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

Which growth system is better?

The one you have implemented now, I like it more. When a large number of high-level creatures appear at once, in my opinion, it violates the game logic (strong, expensive troops should be prepared for a long time and earned). I don't know what this would lead to in terms of game mechanics, but the opposite situation would look more logical, when high tiers work for the future, and smaller and more numerous ones can be used for rushing, getting a lot of them almost immediately after the building is built (built barracks, gave everyone crossbows - and crossbowmen went to war, it's easier than preparing cavalry or training, or even raising a griffin from a chick).
-----
I also want to add that from the point of view of balancing tiers, you can really connect and take into account the strategic part - external buildings. In the original (I don't know how it is with you now), there is a mechanism that each external dwelling brings +1 to the growth in the city, which significantly affects high levels more than low levels. All this, in my opinion, can be used. Let high levels have a small growth and a small (maybe even zero) increase from the upgrade, zero reaction to the fort, but the ability to accelerate when actively capturing outposts and, in a couple of weeks, to overtake low-level stacks in strength. Well, all my vision is very subjective, of course.

Well, we are no longer tying upgrades to forts in any case, that is, they are fixed, right? The question is only whether the growth will be the same as from the base, then the upgrade gives too few bonuses, because, unlike the base, it does not bring weekly growth.

Maybe you can adapt some alternative bonuses for this? If you think in terms of my remark about outposts, you can increase the growth of high-level creatures in the city from outposts only if there are building upgrades. If such a subtle thing is feasible.

but the ability to gain momentum by actively capturing outposts and, after a couple of weeks, to surpass lower-level stacks in strength. Well, it's all my very subjective view, of course.

Dragons should not arrive in packs under any circumstances; +2 dragons per week is already too much. That is, this is one of the conditions, and its fulfillment is strictly mandatory. For the same reason, it is not suitable to increase the growth rates for upgrades (as suggested in Skype).

In fact, for Tier 7, we have:
1) building a base = 100% arrival (+1 dragon) and 100% growth (+1 dragon per week)
2) building an upgrade = +100% arrival (+1 dragon) and the ability to change the upgrade
3) there is no dependence on forts

It is unlikely that something better can be devised for Tier 7, but for other tiers, this is already a question.
In principle, without the involvement of forts, it would be logical to use the same approach for all other tiers (according to points 1 and 2). That is, the question boils down to how exactly forts should affect the arrival and growth, and for which tiers.

Added 20 minutes ago
So far, the following things are obvious:
1) Forts must definitely affect the growth rate; otherwise, the decline of lower tiers in the future will be enormous (we are using the standard development model, in which lower tiers are weak and cheap, and higher tiers are expensive and powerful)
2) Forts should strengthen lower tiers to a greater extent than higher tiers (for the same reason)

Roughly speaking, a lower tier is a cheap option, quick and accessible, but it can be upgraded with expensive forts to the level of more serious and expensive tiers.

Added 11 minutes ago
Bonus size. There are two options: +50% growth and +100% growth for building each fort.

Area of influence of each fort. So far, the following options have been listed: single-step - all for tiers 1-3, and three-step - for tiers 1-2, 1-4, and 1-6.

Should forts affect the one-time arrival. There are 2 sub-questions here: should they affect the arrival from basic dwellings, and should they affect the arrival from upgrades?

If forts do not affect the arrival in any way, then building fortifications, as in the standard game, will be beneficial only on the last day of the week (since the bonus is only delayed).
If forts affect the arrival from upgrades, then building upgrades will have not only an immediate but also a delayed effect (in the future, you will receive an additional arrival when building the corresponding fort).
If forts affect the arrival from basic dwellings, then the difference between lower and higher tiers will be blurred in terms of obtaining a powerful bonus here and now. The same can be said about upgrades.

Finally, it is desirable that the final version be as simple as possible.

Actually, for Tier 7, we have:
1) building a base = 100% arrival rate (+1 dragon) and 100% growth rate (+1 dragon per week)
2) building an upgrade = +100% arrival rate (+1 dragon) and the ability to change the upgrade
it would be logical to use the same approach for all other tiers (according to points 1-2). That is, the question boils down to how exactly forts should affect the arrival and growth rates, and for which tiers.

I like this 100%!

Regarding point 3:

1. The size of the bonus. There are two options: +50% growth rate and +100% growth rate for building each fort.

In my opinion, it should be only 50%. 100%, and in the future +300% to levels 1-2, is too much.

2. The area of influence of each fort. The following options have been listed: single-level - all for tiers 1-3, and three-level - for tiers 1-2, 1-4, and 1-6.

For me, it's easy: only the three-level scheme - for tiers 1-2, 1-4, and 1-6, is smoother and more logical!

3. Should forts affect the one-time arrival rate. There are 2 sub-questions here: should they affect the arrival rate from basic dwellings, and should they affect the arrival rate from upgrades.

Regarding fort bonuses, I believe that a 50% one-time arrival rate for tiers 1-2, 1-4, and 1-6 is appropriate, if these dwellings exist. The same applies to upgrades, i.e., to achieve the maximum effect, you need to build everything in order: all bases + upgrades, and only then the fort

I'm currently considering this option:

1. Dwelling: Income = BaseIncome; Increase = BaseIncrease * (1 + FortressBonus)
2. Upgrade: Income = BaseIncrease * (1 + FortressBonus)
3. FortressBonus:
Fortress = +100% for tiers 1-2
Citadel = +100% for tiers 1-4
Castle = +100% for tiers 1-6

Is this a simple enough scheme to understand?

In other words, FortressBonus = [FortressLevel - (Tier-1)/2] or 0. This formula is interesting because, if rounding is removed, it can produce not 3, but all 6 gradations of bonuses for different tiers:
Fortress = +100% for tier 1, +50% for tier 2
Citadel = +100% for tiers 1-3, +50% for tier 4
Castle = +100% for tiers 1-5, +50% for tier 6

But this is a more complex option. Is it worthwhile?

I'm currently considering this option:
1. Dwelling: Income = BaseIncome; Growth = BaseGrowth * (1 + FortressBonus)
2. Upgrade: Income = BaseIncome * (1 + FortressBonus)
3. FortressBonus:
Fort = +100% for tiers 1-2
Citadel = +100% for tiers 1-4
Castle = +100% for tiers 1-6
Is this a simple enough scheme to understand?

It's simple enough, but personally, I think it should be 50%! A 100% increase is too much. (300% for tiers 1-2, 200% for tiers 3-4, 100% for tiers 5-6, compared to 100% for tiers 1-7 in the standard version.)

...a complex option. Is it worth it?

It's not worth it! It's better to make the simpler option more complex.
It should be designed so that almost every turn, there's a choice to be made: 1. build a new base, 2. upgrade previous tiers, or 3. upgrade the fortress!!!
P.S. I'm currently writing an example of the scheme that I like, and it will provide a more detailed "agony of choice." Once I'm done, it will be clearly visible.

Using this scheme, if we apply the following increases:

Militia = 150 x (8-32), was (10-25)
Archers = 250 x (6-24), was (8-20)
Swordsmen = 400 x (5-15), was (6-12)
Monks = 600 x (4-12), was (5-10)
Knights = 1000 x (4-8), was (6-9)
Griffins = 1000 x (3-6), was (4-6)
Angels = 3000 x 2.

The result is a fairly high diversity of effective first-week openings (in terms of maximum strength at the beginning of the second week). Even higher than in the old version.

Angels + Archers
Knights + Castle, Griffins, or Archers
Swordsmen, Griffins, Castle + 1 upgrade
Archers, Swordsmen, Griffins + 2 upgrades or Castle
Militia, Swordsmen, Griffins + 2 upgrades or Castle
Militia, Archers, Griffins + 2 upgrades
Militia, Archers, Swordsmen, Griffins + 1 upgrade
Swordsmen, Monks, Griffins + Militia or Archers or Swordsmen upgrade
Archers, Monks, Griffins + Militia or Archers upgrade
Archers, Swordsmen, Monks, Stronghold + Militia or Archers or Swordsmen upgrade
Militia, Archers, Swordsmen, Stronghold + 2 upgrades

but personally, I think it should be 50%! A 100% increase is too much. (300% tiers 1-2, 200% tiers 3-4, 100% tiers 5-6 vs. 100% tiers 1-7 in the standard version.)

If we reduce the bonuses from 100% to 50%, firstly, it will complicate the calculations (fractions will appear instead of simple multiples), and secondly, some forts may turn out to be too weak, especially the first-level ones (the fort itself).

In the standard version, the fort didn't play any role. Therefore, it makes sense to compare the Stronghold and the Castle separately.
The Stronghold in the standard version gives a +50% bonus increase for tiers 1-6, here +100% for tiers 1-4, approximately equivalent.
The Castle in the standard version gives an additional +50% bonus increase for tiers 1-6 and +100% for tier 7 (due to rounding), here +100% for tiers 1-6, slightly more powerful.

In the standard version, fractions didn't cause any issues, and everything was calculated correctly. Fortresses won't be weaker if, in addition to the 50% increase, they also provide a one-time bonus of +50% on tiers 1-2, 1-4, and 1-6, if that dwelling exists. As for upgrades, they should be designed to compete with fortresses and basic dwellings in terms of priority. A +100% one-time increase is great, but in my opinion, it should also include a +50% increase in creature production (on tiers 1-6).

As I explained above, forts provide a bonus, including an increase in unit production, but only for upgraded units. That is, upgrading archers under a fort will give not +100% production, but +200% (the production from the upgrade is always equal to the current increase). Let's compare the contribution of the Castle when built in the first week, in terms of the total number of troops at the beginning of the second week: Archers, Swordsmen, Griffins + Castle built on day 7. Archers = 250 x (6 first week + 18 second week without a Castle) = 6000 Swordsmen = 400 x (5 first week + 10 second week without a Castle) = 6000 Griffins = 1000 x (3 first week + 3 second week without a Castle) = 6000 The Castle's contribution = +6 archers + 5 swordsmen + 3 griffins = 1500 + 2000 + 3000 = 6500, comparable to griffins. Knights + Castle built on day 7. Swordsmen = 400 x (5 first week + 10 second week without a Castle + 10 upgrade without a Castle) = 10000 Knights = 1000 x (4 first week + 4 second week without a Castle) = 8000 The Castle's contribution = +10 swordsmen + 4 knights = 4000 + 4000 = 8000, comparable to knights

Well, it seems okay, and once the final version is ready, we'll need to test it in practice. Are there any remaining controversial issues?

Here is another castle layout scheme (all upgrades are collapsed into the same square):

It is significantly simpler than the current one, but the question is whether it is better.

Why simplify it? The castle scheme is clearly shown in the game!
(unlike those hidden formulas, where it's better if they are simpler)
The previous castle scheme was perfectly fine.
I understand that you decided to deviate from the standard castle scheme of 0-3-6-9-12-15, right?

In general, this scheme is less rigid than the previous one. At the same time, it is balanced. As a result, it has even more effective development options. And it looks simpler on the city screen.
What conclusion did I draw? If the growth and forts are normally balanced, then it is easy to create a balanced scheme based on them, even with a minimal number of rigid connections.

Compare the variety of effective first-week openings (the starting buildings are marked in red on the diagram):
Angels + Griffins + militia upgrade
Angels + Swordsmen + Stronghold + 1 upgrade or Griffins or Archers
Angels + Archers + Stronghold + 1 upgrade or Griffins
Angels + Archers + Swordsmen + 1 upgrade
Knights + Castle + Archers or 1 upgrade
Knights + Griffins + Archers
Griffins + Swordsmen + Archers + Castle + 1 upgrade
Griffins + Monks + Castle + Swordsmen or Archers
Griffins + Swordsmen + Castle + 2 upgrades
Griffins + Archers + Castle + 2 upgrades
Griffins + Swordsmen + Archers + 2 upgrades
Monks + Swordsmen + Castle + Archers or monk upgrade
Swordsmen + Archers + Castle + 2 upgrades

Choose the scheme with "more effective development options."
The main thing is that the scheme should be more diverse in terms of development than the standard one, without unnecessary arrows and dependencies.
In the first scheme, I don't like that it's too detailed and confusing. In the second scheme, it's too simple; there's no level-based progression for the Town Hall - Capitol.
In both schemes, I don't like the influence (arrows) of the Fortress - Citadel - Castle on the construction of creatures; in the standard version, it was better without the dependency.

Personally, I like the standard construction scheme. If you see any shortcomings for the variability of opening strategies, improve it, but the arrows from Fortress-Citadel-Castle to creature dwellings are not a good idea. We need a choice: 1. either we build the base (upgrade) first and then improve it with Fortresses. 2. or Fortresses first. 3. or base-Fortress-upgrade.
Why make a rigid connection that you build the Fortress first, and then the creatures? This reduces the variability of the building order.

In the second scheme, there are more effective openings, but not by much (37 versus 32).
The main difference is in flexibility and tempo:
1) no need to build a smithy for swordsmen and Stronghold (smithy is already built)
2) no need to build a level 2 Mages' Guild for monk upgrades
3) no need to build a level 3 Mages' Guild and monk upgrade for angels
4) no need to build the swordsman upgrade for Knight
5) no need to build stables for Castle

Added after 1 hour 14 minutes
Let's look at which connections can or cannot be removed.

Conscripts 150 x (8-32)
Archers 250 x (6-24)
FORT+

Swordsmen 400 x (5-15)
Monks 600 x (4-12)
STRONGHOLD+

Knight 1000 x (4-8)
Griffins 1000 x (3-6)
CASTLE+

Angels 3000 x 2

1) Choice between conscripts and archers. Archers are more powerful; on the other hand, the requirement for them can only be reached via conscripts. Alternatively, set conscripts as built by default, which would allow playing through upgrades starting from day one.

2) Choice between archers and swordsmen. Swordsmen without a fort are more powerful than archers, so it makes sense to require a fort for them. It is also logical to require a smithy for swordsmen, but this is a serious loss in tempo; in that case, the smithy should be set as built by default.

3) Choice between monks and archers. Monks are significantly more powerful, so it is necessary to attach a requirement—the Mages' Guild (slowing down the tempo). A fort as a requirement would not work here, since monks are also more powerful than swordsmen.

4) Choice between griffins and others. Griffins without a Stronghold are much more powerful than archers and swordsmen, so it makes sense to require a Stronghold for them.

5) Choice between Knight and griffins. Knight are much more powerful, so it makes sense to require stables for them (slowing down the tempo). On the other hand, a Stronghold must also be required, since without a Stronghold, Knight are also much more powerful than monks (who also require one building).

6) Choice between angels and others. Angels are very strong, so there must be a requirement—at minimum, a Mages' Guild (or monks, who also go through it). Additionally, angels should not be placed before day 7, as the angel upgrade is also too strong for the first week.

7) Castle, as a top-tier building, should compete with angels, so it is also built no earlier than day 7. Furthermore, Castle is especially strong when Knight are present, particularly if griffins or Knight upgrades are additionally available. Therefore, these combinations (with griffins or with upgrades) are excluded in the first week: Stronghold and stables are placed no earlier than day 4, Knight are placed no earlier than day 6, and on day 7 Castle must be placed; there is not enough tempo for griffins or Knight upgrades.

So, which connections turned out to be optional:
1) from fort to archers
2) from smithy to swordsmen (moreover, if present, the smithy should be made built by default, as it slows down the tempo too much, making the construction of swordsmen disadvantageous)
3) from swordsmen to Knight
4) from Castle to grail and racial (training)

Furthermore, this scheme is provided for the second player who, as we remember, has extra building tempo (compensation for moving after the first). The first player, in this case, should have one fewer starting building. The most suitable candidate here is the absence of starting conscripts. Although conscripts are weaker than archers, the first player cannot place archers on day one. On the other hand, the following connection is questionable:

5) from conscripts to fort

Added after 35 minutes
Let's consider the situation on day one.

Available for construction for the second player:
Town Hall, Market
Smithy (if the connection to swordsmen is removed; otherwise, smithy is already built)
Level 1 Mages' Guild, Fort
Conscript upgrade
Archers (if the connection from fort is removed)

For the first player, the choice is much smaller:
Town Hall, Market
Smithy (if the connection to swordsmen is removed)
Conscript upgrade

Added after 47 minutes
Here is the scheme after all optimizations:


Added after 1 hour 24 minutes
Growth and prices:
1) conscripts = (8-32) x 150
2) archers = (6-24) x 250
3) swordsmen = (5-15) x 400
4) monks = (4-12) x 600
5) Knight = (4-8) x 1000
6) griffins = (3-6) x 1000
7) angels = 2 x 3000

Starting buildings are highlighted in red; the first player starts without conscripts.
Notation:
F fort
D Stronghold
C Castle
1-7 tier numbers
+ upgrade

Effective openings of the first week (in terms of maximum total army strength by the start of the second week, with a sum > 30500):

ANGELS + GRIFFINS
D13467 = 36000 (32 conscripts + 15 swordsmen + 12 monks + 6 griffins + 4 angels)
D12467 = 36000 (32 conscripts + 24 archers + 12 monks + 6 griffins + 4 angels)
D1+457 = 33600 (56 conscripts + 12 monks + 6 griffins + 4 angels)

ANGELS + KNIGHT
D1457 = 32000 (32 conscripts + 12 monks + 8 Knight + 4 angels)

ANGELS + SWORDSMEN
D12347 = 36000 (32 conscripts + 24 archers + 15 swordsmen + 12 monks + 4 angels)
D134+7 = 34800 (32 conscripts + 15 swordsmen + 20 monks + 4 angels)
D13+47 = 34000 (32 conscripts + 25 swordsmen + 12 monks + 4 angels)
D1+347 = 33600 (56 conscripts + 15 swordsmen + 12 monks + 4 angels)

ANGELS + ARCHERS
D124+7 = 34800 (32 conscripts + 24 archers + 20 monks + 4 angels)
D12+47 = 34500 (32 conscripts + 42 archers + 20 monks + 4 angels)
D1+247 = 33600 (56 conscripts + 24 archers + 12 monks + 4 angels)

ANGELS + FORT
F1234+7 = 31300 (24 conscripts + 18 archers + 10 swordsmen + 12 monks + 4 angels)
F123+47 = 30900 (24 conscripts + 18 archers + 15 swordsmen + 8 monks + 4 angels)
F12+347 = 31900 (24 conscripts + 30 archers + 10 swordsmen + 8 monks + 4 angels)
F1+2347 = 31300 (40 conscripts + 18 archers + 10 swordsmen + 8 monks + 4 angels)

PALADINS
C136+ = 34000 (40 conscripts + 20 swordsmen + 20 Knight)
C126+ = 33500 (40 conscripts + 30 archers + 20 Knight)
C1+6+ = 30800 (72 conscripts + 20 Knight)

KNIGHT + GRIFFINS
C1356 = 35000 (40 conscripts + 20 swordsmen + 12 Knight + 9 griffins)
C1256 = 34500 (40 conscripts + 30 archers + 12 Knight + 9 griffins)
C1+56 = 31800 (72 conscripts + 12 Knight + 9 griffins)
D12356 = 30800 (32 conscripts + 24 archers + 15 swordsmen + 8 Knight + 6 griffins)

KNIGHT + SWORDSMEN
C1235 = 33500 (40 conscripts + 30 archers + 20 swordsmen + 12 Knight)
С13+5 = 32000 (40 conscripts + 35 swordsmen + 12 Knight)
C1+35 = 30800 (72 conscripts + 20 swordsmen + 12 Knight)

KNIGHT + ARCHERS
C12+5 = 31500 (40 conscripts + 54 archers + 12 Knight)

GRIFFINS + MONKS
C1346 = 32600 (40 conscripts + 20 swordsmen + 16 monks + 9 griffins)
C1246 = 32100 (40 conscripts + 30 archers + 16 monks + 9 griffins)

GRIFFINS + SWORDSMEN
С1236+ = 36500 (40 conscripts + 30 archers + 20 swordsmen + 15 griffins)
C123+6 = 36500 (40 conscripts + 30 archers + 35 swordsmen + 9 griffins)
C12+36 = 36500 (40 conscripts + 54 archers + 20 swordsmen + 9 griffins)
C1+236 = 35300 (72 conscripts + 30 archers + 20 swordsmen + 9 griffins)

GRIFFINS WITHOUT ARCHERS
С13+5+ = 35000 (40 conscripts + 35 swordsmen + 15 griffins)
C1+35+ = 33800 (72 conscripts + 20 swordsmen + 15 griffins)
C1+3+5 = 33800 (72 conscripts + 35 swordsmen + 9 griffins)

GRIFFINS WITHOUT SWORDSMEN
C12+5+ = 34500 (40 conscripts + 54 archers + 15 griffins)
C1+25+ = 33300 (72 conscripts + 30 archers + 15 griffins)
C1+2+5 = 33300 (72 conscripts + 54 archers + 9 griffins)

GRIFFINS WITHOUT CASTLE
D12+3+5 = 31300 (32 conscripts + 42 archers + 25 swordsmen + 6 griffins)
D1+2+35 = 30900 (56 conscripts + 42 archers + 15 swordsmen + 6 griffins)

MONKS
C1234 = 31100 (40 conscripts + 30 archers + 20 swordsmen + 16 monks)
C134+ = 30800 (40 conscripts + 20 swordsmen + 28 monks)

SWORDSMEN
C12+3+ = 33500 (40 conscripts + 54 archers + 35 swordsmen)
C1+23+ = 32300 (72 conscripts + 30 archers + 35 swordsmen)
C1+2+3 = 32300 (72 conscripts + 54 archers + 25 swordsmen)

If we take your scheme with only 6 levels: 0-3-6-9, then the following order of tiers should be used:
0 - Tier 1 without arrows.
3 - Tier 2 without arrows, Tier 3 with 1 arrow.
6 - Tier 4 without arrows, Tier 5 with 1 arrow.
9 - Tier 6 without arrows, Tier 7 with 1 arrow.
In this case, I would NOT add arrows from the fort, Stronghold, or castle!
Although, 1 arrow looks better than 2, as it was before.
2 arrows from the fort, Stronghold, or castle is very bad for variety.
In your example, I would definitely remove the arrow from the Stronghold to the Knights or Griffons, and from the Guild to the Monks.

That's why I like the standard 6-level scheme 0-3-6-9-12-15 more, as it provides more room for maneuvering when building structures. And there is no detrimental dependence on forts that harms variety.
Although, I admit: if only 1 arrow goes from the fort to a Tier 3 creature, or, as with the Stronghold, 1 arrow to a Tier 5 creature, then this is acceptable.

P.S. Regarding the bonus for the second player, I would not remove a building from the first player, but rather give the second player 2 free buildings: either a Town Hall, or a Tavern, or a Tier 1 building upon arrival. (Choose what will be more balanced)