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.
Should the training be made free? In my opinion, this will lead to everyone training using the most effective scheme: "Monk-Knight." Only in the early stages, when there is no dwelling or when the first few Monks or Knights are not yet available, will other schemes be used (most likely, at the beginning, Monks will be placed, and everyone will strive to obtain Monks from lower tiers to stockpile them before transforming them into Knights after building the Knights).
... 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...
Training is straightforward:
1) Training itself requires 3 buildings: a Stronghold, a Castle, and training halls. And it doesn't do anything on its own.
2) To train archers, you need to build additional archers (+1 building).
3) To train swordsmen, you need to build additional swordsmen (+2 buildings), and it's also desirable to have archers (total +3 buildings); otherwise, you can only get archers from the starting armies.
4) To train swordsmen, you need to build additional monks (+2 buildings), and it's also desirable to have swordsmen (total +4 buildings).
5) To train Knights, you need to build additional Knights (+2 buildings), and it's also desirable to have monks (total +4 buildings). However, the training will be incomplete in the first week (because only 5 monks will be produced from the building, and you can't get many monks from the starting armies).
There's no need to stockpile monks because they have a growth rate of 10 under the Castle, which is equal to the new training limit.
The fact that training will be paid for won't change the attractiveness of training Knights compared to other types of troops. Essentially, this is a way to focus on cost rather than the limit, which in turn requires increasing the limit and leads to even greater imbalances if there are enough resources.
Compare: in the original game, the Knight growth rate is 4, but with training, it's as much as +20 (from natural monks and swordsmen +14). This is an increase in growth rate of 3.5-6 times, and it's for a top-tier unit!
In WGE, the Knight growth rate is 8, and with training, it's only +10. This is an increase in growth rate of only 2.25 times, which is already within reasonable limits (comparable to farms).
Training halls are among the top-tier buildings for Humans, so they should be comparable to Knights and Angels (no worse). They also have additional requirements (the need to build corresponding dwellings + the presence of a Knight hero in the garrison to implement the training). Therefore, due to these limitations, the maximum possible training should be stronger than building Knights or Angels.
When building Angels: the arrival and growth rate amount to 6,000 "gold" units.
When building Knights: the arrival amounts to 4,000 "gold" units, and the growth rate amounts to 4-8,000 "gold" units (without a Castle / with a Castle).
When building training and with maximum training (from monks to Knights):
10 monks = 6,000 gold units
10 Knights = 10,000 gold units
Profit in gold units = 10 - 6 = 4,000.
Plus, the profit from savings (we don't pay extra for training) = the same 4,000.
In total, maximum training is:
1) arrival and growth rate amount to 4,000 "gold" units;
2) savings of the same amount of money for free "recruitment" of these units.
Profit from training other troops:
Knights = +4,000 gold units for free
Monks = +2,000 gold units for free
Swordsmen = +1,500 gold units for free
Archers = +1,000 gold units for free
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
I decided to set the fort as built by default. Since this building is almost always necessary, but at the same time slows down the pace (typical development to a castle without a fort in the first week would take as much as 3 days of construction out of 7). In villages (secondary towns), the fort is not built (but the tavern and tier-1 building are, as in the main town). This means that when capturing a village, we will have to invest in building a fort in order to be able to actively produce creatures (without a fort, only magical creatures and tier-1 can be built, which is already built).
The other day, I was thinking about whether it is necessary to have a tier-1 dwelling built in the main castle, as it slightly reduces the variety, and you decided to also have a fort built. In my opinion, a Town Hall + Tavern + Fort or Tier 1 would be enough for dynamics. Level 4 (buildings) is too much, in my opinion!
If a fort is built in the main town, will this determine the basic color (grade)? I really liked the idea of choosing a basic grade (color).
Nargott
For Humans, there are 4 options with militia and archers: 1) an arrow from militia to archers 2) an arrow from militia to archers, but without an arrow from the fort to archers 3) an arrow from militia to the fort 4) no arrows from militia
My answer: 2) an arrow from militia to archers, but without an arrow from the fort to archers (there is no difference whether there are forts or not, and 1 arrow from militia is enough).
Nargott
For the Dungeon, I'm still thinking about what to do with the growth rates of scouts and beasts: 1) do nothing 2) increase the growth rate of scouts from 5-15 to 6-18 (max 4500) 3) increase the growth rate of beasts from 4-12 to 5-15 (max 6000) 4) increase the growth rate of scouts and beasts
My answer: 4) increase the growth rate of scouts and beasts (I am in favor of creatures with the same cost, such as Beasts and Swordsmen or Archers and Scouts, having the same growth rate, plus or minus an equal strength!).
Nargott
It is also questionable whether a requirement for the shipyard from the castle should be set, or whether the shipyard should be independent (then the shipyard would theoretically be available in any village without a fort, provided that the required town level is reached).
My answer: Leave the shipyard for the last stage, for now, make it as standard.
Nargott
The training limit will be increased from 8 to 10 creatures per week (while training remains free).
Couldn't you make a limit on the number of basic growth per week? For example: Militia - 8, Archers = 6, and so on. A limit on the number motivates training higher tiers.
I like it more when there is a limit, like with dark energy in necromancy: the lower the tier, the more units can be "trained".
The other day, I was wondering if it's necessary to build a Tier 1 dwelling in the main castle, as it slightly reduces the variety, but you decided to build a fort as well. In my opinion, a Town Hall + Tavern + Fort, or Tier 1, would be enough for a dynamic game. Tier 4 (buildings) is too much, in my opinion!
The variety compared to the old, rigid schemes (see the first post in the thread) has increased many times over. If there used to be about 15-20 effective opening strategies, now there are 58 for humans (Tier 1 built) and 94 for the Dungeon (Guild built instead of Tier 1).
The advantages of Tier 1 at the start: greater variety on day 1, the option to immediately upgrade and accelerate, and you can have more tiers in total at the end of the opening (greater army diversity). The advantages of a Tier 1 Guild at the start: greater variety in the starting spellbook, greater variety in opening strategies for building creatures. The advantages of both (for different factions): where Tier 1 is not built, you can generally have slightly more expensive creatures (in terms of total cost). Since they have a weaker start (in terms of hit points), they need to add more to the opening to level the playing field by the end of the week.
Scouts will be increased from 5-15 to 6-18 (i.e., as strong as a Tier 1), but not Beasts. Compared to humans, the Dungeon has 3 tempo advantages that compensate for the starting disadvantage of not having Tier 1: 1) Scouts are stronger than Militia (6 x 250 = 1500 vs. 8 x 150 = 1200) 2) Minotaurs are stronger than Swordsmen (4 x 600 = 2400 vs. 5 x 400 = 2000) 3) Higher tiers are equal, but require fewer prerequisites in total (Citadel, Chamber of Intrigue, and Altar of Elements vs. Citadel, Stables, and Tier 1-2 Mage Guild)
If a Fort is built in the main city, will it choose the basic color (upgrade)? I really like the idea of choosing the basic upgrade (color).
It will be chosen automatically based on the class of the starting hero (i.e., to match the color of their starting troops). If you want to control the choice, choose a hero at the start. If not, leave it random. For now, it will be like this, but it may change if other options turn out to be better.
What I liked about the starting fort (and its absence in villages). The idea of paying for access to creatures is good. If you can immediately produce a lot of troops in a village without restrictions, then the value of capturing it is higher, and therefore the strength of the garrison needs to be increased. If there is a restriction, and it is expensive (a fort), then the garrison can be kept smaller, because the player will need to invest additional resources and tempo in developing the new production base. A smaller garrison means you can capture more villages more easily and quickly in the first week, i.e., higher expansion tempo. And whether you invest in developing creatures is already a question for each specific village; you don't need to focus on troops everywhere (sometimes it's better to build for money or magic).
Plus, what I wrote above: having a fort saves an entire tempo (produce 1 more type of creature). In my opinion, it is optimal to be able to end the week with 4-5 tiers, not 3-4. The fort is practically essential for building production capacity, and there is no way to avoid it, so having it from the start only expands the overall variety.
My answer: 4) increase the growth rate of Scouts and Beasts (I'm in favor of creatures with the same cost, such as Beasts and Swordsmen, or Archers and Scouts, having the same growth rate, plus or minus equal strength!).
Only Scouts will be increased. If Beasts are also increased, then the combination of Scouts + Beasts will always be more advantageous than Workshop + Minotaurs, and in addition, the Dungeon's opening will be stronger than the Human's opening.
My answer: Leave the Shipyard for last; for now, make it like the standard one.
Okay, I'll detach it from the castle.
Can't you make a limit on the amount of basic growth per week? Example: Militia - 8, Archers = 6, and so on. A limit on the number motivates training higher tiers. I prefer when there is a limit like dark energy in Necromancy: the lower the tier, the more units you can "train."
No, you can't. And with any possible training settings, training Knights will be the most priority. This can only be avoided in two ways: 1) economic: make higher creatures less profitable to hire, and therefore less profitable for paid training (the standard way, but there, lower tiers are also weak, and it stops working if there is enough gold) 2) equal difference: make the difference between adjacent tiers (from Militia to Knights) the same: for example, if an Archer costs 250, a Swordsman 500, a Monk 750, and a Knight 1000 (WGE currently works partially: 250-400-600-1000)
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Nargott, I'm still "confused" by the identical price of a Knight and a Griffin. (I'm in favor of creatures with the same cost having the same growth rate, plus or minus a roughly equal strength!) Which of them, if you take just one, will be stronger? In my opinion, creatures with different strengths should have different prices; otherwise, people will buy the stronger ones (when the buildings are constructed).
As for growth rates, aren't you aiming for all tiers to have roughly equal strength when considering their growth rates? As an option: you could start by creating a symmetrical balance, taking the price of a weekly growth rate of 6000 as a basis. And then, depending on the popularity (abilities) of one tier or another, give them a higher or lower growth rate (price). For example, like with militia, to whom Fermi gives an additional growth rate.
P.S. I would balance it like this at first (symmetrically). But with your experience, you should have a better idea. In any case, as soon as the schemes, growth rates, and prices for all factions are ready, they will need to be checked for balance against each other. I'll be waiting for the schemes for the other castles.
The whole point is that the player shouldn't be sure which of them is stronger, the Knight or the Griffin (competition). Fewer Griffins appear, but they are also easier and faster to build; in the most effective builds, the Griffin often occupies a leading position, while placing Knights in the first position should be less popular (in terms of the number of strong options, and that's how it is now). Specifically, 2/3 of the first-week openings include Griffins, and only 1/4 include Knights. This means that Knights, if placed at all, will most likely be placed in the second week. And as a result, despite the greater increase, there will be fewer of them initially than Griffins accumulated from the first week.
Added 1 minute ago InoyOleh
As for the increases. Don't you strive to make all tiers, taking into account the increases, equal in strength?
No, the main thing is the principle of competitive building; the fact that in some cases there is an equal increase for a certain amount (with the same requirements) is just a side effect. For example, the requirements for Knights and Griffins are clearly not equal. Knights are placed later and require a stable (which is a tempo cost).
As for competitive building, this is evident in the example of the Dungeon. I set initial values based on a comparison with Humans, analyzed the composition of possible openings, drew conclusions about which tiers are lagging behind in openings (less in demand and less effective), and whether it is necessary to strengthen the faction as a whole; as a result, I increased the increase for Scouts.
Added 6 hours 25 minutes ago Update: I updated the schemes on the previous page: 1) the shipyard is now available from the very first line (not tied to the city level and castle) 2) Hydras have been moved 2 days later (from day 3 to day 5), while still not tied to the Citadel
Added 9 minutes ago And the detailed schemes (in terms of decision-making by day):
+
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
I like everything about the Dungeon faction (it maintains the spirit of the standard while significantly increasing variability). Regarding the Haven faction, I would: 1. Remove the arrows from level 2 of the guild to the Angels (Why make it so complicated? The connections to Monks and level 1 of the guild are sufficient). 2a. Remove the arrow from the Castle to the Stable (I like the option of building a Stable as in the standard without building other structures + as I wrote before, more than 2 arrows from a building increases its building priority too much). 2b. Remove the arrow from the Castle to the Griffins (They are already the weakest Tier, so they should be built less often - also, if not easier than the Hydras + as I wrote before, more than 2 arrows from a building increases its building priority too much). 3. Make an arrow from the Militia to the Archers, but without an arrow from the Fortress to the Archers (This would be more canonical + a more varied scheme in villages where there is no Fortress).
P.S. Will your racial buildings, such as the Altar of Elements and the Training Halls, be without upgrades?
1. Buildings like Tier 7 always need additional requirements because they are too powerful. Otherwise, with a sufficient amount of resources, they will always be built into Angels in the first week, which will negatively impact the variety of strategies. 2a. This is possible in the case of Knights. However, there is no effective early-game strategy on the Stronghold map with Knights, so the requirement for the Stronghold is not necessary and is a matter of taste. On the other hand, the Stronghold emphasizes the elite nature of the Knights: stables, which are available in any town even without a Stronghold, are accessible everywhere; while stables that come from Swordsmen reduce the variety of already rare early-game strategies involving Knights. 2b. In the case of Griffins, a ranged unit is mandatory; otherwise, the combination of Stronghold, Griffins, and Angels in the first week is imbalanced (too advantageous). In general, Griffins should not be underestimated; 2/3 of effective early-game strategies go through them, while only 1/4 go through Knights. 3. This is a controversial issue: opinions are divided; some prefer Archers from Militia, while others prefer them from the Stronghold (the survey is not only conducted on this forum). Is it correct to be able to place Archers in towns so easily, bypassing the Stronghold, or should the Stronghold be more important in this case? The final answer will be provided by practice.
4. Yes, there is no point in upgrades here. For training, the effect of +10 is already more than enough; the second building in the same category is unclear why it is needed. The same applies to the improved Altar; it does not provide any fundamentally new possibilities.
Regarding the comparison of Griffins and Hydras, I would like to add 2 points: 1) Hydras are a different faction that starts without Tier 1, so the buildings of the Dungeon should be slightly stronger overall. 2) Hydras are now fundamentally less demanding but more late-game (they can only be built on day 5, while Griffins or Raptors can be built on day 4, but обязательно through the Stronghold).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Regarding the voting, it would be more logical to have the arrow pointing only to the first tier, as archers can be simple hunters, while crossbowmen can be militiamen equipped with crossbows, who are just trained. But if there is already a first tier in the villages, then there is no point in having an arrow. In that case, just remove the arrows altogether.
У меча предназначения два острия, одно из них ты.
Заинтересованный занимается написанием прохождений Прохождения] НЕКРОМАНТ
2,3,4,5 Заинтересованный планирует создать серию мультиплеерных карт "Фантазия безумного картострителей". Миссия 1 - Фктиф-Зобар готова на 11,5%
1. Buildings like Tier 7 always need additional requirements because they are too powerful. Otherwise, with a sufficient amount of resources, players will always build Angels in the first week, which will negatively affect the variety of strategies.
If there is no other adequate way to ensure that Angels are not built before turn 5, then let it be this way. Nargott
2a. In the case of Knights, this is possible. But there is not a single effective early-game strategy with Knights on the Stronghold map, so the requirement for the Stronghold is not necessary and is a matter of taste. On the other hand, the Stronghold emphasizes the elite nature of the Knights: stables, which seem to be floating in the air, are available in any village even without a Stronghold; and stables that come from Swordsmen reduce the variety of already rare early-game strategies involving Knights.
If it is not necessary, it is better to remove the link to the stables, thereby slightly increasing the number of effective early-game strategies with Knights. In secondary cities, the stable will be built to support a mobility strategy on "their" territory, which gives a certain racial characteristic, as it was in the standard version. On the other hand, to build them, you need to raise the city level to 6, which forces you to spend resources and tempo. I think it will be better without the link; if necessary, it can always be rolled back. Nargott
3. This is a controversial issue: opinions are divided; for some, it is better to have Archers from Militia, for others - from the Stronghold.
If it is controversial, then for now, leave it as it is - practice will show.
If there is no other adequate way to ensure that Angels are not built before turn 5, then let it be.
Angels will not be built before turn 5 anyway. The question is different, namely, the number of turns required to upgrade to Angel-Monks. 3 days of construction for such a combination is too little. For example, a starting strategy with Stronghold-Archers-Griffins + Angels with an upgrade will be dominant. But if Angels require one more construction turn, then either Archers, or Griffins, or the Angel upgrade will not fit in this combination, and that will balance things out.
If it's not necessary, it's better to remove the connection to the Stables, thereby slightly increasing the number of effective starting strategies with Knights. In secondary cities, the Stables will be built to support a mobility strategy on "their" territory, which gives a certain racial characteristic, as it was in the original game. On the other hand, building them requires raising the city level to 6, which forces you to spend resources and turns. I think it will be better without the connection; if something goes wrong, it can always be rolled back.
In general, I somehow thought that there were no effective starting strategies with Knights in the Stronghold at all, but it turns out that there are a couple of options (with Angels). But nevertheless, I still strongly doubt that this is the right thing to do, because it weakens the concept of Strongholds as the core of city development. For the same reason, it is desirable to maintain the connection from the Stronghold to the Archers. But if Archers are just a minor thing, then Knights are an elite human unit (there is nothing higher, Angels are not humans). Developing a settlement from level 3 to 8 is not so difficult even without a Stronghold, but whether the knightly elite, the pinnacle of human military power, should be stationed in such a settlement is very questionable.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Update:
1) In the Dungeon scheme, I moved the Witch Hut building one level higher; now, it becomes available on day 3 (previously on day 5).
2) The second player will receive compensation not in the form of an extra building, but in gold (9,000 gold at the start, compared to 6,000 for the first player).
In general:
- A player will start with an amount = 6000 x (1 + (PlayerNumber - 1) / NumberOfPlayers), rounded to the nearest 50 gold.
Why was this specific starting amount chosen? As an example, for humans, the purchases on the first day are:
1) Second hero = 2500
2) Building an Archer's Guild (1000 gold + resources) = 1000
3) Recruiting archers + militia = 1500 + 1200 = 2700 (already 200 gold short for the entire recruitment, the shortage is felt from day 1).
For the second player, it's the same, but they can afford to recruit one more hero on the first day (the cost of the third hero is exactly 3000).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
1) Skeletons = 100 x (15-90), max 9000 (with farms) 2) Zombies = 200 x (9-27), max 5400 3) Ghosts = 300 x (7-21), max 6300 4) Vampires = 1000 x (3-6), max 6000 5) Liches = 1500 x (3-6), max 9000 6) Reapers = 2000 x (2-4), max 8000 7) Necrodrakes = 3000 x (1-2), max 6000 (with farms)
Question: Should the town hall be tied to zombies, or should the economic branch be standard, and zombies be independent?
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
1) Skeletons = 100 x (15-90), max 9000 (with farms) 2) Zombies = 200 x (9-27), max 5400 3) Ghosts = 300 x (7-21), max 6300 4) Vampires = 1000 x (3-6), max 6000 5) Liches = 1500 x (3-6), max 9000 6) Reapers = 2000 x (2-4), max 8000 7) Necrodrakes = 3000 x (1-2), max 6000 (with farms)
Question: should the town hall be focused on zombies, or should the economic branch be standard, and zombies be independent?
In my opinion: 1) Skeletons = 100 x (15-90) – the growth rate is too high for a Tier 1 (free!) unit; it should be reduced to a base of 12-14, otherwise the game becomes too easy with many archers (skeletons). 2) Zombies = 200 x (9-27): here, on the contrary, I would increase the growth rate to 10-12 so that it is the highest among creatures costing 200. (I judge this based on the standard game, where zombies are not a popular unit). In any case, I think it is necessary to prioritize zombies; currently, players want to take skeletons primarily. Given the above, focusing the town hall on zombies is more reasonable, but in my opinion, it is not very important. 5) Liches = 1500 x (3-6), max 9000 – is this not too high a growth rate for a Tier 5 ranged/magic unit? (I'm not sure about this). 7) Necrodrakes = 3000 x (1-2), max 6000 (with farms) – the growth rate is good, but, as in the case of angels and hydras, I think they should be available on day 5; having them on day 3 would be too much, allowing for easy clearing of early guards due to their high health and speed. (What would be the point of zombies, ghosts, or vampires then?).
P.S. Witches on level 3 are fine, and the gold compensation (formula) for the second player is exactly what is needed.
1) Such an increase in skeletons is only possible with farms (which means losing extra tempo), but it's possible that they won't even have farms (since the total number of buildings is 36, which is more than 35 for Haven and Dungeon, which affects the calculation of damage from towers).
2) Zombies have a higher growth rate than standard tier-2 units (archers, beasts), and in general, slow units in WGE are much stronger than in the standard game, so zombies won't be left out.
5) The difference is not that big (total of 8000).
7) This can be done, but then Necrodrakes will lose their advantages (the Hydra is built at the same tempo but doesn't require anything and is upgraded by the Castle, plus it has regeneration after the upgrade, while the dragons have a slower upgrade based only on farms).
Added after 1 hour and 46 minutes:
For now, the Necropolis's early game starts with either a Castle or Reapers on week 1, which are a bit weak, so I need to think about how to strengthen them.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
SRD
