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

Yes, the griffin should be at level 6, considering the stat increases (an increase of 6 on a level 6 unit looks too extreme).
And in general, if it were necessary to scale the troops further (e.g., not 6 knights against a dragon, but 10 or more), it would be logical to leave the griffins in their place and move the basic troops, i.e., perceptually, a knight is clearly not higher than a griffin.

Hello, in my opinion, the griffin should be weaker than the knight. After all, in all parts of Heroes, the knight is the second-to-last tier, and the elite is almost equal to angels. A griffin is just a combat unit in itself, while a knight is at least an armored knight (paladin) + a warhorse.
Regarding the stat increases, I think the knight should have an increase of 1500-1200 in strength (he is the strongest of the cavalry!). :smile13:

Nargott says that a Knight is just a man, even if he's in armor and on a horse, and he can be easily killed with a regular arrow. Therefore, the mod author wants to weaken the stats of Knights but increase the importance of the charge attack. As for Griffons, the author believes they are powerful, proud creatures with thick hides, and they are too weak for level 4. Therefore, they will be almost as strong as Knights but will cost more to recruit.

knight, the second-to-last tier unit; its elite version is almost as powerful as angels.

Firstly, at tier 7, we have not only angels but also, for example, dragons. Therefore, in your case, it turns out that the knight is almost equal to a dragon, which is absurd.
But again, in this case, it turns out that we are equating a dragon to an angel, which is not very good, although it is more acceptable (in this mod, the increase in dragons is twice as low as the increase in angels, meaning 1 dragon = 2 angels).
Besides, even the comparison of an angel and a knight does not allow for the words "almost equal" - a person on a horse remains a person, who differs from an ordinary armored soldier only in the presence of a horse, and possibly in combat experience. All this can only result in the following bonuses for a person who has become a knight:
- increased speed
- the ability to deal more damage due to the charge
I don't see any reason why a person on a horse should have many times more HP than a regular person.
The only thing that can explain the position of a humanoid unit at a tier higher than the fourth is a connection with magic, which cannot be explained from a physics perspective.

I don't know about you, but personally, I don't like the concept where creatures from the same Castle are on the same power (growth) level.
I think that everywhere where the power and growth are the same, it needs to be changed:
1. Knight - Griffin 1000. As I understand it, everyone decided that the Griffin is stronger, so let it be. It's the Griffin Empire, after all, so we increase its power to 1200-1500, so it's on par with Djinns or Wyverns.
2. Shaman - Ogre 400. Here, I think that Shamans, due to their "magic," are a more elite and less numerous unit than Ogres, and they should be on the 3rd rank, while Ogres should be on the 2nd. We lower Ogres to 300, on par with Berserkers.
3. Guard - Spearman 200. In my opinion, the most numerous are the Guards among the Dwarves, so either their power needs to be lowered to 150, or the Spearmen need to be raised to 250.
4. Bear - Priest 750. This is the most controversial pair for me. But probably the Priests need to be raised to 1000, otherwise it's strange that they are on the 5th tier, while Druids with the same power are on the 4th.

P.S. I'm not sure that these changes are ideal, but I think they are necessary. Let's discuss!

In my opinion, Knights are best suited for level 5 – they clearly don't reach level 6 because they are too close to tier 7 (dragons and other epic units). Griffons also don't quite make it to tier 6 – essentially, they are lions with wings and a beak instead of fangs – in principle, from a logical standpoint, they are also tier 5, but considering that we are in Ashan (lore), Griffons shouldn't stand out with exceptional strength (in Heroes 5, this is tier 4, in Heroes 6, roughly the same level, as they are the weakest in the human elite, and in Heroes 7, it's even tier 3, as they are the strongest in the human base). Reminder: in Heroes 6 and Heroes 7, the division is not into 7, but into 3 tiers: "base," "elite," and "champion." In general, it turns out that we don't have a unit that would be specifically at tier 6 for humans – either they don't reach tier 6 (Knights and Griffons) or they are stronger than tier 6 (Angels). There are similar units in the lore, but they don't fit here – I'm talking about the "Radiance" and "Solar Riders" units (Solar Riders could be a good fit for the role of tier 6, as they are semi-magical units in origin http://ru.mightandmagic.wikia.com/wiki/Всадник_Солнца)

Nargoth has a strange dependency: the strength and growth rate of creatures are not linearly related. In any case, weaker creatures will be on tier 5, while those with high strength but a lower growth rate will be on tier 6. Similarly, for other pairs: making creatures of different tiers but with the same strength or growth rate from the same castle seems illogical and detrimental to the game.

Heavy class is slow, usually well-protected units, while vampires, even unupgraded, move quite fast. In my opinion, zombies are a good example of a heavy class (they move slowly, are durable, and are also similar to demons, which are in the heavy class).

There is no connection to speed here, because the basis is protection (armor class), and nothing more. It was important for me to use the tier as a means of creating diversity, so only protection is fixed as the key aspect of the class, and not the other characteristics. Just as the key aspect for a ranged unit is shooting, but it is not necessarily the case that the ranged unit must be fragile or have penalties in melee combat (although this is usually the case).

Hello, in my opinion, a griffin should be weaker than a knight in terms of strength. After all, in all parts of Heroes, the knight is the second-to-last tier, and the elite is almost equal to angels. A griffin is, in itself, a combat unit, while a knight is at least an armored knight (paladin) + a warhorse. Regarding the stat increases, I think the knight should be increased to 1500-1200 strength (he is the strongest of the cavalry!).

I understand this point of view, but I can't do anything about it, because I based my decisions on the human units primarily on realism, analyzing other historical sources. Based on my data, 2-3 elite armored infantry are quite capable of defeating an elite mounted knight. Not to mention archers; the accepted ratio (4:1) usually does not favor the knight. In addition, in a confined space (no charge), an armored infantry can now even fight a mounted knight on equal terms, which is very pleasing.

I don't know about you, but I personally don't like the concept where creatures from the same tier have the same strength (stat increase). I think that everywhere where the strength and stat increase are the same, it should be changed: 1. Knight - Griffin 1000. As I understand it, everyone decided that the Griffin is stronger, so let it be. It's the Empire of the Griffin, so we increase its strength to 1200-1500, so that it is on par with Djinns or Wyverns. 2. Shaman - Ogre 400. Here, I think that Shamans, due to "magic," are a more elite and less numerous unit than Ogres, and they should be on the 3rd rank, while Ogres should be on the 2nd. We lower the Ogre to 300, to the Berserkers. 3. Guard - Spearman 200. In my opinion, the most numerous are the Guards among the dwarves, so either their strength should be lowered to 150, or the Spearman should be raised to 250. 4. Bear - Priest 750. This is the most controversial pair for me. But probably the Priest should be raised to 1000, otherwise it is strange that they are on the 5th tier, while the Druids with the same strength are on the 4th. P.S. I'm not sure if these changes are ideal, but I think they are necessary. Let's discuss!

Okay, I have taken this opinion into account.

My position was to have diversity. Therefore, I use tiers exclusively as a means of ordering the strength of creatures (and not their stat increases) within one faction, and nothing more. From this point of view, the presence of equalities and even sometimes reverse inequalities (in the case of comparing tiers of different factions) is diversity, a highlight. In general, this was sometimes the case in the original Heroes 5 (for example, a 1st-tier assassin was stronger than a 2nd-tier creature, and a 2nd-tier Fury was stronger than a 3rd-tier creature).

Now, regarding the specific pairs, why these decisions were made.

1. The Griffin can be raised, but the key competitors for the Griffin are Djinns/Ifrits and Wyverns, both of which are stronger. On the other hand, not everyone agrees that knights are weaker than griffins, and therefore equality allows us to sit on two chairs at once.

2. A girl with knives and the beginnings of magic versus a professional heavyweight fighter. This is a well-known problem of sorceresses and warriors. On the one hand, a sorceress should be weaker than a warrior in melee combat. On the other hand, sorceresses are elite, and there should not be too many of them. The same problem exists for humans, with armored infantry and monks. Monks are 1.5 times more expensive and stronger because they are powerful sorceresses and also archers, but in melee combat they do not surpass armored infantry. As for shamans, their magic is weak, they don't have ranged attacks, and moreover, the alt does not cast spells at all (but has an enchanted weapon). Based on these considerations, the shaman is not stronger than an orc. However, the question of tiers is open here. It is possible to move the shaman to the 3rd tier (while maintaining the same cost and strength). But this needs to be analyzed from the point of view of city schemes; I can't say anything about it yet (the fact is that in WGE, fortifications strengthen the 2nd and 3rd tiers differently).

3. The Spearman was considered weaker than the archer. As for the Guards, they are an "improved" version of the human regular infantry of the 1st tier. 24 (archers) < 30 (spearmen) and 30 (guards) < 40 (recruits). Therefore, in the end, they ended up with the same number.

4. Bears should definitely not be lowered, because in general, the superiority of a knight over a bear is debatable. As for the priest, there is no reason why he should be stronger than the same druid. In addition, on the 5th tier, as on any other, there should be outsiders, and besides the priest, there is no one else to choose for the role of an outsider.

Nargoth has a strange dependence of the strength and stat increase of creatures; it is far from linear. In any case, the weak will be on the 5th tier, and someone with great strength but a smaller stat increase will be on the 6th tier. Similarly, with other pairs: making different tiers, but the same strength or stat increase for creatures from the same castle, I think is illogical and harmful to the game.

For the sake of diversity, the strength of a creature and the strength of its stat increase are not always related. However, this was also the case in Heroes 3. I like the approach where there is no total equalization, and each faction has its own strengths and weaknesses (i.e., different key tiers). In general, if the strength of a creature is higher, then it is considered more elite, and the strength of its stat increase is also higher. But this is in general, and in particular, there may be exceptions, especially when comparing different factions.
By stat increase, I mean not its formal number, but the stat increase * the strength of 1 creature (or the stat increase * the cost of 1 creature).

"Sun Riders" (Sun Riders would be a good fit for the 6th tier because the units are semi-magical in origin http://ru.mightandmagic.wikia.com/wiki/Всадник_Солнца)

No, replacing knights with sun bunnies is not serious. Like we don't have ordinary horses, or heroes ride them, and here are sun ones, please. It would be very cool to return elven pegasus riders to another, more magical faction. But no one has made such models, and in that case, we would have to abandon the no less iconic unicorns (or druids).

Added after 2 hours 38 minutes
In general, regarding shamans, I will add. They can be compared to furies. The same girls with knives, and also the alt has an enchanted weapon. There is no superiority of shamans in combat here. Therefore, they are equal (both cost 400). That is, the question of shamans comes down to beasts. And the question of beasts comes down to the same armored infantry. Armored infantry is elite heavy infantry, in full armor. Beasts are light infantry with knives. The fact that they are equal to armored infantry in strength is very, very cool for them. On the other hand, an orc can also be compared to armored infantry. The orc is physically 1.5-2 times stronger, also a professional warrior, like armored infantry, but its equipment is much worse. Therefore, the orc is generally not weaker than armored infantry, but not stronger either (above armored infantry is the golem, and above the golem is the minotaur, both creatures are even heavier than the orc).

Nah, replacing knights with sunbeams just doesn't seem serious. Like, we don't have regular horses, or heroes ride them, but here, take sunbeams. It would be much better suited for another, more magical faction; for example, it would be really cool to bring back elven riders on pegasi. But no one has made such models, and in that case, we would have to give up the equally iconic unicorns (or druids).

I agree, that's why I wrote

...There are similar units in the lore, but they don't fit here - I'm talking about the "radiance" and "sun riders" units...

And I can't really think of anything in terms of who could be placed in the Humans' 6th tier - because, logically, there shouldn't be humanoid units in the 6th tier, but griffins would be too powerful there. Again, there's a rather wild option of lowering angels to the 6th tier (the logic is that, according to the lore, these are not angels at all, but a product of the fusion of the souls of a deceased person and an angel - that is, an intermediate form), but then who to put in the 7th tier is unclear, and this is too creative a shift to move the winged creatures from the 7th to the 6th tier - a wild option.
In general, we come to the conclusion that it will not work to equate the strength of creatures of one faction to the strength of creatures of another faction, and it is possible to balance them by increasing their stats and cost. Well, for example, like this - what is the 7th tier for humans, is only the 6th tier for warlocks - the question is in the stat increases and cost.

Yes, that's why griffins are considered Tier 6 underdogs. Besides them, there's not much else that could be there, but on the other hand, they are significantly weaker than their counterparts. At least, the griffins depicted in Heroes 5. Also, after Heroes 4, a connection was established that a griffin is comparable to a unicorn (in WGE, they are equal). It's not that there were many logical correlations in Heroes 4, but this particular one was liked and remembered. And a unicorn, on the other hand, is equal to a cavalry unit, according to Heroes 3. So yes, I selectively choose the reasons that I like, but there can be many "correct" options; I'm just providing the reasons for my own. Let me know if you think otherwise and that other reasons are better.

By the way, in Heroes 3, an unupgraded cavalry unit, in my opinion, is comparable to an (upgraded) black dragon in a 6:1 ratio (the stats are no worse than 4:1 + significant superiority of the dragon in mobility + significant superiority in abilities (immunity to magic)). So, there is also a basis for such an assessment of the knight to the dragon.
And also, in Heroes 3, an upgraded pikeman was comparable to a cavalry unit in a 2.5:1 ratio, i.e., the same proportions. The same ratio between crusaders and champions was also in Heroes 4.

As for the ratios of mass infantry, such as recruits and archers, in my opinion, in all parts, starting with 3, there is a serious underestimation of such warriors. At least, I haven't yet found any historical regular evidence that cavalry units would defeat second-rate infantry by the dozens (i.e., with ratios close to 1:10).

The same applies to other pairs: making different tiers, but equal in strength or growth, for creatures from the same castle, I consider illogical and harmful to the game.

And what, in your opinion, is the harm?

At least, I haven't found any historical evidence to support the idea that cavalry would routinely defeat second-rate infantry in large numbers (i.e., with ratios close to 1:10).

I haven't found anything like that either. The only thing you could argue is desertion by frightened soldiers, but that wouldn't work against pikemen or heavily armored infantry (heavily armored infantry is ridiculous - a two-handed sword + a huge shield). Overall, cavalry seems weak - a spear is practically impossible to use effectively without a charge, and a sword on the belt looks ridiculous compared to the "club" of the heavily armored infantry. However, griffins look scarier than knights - if you imagine their attack on the enemy, no defensive ditches will save them. A griffin will attack from above and scatter everyone, and the rest will run away or grab whatever weapon they can find.
A griffin should be stronger than a knight.

Desertion is reflected in the militia units (here: basic Tier 1 humans, not upgrades). That is, a militia unit costs 150 (a Knight costs 1000), but this price includes summoning reserves. In effect, there are 2 militia units, at 75 each. But some of these guys will desert. For example, there were 40 militia units (formally). When summoning reserves, there will be 80 (in reality). But if they are thoroughly beaten before summoning reserves, then fewer will be summoned. In effect, this is analogous to the other "paired" militia units simply deserting.
That is, a Knight is capable of defeating a dozen or so infantry units, but only in the case of very unskilled militia. Or, in an open field at full speed, it can defeat a dozen or so more advanced Fanatics (Alt faction) by using the superiority of a powerful cavalry charge against light infantry. But this is the limit.

What, in your opinion, is the harm?

1. Harm to the game logic: It disrupts the dependency that the higher the tier, the stronger and fewer the creatures in a single castle. For example, Shamans, according to the game logic (not every Orc can "cast spells"), should be fewer in number than Maulers, meaning they should also be of a higher tier.
2. Harm to the castle's economy: Hiring higher-tier creatures requires more resources and a higher castle level. The cost and level of buildings will have to be adjusted. Otherwise, what's the point of spending more resources on Priests? I'll just take Bears, and then immediately get Trolls from the spellcasters (similarly with the Griffin-Marksman pair).
3. Harm to the choice of strategy between creatures of different tiers. Even if the buildings are at the same level and have a similar cost, why would I take flying Griffins, which are the weakest in their tier? I'd rather wait for Angels; they can fly and cast spells (similarly with the Priest-Bear pair).

P.S. In my opinion, these points are important both in the strategic game on the map and when recruiting in the castle for arena battles. ;)

1. Not every Orc can cast spells, but a Sorceress is not a great spellcaster either, while an Orc is much stronger physically. This is the contradiction between spellcasters and warriors. It is also not possible to make a Sorceress defeat an Orc in melee combat. What do you think about the comparison above, between a Sorceress and a Beast? About the relative position of a Beast, is it comparable to a Knight? An Orc, is it comparable to a Knight?

2. Everything has already been taken into account here, for each specific city layout, where the growth rate is higher, the building costs are higher, as are the overall requirements. See the city layouts in the first posts of the thread (although there are no prices there, but the layout clearly shows which buildings are easier to build and which are more difficult). The only difference now is that Centaurs and Sorceresses have switched places, because at the time the layouts were being drawn, Sorceresses were still on tier 4, and Centaurs were on tier 2.

3. The same as in point 2. Griffins are built much easier than Knights, although they have a higher tier. Let's recall an analogy from Heroes 3: there, level 6 Wyverns are easily placed, but they are weak. At the same time, level 5 Gorgons are much more difficult and expensive to place (they compete with Hydras), but they are also more powerful. You will have to go for Angels in a completely different way, not through the combat branch, but through the magical branch, through the Guilds of Mages and Monks.

Added 13 minutes ago


Added 2 hours 17 minutes ago
Currently, there is an opinion that the growth and bonus system is too complex.
1. When building a basic dwelling of tier 1-6, you immediately get 50% growth (tier 7 - 100%).
2. When building an upgrade, you immediately get another 50% growth.
3. When building fortifications, the growth of basic dwellings increases by 50%, and the growth from upgrades increases by 50% (fort: on tiers 1-2, stronghold: on tiers 1-4, castle: on tiers 1-6).

There is a simpler alternative (but unfortunately, then you will have to redo the balance of the city layouts again):
1. When building a dwelling, you immediately get 100% growth (as in the standard version).
2. When building an upgrade, you immediately get another 200% growth.
3. When building fortifications, the growth of basic dwellings of tiers 1-3 increases by 100% (i.e., x2 for a fort, x3 for a stronghold, x4 for a castle).

This will lead to: a significant shift in emphasis from higher to lower tiers, when all fortifications are fully built. But at the same time, higher tiers retain the advantage in tempo (more powerful one-time growth for building a basic dwelling and for building an upgrade).

For example, for Humans, this is how it might look:

1) Militia 150 x (10-40), under a castle, they have a weekly growth of 40 (costing 6000), an upgrade of +20 (costing +3000)
2) Archers 250 x (8-32), under a castle, growth of 32 (costing 8000), an upgrade of +16 (costing +4000)
3) Swordsmen 400 x (6-24), under a castle, growth of 24 (costing 9600), an upgrade of +12 (costing +4800)

4) Monks 600 x 5 (costing 3000), an upgrade of +10 (costing +6000)
5) Knights 1000 x 6 (costing 6000), an upgrade of +12 (costing +12000)
6) Griffins 1000 x 4 (costing 4000), an upgrade of +8 (costing +8000)
7) Angels 3000 x 2 (costing 6000), an upgrade of +4 (costing +12000)

As you can see, with a castle built, the growth of tiers 1-3 is the most powerful, i.e., in the long run, these tiers are key (especially swordsmen).

With a conditionally standard development, through a stronghold on week 1 and a castle on week 2, the maximum for each tier is obtained (placing Knights and Angels only on week 2):

1) Militia 10 (base) + 30 (second week, stronghold) + 40 (third week, castle) + 20 (upgrade) = 100 (costing 15000)
2) Archers 8 + 24 + 32 + 16 = 80 (costing 20000)
3) Swordsmen 6 + 18 + 24 + 12 = 60 (costing 24000)

4) Monks 5 + 5 + 5 + 10 = 25 (costing 15000)
5) Knights 0 + 6 + 6 + 12 = 24 (costing 24000)
6) Griffins 4 + 4 + 4 + 8 = 20 (costing 20000)
7) Angels 0 + 2 + 2 + 4 = 8 (costing 24000)

Which growth system is better?

Okay, I will write down my comments for all tiers:
Tier 1: Personally, I don't like two things:
a: Strength of 125 seems excessive to me; 100 and 150 would be sufficient, with corresponding stat increases. This is just my opinion, of course.
b: The Fey are undervalued. In my opinion, these mythical creatures should be stronger than the elite Imps, Goblins, and Skeletons. In terms of strength and stat increases, they should be equal to the human advanced recruits, i.e., at the 150 level. Then, we can lower the Goblins to 100, equal to the Imps and Skeletons.

Tier 2: I am definitely in favor of separating the strength of Spearmen and Guards. Also, there is a nuance here: their Tier 1 counterpart, the Assassins, costs more (which doesn't seem logical to me). Therefore, I suggest swapping the Spearmen and Assassins. Archers, although they shoot better than Spearmen, are weaker in melee combat and have lower survivability, meaning they are roughly equal.

Tier 3: Shamans are overpowered.

Regarding Shamans, I'll add this. They can be compared to Furies. They are also female creatures with knives, and the elite version has enchanted weapons. I don't see any superiority of Shamans in combat. Therefore, they are equal (both cost 400).

In combat, they are roughly equal, BUT Shamans, in addition to this, possess magic or enchanted weapons (which, according to the game's logic, should be stronger than ordinary beast weapons). That is, Shamans = Beast + magic. With this in mind, the position of Shamans should definitely be higher than Beasts, with a strength of 500!

On the other hand, an Orc can also be compared to an Armored Warrior. The Orc is physically 1.5-2 times stronger and is also a professional warrior, like the Armored Warrior, but its equipment is significantly worse. Therefore, the Orc is not weaker than the Armored Warrior overall, but not stronger either.

I strongly disagree; this isn't Warcraft, and in this part of Heroes, the Armored Warrior (Paladin) is a professional in weapon handling, better protected (meaning attack and defense stats are significantly higher), not to mention magical abilities. The damage may be slightly lower, but overall, he is better and more elite (less numerous among humans than the Berserkers in the Orcs: their elite are the Chieftains). I definitely think that the Berserkers should be lowered to 300, making them roughly equal to the Berserkers.

P.S. I will write about Tiers 4-7 later.

Megeras also have enchanted weapons, just like Alt Shaman. As for the armored units, they are elite, but still regular infantry; there is no magic, and there shouldn't be. Paladins are only available to Humans on horseback (an upgrade to Knights). If we follow your logic, then zombies should be made stronger than assassins.

1. When building a dwelling, you immediately get 100% growth (as in the standard version). 2. When building an upgrade, you immediately get an additional 200% growth. 3. When building fortifications, the growth of basic dwellings of tiers 1-3 increases by 100% (i.e., x2 for a fort, x3 for a Stronghold, x4 for a Castle).

I will repeat this question because it is fundamentally important. Should we switch to this scheme? It will automatically mean that creatures of tiers 1-3 will become the most promising in the army in terms of growth, provided that you build up to a Castle, while troops of tiers 4-7 will bring more powerful troops, but here and now, including through more powerful upgrades, but will lose out to the lower tiers in the long run.