Posts from MMH5.5 - Heroes of Might and Magic 5.5

I looked at the original concept for Combat, and it had great skills:
1st branch - Curse + Devil's Strike
2nd branch - Watch + Triple Watch + Readiness
3rd branch - Aid + Stun

The only skill that might have been problematic was Triple Watch. But instead of removing a good skill, it would have been better to simply improve the other competing skills.
For example, increase the chance of Devil's Strike to 100% (i.e., always double damage).
Increase the chance of Stun to 50%.

It's a pity that Triple Watch was removed, and the logic of the skill was disrupted (with random skills like +1/+1). Moreover, in a long game, Triple Watch is not dangerous.

The second question is technical. As I understand it, for all factions, from a logistical point of view, the grass is their native land, and all other terrains have a fixed 25% penalty. Was this penalty left only for the "Pathfinding" skill? That is, are there no problems with setting a 0% penalty?

I looked at the original concept of Combat; everything was great in terms of skills:
1st branch - Sign of the Cursed + Devilish Strike
2nd branch - Watch + Triple Watch + Readiness
3rd branch - Reinforcement + Stun

What skill is 'Reinforcement'?
The new concept actually fixes a core issue in ToTe, which is that Might & Magic heroes deal the same amount of melee damage.

With the new structure, melee heroes that have Combat always pick the middle perk, "Martial Arts," which increases average damage by 50%.

The only thing that could be problematic was Triple Watch. But instead of removing a good skill, it would have been better to simply improve the other competing skills.
For example, increase Devilish Strike to 100% chance (i.e., always double damage).
Increase Stun to 50%.
The logic of the skill is flawed (with various random skills like +1/+1). Moreover, in a prolonged game, Triple Watch is not dangerous.

Retaliation Strike is a very situational skill because its damage depends on the opponent's maneuvers, so it doesn't matter if it deals 1 damage or 99999999999999 if it will never be triggered. Also, when it does trigger, triple damage is way too much anyway, especially in PvE.

The second question is technical. As I understand it, for all Factions, from a logistical point of view, grass is native terrain; the rest have a fixed 25% penalty. Was this penalty left only for the "Pathfinding" skill? That is, are there no problems with setting a 0% penalty?

I cannot translate the question very well, so I will just say how logistics works.

All types of terrains have a 25% penalty for everyone except grass.
To compensate for this, all roads on all terrains except grass have a 0% penalty.

The grass road has a 25% penalty.

"Pathfinding" reduces this penalty by 75%, so the penalty becomes 6.25%.

With the new structure melee heroes that have combat always pick the middle perk "Martial arts" which increases average damage by 50%.

And this is actually a bad thing, as it reduces variety.
If one branch has 200% damage, another has 50% stun (the numbers are arbitrary, it might be a lot, but enough so it's not weak), and a third has 300% retaliation, and they are incompatible, then they will all work well, but under different conditions.
Although I understand the author's concept, like "the middle skills of level 1 are always taken, and that's normal." But the variety is still less than without it.

What skill is 'подмога' ?

Barbarian Mark from the racial skill (translated as "support" in Russian).

The new concept actually fixes a core issue in ToTe which is - might & magic heroes do the same amount of melee damage.

Yes, but was it really worth fixing, if magic heroes normally don't engage in melee combat, but cast spells, which is what they specialize in? That is, the fact that they formally have the same attack power doesn't really matter, because in reality they don't use it, or use it much less often (and without skills that enhance it, there aren't only damage-related skills).

Retaliation strike is very situational skill because its damage depends on the opponent maneuvers so it does not mean if it deals 1 damage or 99999999999999 if it will be never triggered. Also when it does trigger triple damage is way too much anyway, especially in PvE.

That's true, but triple retaliation is a situationally powerful and interesting skill that you want to try, and it's interesting to experiment with. And what has replaced it now? Pathetic +1/+1, a skill that's "nothing special, just parameters, and not many of them, and they're vague" (the bonus is split between attack and defense).

I wouldn't criticize or insist on this, but in reality, it's a pity to see that a few versions ago, this same mod had good and beautiful features that were eventually abandoned, and was it worth it? You don't need to trust my opinion specifically - I would advise you to conduct a survey among the active players of your project, and whether they really prefer the situation with +1/+1 instead of triple retaliation?

Also when it does trigger triple damage is way too much anyway, especially in PvE.

If there are other interesting alternatives, such as 50% stun (instead of 20%), or 200% damage to all hero attacks, then it's not a given that I will focus on retaliation. But the power of the skill in PvE will certainly increase. After all, it was conceived as a key skill for Might? An "analogue" of magic?

I suggested the numbers 50% stun and 200% damage as an example, in the context of returning triple retaliation, as competing skills, you should not evaluate these ideas separately without returning triple retaliation.

Added after 22 minutes

I cannot translate the question very well so I will just say how logistics works.

all type of terrains have 25% penalty for everyone except grass.
To compensate this all roads on all terrains except grass have 0% penalty.

The question was whether it is technically possible to set a 0% penalty for all types of terrain, or whether 25% is a necessary measure? (if we forget about the Pathfinding skill).
This is not a suggestion to do so, but rather a technical question (are there any bugs that prevent this).

As for the suggestion, I would advise you to think about whether it is really so important to compensate for roads, at the expense of the overall logic and convenience (standard roads)?

And that's a bad thing, because it affects variety.
If one branch has 200% damage, another has 50% stun (the numbers are arbitrary, it might be a lot, but definitely not weak), and a third has 300% oversight, and they are incompatible, then they will all work great, but under different conditions.
Although I understand the author's concept, like "the average level 1 skills are always taken, and that's normal." But with it, the variety is still less than without it.

Usually in most perk trees the middle perk is fundamental (Offense -> battle frenzy, Occultism -> empowering spells, Defense -> vitality).
This makes Might and Magics heroes differ so we do not lose variety. Nobody asks the player to pick Combat. Some people like their heroes to support the army so they go for dark or Light and Leadership + empathy tree.

The reason behind how we arranged the perks and why the middle one comes as base perk are two:
- There are not enough perks to create 3 by 3 paths for each tree.
- The hero can pick a restricted amount of perks (just 3).

Moreover, there are plenty of strategies that do not require middle perks. I am away the next 2 weeks but when I am back I will start uploading some replays.

If there are other appealing alternatives, like 50% stun (instead of 20%), or 200% damage to all hero attacks, then it's not a given that I will pump up oversight. But the strength of the skill in PvE will certainly increase. After all, it was conceived as a key skill for Might? An "analogue" of wizardry?

I suggested the numbers 50% stun and 200% damage offhand, in the context of returning triple oversight, as competing skills, you should not evaluate these ideas separately without returning triple oversight.

"Unstoppable charge" is not going to be back. Also base flat melee damage was increased significantly (factor of ~1.5) since ToTe. I think it was mentioned a few posts behind.

The question was whether it is technically possible to set a 0% penalty for all types of terrain, or 25% is an unavoidable measure? (if we forget about the Pathfinding skill)
This is not a suggestion to do so, but rather a technical question (are there any bugs that prevent this).

As for the suggestion, I would advise you to think about whether it is really so important to compensate for roads, to the detriment of the overall logic and convenience (standard roads)?

Terrain penalty is a work of Magnomagus and Deflaktor as far as I remember so I am not quite knowledgeable but I will tell you what I know.

The idea was to make penalty equal for everyone so it is fair for everyone in PvP.
The only issue was with Grass that by default is 0% and it cannot be changed. So they decided roads on grass to have penalty to compensate.

Pathfinding bonus was increased from 50% to 75% to make the move boost a bit higher as the skill was useless.

Final line, all those terrain changes are done in regards to PvP first (same penalty for everyone) and technical restrictions later (grass cannot have penalty).

"Unstoppable charge" is not going to be back. Also base flat melee damage was increased significantly (factor of ~1.5) since ToTe. I think it was mentioned a few posts behind.

I was only suggesting conducting a poll to ensure that this is a popularly supported measure. Because it looks extremely unpopular (abandoning Unstoppable charge in favor of some other +1/+1).

The reason behind how we arranged the perks and why the middle one comes as base perk are two:
- There are not enough perks to create 3 by 3 paths for each tree.
- The hero can pick restricted amount of perks (just 3).

Let's compare it to the scheme with the same 7 perks:
perkA - perkB
perkC - perkD/perkE
perkF - perkG

Total number of options:
ABC, ABF, ACD, CDF, ACE, CEF, AFG, CFG, CDE = 9 options for 3 skills
AB, CD, CE, FG, AC, AF, CF = 7 options for 2 skills
A, B, C = 3 options for 1 skill
Total 9 + 7 + 3 = 19 ways to upgrade a skill (9 complete).

perkA - perkB
perkC - perkD - perkE
perkF - perkG

Your implementation: minus 2 options for 3 skills ACE, CEF (total 7 instead of 9).
Additionally, assuming that perkC is very strong and essential, then:
- minus another 2 options for 3 skills: ABF, AFG (total 5 instead of 9)
- minus 3 options for 2 skills: AB, FG, AF (total 4 instead of 7)
- minus 2 options for 1 skill: A, B (total 1 instead of 3)
Total 5 + 4 + 1 = 10 ways to upgrade a skill (5 complete)

9 / 19 versus 5 / 10.

That is, the fact that you chose the CDE concept instead of CD/E does not significantly reduce the variety as much as the central super-skills (skills that are noticeably stronger than the alternatives).
Maybe it's not that bad, but my job is to point out potential weaknesses, and whether to fix them or not is up to you (the developers).

Usually in most perk trees the middle perk is fundamental (Offense -> battle frenzy, Occultism -> empowering spells, Defense -> vitality).

Vitality is much weaker than Battle Frenzy, and therefore I would not say that this skill is fundamental in itself. There are many other skills that look just as good, especially in the long run and with the weakening role of low-level creatures.

I was just suggesting conducting a poll to ensure that this is a popular measure. Since it seems to be extremely unpopular (abandoning Unstoppable charge in favor of some other +1/+1 bonuses).

Let's compare it to a scheme from the same 7 perks:
perkA - perkB
perkC - perkD/perkE
perkF - perkG

Total number of options:
ABC, ABF, ACD, CDF, ACE, CEF, AFG, CFG, CDE = 9 options for 3 skills
AB, CD, CE, FG, AC, AF, CF = 7 options for 2 skills
A, B, C = 3 options for 1 skill
Total 9 + 7 + 3 = 19 ways to upgrade a skill (9 complete).

perkA - perkB
perkC - perkD - perkE
perkF - perkG

Your implementation: minus 2 options for 3 skills ACE, CEF (total 7 instead of 9).
Additionally, assuming that perkC is very strong and essential, then:
- minus another 2 options for 3 skills: ABF, AFG (total 5 instead of 9)
- minus 3 options for 2 skills: AB, FG, AF (total 4 instead of 7)
- minus 2 options for 1 skill: A, B (total 1 instead of 3)
Total 5 + 4 + 1 = 10 ways to upgrade a skill (5 complete)

9 / 19 versus 5 / 10.

That is, the fact that you chose the CDE concept instead of CD/E does not affect the variability as much as the central super-skills (skills that are noticeably stronger than the alternatives).
Maybe it's not that bad, but my job is to point out potential weaknesses, and whether they should be fixed or are not important is up to you (the developers).

If you look just at the math, the best way to get maximum variation will be this tree:
- perkA
- perkB
- perkC
- perkD
- perkF
- perkE
- perkG
- perkH

following the formula for combinations we have 7!/(3!*(7-3)! = 35 available choices. Math is a part of the project but it is not everything.

Vitality is much weaker than Battle Frenzy, and therefore I would not say that this skill is fundamental in itself. There are many other skills that look no worse, especially in the context of a long game and the weakening role of low-level creatures.

This is an exaggerated opinion based on no real experience with the mod. Vitality increases pure health, which can be further improved with defense or magic resistance capabilities. Also, the Defend command gives an additional defense bonus of 30%, which further improves health points efficiency.

T1 health is roughly increased by 33%.
T2 health is roughly increased by 15%.
T3 health is roughly increased by 10%.
T4 health is roughly increased by 5%.

Each starting zone has a set of T1, T2, and T3 dwellings that the hero can get. Every new castle can be converted and built to some extent just to collect T1-T3 units.

It is easier to collect low-tier units than high-tier units.
At the point the battle occurs (Month 3 and onwards), all stacks are nearly the same strength and have an impact in the battle. Sure, Battle Frenzy is a bit stronger on the numbers side, but HP and damage act in different ways, which:
- Damage value is valid throughout the battle as it helps you go on top of the enemy.
- HP value is valid throughout the game; the more you have, the fewer casualties you have, so at some point, your army snowballs faster.

The same goes for comparing Balista vs. First Aid Tent. Balista looks much better at first hand because it deals a lot of immediate damage, but the First Aid Tent revives troops throughout the game, and at the end, your army can be significantly higher in number than what your opponent has.

Vitality is much weaker than Battle Frenzy, and therefore I would not say that this skill is fundamental in itself. There are many other skills that look no worse, especially in the context of a long game and the weakening role of low-level creatures.

A few pages behind, you said that more creatures and raw stats are always better than attack and defense bonuses. What made you change your mind?

Vitality and Battle Frenzy give you just that - pure damage and hit points. In a long, protracted game, where you get a lot of army skills, Battle Frenzy and/or Vitality are a must because they amplify your army power to a state that no other skill can do. This is why they are fundamental perks and are at position C.

If you look just at the math, the best way to get maximum variation will be this tree:
- perkA
- perkB
- perkC
- perkD
- perkF
- perkE
- perkG
- perkH

following the formula for combinations we have 7!/(3!*(7-3)! = 35 available choices. Math is a part of the project but it is not everything.

I disagree; the above option has a fundamental flaw – randomness. It is important for us to have only 3 level 1 skills, not 7; otherwise, it will be difficult to level up (Dyrman even suggested a system of 2 level 1 skills).
Also, it is important to understand the difference between free choice of any skill and a tree-like (structured) system of choice, so as not to exaggerate.
This does not mean that level 3 skills are bad; it just means that level 2 skills provide more flexibility.

In your version, only 1 level 2 skill comes from each level 1 skill, which significantly simplifies leveling up (compared to a fork into 2 skills, or the terrible 3-4, as was the case in the original game). And that is good. But there is a downside – a slight decrease in variability, which is further exacerbated by the requirement to have a middle skill as a must, which is too strong. The problem is not the decrease in variability, but the double decrease in variability.

A few pages behind you said that more creatures and raw stats are always better than attack and defense bonuses. What do you change you mind?

I haven't changed my mind. It depends on what you compare it to. If you compare Vitality to the standard skills in the original game, then it is a good bonus (level +3 parameter), but no more than that.
But in your mod, parameters are 1.5 times weaker due to the weakening to 3.33%. That is, it is not that Vitality is super strong, but that +2 bonuses are garbage against it; there is no contradiction in this. In your parameters, I would rate the strength of Vitality at +5 to defense, or +3/+3 to attack and defense (+2/+2 if the game lasts more than 2 months). Battle Frenzy is about 1.5 times stronger (2 times stronger if Vitality worked as pure defense and did not protect against magical damage).

I disagree; the aforementioned option has a fundamental flaw – randomness. It’s important to have only 3 level 1 skills, not 7; otherwise, it will be difficult to level up (Dyrman even suggested a system with 2 level 1 skills).

I agree, but that way, we cannot cover very strong perks with a chain of weaker/different ones, and we have to balance all the trees from scratch.
I don’t see a lot of difference between the current configuration and the proposed one because both have meaning, and they both work. Unless there is a super advantage (or fixes some kind of great flaw) that can justify the huge amount of work, this would not be changed.

I didn’t change it. It depends on what you compare it to. If you compare Vitality to the standard skills in the original game, it’s a good bonus (level +3 parameter), but no more than that.
But in your mod, parameters are 1.5 times weaker due to the weakening to 3.33%. That is, Vitality isn’t super strong, and +2 bonuses are garbage compared to it; there is no contradiction in this.

Vitality is not super strong. It is a fundamental skill that stacks with the Defense skill. It can become strong depending on the situation (stacking a lot of T1 and T2 units?). A lot of other skills can become very strong depending on the situation:
1. Preparation combined with Defense, Combat, and Expert Light.
2. Triple balista with fire arrows
3. Destruction + Occultism + Luck + Enlightenment + sorcery
4. Offense + Defense + Luck + Leadership + Combat + Enlightenment

But they also have easy counters:
1. The enemy has the initiative in battle because.
2. Balista dies very easily.
3. Despite hitting very hard, Destruction is easily countered, and you have no other skills to compensate with.
4. Very strong fighter build but lacks magic defense and magic capability.

In MMh55, scouting is very important. You need to visit the tavern at least once a week to know what your opponent’s hero is, what stats he is gaining, and what army composition he is utilizing. Based on the hero type and tavern information, you can deduce a list of possible strategies he will opt for.

Now turn the table around; the same things are valid for him, so you have to make a good hero build that somehow counters his one and, if possible, has an element of surprise.

Most stuff in the mod is not super strong but can become one if combined properly and used with proper tactics. This is the overall idea about all skills.

As far as I remember, you are a fan of the Starcraft professional league. The scouting thing is just about the same there (just done in a different way).

Cheers

I agree, but that way we cannot cover very strong perks with a chain of weaker/different ones, and we have to balance all the trees from scratch.

I understand, so this is not a desired measure, but a necessary one for balancing strong abilities. An alternative could be to strengthen weak abilities, although this is not possible for all abilities.
For example, in my mod, the ability "reduce magic damage by 15%" is considered a weak ability and cannot be naturally strengthened, but the next ability in the same branch is "+15% to health," which is very strong and allows this branch to compete with both Vitality + Power of Stone and 30% Evasion + Stand Your Ground.
Although, from the point of view of reducing variability, it still involves a sacrifice, but in this implementation, at least there is no concept of a "mandatory ability."

I understand, so it's not a desired, but a necessary measure to balance powerful skills. An alternative could be to strengthen weak skills, although this is not possible for all skills.
For example, in my mod, the skill "reduce magic damage by 15%" is considered a weak skill and cannot be naturally strengthened, but the next skill in the same branch is "+15% to health," which is very strong and allows this branch to compete with both Vitality + Power of Stone and 30% Evasion + Stand Your Ground.
Although from the point of view of reducing variability, it still involves a sacrifice, but in this implementation, at least there is no concept of a "mandatory skill."

Do you have a skill wheel of WGE mod?

Do you have a skill wheel from the WGE mod?

https://image.prntscr.com/image/6rDMTfzwRoyaUenDI1LUJw.jpeg
picture

/topic/at/435825/
description

The balance is preliminary, i.e., before testing (and it should be understood that the numbers are tailored to early stages, especially weeks 1-3).
Also, due to the basic mechanics, 1 unit of attack gives +10% damage (not +3.33% as in your case). That is, parameters play out 3 times stronger.
Luck: +/- 50% damage (i.e., 50% unsuccessful damage and 150% successful damage), with a critical hit (skill) – classic 200% damage.
Morale: +/- 50% turn speed (exactly like in the original game)
Approximate hero level at the time of the final encounter - 12-16. The maximum parameter will hardly exceed 15-20.
I borrowed some ideas from the RPE project, which then developed into MMH5.5 for you.

Battle frenzy and Vitality cannot be compared as a plain statistics because Defense is better than Offense anytime.

50% defense > 50% offense because 50% defense is half the damage while twice the damage is 100% offense.

In regards to the 15% bonus health - this is a skill I would pick anytime this is ~ 30HP boost for tier 7 units. "stand your ground" and "power of stone" cannot be equal unless the numbers are as high as the sky. Also from the Defense skill picture it seems the player can pick both "Vitality" and +15% hit points which is even more absurd.

What are the numbers for the other skills in Defense tree?

@Nargott I am going away for some time I want to get to know the wheel structure before saying anything more. May be I do not understand the idea correctly.

Cheers

50% defense > 50% offense because 50% defense is half the damage while twice the damage is 100% offense.

The point here is the formula, not the concepts of Offense/Defense, which are equal (in some cases, Offense is better, in others – Defense).
Offense increases damage by (1+0.1) = 1.1 times, while Defense reduces damage not by 1.1 times, but by 1/(1-0.1) = 1.11 times.

When comparing Battle Frenzy and Vitality, we can use a single formula to determine how much damage is increased or decreased. Roughly speaking, Battle Frenzy gives +20% to damage, an increase of 1.2 times (if, as you say, all tiers are equal), while Vitality only provides +10% to health (a reduction in damage of 1.1 times).

In regards to the 15% bonus health - this is a skill I would pick anytime this is ~ 30HP boost for tier 7 units. "stand your ground" and "power of stone" cannot be equal unless the numbers are as high as the sky. Also from the Defense skill picture it seems the player can pick both "Vitality" and +15% hit points which is even more absurd.

Sure, but the point is that Power of Stone and Stand Your Ground are stronger than yours.

Power of Stone grants a cast with +10 or 12 to defense (conditionally, reducing damage by half – to 50%) over an area for a short time (longer if SP is high).
When a creature defends, it receives +50% defense (in WGE, this is similar to reducing damage to 60%). And Stand Your Ground doubles this bonus to +100% defense, reducing damage to 40% – 2.5 times less. Or 1.5 times relative to defending without Stand Your Ground.

In short, Power of Stone provides maximum protection (reducing damage by twice), but briefly, in an area, and at the cost of the hero's turn and mana.
Stand Your Ground gives 1.5 times the protection, provided the unit is defending.
Evasion gives 1.43 times the protection against ranged attacks.
And Vitality only gives 1.1 times the protection, but consistently.

In WGE, skills are very powerful; their estimated strength varies from +1 to +3 (on average +1.5-2) to a 10% parameter, and in 3.33% parameters, it ranges from +3 to +9 (on average +5).
The game is fast, there are few level ups, and there isn't time to waste on weak skills. I assumed that each level up would provide something significant, not just minor improvements.
From my point of view, the player should look at a skill and be amazed at how strong its abilities are, rather than scoffing at the fact that it offers some nonsense. Ideally, all branches in each skill tree should appear unbalanced (appearances can be deceiving). This motivates players to try them out. Good balance is not when everything is spread thinly and therefore there is no imbalance, but when there are so many strong things that they cease to be an imbalance. But this is the approach I advocate in WGE; I am not imposing it on you (although I have noted that weakening skills relative to the original game is bad).

I will once again note the fundamental difference between low and high levels. At low levels, you can do very cool things without being afraid that they will break the game (conditionally, not fearing that a warrior will crush a mage in 1-2 rounds). Because at low levels, the warrior selectively takes attack + luck, or attack + leadership, or attack + light, etc., while at level 40, he takes everything: attack, luck, leadership, light, and even defense as a bonus (which he doesn't need against a mage), and education if available (you specifically provide 8 slots for skills). Under these conditions, many powerful skills will simply sweep away the mage and leave him with no chance (if he hasn't invested in defense, which is rare for mages in your version). For this reason, I don't like levels above 20; they prevent strong skills from fitting into the balance.

Tournament practice (in another mod – RTA) shows that the branch of 15% magic resistance and 15% HP (in reality, there are +10% HP and +2 to 5% protection, but it is equivalent) is no more popular than Vitality + Power of Stone. Although Power of Stone is cast for 0.5 turns, i.e., stronger than yours.

What are the numbers for the other skills in Defense tree?

http://forum.heroesworld.ru/showpost...25&postcount=3
description

Added after 21 hours 4 minutes
As I saw in the manual, some creature abilities have been weakened in your game. Why?
The most annoying examples:
- agility: from +2 to defense to +1 to defense (weakened by a factor of 3!, considering the weakening of defense itself)
- cavalry charge: from +5% to +3.33%

If you needed to weaken the creatures themselves, it would be better to do this by reducing their corresponding parameters rather than nullifying abilities. Cavalry players would like an increase in charge to at least +10% per cell (too much damage? reduce base damage – although knights are not exactly the best unit on their tier).

The trick is that abilities create a certain interest; tactics can be built around them. What kind of tactic can be built around a 3% charge? Does it allow the knight to run one extra cell, or does it not? It's only a 3% difference in damage. The same goes for dancers.


Added after 45 minutes
There are also comments about errors in the original game that were not fixed in your version:
1) vampires: torpor is much stronger than retaliatory strike (it was almost untouched, and -1/-1 to attack and defense is insignificant), so the first grade of vampires is unnecessary
2) rakshasas: whirlwind is much stronger than retaliatory strike, so the first grade of rakshasa is unnecessary

I don't know how it is with penetration (although I suspect that removing counterattacks by single digits is not a problem), but I will never take the first grade of vampires and the first grade of rakshasas into the final battle. There is a drop both in abilities and characteristics.

Suggestions for vampires: torpor factor 1, damage 5-9 (instead of 5-13). For rakshasas: initiative +10 (instead of 8) and defense +5 (to 27). Although I doubt these ideas will be accepted; too many players overestimate the role of retaliatory strike (a minor ability). And arguing why multiple damage to several units (whirlwind) or disabling several units from the game (torpor with a huge chance) is better than situational retaliatory strike (which doesn't work if the counterattack has already been removed, which often happens when focusing on one unit) is tiresome.

P.S. I criticize a lot here, but please don't get offended – this is my specialty :) I always look for weaknesses that could be improved.

- agility: from +2 to defense to +1 to defense (weakened 3 times, considering the weakening of defense itself)

With +2 if he runs 6, this is +12 defense. Unacceptable for any tier 2 creature.

- cavalry charge: from +5% to +3.33%

The effect of the ability equals 1 attack point bonus per square, just as in ToTe.

vampires: torpor is much stronger than retaliatory attack (you are almost not affected, and -1/-1 to attack and defense is nothing), respectively, the first upgrade for vampires is not needed

Torpor duration is reduced. I don't remember how much. From the top of my head, I think the duration is about 1.5 turns.
Also, you don't want to get retaliated against with vampires because they die very fast. I had a very good replay that shows just how vampires thrive when they take hits. I hope I haven't deleted it.

rakshasas: whirlwind is much stronger than retaliatory attack, respectively, the first upgrade for rakshasas is not needed

Not true. Every glass cannon build will pick the first upgrade.

Rakasha +2 initiative proposal is totally overpowered in any mod. 10 base initiative + mini artifact bonuses + haste spell combined with dash ability can bring them up to a 30 initiative value.

Do not look at upgrades just as upgrades but how they fit into hero build.
I don't mind criticism as far as it has ground. We may find something we have missed. Sometimes I do not have the time or willpower to think it through as I am fending off 4 different communication channels.
==================================================================

What I do not like about vanilla Heroes V is that skill paths are unrelated and in some parts just random.
I know you look a lot at numbers, but creature numbers do not make sense when you combine them with hero builds.

From the defense example you gave, it seems all the perks are balanced enough, which is fine.
What I do not like is that the same Heroes V idea of similar perk distribution is taken.
The idea behind MMH55 is that one does not need to know everything to make a decent build of his own.

Basically, all skills and perk trees focus on one idea. For example:
Offense tree -> unit damage
Defense tree -> unit defense
Combat tree -> hero damage and utility
Light magic tree -> increased light magic efficiency
Shatters -> magic suppression

War Machines -> More efficiency out of War machines depending on which tree you pick.
The only inconsistencies are in skills where no skills could be properly found to fit (mostly faction native skills).

Here are some specific examples of what I do not like:
- "Suppress light" perk in Light Magic tree - The tree purpose is to empower light magic efficiency. Why does it have a counter perk inside?
- "Storm wind" in Light - This perk has nothing to do with light. Why is it inside?
- "Mana burst" in Destruction - yes, the text claims to be a destruction perk, but the effect has nothing to do with utilizing Destruction school spells in any way.
- "Chain strike" in blood rage - this skill has nothing to do with blood rage ability. It is not even a stronghold native thing, like for example the "Goblin cart".

There are endless examples like the one above.

Regarding WGE skill wheel:
- I noticed that Magic schools and Shatters have common perks. Why?
- Also, why do Shatters have creature-icon perks? Does this give a population of random units? Why?

Torpor duration is reduced. I don't remember how much. From the top of the head I think duration is about 1.5 turns.
Also you do not want to get retaliated with vampires because they die very fast. I had a very good replay that shows just how vampires thrive when they take hits. I hope I have not deleted it.

From 2 to 1.5 rounds is good, but not enough (by the way, I also noticed that many descriptions in the Manual are not detailed enough and lack numbers).
If I don't want my vampires to take retaliation strikes, then I will hit enemies with them after disabling retaliation attacks. Small inconveniences are worth it to cause huge inconveniences for the opponent (especially with soldier's luck).

1.5 rounds means minus 1.5 attacks (roughly speaking), which with about a 50% chance can trigger from both direct and retaliation strikes (i.e., on average around 70% per round).
A non-retaliating strike is minus 1 retaliation attack, which moreover can only trigger from a direct strike.

Regarding the replay, I conducted a lot of test battles in my time, and the Vampire Prince proved to be a head above all opponents of their tier, by a huge margin over mediocre Vampire Princes. Their ability is extremely strong (one of the strongest in the game). But for some reason, you don't want to weaken it by 3 times, yet you weaken minor agility by 3 times.

With +2 if he runs 6 this is +12 defense. Unacceptable for any tier 2 creature.

I fundamentally disagree with such an approach. And is the crossbowmen's armor-piercing shot (which effectively allows gaining up to +30 to attack, and under an enemy hero up to +50-70) okay?
+12 defense in the original gave an increase in survivability of ~1.5 times; yours gives ~1.33 times (therefore, I would consider restoring the ability to +3 defense so as not to weaken it).
The shield wall of dwarf warriors reduces damage down to 0.1 (i.e., up to 10 times); is that also unacceptable and needs to be nerfed? Or is it not about the strength of the ability, but rather that you fundamentally don't want to see high stats on a low-level unit? As far as I'm concerned, this is insufficient grounds to commit such a sin, turning a good ability into a total zero.
Seriously, a unit that is "just meat" and nothing more, since its unique ability can be safely ignored (same for knights, but to a lesser extent, as at least lay on hands and tournament attack remain).
Although, in Heroes of Might and Magic III, there were also units who had no special abilities other than stats (but then, maybe remove agility altogether?).

Let me explain what a unit with +1 agility is in your mechanics. It means a unit with the ability to increase survivability by (1.08 +/- 0.08) times, and usually the number of movement squares doesn't vary much, meaning in practice it's a unit with an ability of (1.08 +/- 0.04) times—so the entire gain I can count on with good use of the ability and correct maneuvers is only +3-5%? It's easier to forget that they even have this ability.

I understand it's difficult to convey how important it is to have strong abilities in the game instead of useless ones, since you consciously ignore this aspect, but keep in mind that for at least some players this may be important, and they will be disappointed by such changes.

The effect of the ability equals 1 attack point bonus per square just as in ToTe.

I noticed that, but it's not true. As I wrote before, 1 attack point gave +5% to base damage (if attack is higher). And from the charge — +5% to final damage. If the difference is initially 0, the concepts coincide. But with a difference of +20 (for example), +5% to base damage works like +2.5% to final. I have already given similar examples.
(20+1-0) * Damage = 205% Damage
(20-0) * Damage * (100% + 5%) = 210% Damage

Not true. Every glass cannon build will pick the first upgrade.

I might be wrong regarding armor penetration since I haven't played against neutrals in a long time, but in the endgame (battles against players) — unlikely.
You overestimate the value of the retaliation strike. It's a convenient ability, but it's not dangerous for the opponent.
My suggestion regarding rakshasas is confirmed by multiplayer experience in RTA (PvP), where rakshasas were strengthened in a corresponding way. Although often in ranged builds (I assume these are glass cannons?) no rakshasas are taken at all, not even the "super buffed" grade, because the unit is too expensive and the costs aren't recouped.

10 base initiative + mini artifact bonuses + haste spell combined with dash ability can bring them up to a 30 initiative value.

In WGE, kshatriyas were boosted up to 36 (9 + dash + Haste), and this could break the game if Righteous Might for x2 damage was additionally cast on them. But as a rule, this could be repelled (at least within WGE). There were also rakshasa rajas and alternative dancers with initiative boosting up to 60 (15 + dash + Haste), who also posed a serious threat, but not as much as rakshasas at 36 due to the lack of area damage. Rakshasa rajas have no area damage, no super strong damage, and you also don't have Righteous Might for x2 damage (you have it, but it's much weaker). So I see no reason for concern. One should worry about kshatriyas under dash, not rajas. Because the total damage from kshatriyas can be several times higher.

Do not look at upgrades just as upgrades but how they fit into hero build.

That's exactly how I look at it, however, if in one build we get +20% to attack (conditionally), and in another - +10% to defense for the same price (conditionally), then that's the imbalance I'm pointing out.
If we ignore the numbers and reason in the spirit of "one unit is for attack, another for defense, therefore everything is okay regardless of the numbers," then one could avoid balancing anything at all.

I didn't want to get involved in an argument regarding non-retaliating attacks, but I did, my apologies. The thing is, it's hardly constructive; people either clearly understand the value of a non-retaliating attack or they don't. It's hard to convince here, I only conveyed an opinion. It's quite possible that this opinion is valid only in PvP, but not PvE.

Basically all skills and perk trees focus in one idea.

This is a very strong idea, and I adhered to the same in my modification as much as possible — i.e., until it broke the gameplay. Moreover, I tried to maintain the thematicity not only of the whole skill but also of each of its branches (each of the 3 branches determined by level 1 basic abilities). But definitions of what falls under the concept of a particular skill can differ. For example, I cannot allow myself the liberty of depriving Offence of the direct hero attack branch, as you did when moving it to Combat. Because too few full-fledged abilities remain in Offence, and I don't want to add incomplete ones (like herds) or non-thematic ones (like fire arrows, which are also imbalanced in the early stages).

The only inconsistencies are in skills where no skills could be properly found to fit (mostly faction native skills).

It's unclear why you can make exceptions but others cannot. It turns out that in some places you win in logic, and in others you lose, and therefore overall it's hard to say that your scheme is more logical (although it's also hard to say that it's less logical).
Abandon the idea of fitting skills with various non-thematic nonsense like the +1/+1 ability in Combat (it's more convenient to recall this specific ability as an example, although there are others like it), then logic will indeed become a very strong side of your wheel. That is, allow some places to be empty (there is nothing terrible in that).

Regarding WGE skill wheel:
- I noticed that Magic schools and Shatters common perks. Why?
- Also why Shatters have creature-icon perks? Does this give population of random units? Why?

1) because orc skills are too poor (lack of abilities); on the other hand, for reasons of "not worsening gameplay," I didn't want to deprive all other factions of tasty abilities like Storm Wind, so in this matter I support the original game (gameplay > style)

2) because Shatters is a very weak basis for a skill. In WGE these skills are renamed to Mights (Might of Light etc.). Might of X does similar things to what Magic of X does, but in a different style (without using spells). As for the "Shatter" effect, in WGE it works both ways (read the skill descriptions). The thing is, Shatter doesn't engage in Shattering because it isn't that; it serves Might, now it's a full-fledged combat skill that includes elements of opposing the corresponding school, but as an additional (not primary) thing. Similar to how Defence includes opposition to magic damage but is not limited to it.

Examples: Destructive Magic allows dealing direct damage to enemy troops (with spells), Destructive Might increases direct damage to enemy troops (with troops). Summoning Magic can summon creatures (with spells), and Summoning Might can summon creatures directly into the army (via the Pack Leader ability) for every levelup (similar to education). Therefore, wolves in Summoning are logical here, although manticoras in Dark are exceptional (just atmospheric tie-in, hello to the manticoras from Heroes of Might and Magic III - belonging to the Dungeon faction, linked to Darkness in meaning).

Does this give population of random units? Why?

I don't consider wolves a "random" unit for orcs. Although one could argue about the manticoras. But there were no better options here, since summoning creatures into the army is a good, interesting, and relevant combat ability (you sacrifice one slot in the army for these creatures and sacrifice morale, but in return you get solid reinforcements).

Added after 3 hours 29 minutes


By the way, a second mod review (analytics) was recently made:
https://youtu.be/NinIwFA42XQ
(without my participation, but I've already expressed all my thoughts on the forum)

Added after 46 minutes
Last time, when I spoke about class differences, I missed one important detail: the thing is, all heroes of one class start with the same "class" skill of that class, and not with a "racial" skill. It's hard to say whether this is good or bad overall, but from the perspective of class differences — definitely good (many classes of different races are similar, but here some differences appear).

Might:

Knight - Combat
Death Knight - Combat
Demon Lord - Offence
Ranger - Avenger
Overlord - Leadership
Engineer - War Machines (now it's clear why it's always an engineer, atmospherically)
Barbarian - Blood Rage
*Seer - Luck

Balanced:

Paladin - Light
Gatekeeper - Gating
Reaver - Dark
Warden - Defence
Assassin - Logistics
Runemage - Runelore
Shaman - ?
*Wizard - Artificier

Magic:

Heretic - Dark
Sorcerer - Sorcery
Necromancer - Necromancy
Druid - Enlightenment
Warlock - Occultism
Flamekeeper - Destructive Magic
Witch - ?
Elementalist - Summoning

What I noted earlier:

1) Paladin = Warden (almost completely)
2) Gatekeeper = Assassin (difference in racial and its absence)

This is precisely where additional differences in starting skills manifest (mentors are forbidden, right?):
- if suddenly a Paladin wants to play without Defence, he fundamentally has that possibility (whereas a Warden does not)
- if suddenly a Warden wants to play without Light, he fundamentally has that possibility (whereas a Paladin does not)
- a Gatekeeper cannot renounce the racial skill, but on the other hand can play without Logistics, while an Assassin cannot play without Logistics

What I can say about Might classes: is it possible to somehow separate Knight and Death Knight? For example, give one of them Defence instead of Combat? It's strange that the Might skill ended up being unwanted by any of the Might heroes (although in my view, it's not entirely a Might skill, but it is a Might skill in the authors' understanding).

Next remark, regarding starting skills: why is a percentage indicated on them at all? Why not make the percentage distributed among the other 11 skills, and 0 for the starting skill?