Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 7+ Altar of Wishes > Thread: Heroes on battlefield and mounts
Thread: Heroes on battlefield and mounts This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · «PREV
Maurice
Maurice

Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
posted November 13, 2016 01:33 PM

This is creeping awefully close to how the Total War games handle their management and upkeep, at least in their earlier games (Rome, Medieval 2, etc ...). In order to keep the population happy, you need to have enough food for everyone, otherwise the population decreases. Since the population number is also the source from which you draw your troops, you have to make sure they keep growing. Not that I'd suggest to add population numbers, though, but Farm upgrades in Towns could provide the support you need for your armies.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baronus
Baronus


Famous Hero
posted November 13, 2016 06:01 PM

Maybe like this:
1 stack 0-9 1unit
10- 49 2 units
50- 99 3 units
100-199 4 units
2 stacks 200 -499 8 units
3st 500-999 12 units
4st 1000 and more 16 units
2 st units the same but
2,4,5,7 stacks/hexs

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
PandaTar
PandaTar


Promising
Supreme Hero
CH and HC Mascot
posted November 13, 2016 10:34 PM

Maurice said:
This is creeping awefully close to how the Total War games handle their management and upkeep, at least in their earlier games (Rome, Medieval 2, etc ...). In order to keep the population happy, you need to have enough food for everyone, otherwise the population decreases. Since the population number is also the source from which you draw your troops, you have to make sure they keep growing. Not that I'd suggest to add population numbers, though, but Farm upgrades in Towns could provide the support you need for your armies.


Sure, the means to achieve this and that may vary. Still, to address the unlimited troops issue, I think it would work having limits of housing in buildings and towns.
____________

Heroes-based proposal thread – updates in green

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Stevie
Stevie


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted November 13, 2016 11:52 PM

I'd stay away from the idea of heroes on the battlefield. Apart from the scaling issues which are not easy and satisfactory to address, I don't think the effort would be met with much reward. I mean, I don't see how battles would suddenly become way more amazing than what creatures alone could achieve by themselves.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Varnoc
Varnoc

Tavern Dweller
posted November 14, 2016 02:23 AM

Stevie said:
I'd stay away from the idea of heroes on the battlefield. Apart from the scaling issues which are not easy and satisfactory to address, I don't think the effort would be met with much reward.


Respectfully, there's no harm in entertaining the notion.

I find that questions that yield no immediate answer are often the most rewarding to discuss, even if an answer is not reached. Dismissing the idea gains us nothing.

Besides, what else are we going to do around here?

Stevie said:
I mean, I don't see how battles would suddenly become way more amazing than what creatures alone could achieve by themselves.


I can't speak on the minds of others, but I do not expect battle to instantaneously reach a higher caliber of quality from the addition of Heroes to the battlefield. I'm content to find minute improvements that culminate to something far greater down the road.

---

PandaTar said:
I think people only dislike limited numbers because they need to feel the urge to be always beyond and beyond, always evolving. However, not long ago I was watching one of those WoG games with two armies of 200 zillions of many stacks. In the end, they all worked the same as if having few units of each, regarding that damaging spells would be much more useful in a fight with less units, thing that you didn't see in that other bizarre battle, where your hero only buffed and debuffed zillions of units at once ...

Also, limiting numbers help balancing the issue in which the outcome is much more focused on skill of playing and involvement of heroes in battle, considering much more their strategic decisions on adventure map and building of their kingdom than sheer numbers. Or so would be my perception on this subject.


I agree with this assessment to a large degree. I'd like to see stack sizes limited in some manner simply because the benefits of doing so far outweigh the drawbacks. The problem we're presented with in doing so is determining an elegant implementation.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
PandaTar
PandaTar


Promising
Supreme Hero
CH and HC Mascot
posted November 14, 2016 09:11 AM

Let’s make a bit of retrospect to see how they could be added with satisfying results.

1. Heroes 1 and 2:
• Don’t interact physically
• Spell Casting
• Stats Boosting
• Basically can learn any skill randomly, except for Necromancy
• Heroes can only wander with armies
• Defeated heroes return to tavern randomly
• Heroes carry 5 different units
• Spell efficiency is resumed to buffs at late game
• Level cap 75?


2. Heroes 3:
• Don’t interact physically
• Spell Casting
• Stats Boosting
• Learn skills in a similar way that in previous installments
• Heroes have specialty
• Heroes have war machines
• Heroes can only wander with armies
• Defeated heroes return to tavern randomly
• Heroes carry 7 different units
• Spell efficiency is resumed to buffs at late game
• Level cap 75?



3. Heroes 4:
• Interact physically
• Spell Casting
• Stats Boosting
• Heroes have classes
• Heroes lose specialty
• Learn skills around sets more akin to their faction and classes
• Way to evolve skills evolve classes to an advanced level
• Heroes can wander with or without armies
• Govern system of a heroes upon a town is added
• Heroes can tag along with other heroes
• Units can wander on their own
• Heroes carry 6 additional slots which can be filled either with heroes or units
• Heroes can get killed and will lie dead if defeated by neutral troops
• Heroes can be defeated and sent to prison, not being available for re-hiring ever at any taverns, only can be rescued
• Heroes acquire consumable items
• Heroes have war machines
• Escalated strength of heroes is unbalance in late game, where they can alone decimate entire armies on their own, both physically or magically or due artifact combinations
• Spell efficiency is resumed to buffs at late game
• Level cap 40?



4. Heroes 5:
• Interact physically
• Spell Casting
• Stats Boosting
• Heroes lose advanced classes
• Govern system is present
• Heroes are not present on battlefield anymore. Physical interaction is resumed to a single strike on a chosen target
• Skills are combined with perks, given faction and racial instances and an ultimate, still given with fair randomness
• Heroes can wander only with armies
• Heroes carry 7 slots for armies
• Defeated heroes are sent back to tavern
• Spell efficiency is resumed to buffs at late game
• Physical interaction is inefficient at late game
• Heroes have war machines
• Level cap 40?


5. Heroes 6:
• Interact physically
• Spell Casting
• Stats Boosting
• Heroes have advanced classes based on two primordial behaviors
• Govern system is present
• Heroes are not on battlefield, but in a similar physical interaction as in H5
• Skills and Spells are mixed into an evolving skill-tree
• Skills are not random anymore
• Hero can unlearn and relearn skills in different settings
• Heroes have war machines
• Spell efficiency is resumed to buffs at late game
• Physical interaction is inefficient at late game
• Level cap 30?


6. Heroes 7:
• Interact physically
• Spell Casting
• Stats Boosting
• Heroes have advanced classes pre-determined on three fundaments
• Govern system is present
• Skills and Spells are separated again
• Skills are designed with ultimate
• Heroes have war machines
• Spell efficiency is resumed to buffs at late game
• Physical interaction is inefficient at late game
• Level cap 30-40?


Some stuff need more accurate information, given that I was mostly going from memory, and I haven’t played the last 2. So I think that we could first bring up a resumed scheme like that. Checking some topics.

If we are currently going to set heroes on battlefield, we need basically solving how much their physical interaction will influence battle in a way that it feels entertaining, also which allows escalating with balance, keeping in mind that troops would now be limited in numbers.

What do you reckon, Varnoc?

____________

Heroes-based proposal thread – updates in green

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Varnoc
Varnoc

Tavern Dweller
posted November 14, 2016 09:50 PM

PandaTar said:
If we are currently going to set heroes on battlefield, we need basically solving how much their physical interaction will influence battle in a way that it feels entertaining, also which allows escalating with balance, keeping in mind that troops would now be limited in numbers.


I think an "Area of Influence" may be the most effective manner of delivering that influence to the battle.

The general idea behind the AoI is that units closer to the Hero would be inspired/motivated by their presence, acting more quickly or heroically themselves simply due to the presence of the Hero. Lets say that every Hero has a "Leadership" statistic that is fairly dynamic, but generally gets more potent as the Hero levels up. Leadership would improve the Morale and Initiative of nearby units by a set amount, with the bonus decaying the further from the Hero a Unit is, like so:

0-1 Tiles Away = 100% Effect
2 Tiles Away = 80% Effect
3 Tiles Away = 60% Effect
4 Tiles Away = 40% Effect
5 Tiles Away = 20% Effect
6+ tiles Away = No effect

For Multi-tile creatures, they benefit from the closest tile bonus they are affected by.

In this manner would the positioning of the Hero be critical to optimal success without making them direct combatants. The nice thing about Leadership is that it favors both Might and Magic heroes equally, they both benefit from scaling that statistic, and it makes sense for them to want to.

---

As Stevie predicted, this subject opens up a massive can of worms.

1. Do the normal Hero stats work like they normally do? (I don't think Attack/Defense should be passive bonuses to all critters, and thusly what stats should take their place?)
2. How should the Magic System operate in an environment such as this?
3. Are Magic Statistics feeling satisfactory right now? Do they need attention?
4. Is mana effective at limiting the casting of Heroes, or is it just a nuisance in the early game and rarely considered in the late? This ties into the question of the function of Hero statistics. Is there a better system we can devise?
5. Can the Hero be captured? Can they die?

Among many others that will crop up as we decide those. War machines? Spell effects? The subject gets complicated quickly, but seeing as this is a very large portion of the substance of a Heroes game, it's not surprising.

What's your opinion on the usefulness of the traditional Hero statistics in this environment? Defense in particular seems a little redundant in certain situations. If Mana isn't doing it's job, maybe a new system must be devised, and that in turn ties into the Magic system as a whole, which is *delightful* in it's own right.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
PandaTar
PandaTar


Promising
Supreme Hero
CH and HC Mascot
posted November 14, 2016 11:32 PM

Varnoc said:

I think an "Area of Influence" may be the most effective manner of delivering that influence to the battle.
...heroes equally, they both benefit from scaling that statistic, and it makes sense for them to want to.


That looks promising imho. Although most say that the current board looks like a chess board game, having means to move your 'king' around for better results or escaping checks is a good addition, I reckon, not to mention increasing battle maps sizes or adding irregular terrain factors to it. I think the obvious dull point and click strategy should have been long gone, given you don't have to pay attention to many elements which could dictate a bit of the effectiveness or a hushing move, even on seemingly easy battles on an even straight-to-the-point map design.

***

Quote:
What's your opinion on the usefulness of the traditional Hero statistics in this environment?


1. If we consider heroes being able to duel each other, they should have stats as units have, in addition to COMMANDING status. We can gravitate Attack and Defense on effectiveness upon Commanding Skills and AoI. AoI can get greater due Commanding Skills being better, or even depending on a Hero specialty. That way, Attack and Defense are not directly boosting units but the capacity of a hero to be effective as a commander, avoiding perhaps some imbalances when added much attack or defense to certain troops, as long as skills aren't broken (also having AoI as a predetermining factor).

2. Spell casting should demand 2 things: mana and time. I believe that the greater the troops are, the greater the time you spend to cast an effective spell on it, either that being destructive or supportive. You could choose if you would spend more time (demanding more mana escalating ever faster draining power to sustain power, having limitations based on your hero's Spell Power and/or skill sets) channeling a spell, but it would be MANDATORY to spend more time and spell to inflict a buff/debuff over larger or more numerous units (wich more stacked tiles), because you hero shouldn't be able to simply buff millions of units just as easy as buffing few units. This gives limitation to weak spell casters which would be unable to buff numerous units, sometimes forcing one to split troops for better strategies evolving weaker spell casting. You could also target an opposing hero if he's reachable (even if protected by armies), so some preemptive actions could be given in a 'disguised' Waiting command, where you could set a guessing action as counter casting, trying to divine what the opposing here would do, or avoiding direct destructive magical damage. This setting seems like a good start imho.

3 and 4. Complementing what I wrote above, BUFFs escalate ridiculously greatly later game, whiles damaging spells don't. It's normal that a single hero cannot dish out tons of damage at later game, but it all depends on which spells will be given to the game. If we consider the hero able to change weather, or channel really massive spells over time if not stopped, attacked or interrupted, means for escalating magic might be present. Buffs, as I reckon, only need a limiting factor as to be able to spend more time and mana as number of buffed/debuffed units grow. Also, as a spellcasting hero grows stronger, the opposing hero is more in a threat than the opposing army. And the same is regarding and Might Ranged hero, which can also be a threat to the opposing hero beyond the lines. So I think that mana and time are enough factors as for now.

5. I think all results should be considered, because they would be simply logical and possible. The results I see as a good setting would be like this under the Defeat feature:
    Death – hero is killed in battle and his body is left to rot (it would have some days to be able to revive)
    Surrender – and capture would be part of a diplomatic perk/skill, whether surrendering would spare troops and keep hero prisoner, free both for ransom etc.
    Flee – it's the most morale-affecting action which will only save the hero from total defeat. Fleeing hero will reappear at nearby post of command after X days (depending on the distance the battle had taken place)
    Retreat – it can happen if hero and troops under his AoI are next to the edge of the map. Retreating skips 1-2 turns to take place, while enemy troops can act as allied troops are retreating. Retreating army will disappear from the map and reappear on the nearby town after X days


I'm soon opening a thread regarding my Heroes Game proposition which have some of these discussions imbued there and I'd be please if you could take a look and help polishing, refining and giving your opinions on the matters discussed there. It'll take a while to update many information there, but some side discussions can help speed up the process of what's being written and even prune something that ought not to appear beforehand.
____________

Heroes-based proposal thread – updates in green

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Maurice
Maurice

Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
posted November 15, 2016 12:12 AM

I've been thinking a bit more on stack deployment, using the above suggested distribution. The base one is circular, with each hex containing a maximum number of troops. As stack size increases, it will start to occupy more hexes on the battlefield.

The direction I'm thinking at is to make the occupied hex configuration variable; that is to say, the player should have multiple different configurations available. The base ones are of course a straight line or a circle, but more advances ones can exist too - things like a semi-circle, checkered like the Roman armies eventually used to do, or perhaps something like spread out. These deployment versions can be selected through hotkeys and/or a menu (possibly pop-up? Otherwise as a banner on the side of the screen). When you move a formation, you can mouse-over on the battlefield to select its destination and use the mousewheel to rotate the selected stack configuration.

With this concept, you can then give Might Heroes more different hex configuration possibilities than Magic Heroes, differentiating the way they do battle. Also, since large stack get to occupy more hexes, it should also be possible to attack multiple targets at once. For instance, a line of 5 hexes of Pikemen could easily attack an enemy stack of Archers as well as an enemy stack of Pikemen, if those are adjacent. Of course, they would suffer the retaliation of both.

The stack configuration plays a further role when Area of Effect damage is considered, as spells like Fireball or Chain Lighting might not hit all hexes of the stack. A Fireball will have an easier time hitting a circular formation, dealing more damage, than a line formation. For distance traveling purposes and the like, the center of the configuration both before moving and after moving should be considered.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Ereinion156
Ereinion156


Adventuring Hero
posted November 15, 2016 11:22 AM

@Maurice: I really like that idea. That could make for really interesting battlefield situations. Maybe you could inflict some mali on surrounded units and then your pikeman could build a claw-like formation to surround an enemy.

@PandaTar:
1. There actually isn't any governing in H5. It was only implemented by magno in H5.5
2. If there are actually heroes on the battlefield, I think that could result in balancing problems for archers. If my stack of crossbowman can just shoot the enemy hero and the battle is over, that would not only be quite anti-climatic, but battles in lategame would only be about whose archers are able to shoot first. Which would destroy the core of the game.
So, for once I think if heroes are on the battlefield, troops have to be able to exist on their own (because you would else only try to kill the enemy hero) and the hero has to be somehow resistant to archers and magic, as it would else be to able to kill him with larger armies.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Maurice
Maurice

Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
posted November 15, 2016 12:03 PM

Ereinion156 said:
2. If there are actually heroes on the battlefield, I think that could result in balancing problems for archers.


You could partially remedy this by giving the Hero a personal bodyguard on the battlefield. I am leeching this idea from the Total War games, where the General is present on the battlefield as well. Depending on his command level, he has a number of bodyguards that stay with him. Something similar could apply here, where the archers can't target the Hero specifically, but have a (high) chance to kill bodyguards instead.
____________
The last Reasonable Steward of Good Game Design and a Responsible Hero of HC. - Verriker

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
PandaTar
PandaTar


Promising
Supreme Hero
CH and HC Mascot
posted November 15, 2016 06:46 PM

Ereinion156 said:

@PandaTar:
1. There actually isn't any governing in H5. It was only implemented by magno in H5.5

Goody, another improvement. ^^

Quote:
2. If there are actually heroes on the battlefield, I think that could result in balancing problems for archers. If my stack of crossbowman can...


Ranged troops would be balanced already if following things similar to what Maurice said and what I proposed earlier. In that setting, ranged troops, or any troop for that matter, can't target directly heroes while they are being protected by any nearby stack. Besides, ranged units wouldn't have unlimited range, for this layout requires constant positioning exactly to avoid situations in which you abandon your hero behind, because the hero needs to help troops while not being left vulnerable. And when it happens to left the hero alone, any engagement of troops upon the enemy hero would trigger a 'battle in a battle', not simply applying direct damage, in a scheme similar to what I proposed.

You could, though, still use a ranged hero to target another hero, and that's when you would have to choose whether not moving your hero to cover of your defending troops, or lure the enemy hero into a more exposed position, and whilst it could happen a ranged troop/hero engagement, if you had nearby troops, the enemy ranged troops would have to come closer to take actions, also getting into a less favorable positioning, prone to clash against the defending forces, or prone to get into enemy Hero's range of action, which is usually greater (as it should be, given a hero would have a AoI to act upon leading).
____________

Heroes-based proposal thread – updates in green

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · «PREV
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0877 seconds