Hi!
I had some argue with Dave about this H&R version created by Kazter. To make things short: I don't really like it. The additional paths are not adding anything to the game as you cannot run there without beeing seen all the time (as opposed to the usual paths where you only have to pass through critical points). But what strikes me most is the much too weak hero. ~40% less HP makes him already vulnerable to some arquebuse. Now he actually dies even faster than before. He also got less attack, he cannot 1-shot pillboxes and arquebuse any longer when having morale. This just makes H&R even more a slow-paced patience-game where you don't dare to risk anything with your hero any longer. Opinions?
Kazter's H&R and Napoleon
-
- NeoEE Developer
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 9:24 am
- Lobby Username: Jodocus
- Arntzen
- Administrator
- Posts: 1983
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:13 am
- Lobby Username: _[eC]_Arntzen_
- Location: Norway
Re: Kazter's H&R and Napoleon
The more paths version is just a special version, I also changed the normal version of H&R so that's just a personal preference thing. Play the one you like the most. I like the original map better too.
The hero got changed because people (mainly from eC) wanted it to get changed. Problem with the original heroes is that they are super-strong versus normal army, and insanely weak against other heroes. This basically means if you lose your hero early on there is practically no chance for you to kill the enemy hero, a super strong unit that will blast your army/pillboxes in no time, so there is practically no way for you to win/defend. With hero/army being more balanced we actually got more back and forth games, were you could be down to 1-3 in heroes and still win with a team effort. With the original heroes this was only possible if the guy with the one hero microed it amazingly.
Of course if you're up in heroes you got a great advantage, but not as great as before. I do think the original map is better since it is easier to split push there, meaning you can take advantage of a slight lead in army/hero and play aggressively with less risk. This makes for more fun games imo, instead of slight lead = 30f11 of slow push at one side, get new army slightly faster since it's for example 2 heroes vs 1, del army, wait for new army to spawn and repeat.
The hero got changed because people (mainly from eC) wanted it to get changed. Problem with the original heroes is that they are super-strong versus normal army, and insanely weak against other heroes. This basically means if you lose your hero early on there is practically no chance for you to kill the enemy hero, a super strong unit that will blast your army/pillboxes in no time, so there is practically no way for you to win/defend. With hero/army being more balanced we actually got more back and forth games, were you could be down to 1-3 in heroes and still win with a team effort. With the original heroes this was only possible if the guy with the one hero microed it amazingly.
Of course if you're up in heroes you got a great advantage, but not as great as before. I do think the original map is better since it is easier to split push there, meaning you can take advantage of a slight lead in army/hero and play aggressively with less risk. This makes for more fun games imo, instead of slight lead = 30f11 of slow push at one side, get new army slightly faster since it's for example 2 heroes vs 1, del army, wait for new army to spawn and repeat.
-
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:23 am
- Lobby Username: _[eC]_DavE_
Re: Kazter's H&R and Napoleon
This is what I was saying as well. On Arntzen's version you do have a chance to turn the game around when you have less heroes. The original version literally becomes about hero vs hero. Lose your hero and it's very difficult to make a come back.
And from experience, playing Arntzen's version I have seen numerous games turn around back and forth which is why I prefer his version, but ultimately it's personal preference.
And from experience, playing Arntzen's version I have seen numerous games turn around back and forth which is why I prefer his version, but ultimately it's personal preference.
-
- Nemesis
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:50 pm
Re: Kazter's H&R and Napoleon
I think it'd good having a huge dependence on your hero. It's like chess. Kill the king and win the game. If u get into stupid positions with your hero/king u are liable to lose the game. Least in H&R u can actually win with proper use of remaining hero's amd team play. It makes for alot.more strategy. Same for.engineer. He shud remain 1hp. It's stupid to change such well made scens
-
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:23 am
- Lobby Username: _[eC]_DavE_
Re: Kazter's H&R and Napoleon
In Arntzen's version, I agree with this. In the original, I do not due to the fact it takes literally 5 shots for a hero to kill another hero. Imagine if you're 2/3 heroes vs 1, it isn't going to end well for you.Least in H&R u can actually win with proper use of remaining hero's amd team play
Another issue is the amount of time it takes for your hero to heal in the original version. This effectively slows down the pace of the game.
- Arntzen
- Administrator
- Posts: 1983
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:13 am
- Lobby Username: _[eC]_Arntzen_
- Location: Norway
Re: Kazter's H&R and Napoleon
Definitely! However the reason I changed it was cause people felt this was too big of an uphill battle with the "original" heroes.SlipKnoT wrote:Least in H&R u can actually win with proper use of remaining hero's amd team play.
It's probably unnecessary for most people, but maybe I should also add that this kind of disagreement was completely common from day 1 of scens. Since they are so easy to change, and you might have an idea on what change could make it better, why not try and see if it actually got better?
My small change to the most common version of H&R is one of hundreds. We argued about which version of H&R to play all the time in Sierra. From what I remember there were many popular versions of H&R when I played it a lot. The three most common ones I remember were one with one super-hero each (the one most people know), one with one super-hero each that gets a resurrection in base after like 5 minutes of game time in case he died (only resurrected once ), and one that many of the grenwar players liked more with a non-modified Napoleon so that H&R was basically only about gren-micro.
There were scens where you could trade in 100 iron if you had a dead hero to get a new one, some with less stone or weaker pillboxes, some with more pop, some with less iron needed to advance and so on.
Let's just say I'm willing to bet a lot of money on the fact that the engineer wasn't originally modified to have 1hp.SlipKnoT wrote:Same for.engineer. He shud remain 1hp.
[/quote]_DavE_ wrote: Another issue is the amount of time it takes for your hero to heal in the original version. This effectively slows down the pace of the game.
This is something that could be changed on the "original" version btw.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests