Posts from General questions and discussions.

So, for example, would 9/6/3 in parentheses have the same effect as 3/2/1?

Not quite. The sum of all these numbers somehow affects the minimum distance between objects, i.e., the "density" of their placement. But in any case, the principle remains: if the area is twice as large, then (with the same filling parameters), there will be an average of twice as many objects in it.

A request to the developers: if it's not too much trouble, please finish the mt_jc template without prisons. Wic started this process, but unfortunately, he couldn't complete it, and yesterday he wrote that he's giving up. Therefore, I ask you to intervene and refine it. It's quite inconvenient to play with prisons, but not to open them (yesterday, I opened one on autopilot) :-)

Here. Extract the files into the HotA_RMGTemplates folder, replacing the old version.

Here. Extract it into the HotA_RMGTemplates folder (replacing the old version).

Thank you very much!

I'm interested in the HotA crew's opinion regarding neutral morale. Will its absence affect the "atmosphere" in any way? I just finished a brilliant game on Mirror with Bishop at 131, which ended because my main army broke against 7 single units in Cyclops. 2 morale—and all those hours of intense gameplay—down the drain. Why is this necessary? This isn't drive; it's own madness.

From the perspective of game logic, removing the morale of neutral creatures is nonsensical. Either morale should work for everyone according to the general rules, or it should be removed altogether (which, of course, won't happen). It is clear that the morale of neutral creatures has a negative impact on balance. But this is not enough to drastically violate the game logic. Moreover, the idea of removing the morale of neutral creatures is not that popular even among multiplayer players, let alone single-player players. Theoretically, I can imagine a scenario where the template settings could be used to specify the presence of the "spirit of despair" for all players from the start. Then, accordingly, it would be possible to create "immoral" templates.

I had an idea (maybe it's not new, but I haven't heard of it). Make it so that neutral creatures can't trigger morale in the first round. After that, it's random, as always. If this is technically possible, it would save many games that suddenly end with absurd situations like ifrits triggering morale in a dungeon, splitting into 6-7 units in the creature bank, etc.

I assume that if a Bishop were to be defeated by a Cyclops, no proposals would be made.
Question: as soon as yet another "dad" (presumably referring to a powerful player) is defeated, will we change the rules?

I had an idea (maybe it's not new, but I haven't heard of it).

Make it so that neutral creatures can't start morale checks in the first round. And after that, it's random, as always. If this is technically possible, it would save many games that suddenly end with absurd situations like Ifrits starting a morale check in a narrow passage, or being broken down into 6-7 units in the creature bank, etc.

Lizard, as a very skilled player, you calculate a huge number of possible scenarios, not neglecting even the most complex ones. Why don't you pay attention to the morale of neutral creatures? It's a gamble. Attacking in the creature bank with low-level units is a real risk, just like using the Moon to attack a hive with 7 units in the second round to burn down the dragonflies – in my opinion, that's a real risk. Couldn't you have broken down against the neutral creatures guarding the Cyclops, or at least taken one stack that could withstand more than one hit?
Of course, I'm not trying to teach an elephant how to fly, but risk is risk, and we're playing by the same rules. Please understand me correctly, if anything...

I agree with Lizard. If there's no desire to spend the entire game eliminating neutral creatures, removing it in the first round would eliminate a huge amount of randomness and dissatisfaction. This could be implemented as a checkbox in the game settings.

This is all for weaklings. There are plenty of artifacts in the game that reduce morale.

It's clear that only Sanek analyzed the idea (from those who responded). p.s.: 2Russel: That's why you wrote all this, stating at the beginning of your post that I'm a "skilled player." Of course, I was comprehensively analyzing the specific situation. For example, I cleared the Cyclops guard (instead of getting wrecked by it) because it was necessary to clear the path + a few important scouting cells, etc. In that specific situation, any normal player would have been wrecked just the same. But games shouldn't end like that; it's absurd. 2Oldboy: Has no one ever had such a breakdown (or something similar)? And it's one thing when it happens, for example, on level 112 on Jebus in a hidden spot – you can still keep playing. But when on level 131 on the Mirror map against a top opponent, you lose your main hero because of such nonsense, then I'm sorry. It's not just a momentary frustration; it's common sense screaming at me. And it's not about "changing the rules"; where did you even get that from? 2Stinger: There aren't always artifacts that reduce morale. But the hit was counted.

From my perspective, this is a mistake, a miscalculation. An unjustified risk that you refuse to consider. Such a miscalculation cannot be an argument for changing the mechanics. IMHO.

But, for example, do you take a high-level creature exclusively with a hero who has the Tactics skill? After all, it is the Tactics skill that almost always protects against morale loss in the first round. Regarding the risks, if ~1.5% chance of two morale losses is an unjustified risk... and losing the game because of these percentages is absurd, IMHO.

and for example, do you always use a high-level hero with the Tactics skill? Because Tactics almost always protects against morale loss in the first round. Regarding the risks, if ~1.5% chance for two morale losses is an unjustified risk... and losing the game because of these percentages is absurd, in my opinion.

Losing a game because of these percentages is just as unpleasant as losing due to a one-sided match. I don't see any reason to fix the morale system (considering the additional availability of artifacts that reduce morale). If you want to play aggressively, consider the risks; it seems logical and straightforward.