Doomsday
Auto-translated
>so, to be honest, I can't imagine how and in what form it will turn out at the moment
For now, the fix will only affect the tactical part; we won't be changing the strategic map. The AI already receives enough bonuses on the strategic map, depending on the difficulty level. Perhaps a patch for the battles will be enough for the time being.
>who got better results than the computer"
I think that if we stop the AI from controlling hundreds of zombies with a single fake hero, teach it to dispel during battles, use protection, not rush in recklessly, and not divide stacks inefficiently, then yes, the player will have to be a little wary of the computer, especially if it "deals more damage."
>i.e., on well-known builds like 8mm6a, it often won't reach the point of contact with the player,
Have you ever seen a surrender in Civ after losing one or two cities? But in Heroes, everything ends with this very first, and often last, contact, in which the one who attacked gains the advantage. And all because there is no background and the gold was spent on abusing the tavern.
>and sometimes it all ends even in a battle with neutrals
That's how it is now: brave players rush to the Guardian of Order in the first week, lose to a bunch of miscellaneous creatures because they messed up the split, or attack a beast lair with a single angel "so as not to lose tempo," not noticing that it's the maximum level, lose the angel to an upgraded stack, and also surrender. Are these really normal practices for playing a strategy game?
For now, the fix will only affect the tactical part; we won't be changing the strategic map. The AI already receives enough bonuses on the strategic map, depending on the difficulty level. Perhaps a patch for the battles will be enough for the time being.
>who got better results than the computer"
I think that if we stop the AI from controlling hundreds of zombies with a single fake hero, teach it to dispel during battles, use protection, not rush in recklessly, and not divide stacks inefficiently, then yes, the player will have to be a little wary of the computer, especially if it "deals more damage."
>i.e., on well-known builds like 8mm6a, it often won't reach the point of contact with the player,
Have you ever seen a surrender in Civ after losing one or two cities? But in Heroes, everything ends with this very first, and often last, contact, in which the one who attacked gains the advantage. And all because there is no background and the gold was spent on abusing the tavern.
>and sometimes it all ends even in a battle with neutrals
That's how it is now: brave players rush to the Guardian of Order in the first week, lose to a bunch of miscellaneous creatures because they messed up the split, or attack a beast lair with a single angel "so as not to lose tempo," not noticing that it's the maximum level, lose the angel to an upgraded stack, and also surrender. Are these really normal practices for playing a strategy game?
