PDA

View Full Version : Battlefield Size



MatthewGuba
04-15-2005, 04:38 PM

MatthewGuba
04-15-2005, 04:38 PM

Wurtzel1952
04-15-2005, 07:08 PM
Which Heroes game are you refering to when you're asking us about size??? Eg, The battlefield in Homm4 was much larger then Homm3.

MatthewGuba
04-15-2005, 09:13 PM
I'm not trying to compare it to any of the previous games, as I assume it will look different in this one, I just want to have a map big enough to have more stacks so the battle would be more strategic --- You could have 7 armies fitting on the H4 map -- so maybe like 1.5 times that size based on wanting to have 10 creatures. But since H4 was the last one --- that is what i would compare it too. H2 was tiny in comparison to H4

The_Vortex
04-16-2005, 07:35 AM
"Side against side" battlefield in Heroes 3 functioned best in my opinion. So, in Heroes 5, I would be happy if it remains the same (only 30%-50% larger) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Campaigner_1st
04-16-2005, 08:56 AM
I want a giant battlefield with lots of obstacles and such (that is affected by some Druid skill), I would love to have an Order army and blast some zombies to pieces from a long distance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hehe just imagine if you're the Order guy in that situation and those zombies would go from obstacle to obstacle so you can't shoot at'em.

Dog_in_Black
04-16-2005, 11:30 AM
I would like to see a larger battlefield. Honestly, they could copy the Age of Wonders battlefield, with some new touches, and I'd be fine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pitsu
04-16-2005, 12:25 PM
More than size matters the quality. What I mean, is that battlefield should not repeat itself all the time. Obstacles like trees, cracks, moats/rivers etc have to vary each time and make the usefullness of melee, ranged or flying troops dependant on landscape. With very large battlefields it is danger that fields lose their uniqueness and all battles can be played with the same tactics.

Myself voted "leave them as they are"

Edit: Of couse I hope that the structure of battlefield can be estimated pretty accurately form arventure map.

MatthewGuba
04-16-2005, 12:53 PM
I agree there would have to be variations, but with a bigger map you could randomly add things each time...if you have 25 different obstacles and there are 2-6 each time, you will have a lot of different boards, I would not want to lose uniqueness in the battlefield, so what I am desiring would probably take a decent amount of time to get to work, but I think in the end it would make the game more strategic.

Vavutsikarios
04-17-2005, 04:33 AM
H3 battlefield was great.

H4 was too big. You couldnt count the "squares" of movement of the units and the result was a more random battle. The "chess" feeling was gone.

So i vote for a battlefield smaller than that of H4.

stevenlynch
04-17-2005, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vavutsikarios:
H3 battlefield was great.

H4 was too big. You couldnt count the "squares" of movement of the units and the result was a more random battle. The "chess" feeling was gone.

So i vote for a battlefield smaller than that of H4. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain_Stifu
04-17-2005, 05:40 AM
Having a giant battle field would be much too abusable.
For instance, let's say you have one Imp and you fight one Behemot.
Cast Slow on Behemot, keep away from Behemot with Imp. Cast Poison on Behemot, then just keep flying around until Behemot is dead.

The_Vortex
04-17-2005, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain_Stifu:
Having a giant battle field would be much too abusable.
For instance, let's say you have one Imp and you fight one Behemot.
Cast Slow on Behemot, keep away from Behemot with Imp. Cast Poison on Behemot, then just keep flying around until Behemot is dead. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something similar was in Heroes 4, so I couldn't agree more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Morannon1
04-17-2005, 08:50 AM
Agree. But it should not be as small as it is in disciples, for it is so small there that the units are all crampt together and cannot move at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Campaigner_1st
04-18-2005, 12:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain_Stifu:
Having a giant battle field would be much too abusable.
For instance, let's say you have one Imp and you fight one Behemot.
Cast Slow on Behemot, keep away from Behemot with Imp. Cast Poison on Behemot, then just keep flying around until Behemot is dead. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To do this you'll need a Death creature, a Death spell and a Order spell. If you could get all that plus the fact that you choose basic Order magic over advancing in Death which is stronger then you deserve some advantage.
And also....Do you know how strong the poison would have to be and how long the slow spell would have to be in effect to kill a Behemoths...?
But no matter that, that tactic only works because of the A.Is inability to handle the situation. A good A.I would charge the Lich that stands still.
And I'm starting to believe that you and some others soon would demand to do all battles in quickcombat to give the A.I a chance and to end all "exploits"....

MatthewGuba
04-18-2005, 03:15 PM
I agree with that flaw, I never thought of that, but I still would prefer the ability to have a larger army --- maybe they could combine the two, and the higher the hero level the more different armies he/she could control on the battlefield, so a level 30 hero could have a max of 10 armies or something, and as the army grows as a whole, so would the battlefields -- that would eliminate that flaw and could make the hero level more important than just skill level ups -- and with heroes off the batllefield, that would be nice...

mrglass1024
08-01-2005, 03:12 PM
in my opinion the size of the battlefield and the number of the forces should remain the same as in h3 allthough the nival people want a faster paced game the fun of heroes was the chess like battles and the intriquate strategies ... while i wouldn't mind a increse in the armies size to 10 i would mind it increasing with the heroes strenght ... it would seriously missmatch the game and besides the hero has allready to much power by beeing able to phisicly strike in the game

oh and the fact that i saw only 4 armies in the e3 videos really scared me sure hope they get the number to at least 7 like in h3

Archosaur
08-01-2005, 03:37 PM
Generally, I'd like a HoMM III sized battlefield or larger. I'm concerned that a small battlefield will limit tactical options where a units speed will have less relevence to the chances of victory.

In other words, a smaller battlefield bolsters slower unit strength while weakening higher speed units. So the more you shrink the field of battle, the less relevent high speed becomes. I also prefer an "Age of Wonders" style battlefield.

Taffyrei
08-01-2005, 05:01 PM
I agree that they had tthe size right in Heroes 3.
I liked the way that some units would take 2-3 goes to corss the map whilst others could reach the other side in 1.
It made it more strategic.
You'd 'think' whether to cast slow on a speedy unit to stop it from reaching your forces quickly, or on a slow unit so it takes EVEN longer to cross the map.

soulhound009
08-01-2005, 05:11 PM
Heroes 3 battle fields please ! =D Nival owns! go Nival! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

eor_darknes
08-01-2005, 08:59 PM
needs to be small like the one in heroes 5.

combat needs to be quicker.

Zamolxis108
08-02-2005, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pitsu:
More than size matters the quality. What I mean, is that battlefield should not repeat itself all the time. Obstacles like trees, cracks, moats/rivers etc have to vary each time and make the usefullness of melee, ranged or flying troops dependant on landscape. With very large battlefields it is danger that fields lose their uniqueness and all battles can be played with the same tactics.

Myself voted "leave them as they are"

Edit: Of couse I hope that the structure of battlefield can be estimated pretty accurately form arventure map. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same vote, same POV.

Still:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MatthewGuba:
I'm not trying to compare it to any of the previous games,... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First you ask us if we want bigger of smaller battlefields, then you say you're not trying to compare it to any of the previous games. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

archerZed
08-02-2005, 01:26 AM
I would advocate a larger battle map but with the speed of certain fast units increased to match. Therefore, an angel might still be able to cross the field in one or two goes, but for a much slower unit, this may take much longer than was in the case of Heroes 3 or 4. I believe this would make the game more strategic since there's a much less incentive to adopt a simple rush tactic. Also, it gives a greater variety of possible speeds to creatures and would make them more fine-tunable in the game development stage.

MasterOfTime
11-20-2005, 12:53 AM
I would like to be able to see all the units on the battlefield at once. Example 50 archangels = 50 individual acrh angels on the field. Big army like that would mean a bigger battefield. Leave all the other combat aspects the same. I would enjoy seeing my army completely.

**didnt have time to research much so maybe we can...

Aether7725
11-20-2005, 11:38 PM
the bigger the better I say and I do say :-D

Dooks_Dizzo
11-21-2005, 12:57 PM
I vote for unlimited stacks!!!

You can have as amny stacks as you'd like in your army and the battle field just gets bigger depending on the size of the army.

Anyway, huge battle fields with 10 stacks = enable quick combat.

I love the heroes game but having to sit there while the music plays through, then the AI uses his tactics skill to move his army all around, then thows a magic missle and flee's used to drive me f'ing crazy.

I'd leave quick combat on for most the game except important/huge battles.

Sven19
11-21-2005, 03:42 PM
looking at the screenshots, I'm worried about the awful small size of the battlefield...

Heroes 3 was just perfect

Heroes 4 might be implementable, but only with a decent grid rostering (not like the one in H4)

giani_82
11-21-2005, 03:51 PM
I believe reading that the battlefield should change accordingly to the size of the armies, aka the bigger the army the larger the field of the battle is to be. That might be a problem for certain units, not being able to cross the whole field on a large ground, and have the chance to reach any point in a relatively small one, the last taking care of melee units engaging the archers/spellcasters sooner and partially nerf the effect of the Haste spell. I don't know about the alternation of the size of the battlefield, but I sure don't want melee units get such an advance on smaller grounds.

Polaris2013
11-21-2005, 08:52 PM
If no unit can reach the other side in one turn, then the battlefield is too big. If no fighting can occur on the first turn, then what was the point of the first turn? It was wasted just bringing the two sides closer together, which is equivalent to shrinking the battlefield.

As for number of stacks:
The fewer you have, the less options on army composition. Contrarily, the more you have the more tedious it is to manage your army. Clearly a balance must be struck somewhere in the middle.

Vicheron
11-22-2005, 03:05 AM
I think there should hero skills like tactics, logistics, scouting, and stealth that influences the size of a battlefield. A hero with good scouting skill would be able to spot the enemy early and engage them from farther away, if they choose to, a hero with good stealth can sneak his army closer to the enemy before engaging. Actually I think it would be cool if heroes with stealth skill can sneak up on an enemy and engage them from behind.

giani_82
11-22-2005, 03:18 AM
Polaris, in HoMM III the melee battle didn't necessarily start with the first move at least in the beginning of the game - the melee started at 2-3 turn, unless the units gain a moral advantage.

Quercia1990
11-22-2005, 07:49 AM
Giani, the Angel should get to the other side in 1 turn, same as Silves Pegasi, Royal Griffins and Dragon Flies.

Cheers,
-Q

giani_82
11-22-2005, 08:50 AM
Yeah... still what I intended to say was such units as golems that would cross the field in 4 moves, on smaller will cross it in 2-3, units that can engage in melee in 2 moves (wolf riders, before) will hit the archers in one (when the battlefield is smaller). This will result in archers strategy start being not as good as it was in HoMM III. That's why I dislike the fact that the size of the battle ground is going to shift respectively to the size of the armies.

SandroTheMaster
11-22-2005, 08:54 AM
Here are the official information about H5 battlefield.

It is formed by squares, small creatures acupy one square as big creatures ocupy four squares.

Objects in the battlefield dificults ranged attacks like in H4.

The size is dependant on the number of stacks of the side with more stacks.

A battle between two side with only one creature stack would be really small so that both creatures, don't matter how slow, would reach each other (presumably)

A battle between an army with seven stacks and an army with one stack would make a large battlefield so that the one with seven stacks have a good space to move thir troops.

Something like that.

the_dog_021
11-22-2005, 09:41 AM
Campaigner_1st in heroes 4, on Dog Days, one of the most popular maps in H4, the orange start allows the Nature town to abuse sprites. Send 1 hero with 1 sprite to the graveyard. Defeat a company of zombies (might take a day or so if u don't cheat) with one sprite. Since Undead doesn't have morale, there is no risk of having that sprite die. And the problem about needing order magic skill and death magic skills. There is an alternative. Get order genies for slow. Get magi from the magi tower for poison. It's very abusive. that's why Equilibrius got rid of unlimited poison rounds. There is merit in what is said about abusive tactics.

giani_82
11-22-2005, 10:57 AM
I see you point, though the (ab)use of archers is the only way in H III to counter excessive amount of skeletons raised after each clash the necros have. It's vital as well to not lose ranged units prior to sieges as well. In that case a battlefield that is small enough for enemy units to reach faster the archers just kills that part of the gameplay. So this leaves us with the necessary parting your army in order to save your archers. In example - having 7 stacks, at the start (presumably 2nd level is the highest you got): so you create 5 stacks consisting of one unit, for instance pikeman and the rest are the archers + the remaining pikemen. The battlefield is large again. What's the point then in having such a battlefield tied up with the stacks in your army???

solmyr005
11-22-2005, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SandroTheMaster:
Here are the official information about H5 battlefield.

It is formed by squares, small creatures acupy one square as big creatures ocupy four squares.

Objects in the battlefield dificults ranged attacks like in H4.

The size is dependant on the number of stacks of the side with more stacks.

A battle between two side with only one creature stack would be really small so that both creatures, don't matter how slow, would reach each other (presumably)

A battle between an army with seven stacks and an army with one stack would make a large battlefield so that the one with seven stacks have a good space to move thir troops.

Something like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It means that the battlefield is dinamiclly generated depending on the size of the armies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif It's a good thing. And I think it clarifies almost everything on this subject... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

jaedong
11-22-2005, 07:50 PM
Battlefield should be GIANT!!!

and need observer mode and replay mode as warcraft III in multi play mode

KingAlamar
11-22-2005, 09:48 PM
I really love the idea of variable sized battlefields but I think to make things fair it is VERY hard to balance things to where the troops "fit" not matter what the size of the field is.

Honestly I'm not sure if balance, fair, realistic, speedy, and simple can coexist with this issue. No matter what your thoughts are on this you're going to have to choose among those prior 5 things in the order of importance and just live with it.

FYI: I was trying to come up with a reasonably fair, simple, realistic mechanism that could be balanced easily that also optimized speed of game play. Needless to say I haven't come up with anything that I like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kartabon
11-29-2005, 07:35 AM
I think a large battlefield will bring more strategic possiblities!

MH86
11-29-2005, 07:53 AM
Yes.
Increase The size of the battlefield.
Or you could make the size of the battlefield a variable that the player can choose at the start of a scenario.