|
| Thread: Heroes games - and what differ them from competition | |
|
Hermes
Famous Hero
|
posted April 25, 2014 06:40 AM |
|
|
Heroes games - and what differ them from competition
Heroes of Might and Magic series has always been one of my all times favourite. Every fan knows how the series started - and in which state it is today. Having played some of the 'sister' games, such as Age of Wonders, Fallen Enchantress, Eador and Warlock, I have decided to create this topic to start a discussion on what really differs Heroes series.
Strategic map
So, one of the defining aspects of the Heroes games is that strategic overlay map, on which you move your troops and discover new objects and resources. But the level of interaction has always been lacking compared to other games - there are no damaging spells on strategic map, no terraforming spells, and the whole number of spells is usually...well... lacking. Now, this is probably done on purpose - as the combat should be happening in the combat phase, right? Anyway, there are a lot of ideas on what to do on that strategic level, but some of them in my opinion, are not applicable in Heroes game.
Below are the things I found interesting but would not want to see implemented in future Heroes(please comment if you like)
1. Hexagon map movement, like in Eador, I think Heroes games must preserve the free exploration.
2. Creatures moving without heroes, like in Age of Wonders. This diminishes the role of heroes.
3. Building new cities - arguable, but Heroes is a game about exploration and combat, not city building.
These below are the ones that could benefit Heroes games:
1. Terraforming spells, and general increase in a number of strategic spells. It would be wonderful to freeze the river to pass through, or create a volcano net to the enemy Castle damaging it, etc.
2. More freedom while moving on the map - akin to Age of Wonders 3, ability to move on forests, lava, and mountains with some skills.
Tactical Battle
Lot of things can be said about the main theme of Heroes - tactical map.
I, for one, would like it to be bigger, and more tactical.
I cant stop comparing it to AoW3, which is a wonderful game:
1. Firstly, I think stacks should stay in the game, it gives a very different feeling to the game compared to single unit system used in other games. Yes, stackable armies present some spell balancing problems, and some logical issues as well, but both of these exist in some other areas in games with single unit system as well.
2. Heroes should stay out of combat. Thing I see in AoW3 very often is a act of either moving you hero far far away from the fray or losing the hero in first few turns. Yes, there are exceptions to this but still, I think Heroes should stay out of a combat and direct the action and use spells and melee/ranged attacks.
3. I would love to see flanking, attacks of opportunities, ranged attacks after moving to eliminate turtling, limited ammunition, better attack/defense system, useful abilities(but not too many like in Heroes 6). AoW3 done it almost right, abilities are scarce but powerfull. On the other side there is Fallen Enchantress, where first level Heroes have 6 abilities ready to cast right out of the door...
What AoW3 offers is a lot more tactical and rewarding then a system used in Heroes 6, which is a shame especially considering that Heroes 6 is a game about tactical combat more then anything else.
Overall style
I personally think that Heroes should return to its roots, regarding its style. I do like Heroes 6 graphics and art, just make it more magical, especially the strategic map. Look at Eador - just look how enchanting and magical that game looks!
Also, colour themes do not work, and Heroes game should have lots of mythical creatures, not H5 Fortress dwarf domination. Overall O love the way Heroes 6 creatures look, and in that department, it is still ahead of all competition. It would also be cool to visually see some of the abilities. For example, Ravenous Ghouls in Heroes 6 have increased movement against live fleshy enemies - so it'd be nice to see the ghoul salivate and growl when you hover your mouse above such enemies.
Music and sound
Voice overs are awesome in Heroes 6, if only a bit over the top(lol). but music is seriously lacking. After listening to some of the tunes in AoW3, I understand now that the music in heroes should be Epic, and Magical, and Enchanting. Same with the sounds - we need birds tweeting, waterfalls flowing, church bells ringing, etc.
Magic
Well, the game is called Heroes of MIGHT and MAGIC, so we need not only magical system but the might one as well. And not only barbarian shouts. I'd like to see formations, and tactics added to Might heroes. May be even an ability to have an extra army slot, like in Eador or Kings Bounty?
Magic - and I'm again looking at you, Age of Wonders 3. Love or hate spells schools in that game, they are all diverse, and have a theme. This is severely lacking in Heroes games of late, Heroes 5 and 6, where schools were too generic and spells too similar in action. I still remember arguing on whats better, Ice Armor or Stone skin 18 months after H6 release.. This should not happen. Magic schools should have a certain theme and its own style and use.
Hero system
I think most fans agree that Heroes game should have a randomised level up system similar to Heroes 5. It has to be complex, but easy to understand, with some player input to help define and create exactly the type of hero you want. Reputation system is a plus, but there could be so much more done to it! I would also like to see classes for each faction, such as Academy - blademage, wizard, crimson wizard, father of titans, etc.
Fresh ideas
Now, we need something to distinguish the game from the competition!
Have a look:
Eador, Masters of Broken World has a complex city building system with limited space, explorable provinces offering increasing challenges and rewards, beautiful graphics and atmosphere and solid hero level up system.
Fallen Enchantress has its own creative style, and an interesting mix between 4X Civilization style city building and tactical combat.
Age Of Wonders 3 has, well, a lot of nice things and complexity but some of these just would not work for heroes.
So, what features should Heroes games have - something new and fresh, or old and comfortable?
1. 7 resources - or more!
2. Zones of Control?
3. Researches in the Magic guild similar to Warlock 2?
4. Happiness system in cities?
5. Addition of civil building in the cities?
6. More dwellings then slots in Hero army?
7. Multiple upgrades? Or construction projects which take more then one turn?
8. Multiple mounts? Addition of sky map to strategic overlay?
Something entirely else? Please add your suggestions and lets try to make sure that people don't just call Heroes a poor men Age of Wonders.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
posted April 25, 2014 10:50 AM |
|
|
1. I don't know about going back to seven resources, but definitely at least 5 are needed.
2. Provided they're done properly, areas of control can be perfectly viable.
3. Never played the game, could you elaborate on this please?
4. No, leave happiness to Civilization.
5. A few maybe, although make them buildable only if they have an effect on the game.
6. No, if anything, more slots in the army than dwellings, to allow you to pick up base troops if you already have a full array of upgraded ones.
7a. Multiple upgrades as in the H2 dragon style, or H5: TotE style?
7b. I could go for that, provided there were a few cheaper ones that would take less than a full turn to build.
8a. How do you mean multiple mounts?
8b. Why would we need a sky map?
As for my own suggestions:
* Heroes 5 style secondary skills, inasmuch as there are basic skills and then you can get perks on top.
* Far more water objects.
* Spells no long have a set cost, instead you spend as many mana points as you want on a spell.
* 'Settlements' which can be turned into a town of any alignment by a hero.
* The ability to modify a town's output (for greater income, or more troops, or faster construction, etc).
* A separate magic school for adventure map spells.
|
|
Hermes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 12:06 PM |
|
|
MattII said:
1. I don't know about going back to seven resources, but definitely at least 5 are needed.
2. Provided they're done properly, areas of control can be perfectly viable.
3. Never played the game, could you elaborate on this please?
4. No, leave happiness to Civilization.
5. A few maybe, although make them buildable only if they have an effect on the game.
6. No, if anything, more slots in the army than dwellings, to allow you to pick up base troops if you already have a full array of upgraded ones.
7a. Multiple upgrades as in the H2 dragon style, or H5: TotE style?
7b. I could go for that, provided there were a few cheaper ones that would take less than a full turn to build.
8a. How do you mean multiple mounts?
8b. Why would we need a sky map?
As for my own suggestions:
* Heroes 5 style secondary skills, inasmuch as there are basic skills and then you can get perks on top.
* Far more water objects.
* Spells no long have a set cost, instead you spend as many mana points as you want on a spell.
* 'Settlements' which can be turned into a town of any alignment by a hero.
* The ability to modify a town's output (for greater income, or more troops, or faster construction, etc).
* A separate magic school for adventure map spells.
Hi and thank you for replying! Let me elaborate on these:
3. In Warlock 2 you research spells in a menu similar to Civilization, with diferrent spell trees for all your needs! In Heroes this can be tied to crystal resource, or even to the experience gained from battles. In some of these games, your spell casting in combat also costs some shared resource which in also used outside of combat. Not sure if this would work in heroes.
4. By happiness in cities I mean letting your reputation also affect your city gold produce for example, or creaute growth.
6. Well may be allow might heroes more slots, but in general I think having less slots then available creatures would force players to actually think about army composition instead of buying everything off.
7a. Either really, but I would much prefer dragon style. Evolution
7b. Good idea.
8a. In AoW3, you can stumble upon new magical mounts, or their eggs, or even cast a spell to summon them. These mounts replace yout default ones and give you certain abilities, say Unicorn alloww your hero to teleport, Wolf to 'overwhelm' infantry, etc.
8b. By sky map I mean another strategy layer, similar to undeground but with some different rules, maybe accesible only for flyers? I just realised we could also have flyer creatures behave differently in combat as well, say land every third turn only.
I like your ideas. Especially variable mana cost for spells, water objects and town production adjustments. These are great. We need more complexity in Heroes in my opinion.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 01:25 PM |
|
|
This is a very good thread, I like it Hermes 
I should be able to give an answer later this afternoon.
____________
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 03:46 PM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 16:35, 25 Apr 2014.
|
Hermes said:
2. Heroes should stay out of combat. Thing I see in AoW3 very often is a act of either moving you hero far far away from the fray or losing the hero in first few turns. Yes, there are exceptions to this but still, I think Heroes should stay out of a combat and direct the action and use spells and melee/ranged attacks.
So you want the heroes safely behind their troops casting spells from a distance? Does not sound very heroic to me 
Heroes joined the battle in Heroes IV and I think it worked quite well. Yes, the combat skill was a must, but this also gave a tactical aspect: you had to find the balance between influencing the battle and surviving.
Personally I really hate these super powerfull heroes that stand at the sideline attacking your army while you cannot kill him. Very frustrating and also not so realistic.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 04:18 PM |
|
|
Hermes said:
1. 7 resources - or more!
I agree with MattII, between 5 and 7 seems the best number to go for.
Hermes said:
4. Happiness system in cities?
No
Hermes said:
5. Addition of civil building in the cities?
Adding civil building, workers and such doesn't suit HoM&M, imo.
Hermes said:
6. More dwellings then slots in Hero army?
More dwellings than slots in hero army forces the player to make decisions about their army composition, not being able to bring all troops from one town. However this also makes virtually impossible to mix troops from other factions/neutrals.
More slots than dwellings gives us the contrary, you can pick everything from your original town and still have room for troops from other towns/neutrals. Also, it gives the opportunity to split a stack in 2 in order to gain an advantage (like Paladins in H5, used to counter Dark Magic users with their healing ability).
Same number of dwellings and slots is the formula of all Heroes games since H3.
Personally I wouldn't mind either more dwellings or more slots, just don't keep again the same number.
Hermes said:
7. Multiple upgrades?
A mixed system. Some creatures have one upgrade, some have two upgrades (Green -> Red -> Black Dragon from H2), some have alternative upgrades (TotE style) and some simply don't have upgrades.
Hermes said:
Or construction projects which take more then one turn?
Buildings that take more than one turn to complete is an interesting concept that haven't been explored in HoM&M saga yet. It would be a good start to give towns developing a bigger role in the game, so yes.
Hermes said:
8. Multiple mounts?
No
Hermes said:
Addition of sky map to strategic overlay?
No, subterranean is more than enough.
As for my suggestions:
* H5 skillwheel, maybe with some minor improvements. Also a bit less random
* More water objects. Also make boarding and water stuff more interesting overall.
* Simultaneous Turns.
* Somehow I feel town developing and building construction has been too simple in HoM&M saga. There is plenty of room to improve here.
Steyn said:
Personally I really hate these super powerfull heroes that stand at the sideline attacking your army while you cannot kill him. Very frustrating and also not so realistic.
Because 9999 Black Dragons not being able to counterattack Archangels attack because blackies were earlier attacked by 1 goblin is also very realistic! 
____________
|
|
War-overlord
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 04:38 PM |
|
|
Strategic map
I agree on those proposals that should be barred from Heroes. No overland Hexmap. No free-roaming creatures. No building new cities.
These below are the ones that could benefit Heroes games:
1. Terraforming spells. I disagree, there is no need for map manipulation in Heroes as far as I am concerned
2. More freedom while moving on the map. With some restrictions to that I could agree with it. For instance, Forrests should be traversable with a penalty, though Sylvan should be able to move through them like normal. Water should be only traversable by boat, except for Sanctuary. Lava should be a barrier for everyone, except maybe Demons. Come to think of it. Terrain should simply have more effect.
Tactical Battle
1. I agree. Keep Stacks.
2. Agree. Heroes 5 did it best by giving the Heroes a turn during battles but not make them attackable, IMO.
3. I would agree, but it would need some serious ballancing. As far as moving and shooting is concerned specifaclly, I think the rule should be, given that Heroes does not and should not work with actionpoints like AOW, no move = full strength shot; <= half movement = half strength shot; > half movement = no shot. That way, creatures like Centaurs/ Horse Archers could be the exception to that rule and have a full strenght shot no matter how far they move. Something like that.
Overall style
I agree with you mostly. Though 1, I don't see a reason to "move back to it's roots" (BTW you fail to explain what you mean with that)
2, Heroes needs more creature period. Though I am of the opinion that faction on racial basis should stay.
3, I think colour-coding should stay, but not as overtly as in 6. But more in the style of 5.
Music and sound
The problem with the music of 6 was that it was good. As opposed to the very good-amazing of Heroes 3-5. As far as music goes we've been spoilt and we should realise that.
Magic Hero system
Though I am one of the people who was glad when the randomness was left by the wayside, since I've never played a game where the randomness has not screwed me with not giving me the skills I want and often times blocking them, by having to pick something.
Barring that, Heroes 5 did the skill- and magic-system best. The reputationsystem of 6 was nice, if a little hamfisted.
Fresh ideas
1. As I've said often times before, the number of rescources is of little consequence. What is needed is a balanced economy. That is what Heroes 6 lacked.
2. I agree with Matt. Implemented well, they would be an addition to the game.
3. I'd prefer to see the old Mage guilds back. As long as it is reasonably predicable what spellschools factions are gonna get.
4. Again I agree with Matt. Leave city happiness out. Army Morale is enough.
5. Again I agree with Matt.
6. I've made my opinion on the restrictiveness of the traditional 7-creature towns clear enough in the past.
7. 1 upgrade is enough. What we need is creature differentiation within factions.
8. No skymap. Underground is more than enough. As far as mounts go, as long as not everyone is riding a god-damned horse, I'll be happy.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 04:42 PM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 16:49, 25 Apr 2014.
|
Storm-Giant said:
Same number of dwellings and slots is the formula of all Heroes games since H3.
Did you forget Heroes IV?
Storm-Giant said:
Because 9999 Black Dragons not being able to counterattack Archangels attack because blackies were earlier attacked by 1 goblin is also very realistic!
True, but at least you could have killed the goblin. The cowardly hero you cannot.
War-overlord said:
3, I think colour-coding should stay, but not as overtly as in 6. But more in the style of 5.
Although I also think the colorcoding in 5 was good, I have one problem with it. Those alternative upgrades were differently colorcoded, making it look strange to mix them.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 05:04 PM |
|
|
Steyn said:
Did you forget Heroes IV?
Nope. H4 had 5 creatures per town, add 2 heroes (one might one magic) and voliá, you have 7/7 slots filled with one town.
It's true that it had those alternative creatures, but the aim of Hermes question wasn't that I think.
____________
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 09:46 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 05:04, 27 Apr 2014.
|
Hermes said:
3. In Warlock 2 you research spells in a menu similar to Civilization, with diferrent spell trees for all your needs! In Heroes this can be tied to crystal resource, or even to the experience gained from battles. In some of these games, your spell casting in combat also costs some shared resource which in also used outside of combat. Not sure if this would work in heroes.
4. By happiness in cities I mean letting your reputation also affect your city gold produce for example, or creaute growth.
6. Well may be allow might heroes more slots, but in general I think having less slots then available creatures would force players to actually think about army composition instead of buying everything off.
7a. Either really, but I would much prefer dragon style. Evolution
7b. Good idea.
8a. In AoW3, you can stumble upon new magical mounts, or their eggs, or even cast a spell to summon them. These mounts replace yout default ones and give you certain abilities, say Unicorn alloww your hero to teleport, Wolf to 'overwhelm' infantry, etc.
8b. By sky map I mean another strategy layer, similar to undeground but with some different rules, maybe accesible only for flyers? I just realised we could also have flyer creatures behave differently in combat as well, say land every third turn only.
3. Possible I suppose, but still sounds overly complicated.
4. Definitely not in favour.
6. Prior to H6 heroes already had to choose whether to go in with full troops, but with the speed disadvantage, or with only a selection and hope they could outmanoeuvre the enemy instead of having to fight them.
7a. I could see that catching on for a few units, so long as we can avoid crummy upgrades like *shudder* Santa Gremlins.
8a. The hero on the map is a representation of the army, so I'm not quite sure about this, one horse to hold an army...
8b. Nah, oh split the concepts so we can have three levels on each map, plus have some terrain that maybe looks a bit like clouds (but is unpassable), but in all honesty I'd rather go for a way of putting an underground layer on the main adventure map without it looking crummy and false.
As for the other stuff:
Strategic Map
1. Heroes is set to a different scale to Eador, so it wouldn't turn out the same anyway.
2. They had that in H4 as well, and it turned out that unsupported creatures had to quite heavily outnumber creatures supported by even a low-level hero to have a chance of winning.
3. Should be possible, but only in the way it was in AoM, you can build new stuff, but only where a certain building is already present.
1b. Such spells would be interesting, but I'm not sure, it would take a lot of balancing, costs vs effects.
2b. Could be done, but it would have to be very expensive considering it would allow you to essentially bypass among other things, Garrisons and Border Guards, never mind random creatures.
Tactical Battle
1. Yes, keep stacks.
2. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing heroes taking a more active role in combat.
3. More tactical options are definitely a must.
Storm-Giant said:
Nope. H4 had 5 creatures per town, add 2 heroes (one might one magic) and voliá, you have 7/7 slots filled with one town.
Still only have 5 creatures though.
A few more ideas:
* Far fewer loose piles of resources, but a corresponding increase in the output of mines, so you can actually do something with the resources late-game.
* The ability to upgrade map dwellings, at a significant cost.
* Upgraded creature dwellings allow you to recruit either upgraded creatures, or a greater number of base creatures (equivalent in cost to the upgraded creatures).
* Hero recruitment costs are based on their level and the number and power of the creatures with them.
* More variable siege combat, with different towns having different arrangements for their defences.
* Not all town buildings can be built, F.E. as an upgrade of the Marketplace you could build either a Bazaar (generates a few resources per day), or an Artefact Merchant, but not both.
* Neutral towns that actually develop (towns build buildings and heroes flag mines, but only within a certain range).
I've several other ideas as well, mostly for the magic system, but they're all based around the pre-H6 setup.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2014 01:13 PM |
|
|
MattII said:
Storm-Giant said:
Nope. H4 had 5 creatures per town, add 2 heroes (one might one magic) and voliá, you have 7/7 slots filled with one town.
Still only have 5 creatures though.
Add 1 hero to that and you still have 1 slot left to add an alternative creature, a creature of a different faction, or another hero. In the other games you have one hero per army, so I don't see why here it should suddenly be two.
Quote:
8a. In AoW3, you can stumble upon new magical mounts, or their eggs, or even cast a spell to summon them. These mounts replace yout default ones and give you certain abilities, say Unicorn alloww your hero to teleport, Wolf to 'overwhelm' infantry, etc.
8a. The hero on the map is a representation of the army, so I'm not quite sure about this, one horse to hold an army...
In heroes VI they solved this for sanctuary by letting the horse provide the amphibian ability for the hero, so he/she could walk the water with an amphibian army. In the sanctuary campaign you could even obtain this special mount. When done like this I am in favour of special mounts, but than there should also be more adventure map abilities for creatures.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2014 09:52 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 21:52, 29 Apr 2014.
|
Steyn said:
Add 1 hero to that and you still have 1 slot left to add an alternative creature, a creature of a different faction, or another hero. In the other games you have one hero per army, so I don't see why here it should suddenly be two.
Well I have to say i never really liked the way creatures were arranged traditionally, which is why I came up with my own system.
|
|
Hermes
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2014 01:26 AM |
|
|
Sorry I was away for a while due to some family issues.
Here we go:
Quote:
So you want the heroes safely behind their troops casting spells from a distance? Does not sound very heroic to me
Heroes joined the battle in Heroes IV and I think it worked quite well. Yes, the combat skill was a must, but this also gave a tactical aspect: you had to find the balance between influencing the battle and surviving.
Personally I really hate these super powerfull heroes that stand at the sideline attacking your army while you cannot kill him. Very frustrating and also not so realistic.
I did like Heroes 4, and I find some appeal in heroes being on the battlefield, but I still think its for the best for them to be the way they are in Heroes 6. Otherwise it becomes the frustration of either hiding your heroes away on the battlefield or tanking with the hero. I know it is sort of silly that a high level hero can be 'defeated' by a single remaining peasant when that hero's army is destroyed. Look at AoW 3 at the moment, the heroes there are very fragile and can be easily killed, and cannot be resurrected(except for your main one and some rare spells). I don't find it fun to be honest.
Quote:
Adding civil building, workers and such doesn't suit HoM&M, imo.
Why not implement civil building into the upgrade system For example Minotaurs can only be upgraded to Guards once your city happiness reaches x level, and to do that you need to build nice things for them. Or may be if they are not happy, they get downgraded instead!
Quote:
Personally I wouldn't mind either more dwellings or more slots, just don't keep again the same number.
I agree with that. It gets boring to just feeling all the slots with same creatures game after game. Town convertion must go in my opinion, as they way it is at the moment really kills any diversity in your army.
Quote:
A mixed system. Some creatures have one upgrade, some have two upgrades (Green -> Red -> Black Dragon from H2), some have alternative upgrades (TotE style) and some simply don't have upgrades.
Agree with that. But I would like to have at least one upgrade for each creature.
Quote:
Hermes said:
8. Multiple mounts?
No
Why no to more mounts? Would it not be awesome to be able to say evolve the dungeon mount into a dragon?
Quote:
No, subterranean is more than enough.
I just find that more maps in the same game gives a better strategic feel and spreads more forces more, which is beneficial to overall strategy.
Quote:
* H5 skillwheel, maybe with some minor improvements. Also a bit less random
yes, but please if you create such a complex system like in heroes 5, make the skill wheel available in-game on release
Quote:
3. Possible I suppose, but still sounds overly complicated.
4. Definitely not in favour.
6. Prior to H6 heroes already had to choose whether to go in with full troops, but with the speed disadvantage, or with only a selection and hope they could outmanoeuvre the enemy instead of having to fight them.
7a. I could see that catching on for a few units, so long as we can avoid crummy upgrades like *shudder* Santa Gremlins.
8a. The hero on the map is a representation of the army, so I'm not quite sure about this, one horse to hold an army...
8b. Nah, oh split the concepts so we can have three levels on each map, plus have some terrain that maybe looks a bit like clouds (but is unpassable), but in all honesty I'd rather go for a way of putting an underground layer on the main adventure map without it looking crummy and false.
6. Yes, this. Speed should once again have a role on the strategic map. I like how in AoW3 they are special objects on a map in you way - you step on one accidentally and it give you more move points, but should you step on spider webs - and you lose all remaining ones. Pretty cool.
7. What are these Santa Gremlins? 'scared'
8a. Not to hold an army but to give a benefit to the hero on the battlefield
8b. Well...better underground could do, but I prefer outside
Quote:
Tactical Battle
1. Yes, keep stacks.
2. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing heroes taking a more active role in combat.
3. More tactical options are definitely a must.
Can you define the more active role please?
Quote:
In heroes VI they solved this for sanctuary by letting the horse provide the amphibian ability for the hero, so he/she could walk the water with an amphibian army. In the sanctuary campaign you could even obtain this special mount. When done like this I am in favour of special mounts, but than there should also be more adventure map abilities for creatures.
Yes! adventure map abilities for creatures sounds awesome.
Now to War-overlord comments:
Quote:
1. Terraforming spells. I disagree, there is no need for map manipulation in Heroes as far as I am concerned
2. More freedom while moving on the map. With some restrictions to that I could agree with it. For instance, Forrests should be traversable with a penalty, though Sylvan should be able to move through them like normal. Water should be only traversable by boat, except for Sanctuary. Lava should be a barrier for everyone, except maybe Demons. Come to think of it. Terrain should simply have more effect.
1.Why no need? Would it not be cool to freeze the water to pass through or create a lake under a demon army?
2. Agree with this. It has been explored a little in Heroes 6 sanctuary but could definitely be more widespread.
Quote:
Agree. Heroes 5 did it best by giving the Heroes a turn during battles but not make them attackable, IMO.
I'd rather heroes to have a defined turn like in Heroes 5 but more like in Heroes 6 so that they can act at any time. This makes me feel like I am an actual Hero controlling an army, not a player.
Quote:
I think the rule should be, given that Heroes does not and should not work with actionpoints like AOW, no move = full strength shot; <= half movement = half strength shot; > half movement = no shot. That way, creatures like Centaurs/ Horse Archers could be the exception to that rule and have a full strenght shot no matter how far they move. Something like that.
Very good system! Patent it its not too late
Quote:
Overall style
I agree with you mostly. Though 1, I don't see a reason to "move back to it's roots" (BTW you fail to explain what you mean with that)
2, Heroes needs more creature period. Though I am of the opinion that faction on racial basis should stay.
3, I think colour-coding should stay, but not as overtly as in 6. But more in the style of 5
What I mean by going back to its roots, I feel the Heroes art and graphics was the best in Heroes 1 an 2, and 6 for me personally, and in 3,4 and 5 it took a wrong directions. Heroes to me have to have some magic fairy tale feeling(but not cartoony)
Quote:
Music and sound
The problem with the music of 6 was that it was good. As opposed to the very good-amazing of Heroes 3-5. As far as music goes we've been spoilt and we should realise that.
I agree, but in AoW3 the music is much better.
Quote:
4. Again I agree with Matt. Leave city happiness out. Army Morale is enough.
But army morale at the moment is just so limited! It mostly depends on hero abilities and army composition.
Agree with all other points
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2014 10:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
7. What are these Santa Gremlins? 'scared'
One of the creatures introduced in the "Wake of the Gods" HoMM3 mod (see here), it's not that it's a scary monster, it's just crummy.
Quote:
8a. Not to hold an army but to give a benefit to the hero on the battlefield
To give a combat advantage to a commander who does nothing but cast spells?
Quote:
Can you define the more active role please?
Still in favour of heroes being on the battlefield.
|
| |
|
|
