|
| Thread: Oh god just noticed we can put archers on towers ! | |
|
Hakkology
Hired Hero
|
posted October 13, 2010 08:11 PM |
|
|
Oh god just noticed we can put archers on towers !
I remember how it was when you put 50 monks on towers in heroes 4 that was so, so, so overpowered ( one-shotting my 450 crossbowmen with a general now that was unbeatable. )
How is it going to be this time, will we see 16 cyclopses waiting for my 400 pikeman and killing 100 of them with one shot ?!?!
Sounds cheap.
|
|
Valen-Teen
Famous Hero
UFOlolOgist
|
|
posted October 13, 2010 08:30 PM |
|
|
It's not FaceBook. I think that creating new topic is not necessary for this discovery =)
|
|
Hakkology
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2010 08:32 PM |
|
|
Don't be so mean with my first post :/
Besides, we must not be able to put archers on towers !
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted October 13, 2010 09:51 PM |
|
|
Hey Hakkology, welcome  Afraid we don't know much about this feature at the moment but I can't say I am against it. The problem was that H4 gave too many bonuses on stationed shooters, it's all a matter of implementation.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted October 13, 2010 10:07 PM |
|
|
|
I think a good step could be limiting the number of units to be stationed on a tower. Also, catapults should still be able to attack towers. So when a tower falls, your units dy with it. That makes it a risk.
|
|
Hakkology
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 14, 2010 11:22 AM |
|
|
Imagine putting some archmages on the towers, raining fireballs.
Yes, catapults must be able to attack towers. Maybe dealing a certain amount of damage whenever it hits or, maybe a couple of shots would destroy the tower entirely, killing the troops on it.
We also had the choice of removing our troops from towers in H4 which is a very bad idea once the combat starts, flee when catapults fire thats lame.
Anyway, the best idea is to have a limit to amount of creatures you can put on towers so that it wouldnt be devastating for either side.
Just wanted to voice my opinion, thanks .
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted October 14, 2010 11:34 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 11:40, 14 Oct 2010.
|
If all the ranged creatures could be put on the towers, the greatest bonus they receive should be reduced/removed range penalty. No additional damage or whatever. Of course, in such case, when the catapult hits the respective tower, the stack placed on it should take % damage proportional to the damage taken by the tower (for example, if the catapult can destroy the tower in 3 shots, thus dealing about 33% damage with each shot, the stack on the tower should lose the same 33% of its numbers each time) or something similar. Generally if archers placed on towers get more powerful, they should be exposed to greater risk too, otherwise the balancing will fail. A HoMM IV scenario with huge advantage for the garrisoned troops against the assaulting ones is far from desired.
It will be nice if the siege equipment is diversified a bit too. As you can have archers on towers, you can have archers behind pavises on the other side of the wall. It is not absolutely necessary each faction to have the same siege equipment.
|
|
Vadagar
Hired Hero
Master of knowledge
|
|
posted October 15, 2010 03:56 PM |
|
|
if you can aim catapults and they are deadly and if the towers are destructable, then it would be pretty cool.
since he will risk losing all his ranged units with a well aimed cata shot, it would be balanced I guess.
and of course I don't think they will allow 10 archers to own 10 knights just because they are on a tower.
|
|
TDL
Honorable
Supreme Hero
The weak suffer. I endure.
|
|
posted October 15, 2010 04:05 PM |
|
|
As far as I seem to have read, once the tower is destroyed, the stack dies with it which should hold the bar from ranged shooters becoming overpowered. I would also do so that the towers actually decrease your range protection (dang, you are on a rooftop of a one/two-storey building, is it SO hard to aim a little bit higher, especially when you are lich or a mage of some kind?  ), possibly rendering the stack immobile while in the tower AND/or increasing their close combat defence.
Then again, if they are replacing the defence turret towers with stack-based "enter-able" towers, then I would advocate against the usage of the aforementioned system and would carefully reconsider all the pros and cons before implementing balancing.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2010 12:00 AM |
|
|
|
towers have always been really hard to destroy. unless you had expert catapult and cyclops kings.
|
|
Maken
Known Hero
Hail Hydra!
|
|
posted October 16, 2010 01:54 AM |
|
|
well, this really must have a limitation, maybe based on town level or wall type.
Something I thought to make the loss of a big stack inside the tower not so bad could be the idea of having the tower get more hitpoints because it has more shooters in it, meaning that it was prepared to withstand more attacks/catapult shots. Also, the number of units in the tower could get diminished as it takes damage, as someone said before. So it gets to the basic point: what are the pros and cons of having units inside a tower?
It makes the stack more durable, since the tower gets more hitpoints, and maybe defense. But it also makes it more vunerable, as it is now an stationary target. It could also not be able to receive buffs/benefic magic, to compensate for the increase in defense. I mean, its a matter of balance of these (or other) points that can make the tower an advantage to the defender and yet not unfair to the attacker. Well, these are suggestions that I can think for now.
|
|
agent_00_blerd
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2010 07:55 PM |
|
|
How about this? You can load troops into your defensive towers but not the entire stack. When you make a troop move into the tower, a portion of the stack separates from the main and enters the tower. The number of troops that a tower can hold could depend on the number of buildings in the town and maybe some faction specific buildings that allow more troops to be stored.
These troops that have entered the tower will receive bonus attributes (damage, defense, no range/obstacle penalty etc.) and will allow you to control which target that tower shoots.
You should be able to decide which ranger to place in which tower before the battle begins (sounds logical seeing how the town is preparing for a siege).
EDIT -- This way, if your tower is destroyed, you don't lose the entire stack. And you don't get overpowered bonuses because you have your entire legion of archers cramped into that small turret.
Things to think about:
--How do you remove a troop from a tower? Does the troop form a new stack on the battlefield (and allow an exploit for massive stack spamming?) or does it rejoin its parent stack (How? By walking to it? What if the parent stack is out of range or the path is blocked by enemy creatures? Magically teleporting to parent stack due to some latent enchantment on the tower? Maybe. :-P)
--Any defensive weapons in the tower to counter melee units rushing into it? A mini moat that doesn't stop movement but damages troops per turn?
|
|
GMnemonic
Hired Hero
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 02:30 PM |
|
|
You guys figured that out just now????
really I've done that in the demo of the game already by accident. Rarely think about it though.
But I thought although I play heroes since the 1st part you guys delve much deeper in it then I. And heroes is the game I most invest in t.b.h. I just don't got the time to post very very long posts.
So I only say the most inportant thing to me for now. I want academy and sylvan back in at the very least.
|
|
The_Polyglot
Promising
Supreme Hero
Nuttier than squirrel poo
|
|
posted July 20, 2013 02:48 PM |
|
|
If by 'just now' You mean 3 years ago, then yes.
____________
Sanity through drugs. Order yours today!
|
|
|
|
