God damn HoMM

[Crichton]

Has anybody played Elven Legacy or Fantasy Wars? I'm looking for a HoMM clone and those are the only ones that seem decent enough. I enjoyed Disciples 2, but mainly because of the whole gothic feeling and unit design and artwork, but ultimately it got too boring and repetitive to finish even a single campaign. AoW was pretty awesome, though.

I've played through Fantasy Wars; I own, but haven't yet played Elven Legacy. Neither of them is even remotely like HoMM; to the point that I really don't know how you could have gotten that impression. FW and EL have no strategic component, they're purely tactical games. HoMM is an ok strategy game with a really shitty tactical component.

Fantasy Wars is pretty much an update of Fantasy General. While I enjoyed it, its two great flaws are that it tends towards giving the AI huge numbers of troops but make it extremely sluggish so the player carefully bushwacks each little clump of AI troops one by one and it has some pretty tight turn limits on some missions.

 

[Reject_666_6]

Nah, but it is a better multiplayer game.

Lies. Disciples is very boring in multiplayer. After some point your army is so good that nothing will ever stop it. And you can have only one powerful army because you won't have any ways to pump-up the rest. 1 or 2 lvl armies won't even touch something of lvl 6-7. Something that won't happen in "munchkin" HoMM

If you allow your enemy to get his army past level 3, you should consider giving up gaming and taking up mini-golf.

 

[winterraptor]

I can't swear to it but HoMM 4 I think changes entry and exit time from ships somehow. Played it years ago though...

 

[Wyrmlord]

Interesting fact - I'm pretty good at HoI and TOAW but I suck at HoMM. What does that tell about me?

You are intimidated by games that are too simple.

But that's normally the case with a lot of us. After all, even if we master Civ IV MP, it doesn't mean we can master a simpler game like chess.

Perhaps more rules = more rigidity to hide behind.

 

[relootz]

God all this whining.

Who cares about your justification of a stupid explanation of game simplicities.

 

[tarkin]

I can't swear to it but HoMM 4 I think changes entry and exit time from ships somehow. Played it years ago though...

Seaman’s Hat

The hero gets no penalty for disembarking or boarding a ship.

http://www.celestialheavens.com/viewpage.php?id=393

Also Seamanship (secondary skill to Scouting) gives you additional movement at sea.

Anything else you want to know about HoMM, just check celestail heaven's. That site is 11 years old and has everything about it.

 

[z3r'0']

Yeah, what tarkin said. That item the Seaman's Hat.

Anyway, I like 'em all. HoMM series, Disciples, King's Bounty. But AoW holds a special place on my pc.

Awesomesauce in binary format!

The great thing is... all these games follow the same template, but are different enough from each other that it stays fresh. - Going from one series to another.

 

[Hory]

Fanboy excuse? I actually said that HoMM has no tactics whatsoever, but it doesn't mean simplicity = 100% bad as fun of HoMM comes from everything combined.

No, you didn't, you compared it to C&C and its relation to 4X games. C&C has no need for 4X because it does something else and it does it well (real time micro management). HoMM has a need for tactics because it doesn't do anything else any better. And it does have a tactics mode, it's just badly designed.

What? Units in Disciples are exactly that and even worse - in Dis even the near-dead unit with 1 HP will deal the exactly amount of damage as the unit with full HP which isn't the case with HoMM. Not mentioning the absolutely retarded lvl-up system which makes low-lvl units literally useless.

I don't think that 1HP units doing the same damage is valid criticism because that's how it works in most strategy games and that doesn't stop them from being good. It prevents the snowballing effect where the first unit to hit semi-cripples the enemy and has an advantage in each subsequent hit. And even in HoMM a 1hp Titan does full damage.

Even more - I judged HoMM by those standards up there but you called it fanboi defence.

I don't see where you judged it by strategy standards. You just implied that HoMM can be excused from having tactics somehow.

It is. You can't fill all of your slots with Angels, titans, dragons whatever unless your opponent wasn't touching you for 5-6 hours of the real time (as town spawn is limited). In all other cases even the lowly units can take down upper ones by using bigger numbers. Now can lowly units do that in Dis?

Well, you're bound by resources in Disciples too, you know. And the fact that each unit is just a smaller or bigger lump of more of the same thing isn't necessarily good. That's why, for example, Starcraft is a good game. You can make a shitload of certain units but it won't be cost effective against another certain units. That's why, for example, Counter-strike is a bad game. All the weapons are too similar. Projectile speed and arc doesn't vary. There's no splash damage except in grenades (which aren't a real moment-to-moment weapon). The damage doesn't vary a lot either.

Quicker turns? Yes. But more fights? Fewer than in HoMM. Add to that that in HoMM you can fight all the time you want -

Actually, you can't fight all the time you want because in order to have any unit in a place, you need to have a hero too. This makes that unit less expendable and prevents actually leaving units around to defend resources from sneaky grabs which would occur because there's no hero around.

in Dis when someone kills off the most powerful armies (which are rare and which will happen fast) the game is over because there is no point in playing it further. Balance is something HoMM has and Dis doesn't.

There is a point in playing it further because having one powerful army doesn't equal having map control. And how would someone lose the most powerful armies without causing losses in the powerful armies of the enemy as well?
Actually, the most powerful army is a lot more powerful in HoMM, because you're not limited by unit count. It can mow down everything in it's path, whereas in disciples you have a maximum of 6 units in both armies.

I don't mean exactly "your" army. It can be any army. And at that point you can push the "disconnect" button.

Again, I don't see why only one player would somehow get significantly more powerful than another, unless the other played bad, in which case the result is normal and justified.

 

[MetalCraze]

If you allow your enemy to get his army past level 3, you should consider giving up gaming and taking up mini-golf.

Exactly - and this will happen either to you or to him, always guaranteed. And after that point the game loses all its sense. That's like totally not boring!

No, you didn't, you compared it to C&C and its relation to 4X games. C&C has no need for 4X because it does something else and it does it well (real time micro management).

There is no micro management in C&C. It's as simple strategy game as you can get. Build - rush, build - rush. That's all there is to its fun.

HoMM has a need for tactics because it doesn't do anything else any better. And it does have a tactics mode, it's just badly designed.

No, it has lots of elements and they are simple. HoMM to TBS is what C&C is to RTS. A turn-based deathmatch.

I don't think that 1HP units doing the same damage is valid criticism because that's how it works in most strategy games and that doesn't stop them from being good.

Yes it's a valid criticism because in HoMM it works better which makes it better.

It prevents the snowballing effect where the first unit to hit semi-cripples the enemy and has an advantage in each subsequent hit.

In a primitive Disciples combat - yes. In HoMM you first need to get a chance to hit that unit.

And even in HoMM a 1hp Titan does full damage.

Except it doesn't do as much damage as 5 titans which take the exactly same slot which basically makes -5*titan's health- an overall HP number compared to Disciples system.

I don't see where you judged it by strategy standards. You just implied that HoMM can be excused from having tactics somehow.

Because it isn't a tactical game just as all those Disciples and shitty Etherlords? If we are to compare all HoMM-like games to something like M.A.X. the results will be very predictable.
Heh I would've wished there was a more complex version of HoMM of course, but there is none.
However there is when it comes to games like C&C which don't have any tactics whatsoever, but I didn't see you complaining about it.

Well, you're bound by resources in Disciples too, you know.

And in HoMM you don't? For better units you need several types of resources some of which are more rare than others (which also adds the need to fight over all those resources). In Disciples gold buys everything.

That's why, for example, Counter-strike is a bad game. All the weapons are too similar. Projectile speed and arc doesn't vary.

Like in all those Dis, Homms, AoWs, etc.
Dumb damage vs. health.

Actually, you can't fight all the time you want because in order to have any unit in a place, you need to have a hero too. This makes that unit less expendable and prevents actually leaving units around to defend resources from sneaky grabs which would occur because there's no hero around.

Both Disciples and HoMM require hero to move armies around - didn't you want to prove that Disciples is superior?

There is a point in playing it further because having one powerful army doesn't equal having map control

It does, just run around hunting down enemy armies which will now be 100% inferior both in damage and movement.

And how would someone lose the most powerful armies without causing losses in the powerful armies of the enemy as well?

Easy - because of the biggest balance fuck up of Disciples. When you defeat an enemy army it's gone forever. But even if you have only 1 unit left after that you can just hurl your ass to the nearest town and resurrect every single dead unit without any penalty at all.

Actually, the most powerful army is a lot more powerful in HoMM, because you're not limited by unit count.

Neither is your enemy. And neither he is limited by the low level. And units that die in combat are gone forever, no resurrections.

Again, I don't see why only one player would somehow get significantly more powerful than another, unless the other played bad, in which case the result is normal and justified.

P1 Lvl4 army meets P2 lvl4 army, P1 Lvl4 army defeats P2 lvl4 army. P2 lvl4 army is gone forever - so most likely he is left with some shitty lvl1/lvl2 army because there are not enough exp-encounters on the map to make 2 super-powerful armies (exp is administered in very small doses if you remember) and thus P2 falls back without any chance of catching up.

 

[Hory]

There is no micro management in C&C. It's as simple strategy game as you can get. Build - rush, build - rush. That's all there is to its fun.

You can't out-build your enemy unless you defeat him at a tactical level. Harvesting is a more dangerous / challenged activity than in RTS like Starcraft, for example, where it's done in the relative safety of a base by cheaply-replaceable units. This makes C&C a lot more combat-intensive. It may be its most important element.

No, it has lots of elements and they are simple. HoMM to TBS is what C&C is to RTS. A turn-based deathmatch.

Even if it were so, I don't see many people playing C&C nowadays. People playing HoMM 2-3 is exactly what I'm criticising.

Yes it's a valid criticism because in HoMM it works better which makes it better.

I don't know how much "better" this tactical element works, seeing as it still doesn't make HoMM tactical.

In a primitive Disciples combat - yes. In HoMM you first need to get a chance to hit that unit.

It seems like over 50% of the units can hit / reach over 50% of the map. I don't see why it would be a problem, especially with a computer that's ridiculously bad (he either charges at you or stays put).

Except it doesn't do as much damage as 5 titans which take the exactly same slot which basically makes -5*titan's health- an overall HP number compared to Disciples system.

Don't you understand that the whole unit stacking system doesn't make the combat more tactical OR enjoyable? It just makes effects too complicated to calculate.

Heh I would've wished there was a more complex version of HoMM of course, but there is none.

That's exactly what AoW is.

However there is when it comes to games like C&C which don't have any tactics whatsoever, but I didn't see you complaining about it.

Since when isn't combat with small groups of varied units tactical?

And in HoMM you don't?

I didn't contest that, that's why I'm the one replying with "too".

Like in all those Dis, Homms, AoWs, etc.
Dumb damage vs. health.

Wrong, in AoW most units have a few skills which really sets them apart.

Both Disciples and HoMM require hero to move armies around - didn't you want to prove that Disciples is superior?

Then I remember it wrong...

It does, just run around hunting down enemy armies which will now be 100% inferior both in damage and movement.

How much map area can you cover in one turn with the powerful army? As soon as you leave one area you'll lose control of it.

Easy - because of the biggest balance fuck up of Disciples. When you defeat an enemy army it's gone forever. But even if you have only 1 unit left after that you can just hurl your ass to the nearest town and resurrect every single dead unit without any penalty at all.

What? I don't remember being able to do this at all. Is it exclusive to a certain race / level?

Neither is your enemy. And neither he is limited by the low level.

He isn't, but we're talking about the situation where there's one powerful army roaming the land, without a strong force to oppose it. The unit limit makes it more "opposable".

And units that die in combat are gone forever, no resurrections.

The hero can be resurrected, and that's the biggest combat advantage.

 

[Reject_666_6]

It's strange that I haven't even given a thought to Disciples in 4 years (apart from picking my avatar), and yet within the past 10 days I've ended up defending it in 5 different arguments.

Skyway, having one super-stack is not as good a strategy as you may think it is. Here's an example just to prove my point:

I) You're playing as the Undead and your enemy is the Clans. Somehow your main army was defeated a few turns ago and the enemy is advancing towards your cities. Here's his army:

What can you do? The powergamey option would be to recruit an army of:

The Werewolf is immune to his entire army's attacks, so his front-line fighters (and by extension his Alchemist as well) are nullified. If you have a Wraith-family unit, it can substitute the Werewolf. Your army's back line will probably lose one Initiate due to the enemy leader's first strike, unless he misses (and the Undead have this little all-purpose I WIN spell called Touch of Mortis that reduces enemy chances to hit by 20%). A smart enemy would retreat, but you can press him until his leader dies, then the party can't escape due to its gimped speed.

Another option, and by far the most effective, is to recruit two-three thieves and poison his army incessantly. If you manage to poison him 4 times, all his units will only have 20-30% of their health left. After the leader's hurt, you can even challenge him and eliminate him one-on-one with a thief. Keep poisoning and you'll even be able to kill him with just your thieves. Usually, however, three thieves doing their thing will weaken him so much that this army will decimate:

The Ghosts paralyse the Veterans in the extremities, and your two fighters focus-fire on the middle Veteran. Casting Touch of Mortis beforehand is, of course, mandatory.

A third option is to cast spells like mad, which is especially effective if you have the Mage Lord specialisation. Stone Rain, Decay Dragon, a few Summon Evil Ent and Summon Nightmare spells and his army is toast, and you didn't even waste any gold training any cannon-fodder troops.

Don't forget about recruiting weak armies like mad and debuffing the enemy so much that a few waves will strike him down.

By far the best strategy here is to mix all the above strategies together. One last thing to note is that it's VERY easy to raise your army up to level 2 (75 XP for Ghosts and Initiates, 95 XP for Fighters), which makes things a whole lot easier.

Skyway, I'd enjoy playing you one-on-one to demonstrate my mad skills if you're not convinced yet.

 

[relootz]

Counter-strike is a bad game. All the weapons are too similar. Projectile speed and arc doesn't vary. There's no splash damage except in grenades (which aren't a real moment-to-moment weapon). The damage doesn't vary a lot either.

Except this simply is not true, there is a vast difference in weapon damage, armor penetration and recoil pattern. You obviously dont know anything of the game yet make all these assumptions. Why should cs have splash damage? We are not playing UT here with a rocket launcher..

 

[Hory]

Except this simply is not true, there is a vast difference in weapon damage, armor penetration and recoil pattern. You obviously dont know anything of the game yet make all these assumptions.

Wrong. There is a difference in multiple aspects but there are just as many aspects in which there is no difference. On the "weapon variety" scale, CS is below the majority of FPS. Even an old game like Duke Nukem puts it to shame.

Why should cs have splash damage? We are not playing UT here with a rocket launcher.

I don't know whether it should or not but the fact is that it's repetitive because it doesn't. I don't think that the setting should be an excuse for bad gameplay. I could say that a RPG in which you're a prisoner locked in solitary confinement shouldn't have combat, dialogue or graphics but it doesn't make it any better as a game.

 

[relootz]

Cs is a realistic game. An AK47 and a M4A1 do not do splash damage.Furthemore they are so different that would you shoot with them using the same style you would just hit nothing. Being realistic means there are no laser guns in the game. Your point makes no sense at all. Weapon difference does not make an FPS good. It does not make any sense to give Duke Nukem as an example as the games are not in the same category. Duke Nukem doesnt try to be realistic in any way, its about a guy killing aliens with ludacrous weapons. Shrinker anyone?

The game is based on the competitive nature where not the game or maps change, but your opponent and their behavior. There lies the difference. No game is a like in cs.

 

[Hory]

Cs is a realistic game. An AK47 and a M4A1 do not do splash damage.Furthemore they are so different that would you shoot with them using the same style you would just hit nothing. Being realistic means there are no laser guns in the game.

So? AOE weapons exist in reality too, like grenade launcher attachments. SWAT4 is a realistic game and it features a "standalone" grenade launcher. CS is just a dumbed-down game.

Your point makes no sense at all.

My point is that if indeed the setting justifies the lack of weapon variety, it's a bad setting for FPS and it shouldn't be used. Like in the case of the solitary-confinement RPG. I don't think that so many FPS are Sci-Fi because people prefer Sci-Fi but because it offers better gameplay opportunities. When you start putting setting before gameplay, the game starts to suck.

Weapon difference does not make an FPS good.

No, it doesn't automatically and by itself make it good, but it does make it less repetitive.

It does not make any sense to give Duke Nukem as an example as the games are not in the same category. Duke Nukem doesnt try to be realistic in any way, its about a guy killing aliens with ludacrous weapons. Shrinker anyone?

Actually it makes perfect sense to compare them since they are in the same genre. Genre is a more important classifier than setting (that's why no one puts Commandos and Call of Duty in the same category, tho they have the same setting).

The game is based on the competitive nature where not the game or maps change, but your opponent and their behavior. There lies the difference. No game is a like in cs.

The opponent and their behavior changes in other games as well. Why wouldn't it, unless you're playing with the same people? And if in other games the maps change as well, no game is alike times two when compared to CS.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Except it doesn't do as much damage as 5 titans which take the exactly same slot which basically makes -5*titan's health- an overall HP number compared to Disciples system.

Don't you understand that the whole unit stacking system doesn't make the combat more tactical OR enjoyable? It just makes effects too complicated to calculate.

Now Hory, Skyway was making a legitimate point here.

Unit stacking in HoMM is such that clubbing it as a single unit means the more damage you do to that single unit, the less will be its ability to damage you.

This is a good way of rewarding the fast creatures, and having even a powerful slow creature is a disadvantage.

It is also a way of rewarding less divisible units for having power through individual strength rather than numbers, so even though 500 peasants have the ability to kill cavalry and hydras, they can't consistently last in a fight. Your ability to mass those units is offset by their ability to last as divisible creatures.

 

[MetalCraze]

You can't out-build your enemy unless you defeat him at a tactical level.

You mean like in an every single RTS out there?

Harvesting is a more dangerous / challenged activity than in RTS like Starcraft, for example, where it's done in the relative safety of a base by cheaply-replaceable units.

It doesn't make C&C any more tactical though, no matter what you do it will always be "who has more (powerful) tanks firing at this very moment - wins". Just like in HoMM and Dis. Even protecting your harvesters will come down to just that.

This makes C&C a lot more combat-intensive. It may be its most important element.

So your point is?

Even if it were so, I don't see many people playing C&C nowadays.

Online or singleplayer? There is just no "westwood world" or whatever Westwood's version of Cattle.net was called where you can do insta-matchmaking for obvious reasons - like Westwood being defunct.

I don't know how much "better" this tactical element works, seeing as it still doesn't make HoMM tactical.

And where did I say otherwise?

It seems like over 50% of the units can hit / reach over 50% of the map. I don't see why it would be a problem, especially with a computer that's ridiculously bad (he either charges at you or stays put).

I was never calling HoMM AI smart (but unlike Dis AI it struggles to survive, like running away from the far superior army). Although in HoMM it is possible cast spells in combat and you can do stuff like f.e. putting log in infantry's way and it will make a difference as you will only get hit by ranged/flying units for one or two more turns which is already more "tactical" than in Disciples. Not mentioning the ability to move away your own ranged units when infantry gets close to them.
Of course it doesn't make it something super duper but it is better than static turrets of Dis.

Don't you understand that the whole unit stacking system doesn't make the combat more tactical OR enjoyable? It just makes effects too complicated to calculate.

The good thing about HoMM is that you don't have to do such micro-calculations bothering only with an overall picture. And yet it does make it more enjoyable because it gives you an impression that you are truly weakening your opponent (which you do), not just taking his HP bar to zero.

That's exactly what AoW is.

No it's not. AoW is the variation of MoM and is much closer to a 4X genre. Just because you move around armies in both games doesn't make them the same.

Since when isn't combat with small groups of varied units tactical?

Since the moment where it doesn't matter because it all goes down to who has more mammoth tanks?

Wrong, in AoW most units have a few skills which really sets them apart.

So do units in HoMM. Some of them even have more than 1 skill that they can use in battle.

How much map area can you cover in one turn with the powerful army? As soon as you leave one area you'll lose control of it.

Will it matter? You can hunt down enemy armies one by one and because they are far less powerful now you can slow them down with your own low-lvls. Besides there are two traits your most powerful hero gets on level-ups that in total add like what? 40-50% movement points or something?

What? I don't remember being able to do this at all. Is it exclusive to a certain race / level?

It is what you do when you build Temple (which you do on a 2nd or a 3rd turn). In fact if your hero died but one of the usual units survived as soon as you'll enter the town the game won't let you do anything with your army until you will resurrect your hero.

The hero can be resurrected, and that's the biggest combat advantage.

I talk about HoMM3. Hero there is just a "placeholder" for the ability to cast spells and move your army around. Of course hero also adds some bonuses too.

 

[Hory]

You can't out-build your enemy unless you defeat him at a tactical level.

You mean like in an every single RTS out there?

What relevance does the number of RTS with tactics have? Stick to the argument.

It doesn't make C&C any more tactical though, no matter what you do it will always be "who has more (powerful) tanks firing at this very moment - wins".

Of course it makes it more tactical when fights aren't about brute force overpowering of a base, but about small-scope maneuvers with a small number of units. And what the hell is "more powerful tanks"? Have you ever played it in multiplayer? It's never about "you have 5 powerful tanks and I have 4 powerful tanks, you win". First of all, players start with equal resources so no one has "more". Secondly, "powerful tanks" aren't ravailable for the entire duration of the game. Even when those are available, fights don't consist only of "powerful tanks", but many other units and turrets. Thirdly, just one faction has "the most powerful" tanks. By your judgement, they always win? It's as stupid as saying that in Starcraft "whoever has more Carriers wins", ignoring most of the game which happens before the Carrier army moment (which in most games never even comes).

Just like in HoMM and Dis.

Maybe in HoMM. In Disciples I encountered a variety of units, it was never "I have 6 of the most powerful tanks".

So your point is?

Point is that C&C IS tactical.

Online or singleplayer? There is just no "westwood world" or whatever Westwood's version of Cattle.net was called where you can do insta-matchmaking for obvious reasons - like Westwood being defunct.

It's not being played much in either SP or MP, compared to HoMM.

I don't know how much "better" this tactical element works, seeing as it still doesn't make HoMM tactical.

And where did I say otherwise?

Then you're not justified in saying it's a good element seeing as the resulting system is a bad one.

I was never calling HoMM AI smart (but unlike Dis AI it struggles to survive, like running away from the far superior army). Although in HoMM it is possible cast spells in combat and you can do stuff like f.e. putting log in infantry's way and it will make a difference as you will only get hit by ranged/flying units for one or two more turns which is already more "tactical" than in Disciples. Not mentioning the ability to move away your own ranged units when infantry gets close to them.
Of course it doesn't make it something super duper but it is better than static turrets of Dis.

It's just a rudimentary tactical element which doesn't stop HoMM's combat from being shit, unfortunately.

The good thing about HoMM is that you don't have to do such micro-calculations bothering only with an overall picture.

Exactly, the game isn't tactical enough to require any deep thought.

And yet it does make it more enjoyable because it gives you an impression that you are truly weakening your opponent (which you do), not just taking his HP bar to zero.

You're weakening your opponent in Disciples too, but weakening is more meaningful, not just "wow, I weakened him by 1%". When it's overused it becomes boring.

No it's not. AoW is the variation of MoM and is much closer to a 4X genre. Just because you move around armies in both games doesn't make them the same.

It's closer to a 4X genre because it's not casual and dumbed-down, not because HoMM is of a different genre.

Since the moment where it doesn't matter because it all goes down to who has more mammoth tanks?

You must love Carriers in Starcraft.

So do units in HoMM. Some of them even have more than 1 skill that they can use in battle.

They have fewer and more banal skills.

Will it matter? You can hunt down enemy armies one by one and because they are far less powerful now you can slow them down with your own low-lvls. Besides there are two traits your most powerful hero gets on level-ups that in total add like what? 40-50% movement points or something?

If he invests so much in movement points, isn't he less likely to be able to defeat a combat-oriented hero in the first place?

 

[Reject_666_6]

God damn HoMM

 

[MetalCraze]

What relevance does the number of RTS with tactics have? Stick to the argument.

I'm sticking to it. You are saying that outbuilding your enemies in C&C is something special - I'm simply proving otherwise. And no it isn't something tactical too, it's the only way of survival.

Of course it makes it more tactical when fights aren't about brute force overpowering of a base, but about small-scope maneuvers with a small number of units.

C&C-series (incl. Red Alerts) are all rush games (except for C&C2) through and through. Build more units than your enemy and you will win.

And what the hell is "more powerful tanks"? Have you ever played it in multiplayer? It's never about "you have 5 powerful tanks and I have 4 powerful tanks, you win".

Really? But if that will happen I will win. And you will understand that there is no tactics - you can't use ground for cover, you can't outmanoeuver me due to how C&C gameplay works, you can't retreat - it will be justa fight of a brute force.
Sad but true.

First of all, players start with equal resources so no one has "more". Secondly, "powerful tanks" aren't ravailable for the entire duration of the game. Even when those are available, fights don't consist only of "powerful tanks", but many other units and turrets.

Many? In C&C there are two types of units - those which hit everything on the ground and those which hit everything in the air. At best all your tactics will go down to covering your tanks with AAs.

Thirdly, just one faction has "the most powerful" tanks. By your judgement, they always win?

Not if the enemy has more DMG-per-second. Build more units if you need to. Under all gimmick and fake tactics covers C&C is still all about DPS.

It's as stupid as saying that in Starcraft "whoever has more Carriers wins", ignoring most of the game which happens before the Carrier army moment (which in most games never even comes).

Oh but Starcraft is a totally different thing as units there are much much more varied than in C&C and many have unique skills with which they can exploit the weaknesses of the enemy. Starting with stealth units and ending with banal zerg fliers that shoot further than defence turrets. That's what makes Starcraft better than C&C and there is truly some form of tactics present.

Maybe in HoMM. In Disciples I encountered a variety of units, it was never "I have 6 of the most powerful tanks".

But it was. See what I previously wrote about the inability of less powerful units to beat more powerful ones.

Point is that C&C IS tactical.

Here we go again. OK let's make it simple - give me examples of what you consider tactical in C&C. Not stuff like "you must outbuild your enemy to win - this is takktikks"

It's not being played much in either SP or MP, compared to HoMM.

Can you provide these statistics? I'm interested in knowing these myself.

Then you're not justified in saying it's a good element seeing as the resulting system is a bad one.

No what I say is that HoMM is not a tactical game. But other elements make up for it and make it -fun-. Hey even the munchkinism part like getting all stuff on the map does.
Just like Doom is not as tactical as OFP but fun because of crazy amounts of meat, speed and weapons.

It's just a rudimentary tactical element which doesn't stop HoMM's combat from being shit, unfortunately.

I still want to know what makes it shit exactly? See you even admitted that this is "rudimentary tactical element" - which oh so tactical Dis doesn't have at all.

Exactly, the game isn't tactical enough to require any deep thought.

This "tactical" buzz threatens to become new C&C without which as we know all RPGs are shit.

You're weakening your opponent in Disciples too, but weakening is more meaningful, not just "wow, I weakened him by 1%". When it's overused it becomes boring.

Huh? You don't weaken your oponent in Dis. 250 HP opponent is still as powerful as 1 HP opponent, whereas killing even 1 titan out of 5 will weaken them by 20%, not just 1%. And yes - stacks are being treated as a single unit by the game if you haven't noticed.

It's closer to a 4X genre because it's not casual and dumbed-down, not because HoMM is of a different genre.

No it's closer to 4X genre because the game is based around central points of 4X genre present in every self-respecting 4X game - building (towns in this case), diplomacy, trade and, of course, conquest.
HoMM is a strategy game exactly like C&C in a way in which it is based only around conquest in the end. Let's bash every single strategy game for not having diplomacy, trade and managing of your own country.

Or complain that Doom is a dumbed down casual piece of shit because it doesn't have those tactics like OFP.

You must love Carriers in Starcraft.

But I do.

They have fewer and more banal skills.

Banal? So what skills do you want from them in combat but damage, healing, various buffs? In super-complex AoW units don't even have the last one.

If he invests so much in movement points, isn't he less likely to be able to defeat a combat-oriented hero in the first place?

First put everything into combat oriented skills then after you defeat all powerful armies think about other skills. Besides even without movement skills your hero will still travel further than low-lvls.

 

[Wyrmlord]

It's closer to a 4X genre because it's not casual and dumbed-down, not because HoMM is of a different genre.

No it's closer to 4X genre because the game is based around central points of 4X genre present in every self-respecting 4X game - building (towns in this case), diplomacy, trade and, of course, conquest.
HoMM is a strategy game exactly like C&C in a way in which it is based only around conquest in the end. Let's bash every single strategy game for not having diplomacy, trade and managing of your own country.

Or complain that Doom is a dumbed down casual piece of shit because it doesn't have those tactics like OFP.

This.

Of course, Hory will respond that he thinks Doom IS a dumbed down casual piece of shit, as he has done so in past dungeon crawler threads when the same argument was put forth, so this is the finishing line on this argument.

If I can relate the words more or less, he thought that gamers should mature beyond simplistic FPSes of old days, and move to newer and more complicated ones, because he feels that they are outdated and irrelevant next to different kinds of games that are now available.

Silent cinema is not worth enjoying, because we now have sound films. :D

 

[Reject_666_6]

Well to be fair, you can't compare old cinema to old games. Silent films had storylines, dialogue and sometimes slapstick, and all these things can be enjoyed regardless of the technology used in making the film. Actors speaking their lines doesn't necessarily make the film better - that would be like saying that literature would be better if it was all audiobooks.

For games, it's the gameplay itself that's meant to entertain. Good FPS games that came after Doom improved the gameplay in different ways and, in many cases, evolving standards that became mandatory in the genre. People still play Doom because of the setting, the atmosphere, the music, the nostalgia, the weapons and monsters specific to the game and for the level design. In other words, there's nothing about Doom as a game that's inherently better than more modern FPS games. A port of Doom to idTech 5 would be objectively better than the original game in all areas except for nostalgia.

A much better comparison would be that Windows 3.1 is not worth enjoying because we now have XP.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Modern FPSes are slow and with a few enemies on the screen at a time, that sluggishly hide and occasionally pop up.

Doom is a game of a time when large numbers of enemies run at you en masse, firing at everything including you and everything else, nonstop.

At Ultraviolent difficulty, it is a rare kind of experience where you are always shooting and strafing, and never stopping. Many so called Doom clones focused on other things, like cool weapons or enemies, but Doom is the only game of its own kind. Heretic is a rather tame game compared to it, for example (and not very good either today or back then).

 

[KalosKagathos]

I) You're playing as the Undead and your enemy is the Clans. Somehow your main army was defeated a few turns ago and the enemy is advancing towards your cities. Here's his army:

What can you do? The powergamey option would be to recruit an army of:

Powergamey? If the opponent is braindead enough to bring an army that relies on physical damage alone against the undead, the race with the most easily available weapons-immune creature in the entire game, he deserves to be punished. It's the cheapest, most effective and funniest solution.



And Hory, HoM&M IV and V fixed several sources of your complaints: in IV you can move armies around without heroes, and in V every single creature has a special ability of some kind. It's not enough to make it the best TB strategy series around, like fanboys claim, but it's more than what Disciples have to offer.

 

[Hory]

I'm sticking to it. You are saying that outbuilding your enemies in C&C is something special - I'm simply proving otherwise.

No, I'm saying that outbuilding comes only after tactical superiority, after you claimed C&C has no tactics.

C&C-series (incl. Red Alerts) are all rush games (except for C&C2) through and through. Build more units than your enemy and you will win.

That's stupid. Units have cost-effective counters. Cost alone doesn't tell who wins. You could say that having a diversified, well-rounded army that's significantly bigger than the enemy's well-rounded army will win, but it's like this in any RTS. If you repeatedly lose units and resources to the enemy you should eventually lose. And even if the enemy has a better army, you don't have to engage it as you have a bonus in defense. Or you can launch strikers against his harvesters. Can he have an army bigger than yours near each one?

Really? But if that will happen I will win. And you will understand that there is no tactics - you can't use ground for cover, you can't outmanoeuver me due to how C&C gameplay works, you can't retreat - it will be justa fight of a brute force.
Sad but true.

What, why can't you retreat?
As for maneuvering, there's a ridiculous amount of it just because of how resistant infantry is to tank fire. They always have to try to run over infantry groups, which of course scatter out of the way. More than Zerglings vs Siege Tanks. Or how about maneuvering stealth tanks? They're not permanently stealthed, so more maneuvering than Dark Templars. How about flamers? Insta-killing infantry but only at close range and they're fragile vs tank fire. Using the ground for cover isn't much different from Starcraft either. There is no bonus for heights but you can build walls which actually block damage.

Many? In C&C there are two types of units - those which hit everything on the ground and those which hit everything in the air. At best all your tactics will go down to covering your tanks with AAs.

Yes, if you only classify them by air attack capabilities, you'll get a binary result. It's the same in other RTS.

Not if the enemy has more DMG-per-second. Build more units if you need to. Under all gimmick and fake tactics covers C&C is still all about DPS.

Except that DPS is dependent on the actual unit that takes the damage. Whenever one player has much DPS of a certain kind, you build units which are resistent to that kind of damage. If he has flamers and you have small guns infantry, you should lose.

Oh but Starcraft is a totally different thing as units there are much much more varied than in C&C and many have unique skills with which they can exploit the weaknesses of the enemy. Starting with stealth units and ending with banal zerg fliers that shoot further than defence turrets. That's what makes Starcraft better than C&C and there is truly some form of tactics present.

Actually, both of these elements are present in C&C. Except Starcraft is badly balanced and you never see Guardians vs turrets in any professional game.

But it was. See what I previously wrote about the inability of less powerful units to beat more powerful ones.

You wrote about the theoretical inability. I'm saying that the actual games don't come down just to having more of the most powerful unit.

Here we go again. OK let's make it simple - give me examples of what you consider tactical in C&C. Not stuff like "you must outbuild your enemy to win - this is takktikks"

I never said that. I said that outbuilding your enemy is possible only defeating him in tactical mode. I consider tactical the combat system with varied units in groups of managable sizes.

Can you provide these statistics? I'm interested in knowing these myself.

I'm not aware of any world-wide study but this seems to be the case based on forum reports and personal knowledge of friends' playing habits.

No what I say is that HoMM is not a tactical game. But other elements make up for it and make it -fun-. Hey even the munchkinism part like getting all stuff on the map does.

And what I'm saying that manual combat without tactics is a bore no different than Dragon Age filler combat. I'm also saying that HoMM has no excuse for not being a tactical game seeing as it's not much of a strategical game either. And it's certainly not an action game, a puzzle solving game or a RPG. It's nothing.

Just like Doom is not as tactical as OFP but fun because of crazy amounts of meat, speed and weapons.

Doom isn't tactical but it's actiony. HoMM isn't tactical but it's... what? Munchkiny? Is this the main element of the game? Then that's precisely what I criticize it. It's for the phat loot achievement unlocking crowd.

I still want to know what makes it shit exactly?

The fact that combat requires no thought (nor other parts of the game, for that matter). It's a casual game.

See you even admitted that this is "rudimentary tactical element" - which oh so tactical Dis doesn't have at all.

It has it in an abstracted form which works out better than HoMM's expensive units which cover the entire battlefield anyway.

This "tactical" buzz threatens to become new C&C without which as we know all RPGs are shit.

Except that "tactical" has already been used by people which are obsessed about the wargaming roots of RPG. And I don't disagree that if a game has combat, it should be either actiony, tactical or automatic. That's why Star Control 2 or Cavewars' combat is better than HoMM's.

Huh? You don't weaken your oponent in Dis. 250 HP opponent is still as powerful as 1 HP opponent, whereas killing even 1 titan out of 5 will weaken them by 20%, not just 1%. And yes - stacks are being treated as a single unit by the game if you haven't noticed.

No, he won't be as powerful. the 1HP unit can't survive most attacks while the 250HP unit will survive most attacks. This makes a tactical difference, don't you think. And I say you're weakening your opponent because you're killing his units as well. It just doesn't happen every turn necessarily (which actually makes it an interesting rather than automatic, expected event).

No it's closer to 4X genre because the game is based around central points of 4X genre present in every self-respecting 4X game - building (towns in this case), diplomacy, trade and, of course, conquest.
HoMM is a strategy game exactly like C&C in a way in which it is based only around conquest in the end. Let's bash every single strategy game for not having diplomacy, trade and managing of your own country.

That's not why I'm bashing HoMM.

Or complain that Doom is a dumbed down casual piece of shit because it doesn't have those tactics like OFP.

It is pretty dumb. It wasn't developed intentionally dumbed-down because that's the level games were at. And I know for a fact that you'd rate OFP higher than Doom. By the same reasoning, I rate HoMM low.

You must love Carriers in Starcraft.

But I do.

An unexpected turn of events, elitist gamer Skyway proven to be an unskilled player?

Banal? So what skills do you want from them in combat but damage, healing, various buffs? In super-complex AoW units don't even have the last one.

Here is a list of unit skills from AoW 1, Undead race:
Black Bolts
Black Breath
Bloodlust (3/3 days)
Cause Fear
Cave Crawling
Cold Immunity
Cold Protection
Cold Strike
Concealment
Death Immunity
Death Protection
Death Strike
Dispel Magic
Doom Gaze
Dragon
Dragon Slaying
Extra Strike
Fearless
Fire Breath
Fire Immunity
Fire Protection
Fire Strike
First Strike
Flying
Forestry
Frost Bolts
Gas Breath
Healing
Holy Protection
Invoke Death
Leadership
Life Stealing
Lightning Immunity
Lightning Protection
Magic Bolts
Magic Protection
Magic Strike
Marksmanship
Night Vision
Path of Decay
Physical Immunity
Physical Protection
Poison Immunity
Poison Protection
Poison Strike
Regeneration
Strike
True Seeing
Turn Undead
Vision
Walking
Wall Climbing
Wasteland Concealment
Web
Of course, number alone doesn't prove anything, but some of them are really game-changing, especially since every unit has at least five of these skills.

And Hory, HoM&M IV and V fixed several sources of your complaints: in IV you can move armies around without heroes, and in V every single creature has a special ability of some kind. It's not enough to make it the best TB strategy series around, like fanboys claim, but it's more than what Disciples have to offer.

I have specified that I'm criticising HoMM 2&3. Haven't played 4 and 5 (2 and 3 made me too cautious?) but I believe they can be better, especially since one was developed by the Etherlords devs.

And the fact that sequels trying to be more tactical is taken for granted with no objections proves that 1-2-3 are just dumb-down versions of the same genre.