Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition.

Heavy class is slow, usually well-protected units, while vampires, even unupgraded, move quite fast. In my opinion, zombies are a good example of a heavy class (they move slowly, are durable, and are also similar to demons, which are in the heavy class).

There is no connection to speed here, because the basis is protection (armor class), and nothing more. It was important for me to use the tier as a means of creating diversity, so only protection is fixed as the key aspect of the class, and not the other characteristics. Just as the key aspect for a ranged unit is shooting, but it is not necessarily the case that the ranged unit must be fragile or have penalties in melee combat (although this is usually the case).

Hello, in my opinion, a griffin should be weaker than a knight in terms of strength. After all, in all parts of Heroes, the knight is the second-to-last tier, and the elite is almost equal to angels. A griffin is, in itself, a combat unit, while a knight is at least an armored knight (paladin) + a warhorse. Regarding the stat increases, I think the knight should be increased to 1500-1200 strength (he is the strongest of the cavalry!).

I understand this point of view, but I can't do anything about it, because I based my decisions on the human units primarily on realism, analyzing other historical sources. Based on my data, 2-3 elite armored infantry are quite capable of defeating an elite mounted knight. Not to mention archers; the accepted ratio (4:1) usually does not favor the knight. In addition, in a confined space (no charge), an armored infantry can now even fight a mounted knight on equal terms, which is very pleasing.

I don't know about you, but I personally don't like the concept where creatures from the same tier have the same strength (stat increase). I think that everywhere where the strength and stat increase are the same, it should be changed: 1. Knight - Griffin 1000. As I understand it, everyone decided that the Griffin is stronger, so let it be. It's the Empire of the Griffin, so we increase its strength to 1200-1500, so that it is on par with Djinns or Wyverns. 2. Shaman - Ogre 400. Here, I think that Shamans, due to "magic," are a more elite and less numerous unit than Ogres, and they should be on the 3rd rank, while Ogres should be on the 2nd. We lower the Ogre to 300, to the Berserkers. 3. Guard - Spearman 200. In my opinion, the most numerous are the Guards among the dwarves, so either their strength should be lowered to 150, or the Spearman should be raised to 250. 4. Bear - Priest 750. This is the most controversial pair for me. But probably the Priest should be raised to 1000, otherwise it is strange that they are on the 5th tier, while the Druids with the same strength are on the 4th. P.S. I'm not sure if these changes are ideal, but I think they are necessary. Let's discuss!

Okay, I have taken this opinion into account.

My position was to have diversity. Therefore, I use tiers exclusively as a means of ordering the strength of creatures (and not their stat increases) within one faction, and nothing more. From this point of view, the presence of equalities and even sometimes reverse inequalities (in the case of comparing tiers of different factions) is diversity, a highlight. In general, this was sometimes the case in the original Heroes 5 (for example, a 1st-tier assassin was stronger than a 2nd-tier creature, and a 2nd-tier Fury was stronger than a 3rd-tier creature).

Now, regarding the specific pairs, why these decisions were made.

1. The Griffin can be raised, but the key competitors for the Griffin are Djinns/Ifrits and Wyverns, both of which are stronger. On the other hand, not everyone agrees that knights are weaker than griffins, and therefore equality allows us to sit on two chairs at once.

2. A girl with knives and the beginnings of magic versus a professional heavyweight fighter. This is a well-known problem of sorceresses and warriors. On the one hand, a sorceress should be weaker than a warrior in melee combat. On the other hand, sorceresses are elite, and there should not be too many of them. The same problem exists for humans, with armored infantry and monks. Monks are 1.5 times more expensive and stronger because they are powerful sorceresses and also archers, but in melee combat they do not surpass armored infantry. As for shamans, their magic is weak, they don't have ranged attacks, and moreover, the alt does not cast spells at all (but has an enchanted weapon). Based on these considerations, the shaman is not stronger than an orc. However, the question of tiers is open here. It is possible to move the shaman to the 3rd tier (while maintaining the same cost and strength). But this needs to be analyzed from the point of view of city schemes; I can't say anything about it yet (the fact is that in WGE, fortifications strengthen the 2nd and 3rd tiers differently).

3. The Spearman was considered weaker than the archer. As for the Guards, they are an "improved" version of the human regular infantry of the 1st tier. 24 (archers) < 30 (spearmen) and 30 (guards) < 40 (recruits). Therefore, in the end, they ended up with the same number.

4. Bears should definitely not be lowered, because in general, the superiority of a knight over a bear is debatable. As for the priest, there is no reason why he should be stronger than the same druid. In addition, on the 5th tier, as on any other, there should be outsiders, and besides the priest, there is no one else to choose for the role of an outsider.

Nargoth has a strange dependence of the strength and stat increase of creatures; it is far from linear. In any case, the weak will be on the 5th tier, and someone with great strength but a smaller stat increase will be on the 6th tier. Similarly, with other pairs: making different tiers, but the same strength or stat increase for creatures from the same castle, I think is illogical and harmful to the game.

For the sake of diversity, the strength of a creature and the strength of its stat increase are not always related. However, this was also the case in Heroes 3. I like the approach where there is no total equalization, and each faction has its own strengths and weaknesses (i.e., different key tiers). In general, if the strength of a creature is higher, then it is considered more elite, and the strength of its stat increase is also higher. But this is in general, and in particular, there may be exceptions, especially when comparing different factions.
By stat increase, I mean not its formal number, but the stat increase * the strength of 1 creature (or the stat increase * the cost of 1 creature).

"Sun Riders" (Sun Riders would be a good fit for the 6th tier because the units are semi-magical in origin http://ru.mightandmagic.wikia.com/wiki/Всадник_Солнца)

No, replacing knights with sun bunnies is not serious. Like we don't have ordinary horses, or heroes ride them, and here are sun ones, please. It would be very cool to return elven pegasus riders to another, more magical faction. But no one has made such models, and in that case, we would have to abandon the no less iconic unicorns (or druids).

Added after 2 hours 38 minutes
In general, regarding shamans, I will add. They can be compared to furies. The same girls with knives, and also the alt has an enchanted weapon. There is no superiority of shamans in combat here. Therefore, they are equal (both cost 400). That is, the question of shamans comes down to beasts. And the question of beasts comes down to the same armored infantry. Armored infantry is elite heavy infantry, in full armor. Beasts are light infantry with knives. The fact that they are equal to armored infantry in strength is very, very cool for them. On the other hand, an orc can also be compared to armored infantry. The orc is physically 1.5-2 times stronger, also a professional warrior, like armored infantry, but its equipment is much worse. Therefore, the orc is generally not weaker than armored infantry, but not stronger either (above armored infantry is the golem, and above the golem is the minotaur, both creatures are even heavier than the orc).