Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition. — Mods: Tribes of the East

InoyOleh

3/9/2018 12:05 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Nargott

1. When building a dwelling, you immediately receive a 100% growth bonus (as in the standard version).
2. When building an upgrade, you immediately receive an additional 200% growth bonus.
3. When building fortifications, the growth of basic dwellings of tiers 1-3 increases by 100% (i.e., for a fort, it's x2, for a Stronghold, it's x3, for a Castle, it's x4).

I'll repeat this question because it's fundamentally important. Should we switch to this scheme? It will automatically mean that creatures of tiers 1-3 will become the most promising in the army in terms of growth, provided that you build up to a Castle, while troops of tiers 4-7 will produce more powerful troops, but here and now, including due to more powerful upgrades, but will lose out to the lower tiers in the long run.

1. Nargott, what's wrong with the standard scheme that you needed to change it? :confused:
2. Why does building an upgrade immediately give a 200% growth bonus instead of 100%?
3. And why only tiers 1-3? In my opinion, the standard scheme, where the growth of all tiers increases, is more optimal!

Nargott

3/9/2018 12:14 PM UTC

Auto-translated

1. The issue is that too many Tier 7 creatures appear, with 2 dragons per week. Dragons are too legendary to appear in pairs. Additionally, the lower tiers are significantly weaker in terms of growth and have no options for boosting them, apart from external dwellings and purchasing heroes.
2. To make upgrades play a significant role, in terms of immediate strengthening. They should provide a greater number of creatures than building a basic dwelling.
3. Because these tiers have the weakest dwellings, so there is a reason to strengthen them specifically with fortifications. To avoid a situation where the higher tiers are better in every aspect.

Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition.
Сайт проекта - пока неактивен
Автор Асимметричных шахмат

Заинтересованный

3/9/2018 12:50 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I'm in favor of this system because it's much clearer. Shamans and Furies. In the original Heroes 1, a Fury seemed to defeat a Shaman. Now, Shamans won't have powerful magic, but will have abilities like inspiration and prayer. Knights. For Knights, the number is key. For example, 1000 Knights against 10000 Pikemen have a better chance than 1 Knight against 10 Pikemen (purely historically). Riders and Priests. Priests may be equal in strength to Bears, but the chance of losing them in battle is much lower. As for similar pairs, wasn't this the case in the original? Weren't mages often more effective than Djinns? Weren't Bears on the third level? Weren't Dragons almost on the same level as Undead?

У меча предназначения два острия, одно из них ты.

Заинтересованный занимается написанием прохождений
Прохождения]
НЕКРОМАНТ

2,3,4,5
Заинтересованный планирует создать серию мультиплеерных карт "Фантазия безумного картострителей".
Миссия 1 - Фктиф-Зобар готова на 11,5%

In reply to Nargott

InoyOleh

3/9/2018 1:29 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Nargott

1. The issue is that too many Tier 7 creatures appear, specifically 2 dragons per week. Dragons are too legendary to appear in pairs. Furthermore, the lower tiers are significantly weaker in terms of growth rate, and there are no options to boost them besides external dwellings and hero purchases.
2. To make upgrades play a significant role in terms of immediate strengthening. They should provide a greater number of creatures than building a basic dwelling.
3. Because these tiers have the weakest dwellings, so there is a reason to strengthen them specifically with fortifications. To avoid a situation where the higher tiers are better in every way.

1. Then, the growth should exclude Tier 7, only including Tiers 1-6.
2. I disagree; let the base be 100%, and the upgrade also be 100% (as in the case of 50% and 50% in your version).
3. Then, I like the x1 fort: for Tiers 1-2, x2 Stronghold: for Tiers 1-4, x3 Castle: for Tiers 1-6.
Example: Tier 1 Militia: 10 base + 10 upgrade + 10 fort + 10 Stronghold + 10 Castle.
Tier 6 Griffins: 4 base + 4 upgrade + 4 Castle.

As I recall, you said you like small growth rates and battles with small armies.
In my version, the creature growth per week is less than in your second version.
I like your first scheme more.

JonnyP

3/9/2018 1:34 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Currently, there's an opinion that the system of growth and bonuses is too complex.
1. When building a basic dwelling of tier 1-6, a 50% growth bonus is immediately applied (tier 7, 100%).
2. When building an upgrade, another 50% growth bonus is immediately applied.
3. When building fortifications, the growth bonus of basic dwellings is increased by 50%, and the bonus from upgrades is also increased by 50% (fort: tiers 1-2, Stronghold: tiers 1-4, Castle: tiers 1-6).

There is a simpler alternative (but unfortunately, it would require rebalancing the city layouts):
1. When building a dwelling, a 100% growth bonus is immediately applied (as in the standard version).
2. When building an upgrade, another 200% growth bonus is immediately applied.
3. When building fortifications, the growth bonus of basic dwellings of tiers 1-3 is increased by 100% (i.e., for a fort, x2; for a Stronghold, x3; for a Castle, x4).

I'll repeat this question because it's fundamentally important. Should we switch to this scheme?

I don't see any complexity in the first growth system. It's a new and interesting mechanic (unlike the original), and it has already been tested. If, for some reason, it 'doesn't work', then we can consider simpler alternatives for growth bonuses. Although simpler doesn't always mean better or more interesting.
Regarding the tiers of units (+ growth x cost) - in principle, it's not particularly important how realistic it looks. Griffins, for example, basically escaped from a chicken coop, and their place is in tier 1 :cool: (realism can be interpreted in different ways). If this is somehow interestingly reflected (in theory), then it can be tested in the game; if not, perhaps something should be changed.

Nargott

3/9/2018 1:41 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Well, we won't tie upgrades to Fortress levels anymore, meaning they'll be fixed, right? The only question is, if the influx is the same as from the base, then the upgrade gives too few bonuses, because, unlike the base, it doesn't provide a weekly increase.

Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition.
Сайт проекта - пока неактивен
Автор Асимметричных шахмат

In reply to JonnyP

SRD

3/9/2018 1:51 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Generally, I think the new growth system (the one that is currently called "the first") is good and shouldn't be changed (I agree with JonnyP - it's not complicated and it's a new, interesting, and unique option).
I'm also satisfied with the distribution of unit types.
However, the issue of realism is not so clear-cut - on the one hand, I want to consider all this from the point of view of physics and realism, but on the other hand, this is a magical universe where any absurdity can be explained by a magical background, so I'm not sure. Ideally, we should find an option that doesn't contradict both approaches.

... И древний лес, роскошен и печален,
Блистает там воздушностью прогалин.
Но между кедров, полных тишиной,
Расщелина по склону ниспадала.
О, никогда под бледною луной
Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...

In reply to Nargott

JonnyP

3/9/2018 2:00 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Nargott

Well, we won't tie upgrades to forts anymore, meaning they will be fixed, right? The question is, if the influx is the same as from the base, then the upgrade gives too few bonuses, because, unlike the base, it doesn't provide a weekly increase.

Excessive (but this is not certain) total amount of resources, weaker performance, for example, a stack of 1 dragon, 1 titan, etc.
Difference between option 1 and option 2: x2, x4, x2 (by item). It is possible to make it x2, x2, x2 or leave it as is (if there is a need to strengthen the bonus from upgrades - think further)
...
P.S.: yes, I forgot a little about the equality of the base - upgrade - alt-upgrade. In general, it is an interesting concept of '1 unit also a stack' and I would still like to see it in the mod. (if it is still relevant)
...
Upgrade and alt-upgrade provide an additional weekly increase. In the game conditions, 1-2 weeks is a good immediate bonus to strengthen a specific stack.
Is it really necessary to further strengthen it?

Nargott

3/9/2018 3:04 PM UTC

Auto-translated

JonnyP

The difference between the 1st and 2nd options: x2, x4, x2 (point by point).

Only in the first option did upgrades also scale with fortifications.

Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition.
Сайт проекта - пока неактивен
Автор Асимметричных шахмат

In reply to Nargott

InoyOleh

3/9/2018 3:05 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Nargott

Well, in any case, we won't tie upgrades to forts anymore; they will be fixed, right? The only question is, if the increase is the same as from the base, then the upgrade gives too few bonuses, because, unlike the base, it doesn't provide a weekly increase.
Currently, there is an opinion that the system of increases and bonuses is too complex.
1. When building a basic dwelling of tier 1-6, 50% of the increase is immediately applied (tier 7, 100%).
2. When building an upgrade, another 50% of the increase is immediately applied.
3. When building fortifications, the increase from basic dwellings is increased by 50%, and the increase from upgrades is increased by 50% (fort: tiers 1-2, stronghold: tiers 1-4, castle: tiers 1-6).

Why won't we tie them together? Let the forts provide an increase (the same increase for all 3 unit types), and let everything else remain as it is:
As I understand it, militia (base 20) 50%: 10 base + 10 upgrade + 10 fort + 10 stronghold + 10 castle. Or how does it work in the first version? Can you show it with an example?

In reply to Nargott

JonnyP

3/9/2018 3:15 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Nargott

Only in the first version did upgrades still scale with fortifications.

Here's an alternative to numerically increasing the upgrade level.
Also, the ability to choose the troop type (base, upgrade, or alt-upgrade) depending on the opponent's strategy.
In the end:
1. additional weekly increase
2. scaling with fortifications
3. the ability to choose the stack type (defensive, offensive, etc.)

In the end, I repeat:

Is any additional upgrade enhancement really necessary?

ps: increasing it from 50% to 100% is just for simpler calculations (since the discussion was about complexity). Plus, it has a minimal impact on the overall army size (not necessarily, 50% is fine).

Nargott

3/9/2018 3:20 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Here's how the first scheme worked, using militia as an example:

Increase = 10.
Building a basic dwelling: income = 5.
Then, if you build up to a castle, the weekly increase is raised from 10 to 25 (10+5+5+5).
If you add an upgrade, the income increases by another 5 (without a fortress) or 20 with a castle (5+5+5+5).

In other words, you had to calculate the one-time income and the weekly increase separately, and also keep in mind which types of fortifications affected which tiers.

Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition.
Сайт проекта - пока неактивен
Автор Асимметричных шахмат

In reply to Nargott

JonnyP

3/9/2018 3:34 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Nargott

In other words, it was necessary to calculate the one-time income and the weekly increase separately, and also keep in mind which types of fortifications affected which tiers.

Now it's complicated :)
(I don't read small text or what's in parentheses; I learned some fancy words and now I show off :cool:).
Should the influence of the fort, citadel, and castle be applied to all tiers?

In reply to JonnyP

SRD

3/9/2018 3:43 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Hmm... now it really does seem more complicated.
We need to eliminate this, and then it will be easier: "to keep in mind which types of fortifications affected which tiers".

... И древний лес, роскошен и печален,
Блистает там воздушностью прогалин.
Но между кедров, полных тишиной,
Расщелина по склону ниспадала.
О, никогда под бледною луной
Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...