|
| Thread: Homm Politics and other stuff. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
MattII
Legendary Hero
|
posted February 01, 2010 02:01 AM |
|
Edited by MattII at 02:05, 01 Feb 2010.
|
A 10*10 square of creatures cannot possibly be described as elegant, and there is no way you can balance a big stack that would not work equally well for a set of smaller stacks.
Smaller stacks also have the advantage of having more strategic possibilities, for example splitting your Cavaliers up into several stacks so that you can quickly engage several archer stacks while you Footmen make their way up the field.
I also wouldn't mind, in light of several stacks for each slot, being able to arrange creatures before combat (in the sense of when the hero is adventuring, nor after he's attacked an enemy/been attacked).
|
|
sylvanllewelyn
Hired Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2010 03:53 AM |
|
|
I have never seen a stack of more than 4000 in any HOMM game. 100 in each stack means 40 stacks. Controlling each stack is not that bad as long as you make it so that you have to click to select the unit before giving the command, like some turn-based games. Why is that better? Because even if you work with ATB, chances are all skeletons will have the same initiative. Select them all, tell them all to move forward 4 squares. If you want, make an 'attack-move' command where they move forward 4 squares or if an enemy is in the way smash it.
The sacrifice to this system is if you have less than 100 skeletons, you are NOT allowed to split them into 2 stacks but I think it is very reasonable and realistic to historical medieval battles. Difficulties of issueing commands and just being plain scared of getting killed is what leads soldiers to stick together.
____________
|
|
Berny-mac
Promising
Legendary Hero
Lord Vader
|
|
posted February 09, 2010 11:59 PM |
|
|
I'm pretty sure you would be allowed to split stacks of less than 100 units.
____________
Skyrim RP? YES!
Here it is!
|
|
|
|
