Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition.

Yes.

Here's a version for discussion, from one of the mod's co-authors: A very fast start is intended, allowing players to capture secondary towns early (on days 3-4). On day 1, the following is already built: Town Hall (1000 gold per day) Mage Guild, levels 1-2 Tavern Market (+Warehouse?) Forge Fort 1-3 tiers racial buildings (like stables, etc.) On day 1, you can build (using humans as an example): Monks, tier upgrades 1-3, Stronghold or Guild level 3 On day 2: Knights or Griffins, Monk upgrade, Castle or Guild level 4 On day 3: Angels, Knight or Griffin upgrades, or Guild level 5 On day 4: Angel upgrade All other unnecessary buildings are excluded (i.e., no Magistrates or Capitols).

Added 2 hours 0 minutes ago
Here's another alternative version, from a different co-author: Tie different tiers to fortification levels, i.e., each fortification level represents a certain stage of development. Tiers 1-2 require nothing, tiers 3-4 require a Fort, tiers 5-6 require a Stronghold, tier 7 requires a Castle. The idea is as follows: to reach the next level of technology, you need to invest in development, i.e., slow down the pace a bit (Forts don't provide an immediate effect). If the player stays on lower-level technologies, they can increase their power and invest in attack during this time.

Both options are interesting:
- the first one is good because of its pace: it has the advantage of faster development and the disadvantage of early interaction between players;
- the second one is also good, and it doesn't allow you to immediately play with a nearly full army, because that's also a unique aspect of the game (playing with low-tier units in the early stages), and having angels on day 4 is a bit too much, like going "from rags to riches" too quickly.
I was also planning to create something similar to the second option.

Here’s how the scheme will look on the city screen: And here’s how it will work, from the perspective of making decisions on specific construction days: I think this is the most optimal option; it’s hard to come up with something more interesting. Added 4 hours 52 minutes ago For now, there are a few questions about the scheme: 1) Angels. Should we speed up construction? We can place them on the 7th tier (available on day 5), or leave them on the 9th tier (available only on day 7). 2) Militia. Link them to archers, the Fort, or nothing? This is only relevant for secondary Castles. 3) Swordsmen. Blacksmith-swordsmen or Fort-swordsmen (the Blacksmith slows down development, while the Fort is the main line). 4) Knights. Swordsmen-stables (and thus, indirectly, swordsmen-knights) or Stronghold-stables. Or stables in the air (not linked to anything). If the stables are in the air, then elite heavy cavalry will be available in any village (even without a Fort). The same applies if the stables are linked to swordsmen, and those are not linked to the Fort, but to the Blacksmith. If, however, swordsmen are linked to both the Fort and the Blacksmith, they will be slowed down too much. Added 23 minutes ago There is also this option: include the Blacksmith in the Fort’s line, but make the Fort itself the default (built by default):

Why do Knights have such low damage compared to Swordsmen? Or is this no longer relevant? Swordsmen can be recruited straight from the forge, as they are currently very strong units, and a mounted warrior can indeed be equipped in any village that has horses. I think, by analogy, we can later make Minotaurs and Golems recruitable in a similar way, as these creatures are quite strong.

If a Knight were just a mounted warrior, they would be on par with an elite swordsman, if not lower. Knights are elite heavy cavalry. The difference between a Knight and a regular mounted unit is the same as the difference between an elite swordsman and a simple recruit. Moreover, a Knight's steed is from an elite war breed and weighs around a ton, while an ordinary racing horse weighs half as much. The base damage is low because the base damage is inflicted upon impact. However, when charging, they gain +100% damage for each cell traveled, meaning that if they charge across all 6 cells, they receive 7x the damage. A Knight's charge is not something to be mocked by elven riders; it is one of the most powerful abilities in the game. The main combat power is achieved through the charge, and it's not just an extra bonus to damage.

Here's a version for discussion, from one of the mod's co-authors:
The fastest possible start, implying the ability to capture secondary towns early (on days 3-4).

Another alternative version, from another co-author:
Tie different tiers to fortification levels, i.e., each fortification level represents a certain stage of development.
Tiers 1-2 require nothing, tiers 3-4 require a Fort, tiers 5-6 require a Stronghold, tier 7 requires a Castle.

Option 1: If we compare Heroes 5 to chess, then Heroes 3 is, roughly speaking, a faster version of chess (the game is 2-4 times faster), and I'm all for it if your mod is 2-4 times more dynamic than the original. But I'm against it if it's like a blitz game (5-10 times faster). Not everyone likes the kind of fast-paced gameplay found in Starcraft.
The idea of an initial town setup and blitz gameplay is better left for special maps. For wider accessibility (mass appeal) of the mod, a Heroes 3-style dynamic (2-4 times faster gameplay) would be better.

Option 2: As I wrote before, if it provides more variety in terms of what can be done, allowing players to equally focus on any of the Tiers, thereby creating a dilemma about where to develop and what to focus on (development or tempo), then I'm definitely in favor.

In Heroes 3, you could capture a neutral town and, in principle, develop it quite well within the first week. "Quite well" means reaching the higher tiers (except for the highest one). I think that at least the same dynamics should be preserved here.
But what happens when a secondary town is captured? Let's take day three as a reference point; this means being 2 days behind the first town. And if the secondary town is not developed at all, say, at level 1? The delay will be another +2 days (a total of 4 days), and there's no point in thinking about reaching high tiers in the first week. From this, it follows that neutral towns should be developed at least as well as the starting town. And from this, it follows that certain buildings (tavern, tier 1) will always be built in all towns, i.e., their cost is irrelevant.

Comparative rates of the fastest possible development of various creatures in Heroes 3 (if there is no tier 2 from the start):

Day 0 (start): Tier 1 of all races
Day 1: Tier 2 of all races, Tier 3 of all races (except griffins)
Day 2: Tier 4 (swordsmen, pegasi, vampires, demons, basilisks, ogres), Tier 5 (dendroids, rocs), Tier 6 (wyverns)
Day 3: Tier 3 (griffins), Tier 4 (medusas), Tier 5 (liches, infernos, gorgons), Tier 6 (cyclops), Tier 7 (monsters)
Day 4: Tier 4 (mages), Tier 5 (monks, minotaurs), Tier 6 (cavalry, unicorns, manticores, ifrits)
Day 5: Tier 5 (djinns), Tier 6 (nagas, knights of the grave), Tier 7 (angels, hydras)
Day 6: Tier 7 (bone dragons, devils)
Day 7: Tier 7 (green dragons, titans)
Day 8: Tier 7 (black dragons)

Heroes 3, I gave an example: how the game can be more dynamic on the strategic map than in Heroes 5. But if you take a small map in Heroes 3 (36*36), the game there happens too quickly (blitz chess). Naturally, I think the balance of the game speed should be oriented towards more common and larger maps (Heroes 5). As for neutral castles, is it possible to make it so that one building is constructed in them each turn, and also troops are automatically recruited when they are taken? If not, the idea of having a few buildings built in them (the further from the main castles, the more buildings are built) doesn't seem so bad to me. But I am strongly against the main castle starting with 4-10 buildings (unless it's for special maps). Tier 7 on day 4 is really detrimental to diversity and too quickly accelerates the pace and time of the game ("from rags to riches").

Well, I've already outlined the optimal progression for myself:
Week 1 - Opening (in principle, you can develop to any technology, for example, to Tier 7)
Week 2 - Middlegame (maximum progress, you can build all the important structures for the chosen strategy and key upgrades)
Week 3 - Endgame (development is coming to an end, secondary buildings are completed based on remaining resources)

That is, if the game hasn't ended with a rush in the first week, then weeks 2-3 are a reasonable timeframe. After that, it's for those who enjoy long games and want to clear the entire map.
The reason for this is that 3 weeks is the minimum (fastest) time in which you can play through all 3 stages with clear distinctions. Since at the beginning of each week, creature growth is updated (many new creatures become available for recruitment), this is a natural and convenient boundary between the stages.

Regarding neutral castles, is it possible to make it so that one building is constructed in them each turn, and troops are automatically recruited when they appear? If not, the idea of building a couple of structures in them (the further away from the main castles, the more buildings are constructed) isn't that bad.

I've thought about this, but it would look strange for strategies where a player intentionally delays capturing a city to get extra buildings for free, which would accumulate in the city every day.

Tier 7 on day 4 is really detrimental to diversity and speeds up the game's pace too quickly ("from rags to riches").

Currently, the plan is to have Tier 7 available on days 5-7 (depending on the Faction). The placement of Tier 7 on day 8 for one or more Factions is still under consideration. This would mean that developing to Tier 7 for these Factions would be impossible in the first week (like in Heroes 3 before the Armageddon's Blade expansion, if there is no Tier 2 starting dwelling).

I was thinking about this, but it would look strange if strategies involved a player intentionally delaying the capture of a town to get extra buildings for free, which would accumulate in the town every day.

There are such strategies against AI castles, but as an option, you could do the following:
Option 1 - slower construction (1 building in 2-3 days)
Option 2 - automatic construction of all buildings at a level (in one row) on the first day of the week, with a bonus for them (in the first week - level 1, in the second week - all buildings at level 3, in the third week - level 5...)
You won't have to wait long, as the games are relatively fast, and at the same time, the number of troops in neutral castles will increase.

P.S. When are you planning to release a new patch (release) for WGE duels?

I need to first figure out all the city layouts, as they affect the balance of growth rates, which in turn affects the number of troops in duels. So, as soon as I finish with the layouts, I will directly start working on the units, and after that, the duels will be released. Approximately in April, if there are no delays.

Added 5 minutes later
For now, I've come up with this city layout for the Haven faction:


And the same in a more detailed view (by days):


Angels are now produced on day 5 instead of day 7.
The Shipyard is now connected to the Castle instead of being isolated.
Archers are now produced from Militia (a symbolic connection).

Angels now appear on day 5 instead of day 7.
The Shipyard is now built adjacent to the Castle instead of floating in the air.
Archers are now produced from Militia (symbolic connection).

Should Tier 6 (Griffons) be built on day 4?
Should Tier 5 (Knights) and Tier 7 (Angels) be built on day 5?
What is the reason for this imbalance in the tiers and the day they are built?

In my opinion, it would be better to have this:
Day 4 - Tier 5 (Knights or Griffons)
Day 5 - Tier 6 (Griffons or Knights)
Day 6 - Tier 7 (Angels, for the Inferno Castle - Devil). For other Tier 7 units, the base should be built on day 7. There is no need to build a building for Tier 7 on day 5 or 8.

If a Castle is available, Knights are just as good as Angels. Knights: 1000 x (4-8) Angels: 3000 x 2 That is, if we build Knights, we get 4 at once (4000) and +8 weekly, plus an additional +8000 upon upgrade. If we build Angels, we get 2 at once (6000) and +2 weekly, plus an additional +6000 upon upgrade. Griffins: 1000 x (3-6) The growth rate is less powerful than that of Knights, which is why they are easier and faster to build (no need for a basic stable).

Who is stronger in terms of raw power (without considering growth), a Griffin or a Knight?
In my opinion: the stronger one will last longer and have a smaller growth rate.