Alex_R
Auto-translated
I love playing as the Warlock most of all (the most practical castle).
Almost every L and XL map I played for results, I used him; otherwise, it was either Barbarian or Sorceress.
But the Sorceress is no less impressive in terms of aesthetics and unit speed (the main thing is to make the Barbarian a powerful hero)
And the Barbarian himself is strong.
I don't really like playing as the Wizard (too expensive, heroes level up poorly). On the other hand, the wizard's pluses are the hobbits and no redundant skills (advanced wisdom)
The Necromancer is also too expensive.
As for the Knight... for some reason before (before the release of Heroes III), I always loved playing as knights in both the first and second HEROES.
On one hand, it's "cheap and cheerful," and on the other—despite the knightly army being hammered by magic, their morale cannot be broken (leadership +3);) .
Perhaps that' same thing I liked: "It's hard to play, but the satisfaction is greater"! :smile03:
Almost every L and XL map I played for results, I used him; otherwise, it was either Barbarian or Sorceress.
But the Sorceress is no less impressive in terms of aesthetics and unit speed (the main thing is to make the Barbarian a powerful hero)
And the Barbarian himself is strong.
I don't really like playing as the Wizard (too expensive, heroes level up poorly). On the other hand, the wizard's pluses are the hobbits and no redundant skills (advanced wisdom)
The Necromancer is also too expensive.
As for the Knight... for some reason before (before the release of Heroes III), I always loved playing as knights in both the first and second HEROES.
On one hand, it's "cheap and cheerful," and on the other—despite the knightly army being hammered by magic, their morale cannot be broken (leadership +3);) .
Perhaps that' same thing I liked: "It's hard to play, but the satisfaction is greater"! :smile03:
