Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
"In simple terms"... You have one type of gameplay: "run, kill neutrals, win." This is a ready-made solution that you are eager to apply to achieve victory. I believe that the game should offer the player options; he should come up with what needs to be done to win. That is, for example, the option: "run, kill neutrals, lose troops... but the experience gained is less valuable than the troops the opponent saved" - you don't even consider it. Of course, the "resurrection" ability will be strong, but it will create a linear game with only one way to play (a monotonous tactic).
I don't understand what the difference is at all; in both options, you run, kill neutrals, and win the final battle. Where did these "different strategies" come from?
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат