Big maps vs. small maps. and Heroscapes original intent. - Page 3

Typhon2222 · #25 November 10th, 2011, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dok

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhon2222

Just wanted to muse on the observation that, other things being equal, smaller maps are less punishing to melee....

"Other things being equal" is a pretty slippery phrase in this concept.

The overall size and length of a map does not, in my opinion, have a profound effect its range/melee balance. It can have some marginal effects, like giving ranged figures a lot of room to run and gun in endgame. But a large map where the best spots are in the middle will benefit unique figures over common figures (with a couple exceptions like Zelrig).

The driving factor in range versus melee is things like positioning of LoS/choke points, the presence of shadow/jungle, and how quickly figures can move from outside range to engagement (i.e. how flat the map is, whether there is snow/ice/road/water/etc).

It's easy to design a small map where 4th Mass will crush knights and Heavies nearly every time. Just clear out the LoS blockers, put relative high ground in or near the startzones, and toss some water/snow/ice/undulating elevation changes into the middle of the map. Conversely, it's not too tough to design an epic 5-MS map where knights will crush the 4th nearly every time. Just make a big plateau of high ground in the middle, with roads winding around LoS blockers and jungle pieces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhon2222

Perhaps another indication that the designers envisioned the game being played most typically on small maps? The inherent advantages of ranged units seems less like a design flaw then....

I wouldn't say the advantages of ranged units are a design flaw at all. They are reflected in the stats and costs of the figures.

Bah. You guys and your nuances.

kolakoski · #26 November 10th, 2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kolakoski

Quote:

Originally Posted by kolakoski

Generally, when I'm creating big maps, LoS blockers, Shadow, Jungle, etc. are used to ensure that "other things being equal" is not the case. As to "Heroscpe[']s original intent," I don't think the game cares one way or the other.

I prefer big maps and storytelling, but I enjoy tournament play as well, especially in the current environment, with its creative formatting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dok

"Other things being equal" is a pretty slippery phrase in this concept.

The overall size and length of a map does not, in my opinion, have a profound effect its range/melee balance. It can have some marginal effects, like giving ranged figures a lot of room to run and gun in endgame. But a large map where the best spots are in the middle will benefit unique figures over common figures (with a couple exceptions like Zelrig).

The driving factor in range versus melee is things like positioning of LoS/choke points, the presence of shadow/jungle, and how quickly figures can move from outside range to engagement (i.e. how flat the map is, whether there is snow/ice/road/water/etc).

It's easy to design a small map where 4th Mass will crush knights and Heavies nearly every time. Just clear out the LoS blockers, put relative high ground in or near the startzones, and toss some water/snow/ice/undulating elevation changes into the middle of the map. Conversely, it's not too tough to design an epic 5-MS map where knights will crush the 4th nearly every time. Just make a big plateau of high ground in the middle, with roads winding around LoS blockers and jungle pieces.

Well met!

Like I said . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhon2222

Bah. You guys and your nuances.

Well met!

That's what I said!

Kaemon Awa 123 · #27 November 10th, 2011, 06:50 PM

Well, I think it's quite obvious that I massively prefer small maps.

Typhon2222 · #28 November 10th, 2011, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaemon Awa 123

Well, I think it's quite obvious that I massively prefer small maps.

Really? Then you might enjoy checking out a group called the Raids of Valhalla, KA. They've got a great project going. Maybe they'd let you join.

The Doctor · #29 November 11th, 2011, 11:30 AM

In my opinion bigger maps are better. I enjoy playing large games. It just seems more epic then just a few units.

nate the dawg · #30 November 11th, 2011, 05:02 PM

My preference is small-medium maps, not taking more than 60 minutes or so to play. The typical tourney-style match is great for a quick, fun game.

However, huge, table-filling maps (we're talking around 30x60 hexes) certainly have their place - in large army, multiplayer games, or (my preference) in massive army 1 on 1 scenarios.

Both are great, and one of favorite aspects of Heroscape is coming up with and building maps.

Purplebeard · #31 November 11th, 2011, 05:54 PM

Big Maps. Love Big Maps, Big Games.

'Nuff said.

Darth Vader · #32 November 11th, 2011, 07:19 PM

I guess it really comes down to who I am playing with. If I just got one person to play with, we almost always go with nothing bigger than a large BoV map.

But my heart is still with big games, and if we got three or more players, our map sizes increase quite a bit. The smallest map we build for 3 or more players is 18 square feet, but we have played on as big as 40 square feet of map.

kolakoski · #33 November 11th, 2011, 07:24 PM

Well met!

Hey Darth, try some Nadi:

Darth Vader · #34 November 11th, 2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kolakoski

Well met!

Hey Darth, try some Nadi:

I like these. A lot. Looks like I'll be building some of these maps this weekend. Thanks a lot, Kolakoski!

View Poll Results: Do you prefer large scale battles or small?
Large battle that takes days to complete	13	13.27%
Large battles that complete in one day	34	34.69%
Small battles that take a couple hours	50	51.02%
I dont battle, I run for cover	1	1.02%
Voters: 98. You may not vote on this poll