.com.unity Forums - The problem of low hit points on humans

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 3: The Awakening (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=138)

- - The problem of low hit points on humans (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=31938)

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans

Quote:

PvK said:

Quote:

Epaminondas said:
...
If anything, that shows that a lot of people do agree with me in feeling that there is a problem with the base human commander or hero HPs.

Actually, my posts are all about trying to point out that the low hit points on humans is not a problem, and that even if it seems that humans have a survival problem, the HP themselves are not the problem. At most, the damage amounts may be a problem, but the HP ratings are in line.

I wasn't referring to you: It's not all about you, even though I often think that way myself! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans

Quote:

UninspiredName said:
Yes, but Alexander the Great didn't survive those battles by taking a direct hit from a halberd or javelin, and didn't really turn the tide of battle (Aside from morale, I guess) by being on the frontlines. I half-think the guy had a lot of luck as well as his combat prowess that kept him alive.

Actually he took many, many direct hits and once got stuck alone on the wrong side of a city wall. He was expected to die then, and several other times, but survived.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans

Quote:

Shovah32 said:
And your also forgot to add that alexander the great wasnt fighting huge dragons, undead monsters and lightning bolts coming down from the sky.

I don't have a problem with much of that (other than of course many Dom3 undead are pretty pathetic) but the problem is that it doesn't take anything like that to kill a melee commander. 20 hp heros will accomplish your idea quite nicely as a dragon will still shred them.

Skill vs. strength and parrying

One way in which Dominions is a bit weird regarding the interplay of strength and skill is that the effectiveness of a weapon parry / defense skill isn't affected by relative strength.

For instance, to take a fairly extreme case: if a Hoburg with two Main Gauches of Parrying is fighting a Niefel Jarl with a Hammer of the Mountains, is the Hoburg going to bother to block the massively strong attacks, or is he going to rely on ducking and dodging? Unless he's got some incredible strength for a Hoburg... he'd be better off with Vision's Foe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

If relative strength affected defense skill somewhat (just as attacker's strength now impacts shield parries -- against the Niefel Jarl with that Hammer, even a decent shield may not be a great deal of help), then it'd be possible for a hero to have very high defense, turning away opposing blades with ease (until he fatigues...) but still have a rough time against giant-strength opponents.

Re: Skill vs. strength and parrying

Increasing HP would be redundant, because we already have 'burning out' mechanic. It's called Fatigue. Fatigued enemies are easier to hit, and after certain point can no longer fight.

Quote:

2. Achilles' near invulnerability came from his mother Thetis dipping most of his body (except the notorious Achilles' "Heel") in the River Styx. One could say that that is an equivalent of his natural armor or "protection" but it could also said to represent his natural hardiness or constitution or--gasp!--HP. To insist on Achilles' near-invulnerability solely as a category of "protection" may be to try to interpret everything according to your convenience

Translation: I like the legend about Achilles, but not that part about magical origins of his power. The part about hero is right, the part about magical protection is wrong. Because I say so.

Some quotes from wikipedia:

Quote:

When Achilles was born, Thetis tried to make him immortal by dipping him in the river Styx. However, she forgot to wet the heel she held him by, leaving him vulnerable at that spot

Quote:

In another version of the story, Thetis anointed the boy in ambrosia and put him on top of a fire to burn away the mortal parts of his body. She was interrupted by Peleus and abandoned both father and son in a rage.

Quote:

Homer does not make reference to this invulnerability in the Iliad. To the contrary, he mentions Achilles being wounded. (In Book 21 the Paeonian hero Asteropaeus, son of Pelegon, challenged Achilles by the river Scamander. He cast two spears at once, one grazed Achilles' elbow, "drawing a spurt of blood.")

So, in two first quotes Achilles is said to be nearly immortal. Styx is no ordinary river, and ambrosia is food of the gods. There's also mention of burning away mortal parts of his body.
We see Homer didn't mention Achilles' invulnerability, and there's one case of him being wounded. His elbow was grazed by a thrown spear. You don't easily die from a hit to elbow, much less a graze. If anything, it could be said that Thetis' Blessing gave him heroic defence/reflexes. Because the worst wound he received (before the final one) was grazed elbow.
Doesn't sound like he had a lot of hps, does it ? It's either Protection, or reflexes (Defence) if you listen to Homer.

Quote:

As predicted by Hector with his dying breath, Achilles was thereafter killed by Paris � either by an arrow to the heel, or in an older version by a knife to the back while visiting Polyxena, a princess of Troy. In some versions, the god Apollo guided Paris' arrow.

Both versions conspicuously deny the killer any sort of valor owing to the common conception that Paris was a coward and not the man his brother Hector was, and Achilles remains undefeated on the battlefield.

So in one version he was hit in the heel and it was enough to kill him. In another(never saw this one), he was killed (one shot !!!) by knife in the back.
Even if you assume totally realistic point of view and support the idea that Achilles' tendon was crippled, it seems to imply that it made him lose his Defence and dodging ability.
I'd also like to note that Greeks considered all ranged weapons, especially bows, cowardly. Their military was really centered around heavy infantry. Most probably because bows tend to ignore target's Defence, and you can't show your skill in melee combat.
Either way, Achilles died from a single blow.

As to Herakles, the only instance of him being wounded I remember was a crab that cut into his feet while he was wrestling with a legendary monster, don't remember which one.

Quote:

Achilles' armor was the object of a feud between Odysseus and Telamonian Ajax (Achilles' older cousin). They competed for it by giving speeches on why they were the bravest after Achilles and the most deserving to receive it. Odysseus won. Ajax went mad with grief and vowed to kill his comrades; he started killing cattle or sheep, thinking in his madness that they were Greek soldiers. He then killed himself.

Because there's mention of Odysseus, I assume it was Homer who wrote this. It seems to imply that Achilles' power at least partially came from his armor - or so the two Greeks believed. What it doesn't do is support the HP hypothesis.

Let's face it, HP is a crude, old oversimplification in an old and flawed system like D&D. And if I remember correctly, the way AC works in D&D comes from pen&paper Mechwarrior games. (Just to support the idea that D&D). D&D says futuristic giant walking robots have more in common with ancient/medieval combat than history. That's guilty enough for me. And let's not forget D&D was optimised for humans - that is, GM had to be able to calculate everything quickly without help of computers.

Re: Skill vs. strength and parrying

Quote:

Taqwus said:
One way in which Dominions is a bit weird regarding the interplay of strength and skill is that the effectiveness of a weapon parry / defense skill isn't affected by relative strength.

For instance, to take a fairly extreme case: if a Hoburg with two Main Gauches of Parrying is fighting a Niefel Jarl with a Hammer of the Mountains, is the Hoburg going to bother to block the massively strong attacks, or is he going to rely on ducking and dodging? Unless he's got some incredible strength for a Hoburg... he'd be better off with Vision's Foe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

If relative strength affected defense skill somewhat (just as attacker's strength now impacts shield parries -- against the Niefel Jarl with that Hammer, even a decent shield may not be a great deal of help), then it'd be possible for a hero to have very high defense, turning away opposing blades with ease (until he fatigues...) but still have a rough time against giant-strength opponents.

Actually, that might be doable. Horned Helmet is both a helmet (adds a new piece of armor to the unit) and a weapon (adds a Gore attack). If Main Gauche of Parrying added a weapon (Main Gauche of Parrying, dam 3, att 0, def 0, lngth 0) and a shield (Main Gauche of Parrying, def 0, parry 5, prot 20), high strength could be used to over-power it. I statted the shield named Main Gauche of Parrying after Shield of Valor, which combines E1 (shield) and A1 (Air shield) items into one. They're at the same level of construction.

Of course, it's a bit far-fetched to do this for ALL weapons of ALL units - but it could work for some of the magical items.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans

Quote:

Epaminondas said:

Quote:

Agrajag said:

Well, I did just say that's my guess as to what he thought....

Either way I don't see why you have to get so upset, you did get your answer after all, and considering how you are just another anonymous person over here, there's no reason not to be suspicious. Other than being curteous to other people.

2. So you think it's normal to accuse everyone who doesn't have the game manual to have a pirated version instead of just a demo version? Even if you subtract the evidence I put forth before that clearly demonstrate that I don't know what happens in late game and do not have full version of the game, I'd suspect just as a percentage thing that the most reasonable assumption is actually that someone who doesn't have a manual only has a Demo copy rather than a pirated copy.

Compare what I said in italic and what you said in italic.

Quote:

Epaminondas said:
If anything, that shows that a lot of people do agree with me in feeling that there is a problem with the base human commander or hero HPs.

If anything, that shows that a lot of people do disagree with you in feeling that there is a problem with the base human commnder or hero HPs...

All this means is that there is much debate on the subject. Just because a lot of people discuss something it doesn't mean they think one way or another about it, just that they think about it.

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans

A little common sense please!

If I want to play giants I play giants. If I want to play munchkins I play munchkins. If I want sea I don't play land.

Each makes for a totaly different playing style. That is what makes this game great.

If you want a mighty commander than give him toys. If you don't like the toys then you can mod some. What more do you want?

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans

I don�t think anyone wants humans to be giants. The problem is simply that most human thuggie heroes are practically basic commanders with a trivial stat increase.

Take marius lorca for example:
Unmodded he is an 80gp Emerald lod with +1 hp +1 str +1 att, +1 def, +2 morale, + 2 ap and one less encumbrance.
A recruitable emerald lord with 2 stars of experience is a better fighter than marius, who is supposed to be a living legend.

Shouldn�t a living legend excel the run of the mill recruitables a little bit?

Re: The problem of low hit points on humans

One thing popped to mind.

If it's 'unrealistic' or whatever that human heroes have more hp.

How is it not unrealistic if they get it from a heroic ability?

Why can't our HEROES have more than average hp, if our HEROES can?:)