MMH5.5 - Heroes of Might and Magic 5.5

Torpor duration is reduced. I don't remember how much. From the top of the head I think duration is about 1.5 turns.
Also you do not want to get retaliated with vampires because they die very fast. I had a very good replay that shows just how vampires thrive when they take hits. I hope I have not deleted it.

From 2 to 1.5 rounds is good, but not enough (by the way, I also noticed that many descriptions in the Manual are not detailed enough and lack numbers).
If I don't want my vampires to take retaliation strikes, then I will hit enemies with them after disabling retaliation attacks. Small inconveniences are worth it to cause huge inconveniences for the opponent (especially with soldier's luck).

1.5 rounds means minus 1.5 attacks (roughly speaking), which with about a 50% chance can trigger from both direct and retaliation strikes (i.e., on average around 70% per round).
A non-retaliating strike is minus 1 retaliation attack, which moreover can only trigger from a direct strike.

Regarding the replay, I conducted a lot of test battles in my time, and the Vampire Prince proved to be a head above all opponents of their tier, by a huge margin over mediocre Vampire Princes. Their ability is extremely strong (one of the strongest in the game). But for some reason, you don't want to weaken it by 3 times, yet you weaken minor agility by 3 times.

With +2 if he runs 6 this is +12 defense. Unacceptable for any tier 2 creature.

I fundamentally disagree with such an approach. And is the crossbowmen's armor-piercing shot (which effectively allows gaining up to +30 to attack, and under an enemy hero up to +50-70) okay?
+12 defense in the original gave an increase in survivability of ~1.5 times; yours gives ~1.33 times (therefore, I would consider restoring the ability to +3 defense so as not to weaken it).
The shield wall of dwarf warriors reduces damage down to 0.1 (i.e., up to 10 times); is that also unacceptable and needs to be nerfed? Or is it not about the strength of the ability, but rather that you fundamentally don't want to see high stats on a low-level unit? As far as I'm concerned, this is insufficient grounds to commit such a sin, turning a good ability into a total zero.
Seriously, a unit that is "just meat" and nothing more, since its unique ability can be safely ignored (same for knights, but to a lesser extent, as at least lay on hands and tournament attack remain).
Although, in Heroes of Might and Magic III, there were also units who had no special abilities other than stats (but then, maybe remove agility altogether?).

Let me explain what a unit with +1 agility is in your mechanics. It means a unit with the ability to increase survivability by (1.08 +/- 0.08) times, and usually the number of movement squares doesn't vary much, meaning in practice it's a unit with an ability of (1.08 +/- 0.04) times—so the entire gain I can count on with good use of the ability and correct maneuvers is only +3-5%? It's easier to forget that they even have this ability.

I understand it's difficult to convey how important it is to have strong abilities in the game instead of useless ones, since you consciously ignore this aspect, but keep in mind that for at least some players this may be important, and they will be disappointed by such changes.

The effect of the ability equals 1 attack point bonus per square just as in ToTe.

I noticed that, but it's not true. As I wrote before, 1 attack point gave +5% to base damage (if attack is higher). And from the charge — +5% to final damage. If the difference is initially 0, the concepts coincide. But with a difference of +20 (for example), +5% to base damage works like +2.5% to final. I have already given similar examples.
(20+1-0) * Damage = 205% Damage
(20-0) * Damage * (100% + 5%) = 210% Damage

Not true. Every glass cannon build will pick the first upgrade.

I might be wrong regarding armor penetration since I haven't played against neutrals in a long time, but in the endgame (battles against players) — unlikely.
You overestimate the value of the retaliation strike. It's a convenient ability, but it's not dangerous for the opponent.
My suggestion regarding rakshasas is confirmed by multiplayer experience in RTA (PvP), where rakshasas were strengthened in a corresponding way. Although often in ranged builds (I assume these are glass cannons?) no rakshasas are taken at all, not even the "super buffed" grade, because the unit is too expensive and the costs aren't recouped.

10 base initiative + mini artifact bonuses + haste spell combined with dash ability can bring them up to a 30 initiative value.

In WGE, kshatriyas were boosted up to 36 (9 + dash + Haste), and this could break the game if Righteous Might for x2 damage was additionally cast on them. But as a rule, this could be repelled (at least within WGE). There were also rakshasa rajas and alternative dancers with initiative boosting up to 60 (15 + dash + Haste), who also posed a serious threat, but not as much as rakshasas at 36 due to the lack of area damage. Rakshasa rajas have no area damage, no super strong damage, and you also don't have Righteous Might for x2 damage (you have it, but it's much weaker). So I see no reason for concern. One should worry about kshatriyas under dash, not rajas. Because the total damage from kshatriyas can be several times higher.

Do not look at upgrades just as upgrades but how they fit into hero build.

That's exactly how I look at it, however, if in one build we get +20% to attack (conditionally), and in another - +10% to defense for the same price (conditionally), then that's the imbalance I'm pointing out.
If we ignore the numbers and reason in the spirit of "one unit is for attack, another for defense, therefore everything is okay regardless of the numbers," then one could avoid balancing anything at all.

I didn't want to get involved in an argument regarding non-retaliating attacks, but I did, my apologies. The thing is, it's hardly constructive; people either clearly understand the value of a non-retaliating attack or they don't. It's hard to convince here, I only conveyed an opinion. It's quite possible that this opinion is valid only in PvP, but not PvE.

Basically all skills and perk trees focus in one idea.

This is a very strong idea, and I adhered to the same in my modification as much as possible — i.e., until it broke the gameplay. Moreover, I tried to maintain the thematicity not only of the whole skill but also of each of its branches (each of the 3 branches determined by level 1 basic abilities). But definitions of what falls under the concept of a particular skill can differ. For example, I cannot allow myself the liberty of depriving Offence of the direct hero attack branch, as you did when moving it to Combat. Because too few full-fledged abilities remain in Offence, and I don't want to add incomplete ones (like herds) or non-thematic ones (like fire arrows, which are also imbalanced in the early stages).

The only inconsistencies are in skills where no skills could be properly found to fit (mostly faction native skills).

It's unclear why you can make exceptions but others cannot. It turns out that in some places you win in logic, and in others you lose, and therefore overall it's hard to say that your scheme is more logical (although it's also hard to say that it's less logical).
Abandon the idea of fitting skills with various non-thematic nonsense like the +1/+1 ability in Combat (it's more convenient to recall this specific ability as an example, although there are others like it), then logic will indeed become a very strong side of your wheel. That is, allow some places to be empty (there is nothing terrible in that).

Regarding WGE skill wheel:
- I noticed that Magic schools and Shatters common perks. Why?
- Also why Shatters have creature-icon perks? Does this give population of random units? Why?

1) because orc skills are too poor (lack of abilities); on the other hand, for reasons of "not worsening gameplay," I didn't want to deprive all other factions of tasty abilities like Storm Wind, so in this matter I support the original game (gameplay > style)

2) because Shatters is a very weak basis for a skill. In WGE these skills are renamed to Mights (Might of Light etc.). Might of X does similar things to what Magic of X does, but in a different style (without using spells). As for the "Shatter" effect, in WGE it works both ways (read the skill descriptions). The thing is, Shatter doesn't engage in Shattering because it isn't that; it serves Might, now it's a full-fledged combat skill that includes elements of opposing the corresponding school, but as an additional (not primary) thing. Similar to how Defence includes opposition to magic damage but is not limited to it.

Examples: Destructive Magic allows dealing direct damage to enemy troops (with spells), Destructive Might increases direct damage to enemy troops (with troops). Summoning Magic can summon creatures (with spells), and Summoning Might can summon creatures directly into the army (via the Pack Leader ability) for every levelup (similar to education). Therefore, wolves in Summoning are logical here, although manticoras in Dark are exceptional (just atmospheric tie-in, hello to the manticoras from Heroes of Might and Magic III - belonging to the Dungeon faction, linked to Darkness in meaning).

Does this give population of random units? Why?

I don't consider wolves a "random" unit for orcs. Although one could argue about the manticoras. But there were no better options here, since summoning creatures into the army is a good, interesting, and relevant combat ability (you sacrifice one slot in the army for these creatures and sacrifice morale, but in return you get solid reinforcements).

Added after 3 hours 29 minutes


By the way, a second mod review (analytics) was recently made:
https://youtu.be/NinIwFA42XQ
(without my participation, but I've already expressed all my thoughts on the forum)

Added after 46 minutes
Last time, when I spoke about class differences, I missed one important detail: the thing is, all heroes of one class start with the same "class" skill of that class, and not with a "racial" skill. It's hard to say whether this is good or bad overall, but from the perspective of class differences — definitely good (many classes of different races are similar, but here some differences appear).

Might:

Knight - Combat
Death Knight - Combat
Demon Lord - Offence
Ranger - Avenger
Overlord - Leadership
Engineer - War Machines (now it's clear why it's always an engineer, atmospherically)
Barbarian - Blood Rage
*Seer - Luck

Balanced:

Paladin - Light
Gatekeeper - Gating
Reaver - Dark
Warden - Defence
Assassin - Logistics
Runemage - Runelore
Shaman - ?
*Wizard - Artificier

Magic:

Heretic - Dark
Sorcerer - Sorcery
Necromancer - Necromancy
Druid - Enlightenment
Warlock - Occultism
Flamekeeper - Destructive Magic
Witch - ?
Elementalist - Summoning

What I noted earlier:

1) Paladin = Warden (almost completely)
2) Gatekeeper = Assassin (difference in racial and its absence)

This is precisely where additional differences in starting skills manifest (mentors are forbidden, right?):
- if suddenly a Paladin wants to play without Defence, he fundamentally has that possibility (whereas a Warden does not)
- if suddenly a Warden wants to play without Light, he fundamentally has that possibility (whereas a Paladin does not)
- a Gatekeeper cannot renounce the racial skill, but on the other hand can play without Logistics, while an Assassin cannot play without Logistics

What I can say about Might classes: is it possible to somehow separate Knight and Death Knight? For example, give one of them Defence instead of Combat? It's strange that the Might skill ended up being unwanted by any of the Might heroes (although in my view, it's not entirely a Might skill, but it is a Might skill in the authors' understanding).

Next remark, regarding starting skills: why is a percentage indicated on them at all? Why not make the percentage distributed among the other 11 skills, and 0 for the starting skill?