|
| Thread: Armies @ start of week? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
viking
Known Hero
Rock'n'Roll
|
posted July 10, 2004 07:57 PM |
|
|
I think that it should be as in Heroes 3 - all in Day One.
Then it wouldn't matter if you didn't have enough money. If you do have enough money buy them all in one turn. If you dont have enough money, just buy them through out the week, it will be like the heroes 4. 
____________
One powerful hero is good, two is better
|
|
DarkTitan
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2004 01:55 PM |
|
|
why not be able to choose?
I like hydras idea as most do. However does it hurry the growth - or give you a bigger army for the week?
I'm not sure i like it if its just changing so that u can get more troops in the week. That would change HOMM to be more like a Age of game. The tactics would be to get these buildings as quick as possible to get a huge army - and i dont think HOMM should be like that, just because i like the idea of being able to take any building structure route without ruining the game for yourself. It adds variety.
Also i like the once a week thing, but people complained of making it too 'predictable' in the sense of when you take castles. What if you elect which day your creatures arrived? The enemy wouldn't know and it adds more variety once again.
Just a thought.
____________
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted July 11, 2004 10:30 PM |
|
|
i think i like the first day of the week most, and polaris said the reasons quite nicely. and i don't think everything should be an option.
the only problem i see is that you don't care about owning your castles mid-week. maybe the number of creatures you get should depend on how early in the week you started to own the castle.
i mean, if you conquered the castle on day 4, you would get only 3/7 the creatures at the start of next week.
and imho it would be even better if the number of creatures would be rounded downwards, meaning that if dragon growth is 1 dragon per week and you conquered the castle on day 2, you wouldn't get any dragons at start of next week.
i think it would feel fair.
|
|
ThE_HyDrA
Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
|
posted July 19, 2004 08:32 AM |
|
|
Late Reply
It seems that discussion has continued after my post here. Not surprising, really, since I think this is an interesting topic; others must also feel this way about it.
Thanks, also for the positive comments on my idea.
Gerdash 1
"the 1-st day thing makes it easier too keep track of."
Perhaps too easy to keep track of. Seeing as everyone knows when the creatures will arrive, they will naturally try to capture it the day before. I see you address this in your last post, but I find it
a) coincidental
b) detrimental
to the gameplay engine when everyone in the kingdom gets their troops on the same day. The reason why I think b) is valid is because it is easy to predict and is a continuous act: capture castles on day 7. I will discuss the thought you had lastly.
"i.e. no matter what day of the week it is, after conquering a castle you have to wait for 7 days to get new creatures."
This would throw the 'week' into disarray. Since you capture the castle on day 4, then the week will always be day 4 for your particular town. This is out of synchronisation with everything else. If you were to have multiple towns, this would be especially difficult. If you tried to revert back to the week, as in following the new week growth again, the wait of 7 days would become redundant - as you compensate for it anyway.
Polaris
"One change I think they should make though, when you first build the structure it should have more than 1 weeks worth of troops in it. This would help with the early game, and also with development of late game towns."
Hmmm. I'm not sure about this one. I would even question if it should begin with any creatures, becuase it's rather quizzical to believe that there are already 4 medusas waiting for you just as the structure has been built. While that way is probably realistic, it doesn't work in the game because the purchase of the structure would be somewhat redundant since you don't begin with anything. Therefore, I would like to seek a compromise of half of the weeks units, rounded upwards. This wouldn't incur a too sizeable advantage when erecting the structure.
Barbarian
"hydra didn't u say that u r like the producer of ubisoft, well if u really are hope you can tell us if it will be like it soon i would like to know"
Thanks for the kind words, but I am afraid that you mistake me for someone else. The person that works for Ubisoft is MuadDib, i.e. Fabrice Cambounet. I am merely in contact with him, and have sent some ideas from Heroes Community a few months ago, but it appears that he has disappeared, pardon the pun, so I can't relay anything at the moment. I can't tell you anything which isn't already in my Heroes V Overview. Sorry.
DarkTitan
"That would change HOMM to be more like a Age of game."
I don't really see the correlation between my idea and the Age of... series. My idea focuses with being able to build structures that allow for creature growth to be heightened. To give an example, there would be a Dragon Cave as the base dwelling. That could be upgraded to a Dragon Lair, then a Dragon Cache. The last one would be more luxurious and provide better conditions for growth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you buy units at any time in the Age of... games?
"What if you elect which day your creatures arrived? The enemy wouldn't know and it adds more variety once again."
That is a fair thought, but you would have to disregard the 'week' idea which seems to be liked by many. I too like the idea, but I would much rather have 'Special Days' (Djive's idea) or the week not being connected to creature growth.
Gerdash 2
"i mean, if you conquered the castle on day 4, you would get only 3/7 the creatures at the start of next week."
This is a good idea, but what would stop the person who captured the castle from getting all the creatures if the player who previously owned the castle didn't recruit them? Did they rebel? Did they not want to join their cause? Perhaps some elucidation is in order on this one. It is an intriguing idea, though, Gerdash.
Once again, I apologise for the late reply, thanks for taking the time to read my proposal. 
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted July 19, 2004 04:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Gerdash 2
"i mean, if you conquered the castle on day 4, you would get only 3/7 the creatures at the start of next week."
This is a good idea, but what would stop the person who captured the castle from getting all the creatures if the player who previously owned the castle didn't recruit them? Did they rebel? Did they not want to join their cause? Perhaps some elucidation is in order on this one.
yes, in this idea there seems to be a gap in creature growth if the castle was conquered mid-week.
that same problem has plagued us before. it's probably a topic for a discussion of same scope as here.
i guess we would have to make clear why the creatures become available for recruitment and how much they care about whom they serve. i.e. are they like the samurai who committed suicide if their master was defeated, or are they like mercenaries who serve whoever they can make a contract with, or something in between.
some alternatives that i have thought about since we last discussed it are:
1. the simple one: when a castle is conquered all unrecruited creatures commit suicide or go home or whatever. i.e. all unrecruited creatures disappear.
2. recruitable creatures are nobles who's vassal duty (or citizen duty in the case of low levels, maybe) is to protect the castle. so, when a castle is attacked, all unrecruited creatures can be used in castle defense. they already have a liability to the owner of the castle because they own some property that is probably some land around the castle and some peasants that work for them (or are granted protection in the case of lower levels maybe). but if you want to take them out of their homes in an army then you have to pay them some more, and that's the recruitment cost. in this case, the unrecruited creatures die in castle defense (unless there is an option of surrendering).
3. creatures make an investment by preparing to join the army of a specific kingdom, but once they have already become recruitable (they have made the investment of training and equipping themselves), they serve whatever kingdom. in this case, the gap in creature growth if the castle was conquered mid-week would be explained. well, this doesn't feel very intuitive, and imho that's bad. but it is an alternative nevertheless, so i wrote it down.
i like the 2. alternative most, because i guess it might resemble the feudal society best. i admit that it would mean some gameplay change. i havn't thought about it so thoroughly yet, it may to have some good sides and some bad sides, so i can't say if it would be good or bad. i guess it would be a topic to discuss, again.
this thread seems to be about continuous vs periodical creature growth. what do you think, are discussions about:
a. the attitude of recruitable creatures
b. unrecruited creatures being usable in castle defense
c. what a recruitable creature is
in the scope of this thread? maybe all this should be discussed here?
what i do think is surely in the scope of this thread is discussions about how knighting was performed in feudal times. i.e. was it done on some specific periodical event or was it done whenever needed? were there exceptions and if there were, then how often? unfortunately, i am not a historian, and i am incompetent to answer those questions. and maybe we should get some opinions about what a recruitable creature is before we can be sure that we are talking about the same thing.
|
|
draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 19, 2004 04:55 PM |
|
|
here is my idea.
if you conquer a town, you have to wait until day 7 of the following week so you still want to capture it on day 6 or 7. but you wont receive a huge boost in army strenth from the new weeks units.
Also when you conquer a town, approximately 50% rounded down of the unrequited units, are killed by rioting or whatever.
//or//
are castle will be defended by 30-50% of its unrecruited army and when those units die in combat you may no longer recruit them. they also have 50% HP (do to not being trained) so you had beter recruit them or face losing them twice as fast if you are attacked.
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted July 20, 2004 05:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1. the simple one: when a castle is conquered all unrecruited creatures commit suicide or go home or whatever. i.e. all unrecruited creatures disappear.
Okay, at first glance this seems the most viable option, then a bit more thought on the matter makes me think that it could be detrimental to gameplay.
By taking out an army and leaving your castle virtually undefended you ARE inviting attack. But what if you're not buyng your creatures for a specific reason, ie- saving for a top level structure or capitol, and a real weak army comes and captures your castle.
Say on the next turn you can recapture the castle...now all those creatures you had waiting in the wings are gone? That would probably make gamers more than mad.
Quote:
2. recruitable creatures are nobles who's vassal duty (or citizen duty in the case of low levels, maybe) is to protect the castle. so, when a castle is attacked, all unrecruited creatures can be used in castle defense.
No, this is way too big a departure from the way HOMM games have previouly operated.
If you have a lot of troops to buy, why worry about buying them for castle defense if you can save you money and get the castle defended anyways?
Quote:
3. creatures make an investment by preparing to join the army of a specific kingdom, but once they have already become recruitable (they have made the investment of training and equipping themselves
Which is pretty much the way the game is played now isn't it?
a. the attitude of recruitable creatures
I would say that not all of the 'nobles' should want to join your cause, and maybe a period of 'revolt', where you get reduced creature growth should follow the taking of a town. This could be offset by installing a governor via the Nobility skill - get a noble to talk to the nobles.
b. unrecruited creatures being usable in castle defense
As above - reply to 2nd quote
c. what a recruitable creature is
Is it a 'medusa' noble? Or just a trained medusa warrior?
I'd say the second option, the only 'visible' nobles in the game would be the heroes after all. Maybe the leader of the medusa community would be the one in the dwelling that is responsible for training your recruitable medusa warriors
Quote:
what i do think is surely in the scope of this thread is discussions about how knighting was performed in feudal times. i.e. was it done on some specific periodical event or was it done whenever needed? were there exceptions and if there were, then how often?
I too am not a student of history, but I do remember hearing of the tradition that 'any knight can make a knight'.
In the early English ingdom, there were not only the lords and the knights of their standing armies - there were also what were called 'hedge-knights'.
These were unafiliated knights who travelled the countryside as a sort of disassociated police force, they held all the holy vows that regular knights took, and competed in jousting competitions etc, but had no alleigance to no particular lord.
As such, they often had at least one squire that they were training to be a knight. Whereas lords usually held their knighting ceremonies on some Saint's Day or other, hedge knights could perform this duty 'in the field' and then the new knight would register with a crown magistrate with his sponsor standing witness for him.
Though what this exactly has to do with future HOMM games escapes me at the minute.
Hopefully you'll explain in your next post.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted July 20, 2004 01:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
3. creatures make an investment by preparing to join the army of a specific kingdom, but once they have already become recruitable (they have made the investment of training and equipping themselves
Which is pretty much the way the game is played now isn't it?
those who were preparing to join army of kingdom X in the beginning of the week, drop their plans when castle is conquered by kingdom Y mid-week. the sole purpose was to explain the gap that is caused by beginning of the week part of creature growth disappearing. as i said, imho it feels too much artificial.
Quote:
Quote:
2. recruitable creatures are nobles who's vassal duty (or citizen duty in the case of low levels, maybe) is to protect the castle. so, when a castle is attacked, all unrecruited creatures can be used in castle defense.
No, this is way too big a departure from the way HOMM games have previouly operated.
If you have a lot of troops to buy, why worry about buying them for castle defense if you can save you money and get the castle defended anyways?
well.. if building and training was done according to the production points idea, then you wouldn't have the recruitable creatures if you wanted to build instead. i agree that one way or another, this would probably mean a departure from homm ways. but on the other hand, imho it's extremely logical that every warrior will defend his home castle, not sit and watch while other kingdom concuers it and recruits him. and maybe this would also speed up the game a bit, and avoid some of the silly situations when you don't have your castle protected.
Quote:
c. what a recruitable creature is
Is it a 'medusa' noble? Or just a trained medusa warrior?
I'd say the second option, the only 'visible' nobles in the game would be the heroes after all. Maybe the leader of the medusa community would be the one in the dwelling that is responsible for training your recruitable medusa warriors
i think that in a suitable aligned kingdom, medusa (or gorgon rather) should be a noble rather than peasant. nobles have privileges and liability to fight, don't they? if the nobles didn't fight, would the peasants want to pay the rent? i thought that if the peasants didn't pay rent, the nobles would fight to make the peasants pay the rent. and if someone wanted to make the peasants pay the rent to someone else, the nobles would again fight against that someone else. so, imho the warriors have to be nobles or at least privileged citizens. peasants just serve the nobles (if they don't rebel).
so, atm i am quite against warriors belonging to a non-privileged class. what feels so awkward about a gorgon noble in dungeon town? what would feel awkward about a demon noble in inferno town? imho it feels a lot more natural that you give the gorgon some privileges for which she is liable to serve you as a warrior.
Quote:
Whereas lords usually held their knighting ceremonies on some Saint's Day or other, hedge knights could perform this duty 'in the field' and then the new knight would register with a crown magistrate with his sponsor standing witness for him.
Though what this exactly has to do with future HOMM games escapes me at the minute.
Hopefully you'll explain in your next post.
if it was done periodically then i support it being done periodically in homm also. and i think i rather feel that the hedge knights was some pragmatic compromise or exception, and that the real tradition was the knighting ceremonies on saint's day. and the hedge knights still had to registrate with a crown magistrate who was probably not available 24/7.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted July 21, 2004 08:08 AM |
|
|
Sorry for not being too much involved recently, but I'll try to give all my opinions in this one post.
Before you guys start talking about washing detergents, I'd like to put you back on track. Heroes, gameplay, recruitment, how often and so on. Not knights, feudals, history and identification with how the "unrecruited creatures feel about their lord".
Not that these things are unimportant, but I think our primary concern should be the gameplay, not if it projects reality. This is not a simulation, you know.
Anyway, I think once the best solution having in mind the gameplay only is found, it is very easy to come up with a logical way to explain the rules in terms of feelings and loyalty.
One of the proposals made was about letting the unrecruited creatures fight in a siege. Not viable imo. Firstly, because you didnt pay for them. No money, no music.
Maybe if it's accidentally empty town, there can be something like three level 1 creatures defending the town (plus the towers), but I dont think the player deserves more for the creatures that he didnt recruit.
The other proposal which had something to do with the unrecruited creatures was about their destiny after the town is conquered by the enemy. Well, this seems more reasonable. But the one reason that distracts me from this is that there's the danger of an enemy scout hero capturing your castle (lucky bastard) while your main's out wandering somewhere, and that would kill your unrecruited ones. Not fair.
BUT, maybe it can kill only a percentage of unrecruited, maybe those unrecruited can be more expensive initially, maybe they can be forbidden for recruitement during the first several days, maybe they can rebel or something if they are 10-20 times stronger than him, maybe...
But here's the best part. I'm in favor of town diversity, so it's possible to assign every type of town one of these unrecruited troops types of behaviors. They are minor (won't do much unfairness) and will reflect the attitude and "culture" of the specific town better. (like for example, infernos are most loyal and they wont be recruitable at all during the first 7 days for instance)
On to the frequency of recruiting.
Well, as I said, I'm in favor of the dribs and drabs method more than the 1 week one. But hydra's idea is great, since it kinda balances them. You've got the relative predictability of creature availability, plus the relative unpredictability for the enemy.
The reasons that Polaris mentioned about why he likes the one-week method more. Well, they are valid, that's for sure. But, I dont think that the difference between experienced and unexperienced players should be measured by how they manage to utilize their time between two weeks. Often the terrain is different, so sometimes you cannot just maximize the effectiveness of using your time wisely. Sometimes, it's likely that you screw up. Sometimes, you have nothing better to do, so you just wait for day 7 around your town. Other times, you have lots to do, but you are still tied up with day 7. And these situations would be avoided with Hydra's balancing idea. It (the one-day week recruitement) is also about experience, but since the terrain around two towns is different, I think we should level it down to talent, where luck has too much say into things.
I dont know if I was clear, but anyway. Another bigger problem also remains and that is the catch with the opponents conquering your castle on day 7. You know the implications of that, but gerdash solution caught my eye. Let's take a look at that closer.
Quote:
"i mean, if you conquered the castle on day 4, you would get only 3/7 the creatures at the start of next week."
This is very nice. But what's the reason we are all snowing about the enemy conquering the castle on day 7? Isn't it that he buys our army before we have the chance to reconquer the town and buy it ourselves?
Yeah, that's the biggest inconvenience with that I think. (and the Capitol problem)
So, if this is what we have to have in mind, then what will happen, gerdash, in a situation where the computer conqueres our town day 7, and we reconquer it in the next week? Do we get to recruit the creatures we "raised" in the previous week or are they lost?
If this improvement of yours is added in the actual game I will have no much trouble with the one-week method, but I would still prefer Hydra's sophisticated version of Asmo's idea.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted July 21, 2004 04:38 PM |
|
|
svarog:
Quote:
So, if this is what we have to have in mind, then what will happen, gerdash, in a situation where the computer conqueres our town day 7, and we reconquer it in the next week? Do we get to recruit the creatures we "raised" in the previous week or are they lost?
the very idea of this proposal was that we shouldn't let the enemy conquer our castle whatever day of the week while keeping the 1-st day of the week recruitment. i really don't know the perfect solution to the recruitment gap problem if unrecruited creatures don't fight. i havn't thought about it lately, because.. well.. maybe i just find more radical ideas like making unrecruited creatures defend the castle more interesting to think about.
Quote:
there's the danger of an enemy scout hero capturing your castle (lucky bastard) while your main's out wandering somewhere, and that would kill your unrecruited ones.
btw, if unrecruited creatures had to commit suicide if the castle was conquered, wouldn't they rather fight in order to not let anyone conquer the castle?
if the unrecruited creatures fought in castle defense, the problem of unrecruited creatures would be eliminated. the more i think about it, the more natural it seems to me. now that i have had time to think about it a little more, it would indeed turn a part of the game economy upside down.
how important wuold that part be is another question. when the troops sit at home and you cannot go exploring and conquering with them, they aren't much good, so you would probably want to recruit all available creatures anyway.
Quote:
One of the proposals made was about letting the unrecruited creatures fight in a siege. Not viable imo. Firstly, because you didnt pay for them. No money, no music.
you conquered the castle. imho it only feels natural that the creatures of the castle that you don't own won't fight for you. but if you own the castle i don't see such great problems here.
another question would be the case when e.g. barbarians own a wizard castle. assuming that the wizards don't like the barbarians owning their castle, what would happen if a wizard army came to conquer that castle? would a considerable part of the wizard creatures avoid showing up at the castle defense and be recruitable if the castle was conquered by wizard?
if you are talking about gameplay first, logic second, i hope you have made clear to yourself the reasons why this would be so bad for the gameplay. so you could share perhaps?
all i could think of was the case when you wanted to build higher level dwellings while recruiting an army would cost more than the gold you would get exploring the surrounding lands with that army. i.e. if recruiting an army didn't pay off. in that case, if an enemy attacked you, you would get your castle defense for free.
given some time, this problem might be solved in a playable way maybe.
========
i also want to say that the proposal of getting less creatures at start of next week if you conquered the castle mid-week doesn't completely eliminate all the problems pointed out with continuous creature growth nor the problems with the traditional first day of the week growth. you can still count the days when you have to conquer a castle to get one more high level creature next week. the proposal only softens the problem a little. continous creature growth is rather clear to everyone, imho there's little to discuss.
as usual, i suggest to discuss the possible alternatives and additions, no matter that most of it should be left out in the end to make it playable, like the level of abstraction has always bees somewhat high in homm. but if there was no discussion before the final solution, i doubt we would have e.g. the morale system the way it is in homm. i mean, there are many simplifications in homm, but they seem to be done in a competent way.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted July 21, 2004 07:35 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 21 Jul 2004
|
Quote:
the very idea of this proposal was that we shouldn't let the enemy conquer our castle whatever day of the week while keeping the 1-st day of the week recruitment. i really don't know the perfect solution to the recruitment gap problem if unrecruited creatures don't fight.
But there, you gave the solution. Isn't it that in order to get the number of creatures on day 1 of the week, you are required to "breed" them during the week. If you breed them for 2 days only you get only 2/7 of the creatures and so on. Doesn't this solve the problem?
But my question was: what happens if you reconquer the town, and you have creatures that you had breed there (didnt show up for recruitment for the enemy)? Do you get to recruit them now or don't?
Quote:
btw, if unrecruited creatures had to commit suicide if the castle was conquered, wouldn't they rather fight in order to not let anyone conquer the castle?
There, you're going with hte logic/reality thing again. Who says they should commit suicide? Maybe they just left the castle or hid somewhere, cos they dont wanna be recruited by someone who they've been taught to hate.
But it's not logical for them to fight, since nobody paid them. Even more important, it discredits the whole system of economics and recruiting creatures. Imagine a situation when I conquer a city with castle and a dragon dwelling, but I dont have the money to buy the dragons and all the other creatures. How likely is it someone to conquer that castle after a month for example? So, creatures are not just meant to serve in the army, but a town defenders that you didnt paid anything for their service would be disastrous.
Quote:
another question would be the case when e.g. barbarians own a wizard castle. assuming that the wizards don't like the barbarians owning their castle, what would happen if a wizard army came to conquer that castle? would a considerable part of the wizard creatures avoid showing up at the castle defense and be recruitable if the castle was conquered by wizard?
Provided they (barbarians) owned the castle for the entire week - Yes, certainly. Don't rely too much on logic and reality. This game is about strategy and playability. If you cannot justify modifications with gameplay, imo they are not to be even considered.
If you try to find the logic in that, then maybe it's just that the barbarians were training wizard creature for the entire week, so now they are willing to serve only to them.
But if there were unrecruited creatures left from previously when the wizards owned the castle, then they shouldn't be reduced or unwilling to fight or anything.
Think about it like this: the unrecruited creatures are loyal to the one who owned the castle during their "breeding" (the end of the week). Anyone else who conqueres a castle suffers from their "unloyal behavior", but those are only minor penalties (I already mentioned those).
BUt the creatures that are not yet ready for recruitment (i.e. are bred during the week) will only turn up for recruitement (end of the week) in the amount which is proportional to the amount of days, during which time the player who owns the castle at the end of the week, has had it in posession.
Quote:
if you are talking about gameplay first, logic second, i hope you have made clear to yourself the reasons why this would be so bad for the gameplay. so you could share perhaps?
I thought I already did. OK, one more time. It ruins the economy part of the game, too much advantage to the side which has the same type of creatures (as in your barbarian/wizard example) etc.
Quote:
all i could think of was the case when you wanted to build higher level dwellings while recruiting an army would cost more than the gold you would get exploring the surrounding lands with that army. i.e. if recruiting an army didn't pay off.
But I'm not saying that recruiting an army doesn't pay off. But having town defence, also has to be worth something, not just mare posession of the town, or alignment matching.
Quote:
i also want to say that the proposal of getting less creatures at start of next week if you conquered the castle mid-week doesn't completely eliminate all the problems pointed out with continuous creature growth nor the problems with the traditional first day of the week growth. you can still count the days when you have to conquer a castle to get one more high level creature next week. the proposal only softens the problem a little. continous creature growth is rather clear to everyone, imho there's little to discuss.
I absolutely agree.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Polaris
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2004 02:42 AM |
|
|
Can someone explain to me why it is a problem that you can conquer a castle on day 7 and get all the new recruits? Honestly, I don't understand why this is something that needs to be "solved". The other player knows what happens when you get his castle, so it's his tough luck if he can't defend it. So what if you get all the troops?
And everybody talks as if there is no reason whatsoever to conquer a castle on any day but 7 under Heroes 1-3 system. I beg to differ.
____________
|
|
KleinCavalier
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 16, 2004 12:51 AM |
|
|
It would be possible to split the difference --- half, or a quarter, of the troops arrive on day 1, and the remaining troopers trickle in... As far as unrecruited, the old way was fine with me. Peasants didn't much care about who their lord was, so long as they weren't overly taxed, and mercenaries, having certain needs met (structures) may fight for anyone. You do have to buy the units, after all.
Other ideas, you could have a tax/population balance - money vs. troops. Also, after the 'given' troops that normally come, you could 'force' production of troops, but the troops may cost double, or even x10, the original amount.
All in all, I like the H4 way better, but the old way had its merits.
____________
|
|
smuheron
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 16, 2004 08:24 AM |
|
|
I Totally agree with you Polaris and I would add that weekly creature genereation brings some sort of adrenaline into the game. Also it can make me risk more to fight for resources in the early beginning to gain, for example two Gold Dragons advantage. On the other hand if you build creature structure earlier without gold in your pocket, you also risk to be plagued... more fun, more options... that is what we want...
Using weekly creature generation can be a good for making a good scenario event ("Pass this way only 3rd day in the week").
If it is done daily, we will loose the whole concept of the game.
Nobility and that staff... I would leave it as it was in Homm 3... creature dvellings, grail, artifacts... that is enough I think.
Thanks for reading... I am new in the forum, but very experienced Homm player, basically unbeaten... haha.
Regards
____________
|
|
Boot
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
that will eat you......ALIVE!
|
posted September 17, 2004 03:30 AM |
|
|
I'm not sure
____________
|
|
armageddonic...
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2004 06:46 PM |
|
|
I prefer hommiv style (dribs and drabs), but since I guess some prefer the other way, I would like to be able to choose at the beginning of the map, or in options
____________
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted September 24, 2004 03:28 PM |
|
|
svarog:Quote:
But it's not logical for them to fight, since nobody paid them.
imho it is logical that unrecruited troops fight because they enjoy the privileged status in your kingdom instead of being peasants.
let's have a more down-to-earth example, a knight. you have a few knights in the kingdom who posess some land with peasants. peasants aren't recruitable as knights because their blood isn't blue enough. so, if you have recruitable knights then there must be some knights in the kingdom.
you can call them to duty (or how you say it), i.e. get them to the army and attack some distant land. the knights would like to drink beer in the castle and not travel anywhere, so you have to pay something in order to make them leave the castle.
but if an enemy attacks, wouldn't the knights defend their beloved castle which grants them their property of land and peasants?
the question is how it could work without castles becoming invincible after some recruiting inactivity (as far as i understand what you are trying to say).
what i would try would be:
1. building a knight "dwelling" means that you enable the more "powerful" peasants to become knights.
2. treat the unrecruited knights as existing knights (also meaning that they fight in defense).
3. introduce army upkeep cost (and maybe have no recruitment cost) which would mean that you pay for travelling expenses and some extra. maybe there could be some other ways of doing this, e.g. some pillage sort of things.
4. introduce some limit of how many knights can be recruitable. this could be done by introducing some population value to castles. say, you can have 1 knight per 100 peasants, if there are only 2000 peasants in the land controlled by the castle, the maximum number of recruitable knights that you can see in the castle screen would be 2000/100=20. if you recruit some of them, the number of recruitable knights slowly starts to grow back until it reaches 20 again.
or you could do it so that the recruitable knights only grow back if the recruited knight dies. but then i guess you would have to keep track of what knight was from what castle. or else you could recruit any knight from any castle. it would mean a bit different way of handling things (maybe it's not worth discussing those details right now).
========
Polaris:Quote:
Can someone explain to me why it is a problem that you can conquer a castle on day 7 and get all the new recruits?
....
And everybody talks as if there is no reason whatsoever to conquer a castle on any day but 7 under Heroes 1-3 system. I beg to differ.
well, you could have a few extra gold. but if gold is not the problem but recruitable creatures is, then i don't care who owns my castle all the week long as soon as i can reconquer it when the new recruits arrive. and i feel that this is not how a good king should treat his castles.
i guess a partial solution to the problem could be tremendously increasing the defendability of the castles while enabling the siegers to camp at the gates and wait until the defenders start to starve. i think that system could be ok but i hope that we could find a solution that deals with the problem more directly.
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted September 26, 2004 01:58 AM |
|
|
Gerdash, I don’t think I will ever agree with thy radical approach to change the way the economy in heroes functions. According to your solution, you imagine that the “king” will supposed to pay for the beer of the “knight”, while the knight will willingly fight for his beloved king. Lets say I can somehow swallow this, but what about the other non-knightish creatures? It’s many times more logical to me, to have places where the creatures dwell and to obtain their faithful service you’d have to pay them, or the one who breeded and trained them, as it is now. Apart from that, any gameplay gains your proposal might bring?
I can see only drawbacks, such as that the outside mines completely lose their importance, and all it takes for a player is to build all dwellings and not to move from his castle an inch, and he’s got roughly an equal army as his opponent, if not stronger (the opponent loses some, fighting the independent creatures). In one word – a complete disaster for one town maps, and a huge emphasis on the cost of town buildings, a concept which was so far imo rightfully marginalized.
Hew, how far we went off topic, huh? 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
DARKMASTER
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2004 08:56 PM |
|
|
|
i just got this Super! idea! WHAT IF........we only got ONE creature a week that was EXTREMELY powerful!!!ALLRIGTH!
|
|
gerdash
Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
|
|
posted September 27, 2004 12:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
According to your solution, you imagine that the “king” will supposed to pay for the beer of the “knight”, while the knight will willingly fight for his beloved king.
no, the king doesn't pay for the beer, the king grants them land property and peasants in exchange for military service. wasn't it like that in medieval times? if it was, then how can something so illogical have lasted so long?
Quote:
Lets say I can somehow swallow this, but what about the other non-knightish creatures?
i said that e.g. a medusa can be a noble in appropriate town (of course it's not human town). and a demon can be a noble in another town. i didn't get any objections, so i thought it was ok.
lowest level troops could be commoners, but this might get too complicated right now.
Quote:
It’s many times more logical to me, to have places where the creatures dwell and to obtain their faithful service you’d have to pay them, or the one who breeded and trained them, as it is now.
if you think that the one who breeds and trains them has a duty to do so, then it might be that we think of more or less the same thing.
Quote:
Apart from that, any gameplay gains your proposal might bring?
no direct gains. maybe it will lead to an answer to the question of the thread.
Quote:
I can see only drawbacks, such as that the outside mines completely lose their importance, ....
how do the outside mines loose their importance?
Quote:
.... and all it takes for a player is to build all dwellings and not to move from his castle an inch, and he’s got roughly an equal army as his opponent, if not stronger (the opponent loses some, fighting the independent creatures). In one word – a complete disaster for one town maps, and a huge emphasis on the cost of town buildings, a concept which was so far imo rightfully marginalized.
'complete disaster' for one person may be 'something to think about' for another.
btw he's got roughly equal army as the opponent only if we go with the rule that every knight family produces one knight and if that knight dies the family produces another. and this was only one of the alternatives about which i did mention that it seemed to have some difficulties and said that 'maybe it's not worth discussing those details right now'. so this was the alternative that seemed more interesting to you and you wanted to discuss it?
maybe it's reasoning is more solid indeed. and maybe you don't really have to keep track of what knight was from where but can do it with probabilities.
if we have creature rank upgrades based on their behaviour in battle and more than just one creature level (knight), then the housekeeper style player's army is a lot weaker even if he doesn't have less creatures than the explorer. which would get us to the discussion of why a rank of nobility cannot be gained/is more difficult to gain outside battle.
or there could be some other way how the explorer gets the benefit. maybe the sites that he conquers have some popolation associated to them, so the amount of usable populated land increases in the nearest castle, meaning that you can recruit more.
|
| |
|
|
