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.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition.Auto-translated
Some creatures are good, but in the second week, 6 upgraded demons won't be very effective, just like that one paladin, who only becomes useful after upgrading the knights.
У меча предназначения два острия, одно из них ты.
Заинтересованный занимается написанием прохождений Прохождения] НЕКРОМАНТ
2,3,4,5 Заинтересованный планирует создать серию мультиплеерных карт "Фантазия безумного картострителей". Миссия 1 - Фктиф-Зобар готова на 11,5%
Starting armies are good for a quick start only in the first week; by the second week, the city's development reaches its peak, and the main forces are recruited from there. A level 1 Paladin is useful in any case, at least for healing. Therefore, it's not even necessary to upgrade the horses.
Starting armies are designed to:
- Clear light guards with auto-combat (chests, passages/portals) ~25% ED (equivalent to a dragon).
- Clear medium guards manually (mines, dwellings of tiers 1-2, upgrade buildings) ~50% ED.
- Combined with the second starting army or after receiving some reinforcements from the city, clear strong guards manually (gold mines, villages, minor artifacts, dwellings of tiers 3-4) ~ 1 ED.
More powerful guards:
~ 2 ED (cities, major artifacts, small banks, dwellings of tiers 5-6).
~ 4 ED (dwellings of tier 7, large cities, relics, medium banks).
~ 8 ED (large banks, utopias).
City limits have been reduced from 3-15 to 1-12, meaning Knights (and sometimes Angels) can be deployed as early as the first week.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
And why does everyone love playing with early rushes?
Added after 8 minutes
Build Angels in the first week, grab the Utopia mine on the 4th day of the game, and achieve good development in two weeks. Rush, and rush again. You need to rush just to stay in place, and if you also need to get somewhere, then...:eek:
Nobody seems to know how to play for fun (and I'm not talking about the manic obsession of completely clearing a map of incredible size). You need to finish a map in half an hour because people's time is limited....
What does rushing have to do with this? A rush is an early attack when the opponent hasn't had time to develop; if development to top-tier technologies happens in the first week, then arriving in the second is technically no longer a rush.
The focus is on dynamics, because that's the most exciting part. You start a match and know you'll finish it today. You play against a live opponent instead of spending many hours fighting neutrals, where it's the same thing over and over again. Long games are tedious, especially when they are one-sided, like clearing neutrals. Sure, you'll play one map like that, then another, but then what? Repeat the same thing constantly? A live opponent won't let that happen if interaction occurs as early as possible.
No one seems to know how to play for pleasure (and I'm not talking about a maniacal obsession with full clearing of an unbelievable map size). One must finish a map in half an hour, because a person's time is limited....
Let's not exaggerate; half an hour is only the time for a single final battle. Even with fast dynamics, if we manage to compress a game into 2-3 hours instead of 10-30, that would already be an incredible success. Protracted games are the number one scourge of the entire turn-based strategy genre, especially in the era of active streaming. I've been playing turn-based strategies since early childhood, but I still haven't been able to force myself to watch even one (Karl!) such game on a stream for even 6-10 hours.
If the focus were on single-player, that would be a different story—why not drag things out in single-player? But here it is clearly established: everything is for Multiplayer. Single-player may be supported, but on a residual basis and only if it doesn't harm Multiplayer, the primary mode.
For example, one of the difficulties (specifically for single-player) could feature a doubling of neutrals every week, say (numbers are hypothetical). Then for lovers of long games, there will always be strong, even impossible guards; by the second month, there'd be a hundred or two dragons :) Only in the Heroes series is it customary to stamp out and slaughter dragons by the dozens and hundreds; there's no epic feel or respect compared to higher creatures :)
Added after 11 minutes
Build angels in the first week, loot Utopia on the 4th day of the game, reach a good build in two weeks.
You won't be looting Utopia on the 4th here, and if you can, such abuses will be suppressed. Appropriate timing for Utopia is 2-3 weeks. Tier 7 is built quite slowly—only angels and cyclops go up, and even then with difficulty, and only for the second player. The first player can't keep up with that tempo. So usually, the norm for Tier 7 is appearance in the 2nd week, although any race can certainly gain access to them at the start of the 2nd week, even if they aren't built in the first. And even in cases where building Tier 7 in the first week is possible, it's far from always the best strategy, as it has a number of drawbacks (primarily, difficult construction, losing tempo in clearing until Tier 7 appears, lagging behind in all other troops since Tier 7 has many prerequisites). But if the race allows and the player sets such a goal—why not give them that opportunity?
It is quite possible that we will tune the taking of Utopia normally for the 3rd week (endgame), but knowing the ability of some players to take incredible guards, questions arise as to how large the guards should be so that they definitely aren't taken in the second, but are normal in the third? And is such a division possible in principle? The more powerful the guards, the more mindless abuse of AI "bug-features" and more hardcoreness for a narrow circle of players, while fixing such abuses might affect the games of the majority of other players.
There is also another very important detail to consider. Unlike the original Heroes, small guards motivate splitting troops rather than just playing with one "fist." I'll just provide a quote from another forum:
There is no concept of a Main Army (MA) like 100+ liches (any passages are easily cleared, no artificial dragging out of the game).
Hero roles:
1) Powerhouses (equivalent to about 5 dragons and above): capturing key objects, killing enemy combatants 2) Combatants (about 2 dragons): clearing, killing scouts 3) Scouts (about 50% of a dragon, starting army): reconnaissance, opening zones, gathering freebies, transport, sabotage, blocking powerhouses
Scouts require troops to clear passages and counteract enemy scouts. A classic "cockroach" (a scout with 1 peasant) will not be able to perform the primary function of a scout—opening zones—which will seriously limit reconnaissance capabilities.
Instead of 1 Main Hero and a bunch of cockroaches—several powerhouses, several scouts, and many combatants. Economically, the most profitable investment is in combatants (maximum efficient clearing). Playing through 1 Main Hero without combatants loses in economy and territory control and is justified only during a rush.
Difference from the original: starting troops are many times stronger, and guards are weaker; thus, scouts are able to independently clear small guards and passages without purchasing additional troops.
(I'll add, "many times stronger" is relative to benchmark dragons)
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
1. I fully support everything said above 2.Nargott
It is quite possible that we will set the capture of the Dragon Utopia to be normal for week 3 (endgame), but knowing some players' ability to take incredible guards, questions arise as to how large the guards should be so that it definitely cannot be taken in week 2, but is normal in week 3? And is such a separation even possible in principle?
here we just need to identify all tactics for such battles and make them unfeasible: - one of these tactics has already been removed - the "vampires under BDP" tactic is practically unfeasible, as a Necromancer cannot fish out BDP; of course, playing as another race you could capture a Necropolis, build up vampires and smile broadly, but it's far too difficult — you'd have to make a number of sacrifices, and you still have to find and reclaim the Necropolis) - another such tactic - "Chaos on invis" is also cut, since I understand invisibility will be reduced to 2 turns, and Chaos in general has been seriously weakened - the "Berserk" tactic named after the same-named spell - no comment here as everything is already clear; for similar spells, we could try introducing a level restriction — like you can learn it upon reaching n-th (for example 10th) level (I am considering introducing such a restriction for all 5th circle spells — idk maybe it's not worth it of course) 3. regarding the renaming of perks - perhaps "looting" should be renamed? because the perk's effect does not match the definition of the word: looting was understood as the theft on the battlefield of items belonging to the dead and wounded.
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
No, I wasn't planning on reducing the stealth duration to 2 turns in WGE, as it's still unclear whether this is necessary. "SRD"
The "berserk" tactic, named after the spell of the same name, requires no further comment as everything is clear. One could try introducing a level restriction for such spells.
It will be difficult to kill with a single berserker, as a 50% damage penalty (not bonus) is applied, and berserk is also very expensive – 15 mana, which, in terms of WGE compared to the original, translates to a price of 50-75 mana. You can't spam such spells without a very high level of skill. Although potential abuses of berserk with the necromancer tag are possible, in that case, you can weaken the tag directly.
Mana restrictions naturally limit the use of higher-level spells, tying them not to level, but directly to skill (and, unlike level, they work constantly). To cast a single high-level spell, 20-30 mana or 4-6 skill points are required (and only for one use!). As I usually see the use of 5th-level spells: normally no more than 1-2 times per battle, while there is a lot of mana, then switching to cheaper 4th-level spells or lower.
For example, you have 50 mana (10 skill points): 1) first cast - 25 mana (5th level) 2) second cast - 12 mana (4th level) 3) third cast - 6 mana (3rd level) 4) fourth cast - 3 mana (2nd level) 5) fifth cast and subsequent - 1-2 mana (1st level)
In reality, this is just one of the schemes, but it is illustrative (and I balanced the price-quality ratio = effect strength based on it). Is it possible to play at all without 5th level spells with 50 mana? Yes, but it is often important to do the most powerful things as quickly as possible, and thanks to a well-cast, most powerful spell, you can win the entire battle, even if you have to switch to minor things for the finishing blow.
Regarding renaming perks - perhaps the "marauding" perk should be renamed.
It has already been renamed – to "Secret Operations".
One of these tactics has already been removed - the "vampires under BDP" tactic is practically unfeasible, as the necromancer cannot summon BDP. Of course, playing as another race, you can capture a necropolis, build vampires, and smile broadly, but this is too difficult - you will have to make a number of sacrifices, and you still need to find and capture a necropolis.
This is impossible in principle, for any race, for one simple reason: Reanimation does not reduce the target's HP (as does Resurrection)! And without this, vampires cannot independently recover from 1 to 2. I even feel a little sorry that I so carelessly cut out such a cool feature as eternal immortality :D If I had cut it out of PvP, I would be indignant, but in PvE I am ready to make any sacrifices for the sake of balance! Tactics that work exclusively in PvE do not necessarily need to be supported. In my opinion, the word "Tactic" is fully applicable only against a reasonable opponent, and against AI there is the concept of "Technique" (automatism). Moreover, I have developed many other techniques in return: tanking due to low numbers, passive defense, using a heavy class (maneuverable defense). Which, unlike the "immortality technique", works well in PvP battles.
Added 1 hour 15 minutes ago Now, thoughts on renaming, a summary from the verbal discussion: (see the illustrative table of creatures in the first posts of the topic on page 1 - the one with icons)
1) Ifrits - into an alternative upgrade, Djinns - into a simple upgrade (possibly return the Djinn model to the simple upgrade, you need to see what is better suited for representatives of the air element + to the overall style of the faction).
2) Rename Gremlin Engineers to Mechanics. Move Incendiaries from the upgrade to the alt (together with the model). Give the alt model to the basic ones (points for mechanics). Use the basic model (without points) for the upgrade, or the blue gremlins from the gremlin mod. The meaning of these manipulations with gremlins/iffrits is to match the class style, for which this upgrade is informally tailored. Mystics sit on the upgrade (together with Jalib, who brings djinn), archmages on the alt, and alchemists on the base (with gremlin mechanics).
4) Return the name Princess Rakshasa (instead of Apsaras Rakshasa) - still controversial, more opinions are needed
5) Magic Unicorns instead of Mystic, opinions?
6) Return the name Light Unicorns instead of Radiant, opinions?
7) Return the name Dancing with Death (instead of Dancing with Leaves), opinions?
8) Reavers instead of Spearmen (return to the old, more descriptive name), opinions?
9) Replace Archons (alt druids) with something (too epic, but the alternatives are too weak)?
10) Flame/Polar Priests instead of Flame Veterans and Elders (the word "polar" raises questions, but there is nothing better yet)
11) Return Erls instead of Taurus, Tursos, and others (despite the confusion with Jarls), opinions?
12) Return Imps and Parasites in that order, despite the rearrangement of abilities (upgrade for Imps, alt for Parasites)
13) Horned/Rift Demons instead of Rift/Sulfur
14) Return Temptresses instead of Lilims, opinions?
15) Lords of Chaos instead of just Lords, return the word
16) Return Skeleton Warriors instead of Skeleton Servants (but then the question is, how to distinguish them from the alt), opinions?
17) Return Ghosts/Specters instead of Specters/Lamias (despite the confusion), opinions?
18) Not everyone googles what Dampirs are, return Vampire Assassins/Vampire Lords instead of Dampirs/Vampires (but leave Nosferatu, because princes after lords is nonsense). Although, for true vampire connoisseurs, I would personally suggest the line Assamites/Ventrue/Nosferatu :)
19) Return Phantom Dragons instead of Dragons of Fate (but the alt model), opinions?
20) Return Taurens instead of Giants, opinions?
21) Inquisitor (hero class) instead of Templar, opinions?
And general questions:
Remove the controversial ability "neutrality" (-1 to morale of allies/self due to neutrality, inability to wear mini-artifacts in exchange for enhanced combat parameters) from the entire line of djinn, but instead give logical "elementals" (they will not be able to be resurrected). In addition, morale will decrease when summoning ifrits, so you will have to return the summoning of balors to the lords.
Since each hero class informally, in style, corresponds to a certain upgrade (at least at the level of duels), other permutations are possible: - swap the upgrade and alt of dancers (rangers will sit on the upgrades, avengers on the alts), but there is a serious color problem with the style, especially with the icons (it is not good to change in its current form) - swap the base and upgrade of spearmen (berserkers will sit on the upgrade, there it is more correct to have melee Reavers instead of Spearmen), but there is also a serious color problem with the style (it is not good to change in its current form)
I personally do not agree with all the questions, but nevertheless, I bring these ideas up for general discussion.
Added 17 minutes ago Ah yes, and here are the "class" styles themselves (formally affects only duels, informally - on the distribution of abilities between upgrades):
The Inquisitor is definitely better (as a hero class for humans). Regarding Druids: if there are three alternatives instead of a base class and two upgrades, then assigning one of them the name "Druid" is incorrect, and applying "... Druid" to another (for example, High Druid) is also wrong. Here, you could use "Oracle" for one, and for the third, use a name that reflects its service to Silanna, the goddess of the earth – for example, Priest of the Earth, Earth Mage, Priest of Silanna, and so on. You could also use something external, like a Sage, and so on. As for Necrodrakes, they are awful – a small, crooked lizard, not a Necrodrake – ideally, they need a model change, not just a name change.
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
Regarding the Druids: currently, the Druids have Druids/Guardians/Archons (units). Oracles were also present (although with different upgrades). It's inconvenient to use the words "mage" or "priest" due to overlaps with other factions. Basically, a priest is a Dwarf, a mage is a Mage, and an Elf is neither a Dwarf nor a Mage.
Regarding Necrodrakes, I don't know, I haven't paid attention, and what's so repulsive about them? In any case, until there's a decent new model for them, what I've seen just duplicates the Phoenix.
By the way, out of curiosity, I checked different settings for the original game's Random Map Generator (RMG):
1) Minimum guard + minimum difficulty = 6 alternate goblins at a wood mine (3-6% of a standard dragon, depending on how you calculate it, by Power or by gold).
2) Minimum guard + maximum difficulty = 16 alternate goblins at the same mine (8-16% of a standard dragon).
3) Maximum guard + maximum difficulty = 3-5 standard dragons (total, an entire army).
There's a huge range, and in the maximum mode, one of the players was completely blocked, with all exits blocked by 7 tigers, 50-100 each. Hello!
This kind of nonsense shouldn't exist in principle. Most guards should be breakable in the first week, and all of them in the second (except maybe utopias and their equivalents), and any passages should be unguarded or breakable by scouts with the starting army.
If you increase the second mode by a factor of 4 (or the first by a factor of 10), you'll get roughly the guards I mentioned above (50% of a standard dragon at mines).
However, there are also portals.
1) 5 upgraded lizards at a portal (55-65% of a standard dragon).
2) 13 upgraded lizards at a portal (140-160% of a standard dragon).
And even in the minimum mode, portals are well-guarded (and if you put normal guards on mines, the numbers go through the roof). This is the whole problem with Heroes 5: they lock everything down with guards on portals so they don't have to balance the game for early encounters. Only when both players are "mature" (I mean level, not age) are they allowed to... engage in direct contact. This is why I haven't played this game on a full-sized map for many years (but I can play Heroes 3), because there's simply nothing to do strategically – why should the map designers/GSC dictate how I should develop and when to attack? It's not a linear storyline (step left, step right, jump – attempt to fly away, shot down), but a strategy game.
In reality, they could have skipped years of development on the tactical part and moved straight to strategy, and in terms of specific release dates for a full-sized game, that would have been optimal, not worrying about minor details and drawing the overall picture right away. But the problem is that, strategically, the game is at the bottom, compared to Heroes 3, there are no improvements in the strategic part. It's easier to take a more advanced base. But in terms of tactics and progression, the game has great potential, and the Nival team did a good job here. That's why the development order for WGE is like this, starting with improving the strong points and only in the final stage addressing the weak strategic part (including with well-designed templates and maps).
Of course, what I said above is just my opinion, and I know that some players strongly believe in the strategic value of exploring the starting areas, replacing the entire strategic gameplay with tactical gameplay, or rather, technical gameplay – "how to break through this."
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
ideally, we could take the bones of a regular Necrodrake and assemble them, adapting them to the animations of the Twilight Drake.
Added 10 minutes later
I also had an idea to completely abandon all dragons, because we buy them on the same level as ordinary peasants, like domestic animals - the only question is the price and the increase. So, I was thinking about replacing the Tier 4 dragons with Hydras (we could put Manticores in their place), Tier 5 dragons with Phoenixes, Necrodrakes with Umberwolves (and put Death Knights in their place), and Gnomish Dragons, probably with Tanaruks (I haven't had many ideas for this one yet). Ultimately, I tend to see a DRAGON closer to Smaug or Balerion, and in a quantity of one or two, rather than 10-20.
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
You have to run just to stay in place, and if you need to get somewhere, then...
Full speed ahead, yes. Well, the problem here is with the expected value. Yes, this kind of gameplay is risky (you can get unlucky and almost fail), but the trick is that in 80% of cases, people still manage and defeat their more cautious opponents. Therefore, it is quite natural to rush as much as possible and maintain the pace. In this regard, Nargott's mod might even be good because the game as a whole is geared towards earlier stages, meaning people won't need the favor of randomness to play fast enough and not lose every fourth or fifth game against neutrals. Well, that's what I'm hoping for.
Return the name "Rakshasa Princess" (instead of "Apsaras Rakshasa") - still debatable, more opinions are needed.
Neutral. "Princess" is clearer, but you're probably bothered by the fact that there can't be too many princesses (and that they are all from the same "royal family")? I agree with that.
Magical Unicorns instead of Mystic Unicorns, opinions?
+1
Return the name "Light Unicorns" instead of "Radiant Unicorns", opinions?
+1
Return the name "Dancers with Death" (instead of "Dancers with Leaves"), opinions?
+1, or replace "leaves" with something less fairy-tale-like and peaceful.
Berserkers instead of Spearmen (return to the old, more descriptive name), opinions?
I don't know... I like Spearmen a little more, perhaps.
Replace Archons (alt druids) with something (too epic, but the alternatives are too bland)?
I agree with SRD's "oracle" option.
Fiery/Polar Priests instead of Flame Veterans and Elders (the word "polar" raises questions, but there's nothing better yet).
I've already expressed my opinion.
Return Erls instead of Tauruses, Tursos, and others (despite the confusion with Jarls), opinions?
Against it, this always annoyed me in the original.
Return Succubus instead of Liliths, opinions?
+1
Lords of Chaos instead of just Lords, return the word.
+1
Return Skeleton Warriors instead of Skeleton Servants (but then the question is, how to distinguish them from the alt), opinions?
"Servants" is more interesting...
Return Ghosts/Specters instead of Specters/Lamias (despite the confusion), opinions?
Against returning them, but I don't like Lamias either. By the way, this is where you could introduce "lemurs," which were discussed in the context of another creature. Instead of Lamias. Another option is phantoms (but it might already be in use, I don't know).
Not everyone Googles what a Dhampir is, return Vampire Killers/Vampire Lords instead of Dhampirs/Vampires (but leave Nosferatu, because Princes after Lords is nonsense). Although, for true vampire connoisseurs, I would suggest the lineup of Assamites/Ventrue/Nosferatu.
Dhampirs are terrible. How can you upgrade a pure-blooded vampire into a half-breed, and then back? It's nonsense. And the word itself seems to parody a vampire. I like all the proposed alternative options, but the last one is the best.
Return Phantom Dragons instead of Dragons of Fate (but it's the alt model), opinions?
"Dragons of Fate" is better...
Return Taurens instead of Giants, opinions?
"Taurens" is better.
Inquisitor (hero class) instead of Templar, opinions?
I also had an idea to completely get rid of all dragons, because we buy them on par with ordinary peasants, like pets - it's only a question of price and growth. That is, I was thinking about replacing TE-dragons with hydras (a manticore could go in their place), LE-dragons with phoenixes, necro-dragons with wraiths (and death knights in their place), and gnome-dragons most likely with thans (I didn't have many ideas here). After all, I am inclined to see a DRAGON closer to Smaug or Balerion, in quantities of one or two, rather than 10-20.
I had similar thoughts, but I came to different conclusions: not to remove super-units like dragons, but to adjust armies to such sizes that there are few dragons and every single dragon is very important (legendary creatures). Yes, low-level creatures also became fewer in number, but there is no problem imagining that instead of a stack of 40 militiamen there are actually 400 or even 4 thousand; if you believe in the geometric abstraction of a stack, there is no difference between 40 and 4 thousand (and where there is a difference, the abstraction of a single-cell stack cannot be used). On the other hand, it is much harder to imagine the opposite: if there are 10 or 100 dragons, how do they turn into one, when one dragon plays fundamentally differently, and you aren't afraid to lose it over every little thing? Regarding dragons: they are placed no earlier than week 2, growth is fixed and not boosted by the Castle - +1 (only +0 below), and the maximum one-time boost per grade is also minimal - +1. That is, the maximum natural number of dragons in an army = the game week number, and the number of game weeks is small due to high dynamics. Although, if I were balancing the game specifically for prolonged timeframes, I would consider the option of monthly rather than weekly dragon growth (and accordingly, their greater individual strength). Or an even more extreme option: no growth at all, only one-time +1 upon building the dwelling and +1 upon building the grade.
By the way, this led to an interesting idea: what if we swap the effects of the base and the grade for all tiers? That is, upon placing the base dwelling, give a larger number of creatures one-time, but without weekly growth, and upon placing the grade - additionally unlock weekly growth? I'll have to think about it. "Ment"
Well, ugh, the problem here is the mathematical expectation. Yes, such a game is risky (at this pace you can run into bad RNG and fall slightly short), but the point is that in 80% of cases, people still manage and defeat their more leisurely opponents. Therefore, it is quite natural to hurry as much as possible and maintain the pace. In this regard, Nargott's mod might even be good, because the game in general is geared towards earlier timeframes, meaning people won't need the favor of RNG to play fast enough and not get wiped out in every fifth/fourth game on neutrals. Well, that's what I hope for.
Yes, that's the bet. To reduce the risks of a total wipeout on neutrals by increasing the number of "breakthrough" armies themselves and the fundamental possibility of a risk-free attack on powerful guards with the coolest troops, if a fist is gathered for this purpose. "Ment"
Another option -- phantoms (but maybe it's already used, I don't know)
Interesting idea, but the spell will suffer; it would have to be renamed to "Clone".
Dampires are terrible. How can you upgrade a pureblood vampire into a half-breed and then back again? It's nonsense ) And the word itself seems to parody a vampire.
The same as changing the gender of a rakshasa; it's a game convention that cannot be avoided unless you completely abandon the possibility of changing the upgrade (such an idea existed, but it has been abandoned for now) :) The same goes for a knight changing grade to a paladin at the wave of a magic wand, it's also strange.
Added after 1 hour 25 minutes I will also duplicate the conceptual post from another forum here, as it explains in great detail the chosen course for balancing the strategic game:
For quite a while, I have been observing professional StarCraft 2 as a benchmark strategy. I plan to transfer key and successful concepts from StarCraft to Heroes 5 to recreate a competitive "StarCraft" in turn-based form.
Much of what is written below has been repeated before; the post essentially serves as a collection of key guidelines whose relevance must be constantly maintained. Along with a deeper understanding of StarCraft over time, the understanding of what ideal Heroes should be grows, and the concept is updated.
Dynamics StarCraft is one of the most dynamic RTS; the average game time is about 10 minutes, while early access to top technologies is possible around the 5th minute, and the development of secondary bases can start as early as 1-2 minutes. Rushes are already possible at 2-3 minutes.
In the reality of Heroes, access to top technologies should be at the end of the first - beginning of the second week. These timeframes are also interesting because a "demographic explosion" (weekly growth) occurs at the 2-week boundary. Based on this, the average game duration should be about 15 days. If one tries to stretch these timeframes further, there are risks of losing the strategic component. Continuing the analogy, active interaction between players (scouting, rushes, diversions, minor skirmishes) should begin as early as the 3rd day of the first week, meaning the distance between starting locations should not exceed 3 days of movement. The nearest secondary cities should be within 2-3 moves. Since the game should be dynamic, passage guards need to be removed completely. Nothing should hinder active scouting and the discovery of new locations. We are for the freedom of hero movement across the map.
Time per turn: 2 minutes - blitz 3 minutes - fast time control 4 minutes - normal time control 5 minutes - slow time control
How the minimum time per turn is calculated: normally, a player can control/build in 3 cities and 6 heroes; that's 9 active objects, each requiring 10-20 seconds. Manual combat should be conducted once a day and at the end of the turn (outside this limit); other battles should be conducted via auto-battle. The "blitz" format is the fastest format that still allows for normal development on the map. Then come formats with an additional time reserve; with normal or slow time control, it is sometimes possible to conduct 2 manual battles per day.
Estimated time for a manual breakthrough battle - 1-2 minutes. Turns are sequential, as simultaneous turns will not work with early player interaction. Thus, the total time per turn will be: 2 + 1 = 3 minutes for blitz 3 + 1 = 4 minutes for fast control 4 + 1 = 5 minutes for normal control 5 + 1 = 6 minutes for slow control
And the total time per game should be around: 3 * 15 * 2 = 90 minutes for blitz + 30 minutes for PvP battles = 120 minutes, or 2 hours 4 * 15 * 2 = 120 minutes for fast control + 30 minutes for PvP battles = 150 minutes, or 2.5 hours 5 * 15 * 2 = 150 minutes for normal control + 30 minutes for PvP battles = 180 minutes, or 3 hours 6 * 15 * 2 = 180 minutes for slow control + 30 minutes for PvP battles = 210 minutes, or 3.5 hours
The game should become one of the most dynamic among turn-based strategies with full development, and the blitz format is aimed exactly at this.
Early Interaction In StarCraft, interaction between players begins early, as soon as 1-2 minutes (scouting). And this is a very important point; scouting should be fully played out from the very start of the game. Therefore, as written above, the distance between starting locations in Heroes should not exceed 3 days of travel, and guards in passages should not stop/slow down scouting. As in StarCraft, a strong player should be able to end the game early if the opponent is significantly inferior in skill. There is no point in dragging the map for 2-3 hours if a weak opponent can be defeated in half an hour.
Strategy Options In StarCraft, it is impossible to develop normally in everything at once; a certain style, technologies, and troop composition with which the player plans to win are always preferred. Therefore, in Heroes, cities must by no means be built out completely; there should be healthy competition between the income branch, troop production, and magic. Not all troops should have time to be built; there should be an emphasis on certain types of troops upon which the victory strategy is built. For this very reason, the time for city development is compressed to 1-2 weeks; the player must make a mutually exclusive choice in favor of certain buildings.
Asymmetric Development A key feature of StarCraft is the asymmetry of races, i.e., their fundamental, structural difference from each other. Therefore, city schemes, creature strength, construction time for specific creatures, and their dependencies on each other must fundamentally differ for each race. There should be no standards in this regard.
Troop Selection In StarCraft, no one builds all types of troops simultaneously; a choice is always made in favor of certain combat units. Accordingly, in Heroes, not all production buildings should have time to be built. Full development of production capacities (7 tiers + 7 upgrades + fortifications + prerequisite buildings) should end no earlier than the end of the 3rd week, while on average the game should end much earlier.
Resources In StarCraft, there are fundamental types of resources: minerals and gas. Minerals are spent on economic development and basic troops (primary resource), gas - on technologies and high-tech troops (technological resource). In Heroes, 2 types of resources play a similar role: gold and building resources (which can be conventionally grouped together). And they should play fundamentally different roles: gold - spent on buying troops, and building resources - on the development of cities and production bases. Based on this, all gold prices for buildings should be significantly reduced; city development should be limited by resources, not gold.
Economy/Production/Army/Technologies In StarCraft, all 4 sectors are important and compete with each other. It is impossible to rapidly develop several of them simultaneously; a choice must be made, or pace must be sacrificed. In Heroes, similar sectors should mutually exclude each other; for example, there should be different strategies for maximum increase of production capacity and strategies for rapid access to maximum troops here and now. All this is important to consider when designing city schemes; there should be no universal optimal development paths.
Counter-units and Counter-strats StarCraft is interesting because every unit has a counter, and any strategy can be countered by another strategy. Accordingly, it is important to maintain certain ratios of units, for example: slow infantry shreds fast flyers but gets wiped by shooters. In the original Heroes 5, this rule is not quite maintained, as fast troops are too over-buffed and often exceed slow troops in combat power, which is why rush tactics are so popular (in RTA). The presence of counter-strategies should mean that even standard, measured development should be killed by specialized strats. For example, if one player evenly builds production capacities, while another player bets on maximum troops here and now and attacks the first, such an attack should win the game. There should be no special leniency for the defense; the player should be interested in actively scouting the opponent and adjusting to them in time, rather than just developing standardly. Player attacks should be deterred exclusively by the defensive forces of the players themselves, not by guards in passages. If a player wants to attack here and now, nothing and no one (except another player) should prevent them from doing so; no crippled strats like "I'll save up to break through the guard."
Relevance of Basic Units In StarCraft, basic units most often form the main core of the army; there are technologies that allow them to remain relevant even in the late game. In Heroes, there should be strategies that allow for significantly boosting the growth of low-level troops, betting on them. This role is assigned to fortifications, which, unlike the original, boost the growth not of all troops, but specifically low-level ones.
Macro and Micro StarCraft is a game with a balanced ratio of macro and micro, in which it is important to pay a lot of attention to both components of the game. Macro game is the development of the economy, increasing production capacities, troop production, and technology development. Micro is the conduct of specific battles, where the outcome of the battle fundamentally depends on the player's actions. In Heroes 5, macro suffers significantly because the player spends most of the time in PvE battles. It is important to shift this balance in favor of macro. The time for breakthrough battles should not exceed the time the player spends on city development and moving heroes across the map. Ideally, the total time for breakthrough battles should not exceed the time for PvP battles, since only PvP battles have a developed tactical component. PvE battles should recede into the background as the least interesting element of the game, devoid of interaction between players. This is exactly why the concept of 1 manual battle per day is supported; PvE should fundamentally be present so that the player doesn't get bored in the intervals between PvP battles, but in minimal quantities. The role of neutrals is to be beautifully defeated by the player and motivate them to build armies to grab treats on the map. Breaking through them should not present significant difficulty for the player, as it is a secondary element of the game. The difficulty of the game in terms of development should lie not in how to break through neutrals, but in how not to lose in the process due to the counter-actions of the opponent, for example, from rushes or timing attacks.
Key Components of Strategy: Scouting Early attacks (rushes) Development Expansion Urgent attacks (timing pushes) Diversions (harass)
Each of these StarCraft components should be fully played out in Heroes. There should be no restrictions on scouting, rushes, diversions by "roaches", expansion into several cities, or urgent attacks (at any time). Gameplay on the map should be something more than just development and hero leveling.
P.S. Technically, the possibility to play simultaneous turns has appeared even when crossing player areas, and thus, the overall dynamics can be accelerated almost 2 times (in blitz mode from 2 to 1-1.5 hours per game). However, this needs to be tested before deciding to implement such simultaneity into the game.
Added after 36 minutes Regarding the starting parameters of heroes: - heroes start with 3 abilities (usually: skill + skill + ability) - also the hero's direct attack grows proportionally (level + 2), i.e., relative to zero damage, there is also an increase of 3 from the start - the base parameters 1/1/1/1 were taken (more visual than absolute minimum 0/0/1/1) - then there are options: 1) either make +3 parameters for profile 1-2 (example: Assassin and Destroyer 3/1/2/1) 2) or make +6 parameters (example: Assassin 4/1/3/2 and Destroyer 4/2/3/1)
The first option does not suffer from redundancy and shows the most important class parameters, however, the second option shows how all parameters will grow (40/30/20/10% chances).
Added after 8 minutes "Заинтересованный"
Heroes adjusted for grades?
Well yes, it looks like a redundant criterion (except for the duel format), but nevertheless, if this can also be optimized without harming the general gameplay, then why not?
That is, I am definitely against any artificial additions, such as: - get a bonus if all troops are of one grade type - get a bonus if the grade type of troops corresponds to the hero's class - get class abilities that support only one grade type But in a conceptual sense, when one grade or another is generally preferable for one class or another, then it is a normal and natural situation (even for random reasons), and it remains only a question of grouping.
In general, this is clearly not a key idea; in essence, it's just cosmetics.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
We discussed this issue before, but I'll ask again – maybe there's a different solution now: - Is it still the case that a weekly growth of 7 units for Tier 1 creatures can only be achieved through scripts, and that this negatively affects the display of the growth rate?
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
Yes, that's exactly right. There are no other adequate ways to disable the +2 bonus from the castle. The description of the bonus is available in the context menu, but the current value is not displayed.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
The idea with dragons is good, but two per castle is too few... Having one appear per month (although it might take a while... about three weeks would be better) is a good balance. For any game, regardless of its length. And what stats will they have, and which dragons will remain?
Added 2 minutes later They've gone overboard with their understanding of game speed. In my opinion, it's quite difficult to play as a mage hero. They need more time to build guilds and upgrade their magic.
Заинтересованный
AstralLein
