|
| Thread: Battle mechanics for future HoMM(s) | |
|
nik718
Tavern Dweller
|
posted October 23, 2009 04:29 PM |
|
|
Battle mechanics for future HoMM(s)
Since battle is the core element of the game, I think that more of an effort should be made in improving existing battle system to match more "realistic", more tactical and most importantly, more fun commandment of an army. Therefore, I propose some conceptual ideas:
1. Hexagon grid field - it is much more "natural" to the movement of the stack of units and it also negates diagonal "advantages" which can be aquired on squared grid field.
2. Hero should have "area of influence" around him in which he can command stacks and collide them with stacks of opposing army or even opposing Heroes.
3. Hero should be given ability to move and even to flee the battle, while losing some of or all of its army.
2. Battle map should be relatively endless, with boundaries of the battle collision between two (or more!) heroes as overlapping field of their "battle areas". If units should leave Heroes "area of influence" they would 1) flee, 2) surrender, 3) idle/skip turns. Since Hero should be able to move around the field, this option would give the battle mechanics and playability great tactical and strategical depth instead of just pounding two armies against each other on a fixed (small) number of fields. Heroes area of influence should be also fun thing to work with on skill tree, for example, improve size of AOI, improving bonuses to units that are closer to hero, etc.
3. Battle map should have some form of natural proportions, for example, one field grid should contain ONE and only one type of unit and should be relative to the size of the biggest unit meant in game (example: Dragon).. so it would be roughly 20x20meters. On such imaginary field, one field would stack, for example, maximum of 800 swordsmans, 400 archers, 100 knights, 10 angels etc etc. Given the fact that it would represent battle in more natural proportions, before the battle, there should be definitely more that 7 unit stack slots to manage in battle. For purpose of carrying army around the world map, IMHO 7-10 slots are more than enough.
4. Natural proportion obstances on battlefield, River, Forrest, Lake etc., also higher, lower ground, for example, 3 levels of hill field grids, plain and 3 levels of depression field grid. I hate to see tree stump that is barrier to pass for 875 footmans on HOMM5. 
That is it for now! thanks for reading..
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
posted October 24, 2009 01:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. Hexagon grid field - it is much more "natural" to the movement of the stack of units and it also negates diagonal "advantages" which can be aquired on squared grid field.
Nah, H5 has mechanics to limit said 'advantages', and squares provide a better possible variety of unit sizes (hexagonal gives you 1, 2 or 7 hexes, square gives you 1, 2 (long or wide), 4, 6 (long or wide) or 9).
Quote:
2. Hero should have "area of influence" around him in which he can command stacks and collide them with stacks of opposing army or even opposing Heroes.
I don't think I quite got this, could you give me an example of how this would work?
Quote:
3. Hero should be given ability to move and even to flee the battle, while losing some of or all of its army.
Agreed, although you'll have to explain it a bit better, because it sounds barely any different from our current situation.
Quote:
2. Battle map should be relatively endless, with boundaries of the battle collision between two (or more!) heroes as overlapping field of their "battle areas". If units should leave Heroes "area of influence" they would 1) flee, 2) surrender, 3) idle/skip turns. Since Hero should be able to move around the field, this option would give the battle mechanics and playability great tactical and strategical depth instead of just pounding two armies against each other on a fixed (small) number of fields. Heroes area of influence should be also fun thing to work with on skill tree, for example, improve size of AOI, improving bonuses to units that are closer to hero, etc.
About the only bit of this I like this is the idea that battlefields could be larger, I certainly don't like the idea that they could exceed a certain size, and I passionately disagree with the concept of heroes generating 'areas of influence'.
Quote:
3. Battle map should have some form of natural proportions, for example, one field grid should contain ONE and only one type of unit and should be relative to the size of the biggest unit meant in game (example: Dragon).. so it would be roughly 20x20meters. On such imaginary field, one field would stack, for example, maximum of 800 swordsmans, 400 archers, 100 knights, 10 angels etc etc. Given the fact that it would represent battle in more natural proportions, before the battle, there should be definitely more that 7 unit stack slots to manage in battle. For purpose of carrying army around the world map, IMHO 7-10 slots are more than enough.
Nah, no proportions, a stack can hold a set number of units, and any slot that has more than that number is automatically split into two or more stacks.
Quote:
4. Natural proportion obstances on battlefield, River, Forrest, Lake etc., also higher, lower ground, for example, 3 levels of hill field grids, plain and 3 levels of depression field grid. I hate to see tree stump that is barrier to pass for 875 footmans on HOMM5.
Most of this makes sense, except to note that a forest or river is no more an obstacle than a tree-stump
|
|
nik718
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted October 25, 2009 01:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
1. Hexagon grid field
Nah, H5 has mechanics to limit said 'advantages', and squares provide a better possible variety of unit sizes (hexagonal gives you 1, 2 or 7 hexes, square gives you 1, 2 (long or wide), 4, 6 (long or wide) or 9).
Yes, it does, but I have a feeling that overlapping of one unit type over two or more fields came more of a VISUAL depiction of a size of the unit, rather than to improve playability and natural proportion of a battle. I strongly believe that one grid field should contain one and only one type of unit. To resolve that, making a square/hexagon as big as "biggest" unit in the game and scale it down toward other units via maximum number per field per unit type. Imagine - chess. Just as an example, you have typical battle situation that contains 200 footmens and lets say, one dragon. By current battle scenario you have dragon occupying 4 fields and 200 footmans just one. In no kind of a world that would be the case. In natural proportion presentation, 200 footmans should take at least 2 fields (2x 100 units), while dragons should take just one.
Quote:
Quote:
2. "area of influence"
I don't think I quite got this, could you give me an example of how this would work?
Every hero would have a circlar sector in front of him (lets say 120 degrees) which would enclose all units he commands. When two heroes go to battle, those circular sectors overlap each other and on those fields is where battle is. In the start of the battle there should be little overlapping and in the end, there should be more since heroes would move close to be able to attack last rows of enemy units. Ofcourse, this is in rough, since the battle mechanics would allow much strategical and tactical placement and movements. It would be more complex but highly much FUN. Battles would last longer.. more turns.
Also, I would like to have units that have 2 phases in their turn. 1) MOVE, 2) attack/cast/defend.
Quote:
Nah, no proportions, a stack can hold a set number of units, and any slot that has more than that number is automatically split into two or more stacks.
Once again, If you have a army of 1000 axemans, no way they should all be able to occupy 1 field. In battle, they should occupy 10x100 fields. And why is having natural proportion on the unit size/stack size such a problem?
Quote:
obstances
Most of this makes sense, except to note that a forest or river is no more an obstacle than a tree-stump
Agreed. But visual depiction is flawing. Having a drawn lake instead of tree stump would certanly help as it would be more natural to have units not able to pass it, rather than a tree root.
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 25, 2009 07:26 PM |
|
Edited by MattII at 19:29, 25 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
Yes, it does, but I have a feeling that overlapping of one unit type over two or more fields came more of a VISUAL depiction of a size of the unit, rather than to improve playability and natural proportion of a battle. I strongly believe that one grid field should contain one and only one type of unit. To resolve that, making a square/hexagon as big as "biggest" unit in the game and scale it down toward other units via maximum number per field per unit type. Imagine - chess. Just as an example, you have typical battle situation that contains 200 footmens and lets say, one dragon. By current battle scenario you have dragon occupying 4 fields and 200 footmans just one. In no kind of a world that would be the case. In natural proportion presentation, 200 footmans should take at least 2 fields (2x 100 units), while dragons should take just one.
Too complex (you'd have work out a size for each and every unit), the way we've got it now works well enough, and if you want to improve it just use a few more sizes, and limited number stacks (as I suggested here).
Quote:
Every hero would have a circlar sector in front of him (lets say 120 degrees) which would enclose all units he commands. When two heroes go to battle, those circular sectors overlap each other and on those fields is where battle is. In the start of the battle there should be little overlapping and in the end, there should be more since heroes would move close to be able to attack last rows of enemy units. Ofcourse, this is in rough, since the battle mechanics would allow much strategical and tactical placement and movements. It would be more complex but highly much FUN. Battles would last longer.. more turns.
Complex 'and' unrealistic, that's an amazingly bad idea.
Quote:
Also, I would like to have units that have 2 phases in their turn. 1) MOVE, 2) attack/cast/defend.
Ah, so they're back on the field like in H4? I can support that (though why they should get two phases while Mages and that only get 1 is a little beyond me).
Quote:
Once again, If you have a army of 1000 axemans, no way they should all be able to occupy 1 field. In battle, they should occupy 10x100 fields. And why is having natural proportion on the unit size/stack size such a problem?
Because 1000 Priests would take about the same area as 1000 Peasants.
Quote:
Agreed. But visual depiction is flawing. Having a drawn lake instead of tree stump would certanly help as it would be more natural to have units not able to pass it, rather than a tree root.
Show me a battle that takes place around a lake and I might consider it (a river, fine, crossings on those things can be used strategically, but not lakes).
|
|
sith_of_ziost
Promising
Supreme Hero
Scouting the Multiverse
|
|
posted October 26, 2009 04:02 AM |
|
|
I for one am a fan of Bridge battles, so the natural formation of bridge walls, and even damagable parts of the battlefield appeals to me. On the other hand, such an interface would allow for very imbalanced battles, just becuase you may have archers and they may die before they reach you. That's the problem with that stuff. What if you have that huge amount of swordsmen, but then can't get them across the bridge? Well, death would be one thing, but aside from that, you'd never want to fight on a bridge again.
That's the same mechanics as the lake and the root. Agreed, obstacles make little since as they are, but think of the more whimsical elements. That root might trip your army so that they lose time and get dealt more damage, so its best to avoid. But, if that root were to be something else, like an elemental, it would be far worse. That's why small obstacles make sense. Recruits are terrified most of the time, now they don't take unnecessary risks. Only big creatures should crash through obstacles.
Now, as for the lake, it would make for quite the battle to fight to the opposite side of the lake while taking fire from archers and magic. I like special battles, and I like you're concepts, just not your applications.
____________
Steel Yourself for War
Next Set: Mirrodin
Beseiged
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 26, 2009 09:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I for one am a fan of Bridge battles, so the natural formation of bridge walls, and even damagable parts of the battlefield appeals to me. On the other hand, such an interface would allow for very imbalanced battles, just becuase you may have archers and they may die before they reach you. That's the problem with that stuff. What if you have that huge amount of swordsmen, but then can't get them across the bridge?
Treat the river like a wide, undamaging moat, ie, creatures move across 1 space at a time
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 26, 2009 10:31 AM |
|
|
May be a bit of a unpopular stance, but I think upgrades should be handled differently also. Stacks get experience, and once they are experienced enough get to upgrade. Once they upgrade once, experience can be used to switch upgrades or to improve the exsisting one with abilities. Things like ... Battle Formation (raise defense), Snipe (close combat attack for ranged units), etc. Would be a pain in the hinny to do that however.
____________
Message received.
|
|
LucJPatenaude
Disgraceful
Known Hero
|
posted October 26, 2009 12:11 PM |
|
|
Why not make an unlimited upgradeability upto level 6?
Quote:
May be a bit of a unpopular stance, but I think upgrades should be handled differently also. Stacks get experience, and once they are experienced enough get to upgrade. Once they upgrade once, experience can be used to switch upgrades or to improve the exsisting one with abilities. Things like ... Battle Formation (raise defense), Snipe (close combat attack for ranged units), etc. Would be a pain in the hinny to do that however.
And, why not change the god-like creatures of level 7 into a single almost unkillable creature of 10,000 health points? Only available to the Capital City with the Capitol level of importance?
Moreover, making sure that the level 6's outmost upgradability would be to become a sub-hero unit as a guaranteed mounted status. Plus, when the spellbook is purchased, they can bring troops outside the city/ town/ village as a local super army that once you divide your level 6 unit into two or three smaller units, you can now spell cast two to three times per round of combat.
Besides, I find that, Paladins are already heroes with a Jousting Lance instead of a big sword and without the protection of the General of the army's protection of being outside the harm's way of the battlefield. Their Health Points should be, also, increased upto 1,000 each.
Now, that should be, the greatest overhaul for the game, ever.
|
|
SimonaK
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 02:02 AM |
|
|
I find King's Bounty The Legend's battle system just too cool and perfect. full action, shooters can move and shoot, heroes can cast while creatures's turn...
Next Homm should take a lot of that.
|
|
sith_of_ziost
Promising
Supreme Hero
Scouting the Multiverse
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 03:35 AM |
|
|
Well, I recognize the importance of, well, importance. Making unit decisions is a very crucial piece to the puzzle, and a game will sit unsolved if the unit choices are too superfluous or just to darned hard to make. Now, adding the variety, I support, but adding to the triviality of "now, should I go with the purple archer with one more attack, or the blue one that has two more hp." Make them functionally different, not statistically. That's what happened to the Archlich and Lich Master. They made the Lich Master just amazing, and many never ever chose the Archlich anymore. Why? You've got the Tier 5 shooter and he's a reanimator with some utility. Why choose the weaker, more fragile Arclich who has to waste a turn to deal less damage?
I guess I dug up a different aspect than I intended, but I think this needs to be addressed too. If you gave the Lich Master no ranged shot, I think the people would actually have to choose a good amount of the time, instead of just going with one over the other all the time. So, that being said, adding more variety to the units. Like an upgrade only being available at a set experience in addition to cost upgrades, or even special circumstance upgrades, like the week or an artifact.
BTW, I've been longing for Grail Creatures forever. Creatures only available at the capital, and only after several requisites are met, and very costly. I would have loved to unleash a Demon Overlord against many people, or a Vessel of Sylanna that made several Treant seedlings to use as fodder. I love overpowered but appropriately fought for things like that.
____________
Steel Yourself for War
Next Set: Mirrodin
Beseiged
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 02:22 PM |
|
|
I'm a fan of hex, there are ways to make that work. Also I like the concept of scaling battlefields what the heck happened to that?
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
SimonaK
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 09:49 PM |
|
Edited by SimonaK at 21:50, 27 Oct 2009.
|
I'm back about King Bounty to say moreover heroes can cast spell being able to block creature capacities......I repeat: too cool!
the number of spells is really bigger than that of HoMM, so battles are more funny yet.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted October 27, 2009 10:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm a fan of hex, there are ways to make that work. Also I like the concept of scaling battlefields what the heck happened to that?
OMG! 
Have you returned from the dead?
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Eden
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 12:17 AM |
|
|
I may be viewed as a heretic for saying this but I just wish the combat system would have two more things to it:
1: Heroes actually fighting along side their units… If I were a hero I'd want to be part of the battle in a more toe to toe, sword to sword way. I also like the hero being a killable unit, albeit a hard to kill one, but still a killable one.
2: I really liked the retaliation system in H4, yeah the game had its flaws but I found it so much more interesting to constantly think about if my attacks were worth the price I'd pay. In H5 and others I can have a stack run over and hit an enemy group, and kill the enemy before they can even hit back...for me I don't have to think about attacks because of it, while in h4 when you had that scenario you had to stop and think because when you attacked the enemy, they hit back at the same time (unless you had first strike, which added a neat combat trick).
Aside from those I feel the system is good enough as is.
____________
If I must die, I will encounter darkness as a bride, And hug it in mine arms." —William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
|
|
sith_of_ziost
Promising
Supreme Hero
Scouting the Multiverse
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 01:55 AM |
|
|
@Daystar -  You're back? I thought you were gone forever!
I like expanding the spells to combat abilities, if that's what would make battle more interesting.
____________
Steel Yourself for War
Next Set: Mirrodin
Beseiged
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2009 08:03 AM |
|
Edited by MattII at 08:04, 28 Oct 2009.
|
Quote:
May be a bit of a unpopular stance, but I think upgrades should be handled differently also. Stacks get experience, and once they are experienced enough get to upgrade. Once they upgrade once, experience can be used to switch upgrades or to improve the exsisting one with abilities. Things like ... Battle Formation (raise defense), Snipe (close combat attack for ranged units), etc. Would be a pain in the hinny to do that however.
Nah, I'd rather split it more-or-less completely, experience results in stats increases, upgrades in extra abilities.
Quote:
I find King's Bounty The Legend's battle system just too cool and perfect. full action, shooters can move and shoot, heroes can cast while creatures's turn...
Never played the game, can you explain it in a bit more depth please?
Quote:
So, that being said, adding more variety to the units. Like an upgrade only being available at a set experience in addition to cost upgrades, or even special circumstance upgrades, like the week or an artifact.
Well if we're implementing experience, perhaps one upgrade would have different experience levels to the other.
Quote:
BTW, I've been longing for Grail Creatures forever. Creatures only available at the capital, and only after several requisites are met, and very costly. I would have loved to unleash a Demon Overlord against many people, or a Vessel of Sylanna that made several Treant seedlings to use as fodder. I love overpowered but appropriately fought for things like that.
Frankly I'd be as happy to scrap the grail altogether and bring back the Ultimate Artefacts from the earlier games.
Quote:
1: Heroes actually fighting along side their units… If I were a hero I'd want to be part of the battle in a more toe to toe, sword to sword way. I also like the hero being a killable unit, albeit a hard to kill one, but still a killable one.
I can fully agree with this.
Quote:
2: I really liked the retaliation system in H4, yeah the game had its flaws but I found it so much more interesting to constantly think about if my attacks were worth the price I'd pay. In H5 and others I can have a stack run over and hit an enemy group, and kill the enemy before they can even hit back...for me I don't have to think about attacks because of it, while in h4 when you had that scenario you had to stop and think because when you attacked the enemy, they hit back at the same time (unless you had first strike, which added a neat combat trick).
Does this go for Ranged Retaliation as well, or just Simultaneous Retaliation?
|
|
rottenvenetic
Known Hero
Derusticated
|
|
posted November 01, 2009 05:30 PM |
|
|
Moving diagonally in heroes 5 costs 1.41 speed points per hex, and the stack system is made on the assumption that the armies are of similar scale. One thing I liked in my tiny experience of Heroes 4 was how heroes participated in battle as units. There are certainly no rules of war against trying to kill the enemy's general, and with the kind of power heroes wield...
As I see it heroes should have the right to walk wherever they want within their speed and either attack, cast or do nothing at the end of that. There could be a system of range, where certain spells would be less effective if cast from far away.
Ex. A knight is in the midst of his human soldiers, but his angels and griffins are far away, so he casts mass haste with expert Light.
The humans would get +30-40% initiative, but the angels and griffins only +15%.
Heroes would, with variety and exceptions, also be mostly immune or highly resistant to damaging magic and heavy mind control (frenzy, puppet master).
Battle map: good idea but not too much.
Maybe a circle-like battlefield with some limited space behind the area where you can deploy your army, so turtling and magic factions like heroes 5's Dungeon or Academy have, given enough initiative, the option of executing a tactical retreat to prevent the enemy's charge from hitting them, and giving extra time for magic. Might factions would have the heavy-hitting hero (way more heavy-hitting than now, certainly, since they are risking their skin) to compensate.
____________
In the darkness, a blind man is the best guide; in an age of madness, look to the madman to lead the way.
|
|
Eden
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2009 05:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
2: I really liked the retaliation system in H4, yeah the game had its flaws but I found it so much more interesting to constantly think about if my attacks were worth the price I'd pay. In H5 and others I can have a stack run over and hit an enemy group, and kill the enemy before they can even hit back...for me I don't have to think about attacks because of it, while in h4 when you had that scenario you had to stop and think because when you attacked the enemy, they hit back at the same time (unless you had first strike, which added a neat combat trick).
Does this go for Ranged Retaliation as well, or just Simultaneous Retaliation?
Yes I mean both types of Retaliation.
____________
If I must die, I will encounter darkness as a bride, And hug it in mine arms." —William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
|
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 03, 2009 11:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes I mean both types of Retaliation.
Simultaneous I can go for, ranged I'm not so hot on.
|
|
Eden
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 04, 2009 06:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes I mean both types of Retaliation.
Simultaneous I can go for, ranged I'm not so hot on.
I can understand not being too hot about, but for me it makes me think more about who I shoot, and how I shoot them when I know that there will be a retaliation in return.
I feel that the enemy should get to shoot back at your titans before they face their utter doom.
____________
If I must die, I will encounter darkness as a bride, And hug it in mine arms." —William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
|
| |
|
|
