Object rearrangement. — General

Supric

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Ment

The rules can be agreed upon in advance, but by default, I don't see anything wrong with it: real wars often have several fronts, and no one is bothered by this; it's just another way to demonstrate one's gaming skills. Instead of fighting head-on, use all available resources and, if possible, several heroes: after all, this is a strategy game, not some online RPG (which the Heroes series is slowly but surely turning into, as seen in parts like the sixth). I won't even mention that in the fifth game, some factions (Warlock) have little chance without hit-and-run tactics, which you also "condemn."

It's more likely a form of bullying against an inexperienced opponent. Against whom, of course, the Warlock faction dominates.
But against a normal player, one mistake by the Warlock, and the game is over. And that's also a waste of time.
On the other hand, following your logic, you could also agree on "not rebuilding" fortresses, right? :))))))))))

I don't argue, but the fifth game wasn't designed for those who want to play a lot of games quickly and increase their rating: it's for those who can be patient and enjoy the game. Unlike the trends I've noticed in the sixth part.

But simultaneous turns in Multiplayer are a much more significant waste of time than rebuilding structures.
Multiplayer is primarily about time. Many of us are adults. I, for example, have a family, two children, and a stressful job. The fifth game was a kind of escape: dynamic and almost balanced.
Rebuilding castles saves time in multiplayer while maintaining equal chances for players. The same applies to mines and dwellings. If they had kept simultaneous turns, it would have been the ideal multiplayer experience among all the "Heroes" games. But for now... we're waiting for the add-on.

Ment

14 years ago

Auto-translated

On the other hand, following your logic, shouldn't we also mention the "non-rebuilding" of fortresses?

I think this is a good solution. I will follow this approach in the future.

Levsha

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Enlighten a newbie – does “hit and run” mean taking a high-level mage hero and having 3-7 level 1, high-initiative creatures in their army, attacking the enemy’s main army, and hitting them once or twice with a super-powerful spell before retreating – and doing this until the enemy is destroyed? =)

Added 4 minutes later
And if we’re talking about the topic, then restructuring is a good innovation. If you need troops from other cities, don’t restructure – no one is forcing you to. And honestly, in Heroes 3, I also carried a diverse army, although mostly on smaller maps where I went for a rush. When the map is large and you’re focusing on development, you mainly gather the core of your army from your own city, plus super-powerful units like rusty or diamond dragons, etc. And, of course, you also take level 7 units from other cities and elf archers. But I always thought to myself while playing Heroes 3 – it’s a shame that the city isn’t of my faction…

Ment

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Explain it to a newbie: does "hit-and-run" mean taking 3-7 high-initiative, low-level creatures with a high-level mage hero, attacking the enemy's main army, casting a super-powerful spell once or twice, and then retreating? Is that it?

That's right.

You need troops from other cities - don't rebuild, no one is forcing you to.

The point is that your own troops are more advantageous. But playing without troops from other factions is boring and tedious.

In reply to Ment

Levsha

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Ment

That's the point. Playing with your own faction is more advantageous, but playing without other factions is boring and tedious.

See, that's the thing. If it's not advantageous to play with other factions, then no one will, and that's right. To avoid boredom, you should just play maps in multiplayer mode, using different factions – then it won't be boring. And most importantly, with an interesting opponent. I personally see Heroes as a purely multiplayer game, with the option to play single-player. In PvP, it would be very fun to capture a town and rebuild it, depriving the enemy of some of their troops, for example. Or to capture a building with a secondary hero, rebuild it, and slightly reduce the enemy's resource income. In general, you can come up with many interesting strategies.

Zybr

14 years ago

Auto-translated

To avoid boredom, you should simply play multiplayer maps instead of campaigns, and use different factions – that way, it won't be boring.

This particular aspect of the game actually diminishes the appeal of multiplayer. In campaigns, it somehow works.

In reply to Zybr

Supric

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Zybr

This particular aspect of the game actually diminishes the appeal of multiplayer to a greater extent.

What exactly diminishes it?

For now, I see that there is no need to drag convoys with reinforcements to hold a castle. But I can't say whether this reduces the appeal of multiplayer or, on the contrary, enhances it.

Zybr

14 years ago

Auto-translated

What exactly is being cut down?

In multiplayer, you play with what you get. You figure out how to use a particular secondary skill or item, or not use it at all. And so on, you can go on and on.
As for restructuring, it's all very simple - each new castle means + to income and + to troop growth.

For now, I don't see the need to drag convoys with reinforcements to hold a castle.

First of all, it's not convoys, but chains of heroes. By the way, the ability to buy everything from one castle also simplifies the game in a silly way.

In reply to Zybr

Supric

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Zybr

In Multiplayer, you play with what was randomly generated. You figure out how to use this or that secondary item that appeared, or not use it at all. And so on, you can go on and on.
And with the restructuring, everything is simply banal - each new Castle is a + to income and a + to troop growth.

Is it like starting all over again? :)
It was already discussed above. But what if one player generated "what they need" and the other didn't? A restart after a month (depending on the size of the map)? Or a meaningless, but very heroic death? :)

Firstly, not caravans, but chains of heroes. By the way, the ability to buy everything from one Castle also stupidly simplifies the game.

Why is it stupid? It saves time. How many times in large Multiplayer maps have you heard: "I'll gather an army and then it's the final battle," and then an hour of stupidly buying the necessary troops all over the map? :)

It's not that simple.

Ment

14 years ago

Auto-translated

This was already discussed above. But what if one player gets "what they need" and the other doesn't? A restart after a month (depending on the map size)? Or a pointless, but very heroic death?

I acknowledged that this is a drawback, but it's a minor one. Restarting after a month is, of course, an exaggeration, but you can restart after a couple of weeks.

Why is it stupid? It saves time. How many times in large Multiplayer maps have you heard: "I'll gather an army and then we'll have the final battle," and then spend an hour mindlessly buying the necessary troops all over the map?

It's a noob move, sorry for the expression. Normal people arrange the final battle when they meet head-on, not when they've gathered their troops. Also, on large maps, it's not difficult to research "Summon Troops" and "Portal to Town" (I'm talking about the fifth part). And in the third game, the "Portal to Town" is so good that gathering an army will take only five minutes, of course, if you have "Fertile Lands." But at the beginning of the game, you'll have to use your head and play with relatively small armies to maintain momentum, instead of just buying up all the reinforcements in every captured castle.

Zybr

14 years ago

Auto-translated

What if one player gets “what they need” and the other doesn’t?

This is part of the game. And when you manage to win with a weak setup, the feeling is hard to compare to anything else. Especially if it’s in the context of some tournament.

How many times in large Multiplayer maps have you heard: “I’ll gather an army and then we’ll have the final battle,” and then spent an hour mindlessly buying the necessary troops all over the map?

In the very beginning, when I was just starting to play online, we agreed on a time when we wouldn’t attack each other. But that was it. Later, when the level of play became more serious, such agreements didn’t happen.

in a couple of weeks, you can restart

I don’t remember the tournament rules for Heroes 5 right now, but I think that in general, as far as restarts are concerned, it’s no more than 5 days, if we’re talking about the mandatory ones.

Ment

14 years ago

Auto-translated

I don't remember the tournament rules for Heroes 5 right now, but I think, generally speaking, regarding restarts, there's a limit of 5 days, at least for mandatory ones.

Well, that might be the case in tournaments. But I prefer playing for fun.

Zybr

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Well, maybe in tournaments. But I prefer to play just for fun.

You can play however you like for fun, and there are no questions about that.

In reply to Ment

Supric

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Ment

I acknowledged that it was a drawback, but it was a minor one. Restarting after a month is, of course, a bit much, but you can restart after a couple of weeks.

On large random maps, five weeks is a perfectly reasonable timeframe. Weeks 3-4.

It's a noob move, sorry for the expression. Normal people arrange the final battle when they meet head-on, not when they've gathered their troops.

Yes, yes, teach me how to play Heroes, "noob move" :)
The map is large, almost entirely open, so a treacherous attack is simply not possible. No one wants to attack first, as the path from their home city is long. Stalemate.
Should I abandon the game or try to negotiate and play a final battle on neutral territory under roughly equal conditions?

And on large maps, it's not difficult to research "Summon Troops" and "Portal to City" (I'm talking about the fifth installment).

Yes, brilliant! But here's the catch - to use them effectively, you don't need to capture any other castles on large maps.... otherwise, who are you going to summon from the nearest city of another race? ))))))))))))))

And in the third game, the portal to the city is so good that gathering an army will take only five minutes if you have "Fertile Lands", of course. But at the beginning of the game, you have to think and play with relatively small armies to maintain momentum,

Yes, the city portal, the dimension door, diplomacy with visions.... a brilliant trio, how can the sixth game with its mega-cheating, rebuildable cities compare? :)

instead of simply buying up all the growth in each captured castle.

I don't understand... I CAN'T seem to buy up "all the growth" in the first few weeks of the game in the sixth installment, while also rebuilding all the castles and dwellings. Even in the campaign. I only play on hard difficulty. What am I doing wrong, guru? Maybe there is a balance after all?

Added after 3 minutes

Zybr

This is part of the game. And when you manage to win with a weak position, it's an incomparable feeling. Especially if it's in a tournament.

This is random. In card games, there is randomness (if you're not a cheater), but in chess, there isn't. And both are perfectly playable.

Ment

14 years ago

Auto-translated

Yes, it's brilliant! But here's the catch – to use them effectively, you shouldn't capture other castles on large maps at all... otherwise, who are you going to summon from the nearest city of another faction? ))))))))))))))

And no one said that you have to download everything directly from where it's supposed to be. It's just that these spells can save a lot of time. And in this regard, the third game turns out to be the most illustrative: it takes almost no time there, less than in the sixth.