Auto-translated
A hacker – the hero's speed in Heroes of Might and Magic V does not depend on the speed of the units he travels with.
Vlad
Posts from Battlefield size in Heroes 5.
Open
What do you think about the size of the battlefield in Heroes 5?
100
voters
Single choice
Sign in to participate in this poll.
Poll results will be visible after you vote or when the poll closes.
ВОРОН
Auto-translated
The voting is surprisingly close, it's strange...
There's nothing strange about it.
Satisfied people tend to be less vocal.
But that doesn't mean there are few of them. :)
Vlad
Auto-translated
Nothing strange.
Happy people just shout less.
But that doesn't mean there are few of them. :)
Let's be more active, then the results will be accurate.
GvozD
Auto-translated
And who said they aren't accurate? Besides, considering the map size is now 10x12, the balance should change significantly.
Katrine
Auto-translated
I actually like this battlefield! Why cram 7 stacks of dragons in there???? It would be better to have a full set of units in the army, all at level 7, although the hero's speed is still an issue.
Even if I only need it once in 10 battles, I want to have that option, especially since I can easily create 7 archers...
Here's an example: 7 stacks of 20 archers each. And you only have griffins. If you divide the griffins into 7 stacks, you'll win without losses; if not (and Nival thinks it'
ДАК
Auto-translated
Well, frankly, I don't care about this anymore since my friend started modding Heroes 5:
-he increased the map size to that of a siege map
-now he's changing the movement range of units by multiplying it by the map size increase factor
I played at his place, and it seemed to work fine, so let Nival do whatever they want; if I don't like it, I've found a way out for myself...
-he increased the map size to that of a siege map
-now he's changing the movement range of units by multiplying it by the map size increase factor
I played at his place, and it seemed to work fine, so let Nival do whatever they want; if I don't like it, I've found a way out for myself...
GvozD
Auto-translated
2 DAK
He has settled in comfortably. Or maybe he should publish the results of his work to stimulate further thought.
He has settled in comfortably. Or maybe he should publish the results of his work to stimulate further thought.
ДАК
Auto-translated
2 YES
He found a clever way to do it. Maybe he could publish the results of his work to stimulate further development.
He said he'll post it once he's finished.
ВОРОН
Auto-translated
I've had many situations where I specifically needed 7 stacks of dragons, or dryads, or griffins.
Even if I only need it once in 10 battles, I want to have that option, especially since I can easily create 7 archers...
Here's an example. 7 stacks of 20 archers. And you only have griffins. If you divide the griffins into 7 stacks, you'll win without losses; if not (and Nival believes that's not possible), you'll lose valuable units. Is this normal?:eek:
It's absurd...
Don't get so worked up!
Maybe they'll come up with something in the release, like being able to arrange units in 2 rows or have a reserve. We'll see in the release.
I completely agree with you about the seven stacks.
It's sometimes very important, especially in the third game. With a good mage, and under a number of other circumstances against the opponent, I could defeat a good enemy army with 7 gremlins. For example, if he has a certain number of ancient creatures and other units in one stack, and I emphasize - it's the computer player, it takes him about 5-7 turns to destroy me. I don't need that many turns.
I'm not considering the tactic of simply running around the map.
GvozD
Auto-translated
There are always some limitations. But how to compensate for them – that’s what tactical challenges are all about. How to turn disadvantages into advantages, how to bypass limitations, how to implement a particular advantage – these are the tasks that should occupy your mind.
Katrine
Auto-translated
Basically, that's how it is. But the computer never places more than 4 stacks of archers. If they fix this in the release and it places 7 stacks of archers (preferably with Matron), that would be a lot of fun.
GvozD
Auto-translated
Take 5 stacks of Archangels:), I think they’ll handle it.
Vlad
Auto-translated
I've had many situations where I needed exactly 7 stacks of dragons, or dendroids, or griffins.
Even if it's only needed once in 10 battles, I want to have that option, especially since I can easily create 7 archers...
Here's an example. 7 stacks of 20 archers. And you only have griffins. If you divide the griffins into 7 stacks, you'll win without losses, but if not (and Nival believes that's not possible), you'll lose valuable units. Is that normal?:eek:
It's absurd...
Auto-translated
Sigh, it's obvious the developers have completely lost their minds(((
I hoped they would be smart enough to switch from hexagons to octagons, but no, they started degrading and ended up with squares.
They could have just updated the engine, the graphics, and added some new units and relics, but no, they had to come up with something "new"! IMHO, it's idiocy.
Generally, I lean more towards Heroes 4, meaning that you should be able to move characters (by the way). Without a doubt, the field needs to be increased, preferably at least twofold, while the starting distance between armies can remain the same (8-10). Armies should be able to move in all directions from the very start and not just three; then it would be a triumph of tactics. But now, in my humble opinion, it's a triumph of the developers' senile dementia, obsessed with demiurges.
They're probably having a creative crisis right now...
I hoped they would be smart enough to switch from hexagons to octagons, but no, they started degrading and ended up with squares.
They could have just updated the engine, the graphics, and added some new units and relics, but no, they had to come up with something "new"! IMHO, it's idiocy.
Generally, I lean more towards Heroes 4, meaning that you should be able to move characters (by the way). Without a doubt, the field needs to be increased, preferably at least twofold, while the starting distance between armies can remain the same (8-10). Armies should be able to move in all directions from the very start and not just three; then it would be a triumph of tactics. But now, in my humble opinion, it's a triumph of the developers' senile dementia, obsessed with demiurges.
They're probably having a creative crisis right now...
Night
Auto-translated
...they probably have a creative crisis right now...
And what will octagons give them!?
Statistics
Welcome our newest member:
recijeb