|
| Thread: What is strategy? | |
|
Starknight
Tavern Dweller
|
posted April 14, 2002 07:09 AM |
|
|
What is strategy?
After having read a few replies to my posts I see that some people seem to have missed a huge amount of strategic depth in HoMM. Here are some basic explanation for the interested.
Please note that this is not a critisim of HoMM4 ( I cant do that because I havent played the game yet) in any way just to correct some wrong thoughts that some players seem to have about the element of strategy in heroes...
1. "Creature upgrade was meaningless"
I beg to differ on this statement. deciding to wehter to upgrade, when to upgrade and who to upgrade made a vital part of the game I never forget my HoMM2 game when my opponent decided to build up to two giant dwellintgs instead of going for titans and attacked me with his 20 giants vs my 20 titans. Now that was a VERY intersting game where the tactical decision-making and the right use of spells in the exact right time were the deciding factors.
When it comes to stacks joinig you but being an un-upgraded version of your troops...Well people this is what the game is about: decisions and tactical moves. Do I keep this troops for my main force or split my army and waste a few days to get them back to my castle for upgrade? decisions, decisions...oh these interesting decisions
2. "Castle defence was worthless"
Yet another wrong statement. Correct use of the balistas and the moat could turn the tide of a battle and be the deciding factor in the outcome of the fight. Strong castle defences made you re-think your strategy many times before attempting to storm them.
3. "chainig heroes were useless"
I think that people that claim this are the ones that dont know how to implement this tactic. First let me tell the reality oriented people that if you want reality go and play operational art of war or something like that. This is a fantasy gome so I just imagine that my hero was magically carrying his troops to the next hero that did the same thing...thats the reason the troops cant move by themselves!
chaning heores to transfer armies fast over a vast distance was the invention of the great player and master strategist Sir Alkis during the day of oracle and it not only did save time but was a very effective instrument in the hand of a good player that could take full advantage of its use.
For others the plain fact that it saved gaming time should be more than enough...
4. " Heroes being the same doesnt matter anyway because they will end up being copies of each other once they upgrade"
Please dont forget the wonders of how the speciality you got with your heroes effected you game play. With the new system we are going to end up having identical heroes in both sides since once people find out which path is best then everybody will have their heroes progress down that path...
"Less creatures are better"
Can I ask you in exact which way is it better to have less creatures and how it makes HoMM a strategically deeper game?
" too much of the game in previous heroes were left our to luck"
Well, the luck is the name of the game. If Napoleon werent unlucky he would not have lost in Waterloo so as you see, luck plays a role in warfare...
Here are just but a few points of explainig the concept of strategy in HoMM. I will add more points as they come up.
____________
|
|
jb239
Famous Hero
|
posted April 14, 2002 07:29 AM |
|
|
Id just like to say, Heroes 4 is about new strategy, and sure upgrading, castle defense, chaining etc were all vital parts of Heroes 3, they are either gone or toned down in heroes 4, with a whole new line of strategy.
By no means am I even past the beginning phases of learning heroes 4, but I see lots of strategic potential in it. People need to stop comparing every aspect of Heroes 4 to Heroes 3. Its a whole new game! it is not called Heroes 3 (Heroes of Might and Magic 4)
When I learn Heroes 4 a little better I will list out strategic gameplay tactics in it, similar to how people list upgrading, chaining, etc for Heroes 3.
Heroes 4 from what Ive played is good, its not great, altho can be with the right fixes. I think the true potential of it will be shown with the release of the first patch. for now anyone who plays heroes 4 is basically beta testing it anyways..
____________
I will not lose.
|
|
destro23
Promising
Famous Hero
Keeper of GrongGrong
|
|
posted April 14, 2002 08:34 AM |
|
|
I have been telling myself the same thing everytime I get kinda down thinking ... hmmmm maybe this game isn't too good..
Its not Heroes 3
And would I have played version 1.0 of heroes3 for 3 years.. I don't think so!
1.1,1.3, 1.4 hmm 3 patchs to make it Great.. lets hope we need only 1 h4 patch!
------------------
The Dead Walk!!!
|
|
Mr_Shane
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2002 08:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
After having read a few replies to my posts I see that some people seem to have missed a huge amount of strategic depth in HoMM. Here are some basic explanation for the interested.
Please note that this is not a critisim of HoMM4 ( I cant do that because I havent played the game yet) in any way just to correct some wrong thoughts that some players seem to have about the element of strategy in heroes...
1. "Creature upgrade was meaningless"
I beg to differ on this statement. deciding to wehter to upgrade, when to upgrade and who to upgrade made a vital part of the game I never forget my HoMM2 game when my opponent decided to build up to two giant dwellintgs instead of going for titans and attacked me with his 20 giants vs my 20 titans. Now that was a VERY intersting game where the tactical decision-making and the right use of spells in the exact right time were the deciding factors.
When it comes to stacks joinig you but being an un-upgraded version of your troops...Well people this is what the game is about: decisions and tactical moves. Do I keep this troops for my main force or split my army and waste a few days to get them back to my castle for upgrade? decisions, decisions...oh these interesting decisions
2. "Castle defence was worthless"
Yet another wrong statement. Correct use of the balistas and the moat could turn the tide of a battle and be the deciding factor in the outcome of the fight. Strong castle defences made you re-think your strategy many times before attempting to storm them.
3. "chainig heroes were useless"
I think that people that claim this are the ones that dont know how to implement this tactic. First let me tell the reality oriented people that if you want reality go and play operational art of war or something like that. This is a fantasy gome so I just imagine that my hero was magically carrying his troops to the next hero that did the same thing...thats the reason the troops cant move by themselves!
chaning heores to transfer armies fast over a vast distance was the invention of the great player and master strategist Sir Alkis during the day of oracle and it not only did save time but was a very effective instrument in the hand of a good player that could take full advantage of its use.
For others the plain fact that it saved gaming time should be more than enough...
4. " Heroes being the same doesnt matter anyway because they will end up being copies of each other once they upgrade"
Please dont forget the wonders of how the speciality you got with your heroes effected you game play. With the new system we are going to end up having identical heroes in both sides since once people find out which path is best then everybody will have their heroes progress down that path...
"Less creatures are better"
Can I ask you in exact which way is it better to have less creatures and how it makes HoMM a strategically deeper game?
" too much of the game in previous heroes were left our to luck"
Well, the luck is the name of the game. If Napoleon werent unlucky he would not have lost in Waterloo so as you see, luck plays a role in warfare...
Here are just but a few points of explainig the concept of strategy in HoMM. I will add more points as they come up.
I agree with JB, this is not a criticism of your opinions, but I think it is quite a good game as well, with quite a lot of room for strategy, provided that 3D0 improves on certain aspects of the game.
Here there are no creature upgrades, but we are given a choice between two types of troops, of which we can only choose 1. For instacen do we between cahmpions which are more easy to obtain and give first strike or angels with resurrection and more hit points but are not that easy to obtain due to higher building cost. Strategy and tactics are involved but not in the same way as strategy and tactics in HOMM3.
Castle defence is useful of course, but once again, this is not castle defence like in HOMM3 where the towers can whittle down the invaders while we can defend with just a sprite. No, here, it is still possible to defend, only not as easy as as in HOMM3, since there is no tower to whittle donw troops.
Heroes of course do not have speciailties, but different classes start with different skills. I think the best way to describe this is uniqueness across the classes but not between the classes. In the same way that two knights have similar skills but can choose to branch of in different directions, while a knight and a thief are completely different with different starting skills, but eventually can end up in the same class. Personally I dont think that everyones favourite hero will end up completely identical.
Neither less nor greater number of creatures makes a good game any better or worse. Heroes 1 only has about 30 creatures, but you can't say that it is not a good game, only that its simpler.
Its just that now many things are so different. Personally I guess that Heroes 4 was written for the single person RPG gamer in mind, more than for the multi-player community. Hence the focus on the development of heroes skills, the boring town designs and interesting adventure map. As an RPG gamer, as a strategy gamer, I feel thats its OK, the basic idea is good, though a lot needs to be said about AI. and as a member of the multi-player community I suspend judgement until the multi-player patch is out.
____________
|
|
Re-Animator
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2002 09:43 AM |
|
|
There is so much strategic depth in this game
Each new town in this game has eight unique creature configurations (2 choices at each of levels 2-4). With six towns this gives us 48 different creature line-up/town possibilities. Against only one other opponent this leads to 2304 different match ups. Add this to the fact that there will likely be different hero types developed by each player and the amount of different strategies that will be needed is phenomenal. What makes this so much different from HoMM3 is the fact that it is now harder for your opponent to predict what you're going to do.
With the limited ability to raise a lot of heroes to high skill levels this game is going to force a lot of people to abandon the strategy of building only one superhero. In fact it's likely that on a game by game basis people will have to decide whether it's better to develop a few heroes to GM in whatever or to accept having a few heroes with Expert in a number of skills. Maybe you're going to develop a Nobility hero to increase the number of creatures you generate or maybe you're going to specialize in Tactics to increase the fighting prowess of those creatures you produce normally. The point is that your opponent isn't going to know what you're going to do (unlike in HoMM3 when you pretty much could assume everyone got expert Earth magic, logistics, and a few others).
This is especially true with the mage guilds. In another thread someone mentioned how you will know what magic someone is developing to GM simply based on their town (actually they were words to that effect). I've already seen that in some cases you need to wait until you've built up your mage guild and the libraries before you specialize in a magic school. And your opponent certainly isn't going to know which of the three you choose.
Lastly, the creature choice you make are also going to be surprize to your opponent. The perfect example for this is the case of the Preserve vs. the Asylum. I personally feel that Faerie Dragons are better than Phoenixes, but I'd be in deep trouble if I saw that after I built my FDs my opp had built Black Dragons (I realize that combat is not that simple in that one level of creature is not usually going to make a critical difference). On the other hand if I waited a bit and saw that my opp had built his Hydra instead, I'd feel more comfortable with my FD choice. But then again maybe my opponent built the Hydra because his Necro library had Vampyric touch in it and he developed a Master Death Magic hero. Such decisions could also come about in a battle between the Academy and Necropolis (my pick for the two best towns). Do I build Devils in the hopes of being able to kill one of his heroes in the first round and risk getting Hypnotized, or do I play it safe and build the Bone Dragons? Does he build Dragon Golems to avoid being affected by Hand of Death or build Titans to keep a range advantage? Again, you have to take in to consideration what your opponent is likely going to build and what spells both of you may get.
Strategic considerations like this did NOT apply in HoMM3. If you played against an Inferno opponent you knew what line-up he was getting and the likelihood of certain spells appearing (you just didn't know when and consequently how many). You also knew that no matter what hero he started the game with, all of his stats were probably somewhere in the teens and you could guess at the majority of his skills.
Finally, just so everyone is clear, chaining is not a strategy - it's a tactic (one I really appreciated, though not one that is "mastered" - you either do it or you don't).
|
|
greystole
Hired Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2002 02:04 PM |
|
|
Tactics and Logistics
In very broad and general terms, "logistics" is supplying an army, "tactics" is the use of that army.
In HommIII, much (not all) of what people call tactics is simply logistics.
While building level seven creatures by the end of week one can be described as a "tactic", it is so basic a tactic as to barely qualify for the label. One did not have to make a decision to build level sevens as fast as possible, that was pretty much an understood requirement.
Building level sevens was largely a LOGISTICAL function. It wasn't the decision making process that was important there, it was simply the collection of appropriate resources.
The same applies to chaining. Chaining made the LOGISTICAL process of getting troops to a particular location fast and easy.
HommIV games are going to require HUGELY different tactical and logistical solutions.
If I could describe the difference between HommIV and HommIII in one word, that word would be BALANCE.
All heroes start out basically even.
The "special abilities" of each troop type and the change to four levels of troops will very much even out the battlefield. Already, I've seen pikemen make the difference in a battle against black dragons, a feat virtually unimaginable in HommIII.
"Falling behind" in the building of creature dwellings isn't automatic death anymore.
With HommIII, heroes other than one's "main" were often called "dweebs" by many. I predict this will change, as tactical decisions based on position on the map and allocation of creature resources will force many battles between these "lesser heroes".
I could write a huge post about the tactical and logistical differences between the two games, that would probably go largely unread, so I won't.
I will simply suggest this - Give the game a chance. I do feel the game will be more fun to play in multiplayer, based on my practice against the AI and my chance to have played a hotseat game.
It is going to take time to understand the subtleties involved with the new game, if you reject it before you fully appreciate the differences, you'll have only wasted the money you spent.
Approach HommIV with an open mind and pray for the multiplayer patch.
____________
TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
|
|
Frank
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2002 02:12 PM |
|
|
|
How could anyone write a full tactical description of a 2 weeks out game? It`s hardly even possible for H3 whom been played for 3 years.
|
|
Starknight
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 14, 2002 05:06 PM |
|
|
Its interesting that almost everybody that answered me tries to make comparsion between H3 and 4.
As I stated before, I wasnt critisizing or comparing the two games. I cant do this because I have not played the H4 yet
I am just trying to correct some wrong statements of some people about some basic strategic elements in HoMM3.
So far all of the answers has been how the things work in H4. So I guess what I told before is right regarding strategy in HoMM3
____________
|
|
greystole
Hired Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2002 08:31 PM |
|
|
Isn't it rather presumptuous to criticize people for expressing opinions, especially when you've started the thread in the form of a question?
____________
TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
|
|
jb239
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2002 08:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As I stated before, I wasnt critisizing or comparing the two games. I cant do this because I have not played the H4 yet
I am just trying to correct some wrong statements of some people about some basic strategic elements in HoMM3.
So far all of the answers has been how the things work in H4. So I guess what I told before is right regarding strategy in HoMM3
actually, thats a lie, some of the things you wrote is in comparison to H3 vs H4 arguements. so how do you expect people to react?
You continue to say in your original post, in the new system, heroes will be identical, blablabla, so? you are indeed comparing them.
So make up your mind, cause your sure confusing everyone who posted and then blaming them for posting not how you wanted it to be 
____________
I will not lose.
|
|
Starknight
Tavern Dweller
|
posted April 14, 2002 10:36 PM |
|
|
Greystole wrote
"Isn't it rather presumptuous to criticize people for expressing opinions, especially when you've started the thread in the form of a question?"
I see you must have had a low level of blood sugar when you were responding to me, how can I otherwise explain the confrontational tone in your reply? Can you tell me exactly where I have criticized anybody?
JB239,
Can you point out the lie for me? I dont have H4 and have never played it so I couldnt be comparing. I am telling people where they are wrong when they are talking about the mentioned strategies and their values. period. No matter if they are included in H4 or not. Where is the source of confusion?
____________
|
|
aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted April 15, 2002 01:21 AM |
|
|
Can you point out the lie for me? I dont have H4 and have never played it so I couldnt be comparing. I am telling people where they are wrong when they are talking about the mentioned strategies and their values. period. No matter if they are included in H4 or not. Where is the source of confusion?
As Frank says how can you judge a game for being out only 2 weeks & you never even played it before but still you tell us we are wrong & we been playing it.
There is no confusion but a person that never played heroes making a strategic thread & ready to add more later.
Mayhaps you should try playing it & beat a few scenarios & then come up with a strategic plans yes.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
mklthrkngl
Known Hero
|
posted April 15, 2002 06:26 AM |
|
|
tactically logisticle?
this a funny post!! 
you say you cann't compare the 2 games as you haven't even played homm4 yet. well you don't appear to have any trouble making statements about the game any ways.
curiose about this inventor of troop chaining? i played heroes from very early on. as i recall it, i started chaining troops against the comp long before i ever played the game online. was an obviose use for the troop splitting and sharing functions in the new homm 3 game. being able to chain troops in homm 2 wasn't such a big deal as one had amazing log and unlimitted DD in the game. either way, seeing as i came up with the tactic on my own maybe i was creator of chaining? or maybe it was frank? could be it was that nasty woman pandora? hard ta say. chances of it being yer master strategist are pretty slim there bud
i and i'm sure many others who've been playing homm for a very long time at the highest lvl's, or some of the very lowest as in my case , might take a little exception to somebody coming in here and telling us why we're wrong when it comes to this game.
stark if you want to post here and get the opinions of toh players about the game, that's fine. you probably have the some of the best strategy game playing minds in the world all posting here and you can place some weight in there words. i don't agree with franks opinions about the new game but i do respect them. frank and others such as jb239 and jinxer and many others have earned the right to give there opinions on this subject and have them taken seriously. now you also have the right to your opinion, just don't expect any of the rest of us to really give a pile of fecal matter about it.
____________
OK!! So i cann't spell well! So shoot me!!
|
|
Krishhh
Adventuring Hero
still learning spells
|
|
posted April 15, 2002 01:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
1. "Creature upgrade was meaningless"
It only ment that you have to spend more resources, because although in SoD they allowed you to recruit the unupgraded I never have done that.
2. "Castle defence was worthless"
Really a wrong statement.
3. "chainig heroes were useless"
It wasn`t useless, but I don`t like it. (sorry for talking about H4 which you don`t have) I think it is much better now when it is impossible.
4. " Heroes being the same doesnt matter anyway because they will end up being copies of each other once they upgrade"
If you ment "not being" than I agree with this statement, and if you are talking about H4 you are as wrong as you can be.
"Less creatures are better"
If it`s about H4(so you didn`t compare them, huh?) than less=more because you can divide the number of creatures in H3 almost by 2(some are not so similar(giants/titans) so sat 1.5), because every1 used the upgrades anyway.
" too much of the game in previous heroes were left our to luck"
Agree but not "too much", just much.
____________
Promising student of magic.
|
|
The_Conqueror
Tavern Dweller
|
posted April 15, 2002 04:40 PM |
|
|
What is strategy .... certainly not what StarKnight said
I will start with a few examples of strategies in hmm3:
Map : Medium ; Difficulty : Normal ; Resources : High ...
The best strategy would be maybe building 7lvl in week 1 ; getting a might hero with some mass magic ...etc
That's the main strategy ...
Map : XL ; Difficulty : Very Hard ; Resources : Medium ...
I guess u choose buildind the capitol first than the lvl7 crits ... A magic hero /w Fly , Dim Door , TP would be best ... These is what u want ... That's your strategy
How do u do it ??? By tactics ... like chaining or fighting slow melee monsters with 1 devil or ...
So what is strategy ??? In my oppinion , strategy is setting waypoints in your path to victory !!!
I remember the first time i saw hmm3 ...Man , I didn't like that game ... and i didn't play it until some friends took me to some hot seats ... and then i started liking it more and more !!!
This is happening even now when playing H4 ... If I didn't have that history with h3 , I'd say it sucks !!!
But I'm sure in multi this is a beautifull game , much better than hmm3 cause it is more complex ...
____________
|
|
Starknight
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 16, 2002 08:54 PM |
|
|
mklthrkngl
If the name Sir-Alkis in not familiar with you so you are much newer to HoMM than you think. Ask those people who you respect so much and they will gladley tell you who Sir Alkis was...You can ask them about me as well...I bet you will dig up some surprises
Krishh
Thank you for the first sensible reply to my first msg. I see now how my statement about the amount of creatures might have been misleading people into thinking that I am comparing. That statement was a reply to somebody that had said the the amount of creatures in HoMM3 was too much and thus loweirng the game strategic value.
____________
|
|
Starknight
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted April 16, 2002 08:56 PM |
|
|
Aculias
See the above msg to Krishhh. I hope it will clear the things out how I was just referring to HoMM3.
____________
|
|
mklthrkngl
Known Hero
|
posted April 16, 2002 11:15 PM |
|
|
can ya read?
apparently i read yer post just fine but you were unable to comprehend mine? just in case i missed something, i reread what i wrote. hmmm, no where does it mention that i didn't know who alkis was. all my post questioned was yer idiotic statement that attributes the chaining tactic to any one homm player. as fer askin around about you so's i can be pleasantly surprised and all, sorry bud if i don't alrdy know ya, ya prob. not worth knowing unless yer yawacko? flamingo?? or some other real homm player in disguise?
p.s.
don't take ma werds to heart neighbor. i raz onna lotta peeps on the board and most take it lightly.
p.p.s. all except that Moccarra dude!! woops did i spell his name wrong again
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted April 17, 2002 12:27 AM |
|
|
Yes I understood what you were sayaing & everyone has dif strategies & dif way of playing & similar ways in alot of occasions.
I respect reason not whos famous which I do respect because I know almost everyone here.
I know enough strategy to get by & I am not disagreeing with everything but just some.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
| |
|
|
