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: Heroes5 - h3 or h4 solutions ? Which are better ?
Thread: Heroes5 - h3 or h4 solutions ? Which are better ? This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · «PREV
lpgamble
lpgamble

Tavern Dweller
posted August 14, 2003 07:56 PM

retaliation:
That does bring up a point that has bugged me.  Blind is the perfect example.  One mage blinds 500 goblins?  I think a percentage of effected creatures would help solve this.  If you are a powerful mage and cast blind on a 20 angel stack. maybe 10 angels (based on hitpoints and magic defense) would be blinded and the stack has 50% blind effect.  The stack continues to operate at 1/2 effect.
____________

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


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
posted August 14, 2003 11:10 PM
Edited By: Djive on 14 Aug 2003

Partial effects are no good in my opinion. Just consider the Freeze or Petrify effects, and in part the Blind effect. Those effects should prevent all movement by the affected creatures, but if the stack can move then the stone statues are moving even though they are statues. Soon there will be stacks that are 20% cursed, 10% blessed, 50% used up retaliation, X% frozen and so on. It's really bad for player overview of the situation.

Much better IMO to handle the stack as a single unit, so you can ditch all those percentages.

The percentage approach doesn't feel natural at all to me. But used up one reatlaiation of three (or whatever the number is) feels a lot more natural.

The creatures doesn't retaliate idea also holds merit, but perhaps it promotes speed and being able to strike first too much.

I think one Hero or a stack fo spellcasters blinding 500 creatures is OK. I suggested the automatic split of armies to roughly equal sizes to get rid of the single stack exploit. 1 Hero can still do it, but that's more or less the point of having the Hero.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"

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

Tavern Dweller
posted August 15, 2003 03:06 AM

% effects

I can see how the % effects would be a pain in a drawn out battle.  I don't think most battles last long enough for it to be a major problem, but your point is well taken.  The longer battles do tend to be the most important ones.  Perhaps adding dispel to a couple of the spell casting monsters might help.  Something like the fairy dragons, Genies, maybe the ogre mages.  Just something to make non hero stacks a little more competitive vs magic.  This might go overboard, maybe you have a better idea?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
B0rsuk
B0rsuk


Promising
Famous Hero
DooM prophet
posted August 15, 2003 08:58 AM

1 Imp eating retaliation - it was never possible to this extent before.

In Heroes4 it is, because there are plenty summoning spells, many of them very cheap. That's why it never bothered you too much in H3.
____________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo RSA Animate - Smile or die

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


Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
posted August 15, 2003 02:54 PM

lpgamble:

resources

no, i didn't mean programming simplicity, i meant simplicity of playing.

sieges

i didn't understand exactly what you meant by 45 degree shield. flyers might have some movement penalty flying onto the wall, so that the archers would have a good shot at them before they do. i guess there's not much new in this idea.

i am skeptical about things in the moat that do a fixed amount of damage, e.g. in the moat. as far as i understand, the problem is that the fortifications are overpowered in the beginning and useless in the end game. if it's damage would depend on the number of creatures that cross the moat, then low level creatures would suffer more and the problem would remain the same.

income

as far as i understand, the homm world is somewhat medieval, and i am not quite sure if it was usual for the peasants to be part of an army.

spell effects vs stack size

as far as i know, no one has yet come up with a solution for a partially blinded stack that would work well. the best solution to the problem that i can remember was complete blinding with increased mana cost for large stacks. but someone also said: 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it.' and personally, i am not sure if it's broke.

djive:

maybe the no retaliation idea supports having smaller stacks if you have the slots available. and this might in turn slow down the battles, and slowing down battles is evil.

and often i do want to have different sized stacks of same type of creatures, even though i don't use the tiny stacks to absorb retaliations. and if you split a stack of reasonably fast low level troops into small stacks that are used for retal absorb, making same type creature stacks equal doesn't help at all, because your main stacks have different creature type.

personally, i wouldn't compare this % retal idea to % blind effects. imho they are entirely different type of things and i have some difficulties understanding your way of thinking when you find analogy here.

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

Tavern Dweller
posted August 15, 2003 04:42 PM

Cont.

The 45 degree shield would be on top of the ramparts of the castle to help protect against fliers.  Utterly useless in the game until someone says fliers shouldn't be effected by fortifications.

Income and middle ages.  Now this is something I have read about .  In regular little squabbles/raids peasants were not involved; however, in every major battle/war/ seige peasants have played a role some good some bad.  One of the reasons the mongols swept europe is because their "peasants" were trained and part of the army.  Most successful nobles realized the peasants were his lifeblood and last defense if he was seiged.  People like to credit the longbow for English success against the French in the 100 years war and I think the local archery contests had more to do with it than anything.  Peasants shooting two arrows every three seconds tends to discourage slow deliberate attacks.  

Anyway enough rambling the best example of my view income would be the roman army.  Rome always maintained a vast army and were clever enough to usually keep their armies busy in peacetime.  The army built roads, mills , water systems, navies, etc.  They actually worked their troops hard enough that they were thankful to be on campaign.  
____________

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


Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
posted August 15, 2003 05:15 PM
Edited By: Gerdash on 15 Aug 2003

lpgamble:

i guess the rome you are talking about wasn't really middle ages rome.

now i also remember something about the english archers. btw as a side note, i would rather believe that their attack speed was 1 arrow every 10 seconds, maybe a little less, but 1 arrow every 1.5 seconds must be an exageration. i guess 5 seconds would be the minimum.

considering the above, i guess you would still have to release the army to make them work as peasants again. why should the peasants be interested in the noble's plans for conquering the world in the feudal age? as far as i understand, it was the vassals who's duty was to fight in wars. hmm.. in what way did the english archers go to war, were they mercenaries?

and the 45 degree shield.. wouldn't it be called the roof?

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

Tavern Dweller
posted August 15, 2003 07:56 PM

>i guess the rome you are talking about wasn't really >middle ages rome.

Well I use Romans because they were the best documented case.  Rome II the Byzantine Empire was definately a major player in the middle ages.

>now i also remember something about the english archers. >btw as a side note, i would rather believe that their >attack speed was 1 arrow every 10 seconds, maybe a little >less, but 1 arrow every 1.5 seconds must be an >exageration. i guess 5 seconds would be the minimum.

No they really could churn out 2 shots every 3 seconds.  Accuracy wasn't an issue when French knights are charging you.  I doubt in practice if you could maintain that rate for long, especially if your life depends on not running out of arrows. English longbow men were amazing.  The archery contests were a little like mini olympics and prizes were given out for speed, distance, accuracy, depth of pentration to name a few I remember.

>considering the above, i guess you would still have to >release the army to make them work as peasants again. why

typically full time armies were not released but were split up and given projects.  Building fortresses, roads, temples, wells , etc.  Small groups are harder to organize into rebellions.  Most people think of farming when you say peasants, but in reality its more like the blacksmiths, potters, bakers, etc. that the army takes with them that is hurting the cities economy.

>should the peasants be interested in the noble's plans for >conquering the world in the feudal age? as far as i >understand, it was the vassals who's duty was to fight in >wars.

I would guess they would be very interested in any plans they had.  If you were a farmer in say Liverpool with no hope of changing jobs or locations, I think you would work pretty hard on town defense.  
No one today can really grasp how stiffling it was back then.  If you were a peasant and walking down the road it was common practice for soldiers to kill them on sight.  The closest thing I can think of is slavery in the south.  If the producers stay true to the book, Timeline a movie coming out in November, should show some of what it was like to be a peasant.  You couldn't even steal a soldiers uniform and pretend you were a soldier unless you were a very strong individual and even then you probably would have been drafted by then.

Wars were nothing like the last two centuries of warfare, if you lost there was a good chance your whole ethnic group was going to die.  People like Milosevic were the norm not the exception.

>hmm.. in what way did the english archers go to war, were >they mercenaries?

Early form of the draft.  The king called on each noble/vassel to supply troops.  Supplying less than your neighbor was a good way to lose land at the very least.

>and the 45 degree shield.. wouldn't it be called the roof?

Could be but many seige locations have uncovered bent javelin and spears that defenders would attach a sheild to and force into the rampart for protection.
____________

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


Responsible
Famous Hero
from the Animated Peace
posted August 15, 2003 11:28 PM
Edited By: Gerdash on 15 Aug 2003

ok..
(put the statements about rate of fire in bold, so there's no need to read much if you are interested in just that and nothing else)

http://www.pomian.demon.co.uk/longbow.htm

'that is almost 700 arrows a SECOND!'

oh, that was the total..

'At the battle of Agincourt, sources estimate that there were about 5,000 English archers. At a rate of fire of 8 arrows a minute, 40,000 arrows could be loosed each minute; that is almost 700 arrows a SECOND! After the battle, some chroniclers say that the battlefield looked as if it had snowed, such was the quantity of fletchings from the arrows in the ground.'

8 arrows per minute is in no way 2 arrows per 3 secons.

'The normal practice range for bowmen was 220 yards, with archers able to loose 8 - 10 well aimed arrows per minute. Exceptional archers could reach 20 per minute. The maximum range for longbows was much greater than this, but they lacked penetrating power against armour. Mounted knights could cover 220 yards in about 15 seconds, so rate of fire was important. Armoured footsoldiers would take about 90 seconds to cover the same distance. For the last 50 yards, the arrows could punch through the finest armour.'

oh, this is not true, they could not shoot through platemail at the battle of agincourt (a battle in the 100 year war). so i cannot guarantee that this source was very trustworthy..

ok, let's try something else..

http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html

'The English quietly and steadily advanced on the French position to within extreme longbow range (approx. 250 yards). To advance in good order, this would have taken up to ten minutes. If the French had attacked during this period, it would have been disatrous for the English. Having gained information that the French intended to attack his archers with massed cavalry, Henry had ordered each archer to carve an eight foot long stake, pointed at each end. Upon reaching their position, the archers drove their stakes into the ground at such an angle as to impale a horse as it charged. These stakes would have been planted in a thicket in the archers positions; dangerous for a mounted rider to enter but offering enough space for a lightly armed archer to freely move. Within this thicket, the archers would have stood in a loose belt with their flanks resting against the woods.

At the order, the archers let loose the first arrow strike. The "air was darkened by an intolerable number of piercing arrows flying across the sky to pour upon the enemy like a cloud laden with rain." While this may not have caused too much damage, having been fired from extreme range, it must have produced a deafening thunderclap of noise as it hit the French lines. As an English archer could loose up to ten flights a minute, by the time the first landed another would have been in the air. In the confusion of what had just happened, amidst the noise of outraged Frenchmen, injured animals and soldiers, the French cavalry on the flanks charged forth, followed by the first line of dismounted men-at-arms.

If it is to retain any sort of order, a cavalry charge can move at only 12-15 miles an hour. It would have taken about 40 seconds to cover the distance to the English lines; enough time for three to four further volleys of arrows. During the morning wait, lax command had allowed many of the cavalry on the flanks to wander off out of position. Caught by surprise by the English assault, the charge was severely undermanned. Moreover, due to the woods on either side of the field, they were unable to outflank the archers necessitating a frontal assault. The few who did reach the lines of archers, perhaps not seeing the stakes in between the mass of archers, crashed straight into the thicket of spikes and were unable to breach the lines. As the survivors retreated in disarray, they were followed by further volleys of arrows. Horses crazed and uncontrollable by injury and fright, with no space to manouver, crashed directly into the advancing men-at-arms breaking their orderly advance.'

and something else that looked interesting:

'Both armies rose before dawn and assembled for battle, the English numbering 5000 archers and 900 men-at-arms and the French between 20-30,000. The rules of chivalry dictate that the field of battle should favor neither side'

hmm..

'Their arrows were fixed with the "Bodkin point", specially designed to penetrate armor.'

about arrows piercing plate armor:

http://www.aginc.net/battle/

'Contrary to popular ideas, English arrows were not very effective against plate armor at the time of Agincourt.  Arrows would penetrate the arm and leg armor with a reasonably direct hit from close range, but would be ineffective against the head or body.  Reference:  Peter N. Jones, "The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages." Materials Characterization, vol. 29, pp.111-117 (1992).  [A periodical published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010.  Be prepared for some serious metallurgy.]'

http://gondolin.hist.liv.ac.uk/~azaroth/university/longbow.html

'The longbow, although used throughout history, was most effectively used by the English from the end of the thirteenth century to the beginning of the sixteenth, many battles being won on its deadliness. It was particularly decisive in the battles at Crécy and Agincourt against the French, and against the Scots at Halidon hill. Its long range and armour piercing qualities made it very effective against chainmail, but as defensive technology improved it was unable to keep up, being ineffective against the solid metal of plate armour.'
____________
what is the safest way to pass your time? heroes community -- your posts won't affect almost anything

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


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Zapper of Toads
posted November 08, 2003 08:34 PM
Edited By: Djive on 8 Nov 2003

Off-topic: bonuses applied

Gave Borsuk, gerdash, EmporerSly, and lpgamble one bonus each for their contribution to the discussion. Dingo's QP is a Poster of the Month Award.
____________
"A brilliant light can either illuminate or blind. How will you know which until you open your eyes?"

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
[ Peacekeeper of Equilibris ]
posted January 25, 2004 07:04 PM

H3 or H4??? Which are better...

I s'ppose to be the last to post here for now and I think I'm too late, but I think I still need to explain my opinions. Shall I begin...

#1 H3 unit upgrades OR no unit upgrades H4

I think that there should be a mix of them. I personally like the way H3 and H4 are, so I think UbiSoft should mix things to make a newly designed system: two creatures per level to choose from; each of them has from 0-3 different upgrades. My idea should be xplained this way:


Dwarf (First Level 2)
--> Mountain Dwarf
--> Snow Dwarf

Halfling (Second Level 2)

As you see, Dwarf has two upgrades to choose from while our favorite halfling has none of them. This system should be the best.

#2 H3 or H4 style castle siege

For this question, I think I would like a mix too. I like the ideas of the moats and no catapult to destroy walls, but I missed arrow towers and deadfall. These things should be mixed together. I just think that castle walls to heighten themselves when upgradin fort into higher level. Also, if there were none of the arrow towers, moats should be placed "into" the wall, so the creatures should stand even higher. That should affect their defence and magic resistance.

#3 Building cost and daily income

I would like to have bigger income and lesser cost than in H4, but lesser income and a bit bigger cost than in H3. I thought that it was a bit of noncence to receive only a 1000 of gold daily instead of 2000 or 4000. But 4000 was too much, so I think the income should be in the middle - from 2000 to 3000.

Also building cost, should be more duplicate to H4 than H3, but when there is more creatures.

#4 Magic system

I hated H3 system because there was too much of chaos. But there was some good and interesting spells that should be returned in H5: Titan's Lightning Bolt, Remove Obstacle etc.

But mostly, I would prefer H4 magic system: every town has unique magic. Also, we should mix the quantity of mage guild upgrades in town. Some should have three, some - five. That should make a greater sense.

#5 Adventure map threat areas

Wholeheartedly agree with B0rsuk. I hated that thing in H3 and I liked in H4. Only I didn't like that silly thing about creatures wandering. I hated that.

#6 New H4 combat features

... should be included. Morale, speed, movement, LoS, ranged attack and defence, melee attack and defence. These should be brought back to H5. But some others should be there: spell power, magic resistance... also, the LoS effect should be changed on each different terrain.

#7 Interface!

H4 has messed up totally with these things... portraits of heroes and faces of creatures were very disgusting. Some spell has messed effects: quicksand, martyr etc. I hated that very much... more of h3 here.

#8 Battlefields

Big ones with slower units, but with attributes from h3: arrow towers, first aid tents (not catapults,ballistae) etc.

#9 About the damage

Doesn't matter... Only units should have ranged first strike too, then... also, if we want H3 style, there should be an option that shoud enable the hero to retreat, only after two or more turns.

#10 Reinforcements and chaining

Creatures should be on their own... only in Combat Map...
Own morale, luck, speed and movement. I suggest that instead of chaining it with hero, creature stack should be able to use an artefact NAMED in PLURAL, for ex: Ring of Vitality -> Rings (ring+s) of Vitality

#11 Creature choices

I can only repeat what I said in the earliest posts - two creatures = 0-3 upgrade for each of therm.

#12 Non-combat heroes - H4 style

Another time, I have to agree with that guy, named B0rsuk... even if a hero has scouting, he can win...

That's all for now... I suspect...

____________

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


Famous Hero
or not ...
posted August 11, 2004 01:49 AM

I really need to play a really complex game ... because i'm tired of Heroes III & IV which are the most complex game i've ever played i am also going to say how i wish Heroes V will be ...

1.Unit Upgrades

This is probably the most important thing ...
I consider that the upgrades should be like in Heroes III : Armageddon's Blade ... i mean every creature should have 2 "faces" , the second one being better and requiering(spell?) one extra construction and you know the stuff ...
The upgrade "job" , that's how you upgrade , would have to be like in Heroes III ...
I disagree with the temporary "Borsuk's idea" ...

2.H3 or H4 style castle siege

Hmm ... well ... i still think that Heroes III had better castle siege defences ... so i would go with H3 style castle siege but with some small modifications ... ok ... when you attack a castle you should have a catapult purchased , a crew for the catapult (also purchased) , limited ammo for the catapult ... i mean like a real catapult ! , the rest should be the same ...

3.Building cost and daily income

I prefer the H3 building costs and income ... although ...income from the mine & capitol and estates should be reduced ...

4.Magic System

This time i have to agree with the Heroes IV concept ... heroes have to learn a special skill to learn spells ... but spells in Heroes IV are weak and not so many ... so Heroes V should have at least one attack spell at every castle and at least one protection spell.

5.Adventure map hero threat areas

Hmm ... i think the user should have an option to make the map's creatures attack or not if an enemy passes by ...

6.New H4 combat features

Well ... the Combat features are pretty good in heroes IV but i really hate the retaliation ... i mean i am shooting with a medusa in some peasant-kid and the kid throws a rock and kills my medusa !!!

7.Interface

Heroes III and IV are almost the same ... but i still go with Heroes III style , and should someone please remove the market from the menu !!! You should build your market ...

8.Battlefields
 
Umm ... i agree with 2D big battlefields with very fast creatures ... but i think it would be better to have a 3D rotating camera .... but much more difficult to make and to play ...

9.Simultaneous damage

i said this earlier : "i really hate the retaliation ... i mean i am shooting with a medusa in some peasant-kid and the kid throws a rock and kills my medusa !!!"

10.Reinforcements and chaining

I disagree the chaining technique and i hate having more heroes ...

11.Creature choices

Umm ... it could be like Heroes 4 ... but it shouldn't mix the castles because when i want to buy my precious sultan in heroes 4 , i can't buy the beautiful nightmares ... so the inferno and the other castles should be reinstalled ...

12.Heroes

I think the "MAIN" hero should be on the horse making spells and stuff , like a leader because that's really why the game is called "HEROES of Might & Magic" ... but i would like if other heroes could come with the "Main" hero as creatures ... so the main hero doesn't die unless he loses ...

More stuff

Ok ... my vision of Heroes V is more like Heroes III ...
So ... the tavern should be like Heroes IV so you can choose any hero you like from any kind of castle ... the market should be left for the user to build , the mage guild should have 5 levels and spells for every type of hero/castle ...
I disagree with the percentage stuff ...
The Army should have 8 empty spots ... the hero separately .
The creatures should be able to wonder freely like in Heroes IV (without a hero) ...
An armory should be available for improving hero stats ...
When you retreat you should leave the units to your enemy ...
And i really hope it will be a good game ...

____________
The Pirahna - wow guys ... my posts keep decreasing ... lol ... i can't post

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


Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
posted August 11, 2004 11:14 AM

wll, I will give you my 2 cents on these subjects as well
IMO, it is a matter of taste, as I can see that we have almost equal amounts of h3/h4 addicts. Me, being partially a h3 fanatic, i would go for h3 more. But, as far as I can see, h4 does provide us a series of improvements that should be taken into considerations. so...

1. Upgradable H3 units vs. non-upgradable H4 units

As I said before, it is a matter of taste. I personally like better the upgrading variation, because it does add a little diversity to the game. On the other hand, the H4 variation is also quite interesting, making your choices a little more tactica. Fewer units are good because of the lesser amount of time you spend learning to play with them, but also, note that fewer units are... fewer units. That is more like a downgrade. I would suggest here actually to adopt a Heroes 2 oriented style of creatures, with some of them upgrading (and the upgrade should really count, IMO), and others not upgrading. Even more, I would add to certain units the posibility to upgrade mor times than once (like the green/red/black dragon in H2). Another good uprading coice, witch resembles a little with the one Disciples 2 uses, would be to focus on fewer units per town, but each of them with a larger tech tree. I found this one to be lovlely while playng the Disciples series, plus the fact that creature experience would be a nicer addition.

2. H3 castle siege vs. H4 castle siege

Well, here it's simple, IMO. The H3 siege looks to me a little better, due to the presence of catapults and defensive towers. For small armies, the fight inside a castle vs. one outside a castle really made a difference, asking the player to pay mor attention to their tactics and game approach. However, in later games, when clashing uber armies of counltess dragons, the siege fight would not matter that much, except for some strategies (placing creatures in front of the dor to forbid it from opening, etc). Comparing that to the H4 style, i still find it more accurate. What i hated in H4 was the fact that you could hit an enemy stack through the door or through the wall if the creature was adjectant. Now that is something peculiar when talking about realism. I would suggest an improved H3 stile of combat siege, with towers becoming stronger as the armies grow, plus several town structures that give bonuses or curses to players, like magic resistance, defence, or minus defence, etc.

3. Building cost and daily income
Being an economical issue, I will not debate it much. Still, sometimes in H4 i felt a little pennyless, due to the small amount of gold that was stashing in my treasurery. I think it's a really small amount. Still, in H3 you could accumulate great sums of money, witch eventually leaded to that annoyng H3 bug when you woud have a negative sum of money. I say that income should be well balanced with the cost of different structures throughout the game and with the creatures. It does not matter how that money come, it matters that it should be ballanced.

4. Magic System

Here I think is the most triky part. As most of you said,the H3 magic system was chaotic, but still, you could gain acces to spells not from your speciallity. I mean, a grand sorcerer with expert, let's say, water magic of level 77 should have imo the basic knowledge to cast other spells, at reduced power. And the three stages of the quality of a casted spell in H3 was good. In h4, however, we have that nicely done arhitecture of magic skills. Although it is very hard for one to reach gm something on most of the maps, it was still cool. But my problem is that, as I stated, a magician should be able to learn most spells available, even those outside his guild, even if that means that casting them will cost more and the results are not as devastating as from a specialised mage in that guild.

5. Battlefield

I go for the H3 battlefield any day of the year. It is more logical, more tactical, and lets you adopt more secure strategies, with better chances to 'think' the battle like a chess game. And I like chess

6. Simultanious damage

This is one of the things that separated me from h4 in the first place. I couldnt get used to it, and I still can't (at a level that I can anticipate losses by the book i mean). And i don't think it's fair for a stack of let's say, BD to hit and be simultaniously be hit by a stack of peasants. No no no. I like the h3 style better.

Ok, these are the points I thought needed my opinion.
All others not listed here are not of real interest to me.
____________

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


Hired Hero
posted August 11, 2004 12:28 PM
Edited By: igoraki on 11 Aug 2004

HEROES 4 way,please

hereos in combat is a must
however,i would like to see 4 primary skills back from h3,you know attack,defence,spell power and knowledge,so now you will have to chose two times on level up,first for primary skills +1(h3 like),and second for advancing in one secondary skills(h4 way).

more towns is also a must
this is only thing i didnt like in h4,lowering number of towns,so bring back inferno and fortress and add some more.

in all other aspects,h4 way is much better,imho,some improvements are welcome but stay at h4 course.
____________

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


Adventuring Hero
The Surgeon of Death
posted August 11, 2004 03:47 PM

1. Unit Upgrades

I say, the H2 way!
Some creatures have upgrades and some don't.

2. Sieges

I think that in H4 it is just too hard to capture a fully defended castle.  The bonuses to troops on the arrow towers are ridiculous, and the defending fliers seem to have no trouble flying over the wall in one turn.  
Siege combat should come with a "ballista" for the defender that is placed in an arrow tower.  Ranged troops should have to get behind the walls to fire.  Attackers can only enter the castle by knocking down the gate, flying, or teleporting.  Grunts should not be able to attack troops on top of the wall.

3. Economics

The way it was done in H4 is okay by me.

4. Magic system

This is another area where I thought H4 was truly great.  Having one mage guild aligned with each town meant you knew basically what spells you were going to get and which you were going to be facing.  I do disagree that "you know exactly what you're getting"- personally, I think Forgetfullness is a way better spell than Mass Blur, Mass First Strike is better than Mass Misfortune, etc.- but you become more experienced using those spells in relation to your town's creatures and strategy.

5. Wandering monsters

Not really a big deal for me.

6. New combat features

Yeah, H4 definetly came up with ways to make combat a little better, too.  

7. Interface

I don't think I ever had a reason to use a Sanctuary- it's just an object that sits there and heals dead heroes, I see little point in sitting inside a Sanctuary to stay safe when my heroes have better things to do.  I thought the interface was fine.

8. Battlefields  

The larger size of the battlefield, if nothing else, made ranged troops too powerful.  An Order army with Halflings, Dwarves, Magi, Genies, Titans, and 2 Mage heroes can rip apart just about any attacking enemy.  So can a Nature army with Elves, Elementals, Faerie Dragons, an Archer, and maybe a Druid to summon more of said creatures.  All creatures should be able to cross to the other side of the battlefield in 2 turns, maybe 3 for a zombie or something.

9. Damage

Again, I bow to the H4 system of simultaneuos attacks and the First Strike ability/spell.

10. Reinforcements/chaining

Instead of chaining, creatures can now move without a hero.  This makes much more sense.

11. Creature choices

I prefer the H3 system here.  Every town should have 6-8 different creatures that they should be able to build and buy.  Maybe in theory there would be 4 levels but you culd build the structure for both levels, so you can have Vampires and Venom Spawn, Titans and Dragon Golems.  Then there are eight troops in an army, maybe two more slots that can only be filled by heroes, and you're good.

12. Non-combat heroes

I feel very, very edgy about having mains who can't help in battle.  If I start with a Lord, they will only stay in my main army until I have two Mage heroes, which is when they will go back to my castle and sit there.  Same with Thiefs- I'd just rather have 2 Sorcerers.
____________
Doctors are not necessarily your friends.

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


Responsible
Supreme Hero
[ Peacekeeper of Equilibris ]
posted August 11, 2004 04:46 PM

Heroes in combat

I did post other things, but I want to say some more:

I think heroes should be odded (spelling?) out... instead, they should have a creature/leader/commander thing they could raise their stats by SKILLS dedicated for them, but that use slots in heroes' skill table...

however, in the battlefield, everything would be the same -THING would occupy the hex of the hero... while the hero would sit on the horse (somewhere in the corner of the field) and cast spells (same as H3 Wog option only implemented into similar battlefield as in h4).
____________

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


Promising
Famous Hero
posted August 11, 2004 04:49 PM

----------------------------------------------

1.(H3) unit upgrades  OR (H4) no unit upgrades ?

I prefer the H4 way about it, or perhaps the H2 way about it, with Chaotic upgrades. I like having fewer troops in my army, then massive amounts of identical units.

2. H3 or H4 style castle siege ?

I enjoy the H4 castle siege, because you can destroy the gate, however, I find it silly that 1000 dragons cant destroy the gate in 1 hit, but i guess it needs to be that way,I also dont like how the Towers work in H4, because more often then not, I dont like having troops on them because they become suceptible(sp?) to spells and ranged attacks, and even more often i placed my men imporoperly and my melee troops are on the turrets when i need my hero or ranged troops. Other then that I much prefer the H4 system

3. Building cost and daily income

In H4 you NEEDED a gold mine, especialy as chaos, dragons costed nearly a weeks income each.(4/7th to be precise) I think they removed to much money from income, and did not reduce the cost of armies enough. however buildings are cheaper and you dont need as many. I would like it if a castle could be a little more self sustainable then in H4 but much less then in H3(where a capitol gives you 28K a week).

4. Magic system
I really like the Magic system in H5, no longer can a barbarian learn blind with nothing but a 500$ magic book, I also like the idea of each town having their own magic group.


5. Adventure map hero threat areas

I assume this is mobile guards? I like how H4 has the yellow curser when you are within striking range of ennemies, it gives more options for mapmakers because they can block more area with less creatures.

6. New H4 combat features

Dynamic luck/morale, I dont really like this idea, ive never once checked my individual units luck and moral (except when i was experimenting with the game) so i got hit with bad moral when i thought I had good or decent at least. I also dont like the 21 levels of luck idea, its way to much, bring back the 7 level version, much more meaningfull I found it in H3, also in H4 I hardly ever noticed when the little morale thing popped up.

Heroes in battle, I always loved having heroes in combat, since it first came out, but after playing the campaigns the heroes become way to powerfull, perhaps your heroes should restart levels every campaign level, but keep skills, this way you dont have a hero that has 1000 hp and does 500 dmg at the beggining of a level.

7. Interface !

I prefer the H3 setting here as well, how often I tried to open a castle only to accidentaly send my hero towards it, the map is 2 cluttered I find, it looks beautiful, but i tend to lose stuff in the forests and whatnot (treasure chests, artifacts, even enemy heroes)

I do like the castle simplisity though, recruit all of your creatures at the press of a button, town hall is always in the same possition (i dont know how many times i hit the castle instead of the town hall in the undead castle on H3)

I also liked how when you played at 1024x768 you could see unit stats on the main screen.


8. Big battlefields (H4) or tiny ones, with very fast creatures (H3)

I like big battlefields, but i would like big units as well, since you cant have both, I would prefer larger units to larger battlefields, or a zoom ability and i can have my cake and eat it too, Icons must be larger though, I want to see the morale bonus icon, spell icons (fix the implosion one while your at it.. (since when does someone having a inward explosion get green goop on them?)

9. Simultaneous damage (H4) or first strike - first damage (H3).

Simultanious damage all the way, with bonusses like they had in H4, I think they hit the nail right on the head on that one.

10. REinforcements and chaining

keep the Caravan, thats good enough for me, maybe caravans could move faster on larger maps or something though

11. Creature choices - Minotaur or medusa ?

Yes keep the choices, perhaps like I read here, where the weaker unit of the two would have a upgrade, that would make it the stronger unit, but more expensive. (mintour is 10% weaker then medusa but costs 20% less, upgraded minatour is 10% stronger but costs 20% more) type of deal

12. Non-combat heroes - H4 style !

I love Scouting, only downside is it eats up like half my my level gains. perhaps they should make it easier to level up, perhaps you get 2 skill bonuses per level (have you ever used up all your slots like in H3 25 levels or something)


-Draco out

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


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted August 16, 2004 04:16 AM

Nice thread you have here. I started reading it to see that you had an interesting debate going on for each of the gameplay keypoints, but since it was a pretty long time ago and I’m out of the debate, I will just give my brief opinions concerning the solutions (only related to H3 or H4).

1: (H3) unit upgrades OR (H4) no unit upgrades
No unit upgrades. Other ways already discussed are better.

2: H3 or H4 style castle siege ?
H3 siege was better.

3. Building cost and daily income
It depends on the game balance (buildings costs, creatures cost etc.) But I don’t think a Gold Mine should give as much money as a city, but less.

4. Magic system
None. Sort of a mix of both.

5. Adventure map hero threat areas
H4.

6. New H4 combat features
Yes, most of them are good.

7. Interface !
H3.

8. Big battlefields (H4) or tiny ones, with very fast creatures (H3)
H4, bigger battlefields.

9. Simultaneous damage (H4) or first strike - first damage (H3).
Simultaneous damage with some benefits for the attacker. I think you should be more concentrated on those than trying to find a way to “solve” the retaliation.

10. REinforcements and chaining
H4.

11. Creature choices - Minotaur or medusa ?
None. Build all structures and be able to buy all creatures. A thing for discussion would be if two same level creatures have a common growth rate or separate. (can you buy 4 minotaurs and 6 medusas per week or 10 of each)

12. Non-combat heroes - H4 style !
More like H3. You had those skills there too, but I think they should gain in importance much more.

____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

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

Tavern Dweller
posted August 16, 2004 07:34 AM

> 1.(H3) unit upgrades OR (H4) no unit upgrades ?

Ultimately, I think H4 was headed in the right direction, by making us make more choices.  That's part of strategy-not having it all.
But a possible improvement to the H4 system is to be able to build 2 structures for each level.  Either both minotaurs and medusas, or just build one, then upgrade it.  A week of upped L2's could defeat a week's of unupgraded L3's, but then, you miss out on the numbers you would get by getting both L2s.  Maybe L1 could have three build-slots, and maybe there could be a skill to demolish buildings to restructure.

> 2. H3 or H4 style castle siege ?

I liked H3's siegecraft, and I want it back.  Maybe not a skill for each specific siege weapon, though.  Also, the moat/towers/good door thing seemed bland to have for all castle types.  Possible siegecraft & special defenses could be...

Nature: mantlis (big shield guy, provides cover from ranged for units behind, and can plug up holes in walls), ammo cart (maybe, when an army leaves the  castle, each archer has 24 arrows - and don't get them back after a battle!), inhabited moat (binds/occasionally chews up an invader), Towers, and an escape route.

Chaos: Petard, a bomb to blow up either a wall, or really annoy units.  Think LOTR:TTT.  A field that has traps neither side can see in a siege, sally ports in the walls for defenders to leave/enter, attackers can't use them, a catapult to destroy walls OR do some amount of damage to units, and turrets with special units.

Death: Starvation tactics, not a siege weapon.  Death attacking or defending could have a serious advantage here.  Acid moat, skeletal shock troops that rise out of the ground behind the enemy, and maybe pit traps, like a moat but takes a turn to get out.

Order: Cannon.  Helps take down walls/troops, but very slow firing for its power, maybe 3 shots. Mines along the outer wall, reinforced walls and gates with twice as many hit points, and an extra wall.  Also, castle has Expert scouting or better viewing radius.

Life: Med tent, run-of-the-mill moat, cathedral for morale. It would have Ramparts, which would be like Towers, but are along the wall, so on the rampart you can attack the poor folks in the moat.  For the moat+Rampart bonus, the defenders would be closer, and the attackers wouldn't have a range penalty.  Maybe a Trebuchet as well, capable of instantly killing any 1 troop, be it a peasant or titan.

Might: Battering ram, or some portable Tower/escalade to ferry troops over a wall.  A spiked barricade in stead of a moat, doing damage on how fast you move through it, castle being on a slope, which slows attacker movement and attack.  They could also have a ballista and a magic dampener, giving all units good or bad some magic resistance.

Trebuchets wouldn't be able to leave a castle, but med tents, ammo carts, mantlises, ballistas, and cannons would, with various movement rates.

> 3. Building cost and daily income

Good to err on the side of too little income - map designers can always add gold mines.  Besides, I like needing to make *choices*.

> 4. Magic system

H4 for sure.  I have suggestions, but post is long enough as is.  But spell duration should return and/or being able to mass bless with enough proficiency in bless.  In short, damage increases with level and Pyromancy, but buffs and curses don't increase (still useful).

> 6. New H4 combat features

H4, but separate movement in combat and movement over land.  Something may be able to move far in sprints, but lacks endurance.

8) Expanded battlefield, with strategic points (hills, streams, etc)  Make it longer to cross the map, but increase range penalties for archers (or complete misses/friendly fire).
9) H4, and rare first-strike/no retals.
11) I answered in 1)...
12) Make ALL skills worthwhile.  Non-combat skills make the game more interesting...

Sorry it's so long.  Night all.
____________

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


Adventuring Hero
pRr..
posted August 19, 2004 06:39 PM
Edited by alcibiades at 20:19, 06 Jul 2009.

1) H3 style (upgrades)
9) H4 style is much better.  



Moderator's note:This topic has been closed, as it refers to an older version of the game. To discuss Heroes 3, please go to Library Of Enlightenment, to discuss Heroes 4, please go to War Room Of Axeoth, to discuss Heroes 5, go to Temple Of Ashan.
____________

 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 0.1095 seconds