|
| Thread: Heroes VI suggestions | |
|
Electrical
Tavern Dweller
|
posted November 01, 2009 09:25 PM |
|
|
Heroes VI suggestions
Adventure Map and Town Structure
Leadership - Basically import the leadership mechanic from King's Bounty. For those unfamiliar with it, the hero has a leadership score, as does each creature. Each of the hero's stacks can consist of his leadership in creatures, maximum. This would limit the size of armies, removing ridiculous late game battles decided by who hits first and enable the developers to have greater control over the scale and balance of the game. It would also encourage players to use multiple heroes rather than a single bulldozer, which in turn promotes strategic play. Furthermore, it would better differentiate between might and magic heroes and provide various new adventure map objects, skill trees, etc.
The only problem with the system would probably be sieges, and there would probably need to be a similar town-based mechanic to prevent castles from being untakable, but even something as simple as a ratio of town level to effective leadership would probably work.
Creature Costs - More creatures should cost more than gold. Mines could produce, say, 10/20 precious resources/wood and ore per day and low tier creatures could cost 1-2 of an appropriate resource and upper tier creatures could cost as much as 20. Again, this would encourage map control.
Creature Dwellings - Each town would only have around 5 levels of creatures, mostly based around a racial theme, with a powerful non-racial capstone creature, such as Griffins for the Haven, and Trents for the elves. Other, most beastlike creatures would be recruited from adventure map dwellings, ie be neutrals, providing more varied games and requiring more varied strategies. This could also allow more towns because each individual town would require less work.
Combat
Movement and actions - Again, ripping off of King's Bounty. Creatures have action points, each action point = 1 tile, and an action point is required to attack (which also depletes your remaining action points). Some specials consume all remaining action points or require a set number. Creatures would recover action points at a rate determined by their initiative and their turn would start when they reach full initiative.
Retreating - Upon retreating, your creatures remain in combat, though they receive a heavy moral penalty (stat penalty for undead?) and lose any bonuses received by their hero's artifacts and statistics, making retreating less costly.
Obstacle variety - More variety in combat obstacles than just impassable tiles. Tiles that are passable, but slow movement, or cause damage. Obstacles which block archer's line of sight. Obstacles which can be destroyed. Obstacles that damage surrounding tiles, or cast spells (you can see I like King's Bounty a lot).
Map Variety - Not all maps should be 10x15 arenas, or w/e. A battle on a bridge allows less room to maneuver than one on an open plain.
____________
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted November 02, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
I don't really like some of these proposed changes. The leadership thing, for example. You shouldn't be able to repeatedly thrash a stronger and larger opponent simply because you have a hero with a very good leadership score, so you are able to fight all his armies piecemeal. Furthermore, part of the fun of Heroes for me is massive armies colliding in grand battles; having a hard limit on that simply is not fun.
The retreating suggestion, likewise, I'm not too fond of. The whole point of retreating is that it is a last-resort, last-ditch option that comes at extreme cost. You shouldn't be able to save your hero and then still go down fighting.
Finally, I don't think action points are necessary either. Speed and initiative essentially fulfill this role already. Adding action points into the mix simply complicates things; I don't think that the benefit it gives, if any, outweighs the added complexity it brings.
Overall, these suggestions, in my opinion, add in an additional layer of complexity to HoMM that is simply not needed. Personally, I feel that HoMM V has a very solid system in place already; it's taken the gameplay of HoMM III, one of, if not the, best in the series, and improved upon it. While H3 and H5 did have problems, sweeping changes like these simply are not necessary; there's no reason to mess with success.
|
| |
|
|
