[ANOTHER FLAME WAR] Are dragons overpowered or not?

I have enough ammunition and supplies for a war on two fronts.

You shouldn't generalize everyone here. It's not impossible that someone might like this specific image of a minotaur. After all, Cerberus also existed as a single specimen; nevertheless, in HoMM or KB, nothing stops a player from having a unit of 10k Cerberi.

As for the minotaur specifically—who he is is described in detail in the Legends of Greece.

And so you've answered each other.

Regarding the others—orcs, dwarves—the perceptions are indeed different. Nowhere is it written exactly how they should be; by the way, the same applies to dragons, as Kosha said.

Really? Is that because nothing is written about them in school textbooks, while myths of Ancient Greece are?

For example, elves, according to the original source, as far as I know, are actually one of the space races, aliens. You can judge the same minotaurs by the original source, since they are from legends. But not the others.

No, that's not true. Originally, elves most closely resembled creatures that are now called "fairies" in fantasy. Although not everywhere. It was Tolkien, strangely enough, who interpreted them as what they are today; before that, they could only be something between a fairy or spirit and the modern popularized elf. The discrepancy depended on the nation that invented such a myth.

Nevertheless, you stubbornly fight for the copyrights of the person who first came up with the image of a dragon as a killing machine, gold collector, and princess kidnapper.

Correct. I don't like it when some nobodies take other people's ideas and rework them however they want, then stamp out hundreds of clichéd pulp novels, games, and even movies in which the heroine inevitably wears mithril thongs plus ten. Put elves, a dragon, and an evil sorcerer into a piece of work—and you get the most banal nonsense, from which someone will nevertheless make a certain profit. And there is no doubt that they will get it; one only needs to look at a bookstore shelf and glance at the multitude of books on Warhammer, Stalker, StarCraft, Warcraft, and even Diablo.
That's why there are now many minor or major variations of the original. Someone buys copyrights for something, don't they? And people won't eat everything. That's why "dark elves" appear, depending on the concept practicing matriarchal sado-masochism (of course, with a strip of leather as clothing) or being noble loyal outcasts; no less noble orcs who possess magic and save the world and the tribe from cataclysms; and, of course, intelligent mage-dragons, who in their terminal stage are deities, as can be seen in the latest version of "Heroes".
Of course, dragons were invented by a people, not someone specific, but then who was NOT invented by a people? Halflings?

In the next block, I will answer the small and meaningless quotes all at once:

where is she forcing anyone?

haven't seen. The fact that you acknowledge the existence of any other opinion—haven't seen.

she didn't say she was wrong. Only that she might be wrong. By the way, since we're talking philosophy, everyone has their own concept of truth.

yes, accepted, what's stopping you?

why is it not disposed to?

dispassionately and coldly.

and what, is it wrong to prove the correctness of one's own opinion? If, of course, one accepts the fact that your opinion may be wrong and someone else's right.

"Minos", if my memory serves me correctly, means "bull" in Greek. You call this "the smallest thing"?

Was it said there that dragons are at the intelligence level of a dog or an oligophrenic child? That's what I saw and remembered.

This is obvious. You choose only those facts that support your theory, dismissing and refusing to acknowledge others.

I copied her own words. You looked poorly; "re-read the posts again." Well of course she didn't claim she was wrong—the maximum threshold for the often unfounded pride of other people is merely to admit the possibility of being wrong; and don't speak for others, alright? No, not accepted, since you are tearing my message into quotes and refuting every word; there is nothing shameful in admitting this. Because I don't like such a tone. What, using "you" (formal) and the absence of smileys along with infantile behavior makes it so uncomfortable? Discrepancies, and therefore discussions, arise exclusively from the fact that one's own opinion is considered correct and another's is not—this is obvious; another matter is whether everyone can accept someone else's opinion or properly justify their own. No, "Minos" is the name of a god, and it does not mean "bull". Correct, and there were also words about omnipotent reptiles; an analogy exactly like the minotaur. Of course I choose facts that support my point of view, which is quite logical; however, I do not dismiss others, but refute them; nevertheless, without forgetting other examples that I have previously commented on.

And why should we prove your own point of view to you? We are proving that our opinion has a right to exist because it is supported by certain, albeit few, facts. You are wrong at least because "the number of examples of intelligent dragons is so insignificant that they can be neglected." So who among us is abstracting?

You spoke about both of you accepting my point of view. When I noted in the previous post that you didn't accept it at all, you agreed with this. This is inconsistent and looks bad, as without attempting to refute my premise about your non-acceptance of my facts, you backed down. This would mean nothing if not for the fact that this thought has to be raised again and same thing discussed over and over, every time anew, treading water. Now it has already taken up two paragraphs.
I don't need my point of view proven to me; that would be funny but pointless. Nevertheless, if you have indeed accepted it, then there is no need to "try your hardest to prove my limitedness and wrongness" to me, which seems to have ended already, and that is gratifying.
I suggest closing this tedious thesis.

If you are so afraid of a ban, let me reassure you—on HW

No, originally I was interested in the new tournament, which, however, turned out not to be a duel one and therefore unnecessary for me; HeroesWorld doesn't have a monopoly on this, fortunately, and even if I were banned, I would be able to find this pleasure on other portals. But it would be unpleasant for me to end up on the ban-list due to the momentary whim of those who disagree with me in a holy war discussion. That would not reflect well on the person.

The same "you" (formal). Age? Relax, I'm 17. Green nick? What's so special about that, moderators are not demigods but people just like all other flooders. Our green-nicks don't suffer from delusions of grandeur. A tribute to the rules of decency? When I came to HW, I was amazed at how easily and freely everyone "tutted" (used informal you) each other. With us it's quite normal to "tut" a person who is 10-15 years older, and no one sees anything special in this (although one certainly shouldn't overdo it).

This is a tribute to decency. If I don't know the person I am communicating with—not face to face, but on the internet—I avoid familiarities. However, overdoing it in this case would be writing the address "You" (formal) with a capital letter.
Anyway, if you are uncomfortable and this will make it easier...

Most of the arguments, even in serious Heroes topics, are conducted at the level of "Petya, you're an idiot!" "Vasya, you're an idiot yourself!"

Now that is not encouraging.

Ignoring decency or deviating from canons? Here too one can say things differently. Just putting an orc in a tree is kind of stupid. But if both the character and the place of residence are designed appropriately, so that they harmonize with each other and echo general perceptions even slightly—believe me, there will be people who like it.

There are people for whom "the more the better." Whether it's the number of races, weapons, worldviews, no matter how untenable or stupid they may be. You even have a corresponding section on the forum, don't you? These people really will "appreciate" a lot. Only in such a scenario, everything green would simply be called an orc. If anyone considers this an elegant and original solution, it won't be me.

of course. Dwarves are not only those little fat men like in children's cartoons))

Dwarves with banhammers cooler than mine—at least HoMM 5. Dwarves living without magic—KB, TES (if I'm not mistaken, Dwemer mainly used technology), also throughout the whole HoMM series they have magic resistance. I don't know the Warcraft universe well enough, I won't lie, but I'm sure if you dig around, similar examples can be found there. In literature, I can cite far fewer cases, at least because the only fantasy with dwarves I've read is "The Lord of the Rings".

Ah, those dwarves. An old and worn-out translation problem where drunken "dwarves" were easily translated as "gnomes" (гномы), while small and scrawny "gnomes" are always perversions?
Then it's clear. A simple mismatch.