ok, so the hot topic it seems is that champions are to overpowered. i can get behind this, they are killing machines mid to late game. My idea is that we take the champions out of the fight. they are still on the battlefield but they enhance an army instead of fight.
what do you think?
I like strong champions fighting in person, so the main point leaves me cold.
Hostages & ransom would be cool if the devs can find time to put them in.
I strongly disagree. The entire bad-ass champion thing is my favorite part of the game.
Sorry but nope, i think that would suck. I like it when my champions are rampaging through enemies. It just needs to be better balanced with other things.
That's my two cents but according to the poll results so far, it would seem that making regular units more useful and interesting is preferred by many over nerfing champs.
You do realize that your suggesting an entirely new game right? One where half the games content is thown out?
i would rather have it so that a champion could merge with a normal unit - becoming that units leaderand able to remove from the unit so as the game progresses and you build/find new units you upgrade your heroes group.
I actually like this idea. One of the things that bugs me about champions is that they are basically copycats of sovereigns. The changes you suggest would define a role for champions that would be distinct from that of sovs.
While I initially voiced my opinion about having heroes mostly function as army buffers I am not on board with this. Joining a champion with a unit proposes a massive change to the game and a removal of many aspects that are still entertaining. I like the idea of ransoming units. I like the option of creating a champion that buffs the army units he is grouped with. I still want that champion to be capable of fighting on his own.
With split xp, we may see more diversified stacks of units. I don't mind champions as powerful unit stacks on their own, they are just a little out of pace with the rest of the game. Bring that in line and we won't need to have these game-changing discussions ^^;
I think that is a great idea and if it is done right this:
should be no problem. The general could be immune to attacks and could only cast spells until the last unit in his army dies. After that the general is no longer immune to attacks and can attack with melee or ranged weapons, but the general has only the stats of a normal unit + the talents.
The stats of the general could increase the attack (strength), defense (constitution), spell resistance (intelligence) and initiative (dexterity) of the units in his army.
Please no, let's not overreact on the balance of champs right now. We're at version 0.77. Already champs are better balanced then they were in 0.75. It's just a matter of balance not changing one of the major concepts of the game.
Hate this idea.
Your playing the wrong game if you want Champions as Generals not heroes. You should try Heroes of Might and Magic, this game is designed entirely around active heroes.
Whether it is done right or not is irrelevant. It's an entirely new game. You're completely changing a major game system. And on top of that you're adding an entirely arbitrary rule that generals only fight after their army is dead.
Why not just require heroes for the creation of armies? And them we can call it Heroes of Might and Magic-Lite.
The capture/ransom idea is a good one though.
I think a similar result could be accomplished using a system akin to Civ 4s, have champions be able to tack onto units and the benefits be that they grant that specific unit buffs based on their specializations. The result being that units with champions attached are just as powerful as champions are now but have the quality of being a unit still and not feeling like one person is mowing down unit after unit on their own.
So for example have more specialized skills like "spear master" and all polearm units they are attached to get some kind of special bonus. This has the added benefit of not letting a single piece of gear make a champion a god.
I think a mix of the current champions and the general style champions would add depth to the game. Allow some Lancelot still super soldiers to mow down armies, but allow other tactician style champions to function differently as tactical additions. Plus that could be a loophole to allow units of magic users instead of single ones, give a benefit to special units design to complement a mage. So your mage has a unit of shielded spell resisters that give him high defense despite his/her poor gear defense, or conversely assistant casters who make his /her magic more powerful.
If I wanted to play heroes of might and magic, I'd just load that game up...
Champions really are the only large difference between FE and HOMM
so ya just play HOMM
Is HOMM sandbox? I thought it was scenarios? If so, I might have to actually play it.
I think strategy and RPG are fundamentally opposed and cannot be truly mixed.
If champion leveling is strong enough to be worthwhile, then it is strong enough to ruin the strategy aspect of the game.
Currently champions are so overpowering that there is no point in having anything BUT champions.
Some of the iterations of HoMM have a sandbox mode (v.5 for example) but you're right that it's really designed and balanced around the scenarios.
I don't really enjoy many strategy games that are all scenarios. I prefer sandbox.
Yeah, it may not be the game for you then. In Heroes series that is the way that they've balanced the lite-RPG aspects along side the strategy part of the game. As your heroes get more powerful they move on to another zone in the campaign that's been crafted for heroes of that level. (or to another region of the map in single-map scenarios)
Or what about depending upon if your faction's prestige was higher than another faction's prestige that you could hire or seduce away champions to your cause.
So who goes questing then?
The Fellowship of the ring would become Aragorn and some Rangers, Gimli with a dozen Dwarven Axemen, Legolas and a Band of elven archers, Boromir with his entire frigging army, Gandalf the Grey plus any other gullible guys he can con into doing his job for him, the 4 hobbits who may as well bring along the whole Shire (just tell them its a picnic trip).
The members of the Fellowship certainly did gather all those folks in ROTK when it was time to fight conquer and defend cities.
After 2 books, not at the start. The OP's idea could not work without a total re-write of the games code & CONCEPT.
No sir. This would get us back to HoMM heroes and I don't want that. I want my heroes on the field. I want to have groups of heroes out there questing, killing monsters etc... just a general would be horrible to me. Also I like it that mages are more vulnerable and have to pay attention so they don't get caught by riders.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
