Changes to the rules starting with the letter G (Graal and Galtran).

I'll add my own (subjective) two cents. What's written below is written in a sleepy state, so I'll do my best... 1. If the problem is seen in the three stacks of skeletons at Galtran's, you could introduce a rule to force the removal of 1-2 stacks, for example. Banning a hero is already too severe a measure. 2. Regarding placing a Grail in the starting castle, the same applies to Conflux and Tower – they would gain an additional advantage. I don't see the point. 3. Allowing the choice of a hero in the Conflux could be considered. In most cases, a decent hero appears, but there are also cases where this is not the case. This only adds more randomness and complicates the situation when there are no restarts or only one restart left. I would even consider allowing hero selection in Might and Magic 2000 – this would at least give one decent mage at the start, instead of relying on randomness on a small map where there is little room for a late-game strategy if the initial heroes are not good. 4. Removing the redraw when trading for a color – I agree. 5. I don't know the whole picture and the statistics on Grail excavation. But it seems that, in terms of percentage, with the obelisks enabled, it is not excavated very often (if we don't take Reddit into account) from what I've seen. Do you want to add more options for quickly gaining control? Then you need to unban scrolls of level 4-5 (but this is too easy a way to break through the defenses). If, on the contrary, you want to reduce the number of ways to gain control, then ban the Grail as well. Reduce gaining control to building a Grand Market (and rebuilding it), Utopias, Pandoras, and artifacts on the map. Even with the Grail allowed, players sometimes spend more than a month searching for control and making a lot of Grand Market rebuilds. On the one hand, excavating a Grail is: + additional gold + additional army + possibly control, all magic, or other bonuses On the other hand: - loss of time, tempo, and the use of heroes for this - you need to have a Tower or Conflux for it (and rivals are constantly fighting for them thanks to the allowed Grail – sometimes these castles even change hands) - it's always a risk (you can be attacked, your excavation site can be discovered, you can be outpaced, and the chain can be broken) Therefore, for me, it's not so straightforward. Because the pace of the game on different maps has been increasing over the years, and every lost day is becoming more critical for the player. Therefore, I would rather leave it without restrictions or with minimal restrictions. 6. In general, I am in favor of minimizing the restrictions on the game as much as possible within the acceptable limits for the players themselves and expanding the development paths (less linearity). But, on the one hand, we need to work on balancing the heroes for tournaments so that skill is the deciding factor as much as possible, and on the other hand, restricting the game leads to increasing linearity, and the games become more and more similar due to similar development strategies. In general, I don't know... In general, I will say from myself and from the newcomers I have to deal with. The fewer rules there are, the easier it will be for them to join our community. The number of rules discourages some from wanting to play by them. And balance is all relative and subjective. You can't please everyone. Perhaps it makes sense to tailor the maps to general rules (as much as possible), rather than making adjustments for each map (or making them to a minimum). Discussions about the types of roads on the maps, restarts for encounters, the number of restarts, etc., have been going on for years. But since I am not a "serious" player, you can pay less attention to what I have written.