Posts from Possible rules correction Auto-translated

Hello! :-)

I would like to discuss a particular point. In the rules, in the subsection about red-rush, everything is listed except for one addition that I wanted to discuss:
Capturing an opponent's city at the start of a new week (x-x-1), buying up HIS army, taking into account the growth from HIS external dwellings, as well as upgrading your own creatures, so to speak, "at someone else's expense." Essentially, the good functionality of a Fort on a Hill.

I just finished a game which I lost precisely because of this. My opponent (playing as red, as you understood) comes to me on day 127. I have nothing to defend the city with (more precisely, I know for sure that I will lose), so I have to abandon it, leaving it unoccupied. I am playing as Castle. So Galtran comes to me, upgrades his 7 angels, buys my 4 (there were two external dwellings), I think he also attached some kind of purse and defends in my Castle.

An interesting situation occurs: I cannot prevent such a (IMHO) "red-rush" in any way. Since on the new week I would have had 20 Archangels and, of course, against Tazar with a red orb and 20 Archangels, the opponent would have had no army at all. I agree: the opponent was indeed superior to me in strength due to a fairly good random seed, as turned out later (although even during the game it was clear that a Griffin Conservatory on the first week is definitely a strong tempo). As a result, I was somewhat perplexed after this game, because on day 131, with 20 Archangels and free control over Tazar with a red orb, it's simply impossible to kill. But in the end, it turns out you can just run over, take the castle, buy everything from you, teleport away, and live happily ever after? Although he had 11 Archangels against my 12, plus 500 skeletons and 20 dragons. Don't ask what I was doing all this time, I blundered a lot, we played all night, and the random seed wasn't great; I found the external dwellings only on day 116, they were far from my hero, I had to take them with losses. There was very little money before the first Dragon Utopia.

In general, I would like to conduct a poll, and perhaps somehow influence the existing rules, since in this context the red's advantage, even without growth, is obvious.

It would be better to ask to move the topic to Heroes Online /forum/section/62/, where most online players hang out. Few people will read it here.
And how do you suggest fixing the rule?

Juristis, I will do just that. There are several ways to fix this. You can completely prevent the use of the opponent's army, i.e., by limiting the growth of the main city. You can also limit attacks on the city to x-x-1. In other words, you can attack anywhere, but not the city. The same applies to blocking the main blue hero's path to his main city for x-x-1 turns.

Well, you should defend your Castle; even single units stationed under the towers already deal damage. Also, attacking on the same day is prohibited, even with your increased unit production, not just with your original units. But why can't you buy back the castle if he took it from you? The suggestion seems illogical, IMHO.

well you should defend the Castle, even units of 1 in it under towers already deal damage, but otherwise attacking on day 1 is forbidden even with your growth, not just the native one anymore, but why can't you buy it back if he snatched it from you, the proposal is absurd IMHO

it's possible to play by betting on this. I see that the opponent has archangels in the tavern. I have 7 angels. Why not show up at his place when he is, for example, clearing his Dragon Utopia or treasure zone? I'll upgrade the angels and buy up growth from caches as well. And let him return as much as he wants.

nonsense:confused:

This is a strategically sound move by your opponent:smile20:
And the fact that you didn't defend the city yourself is your own business... you didn't have time to return, or you miscalculated. Your opponent attacked without reinforcements, which means you were on equal footing.

Vaflya, "I'll add my two cents." :)
I don't think it's a good idea to introduce such specific additional restrictions in the rules. Wouldn't it be better for you to play as different factions – that way, you won't encounter such situations?

There are already a ton of amendments to the rules. I didn't notice anything criminal here...

That's true, the strategy is logical.
We played as different factions, it was about the conservatories.
In general, Scorp is right)
although in the town he probably wouldn't have beaten me if he didn't have KVD. But that's a different case.

In any case, it's somewhat silly, at least regarding the same pick-up of growth from caches. He doesn't have additional caches, yet he can easily take 4 angels instead of two. Not to mention the upgrade, which in my opinion is even more illogical (since it's the situation with the fort on the hill, isn't it?). Perhaps he can use them on someone else's respawn in that case as well)

(because the situation with the fortress on the hill, isn't it?).

No. The fortress can be found anywhere and upgraded (some levels are even free), but this requires you to come to it, and there's a risk of getting it, rather than getting it for free.

The difference, in my opinion, is noticeable.

And the fact that you weren't there is your problem. The same can be said about new players - newbies - who play with 1-2 heroes, like "I was far from the castle, and you suddenly came and took the main city, I didn't have time to run, that's unfair." Even if you had other reasons to retreat. But your city was attacked without reinforcements, and the fact that you couldn't defend it is your problem.

I don't think it's worth giving up your capital on map 7. And since he gave the city without a fight, it means the city isn't yours. Since it's the opponent's city, the opponent has the right to do whatever he wants in it.
P.S. By the way, the opponent upgraded the angels using HIS OWN money.

Alessandro, by the way, that's inappropriate, since I placed the guild portal, and he definitely wouldn't have been able to afford it.

The topic is far-fetched and is well characterized by the Leader's quote: "I was far from the Castle, and you suddenly came and took the main city; I didn't have time to run there, that's unfair."

Alessandro, "by the way" is inappropriate, since I built the guild portal, and he definitely wouldn't have been able to afford it.

I apologize for not realizing who upgraded the Portal, although it doesn't change the essence.
A long time ago, when I was just starting to play and was building a town on day 5, on the second week, my opponent came to visit me at the end of the second week and captured my castle.
I thought, "That's a shame. I was building a capitol, and my opponent hadn't even built a prefecture yet :)".

I've closed the topic. The current result is 93.55%. “No, it’s nonsense” speaks for itself.
For future reference:
before creating a poll, it makes sense to consult with me, since I am responsible for writing and editing the rules, or at least discuss the proposal in the thread:
/topic/7340/

Due to planned major changes on HW (in particular, the introduction of multilingual support), I will be changing many things in the topics, including the Rules.