Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition.Auto-translated
It is not possible to remove the connection from the Citadel to the Knights, as this would lead to excessively powerful builds based on Knights and Angels. Neither faction needs the Citadel; something more powerful can be built instead. Griffons are safer in this regard. However, if you remove the connection from the Citadel, it will lead to a situation where, upon reaching level 6, Griffons without the Citadel will be the obvious choice, as they will significantly outperform other options in terms of power.
That's why I prefer the standard 6-tier scheme of 0-3-6-9-12-15; it offers more room for maneuvering when building structures and doesn't compromise the variability dependent on Fortresses.
In the standard scheme, there could formally be more options, but they are not balanced, meaning there are far fewer effective options. It could have been, because the tiers from 0 to 15 simply kill even formal variability (too slow and linear development).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
You can't remove the arrow from the castle to the Knights, as this will lead to overly powerful builds based on Knights and Angels. Neither of them needs the castle; you can build something more powerful instead. Griffons are safer in this regard. But if you remove arrows from the castle here, it will lead to a situation where, when the city reaches level 6, Griffons will be built without a castle.
Griffons could have an arrow instead of the castle, leading to any free building that doesn't have an arrow, either level 0 or 3. Two arrows from the fortress-castle-stronghold (and in principle for any other building) are also bad because they make building it too much of a priority over other buildings (two arrows mean minus two options for building!).
You also can't have Griffons without a Stronghold, just like you can't have Knights. For the same reason, having Griffon-Angels without a Stronghold results in an overly powerful early game.
Restrictions aren't always a bad thing. If they eliminate too powerful options, the number of effective strategies actually increases. For example, you have 3 options costing 40,000 and 10 options costing 30,000. If you don't restrict the stronger options, you'll only have 3 effective strategies. But if you exclude them, you'll have 10 effective strategies.
In the standard setup, starting with a town at level 3 (Town Hall, Tavern, Fort), there's essentially only one effective strategy for Humans in terms of building a strong army: building tiers 1-5 of creatures + a basic Forge + a Stronghold. This is despite the fact that there are formally many options.
I don't understand why tying creatures to fortifications is a bad thing. Fortifications are one of the core branches of troop production. Their role is greater than in the original game because they support not only troop increases but also upgrades. In fact, with maximum development, a Castle or Stronghold will almost always be built for creatures because they are designed for that purpose. However, if the development is less aggressive (e.g., with a focus on economy or the Mage Guild), the role of fortifications in the first week decreases, and they may not need to be built.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
I don't understand what's wrong with tying creatures to fortifications. Fortifications are one of the core branches of troop production. Their role is greater than in the original, because they support not only troop increases but also upgrades. In fact, with maximum development, creatures will almost always be assigned to a Castle or Stronghold, because they are designed for this. But if the development is less aggressive (for example, with an emphasis on the economy or the guild of mages), then the role of fortifications in the first week decreases, and they may not be needed.
In the original, I struggled with the choice of what to build: economy, creatures, upgrades, or a Fort - Stronghold - Castle. If you don't build them in the first week, you can build them in the second or third. The variability of construction lies in what to build first. :) And with your version, I want to build dwellings for high-level creatures and their upgrades (Cavalry or Griffins), but the game "tells" me: no, first strengthen the low-level creatures :mad:. Where is the variability? What should I focus on first, high-tier or low-tier? If I want Tier 5 or 6, I will build their base + upgrades for them, without wasting time on a Stronghold and Castle. At the same time, I wouldn't mind 1 upgrade to them, so there is a balance.
P.S. Nargott, I've described what I want (more variability in construction, the ability to focus on any Tier as the main one) and what I don't want (a rigid forced order of construction, such as a base for low tiers - forts - high tier, and that's the only way to do it). And how to do this in practice, I think you know better! :rolleyes:
The thing is, if you focus on maximizing troop production, in the original game, you have only one way to do it (no competition), but here, you have 45 different options! Therefore, which scheme is the most versatile?
Regarding high-level creatures, in the original game, you can't deploy them at all during the first week (Knights, Angels). Here, you can deploy them, but there's an additional requirement. This requirement is what ensures the balance of this development path, so it doesn't overshadow all the others.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
The thing is, if you focus on maximizing troop production, in the original game, you have only one way to do it (no competition), but here, there are 45! Therefore, which scheme is the most versatile?
Regarding high-level creatures, in the original game, you can't deploy them at all in the first week (Knights, Angels). Here, you can deploy them, but there's an additional requirement. This requirement ensures the balance of this development path so that it doesn't overshadow all the others.
I agree, you know best here. My suggestions and concerns have been voiced; if they are taken into account, that would be great.
Yes, the penalty for ranged attacks is equal to half damage. That is, the combination of these two abilities and melee combat without a penalty gives 50% damage at all ranged attack distances, with 100% damage in melee combat. In other words, at long range, Adepts are as strong as full-fledged ranged units, and at close range, it is better for them to fight in melee. InoyOleh
P.S. Nargott, I've described what I want (more variety in buildings, perhaps focusing on any tier as the main one) and what I don't want (a rigid forced order of construction, such as, for example, a base with low-tier buildings - forts - high-tier buildings, and only in that order, so that you can only build ranged units). As for how to do this in practice, I think you know better!
Our desires regarding what we want are the same. I have minimized the forced order, but it is not always possible to completely remove the dependencies (because sometimes this will lead to a reduction in effective variety). As a rule, the logic is that higher tiers always require some intermediate tiers.
Added 56 minutes later There is a very interesting and important idea: To link hero classes and unit upgrade types. For example, Knights correspond to basic humans, Paladins to the first upgrade, and Inquisitors to the alternate upgrade. As soon as a hero enters the garrison of his native city (inside and in the first slot), all his native troops are automatically recolored in his color. What does this allow? It allows you to freely play with all 3 upgrades, starting from the first week, without being tied only to the base. At the same time, the army of each hero can be easily stylized according to his class. And if you need to mix different upgrades in one army, then the easiest way to do this is to build an upgraded building and change the upgrade manually.
The only problem is mini-artifacts. If mini-artifacts were attached to creatures that will be automatically recolored in this way, then the mini-artifacts will be lost (technically, this cannot be bypassed).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
the variety will be lost – it will no longer be possible to combine units of different classes; for example, there might be some synergy between the upgraded unit "A" and the upgraded unit "B" – this synergy will no longer be possible to utilize.
I am definitely against this idea.
Unless it is done like this: if a unit is under the command of a hero of the corresponding class, it receives some kind of buff.
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
Actually, the variety doesn't disappear (I've updated the latest post with the mechanics).
In general, it's best to do it this way.
If a hero is in the garrison of their home city (on the first line, where troops are recruited), then the basic-colored troops are automatically recolored to the hero's color when recruited (e.g., gray for a paladin, alt for an inquisitor). This rule only applies when the hero is in the recruitment line (garrison) and only when basic troops are being recruited (if upgraded troops are being recruited, then recoloring is not necessary, as the player has consciously made a choice). Since the recoloring only applies to newly recruited troops, the problem of losing minor artifacts is no longer relevant.
This rule is primarily necessary to allow for the quick recruitment of reinforcements of the appropriate color (e.g., the paladin has upgraded starting troops, while the inquisitor has alt-colored troops).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
There's a very interesting and important idea: To link hero classes and unit upgrade types. For example, Knights correspond to basic humans, Paladins to the first upgrade, and Inquisitors to the alternate upgrade. As soon as a hero enters the garrison of their home city (inside and on the first line), all of their native troops automatically change color to match the hero's color.
No forced upgrades are needed. It's enough to implement this through starting armies. This way, each hero will have their own, non-repeating unit upgrades. Recolorizing units is an unnecessary workaround; at most, give a small buff (e.g., +1 morale if the entire army is of the hero's native upgrade).
Does this mean that repainting isn't needed at all? So, you have an Inquisitor hero with starting units of Fanatics and Archers (red). Does this mean that until you add upgrades to the Militia and Archers, you won't be able to recruit reinforcements for these units?
Simply giving buffs without repainting is a bad idea because basic units are always available, meaning that a Knight will easily receive a bonus, while to get a bonus for the other 2 classes, you need to build ALL the upgrades for their units. But with repainting, buffs aren't even needed, because the main color of the units will already correspond to the class.
If nothing is done with the repainting, the situation will be approximately as follows: We've added 5 types of units, 3 of them with upgrades, 1 for each color (equally likely). As a result, we get 60% basic units and 40% upgraded/alternative units mixed together. Since this isn't the original game with a weak base, there is no need to build upgrades for each type, which means that with the high pace of the game, upgrades won't be built everywhere. That is, most of the units will be basic, which may negatively affect the variety, despite the fact that there are more relevant unit types than in the original (3 to 2).
Ideally, I would like to see the ability to have a cohesive army of any color (depending on the hero), while manual mixing of different colors in the army is allowed, provided that upgrades are added. That is, upgrades allow you to change the color, and heroes have the ability to recruit their own color. However, in this case, mixing is still possible even without upgrades.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Nargott, I was just thinking: since all your upgrades are equal, and it's tedious to create a separate building for each upgrade, maybe you could create one basic building for all 3 upgrades? Then there would be no problems; everyone could immediately recruit or retrain the units they need (and find interesting).
It won't be possible to implement it properly this way. We could automatically upgrade the town when a building is placed, but in that case, we'll get a +2 level increase for the town and lose the ability to upgrade it further afterward (i.e., to improve the creatures).
Actually, since we're already considering this, when capturing a town (and for starting towns), we could add an option in the dialogue to choose a color and automatically recolor the hired basic creatures in that color. But this would require additional mouse clicks. Alternatively, we could choose the basic color when placing a fort (instead of capturing).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
It won't work properly. You can set the upgrade automatically when a building is placed, but in that case, we'll get +2 to the city level and lose the ability to upgrade it further (i.e., improve creatures).
Is it possible to make it so that the building or the automatic upgrade doesn't give +1 to the castle level? In principle, +2 to the level isn't such a big problem; it can be balanced. And then, why would we need to upgrade creatures? Let's get all three upgrades and the desired growth rate for balance right away.
Nargott
