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

Now, Bishop, try to argue logically whose position is closer to the spirit of the game. Mine or R55Max's? Or maybe I missed some fundamental idea in his arguments?

You simply don't notice many things and jump from one thing to another, trying to impose your philosophy instead of the current one.

First of all, I will emphasize that draws should simply not be considered in such situations, because this introduces an element of negotiation into the game (we can talk about it at length, but let's skip it). In group stages, in games with negotiated outcomes, this can be very easily manipulated, and by referring to the terrain, a draw can be posted, which either puts the player who agreed to the game or his friend into the next round.

R55Max's main arguments revolve around the fact that if the attacker attacked but did not win the battle, then the defender is not to blame, but the attacker is. I have already written that I consider this to be an argument from a kindergarten - "I'm just sitting here, not bothering anyone, and he came and wants to take my toys."

This argument reveals its essence in everyone who supports the current rules; learn to find the theses from what is written. I'll explain it simply:

A blue hero stands on a hill, a red unit attacks, the hill occupies a position, and they cannot dislodge it. Before the battle, the hero with the hill was standing in a specific place on the map (occupying his position, pixels). In order to take the position that is displayed in the game as a visualized sword (when an attack is shown - next to the hero with the hill, and then to a specific point of the hero), the red unit must destroy the blue hero! There is no other way for the red unit! The red hero cannot stand on the blue hero's head without anything happening; for this to happen, the blue hero must flee or retreat or lose. The blue hero does not lose, but he also has no reason to retreat, because nothing threatens him, which means the position on the general map remains with the blue hero, because he occupied it earlier! And the red hero is only trying to take his place, but cannot, which means he lost!

The real goal of the game is to destroy the opponent. And the defender is just as aggressive as the attacker. He stands there with one goal - in his turn, he takes the next step towards the complete destruction of the opponent.

The point is that in the next turn, he will do something that may destroy the opponent, and this hero, who was defending, can make a significant contribution, which is why he will stand in place and doesn't care who can't kill him.

And again, your vacillations lead to the following inconsistency:

Oldboy's rule:
3. An exception is a stalemate situation when attacking a castle, if the attacker lost the catapult, and at the same time did not have time to break down the gate - this is a loss for the attacker, and he must retreat....

He didn't have time to break down the gate - he lost, which means the walls protected the defender, which means the reason is that the superior attacking forces could not get close. This is in no way different from the fact that the defender was saved by the terrain in a battle outside the castle!

Again, I repeat that the red side (conditionally) has the opportunity to have a spell, a scout, and the ability to arrange the units before the battle. This is not a bug at all, but just an annoying situation for the attacker, of which there are plenty in the game.

Knowing that there is such a possibility of losing will only add another nuance that will need to be taken into account, but no more, because ultimately the speed of the unit and its hit points are one of the main components in the game, and it is simply absurd to nullify them.