Nargott
Auto-translated
Previously, the idea of **canceling chains** was put forward, according to which, when two heroes meet, their remaining turns are adjusted to the minimum among them.
However, the question arises: how to manage the transfer of units through garrisons, cities, and mines? If using the same principle, then when visiting an object, the hero should have a portion of their turn taken away, according to the previous visitors of the object on that same day. But this solution looks awkward, since the previous heroes may not have changed the garrison. If, however, it is left as it was, this motivates the transfer of troops between heroes specifically through garrisons. When heroes meet, a portion of the turn is lost, but when leaving/taking a garrison, it is not.
In this regard, the idea of **zeroing turns** looks interesting: not to equalize the turns of the meeting heroes to the minimum, but to completely zero them (end their turn upon meeting). Similarly, when visiting any garrisons, cities, or mines. And the "marauding" or "path of war" ability could cancel this zeroing in favor of the previous option (visiting cities/mines/garrisons is free, meeting heroes equalizes to the minimum).
Another argument in favor of zeroing turns is strategic. Transferring troops becomes a significant (not free) act. A typical situation: the enemy's main hero, protected by a vanguard. You have 2 heroes nearby. In the first option, it made little sense for the enemy to make the vanguard powerful: since you transfer part of the army to the second hero and destroy the vanguard, after which the first hero attacks the enemy's main hero. In the second option (with zeroing), this trick cannot be done unless you initially had a sufficiently powerful second army in the vanguard.
Thus, zeroing turns upon meeting:
1) motivates playing with multiple armies (any combinations are complicated)
2) motivates the use of vanguards with sufficiently strong troops to support the main force (if the enemy's vanguard cannot break through the vanguard, then the main hero is safe for this turn)
Still, the idea of zeroing turns upon meeting, despite the above-mentioned advantages, seems controversial. It is clear that it expands the strategic component of the game. But it is not yet clear how it affects the gameplay as a whole, whether such a strategy adds interest, or whether it is an unnecessary complication.
Also, when developing this idea, a number of additional questions arise:
1. Should the turn be zeroed when capturing unguarded cities, mines, and garrisons (and dwellings?)? My opinion is that no, because then only vanguards will make captures.
2. Should the turn be zeroed when visiting empty cities, mines, and garrisons? My opinion is yes, because otherwise a curious situation arises when, with a minimum garrison (1 pikeman), the turn is zeroed, but in its absence, it is not.
It is clear that all this needs to be tested in practice. But at this stage, theoretical opinions on this matter are also interesting.
Added after 2 hours 41 minutes
Perhaps, zeroing turns is the only normal option for developing the idea of canceling chains, since in its pure form it does not work due to the use of chains through garrisons/mines/cities.
By the way, an interesting analogy emerges between the global map and the battle. If you imagine the map as a large battlefield with a system of breakable obstacles (neutrals), and heroes as units (stacks), then it turns out:
1) heroes (stacks) attack, ending their turn (as in the battle)
2) armies (stacks) cannot attack 10 times per turn and teleport, using the chain mechanism
3) combining/splitting troops (stacks) is possible as an activated ability, taking away the remaining turn from both stacks
Other parallels: logistics = speed, path of war = area attack (if neutrals are standing nearby), using vanguards = using single units (or more powerful supporting stacks).
However, the question arises: how to manage the transfer of units through garrisons, cities, and mines? If using the same principle, then when visiting an object, the hero should have a portion of their turn taken away, according to the previous visitors of the object on that same day. But this solution looks awkward, since the previous heroes may not have changed the garrison. If, however, it is left as it was, this motivates the transfer of troops between heroes specifically through garrisons. When heroes meet, a portion of the turn is lost, but when leaving/taking a garrison, it is not.
In this regard, the idea of **zeroing turns** looks interesting: not to equalize the turns of the meeting heroes to the minimum, but to completely zero them (end their turn upon meeting). Similarly, when visiting any garrisons, cities, or mines. And the "marauding" or "path of war" ability could cancel this zeroing in favor of the previous option (visiting cities/mines/garrisons is free, meeting heroes equalizes to the minimum).
Another argument in favor of zeroing turns is strategic. Transferring troops becomes a significant (not free) act. A typical situation: the enemy's main hero, protected by a vanguard. You have 2 heroes nearby. In the first option, it made little sense for the enemy to make the vanguard powerful: since you transfer part of the army to the second hero and destroy the vanguard, after which the first hero attacks the enemy's main hero. In the second option (with zeroing), this trick cannot be done unless you initially had a sufficiently powerful second army in the vanguard.
Thus, zeroing turns upon meeting:
1) motivates playing with multiple armies (any combinations are complicated)
2) motivates the use of vanguards with sufficiently strong troops to support the main force (if the enemy's vanguard cannot break through the vanguard, then the main hero is safe for this turn)
Still, the idea of zeroing turns upon meeting, despite the above-mentioned advantages, seems controversial. It is clear that it expands the strategic component of the game. But it is not yet clear how it affects the gameplay as a whole, whether such a strategy adds interest, or whether it is an unnecessary complication.
Also, when developing this idea, a number of additional questions arise:
1. Should the turn be zeroed when capturing unguarded cities, mines, and garrisons (and dwellings?)? My opinion is that no, because then only vanguards will make captures.
2. Should the turn be zeroed when visiting empty cities, mines, and garrisons? My opinion is yes, because otherwise a curious situation arises when, with a minimum garrison (1 pikeman), the turn is zeroed, but in its absence, it is not.
It is clear that all this needs to be tested in practice. But at this stage, theoretical opinions on this matter are also interesting.
Added after 2 hours 41 minutes
Perhaps, zeroing turns is the only normal option for developing the idea of canceling chains, since in its pure form it does not work due to the use of chains through garrisons/mines/cities.
By the way, an interesting analogy emerges between the global map and the battle. If you imagine the map as a large battlefield with a system of breakable obstacles (neutrals), and heroes as units (stacks), then it turns out:
1) heroes (stacks) attack, ending their turn (as in the battle)
2) armies (stacks) cannot attack 10 times per turn and teleport, using the chain mechanism
3) combining/splitting troops (stacks) is possible as an activated ability, taking away the remaining turn from both stacks
Other parallels: logistics = speed, path of war = area attack (if neutrals are standing nearby), using vanguards = using single units (or more powerful supporting stacks).
