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 ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 7+ Altar of Wishes > Thread: E.P.I.C. Visions of HoM&M Thread!
Thread: E.P.I.C. Visions of HoM&M Thread! This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
MattII
MattII


Legendary Hero
posted September 11, 2020 09:11 PM

Heroes 3 is Heroes 2 with spell schools, so ditching Heroes 3 means ditching basically the entire series after Heroes 1 and trying another way.

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted September 11, 2020 09:14 PM

And multiplayer, which makes it very different from H2, actually.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS Portal 2

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


Legendary Hero
posted September 11, 2020 09:54 PM

Hm, multiplayer stays I'd say, even if nothing else does.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against a ground-up rewrite of the game's mechanics, but we have to accept that it's going to take a lot of work to get right.

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted September 11, 2020 10:52 PM
Edited by PandaTar at 23:00, 11 Sep 2020.

Quote:
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against a ground-up rewrite of the game's mechanics, but we have to accept that it's going to take a lot of work to get right.


Yeah, and even right have too many levels of interpretation. I particularly don't expect anything else lately to appease me, but I do hope it will do to others in a ... respectful way; not cash-grab-bug-infested stuff of late.

On a side noite, let's take the multiplayer perspective.

How different would H3 be, if there was not that game mode? What multiplayer games focus the most? Balance and 'fairness', so both playing parties feel the challenge and feed its replayability.

And how did Multiplayer morph H2 into H3? It was not a simple added thing or maintenance of mechanics, it really changed the game a lot. If you want comparisons, H1 and H2 are more akin to each other. H3 is and feels very different already.

I'll give a few examples, but other stuff might emerge also:

1. Spells: in H2, they were generic, unclassified. Not all of them were indeed useful, but you actually used most of them and there was not a biased flair anywhere, specifically. In H3, for that balance situation to occur and because 'why not', spells were divided into schools and then, until this very day we both are here talking about it, I read people trying to balance those schools created decades ago. It speaks for itself. Clearly, there were selections of usefulness of spells that didn't befit all schools equally. If they kept spells undivided in schools, added some more, reworked the useless or exploitative ones, and made some magic skills affect ways of how those spells worked (a reworked Wisdom of sorts, adding basic, advanced and expert functions to them, just like elemental schools do), it would have a very different result; which could even be better for multiplayer purposes, and the funny thing is that the limitation in Might oriented factions mage guilds would fit as a glove. In spell mechanics, H2 and H3 are very different.

2. Units: in H2, things were uneven, completely. And that was the fun of it (won't get into the Ghost/Peon unit here, because that's an exception). You had factions with some weak units, some others with upgrades, some top-notch beings, some numerous ones. They had a faint balance-air about them, but yet not really balanced. In H3, there was this ... generic veil thrown over all that. Every faction MUST have an uber unit. So, threw angels in Castle, which completely deformed how Knights worked. Dragons everywhere (much better than spiders, though). The other high tier units were more or less boosted to even out with Giants and Red Dragons. And upgrades, upgrades everywhere. So you have an imposition of features to try to even out stuff, again, for multiplayer purposes. You have a demon, then you add horns, and now it's a horned demon. More expensive, a bit of added stats ... riiiight. it really reminds me of how cash-grab stuff works these days. Some upgrades changed the unit substantially, which I agree upon upgrading. Still, this feature of having a similar powered lv 7 unit and everyone with upgrades make H3 fair different from H2. I prefer the latter, but I believe people likes H3's system the most and if tweaked to make upgrades feel really deserving, it would be a plus.

3. Income and Towns: another utter changing. In H2, you have a tough time to gain gold. Your town's income was not that high, and some units were expensive as hell. It was a way to balance too, the differences in units. Knight units were cheaper and numerous. To buy a Titan you had to spend almost 4 days saving gold, and probably beg for another source. That was challenging, deciding whether or not invest on certain things, because you lacked gold, and buildings were also complicated to upgrade, when they had to. H3 brought tons of gold. If you conquer one or two gold mines, you're sort of able to have everyone employed. Not to mention the Grail. The game also adds more buildings and more unique ones also, which is a good thing in a sense; and considering it also increases overall costs, a bit more of income would make sense, but not that much added. The game dismissed castellans, now that you could have a garrisoned hero, which was an improvement; or keeping castellans when no other hero was there to protect it. Either way. And this level situation to have a fair income to marginally be able to hire all your units weekly is also focused on multiplayer. If not, you would be left to struggle to decide hiring a couple of lv 7 units instead of some other groups, but not both.

4. Heroes: In H2, heroes were pretty bland. A single class, only difference between them was image and starting skills, and who could learn Necromancy or not. That was all. This was basically the thing that interested me the less. Heroes were just vessels carrying units. A might hero might have been just a dose of steroids for your units for all the difference they made on the background. At least the book gave them the property to move an arm to cast spells. You had might factions and magic factions; strangely might factions could have top notch mage guilds ; and an artifact inventory that tied your soul to it. In H3, came a lot of improvements. Heroes had specialties, which added to their uniqueness. A proper equipment chart, which actually allowed you to choose what you wanted to equip on your body, new skills with new functionalities, war machines added to boot. And two classes per faction. Funny and ironically, these improvements to make heroes work differently from each other were much less of a balancing step than keeping them bland as in the previous game. That's probably the reason I liked this improvement the most. hohohohoho And again, you don't see polls asking which Knight was best, or which Warlock was best. They were basically the same. Nowadays, there are polls everywhere with which H3 hero is the best, and it still seems unbalanced for not being tinkered with mods.

I think map design and how they work didn't change a lot. Graphics did, but the lack of contrasts made me feel a bit forlorn. And the H2 luck rainbow was priceless. hohohohoho


As for multiplayer again, I don't mind having multiplayer as long as you have an option to play the game in a non-multiplayer orientation. I skip games that are multiplayer-only or have a massive structure upon multiplayer with single player working as sidekick. Somehow like it felt playing Destiny 2. In my point of view, all my interest on these series started to falter there, when this game mode was inserted. Alas, apparently most people also enjoys the game because of multiplayer! So I am minority, bound to sulk.

I do agree, in fact, that the game needs to keep multiplayer these days. The digital interaction is just going forward and it's much easier today to play with other people anywhere, easier to have people help with additional content and share with each other. But I would really like if the single player had its own perspective on functionality, at least the choice between one and the other.

I really don't know what should be ditched back and forth all these installments. There are a lot of things that had potential, but were screwed. Finding means to make them work together would be an interesting start.  I don't remember exactly if it was in H6, but was it then when they added the Area of Control, Town Gates and Town Convertion? I almost fainted in dismay with these features. I do think that AoC and Town Convertion have great ways to work out, though. But that cheap creature pooling and free teleportation was too much to argue. H4 had heroes on the battlefield, which I enjoyed, unless they single-handedly killed scores of dragon by kicking alone. It was beyond unbalanced. But you had an interesting skill system and effects, had Ruler role on your town, caravans were added, magic schools which seemed a bit more functional here and there (some repetitive effects also). Some bits of stuff can work together. Modding have shown that for years.

In the end, my interpretation of right would be that, even if I don't get to play the game or feel attracted by it by the time, and if, it ever comes into being. But I can acknowledge the results all the same.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS Portal 2

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


Legendary Hero
posted September 12, 2020 02:05 AM
Edited by MattII at 03:19, 12 Sep 2020.

Wow, I didn't realise the differences between Heroes 2 and Heroes 3 were that significant. Of course I've only ever played Heroes 2 a handful of times.

There's also the theme of the game to think about, the lineups, towns etc. Here I'd be quite happy to throw out everything that came before. Ditch elves and dwarves, and make sure each faction has at least two races in it.

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted September 12, 2020 03:36 AM

Yes, that would be interesting. Rampart had Elves and Dwarves together, with Centaurs and Dendrois, if you take them as 'heroable' heroes. ^_^ That's one thing I try to do in my proposals.

The only thing is that in current Heroes games, different species seem not to matter. And if they are to make any difference, it would be a nice addition, if implemented smartly.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS Portal 2

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


Legendary Hero
posted September 12, 2020 03:55 AM

The only issue with non-humanoid heroes in the current game is the setup for artefacts, non-human bodies might not allow all the artefact slots.

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted September 12, 2020 04:06 AM

It's because artifacts are human-only. Then there should have non-human artifacts as well, and other equipping slots for the exotic, like uh, bracelet for tails? Tailets? =D Nose rings, 'Plate wings', Horn trinkets, Gem core, you name it. And the usual universal artifacts would continue, miscellaneous and such.

And species traits, like having a dragon as a hero, you would not require plate armor. Your natural scaled body has its own perks of sorts, and as you level up and grow stronger, that part of you will also improve. A very M&M8-ish thing.

I would be a bit more thoughtful on battle, though. In a H5 setting, it could be done some tweaks here and there, I reckon.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS Portal 2

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


Legendary Hero
posted September 12, 2020 04:47 AM
Edited by MattII at 13:28, 13 Sep 2020.

Well my initial thought was that Naga heroes f.e. wouldn't have a legs/feet slot, while Centaur heroes would possible have two such slots. Also, let's not go too crazy too soon, because there will have to be some commonality amongst the various factions' heroes.

Also, on the income issue, you can't buy every creature in your army with most towns' incomes in either Heroes 2 or Heroes 3. In Heroes 2, the total recruitment cost per week for the Knight creatures is 11,605 gold, unattainable on an in-town income of 8,750. In Heroes 3 however, the cost has risen to 30,300 gold, and 6 gems, which is even more unattainable, given the income for most towns is just 14,000 gold, and even the Capitol only bumps it up to 28,000 gold. So for Heroes 2, a single gold-mine can provide two Knight towns the ability to buy out. In Heroes 3, it's one gold mine for the Capitol, but three for any other town (or five for two towns), so if anything, in Heroes 3 the problem is worse, not better.

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted September 13, 2020 02:50 PM
Edited by PandaTar at 15:02, 13 Sep 2020.

Oh, my mistake. I was thinking on Wizard town (24k cost per week + 6 gems) and Warlock (22.180 + 6; although these guys had Treasury, total daily income went to 1750 g) when I wrote that. Unbalanced disparity on weekly costs seemed great in that game, although units had very different stats. AH, yes, there was the fact that you actually didn't buy all your units as a rule, given that your hero could carry 5 units, not 6 (like not buying zombies, peasants). Then you could save some gold. I'd forgotten that; which also would make weekly costs more tolerable at some point. And those lv 1 no-cost dwellings also. I forgot that in H3, Capitol also brought creature growth; and things would be even more demanding, if you had that Legion combined artifact too (but also the difference between total number of units; the most boost on growth you had in H2 was the well and the Lv1 annex, iirc).

The only thing I got right then is that they remain different from each other, H2 and H3, one way or the other. The weekly hiring capacity H2 only had this greater gap in costs between towns. H3, I actually only remember that Inferno had the worst HPxgold ratio and Rampart, the best. But I don't remember which town was the costier overall, might've been Tower ... again. ^_^
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS Portal 2

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


Legendary Hero
posted September 13, 2020 09:20 PM
Edited by MattII at 02:01, 16 Sep 2020.

I see where you're going with that. To buy all the creature's in a wizard's town indeed takes 24,000 gold and 6 gems in Heroes 2, and 31,440 gold and 4 gems in Heroes 3. I think one of the issues for Heroes 2 was that the Well added the same 2 creatures to every dwelling, while in Heroes 3, the Castle doubled the base growth rate of the dwellings, which meant that low-level creatures weren't overwhelmed as much.

Looking at not just the HoMM series, but other TBS series as well, I can definitely see where HoMM falls short. Civilization f.e. has (I feel) a superior town management system that could by lifted for our own use. The idea of a town having an inherent militia force (shows up in Space Empires IV) also appeals to me. Also ditching the one-week limit on townless heroes is another thing that's really going to improve matters.

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted September 16, 2020 03:53 AM

I see the townless hero limit rather logical. But I think it could have small alternatives not to starve to death, like going to a tavern or inn and survive for a while longer. One thing I think it's very odd is when you lose all your towns, but you remain with all the gold and resources, as you had a floating small treasure orbiting you. I think that losing more than just your towns adds spice on how important it is to defend what you fought to achieve. Sometimes, in past games, we could afford losing stuff too easily. Other alternatives, like depositing resources in those creatures' banks, could come as an emergency fund, so you could survive while not having a town to support you.

I actually don't know Civilization's mechanics. I do like town management though, technologies, researchs, development of areas around it, population, an area of influence technically. I agree these things can indeed add a flair to the game. It's an important feature. It's too bland when you just focus on building dwellings and getting creatures, expand armies to help a kingdom you barely get in touch with. Or so I perceive. What do you point out that could be inherited from Civilization?


____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS Portal 2

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


Legendary Hero
posted September 16, 2020 05:47 AM
Edited by MattII at 05:53, 16 Sep 2020.

Resource distribution is a difficult one to figure out. A global counter makes the game more fast-paced and intuitive (think Age of Empires vs. Settlers), but a distributed counter makes more strategic sense, each city holds a certain number of resources, and only that city has access to them. Both sides have merits. In fact, the big issue I see with it is that gold is a currency, which means it plays slightly differently to the other resources, which may make a distributed system hard to implement properly.

As to the city building stuff, two things resonate to me from Civilization:
1) Each building has a 'production cost', taking multiple turns to build. Yes, okay, this doesn't play well with HoMM, since the resource system is more complex, but a similar concept is implemented in the Space Empires series, where buildings cost both resources and time to construct. I've long felt the 'one building built per turn' thing is faulty, since both the Tavern (500 gold, 5 wood in Heroes 3) and Castle (5,000 gold, 10 wood, 10 stone in Heroes 3) are build in exactly the same time. It's an old mechanism, and IMO one that needs to go.
2) The population/resource system is far more complex, with 20 tiles to gather resources (food, gold, 'production') from, but each city having a limited population, requiring you to decide which tiles are the most valuable, and thus which should be worked first. A simplified version of this could, I feel, be implemented in HoMM, not focussing on tiles, but on mines (and with a much reduced population). This would, of course, require an 'Area of Control', but wouldn't need it to be nearly as obtrusive as in Heroes 6.

Does all that make sense?

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted September 16, 2020 03:41 PM

MattII said:
In fact, the big issue I see with it is that gold is a currency, which means it plays slightly differently to the other resources, which may make a distributed system hard to implement properly.

I was thinking on a more generic way. You have an amount of gold and resources and three towns, for example. Lose one town, lose 33% of that amount. Enemy gains 50% of that amount as plunder, the other 50% is lost in 'many small situations which might occur'. But that would be considering that whenever you conquer a town, the place is not actually ready or willing to serve you, so there would be some initial penalties. It would feel odd having a well-developed town and a new town represent the same plunder? More or less. That can give you responsibility upon expansion and strategy, and not only conquering stuff because you have enough armies to beat the local resistance. And a new town does consume a lot of resources.

Quote:
1) ... but a similar concept is implemented in the Space Empires series, where buildings cost both resources and time to construct. I've long felt the 'one building built per turn' thing is faulty. It's an old mechanism, and IMO one that needs to go.

Yes, I feel the same. We should consider if having more than one building under construction at a time is a thing. If it is, should adding more construction sites affect the time of the others already underway? If it's not, you just queue the next building.

Quote:
2) A simplified version of this could, I feel, be implemented in HoMM, not focussing on tiles, but on mines (and with a much reduced population). This would, of course, require an 'Area of Control', but wouldn't need it to be nearly as obtrusive as in Heroes 6.

Agree too. H6 area of control was not very well projected, specially with the combined effects of town gating/portal and town conversion. Visually speaking, it would appearl to me of how AoW 3 looks like town grows and expands on the map. Perhaps you could combine the focus on mines (or adventure map buildings) as you said, with adjacent small areas grown from town; integrate nearby buildings to the local infrastructure, which then would make the area of control. Given these locations are not directly protected, they are vulnerable, so it's an strategic point, whether or not protect your controled zone, whilst the enemy chew upon the idea that destroying it to conquer that town will affect how they will be penalized by the locals, available units for hiring could leave, less income for days, etc.

____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS Portal 2

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


Adventuring Hero
posted September 16, 2020 04:01 PM

I like the one-building-per-turn system. The reason is that time is a resource, and then it's useful to have buildings have different ratios of money-to-time costs.
____________

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


Legendary Hero
posted September 16, 2020 10:36 PM

PandaTar said:
I was thinking on a more generic way. You have an amount of gold and resources and three towns, for example. Lose one town, lose 33% of that amount. Enemy gains 50% of that amount as plunder, the other 50% is lost in 'many small situations which might occur'. But that would be considering that whenever you conquer a town, the place is not actually ready or willing to serve you, so there would be some initial penalties. It would feel odd having a well-developed town and a new town represent the same plunder? More or less. That can give you responsibility upon expansion and strategy, and not only conquering stuff because you have enough armies to beat the local resistance. And a new town does consume a lot of resources.
So would the percentage loss be based on the total number of buildings in the place? Or just the level of some critical buildings (Hall and/or Castle perhaps)? Also, in terms of resistance, what about my idea of an inherent militia, so no town is ever really unguarded?

Quote:
Yes, I feel the same. We should consider if having more than one building under construction at a time is a thing. If it is, should adding more construction sites affect the time of the others already underway? If it's not, you just queue the next building.
Hm, I didn't consider multiple simultaneous buildings, just that buildings shouldn't all take the same time to build. Did you have some concept of the mechanics behind simultaneous buildings?

Quote:
Agree too. H6 area of control was not very well projected, specially with the combined effects of town gating/portal and town conversion. Visually speaking, it would appearl to me of how AoW 3 looks like town grows and expands on the map. Perhaps you could combine the focus on mines (or adventure map buildings) as you said, with adjacent small areas grown from town; integrate nearby buildings to the local infrastructure, which then would make the area of control. Given these locations are not directly protected, they are vulnerable, so it's an strategic point, whether or not protect your controled zone, whilst the enemy chew upon the idea that destroying it to conquer that town will affect how they will be penalized by the locals, available units for hiring could leave, less income for days, etc.
Have to look that one up, as I've never played AOW 3.

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted September 16, 2020 10:54 PM

MattII said:
So would the percentage loss be based on the total number of buildings in the place? Or just the level of some critical buildings (Hall and/or Castle perhaps)? Also, in terms of resistance, what about my idea of an inherent militia, so no town is ever really unguarded?

Percentage of loss could be based on critical buildings or only on number of towns. It makes sense that less developed towns would require more resources, then resources would be alocated there, whilst more developed towns produce more resources. So, I really don't have a preferred option. I would make it simpler, by dividing resources by number of towns, holistically. Regarding resistance, that is also something interesting that should be addressed. How on earth a hero with a single gremlin can conquer a whole town with, most of times, opposing locals? Would you think that a part of the beings already awaiting for hire would volunteer, or another non-hireable unique unit would rise for that task?

Quote:
Hm, I didn't consider multiple simultaneous buildings, just that buildings shouldn't all take the same time to build. Did you have some concept of the mechanics behind simultaneous buildings?

It is something I am considering in my proposition, but based simply on any RTS, actually. There is work to do, which can be faster if concentrated workforce is onto it, or slower if divided between other buildings under construction at the same time. Resources are spent in the same way, just construction time changes. Of course, if the town is attacked during that phase, will it be paralyzed or destroyed, especially if it's a defensive building, for example? If greater population speeds construction time? Some things to consider, which would also be tied with other mechanics.

Quote:
Have to look that one up, as I've never played AOW 3.

As your city expands, it's control area expands along, and connects with other places. I don't remember all advantages of that. It's been a while since I last played the game, but the concept is nice.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS Portal 2

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


Legendary Hero
posted September 16, 2020 11:34 PM

PandaTar said:
I would make it simpler, by dividing resources by number of towns, holistically.
Fair enough.

Quote:
Regarding resistance, that is also something interesting that should be addressed. How on earth a hero with a single gremlin can conquer a whole town with, most of times, opposing locals? Would you think that a part of the beings already awaiting for hire would volunteer, or another non-hireable unique unit would rise for that task?
Both, actually.

Quote:
It is something I am considering in my proposition, but based simply on any RTS, actually. There is work to do, which can be faster if concentrated workforce is onto it, or slower if divided between other buildings under construction at the same time. Resources are spent in the same way, just construction time changes. Of course, if the town is attacked during that phase, will it be paralyzed or destroyed, especially if it's a defensive building, for example? If greater population speeds construction time? Some things to consider, which would also be tied with other mechanics.
Maybe make it a trade-off, the more buildings under construction, the fewer militia units you get if attacked. Also, it sounds like how research works in Space Empires 3 and 5 (they changed it a bit in SE4), where you have a certain number of research points, and you can divide them between multiple projects on a percentage basis.

Quote:
As your city expands, it's control area expands along, and connects with other places. I don't remember all advantages of that. It's been a while since I last played the game, but the concept is nice.
Hm, looks somewhat like Civilization actually, but using hexes instead of squares.

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted September 17, 2020 03:44 AM

Apparently, in AoW, when population is happy, city grows faster and production of gold, mana and resources follow in suit. It also defines starting morale of hired troops.

Happiness (or loyalty, depending on how we would want to implement it) could define area of control perks, the defending militia you mentioned, how a city would respond to an invasion if the militia lost, the possibility of converting a town. If your area of control grew to overlay mines or dwellings, then you would have means to improve them.

AoW you can also freely build roads, fund cities. You have these third party villages, which generally require some diplomatic resolution to be accessed. These places provide their own creatures to you. Units don't stack, gain experience, there are skills they can keep learning. You hero can use different mounts with different perks and skills to learn too.

I think there are many interesting features which, if tweaked properly, could work in a HoMM setting.
____________
"Okay. Look. We both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster."
GlaDOS Portal 2

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


Legendary Hero
posted September 17, 2020 04:21 AM
Edited by MattII at 13:14, 18 Sep 2020.

A lot of that sounds like a variation on the Civilization system.

Another thing I'd look at is the artefacts, not the main ones, but the Grail/Tear of Asha. I actually rather like the idea of the Ultimate Artefacts from Heroes 1/2, you could have more than one per map, and they had varied effects.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll Post New Topic Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0939 seconds