Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   HeroScape General Discussion (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Big maps vs. small maps. and Heroscapes original intent. (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=11727)

djsmith August 31st, 2007 12:28 PM

Big maps vs. small maps. and Heroscapes original intent.
 
I don't post all that often, and I prefer to lurk mostly, but I have a question that has been bugging me for some time now.

When I first started playing HS, I imagined a "Battle for all Time!!!" in which huge massive armies went up against each other. In my vision, I see several days to even play the type of battles I imagined.
The whole design of HS seems to support this and it is my belief that HS was originally meant to be played along those lines.

Now I know that money constraints as well as time are a big factor for the popularity of smaller maps. Tourneys are the same, and small maps make sense. Now I LOVE the big maps, and have a hard time playing on small maps. Has the original intent of the game been lost? Was that the original intent? I would love to hear the communitys' thoughts on this.

If this has been discussed, I apologize, but I was away from this site for a while.

Finrod August 31st, 2007 12:34 PM

All of the above.

Metaknight August 31st, 2007 12:35 PM

I don't think that was the orignal intend. I think it was to play on 1 master set and some expansions and have an hour or so game. This has changed with castle sieges, larger armies, and people buying more master sets.

The "battle of all time" is mostly just to sound awesome and means it collects heroes form different worlds and has them fight against each other in an all out war. Also, when all the hour battles add up it really becomes the battle of all time.

djsmith August 31st, 2007 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metaknight
I don't think that was the orignal intend. I think it was to play on 1 master set and some expansions and have an hour or so game. This has changed with castle sieges, larger armies, and people buying more master sets.

The "battle of all time" is mostly just to sound awesome and means it collects heroes form different worlds and has them fight against each other in an all out war. Also, when all the hour battles add up it really becomes the battle of all time.

See now thats funny because I see it so differently. The game just seems designed to be BIG. Interlocking pieces, castles, flagbearers, multple unit synergy all just cries out big huge battles to me. Besides the games designers would want that because more money is made for them that way. Yes? No?

markwars August 31st, 2007 12:51 PM

I think the fact that there are only three order markers clearly indicates that this is a skirmish level game. Sure it's got unlimited potential to be modified for all kinds of play, but at its very core is one master set's worth of terrain and a handful of units.

NecroBlade August 31st, 2007 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finrod
All of the above.

Seconded. Though the order markers, as mentioned, do limit larger games somewhat. The easy customizations that can be done to fix that, though, make it an 'all of the above' game, IMHO. There should be an option for that.

Chuckrock August 31st, 2007 01:07 PM

The great thing about playing relatively small games is if you screw up, you have time for a couple for games.

With silly Brit games like 4ok, your only playing one game.

Snotwalker 8000 August 31st, 2007 01:25 PM

I think the game was originally designed to be either... as any good expandable game should be. And though I've played many a battle on huge fields up to 4X8 feet in size, I mostly prefer smaller skirmishes on 1 or 2 MS size fields with around 400 - 550 sized armies.

The smaller battles allow for more games to be played... If I have a few hours free time play HS, I'd rather get in 3 or 4 games on a smaller map than one game on a bigger map with larger armies.

Plus, smaller maps allow melee units to be on more equal footing with ranged units. On the huge battlefields, melee typically is overwhelmed by the looooong marches trying to get adjacent to the ranged units running around. For example, Minions are AWESOME on 1MS + Exp sized battlefields... whereas they are simply too slow to engage the enemy on 4+MS sized fields.

Also, with smaller, quicker battles, it's easier to be more creative with army builds and take chances on less-used figures... because if you build a fun, but not necessarily competitive army, and get whomped by your opponent,... well, who cares? It was a fun battle, and now we have time left for another 2 or 3 battles where I can choose a different army type.

That being said, I still love the multiplayer huge games (again, this game is versatile in that respect), but overall I prefer the smaller, quicker engagements that allow time for more games to be played... an hour a game, for example, is just about perfect.

IMHO

SW8K

djsmith August 31st, 2007 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snotwalker 8000
I think the game was originally designed to be either... as any good expandable game should be. And though I've played many a battle on huge fields up to 4X8 feet in size, I mostly prefer smaller skirmishes on 1 or 2 MS size fields with around 400 - 550 sized armies.

The smaller battles allow for more games to be played... If I have a few hours free time play HS, I'd rather get in 3 or 4 games on a smaller map than one game on a bigger map with larger armies.

Plus, smaller maps allow melee units to be on more equal footing with ranged units. On the huge battlefields, melee typically is overwhelmed by the looooong marches trying to get adjacent to the ranged units running around. For example, Minions are AWESOME on 1MS + Exp sized battlefields... whereas they are simply too slow to engage the enemy on 4+MS sized fields.

Also, with smaller, quicker battles, it's easier to be more creative with army builds and take chances on less-used figures... because if you build a fun, but not necessarily competitive army, and get whomped by your opponent,... well, who cares? It was a fun battle, and now we have time left for another 2 or 3 battles where I can choose a different army type.

That being said, I still love the multiplayer huge games (again, this game is versatile in that respect), but overall I prefer the smaller, quicker engagements that allow time for more games to be played... an hour a game, for example, is just about perfect.

IMHO

SW8K

All of you have very valid point there. I never thought of it that way. I think I am still a throw back to the old D&D days when a campaign lasted months. This isn't that type of game though, I know. The game's overall bulky nature doesn't allow for most people to have a map set-up for long periods of time.

I just cannot get the BIG map syndrome out of my head though. When I build or play on a smaller map, it just doesn't feel right to me. Perhaps the fact that I love building maps as much as playing might have something to do with that. Most of my map ideas need to be large in nature to complete.

southwest ninja August 31st, 2007 02:13 PM

im a fan of 1200-3000 pt games my self. everyone i play with just prefers to be able to command a huge army. ive noticed that you have less of a chance to correct a mistake you made in smallers games, and the people i play with are still learning strategy and synergies so it gives them a better chance.

bluekitsune13 August 31st, 2007 03:15 PM

I usually play on maps that are 1 Master set + expansions. Rarely 2 Master sets and up. I just don't like games that drag on too long. Plus I usually spend more time assembling and tearing down the large map than I do actually playing on it! Unless you incorporate multiple armies (meaning more sets of order markers), large battles go slower than they should.

djsmith August 31st, 2007 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluekitsune13
I usually play on maps that are 1 Master set + expansions. Rarely 2 Master sets and up. I just don't like games that drag on too long. Plus I usually spend more time assembling and tearing down the large map than I do actually playing on it! Unless you incorporate multiple armies (meaning more sets of order markers), large battles go slower than they should.

I actually agree with you on those points, so therfore I just must be a glutton for punishment. I have spent days building some of the maps I make. And I mean days.... I made this map once and it seriously took me 2 weeks to build, tweak, teardown, move to playing location, then rebuild.
I love every second of it. Tearing it down after playing was another story though.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.