DISCUSSIONS on “Rules for online games in HoMM3 and formulas for calculating player rating.”

Close-quarters combat is what makes the game truly engaging. And well-executed rush strategies are a real treat.

My best game on the CM map was against Rusya in ORP-1. We both got two short paths through the wilderness, so I constantly attacked him with mages, both with and without a powerful army, starting from the first week. I traded troops, distracted him from his plans, and eventually undermined his economy and military strength, leading to my victory.

This style of gameplay is consistently applied and very successful on fixed maps. I started with fixed maps, so when I switched to random maps, I immediately disliked the "accumulate power, then attack and win" style. The most interesting part is the battles and maneuvering at a distance.

Firstly, such posts should include "IMHO." Secondly, for example, I don't see anything interesting in early-game skirmishes. What's the point of the hero having 8 skill points if you can just rely on primitive battles between weak, small squads of early-level units, when even a single magic arrow is a powerful force? No, Heroes is a game about development, and "close-quarters combat" is more suited for Starcraft. You can look at the game reports to confirm this; most people say that the game becomes interesting only after at least the 3rd week. And you shouldn't oversimplify "accumulate power, then attack and win." It doesn't always work, and often a troop advantage doesn't lead to victory. In general, everything is much more complex.