/signed
What if battlefield size was determined by the area you are fighting in?
Fight in the open, big battlefield.
Fight up against a wall, smaller battlefield.
Fight in a narrow pass, Thing and long battlefield.
while i think optional sizes would be IDEAL, i think this may be too hard to implement in a truly balanced fashion. so i voted for a fixed large size as it does allow for a more thought out, TBS strategy as you pointed out.
that said, as i'm typing this i'm realising there is also a potential imbalance created with a fixed large size in terms of shooting units. i understand that there is no longer a ranged penalty correct? if thats the case, then races who have low-tier shooting units may have an early-game advantage (as would caster units) as they can pick away at the enemy ranks as they make their way across the battlefield.
this will be an interesting issue to balance out throughout the course of the beta...
anyway just my two-cents, no refunds :P
I surely go for the optional.
8x10 is too small. 15x12 is much much better. And the beta test is to find out if the current battlefield size OK.
Actually, I disagreeOriginally posted by Arachibutyropho:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>My first point is the most obvius, and I do not think anyone will disagree with me on this. The strategical options will be heavely reduced with a small battlefield, no more "hit and run" tactics with fast units, no more tatical placment of the units, shooters will become much less usefull because of the enemy units will be able to reach them in one or two turns and as we all know shooters that can't shot is pretty much useless. Big (4 squares) units will be blocking each other constantly makeing it impossible to go anywhere on the battlefield, this goes for the smaller units in som degree as well. And e.t.c e.t.c....[/list]
Point by point :
hit-and-run is more often an exploit than tactics. Exploits are still in with the current size; but they're less prominent than they were in H5's predecessors. I think that's great!no more "hit and run" tactics with fast units
Less tactical placement, indeed.no more tatical placment of the units
I very strongly disagree on this one. A large battlefield means more focus on ranged units (keep enemy at bay + shoot), thus limiting the tactical options (Go Ranged Or Bust). A focus on ranged might create a focus on exploits (like it did in H3), not on tactics. I wouldn't like to see that.shooters will become much less usefull because of the enemy units will be able to reach them in one or two turns and as we all know shooters that can't shot is pretty much useless
I’m not saying this battlefield size is necessarily optimal, but I am saying that larger does not automatically mean more tactical. There is an optimal size somewhere.
Agreed. On the other hand, blocking is a part of strategy. If the field is too large, the blocking factor would be gone. Also, you could consider this a trade-off. Bring 3 large units and suffer from movement problems or do not bring 3 large units and settle for an army with less power.Big (4 squares) units will be blocking each other constantly makeing it impossible to go anywhere on the battlefield, this goes for the smaller units in som degree as well
I personally like this choice.
Perhaps the battlefield should be a bit larger than it is now though, I'm not sure.
compleatly agreee witch Arachibutyropho
I think that optional size that is the best solution,
so everbody will be able to play the way they like to.
lets hope they will really cng the current lame static crippling size
Of course it sholud be bigger battlefield ! Without any doubt !
Posting Permissions
Arachibutyropho
Reply With Quote
