Battlefield size in Heroes 5. — General

HwKeeper

1/19/2006 10:37 PM UTC

Auto-translated

This topic was created specifically to discuss: "What do you think about the size of the battlefield in Heroes 5, which is now 8x10?". Here is a review of the combat system that can serve as a basis for discussion. You can also provide your own arguments, but if you make an assertion, it must be based on facts.

Medvaldo

1/19/2006 10:44 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I think that the guys from Nival are absolutely not stupid. If tests were conducted, then conclusions were drawn not on the basis of guesswork, but on what was obvious. [Although it should not be forgotten that Nival is the creator of Demiurges, and besides, Heroes 5 was most likely made on an upgraded engine of Demiurges.] And in Demiurges, the battlefield was actually 0x0 – well, this is a completely different game. By the way, they cleverly calculated the size of the battlefield in previous parts here; great review. In general, I believe that Nival can be trusted, although not 100 percent…

In reply to Medvaldo

ДАК

1/20/2006 4:14 AM UTC

Auto-translated

voted for option 1. Can someone explain to me how a balance calculated for a small battlefield will behave during a siege, if the battlefield during a siege is significantly larger than usual... and the movement range of units remains unchanged. The attacking side will take a very long time (compared to a normal battle) to reach the enemy under fire from their archers and towers.

In reply to ДАК

Katrine

1/20/2006 5:40 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I agree with Dak. This is a very serious issue. Another question is about the speed (movement) of units. To move diagonally to an adjacent cell, a unit must have a speed of 1.5; otherwise, this is the minimum speed with a slowing effect. Consequently, the minimum real speed is 1.5 x 2 = 3. Considering that after the initial setup, we have 8 x 10 - 8 x 2 - 8 x 2 = 8 x 6 cells, it turns out that practically all units reach their destination in one turn. All statements about tactics after this can be disregarded. It's terrible! And there's also the opinion of the authoritative beta tester, Laboule, who directly stated that the current map is a "GENOCIDE" for large monsters.

Хронология вселенной Might and Magic
Katrine
Третьи или пятые? Теперь Вы сами выбираете иконки
Диалоги с Модераторами
Сейчас играю в Diablo II LoD
:cool:

In reply to Katrine

Katrine

1/20/2006 8:22 AM UTC

Auto-translated

While browsing the Nival forum, I came across:

DionDmitry Estrin
Thank you for the answer!
Then, if possible, could you tell me:
Can a hero take units with him:
1. More than 7 stacks with a total "area" of less than 16 cells (for example, 8 narrow stacks (with an occupied area of 1))?
2. An "area" of more than 16 cells, but within seven stacks (for example, having 5 thick stacks)?

Dmitry Estrin

1. No, a hero's army has only 7 stacks.
2. Five four-cell creatures can be arranged. (10x2). But no more.

This means the field length is 8. That is, 8-2-2=4, so we only have 4 cells for forward movement with a minimum speed of 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All arguments about tactics are immediately dismissed. Meat:mad:

Хронология вселенной Might and Magic
Katrine
Третьи или пятые? Теперь Вы сами выбираете иконки
Диалоги с Модераторами
Сейчас играю в Diablo II LoD
:cool:

In reply to Katrine

NecroFill

1/20/2006 9:19 AM UTC

Auto-translated

There are currently an equal number of skeptics and those who naively believe in Nival...
Soon Dion will come and start saying that everything is fine, because now units have a lot of different ways to attack, so there will be a lot of tactics on such a map...
But I still don't quite agree; here are my arguments:
1. Thick units are weakened in tactical movement (natural obstacles and those placed by the enemy will make them stand still)...
2. Mass damage spells rule without restraint...
3. The melee starts immediately, and it is impossible to carry out a retreat maneuver from it - because there is simply nowhere to go...

My opinion is clear: make the map bigger, at least always as big as it is when defending a castle...

Меня всегда преследуют умные мысли, но я все равно быстрее :D

In reply to NecroFill

ДАК

1/20/2006 10:45 AM UTC

Auto-translated

as I already mentioned, it seems that Nival knows how to make games like Demigods and is essentially making that game with Heroes.
It seems that any warrior will be able to reach the enemy in one, at most, two turns. Magic will also play a role, just like in Demigods. If we estimate the number of spells in Demigods and exclude those that summon units and increase the amount of incoming mana, then approximately 10 spells of direct damage and support will remain.

Dion

1/20/2006 11:04 AM UTC

Auto-translated

2 NecroFill
I'm here!!!!

But I won't say that everything is fine. I'm just not sure if it will be exactly as Katrine said. If you look at the same topic a little further down, I asked a question about what the map looks like. I hope to get an answer to it today. If the map is indeed wider than it is long, then that's... wrong. At least, that's how it seems to me right now. In any case, I won't make any DEFINITIVE statements until the beta.

In reply to Katrine

Vano_Gut

1/20/2006 11:15 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Katrine

...This results in a field length of 8. That is, 8-2-2=4, leaving only 4 cells for forward movement with a minimum speed of 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All arguments about tactics are immediately dismissed. Meat:mad:

Where did you get the data about the minimum speed? If the speed division starts, for example, at 1, then it's not so bad.
And the developer's response you provided is encouraging - it means that it will still be possible to use the entire army of one castle in one battle.

"Какая-то странная сказка получилась" - думал Колобок, догрызая остатки лисы....:cool:

In reply to Dion

NecroFill

1/20/2006 11:18 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Dion

If the field is indeed wider than it is long, then that's... incorrect. At least, that's how it seems to me right now. In any case, I won't make any DEFINITIVE statements before the beta.

By the way, I still don't understand this... It would be logical to assume that with an 8x10 field, 8 cells represent the sides of the players, meaning the rectangular field is stretched similarly to previous games in the series... But why did D. Estrin make so many slips, saying that you can have 5 stacks of 2x2... Then it turns out that the distance between armies is even smaller than we thought - we thought it was 6 cells, but it's actually 4 :(... :eek:

Меня всегда преследуют умные мысли, но я все равно быстрее :D

In reply to Vano_Gut

ДАК

1/20/2006 11:30 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Vano_Gut

Where did you get the data about the minimum speed?

Well, I would say that the minimum speed is more like 2 than 3, so that a unit with no movement delay can move diagonally.

Dion

1/20/2006 11:36 AM UTC

Auto-translated

:2: NecroFill
I haven't figured it out yet either. If there are only 4 cells between the troops, that's not enough. Besides, the question was asked... not about the battlefield. The question was asked about the number of stacks. Maybe Dmitry meant that 5 stacks could fit on the castle field? In general, it's just guesswork. The question has been asked - we're waiting for an answer.

In reply to Vano_Gut

Katrine

1/20/2006 11:40 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Vano_Gut

Where did you get the data about the minimum speed? If speed division starts, for example, at 1, then it's not that bad.

This calculation is based on the assumption that a slow unit should be able to move diagonally even when slowed down.

Katrine

to move diagonally one cell, a unit must have a speed of 1.5; therefore, this is the minimum speed with the slowdown effect. Consequently, the minimum real speed is 1.5 x 2 = 3.

Because if a slowed unit cannot move one cell diagonally, it's practically useless.
to Dion We are waiting for an answer to the question.

Хронология вселенной Might and Magic
Katrine
Третьи или пятые? Теперь Вы сами выбираете иконки
Диалоги с Модераторами
Сейчас играю в Diablo II LoD
:cool:

In reply to ДАК

Vano_Gut

1/20/2006 11:46 AM UTC

Auto-translated

yes

I would say that the minimum speed is closer to 2 than 3, so that a unit can move diagonally without delay.

To move diagonally, a speed of 1 is sufficient - moving one cell from adjacent cells (including diagonally), for "large" units - moving one cell in any direction. Then the speed division will be something like 1 (very slow) - 9 (any point on the field), above 9 - it's just who starts first.

But in general, let's wait for the developers' reaction.

Actually, yes, I didn't take into account the slowdown, so I agree, the minimum speed is 2. =))

"Какая-то странная сказка получилась" - думал Колобок, догрызая остатки лисы....:cool:

In reply to Vano_Gut

ДАК

1/20/2006 11:52 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Vano_Gut

To move diagonally, a speed of 1 is sufficient – moving one cell from adjacent cells (including diagonally).

As far as I know, a diagonal move is more than 1. Also, if a unit's speed is 1, how will a slowing spell affect it? Will it not be able to move at all? And if a unit's speed is 2, then it can move diagonally without being slowed, but when slowed, it can only move straight.