Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from The eternal question: which heroes are better, mages or warriors?
Doesn't the warrior hero know any magic at all, or what?
He knows magic very well. Have you played the third game? At the beginning, the warrior doesn't have a spellbook, and the mage isn't as strong in combat; it was written above how a mage casts spells towards the end, and how a warrior does.
Step aside from the way of a better man than you So you fall at his feet hes the one who betrays you Its the servants devotion for the decay Stand up
Yes, I used to play it. Now the game is simply not supported (no images are displayed). That's why I've forgotten some things.
Back then, I only played as a Barbarian. And I'll go back to using hypnosis and resurrection. If you use those, victory won't be far off.
I repeat – it’s a matter of taste, but both should be present. A Warrior who can’t perform a basic speed boost is terrible, and a Mage whose Warriors can’t defeat anyone but die like flies is no better.
Step aside from the way of a better man than you So you fall at his feet hes the one who betrays you Its the servants devotion for the decay Stand up
Interesting debate! But wouldn't it be better to base our arguments on facts? The fact is that the question of which faction is better to play arises only in the early stages of the game, as by the end, it doesn't matter – the hero uses both powerful magic and combat skills equally. However, here – in the very beginning, and at the moment when a full-fledged army is just being formed – in my opinion, the question of which faction to play – mage, warrior, battle mage – is crucial. Personally, I prefer mages. Advantages: magic, which compensates for the weakness of archers (if any) or replaces them. Option: battle mages with the same advantages. You can attack even creatures that are more powerful than those in your army.
Interesting discussion! But wouldn't it be better to start from the facts? The fact is that the question of which faction is better to play arises only in the early stages of the game, because by the end it doesn't matter – the hero uses powerful magic and combat skills equally. But here – at the very beginning, and at the moment when a full-fledged army is just being formed – in my opinion, the question of which faction to play – mage, warrior, battle mage – is crucial. Personally, I prefer mages. Advantages: magic, which compensates for the weakness of archers (if any) or replaces them. Option: battle mages with the same advantages. You can attack even creatures that are more powerful than those in your army.
Sincerely, Draco
You are right, there is a difference between them at the beginning. However, it is not at all necessary that a mage will be better than a warrior; he will have archers that are stronger than those of a mage, only without casting any buffs on them, and at the same time, he will have a turn left for some kind of speed boost. By the way, it would be interesting to know which levels you consider to be the early ones, so that I can better understand your opinion
Step aside from the way of a better man than you So you fall at his feet hes the one who betrays you Its the servants devotion for the decay Stand up
The question of which hero is better to play arises only in the early stages of the game, as by the end it doesn't matter – the hero uses both powerful spells and combat skills equally. However, at the very beginning, when a full-fledged army is just being formed, I believe the question of whether to play as a mage, a warrior, or a battle mage is crucial.
I can't agree. Imagine this: it's the end of the game, and a decisive battle is taking place between a mage and a warrior, or a mage-warrior and a mage (it doesn't really matter). The mage, of course, relies on magic, and the warrior relies on stats (let's also assume that the armies are roughly equal). So... But what if the warrior remembered to grab an artifact like the Sphere of Inhibition? And what if he didn't? Then the mage will completely crush the warrior.
This is a choice that matters throughout the entire game.
And if we take into account that we are fighting different monsters, then ANYONE uses both, and the most effective approach is to combine them, because you need to be ready for anything ;)
"Единственное, что можно сказать с уверенностью об удаче - она изменит..."
Of course, a warrior is better because magic can be compensated for with artifacts and on the map... but combat qualities like defense and attack need to be maximized: let them come with levels, you acquire them on the map, or obtain them with artifacts... plus secondary skills, of course...
no, I haven't played Heroes of Might and Magic, so for me, Heroes of Might and Magic is better
That sounds strong... and what language is this? :))
Personally, I like mages more. For some reason, it always seemed that spells could inflict more damage on the enemy than by improving combat skills.
In particular, increasing the "Strength" skill by 1 can only increase the damage by a maximum of 5%. At the same time, "Magic Power" increases the damage dealt by combat spells more effectively (this is most clearly seen at the beginning of the game, when there are still few troops), and some spells, such as "Bless," "Blind," or "Curse," are generally a must-have, especially in the late game, with large army sizes.
Although, perhaps the Battle Mage option is the most attractive. Who would refuse, for example, to improve the secondary skills of Attack, Defense, or Ranged Attack, especially for such truly magical castles as the Tower or Conflux.
You are right, there is a difference between them, especially at the beginning. However, it is not necessarily true that a mage will be stronger than a warrior; he will already have stronger archers than the mage, but without casting any buffs on them, and he will still have a turn left for some kind of speed boost. By the way, it would be interesting to know which levels you consider to be the starting ones, so that I can better understand your opinion.
Levels of what? If it's the levels of units, then the starting ones are the first three or four. If it's the levels of development, then in terms of time, it's the first, second, third, or fourth week, depending on the difficulty, or until all the dwellings are built (even if they are not upgraded). And in any case, in the first or second week, a mage hero (a combat mage) who has a spellbook with spells and enough mana and strength to use them will defeat a warrior hero who has none of these things. This is assuming equal development.
It is only possible to talk about who is stronger in an abstract way. For example, I get so caught up in the Gameplay that I don't have time to think about who to play as. Moreover, the process of developing a character (which skills to choose, what to buy first - a spellbook or a ballista, etc.) is already well-established. :)
Added 5 minutes later Ley;112473
I can't agree. Just imagine - it's the end of the game, and a decisive battle is taking place between a mage and a warrior, or even better, a mage-warrior and a mage (it doesn't really matter). The mage, of course, relies on magic, and the warrior relies on stats (and let's also assume that the armies are roughly equal). So... But what if the warrior has an artifact like the Sphere of Inhibition? And what then? And vice versa - if he doesn't have it, then the mage will crush the warrior.
This is a choice that you make throughout the game.
And if we take into account that we are fighting different monsters, then EVERYONE uses both, and the most clever thing is, of course, to combine them, because you need to be ready for anything.
As I said before, all of this is abstract. When we discuss this, I think we are taking heroes, maps, and creatures as a "blank slate," assuming that there are no artifacts, and if there are, they only equalize the forces, and the strengths of the units themselves are equal or compensate for each other. In addition (regarding the use of both), I try to make sure that all my stats (knowledge, attack, etc.) are off the charts, it doesn't matter which is more, which is less - there will be more attack, more defense, I will attack more, there will be more magic - I will cast more. But, in principle, it is all used harmoniously.
No, I don't like light magic, no matter how useful it is... I prefer offensive magic. So, in that respect, a mage is better for me. But in general, I don't see a big difference... Although, I personally prefer a warrior. P.S. In Allods, I always chose a warrior.
Step aside from the way of a better man than you So you fall at his feet hes the one who betrays you Its the servants devotion for the decay Stand up
eXeCuToR
