Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition. Auto-translated

Were dwarves also bred using pharmacological methods?

Naturally, Trolls are mountain giants, not Dwarves. A Dwarf, by definition, cannot exceed 1.5 meters in height; Trolls are 3 meters tall. Dwarfism implies a height below 1.47 meters, which corresponds to Dwarves. Gigantism implies a height above 2 meters, which corresponds to Orcs. And by the way, it has already been established that the reason for the enormous growth of Orc leaders is that they belong to a separate, large breed of Orcs (Ogres), and not the result of pharmacology (the key factor is the greater number of fingers on their hands).

Naturally, Trolls are mountain giants, not Dwarves.
A Dwarf, by definition, cannot exceed 1.5 m in height; a Troll is 3 m tall.
Dwarfism implies a height below 1.47 m, which corresponds to Dwarves.
Gigantism implies a height above 2 m, which corresponds to Orcs.

And by the way, it has already been established that the reason for the enormous height of Orc leaders is that they are a separate, large breed of Orcs (Ogres), and not a product of pharmacology (the key factor is the greater number of fingers on their hands).

Is it possible to change the scale of the model? The Dwarves from Nival Interactive turned out to be too tall.
Are you planning to repaint the Warlord line in green/blue, etc., to create a greater difference compared to ordinary Orcs? Or is there already such a visual mod?
In general, it's a great idea to present these creatures as realistically as possible; I did something similar in my mod, but not so meticulously. Thank you!

I would like to change the scale of the models, but I don't see that option yet. This needs to be discussed with those who work with these models, for example, with Psatha. It would also be great to try giving dragons epic wings that match the description (up to 20 meters). Even based on proportions, it intuitively became clear how huge the dragon is and how difficult it is for it to take off, and therefore these are really the maximum possible sizes, and the current dragons look like proportionally enlarged flying mice. Currently, emerald dragons have visual dimensions of no more than 8.5 m (length) x 10.5 m (wingspan), but they should be 12 x 20, with a more slender body. It would also be cool if, over short distances (up to 2 cells for large ones), flying creatures walked on foot. A dragon is a massive creature; it shouldn't take off into the air for every little thing. Although, it still won't be possible to realistically show the animation, because even for takeoff, a dragon needs a long run.

I would like to change the scale of the models, but I don't see such an option yet. This needs to be discussed with those who work with these models, for example, with Psatha.
It would also be great to try giving dragons epic wings that match the description (up to 20 meters).
Even based on proportions, it intuitively became clear how huge the dragon is and how difficult it is for it to take off, and therefore these are really the maximum possible sizes, and the current dragons look like proportionally enlarged flying mice. Now, emerald dragons have visual dimensions of no more than 8.5 m (length) x 10.5 m (wingspan), but they should be 12 x 20, with a more slender body.

Well, who knows, maybe their bones are very light, like birds. A pigeon has small wings, but that doesn't stop it from flying. For example, angels don't visually have muscles that would be responsible for flight, and everything is explained by the fact that it is a creature of light.

In Heroes of Might and Magic 6, Kirin flies without wings.

Light bones slightly reduce weight, but don't provide lift. Angels don't seem to have any muscles at all, because they are wearing clothes. In Might and Magic VI, Kirin is nothing more than a creature with negative mass. He can only be a spirit, like fairies, ghosts, and genies, which are pure embodiments of magic and, in principle, do not obey gravity. There can be no doubt that the dragon has mass, and it is large enough, at least to crush enemies. In general, if the air density in Ashan is tripled (compared to reality), then dragons will fly even with drawn wings. Under the same conditions, the linear dimensions of the largest birds can be increased by 3 times, i.e., then the Ashan golden eagle (the largest species of eagle) would have a wingspan of up to 7 meters and a weight of up to 180 kg, almost like a griffin. But the problem is that a triple air density can affect too many physical processes, so that even ordinary phenomena will cease to be realistic.

By the way, the weight of the Haven units should be increased; their armor is heavy.

It doesn't matter; the weight of a fully armored unit will still be around 75 kg, with all the weaponry adding no more than 10-30 kg. It's tedious to specify the weight of the weaponry for each unit, as such detail doesn't lead to significant changes in weight. This is the weight of the equipment, not muscle weight, and it doesn't inherently make the unit stronger.

Agreed.

By the way, it has already been established that the reason for the huge increase in the number of orc leaders is that they are a separate, large breed of orcs (ogres), and not a product of pharmacology (the key factor is the greater number of fingers on their hands).

Well, that's better :) and it doesn't contradict what the developers wrote (like different breeds of orcs due to the use of the blood of different breeds of demons).

Which skill wheel is currently in effect, and why were the Lords weakened so much? And also: it seems that djinns and ifrits have always hated each other.

Absolutely.

Regarding the wheel, currently there is none, as the perk functionality hasn't been scripted yet. There is a template for the wheel (connections, classes) + a concept that can be read in the first posts of the thread.
Regarding the presence of efreets in the game and their place among the wizards:
1. Djinns/efreets/marids are 3 different types of elemental spirits; this is more interesting than just plain djinns.
2. Efreets are one of my favorite units in Heroes 3 that can be implemented in Heroes 5 (unlike pegasi, hydras, and rocs, for which there are still no adequate models).
3. If efreets are introduced, they will be based on the djinn model (there are no other implementations), therefore they will be an alternative. Because I consider the idea of making different units from different Factions based on the same general model unacceptable, especially among faction units. Since this would mean replacing the original model with a duplicate.
Regarding the nerfing of lords, I didn't understand exactly what is meant. Which specific unit, grade type, or hero class, and what does the nerf consist of?

At the moment, development is proceeding in 2 directions:
1) Conceptual - concerns heroes, classes, and profile/starting skills
2) Detailed - development of building, specifically for the human Castle, economy, and prices

On the first point, the old system is being revised. In that system, heroes started with 2 bases (racial + 2 bases + 1 perk). It was concluded that this is not very convenient for leveling up, as it defines it too strongly, tying one's hands, and moreover, some pairs of bases raise questions (since the idea was to utilize ALL possible 66 starting base pairs). A return to the original is planned (racial + 1 base + perk), plus a rework of class skills.
Currently, the concept under discussion is as follows:
1) Systemic criterion: each class, besides the racial one (0% chance of being picked, since it's always there from the start), has 3 primary bases (20% chance each), 3 secondary bases (10% chance each), another 5 rare bases (2% chance each), and 1 impossible base (0%)
2) Unity criterion: each race has 1 common primary base, while 2 others differ (within the primary set, but there may be duplicates among secondary ones); also, each race has a common impossible base (0%)
3) Uniqueness criterion: any 2 classes (even from different races) must differ in at least 2 profile bases (out of 6), and at least one of these differences must be in a primary base (i.e., primary triples of bases should never coincide between different classes)
4) Logic/popularity criterion: starting skills for heroes of a particular class are formed only based on the primary 20% bases (since there are only 3 heroes per class, if one of them has a rare base, it effectively becomes relatively accessible for the whole class, which contradicts the concept)

Example, 20% profiles:
Knight - leadership, attack, logistics
Paladin - leadership, defense, light
Templar - leadership, luck, darkness
Only 1 racial base is common - leadership; other bases differ, but may overlap with secondary ones (for example, a knight will have the same defense as a paladin, but within the 10% skills)

General profile skills:

Humans - leadership
Elves - luck
Wizard - education
Dwarves - defense (or engineering?)
Orcs - attack
Undead - sorcery (or defense?)
Dark Elves - darkness (or sorcery?)
Demons - logistics

Racial impossible skills:

Humans - chaos (or summoning?)
Elves - darkness
Wizard - attack
Dwarves - summoning (or logistics?)
Orcs - education
Undead - leadership
Dark Elves - light (or defense?)
Demons - defense (or light?)

On the 2nd point (town development), two different approaches are clashing:
1) Building should be a key, strategy-forming element. As a result, high variability of builds, meaning many units in the army may not exist at all (depending on the build); currently, in strong builds, 3 to 6 types of units are built (usually 4-5), and 1-4 grades (usually 2-3), all of which manage to be placed within the first 2 weeks
2) Building should be a supplement to the combat. As a result, units should not be discarded; conventionally, everything should be built, but variability comes from accenting/grades, tempo (which week they are built), and access to magic (guild level)

The problem with the second approach is that while it strives to ensure the best possible result (a full army of all unit types), it loses out in the process. If we must build all units, then we must build peasants, and if we place peasants, then only in the first week; by the second week, there will be too few of them (it's more profitable to build higher-level ones). Thus, either peasants are mandatory to build and fixed in their timing, i.e., monotonous, or peasants are already placed by default, as well as a number of low-level units. But this fundamentally implies that towns should not start from a minimum, but already be somewhat developed. But if that's the case, then what is the point of prices for the buildings that are already there by default? They are justified only if they are absent at least in neutral towns. However, if neutral towns are minimal (have no buildings at all) and starting towns are already well-developed, too great a difference arises between them, which is bad from a strategic point of view, as the importance of secondary towns recedes into the background. An alternative is pre-installed neutral towns with some buildings, so as not to fall too far behind the starting ones, but different each time (for example, in some towns peasants and swordsmen, in others - archers and swordsmen, in others - peasants and archers, etc.).

In the same RTA, 5-6 types of units are most often taken into the endgame because it is profitable to split casters and save on unnecessary troops, investing gold into leveling (additional levels) or artifacts. But if so, then why build buildings for unnecessary units that will not be bought anyway?

Regarding the perk wheel, there isn't one yet, as the perk functionality hasn't been implemented in the scripts. There is a framework for the wheel (connections, classes) + a concept that can be read in the first posts of the thread.

Yeah, they brought back the celestial shield and changed teleport to summon: D - that's a good decision, but the scheme will have to be redrawn.

Regarding the presence of ifrits in the game and their place among the Wizards:
1. Djinns/ifrits/marids are 3 different types of elemental spirits, which is more interesting than just plain djinns.
2. Ifrits are one of my favorite units in Heroes 3, which can be implemented in Heroes 5 (unlike pegasi, basilisks, and roc, for which there are still no adequate models).
3. If ifrits are introduced, it will be based on the djinn model (there are no other implementations), therefore as an alternative. Because I consider the idea of making different units from different factions based on the same general model unacceptable, especially among the units of a faction. Since this means replacing the original model with a duplicate.

Here, the use of a single model is justified, as ifrits are essentially djinns corrupted by the magic of chaos. It should be understood that a djinn is not associated with a specific element - it is a spirit connected to primordial magic, which in turn can take on a form inclined towards order (Ashah) or a form inclined towards Chaos (Urghash). In fact, demons are primarily predisposed to primordial magic, and only then to fire magic (as a result of their location in the fiery prison) - well, this is according to the lore, which doesn't play a decisive role for Nargott.

1) criterion of systemacity: each class, in addition to the racial one (0% chance of being taken, since it always exists from the start), has 3 primary bases (20% chance each) and 3 secondary bases (10% chance each), plus 5 rare bases (2% chance each) and 1 impossible base (0%)

I really like this - I already did something similar, but within the framework of standard classes, and indeed, why give 10% to the racial one when it already exists.

General profile skills:

Humans - leadership
Elves - luck
Wizards - education
Dwarves - defense (or engineering?)
Orcs - attack
Undead - magic (or defense?)
Dark Elves - darkness (or magic?)
Demons - logistics

Racial impossible skills:

Humans - chaos (or summoning?)
Elves - darkness
Wizards - attack
Dwarves - summoning (or logistics?)
Orcs - education
Undead - leadership
Dark Elves - light (or defense?)
Demons - defense (or light?)

Maybe like this:

General profile skills

Humans - light
Elves - luck
Wizards - education
Dwarves - defense
Orcs - leadership
Undead - darkness
Dark Elves - magic
Demons - attack

Racial impossible skills:

Humans - summoning
Elves - darkness
Wizards - attack
Dwarves - logistics
Orcs - education
Undead - leadership
Dark Elves - light
Demons - defense

Nonsense. It's all against logic. Without logistics, the undead gnomes are useless. Dark elves with magic is strange. Barbarians have a lot of special skills in education. Demons, on the contrary, are good with defense. Mages study martial arts. What's with all these possible and impossible skills!?