|
| Thread: Heroes in combat in H5 - how to make everyone happy :) |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
posted November 26, 2002 10:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Napoleon was famous for standing at the back and commanding his troops. And he's one of the greates war generals of all times (by the way, I know this is a crappy and totally irrelevant argument:
But Napoleon was the leader of the country. As such he's to imo more comparable to the Player and not to the heroes. The heroes are the generals and lower rank officers on the field.
There are several known examples in say Swedish history where kings and rebel leaders fought in combat and lost their lives as a result of it.
Anyway, the reason that country rulers usually get away with being behind the combat lines is probably due to the fact that they have a personal life guard, and this is something the normal hero wouldn't have or be able to afford to the same extent as a country's ruler.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2002 07:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But Napoleon was the leader of the country. As such he's to imo more comparable to the Player and not to the heroes. The heroes are the generals and lower rank officers on the field.
Ok, Napoleon was more of a leader of the country than William Wallace, but as such he was commanding a lot of battles which in the end spelled his own downturn (for neglecting the politics). So both Napoleon and WW were taking part in battles in their own way. Since both Dongio and Svetac agree that these are irrelevant and crappy (C) arguments to the topic "to have or not to have heroes in combat", I will go no deeper into this .
Svetac:
The catch with having both options (hero battling/staying out) is that there are too many options for the AI to handle reasonably well. I don't know about you, but when we play multi 1X1 we have 2-4 comps playing along and they provide the ambience and fun before we finally battle it out between ourselves. Also, the single player campaigns are a lot of fun with well-playing AI.
I would like NWC to take one path (with or without heroes on battlefield) and stay on it; make a good AI; concentrate on good game mechanics and atmosphere.
Both formulas can give tactical depth in battle.
I don't agree with the argument that leaving heroes out of the battle takes away half of the skills. There are countless possibilities for skills even when heroes are out of combat. We could have a separate thread on that, but since this board seems to favor heroes in battle, I don't think it's relevant
____________
|
|
Svetac
Promising
Known Hero
Saintified Paladin
|
|
posted November 28, 2002 02:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The catch with having both options (hero battling/staying out) is that there are too many options for the AI to handle reasonably well. I don't know about you, but when we play multi 1X1 we have 2-4 comps playing along and they provide the ambience and fun before we finally battle it out between ourselves. Also, the single player campaigns are a lot of fun with well-playing AI.
I think that the AI is actually good when it comes with heroes in combat, and even with the system I propose I don't think there will be some bigger problems. Because the AI's flaws in Heroes IV are not connected with the Heroes in combat but with other things.
But, if we look upon this from AI perspective, than again, the best way to go is to have the Heroes out of the battles. And I agree that there are plenty of skills that can make that feel refreshing and new experience once again. The fact is, I can live with heroes out of the battle only, but I cannot with heroes in the battle only
____________
--- Paladin of the Macedon ---
|
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2002 09:26 AM |
|
|
Yes, I also do not feel very well about heroes being a unit on the field. One of the reasons, I like the atmosphere of "hero=the phantom menace". Some present in their powerful attack and defense transferred to creatures and some with their mystical powers, but being much more Napoleon than William Wallace. Taking heroes to the battlefield destroys this mysticism and makes them ordinary guys with a bunch of skills but very succeptible to the chaos that is the battlefield.
While we have discussed the methods of giving a defensive edge, the main motivation for the "pro-hero-fighting" side is the possibility to kill the enemy hero and get rid of his/her influence on the battlefield. So this discussion is more of an interesting theoretical thing for me than my real preferences. I want immortal heroes, wise enough to run away/depart from battle/abandon your cause instead of staying and dying and being recycled like paper.
Those are very subjective reasons, but atmosphere is always subjective, and that is nothing to sneer at when designing a game. For me, ethereal heroes was an important part of atmosphere. I guess I was too afraid to accept that and therefore argued about the functionality instead
____________
|
|
Djive
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
|
|
posted December 07, 2002 10:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Taking heroes to the battlefield destroys this mysticism and makes them ordinary guys with a bunch of skills but very succeptible to the chaos that is the battlefield.
The her wasn't invulnerable in H3 either. It was as vulnerable as the army the hero carried.
Quote:
While we have discussed the methods of giving a defensive edge, the main motivation for the "pro-hero-fighting" side is the possibility to kill the enemy hero and get rid of his/her influence on the battlefield.
No actually, my motivation runs more along the lines of the following desired features:
- Being able to have several heroes in one army.
- Less likely that the player is more or less forced to develope one hero which is much better than the others (because Heroes can co-operate in combat).
- The skill selection becomes broader since some skills which improve a hero's fighting/magic abilities in combat are needed.
- The ability to have hero armies without any creatures in them (working as thieves and so on. A Thief would have to work very differently in H3.)
Quote:
I want immortal heroes, wise enough to run away/depart from battle/abandon your cause instead of staying and dying and being recycled like paper.
Well, I see fleeing to the tavern and then being re-recruited as being recycled as paper in very much the same way as staying and possibly getting killed and ressurrected.
The game mechanisms also works this way. If you had "Lose a hero loss condition", then you are not allowed to retreat/flee with that hero.
If anything your immortal hero has shown cowardice in battle. And from the hero perspective the player has placed hero in impossible position.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"
|
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2002 09:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, I see fleeing to the tavern and then being re-recruited as being recycled as paper in very much the same way as staying and possibly getting killed and ressurrected.
The game mechanisms also works this way. If you had "Lose a hero loss condition", then you are not allowed to retreat/flee with that hero.
If anything your immortal hero has shown cowardice in battle. And from the hero perspective the player has placed hero in impossible position.
I am nitpicking small problems of course. While I do not see fleeing to the tavern equal to dying and being resurrected (come on, it's death vs fleeing), the mortal/immortal hero concept doesn't affect the underlying game mechanism in a huge way. It is just a matter of preference.
Cowardice and immortality don't stack? The hero runs to avoid imprisonment, which is possible even for immortals. So there is a way to explain it for those who care.
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted December 11, 2002 11:00 PM |
|
|
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted December 12, 2002 08:09 AM |
|
|
William Wallace was a Scottish noble and fighter for independence in the times when Edward Longshanks was king of England.
I cannot say more than that but in "Braveheart" he was depicted often in the thick of battle. As opposed to Napoleon (or for ex. Edward Longshanks in the same movie), who is usually shown as standing on the hill giving orders.
I am not good at Scottish history though, so maybe someone can give you more insight.
____________
|
|
Nakolnasadi
Hired Hero
and also a lord of cheaters!
|
posted December 22, 2002 09:45 PM |
|
|
To make everyone happy?
Just let them not be they are not a soilders but a tacticks that'll be better!
____________
I forget something....... oh! A cheats is cool!!!!
|
|
Odvin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 22, 2002 10:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
William Wallace was a Scottish noble and fighter for independence in the times when Edward Longshanks was king of England.
I cannot say more than that but in "Braveheart" he was depicted often in the thick of battle. As opposed to Napoleon (or for ex. Edward Longshanks in the same movie), who is usually shown as standing on the hill giving orders.
I am not good at Scottish history though, so maybe someone can give you more insight.
Just play Age of Empires II tutorial campaign and learn his story (along with great gameplay)! 
____________
|
|
shaowei
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted December 24, 2002 08:46 AM |
|
|
Hey Odvin,
I just jumped into AOK random games at once. Don't really like their campaigns... That is one of the few instances where I rather read the "History section" in the game instead of playing through the campaign Oh yeah, and watch Braveheart, it's a great movie...
____________
|
|
Odvin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 24, 2002 03:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hey Odvin,
I just jumped into AOK random games at once. Don't really like their campaigns... That is one of the few instances where I rather read the "History section" in the game instead of playing through the campaign Oh yeah, and watch Braveheart, it's a great movie...
AOK? You mean AoE? Well, AoE2 is just my favourite real-time strategy. It could be Warcraft, but I haven't played the 3rd part yet, and Warcraft II is just too old now (but the music is great )
____________
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted July 25, 2003 09:49 PM |
|
|
the WoG team got it right. You hire a commander and that way a player can choose whether or not to have a hero in battle. The problem with Homm4 is that you have no choice.
You see a bit of creativity and you can please everyone.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
CountZero
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2003 05:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
that way a player can choose whether or not to have a hero in battle. The problem with Homm4 is that you have no choice.
A player can have a army, and battles, in H4 without a hero.
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
posted August 09, 2003 11:28 PM |
|
|
I like the Idea about unlocking speciaties!
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Odvin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2003 12:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A player can have a army, and battles, in H4 without a hero.
But then noone gets the Precious Experience 
Moderator's note:This topic has been closed, as it refers to an older version of the game. To discuss Heroes 3, please go to Library Of Enlightenment, to discuss Heroes 4, please go to War Room Of Axeoth, to discuss Heroes 5, go to Temple Of Ashan.
____________
|
|
|
|
