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

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 a retaliation strike, I will attack enemies with them using an ability that removes retaliation. 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 have about a 50% chance to 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 hit.

Regarding the replay, I conducted a lot of test battles in my time, and the Vampire Prince proved to be head and shoulders above all opponents in 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.

I might be wrong regarding 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 is a convenient ability, but it is not dangerous for the opponent.
My suggestion regarding rakshasas is confirmed by multiplayer experience in RTA (PvP); rakshasas were already strengthened in a corresponding way there. Although often in ranged builds (I assume you mean glass cannon?), no rakshasas are taken at all, not even the "super-strengthened" grade, because the unit is too expensive and the costs aren't recouped.

I fundamentally disagree with such an approach. And is the armor-piercing shot of crossbowmen (which effectively allows gaining up to +30 to attack, and under an enemy hero up to +50-70) okay?
+12 defense in the original provided an increase in survivability by ~1.5 times; yours is ~1.33 times (therefore I would consider restoring the ability to +3 defense so as not to weaken it).

Although, in the same Heroes 3, there were also units that had no special abilities other than stats (but then, maybe remove agility altogether?).

The shield wall of dwarven warriors reduces damage down to 0.1 (i.e., up to 10 times), which is also unacceptable and needs to be nerfed? Or is it not about the strength of the ability, but rather that you fundamentally do not 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 complete zero.

This is serious: 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 laying on of hands and tournament attack remain).

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 tiles moved 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 noticed that, but it's not the case. 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

That's what I'm seeing; however, if in one build we get +20% to attack (conditionally), and in another +10% to defense for the same price (conditionally), then that is the imbalance I am pointing out.
If we ignore the numbers and reason in the spirit of "one unit is for attack, another for defense, therefore any numbers are fine", then we can avoid balancing anything at all.

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

This is a very strong idea, and I adhered to the same in my modification wherever possible — i.e., until it breaks the gameplay. Moreover, I tried to maintain thematic consistency not only for the whole skill, but for each of its branches (each of the 3 branches determined by level 1 basic skills). But definitions of what falls under a particular skill may differ. For example, I cannot allow myself the liberty of depriving the Offence branch of direct heroic attack, as you did when moving it to Combat. Because too few full-fledged skills 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).

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 are a very weak foundation for a skill. In WGE these skills are renamed to Mights (Might of Light etc.). Might of X does similar things to Magic of X, but in a different style (without using spells). As for the "Shatter" effect, in WGE it works both ways (read the skill description). The point is, Shatter doesn't deal with Shattering because it isn't that; it serves Might. Now it is a full-fledged combat skill that includes elements of opposing the corresponding school, but as an additional (not main) feature. 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 manticoras from Heroes 3 — belonging to the Dungeon faction, linked to Darkness in meaning).

Quote:
Does this give population of random units? Why?
I do not 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).

Last time, when I spoke about class differences, I missed one important detail: the fact is that 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 across different races are similar, but here some differences appear).

What I noted earlier:
Quote:
1) Paladin = Warden (almost completely)
2) Gatekeeper = Assassin (difference in racial skill and its absence)

This is exactly where additional differences in starting skills manifest (since mentors are forbidden, right?):
- if suddenly a Paladin wants to play without Defense, 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 refuse the racial skill, but can play without Logistics, whereas an Assassin cannot play without Logistics

What I can say about Might-classes: is there any way to separate Knight and Death Knight? For example, give one of them Defence instead of Combat? It's strange that the Might-skill ended up not being demanded 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 distribute the percentage among the remaining 11 skills, and set the starting skill to 0?

Their bonus damage is ok. Actually, the Haven T6 were very, very overpowered in standard ToTe. Due to high speed and initiative, they just charge in round one and one-shot kill an enemy stack. The enemy does not have a chance to react.
On top of that, champions are also hard to kill. The same issue should be relevant for WGE; how did you adjust it there?

The ability looks strong on paper, but actually, you can only get to 0.1 if you charge it from a 9-square distance.

Hm.. I do not understand this; could you elaborate? Here is how I see it. The unit has 6 attack and 6 defense and 7 speed. If he goes 7 tiles, his defense jumps to 13. This means that the damage resistance bonus is 7*3.33% ~ 23%.

Those things are good qualities by themselves, so it is alright if the unique ability is a bit weaker.

In WGE, Charge is one of the strongest abilities. It provides a +100% bonus for each tile traveled, but the base damage of the Knights is reduced by a factor of 3-4. This means that they deal very little damage from a standstill (including weak counterattacks), but their charge is very powerful. The use of the ability is limited by 2 things:
1) speed - in WGE, only flying units can have a base speed higher than 6; accordingly, all Knights have a base speed of no more than 6
2) heavy class (Armored) - many creatures have an ability based on the "shield wall": they only receive 50% damage if the opponent has moved 1 or more tiles to attack
Therefore, Knights can be countered in 4 ways:
1) carefully avoid being charged or move out of the charge range
2) cover yourself with heavy class troops (they suffer less from the charge)
3) go into defense (defense reduces damage many times)
4) quickly reduce the distance, not giving the Knights enough space to charge, including surrounding them
The general idea is this: a strong ability creates interesting tactics and countermeasures. If there is no strong ability, it does nothing, it's just cannon fodder. Therefore, in WGE, I strive to reveal as many abilities as possible (very rare abilities are weakened, but among them is Torpor).
Plus, a strong Charge is historically justified, since it is known that Knights are good in open areas, but in a confined space, they are of little use, and their effectiveness drops many times (therefore, under such conditions, Knights often dismount). A 100% charge very well demonstrates this feature of knight cavalry. About a 10% charge, I would say that it at least minimally demonstrates this feature (the difference between a hit from a standstill and a full charge is 1.8 times). With 5% and even more so 3%, a Knight hits almost as effectively from a standstill as from a charge, i.e., it is clearly impossible to say that it suffers in any special way from a confined space.

Not only on paper - on average, this ability performs no worse than agility in the original game (since the enemy usually runs a few tiles), but you have agility weakened by a factor of 3. If a unit is too strong (and it is strong), then you can weaken the defense and/or damage (to the level of the upgrade).

If you replace this ability with a simple passive bonus of +5 to defense (for example), nothing will change significantly (the difference will be +/- 1-2 defense). This is precisely an indicator that the ability does not play out (in terms of interest).

A bit weaker - is translated as 3 times? :)

In WGE, agility works twice as strong as in the original and six times stronger than yours (although the speed is lower, so in reality, it's 4 times). This means that when a unit runs far, it receives good protection; but if a unit runs little or stands still, it dies very quickly from attacks. The difference is acutely felt, and this is the interest of the ability. Similarly to cavalry charge, there are many nuances in the use and counteraction of this ability.

How much attention do you pay in MMH5.5 in battle to preventing Knights or Dancers from running an extra tile? If there is only a 3% bonus, then there are clearly concerns that are much more important than limiting their charge. Strengthening abilities is increasing the number of nuances by which you can win in battle; I am not urging you to do this (since your project does not specialize in tactics), but at the same time, I note that reducing tactical nuances by weakening already existing abilities is bad.

However, there are abilities that should really be weakened, such as Torpor. What is the difference? In that even a heavily cut Torpor is good (no worse than blindness and no worse than an unrequited attack, at least in PvP). And in that it is difficult to force Torpor to play well or badly; it is a random ability with a poorly controlled chance, i.e., there is no tactical reason to make it too strong. In contrast to those abilities, the effectiveness of which directly depends on the player's actions.

Your champion jousting strength is really absurd even out of the mod properties but I like it . Probably we can slightly adjust the base damage and jousting damage a bit to favor more benefits/disadvantages depending on tactical choices.

From what I see now creature changes in WGE revolve around creature abilities.

But to do so you have cut down on creature stats.

From what you said about unit speeds I assume all creatures have their stats significantly altered.

On the other side we do the opposite, we keep the stats as close to the original as possible but alter abilities to make the balance. I think we both do the same but cut the tree from a different side.

Check the MMH55 manual for the "Grim rider" "Charge" ability description. I assume on WGE side you left it the same as in original but reduced the creature damage. Is that correct?

I already made a point above how we cut abilities and you cut stats but doesn't this change you made force the player to constantly move the unit whatever the circumstances? this is something I wouldn't appreciate.

It is just not possible to balance creatures in later stages of the game if you have strong abilities because creature damage is constantly increasing.
Just imagine 100 champions with WGE stats to do a charge with bonuses from a level 25 might hero.

Abilities may seem weak at first around the end of month 2 benefits can be seen very clear.

Yes, this is usually correct if you stick to conservatism. But sometimes this approach has serious drawbacks if the ability is weakened too much.

Not always.
Example 1: a dancer can use defense and get approximately the same bonus while staying in place.
Example 2: if the dancer is standing next to an attack target with Armored (heavy class), then the choice is whether to attack from the spot (100% damage) or attack while running around, activating agility, but dealing only 50% damage.
Example 3: you can run less, but avoid the attack of certain enemy units (compared to a greedy run). The same is true for Knights.
I forgot that the defense command is very strong.

You see, the fundamental difference is that you measure abilities around damage spells and absolute losses, so a small percentage doesn't seem insignificant when the "meat" grows.
I measure abilities in relative terms, how many percent more "meat" allows you to kill or save. Therefore, for me, the moment when an insignificant ability suddenly starts to play out somewhere in the late game never comes. Everything is relative.

P.S. In short, each time you weaken something, I advise you to ask the following questions:
1) is it interesting to play with it with the new numbers, can tactics be built around it, or is it not worth it?
2) is it interesting to counter it, or does it not deserve attention?
3) is the effectiveness of the ability dependent enough on the player's actions? compare with an equivalent passive bonus to parameters, instead of this ability
4) is the ability attractive enough compared to others?

I agree, but in WGE, you have a predefined timeframe for meeting with your opponent (~6 weeks), which means the army size is predefined on both ends.

Ok. I think I have an idea of what we can do. We can set "Wind dancer" base defense to 0 and set agility to +2 or +3? Not sure if it won't become stronger than its counterpart in practice, but it will definitely add tactical variation.