Auto-translated
In this thread, a number of new ideas are being put up for discussion, some of which are currently being implemented in the WGE mod for Heroes 5. All the ideas listed below concern only the strategic part, as the tactical part (battles) has already been formed, implemented, and tested.
Why am I taking this topic beyond Heroes 5? I want to introduce these ideas to fans of the entire Heroes series, not just Heroes 5. Many ideas are more or less "cross-platform," borrowed from a mix of other parts.
I propose the following discussion format:
If this is your first post in the thread, the first paragraph should be a list of ratings for the ideas on a 10-point scale. For example, like this:
1)7
2)5
3)9
4)10
5)9
Essentially, this is an analog of comprehensive voting. After that, you can justify your position in more detail.
So, the ideas themselves:
1) Ban on chains: when meeting for a trade, the moves of both heroes are reduced to the minimum between the two (for example, if heroes meet with remaining moves of 30 and 12, both will have 12)
Pros:
- abandonment of artificial bans on red-rushing (without chains, it is impossible to instantly transfer all purchased growth to a necessary point and manage to hit the opponent at the same time)
- abandonment of artificial restarts due to meeting too early, since without chains you can repel rushes by taking advantage of distance (as is done in all other strategies)
- strategic maneuvering on the map, splitting troops (since one super-army is no longer omnipotent)
- closer approximation to the reality of wargames
- time savings on the mechanical transfer of troops via a chain
Cons:
- slowing down the pace of the game (a super-army cannot conduct a bunch of battles in different places in one day)
- weakening of armies when splitting (i.e., neutrals should be weaker)
- cutting out the chaining element of gameplay from the game (how to properly organize a network of chains, disrupt the opponent's network, etc.)
Note: to compensate for the dynamics, it is necessary to simultaneously increase hero movement range and experience gain speed.
2) 50% move penalty after battle: as in Disciples 2; if less than half of the move remains, it is reset (without penalties on the next day).
Pros:
- limiting the number of battles conducted per day and speeding up turn time
- motivation to let neutrals go, since there is no battle and the move is not spent — again saving time by abandoning meaningless slaughter of weaklings
- selective breakthroughs instead of total clearing; as a result, zones do not become empty
- adding a strategic element of blocking with "roaches" (since breaking through a roach will also cost 50% of the move)
- separation of logistics and experience: with such a mechanic, logistics only increases movement range but does not have a direct influence on the number of battles per turn
- combat heroes can now manage their moves more freely, knowing that the remainder will be eaten by the battle (no need for a "cleaner-roach" behind them)
- in H5 conditions: smoothing the impact of time control on the game (under normal conditions, if the turn time expires during a battle, the turn ends after the battle and the hero does not manage to run the remaining move — in the new mechanic, he most likely won't have this remainder anyway, and such a battle can safely be left for the end of the day)
- in the context of banning chains: motivation to split armies to conduct more battles per day and get more rewards
Cons:
- slowdowns when breaking through double guards, such as those in lifts and portals
- reduction of movement range for combat heroes
Note: it is necessary to simultaneously increase hero movement range and experience gain speed.
3) Increasing hero movement range
Pros:
- increasing game dynamics
- fewer roaches required
Cons:
- increasing the number of battles per turn and spending time on them
Note: this idea perfectly complements the first two, eliminating their cons as well as its own.
4) Increasing experience gain for heroes per battle.
Pros:
- speeding up game dynamics
- reducing the advantage of super-leveled heroes, since others manage to reach the "stop bar" faster/closer. The "stop bar" is that boundary at which level growth becomes significantly more difficult (practically stops).
5) Replacing all double guards on the map with single ones. The point is simple: saving time. It's foolish to break through the same object (exit to a zone) twice.
6) Lowering city bars: relevant only in the context of H5, as they don't exist in previous parts.
Pros:
- increasing game dynamics due to the possibility of reaching top tiers earlier.
- non-linearity of city development due to the absence of forced dips in city level.
- strengthening the economic component, as expensive buildings are available sooner.
- ability to quickly develop captured neutral cities to top tiers.
Pro/con:
- after reaching top tiers, development slows down and the game can be ended without building most of the city. Alternative construction instead of full (compared to H4, the player chooses for themselves each time what will be the alternative).
7) Abandoning upgrades in favor of alternatives: when an upgrade is built, alternatives are opened with the same strength as the base unit.
Pros:
- abandonment of inferior units in favor of a greater variety of full-fledged ones
- wealth of choice (choosing from 3 alts is better than from 2)
Cons:
- absence of the strategic element of boosting units through their upgrade
- no particular point in erecting upgraded buildings
Note: the cons are corrected in the next idea.
8) Separate system of creature arrivals/growth. Arrival is a one-time appearance of creatures for hire upon construction; growth is the subsequent weekly replenishment. The proposed system introduces double creature arrival for building upgrades compared to building base buildings, but without affecting subsequent growth.
Pros:
- correcting the cons of the previous idea
- since upgrades give a larger one-time arrival than bases, they compete with reaching top levels in terms of one-time arrival strength. Alternative development strategies.
- the system allows playing with arrival/growth parameters. That is, creating not only monolithic dwellings with identical growth and arrival, but also diverse ones: with high growth and low arrival, and vice versa. This adds strategic depth (better development now or later).
9) Specialization of fortifications: instead of an identical bonus to all growth +50%/100%, introduce group bonuses, such as: Stronghold increases growth for units of levels 1-3, Castle — 1-5.
Pros:
- ability to accelerate lower-level creatures, which are affected by both the Stronghold and the Castle, catching up with upper growths through fortifications
- group development of lower levels as an alternative to individual development — reaching top tiers
- possibility not to play into fortifications, since specialized ones are no longer always useful
Cons:
- weakening the role of fortifications due to narrowing their area of effect.
Note: a parallel strengthening of the role of fortifications is necessary.
10) Strengthening the role of fortifications: upon construction, provide a one-time arrival of creatures for all constructed base dwellings in the city that fall within the area of effect of this fortification (from the previous idea).
Pros:
- immediate effect from fortifications; no need to wait until day 6-7 to build them.
11) Compensation for first-move advantage: in 1v1 games, the blue player receives an additional building at the start. With more players, all players except the first receive a chance for an additional building; the later a player moves, the higher the chance. The last player is guaranteed to receive this building.
Pros:
- correcting the imbalance of the first player, who has a tempo advantage of half a move (white has a similar advantage in chess).
Pro/con:
- differing development dynamics for players with/without an additional building. The blue player places buildings 1 tempo earlier, but the red player has more resources available by the time they build the same buildings (advantage of an extra turn).
12) Game balance oriented toward timelines of 1-3 weeks.
Pros:
- supporting high game dynamics (a match can be played in a couple of hours)
- strengthening the time factor (key for strategies)
Cons:
- cutting out part of the gameplay (reducing city development and map clearing)
Pro/con:
- with such dynamics, simultaneous turn mode is unnecessary and practically useless.
13) Partially built neutral cities: calculated so that upon capture they lag slightly behind the starting city.
Pros:
- supporting synchronous development of several cities, with redistribution of resources between them (a very important strategic element)
- supporting mixes (mixing relevant troops) from different cities
- relevance of siege skills when taking neutral cities
Cons:
- such cities should be better guarded (they will be harder to take), as they have very high value
14) Ban on redeeming defeated heroes (they will not appear in the tavern)
Pros:
- adrenaline + increasing the role of scouting
Pros/cons:
- limiting "tricksters" (now one-time use for each hero)
- ban on teleporting heroes when being crushed by neutrals
15) Ban on over-grading troops: relevant in the context of H5. Allow only upgrading the base version to one of the "improved" ones.
Pros:
- strategic nature of a choice made once (its consequences affect the entire game)
Cons:
- lack of flexibility
Additional ideas:
(controversial, in my opinion)
16) Double city construction (two buildings per day)
Speeds up dynamics but erases alternatives and shifts the balance in favor of cheap buildings.
17) Payment for maintaining creatures outside garrisons
Strategic element, support for garrisons, ability to play separately with creatures expensive to hire and those expensive to maintain, reducing fear of losses. The downside is the economic complication of the game (while economy has never been a strong point of Heroes). Maintenance payment fully reveals itself in prolonged matches (protection against accumulation of excess resources), which is exactly what should be avoided.
18) Limiting army sizes
Motivates splitting armies. Only works adequately in prolonged games. If army size limits are tied to hero level, then double support for super-leveled heroes occurs (skills + army) and the economic element of the game is weakened (no cool heroes = no cool troops, regardless of how good the economy is).
19) Increasing hero movement range as level grows
Speeds up the move dynamics of the ГГ. Again, support for super-leveled heroes (super-logistics + super-strength) with all the consequences. Also applies to slow roaches.
Why am I taking this topic beyond Heroes 5? I want to introduce these ideas to fans of the entire Heroes series, not just Heroes 5. Many ideas are more or less "cross-platform," borrowed from a mix of other parts.
I propose the following discussion format:
If this is your first post in the thread, the first paragraph should be a list of ratings for the ideas on a 10-point scale. For example, like this:
1)7
2)5
3)9
4)10
5)9
Essentially, this is an analog of comprehensive voting. After that, you can justify your position in more detail.
So, the ideas themselves:
1) Ban on chains: when meeting for a trade, the moves of both heroes are reduced to the minimum between the two (for example, if heroes meet with remaining moves of 30 and 12, both will have 12)
Pros:
- abandonment of artificial bans on red-rushing (without chains, it is impossible to instantly transfer all purchased growth to a necessary point and manage to hit the opponent at the same time)
- abandonment of artificial restarts due to meeting too early, since without chains you can repel rushes by taking advantage of distance (as is done in all other strategies)
- strategic maneuvering on the map, splitting troops (since one super-army is no longer omnipotent)
- closer approximation to the reality of wargames
- time savings on the mechanical transfer of troops via a chain
Cons:
- slowing down the pace of the game (a super-army cannot conduct a bunch of battles in different places in one day)
- weakening of armies when splitting (i.e., neutrals should be weaker)
- cutting out the chaining element of gameplay from the game (how to properly organize a network of chains, disrupt the opponent's network, etc.)
Note: to compensate for the dynamics, it is necessary to simultaneously increase hero movement range and experience gain speed.
2) 50% move penalty after battle: as in Disciples 2; if less than half of the move remains, it is reset (without penalties on the next day).
Pros:
- limiting the number of battles conducted per day and speeding up turn time
- motivation to let neutrals go, since there is no battle and the move is not spent — again saving time by abandoning meaningless slaughter of weaklings
- selective breakthroughs instead of total clearing; as a result, zones do not become empty
- adding a strategic element of blocking with "roaches" (since breaking through a roach will also cost 50% of the move)
- separation of logistics and experience: with such a mechanic, logistics only increases movement range but does not have a direct influence on the number of battles per turn
- combat heroes can now manage their moves more freely, knowing that the remainder will be eaten by the battle (no need for a "cleaner-roach" behind them)
- in H5 conditions: smoothing the impact of time control on the game (under normal conditions, if the turn time expires during a battle, the turn ends after the battle and the hero does not manage to run the remaining move — in the new mechanic, he most likely won't have this remainder anyway, and such a battle can safely be left for the end of the day)
- in the context of banning chains: motivation to split armies to conduct more battles per day and get more rewards
Cons:
- slowdowns when breaking through double guards, such as those in lifts and portals
- reduction of movement range for combat heroes
Note: it is necessary to simultaneously increase hero movement range and experience gain speed.
3) Increasing hero movement range
Pros:
- increasing game dynamics
- fewer roaches required
Cons:
- increasing the number of battles per turn and spending time on them
Note: this idea perfectly complements the first two, eliminating their cons as well as its own.
4) Increasing experience gain for heroes per battle.
Pros:
- speeding up game dynamics
- reducing the advantage of super-leveled heroes, since others manage to reach the "stop bar" faster/closer. The "stop bar" is that boundary at which level growth becomes significantly more difficult (practically stops).
5) Replacing all double guards on the map with single ones. The point is simple: saving time. It's foolish to break through the same object (exit to a zone) twice.
6) Lowering city bars: relevant only in the context of H5, as they don't exist in previous parts.
Pros:
- increasing game dynamics due to the possibility of reaching top tiers earlier.
- non-linearity of city development due to the absence of forced dips in city level.
- strengthening the economic component, as expensive buildings are available sooner.
- ability to quickly develop captured neutral cities to top tiers.
Pro/con:
- after reaching top tiers, development slows down and the game can be ended without building most of the city. Alternative construction instead of full (compared to H4, the player chooses for themselves each time what will be the alternative).
7) Abandoning upgrades in favor of alternatives: when an upgrade is built, alternatives are opened with the same strength as the base unit.
Pros:
- abandonment of inferior units in favor of a greater variety of full-fledged ones
- wealth of choice (choosing from 3 alts is better than from 2)
Cons:
- absence of the strategic element of boosting units through their upgrade
- no particular point in erecting upgraded buildings
Note: the cons are corrected in the next idea.
8) Separate system of creature arrivals/growth. Arrival is a one-time appearance of creatures for hire upon construction; growth is the subsequent weekly replenishment. The proposed system introduces double creature arrival for building upgrades compared to building base buildings, but without affecting subsequent growth.
Pros:
- correcting the cons of the previous idea
- since upgrades give a larger one-time arrival than bases, they compete with reaching top levels in terms of one-time arrival strength. Alternative development strategies.
- the system allows playing with arrival/growth parameters. That is, creating not only monolithic dwellings with identical growth and arrival, but also diverse ones: with high growth and low arrival, and vice versa. This adds strategic depth (better development now or later).
9) Specialization of fortifications: instead of an identical bonus to all growth +50%/100%, introduce group bonuses, such as: Stronghold increases growth for units of levels 1-3, Castle — 1-5.
Pros:
- ability to accelerate lower-level creatures, which are affected by both the Stronghold and the Castle, catching up with upper growths through fortifications
- group development of lower levels as an alternative to individual development — reaching top tiers
- possibility not to play into fortifications, since specialized ones are no longer always useful
Cons:
- weakening the role of fortifications due to narrowing their area of effect.
Note: a parallel strengthening of the role of fortifications is necessary.
10) Strengthening the role of fortifications: upon construction, provide a one-time arrival of creatures for all constructed base dwellings in the city that fall within the area of effect of this fortification (from the previous idea).
Pros:
- immediate effect from fortifications; no need to wait until day 6-7 to build them.
11) Compensation for first-move advantage: in 1v1 games, the blue player receives an additional building at the start. With more players, all players except the first receive a chance for an additional building; the later a player moves, the higher the chance. The last player is guaranteed to receive this building.
Pros:
- correcting the imbalance of the first player, who has a tempo advantage of half a move (white has a similar advantage in chess).
Pro/con:
- differing development dynamics for players with/without an additional building. The blue player places buildings 1 tempo earlier, but the red player has more resources available by the time they build the same buildings (advantage of an extra turn).
12) Game balance oriented toward timelines of 1-3 weeks.
Pros:
- supporting high game dynamics (a match can be played in a couple of hours)
- strengthening the time factor (key for strategies)
Cons:
- cutting out part of the gameplay (reducing city development and map clearing)
Pro/con:
- with such dynamics, simultaneous turn mode is unnecessary and practically useless.
13) Partially built neutral cities: calculated so that upon capture they lag slightly behind the starting city.
Pros:
- supporting synchronous development of several cities, with redistribution of resources between them (a very important strategic element)
- supporting mixes (mixing relevant troops) from different cities
- relevance of siege skills when taking neutral cities
Cons:
- such cities should be better guarded (they will be harder to take), as they have very high value
14) Ban on redeeming defeated heroes (they will not appear in the tavern)
Pros:
- adrenaline + increasing the role of scouting
Pros/cons:
- limiting "tricksters" (now one-time use for each hero)
- ban on teleporting heroes when being crushed by neutrals
15) Ban on over-grading troops: relevant in the context of H5. Allow only upgrading the base version to one of the "improved" ones.
Pros:
- strategic nature of a choice made once (its consequences affect the entire game)
Cons:
- lack of flexibility
Additional ideas:
(controversial, in my opinion)
16) Double city construction (two buildings per day)
Speeds up dynamics but erases alternatives and shifts the balance in favor of cheap buildings.
17) Payment for maintaining creatures outside garrisons
Strategic element, support for garrisons, ability to play separately with creatures expensive to hire and those expensive to maintain, reducing fear of losses. The downside is the economic complication of the game (while economy has never been a strong point of Heroes). Maintenance payment fully reveals itself in prolonged matches (protection against accumulation of excess resources), which is exactly what should be avoided.
18) Limiting army sizes
Motivates splitting armies. Only works adequately in prolonged games. If army size limits are tied to hero level, then double support for super-leveled heroes occurs (skills + army) and the economic element of the game is weakened (no cool heroes = no cool troops, regardless of how good the economy is).
19) Increasing hero movement range as level grows
Speeds up the move dynamics of the ГГ. Again, support for super-leveled heroes (super-logistics + super-strength) with all the consequences. Also applies to slow roaches.
