|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 17, 2013 08:11 AM |
|
|
That's not what is boring, and the game has nothing to do with chess.
Boring is a battlefield DOMINATED by ranged attackers - THAT is the problem.
It makes no sense, if you cannot protect ranged attackers AT ALL, it's just that the game isn't utilizing the potential of FLYERS. After all, it shouldn't be possible to block flyers with foot soldiers.
So that means simply:
a) Hex grid, because it's SIMPLE and offers a lot of advantages.
b) individual ranges for shooters (that do not cover the whole battlefield). Range depends on battlefield size, obviously, but units shouldn't cover the whole BF; in H 6 more than half of the shooters have not even a range PENALTY. For example, if you compare a crossbowman with a bowman or even a longbowman, the Crossbow would have a comparatively short full effective range with high damage - say 3 hexes full damage and another 2 for half damage. A Bowman would have better range, but less damage, say 5 hexes full range and 3 half range (you might also give a full damage range for all units and max range for all units, with damage being reduced per hex over full range: full range 3, max range 6 might mean, that damage was 75% on 4, 50% on 5 and 25% on 6 hex range).
c) The game somewhat suffers from the fact that fliers are attacking like foot troops. That's wh they could try Panzer General rules for Fliers: Fliers may occupy the same hex than a foot troop and attack the foot troops they are ON (and other fliers that are adjacent).
That would mean, you'd need a flier to guard a shooter against another flier, which would give fliers a special role.
However, the BF in H 4 sucks, because it's not "managable"; there is no telling whether a unit fits in or not, whether you have closed the ranks or not and how big units are actually maneuvering.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 08:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's not what is boring, and the game has nothing to do with chess.
Boring is a battlefield DOMINATED by ranged attackers - THAT is the problem.
It makes no sense, if you cannot protect ranged attackers AT ALL, it's just that the game isn't utilizing the potential of FLYERS. After all, it shouldn't be possible to block flyers with foot soldiers.
So that means simply:
a) Hex grid, because it's SIMPLE and offers a lot of advantages.
b) individual ranges for shooters (that do not cover the whole battlefield). Range depends on battlefield size, obviously, but units shouldn't cover the whole BF; in H 6 more than half of the shooters have not even a range PENALTY. For example, if you compare a crossbowman with a bowman or even a longbowman, the Crossbow would have a comparatively short full effective range with high damage - say 3 hexes full damage and another 2 for half damage. A Bowman would have better range, but less damage, say 5 hexes full range and 3 half range (you might also give a full damage range for all units and max range for all units, with damage being reduced per hex over full range: full range 3, max range 6 might mean, that damage was 75% on 4, 50% on 5 and 25% on 6 hex range).
c) The game somewhat suffers from the fact that fliers are attacking like foot troops. That's wh they could try Panzer General rules for Fliers: Fliers may occupy the same hex than a foot troop and attack the foot troops they are ON (and other fliers that are adjacent).
That would mean, you'd need a flier to guard a shooter against another flier, which would give fliers a special role.
However, the BF in H 4 sucks, because it's not "managable"; there is no telling whether a unit fits in or not, whether you have closed the ranks or not and how big units are actually maneuvering.
Agree with most of this, although I'm not convinced about the Hex grid. Why would it matter if you have hex grid or not?
About the implementation of flying units: Yes, they need to be something more than just walking units that can cross over obstacles. They need to be able to hover in air for at least some turns. This would make them able to fly in and attack ranged units hidden behind a defensive wall, and this would make them at least partially immune to attacks from ground forces.
Having features like this would really support the idea of having units play unique roles and enforce the idea that you need to mix your army instead of one-lining it which they originally planned for H6 but then scrapped because obviously they couldn't make anything better than amassing ranged units (and no wonder, given that they gave them all full range (do these people even think before they press the execute button?)).
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 09:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why would it matter if you have hex grid or not?
Because
Quote:
a) Hex grid, because it's SIMPLE and offers a lot of advantages.
Movement point costs are the same in each of 6 possible directions - you can even have a "facing" for units (Heroes Online will introduce that, awarding bonus damage for attacks from the hex in the back of a unit (6 o'clock) and the two flanking hexes (4 and 8 o'clock)). You can easily introduce BF terrain costs different than 1 point (making fliers even more vaulable).
So hex grid is making things easily managable and quite simple.
|
|
DoubleDeck
Promising
Legendary Hero
Look into my eyes...
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 09:01 AM |
|
|
|
I like the idea of flying units being able to attack enemies behind other enemies (like protected shooters) and not needing a place to land for the actual attack, but that can return to their position of take off....but not sure about flyers able to hover in the air....to starcrafty....
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 09:42 AM |
|
|
The battle system has nothing to do with chess. Nothing at all. Do I even need to respond to that?
The battle system isn't boring because it's dominated by ranged creatures. You could remove them, or put them at any balance, it would still be boring. You don't make a battle interesting and strategic by boiling it down to: can player A protect his shooters with his bunker.
Hex grid is overly simple. You can block off an entire quadrant of the field with two large creatures, a small creature can only have 6 things around it, and the entire map is too tightly quantized to allow for any maneuvering. Positioning troops such that the enemy has to walk in a predicted way to cluster them together and hit them with an AoE, or force them to block their own troops with their own large creatures is always either easy, or not possible on hex. There just isn't a lot of options to consider.
How much damage the shooters do and at what range penalty is also meaningless. You would still put them in the same bunker and shoot at whatever is the best target, that would just change what the best target is. Bunkering them behind troops should be ineffective because having the troops stand all around them in a wall should be too much of a waste of all of those other troops. You should have to protect them with minimal resources, and by carefully placing your (and your opponents) large creatures throughout the battle field, and by using tile threats (such as traps or AoE) that make it so that charging your shooters ends up not being worth it. As in chess, where a valid protection strategy is to make if so that your own units are able to capture each other, so that if your opponent captures your unit you immediately capture the unit that attacked yours; you can make it so that the positioning necessary to attack a shooter is mitigated or even not worth it, rather than just impossible.
The game suffers from fliers being like melee, partly because being able to fly past enemies to other tiles is worth little when the enemy is always adjacent to the units he is trying to protect. A possibility is if they had a strike and return attack like harpies do, but it can be done on units that have no empty tile next to them, and then make fliers a lot squishier. You would then have to get your fliers close to the enemy so that they can attack, but move them and your other units around so that the enemy can't get to your flier. Kind of like protecting ranged units, but with a lot more thought than just "stand in the way".
Your last comment is absolutely absurd. I'm guessing you must have played the game with the grid disabled, as it was always perfectly clear which units could fit in which gaps, and where your units had to stand to block your enemies given their size.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 10:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why would it matter if you have hex grid or not?
Because
Quote:
a) Hex grid, because it's SIMPLE and offers a lot of advantages.
Movement point costs are the same in each of 6 possible directions - you can even have a "facing" for units (Heroes Online will introduce that, awarding bonus damage for attacks from the hex in the back of a unit (6 o'clock) and the two flanking hexes (4 and 8 o'clock)). You can easily introduce BF terrain costs different than 1 point (making fliers even more vaulable).
So hex grid is making things easily managable and quite simple.
But hex grid also has some serious disadvantages. Large units being most prominent: You can have 1x1 hex units (standard) and 2x1 hex units (long) easily, but what about larger units? There is no good way to implement something like the current 2x2 units, because either you'll have to make it triangular 3-hexes which will be aqward and have the disadvantage of having the triangle face either up or down depending on the location or you can make 7-hex circular units which become huge and impossible to maneuver.
And you can make flanking bonuses exactly as easily in a square grid. There's a perfectly well-defined "behind" as well as behind-and-up and behind-and-down in a square grid. Plus the square grid has the advantage of having a welldefined vertical AND horizontal row.
I don't really think the non-identical movement cost is that big a problem for most people, so on the bottomline, I think the pros and cons of each grid pretty much balance out, making it a pure subjective question of which one you prefer.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 10:20 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 10:22 AM |
|
|
That's a lot of nonsense you wrote. In detail:
Quote:
The battle system has nothing to do with chess. Nothing at all. Do I even need to respond to that?
Yes, please. Rhetorical questions have never been a point in any discussion. If you think that battles in Homm are like Chess, then you should tell us why, because the similarities end with "in both games you have two sides and battle commences with both sides having placed their units on their own BF fringe".
Quote:
The battle system isn't boring because it's dominated by ranged creatures. You could remove them, or put them at any balance, it would still be boring. You don't make a battle interesting and strategic by boiling it down to: can player A protect his shooters with his bunker.
That makes no sense at all: you can remove shooters from the game or put them at any balance, it would still be boring because things boil down to whether a player can procet their shooters (that were just removed from the game)?
Makes no sense.
Quote:
Hex grid is overly simple.
Heroes is a simple game.
Quote:
You can block off an entire quadrant of the field with two large creatures
There don't have to be large creatures; the gaming dimensions are not following logic anyway, since 1 2-hex or 4-square unit takes up more space than a million smaller ones. Quote:
a small creature can only have 6 things around it
That's just a question of scaling. There are not that many "slots", so not many spaces are needed around units.Quote:
and the entire map is too tightly quantized to allow for any maneuvering.
Another question of scaling or relation between BF size and unit movement speed.
Quote:
Positioning troops such that the enemy has to walk in a predicted way to cluster them together and hit them with an AoE, or force them to block their own troops with their own large creatures is always either easy, or not possible on hex. There just isn't a lot of options to consider.
That has nothing to with Hexes, but with TERRAIN. In HoMM we have either impassable terrain or passable terrain, but no difference in MP costs for different terrain (except in 4, if I remember right) (and no combat modifiers for it). The fact that it was never part of HoMM shows that it was supposed to be an easy game (battles are not supposed to take ages), however, here we are at something that, if done right, could add to the game without making batttles too comple an affair.
Quote:
How much damage the shooters do and at what range penalty is also meaningless.
This shows that you are simply not willing to consider what is said, because that is of course bullcrap. If you have units that are outspeeding range, for example... Quote:
*if HoMM was like chess, everything was fine*
And there I thought HoMM WAS like chess.
Quote:
A possibility is if they had a strike and return attack like harpies do, but
But that would suck because fliers would simply take the role of shooters.
Quote:
Your last comment is absolutely absurd. I'm guessing you must have played the game with the grid disabled, as it was always perfectly clear which units could fit in which gaps, and where your units had to stand to block your enemies given their size.
The truth is that in H 4 blocking is a waste of time, most of the time, the reason of which is, that a sizable part of your army would be heroes and those all having the same size. Sure, Genies in combination with Dragon Golems would give you enormous blocking potential, for example, but in reality, there was not much blocking against fast fliers/teleporters.
Be that as it may, "Blocking" or the ability for it, is no function of the BF grid, but of the rules. You might - just as an example - have a rule (and a matching UI with a "bodyguard button", that you can designate a stack as bodyguard for any stack adjacent, using up the action of the designated stack and basically deactivate it - except that every enemy stack that wants to attack the guarded stack must deal first with the designated bodyguard (but consider the foot/flier thing - a foot bodyguard would work only against enemy foot).
Just to show that the grid has nothing to do with it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 10:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why would it matter if you have hex grid or not?
Because
Quote:
a) Hex grid, because it's SIMPLE and offers a lot of advantages.
Movement point costs are the same in each of 6 possible directions - you can even have a "facing" for units (Heroes Online will introduce that, awarding bonus damage for attacks from the hex in the back of a unit (6 o'clock) and the two flanking hexes (4 and 8 o'clock)). You can easily introduce BF terrain costs different than 1 point (making fliers even more vaulable).
So hex grid is making things easily managable and quite simple.
But hex grid also has some serious disadvantages. Large units being most prominent: You can have 1x1 hex units (standard) and 2x1 hex units (long) easily, but what about larger units? There is no good way to implement something like the current 2x2 units, because either you'll have to make it triangular 3-hexes which will be aqward and have the disadvantage of having the triangle face either up or down depending on the location or you can make 7-hex circular units which become huge and impossible to maneuver.
And you can make flanking bonuses exactly as easily in a square grid. There's a perfectly well-defined "behind" as well as behind-and-up and behind-and-down in a square grid. Plus the square grid has the advantage of having a welldefined vertical AND horizontal row.
I don't really think the non-identical movement cost is that big a problem for most people, so on the bottomline, I think the pros and cons of each grid pretty much balance out, making it a pure subjective question of which one you prefer.
The large 2x2 units are a big balance problem anyway, because they take up too much space in relation to the complete BF size - movement is too cumbersome, they stand each other in the way, they are perfect blockers, but are basically impossible to guard - 2x2 units and squares have been a very bad decision on its own. Different unit size may look tempting for variety, but the 2x1 units on a hex grid the size of Homm 3 can be balanced WAY better than the 2x2 units on a square grid the size of HoMM 5 and 6.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 11:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The large 2x2 units are a big balance problem anyway, because they take up too much space in relation to the complete BF size - movement is too cumbersome, they stand each other in the way, they are perfect blockers, but are basically impossible to guard - 2x2 units and squares have been a very bad decision on its own.
Well again, that's a matter of individual taste, I disagree. The very fact that the unit being 2x2 comes with both some advantages and disadvantages shows that there is some self-balancing in this feature in my optics. Yes, the 2x2 units are good at blocking, but they are not always they units you want to use as meat shields. Yes, they are difficult to guard, and their maneuverability is less than that of small units, but they could make up for that with special abilities that worked with their size.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 11:32 AM |
|
|
There is also the question of why a 2x2 unit (or a 2x1) is treated like a 1x1 when it comes to attacks that involve more than one hex, whether it's an area damage spell or an area creature attack: If a unit covers 4 squares and you detonate a Fireball, you COULD have the opinion that EACH SQUARE would suffer Fireball damage ...
Also, the different body size of ONE creature isn't much of a point, when NUMBERS don't change the space a stack takes up. In this case, while you'd say, heck, the different units are just standing tighter on the sqaure or hex, you would THEN say, that consequently damage would be higher, the more numerous a unit was, because troops simply stood tighter.
What I want to say is, that there are of course several pros and cons with each and everything you examine, and the art here is to find the best combination of features. Hexes are on one hand the simplest organization AND allow the easiest movement AND allow different-sized units. 1x1, 2x1, 1x2, even 1x3 or a 3-hex unit in 2-1 shape. All those shapes must be able to MOVE as well, and squares are just not handy for that. Also, the difference between a 1x1 and a 2x2 in squares is just too big.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 11:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hex grids rock!
Hear, hear! 
____________
|
|
blob2
Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 12:11 PM |
|
Edited by blob2 at 12:12, 17 Jan 2013.
|
I agree that hex grid was the best option, it allowed the use of my favorite strategy: ranged troop protection, because minimizing casualties by tearing your enemies forces before they reached your archers was my way of playing H3. Also dragon breath attacks were possible  And don't forget that there was also an additional strategic element: limited ammo.
There was also an opinion in one of the posts that some troops (mainly slower) are left out from the battle because they are used to protect ranged troops. But that's why they are for. There were slow and sturdy units in H6 ideal for protecting like Pikeman or Ogres. Others, like Thunderbirds or Dragon Flies were fast attackers. And don't forget that there were battles in which your only way to survive (sieges mainly) in face of a greater enemy force, was to protect ranged troops with your whole army and bleed your enemy to death with the mentioned archers and towers. Camping is also a strategy
Sadly the square battlefield allows many gaps for smaller troops to sneak past the blocker.
And generally I get the feeling that flyers aren't fully utilized in H6 mainly because of their low movement range. Sometimes it's hard to even get pass the walls with a flyer, and that's what they are for no?
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 12:23 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 12:41, 17 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
You can have 1x1 hex units (standard) and 2x1 hex units (long) easily, but what about larger units? There is no good way to implement something like the current 2x2 units, because either you'll have to make it triangular 3-hexes which will be aqward and have the disadvantage of having the triangle face either up or down depending on the location or you can make 7-hex circular units which become huge and impossible to maneuver.
Why wouldn't this work? A triangle of 3 hexes, with the unit centered on the common joint, and reachable for melee from all adjacent hexes (9 in total). In that case, the center of the unit is not centered on the center of a single hex, but on the common joint of three hexes in the triangle. Movement is still based on hexes, like units on single hexes.
Edit: Perhaps it's easier to imagine that each unit has a circular base. For single-hex units, the circle of its base simply fits within a single hex. For larger units that stand on 3 hexes, the circle of its base fits within those 3 hexes. Then you also don't have any orientation issues, because you can rotate a circle in any desired direction, without altering the shape it occupies on the ground it's standing on.
Quote:
For example, if you compare a crossbowman with a bowman or even a longbowman, the Crossbow would have a comparatively short full effective range with high damage - say 3 hexes full damage and another 2 for half damage. A Bowman would have better range, but less damage, say 5 hexes full range and 3 half range (you might also give a full damage range for all units and max range for all units, with damage being reduced per hex over full range: full range 3, max range 6 might mean, that damage was 75% on 4, 50% on 5 and 25% on 6 hex range).
This is not true; I always assumed this wasn't the case either, until I read up about it. A bow and a crossbow each have an effective range of somewhere in the order of 300 to 400 yards. Only longbows can reach a little bit further, but require much more pulling strength.
The reason that the bow was so easily replaced in medieval warfare was not only the introduction of gunpowder, but also the fact that a crossbow was so easy to use. A (long)bow was relatively easy to learn to use, but took a lifetime to master. A crossbow could be trained to any lowly peasant and be used effectively on the battlefield much more easily than a (long)bow.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 12:44 PM |
|
|
|
That's only half the truth - a bow has a MUCH higher firing rate than a crossbow, when you want it to have good range and power, because you need a mechanical help to cock it. Firing rate of a crossbow is something like 3 in 2 minutes, while with a bow you may fire up to 20 shots in the same time.
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 01:33 PM |
|
Edited by Miru at 13:36, 17 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
That's a lot of nonsense you wrote. In detail:
I just don't understand how you can fail to understand any, let alone all of what I wrote.
Quote:
Quote:
The battle system has nothing to do with chess. Nothing at all. Do I even need to respond to that?
Yes, please. Rhetorical questions have never been a point in any discussion. If you think that battles in Homm are like Chess, then you should tell us why, because the similarities end with "in both games you have two sides and battle commences with both sides having placed their units on their own BF fringe".
This is madness. I can't tell if you are trolling or what, but the similarities between HoMM and chess are too obvious and numerous too miss. You even said later "And there I thought HoMM WAS like chess.".
Quote:
Quote:
The battle system isn't boring because it's dominated by ranged creatures. You could remove them, or put them at any balance, it would still be boring. You don't make a battle interesting and strategic by boiling it down to: can player A protect his shooters with his bunker.
That makes no sense at all: you can remove shooters from the game or put them at any balance, it would still be boring because things boil down to whether a player can procet their shooters (that were just removed from the game)?
Makes no sense.
If there are shooters which have high range then you bunker up and shoot the far targets. If you have shooters with short range you bunker up and shoot the close targets. If you have no shooters you charge. How far shooters can shoot or if there even are shooters doesn't add any thinking to the game. Thinking is incurred by moving your units around to increase their effect, for instance blocking the enemy so that some turns some enemies can't attack, or by forcing your opponent so that by attacking you he has to clump his units together to get hit by AoE. Or perhaps if a shooter had an attack that went in line and hit the first unit it encountered, then you would have to force or trick your opponent into allowing that line to get to their weakspot. There are a lot of ways to make a battle strategic, using the full potential of the line attack that the battlemages in H5 had by lineing up enemy units was one of my favorite. Making shooters do more or less damage to far units doesn't make you think, you just shoot the most vulnerable target that is within range.
Quote:
Quote:
Hex grid is overly simple.
Heroes is a simple game.
'Easy to learn' is good, but more important is 'hard to master'. If this were an RPG or shooter than simplicity would be fine, but considering that Heroes is one of the last few hardcore strategic games left, I would consider it vital that combat have nuances that Hex cannot provide. The whole point of the game is having to think and plan what you are going to do, I don't see why you would want to make fewer things to consider.
Quote:
Quote:
You can block off an entire quadrant of the field with two large creatures
There don't have to be large creatures; the gaming dimensions are not following logic anyway, since 1 2-hex or 4-square unit takes up more space than a million smaller ones.
Don't have to be? Those are possibly the largest step up in strategy provided in the series. In late game battles where both sides have 3 large creatures, a better player (say me vs ai) can position his and his enemies troops such that fairly often an opposing creature is forced to wait or walk because it is unable to get to an enemy creature, and they are forced to attack the ones you want (tanks or ones with unlimited retaliation). I would hate to remove them.
Quote:
Quote:
and the entire map is too tightly quantized to allow for any maneuvering.
Another question of scaling or relation between BF size and unit movement speed.
Scaling? I don't think you understand the point. You have to keep the units tight enough together that they bump into each other, as in Chess and Heroes 5 late game, in order for positioning to be important. That is independent of the grid. The hex grid makes it so that you can't have 2x2 creatures to make walls, and so that your shooters only have 3 sides facing the enemy, and so that pretty much there will always be exactly up to three enemy units which can attack a given friendly troop from the front. In squares if you did it wrong an entire enemy army can focus on one of your units, a huge advantage for them for retaliations, optimal troop targeting and unwasted buffer hp.
Quote:
Quote:
Positioning troops such that the enemy has to walk in a predicted way to cluster them together and hit them with an AoE, or force them to block their own troops with their own large creatures is always either easy, or not possible on hex. There just isn't a lot of options to consider.
That has nothing to with Hexes, but with TERRAIN. In HoMM we have either impassable terrain or passable terrain, but no difference in MP costs for different terrain (except in 4, if I remember right) (and no combat modifiers for it). The fact that it was never part of HoMM shows that it was supposed to be an easy game (battles are not supposed to take ages), however, here we are at something that, if done right, could add to the game without making batttles too comple an affair.
Winning a battle where you outnumber the enemy has always been easy, or winning one where you have roughly the same size while taking heavy casualties is easy. But winning against "deadly" threats with few casualties is often hard, and has been since the start of the series. Intense combat has always been in HoMM. I'm beginning to think that you just charge in and don't really use the tactics that make this game so brilliant.
Quote:
Quote:
How much damage the shooters do and at what range penalty is also meaningless.
This shows that you are simply not willing to consider what is said, because that is of course bullcrap. If you have units that are outspeeding range, for example...
It affects balance, but it just does not change how you play the game. Shooters shoot. If they did half damage they would be half as good, but it isn't going to make you somehow have to weigh options on what to do.
Quote:
You would still put them in the same bunker and shoot at whatever is the best target, that would just change what the best target is. Bunkering them behind troops should be ineffective because having the troops stand all around them in a wall should be too much of a waste of all of those other troops. You should have to protect them with minimal resources, and by carefully placing your (and your opponents) large creatures throughout the battle field, and by using tile threats (such as traps or AoE) that make it so that charging your shooters ends up not being worth it. As in chess, where a valid protection strategy is to make if so that your own units are able to capture each other, so that if your opponent captures your unit you immediately capture the unit that attacked yours; you can make it so that the positioning necessary to attack a shooter is mitigated or even not worth it, rather than just impossible.
And there I thought HoMM WAS like chess.
HoMM *IS* like chess. It is better in my opinion, and can be made even better than it already is.
Quote:
Quote:
A possibility is if they had a strike and return attack like harpies do, but it can be done on units that have no empty tile next to them, and then make fliers a lot squishier. You would then have to get your fliers close to the enemy so that they can attack, but move them and your other units around so that the enemy can't get to your flier. Kind of like protecting ranged units, but with a lot more thought than just "stand in the way".
But that would suck because fliers would simply take the role of shooters.
Except for the part where you just skipped the second half of the paragraph. The part where I said that they would need to be in the middle of the battlefeild to hit enemy shooters, thus being unbunkerable, and a sort of rock-paper-scissors with shooters -- fliers beat shooters, melee beats fliers, shooters beat melee.
Quote:
Quote:
Your last comment is absolutely absurd. I'm guessing you must have played the game with the grid disabled, as it was always perfectly clear which units could fit in which gaps, and where your units had to stand to block your enemies given their size.
The truth is that in H 4 blocking is a waste of time, most of the time, the reason of which is, that a sizable part of your army would be heroes and those all having the same size. Sure, Genies in combination with Dragon Golems would give you enormous blocking potential, for example, but in reality, there was not much blocking against fast fliers/teleporters.
Be that as it may, "Blocking" or the ability for it, is no function of the BF grid, but of the rules. You might - just as an example - have a rule (and a matching UI with a "bodyguard button", that you can designate a stack as bodyguard for any stack adjacent, using up the action of the designated stack and basically deactivate it - except that every enemy stack that wants to attack the guarded stack must deal first with the designated bodyguard (but consider the foot/flier thing - a foot bodyguard would work only against enemy foot).
Just to show that the grid has nothing to do with it.
Yes blocking wasn't as effective as you mentioned, but you the problem you said was Quote:
However, the BF in H 4 sucks, because it's not "managable"; there is no telling whether a unit fits in or not, whether you have closed the ranks or not and how big units are actually maneuvering.
which is what I addressed. You could tell if a unit fits. I didn't say that blocking was effective in Heroes 4. You didn't say it wasn't. You said you can't tell if units fit.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 01:51 PM |
|
|
|
Dave_Jame
Promising
Legendary Hero
I'm Faceless, not Brainless.
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 02:09 PM |
|
|
May I suggest thi being a topic for a different place??
____________
I'm just a Mirror of your self.
We see, we look, we gather, we store, we teach.
We are many, and you can be one of us.
|
|
Avirosb
Promising
Legendary Hero
No longer on vacation
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 02:30 PM |
|
|
Is Raelag really pronounced "ray-lag"?
I always though it was "Hra-é-laag"...
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted January 17, 2013 02:46 PM |
|
|
Technically the diphthong ae should be pronounced aye. Ry - lag
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
