MMH5.5 - Heroes of Might and Magic 5.5

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 a retaliation strike, I will attack enemies with them using an ability that removes retaliation. 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 have about a 50% chance to 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 hit.

Regarding the replay, I conducted a lot of test battles in my time, and the Vampire Prince proved to be head and shoulders above all opponents in 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.

I might be wrong regarding 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 is a convenient ability, but it is not dangerous for the opponent.
My suggestion regarding rakshasas is confirmed by multiplayer experience in RTA (PvP); rakshasas were already strengthened in a corresponding way there. Although often in ranged builds (I assume you mean glass cannon?), no rakshasas are taken at all, not even the "super-strengthened" grade, because the unit is too expensive and the costs aren't recouped.

I fundamentally disagree with such an approach. And is the armor-piercing shot of crossbowmen (which effectively allows gaining up to +30 to attack, and under an enemy hero up to +50-70) okay?
+12 defense in the original provided an increase in survivability by ~1.5 times; yours is ~1.33 times (therefore I would consider restoring the ability to +3 defense so as not to weaken it).

Although, in the same Heroes 3, there were also units that had no special abilities other than stats (but then, maybe remove agility altogether?).

The shield wall of dwarven warriors reduces damage down to 0.1 (i.e., up to 10 times), which is also unacceptable and needs to be nerfed? Or is it not about the strength of the ability, but rather that you fundamentally do not 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 complete zero.

This is serious: 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 laying on of hands and tournament attack remain).

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 tiles moved 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 noticed that, but it's not the case. 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

That's what I'm seeing; however, if in one build we get +20% to attack (conditionally), and in another +10% to defense for the same price (conditionally), then that is the imbalance I am pointing out.
If we ignore the numbers and reason in the spirit of "one unit is for attack, another for defense, therefore any numbers are fine", then we can avoid balancing anything at all.

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

This is a very strong idea, and I adhered to the same in my modification wherever possible — i.e., until it breaks the gameplay. Moreover, I tried to maintain thematic consistency not only for the whole skill, but for each of its branches (each of the 3 branches determined by level 1 basic skills). But definitions of what falls under a particular skill may differ. For example, I cannot allow myself the liberty of depriving the Offence branch of direct heroic attack, as you did when moving it to Combat. Because too few full-fledged skills 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).

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 are a very weak foundation for a skill. In WGE these skills are renamed to Mights (Might of Light etc.). Might of X does similar things to Magic of X, but in a different style (without using spells). As for the "Shatter" effect, in WGE it works both ways (read the skill description). The point is, Shatter doesn't deal with Shattering because it isn't that; it serves Might. Now it is a full-fledged combat skill that includes elements of opposing the corresponding school, but as an additional (not main) feature. 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 manticoras from Heroes 3 — belonging to the Dungeon faction, linked to Darkness in meaning).

Quote:
Does this give population of random units? Why?
I do not 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).

Last time, when I spoke about class differences, I missed one important detail: the fact is that 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 across different races are similar, but here some differences appear).

What I noted earlier:
Quote:
1) Paladin = Warden (almost completely)
2) Gatekeeper = Assassin (difference in racial skill and its absence)

This is exactly where additional differences in starting skills manifest (since mentors are forbidden, right?):
- if suddenly a Paladin wants to play without Defense, 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 refuse the racial skill, but can play without Logistics, whereas an Assassin cannot play without Logistics

What I can say about Might-classes: is there any way to separate Knight and Death Knight? For example, give one of them Defence instead of Combat? It's strange that the Might-skill ended up not being demanded 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 distribute the percentage among the remaining 11 skills, and set the starting skill to 0?