well yes, but very sparingly and as a cover to infantry. Alexander the Great used them that way but most of those "catapults" were actually arrow- and bolt throwers. Definitely not a standard useage for them.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted October 12, 2011 10:23 AM |
|
|
|
Stuff doesn't have to make sense, as long as it doesn't look retarded.
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted October 12, 2011 10:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
While we're on the subject of things not making sense, maybe we should talk about how dumb it is that everybody apparently designs their castle in a "back-to-front" layout, and apparently it's just good manners that, when you're storming a castle, you do it from the front.
Or how about this: We've got these really awesome catapults, which we have with us all the time and bring out when we're storming a castle; but LET'S NOT USE THEM IN NORMAL COMBAT, BECAUSE LAUNCHING GIANT STONES AT YOUR FOES DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A GOOD IDEA.
Certainly agreed about the first part, but not about the second. I'd argue that it's not that simple. Siege engines are supposed to greatly reduce an army's mobility. Besides, we're talking about trebuchets, mangonels and the like, which unlike a bolt or arrow-thrower mostly require a siege and a stationary target. They take too long to set up, calibrate, and fire. Besides, a cavalry attack, a far more possible event in open battle, could wipe them out. They're heavy siege weapons, not mortars(hell, I've fired mortars-to use the catapults that way you'd need them to be far more light, easy to carry and to load). Where catapults actually used in open warfare? Well yes, but very sparingly and as a cover to infantry. Alexander the Great used them that way but most of those "catapults" were actually arrow- and bolt throwers. Definitely not a standard useage for them.
We used to have that really cool town building called a Blacksmith. Where we would get to buy ballistas and ammo carts and first aid tents. But now in this prequel there is not such a thing. I guess 400 years before the events of the previous games, ballistas haven't been invented yet.
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
LRN
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2011 11:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While we're on the subject of things not making sense, maybe we should talk about how dumb it is that everybody apparently designs their castle in a "back-to-front" layout, and apparently it's just good manners that, when you're storming a castle, you do it from the front.
Or how about this: We've got these really awesome catapults, which we have with us all the time and bring out when we're storming a castle; but LET'S NOT USE THEM IN NORMAL COMBAT, BECAUSE LAUNCHING GIANT STONES AT YOUR FOES DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A GOOD IDEA.
Certainly agreed about the first part, but not about the second. I'd argue that it's not that simple. Siege engines are supposed to greatly reduce an army's mobility. Besides, we're talking about trebuchets, mangonels and the like, which unlike a bolt or arrow-thrower mostly require a siege and a stationary target. They take too long to set up, calibrate, and fire. Besides, a cavalry attack, a far more possible event in open battle, could wipe them out. They're heavy siege weapons, not mortars(hell, I've fired mortars-to use the catapults that way you'd need them to be far more light, easy to carry and to load). Where catapults actually used in open warfare? Well yes, but very sparingly and as a cover to infantry. Alexander the Great used them that way but most of those "catapults" were actually arrow- and bolt throwers. Definitely not a standard useage for them.
We used to have that really cool town building called a Blacksmith. Where we would get to buy ballistas and ammo carts and first aid tents. But now in this prequel there is not such a thing. I guess 400 years before the events of the previous games, ballistas haven't been invented yet.
Well, I can't argue with that. I miss the ballistas as well.
|
|
kodial79
Promising
Supreme Hero
How'd Phi's Lov't
|
|
posted October 12, 2011 11:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, I can't argue with that. I miss the ballistas as well.
Not enough budget, I'm sure! They must be really poor...
____________
Signature? I don't need no stinking signature!
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted October 12, 2011 11:24 AM |
|
Edited by Avirosb at 11:25, 12 Oct 2011.
|
I'm sure there's a 'Week of Ballistas' in the game,
just to show that Ubihole are capable of making fun of themselves, while inadvertently poking fun at the community as well.
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted October 12, 2011 03:31 PM |
|
|
Isn't there a week of sulfur as well? 
|
|
|
|
