HoMM3 HD is a mod (add-on) for the game Heroes of Might and Magic 3.

Just like in club tournaments, because nothing gets done there. But they are held very rarely. And online – it’s a different story. Online, much more time is wasted on no-shows, late arrivals, disconnections, misunderstandings, and other disorganization – but this is considered "sacred," and no strict organizational hand interferes here.

The longer the game, the more delays, and as a result, late arrivals and other issues. Now, very few serious games are played without delays; sometimes there are 2-3 delays. In my opinion, this is wrong; ideally, most games should be played in one evening.

Therefore, the timer issue is important for online play as well. Quite a few players have stopped playing Heroes, stating that they "don't have time for games." For example, I can no longer manage games that last 12 hours, while I can easily play a game that lasts 4-6 hours.

But that's not the point. Let them set a time limit of 2 minutes per turn. The last M200 tournament had a short limit and there were no disputes about it, and many people played. So, what prevents other organizers from setting short limits in tournaments? That would be an indicator. Otherwise, they will say, "the organizer decided so." Let the organizer decide, and not hide behind the opinion of a random sample of random people. Everyone will supposedly be in equal conditions, but that's not the point.

2 minutes is also a solution, but in my opinion, it is a less successful one than a chess timer. With 2 minutes, time is saved by reducing the number of battles, chains, etc. But with a chess timer, time is saved by reducing the duration of battles as well. And since battles are, for the most part, a less intellectually stimulating activity than maneuvering on the map, the content of the game with a chess timer is higher than with 2 minutes.

There is no Tower problem, no Inferno problem, or Gurney problem. There is a problem with the player who needs to make 600 clicks in 2 minutes to achieve a goal, while another player needs only 30 clicks to achieve the same goal.

In my opinion, there is a problem with the player who inadequately correlates the speed of their hands with the amount of tasks they take on.

If a certain action requires a lot of time, which is now scarce, then this action should be abandoned. If a certain strategy requires such actions, then a different strategy should be chosen.

And for the umpteenth time, I say that a fair timer

What is the criterion for "fairness" here? And why not take another criterion?

You see, Rebel, I'm not saying that your arguments are wrong. The points you mentioned really do exist. And I'm not saying that a chess timer has no drawbacks; it does.

I'm saying that, considering all factors, both game-related and organizational, a chess timer has more advantages than disadvantages.