Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition.

A three-class system is, in my opinion, more interesting.
However, some nuances are unclear (it's more a matter of taste).
1. Druids don't really fit with machines. They seem to be more connected to nature/creatures, ignoring/rejecting technology.
2. "Rush-mage killer" is not an Amazon in fantasy canon, but a Witcher or Witch Hunter.

1. An enchanted ballista is perfect for the magical class of elves. Also, in Heroes 3, Druids had a high chance of First Aid (tent).
2. All the heroes are orcish girls. Perhaps, Huntresses?

Added 51 minutes ago
When creating many classes, I was largely inspired by the English MMH5.5.

But there are fundamental differences.

1. Class parameters. There, a formal uniqueness is maintained (non-repeating parameter distributions with an accuracy of 5%). So, these 5% are just numbers for perception; in real games, they don't matter (they don't affect starting parameters, and the difference is only 1 parameter after 20 levels of upgrade, which is barely noticeable).
That's why a difference of 10% was chosen, which will be visible from the start (+1), and +1 for every 10 levels in the future. The difference between 40% and 30% attack on level 11 is +2 attack (with a 10% step for increasing damage), which corresponds to +4 attack in the original and as much as +8 attack in MMH5.5. This difference is definitely noticeable!

Again, unlike MMH5.5, I maximize the use of various parameter combinations, without being tied to "classic" (in terms of Heroes 3) combinations like Attack+Defense versus Spell Power+Knowledge. Moreover, I find these combinations not very meaningful in general. If I'm a warrior, I need defense exclusively against other warriors; why should all warrior classes suffer with useless defense when playing against mages? If I'm a mage, I play either for tempo (spell power) or for potential (knowledge), and both at the same time is only a special case (focusing on high-level spells with high spell power). On the other hand, mages need defense against warriors. And chaos mages need attack against other mages (to maintain a high tempo with troops). That's why all this in different combinations is interesting and not banal like "sword against magic."

2. Distribution of magic. In MMH5.5, the approach is: Light and Dark for combat classes, Chaos and Summoning for mages. I fundamentally disagree with this position, leaning more towards racial magic. A chaos mage is a destructive mage, focusing on tempo (spell power). A summoning mage is a control mage, focusing on potential (knowledge). You can combine these two directions, but it will never match the character of a pure control mage. That is, giving such a combination to everyone is at least illogical.

But in MMH5.5, the trick is that all magical classes have high spell power (knowledge, by the way, is less important and doesn't reach the same level), and it is practically useless in Light and Dark, so this is magic for the "poor," and mages "need not apply." There is a conversion of spell power into stats, but it is purely symbolic (+1 spell power is far from converting into +1 attack with all the boosts). Here, this moment has been refined; spell power is converted into physical stats at a rate of 1:1 (for power, weakness, beam) from a single boost, and for acceleration, the rate is even better (+10% initiative for each unit of spell power). After a couple of such area boosts, a magical combatant is quite capable of outperforming a pure warrior in physical parameters (with the same magic, but with low spell power).

3. Racial skills. In MMH5.5, this concept has been replaced by "class skills" (for example, all Paladins start with Light). But the problem with such class skills is that they are generally available (in fact, this is just a starting point), so as you level up, this class difference decreases. Therefore, I went a different way, preserving racial skills and even more linking racial classes to each other (each race has, in addition to its two main schools of magic, another common skill; orcs have 3). Nevertheless, it was thanks to MMH5.5 that the idea of such class skills appeared (combining classes not only by race).

Added 33 minutes ago
Regarding starting heroes, I think I've found the optimal solution.
I want to see heroes at levels 12-15 in the final battle (while in the original, the optimal value is 18-22).
Why should the levels be low?
- Too strong specializations in creatures (physical parameters in WGE are twice as strong as in the original)
- Too strong magic resistance (at level 20, there is a 50% chance to deflect a point debuff - how can this be useful?)
- Too strong fear (guaranteed to frighten any tier of creatures)
- Goblin growth, as well as all creatures, is reduced in the final, so the hero's level should also be lower (otherwise, shamanism will only work against units)

To achieve the same value in terms of the number of skills and abilities taken, some acceleration is required.
There are 4 possible options:
1) double level-ups (offer 2 skills for each level-up), in this case, such heroes should come to the final even earlier, at levels 10-12
2) at the start, a fully upgraded racial hero with all racial tier 1 skills (other racial skills will have to be returned to other skills), a quick analogue of +5 levels, but at the expense of reducing the variety of upgrades
3) at the start, the racial and starting skills are fully upgraded (but without taking additional skills), a quick analogue of +4 levels, but with increased risks in early upgrades (because all the skills offered for upgrade are new, the player will sometimes have to choose skills that are not useful to him)
4) at the start, +4 or +5 level-ups are offered (as well as +4-5 stats), but without a formal level increase

I like option 4 (but option 1 is also in reserve). It requires some attention and time to be devoted to each recruited hero, but it is the most versatile. The hero will receive exactly the additional skills and abilities that the player needs. In addition, with such a start, the player has more motivation to use each hero as a combatant, and not just as a faceless cockroach that doesn't know how to do anything in battle.

Added 36 minutes ago
Regarding the final level of heroes, why is it optimal to have 20-24 skills upgraded, and not more or less?
The answer is simple, let's take a conditional Mystic (education, spell power, chaos, summoning, luck, leadership).
For example, we are upgrading a tempo chaos mage with spell power luck (chaos, spell power, luck). What options are there?
1) complement the build with an enhanced racial (no more than 24 skills are needed)
2) complement the build with enhanced stats (+education)
3) complement the build with enhanced tempo (+leadership and empathy)
4) complement the build with a second school (+summoning)
5) instead of upgrading chaos, play on the element of cold (for which the skill is not so important), choosing 2 of the previous options to enhance the build

If there are not enough skills, there will be no variety (we will barely have time to upgrade the basic structure - Spell Power, spell power, and chaos).
If there are too many skills (immediately for several options of enhancement), the build becomes too universal and loses its diverse specialization.

And so you can consider any upgrades; for any idea, 2-3 skills that express it are enough, and another one that complements it. Everything beyond that only reduces variety.

Yes, I have familiarized myself with Heroes of Might and Magic 5.5. In my opinion, the class/skill system is a mess – everything is given to everyone, all heroes are the same, and there is a linear skill progression scheme, which is strange because in Heroes of Might and Magic 5.5, there are 8 skill slots. With such potential, the idea is to introduce new skills, not to distribute racial skills to everyone. There are, for example, such wonderful perks from Might and Magic IV, as Nobility and Summoning. This is a perfectly feasible theme to implement with scripts. And, as an option: a Ranger starts with Avenger, having a chance to gain Summoning (not Summoning magic), and a Druid starts with Summoning, having a chance to gain Avenger.

Well, for now there are vacant skills — Barbarian dampening of Light, Darkness, Chaos, and Summoning.
The dampening effect itself definitely won't be present (there are specialized perks for this — corruption, hold, weakness — 3 perks are certainly enough to bring down any school).
As for what will actually happen, that is a question (currently only stats are being proposed).

Barbarian education is also free (currently Barbarians do not have access to it); theoretically, its effect can be completely blocked and rewritten with one's own.
So ideas are welcome.
The only requirement is that the skill must actually play out in combat, such as the new logistics (which will additionally give a starting bonus of 0.1/0.2/0.3 ATP to creatures — and this bonus is especially strong for low-initiative creatures, like undead).

Added after 33 minutes
I once liked the role-playing model from Heroes 4 (compared to Heroes 3). We could consider options from there:

1. Tactics: increase in creature speed and initiative. There is a direct analog — logistics (starting ATP bonuses in the skill, speed and initiative bonuses/penalties in abilities).
2. Defense. Has an analog.
3. Attack. Has an analog.
4. Leadership: increase in luck and morale. There are analogs — Leadership and Luck. In Heroes 4 there is defensive luck (to reduce damage), and there is an analog for this as well (deadly misfortune).
5-8. Combat, Melee, Ranged, Resists — useless, since the hero is not a unit. But there are analogs for boosting hero damage (double damage and stunning strike in the Attack branch).
9. Scouting: increase in vision radius and information. There are analogs in the logistics branch (combat penalties to speed and initiative have also been added via scripts against enemy heroes).
10. Navigation: not needed, as it is too situational.
11. Pathfinding: not needed, as penalties for non-native terrain will be removed (there's no other way with 24 classes).
12. Stealth: cannot be implemented directly, but artifact theft bypassing guards could be added by tying it to corresponding abilities in logistics.
13. Nobility: increase in city growth. For this, the hero needs to be tied to a city; not sure if that's necessary. There is an indirect analog — army gathering, +10% to the size of each squad daily (rounded down). Naturally, level restrictions for the hero should also be added; for example, the total cost of such bonus creatures cannot exceed 100-200 gold per hero level.
14-15. Economy and Mines. Just money and resources. Not sure if this is needed. But as an additional effect, resources could be tied to the dwarf race.
16. Diplomacy: a certain percentage of neutral creatures can be bought out before battle. A direct analog ability is planned (not sure if it'll be possible to implement).
17-26. Skills that grant access to spells of corresponding schools of magic. Skills that strengthen spells of corresponding schools of magic. All of this has a direct analog in the same schools of magic as in Heroes 5.
27-31. Skills that increase mana pool and mana regeneration speed. Essentially, just boosting knowledge and mana; there are analogs.
32. Charisma: same as diplomacy, but in smaller quantities and for free. Uninteresting because diplomacy exists.
33. Resurrection: post-battle losses are partially compensated. Interesting as part of some ability.
34. Necromancy: has a direct analog.
35. Summoning: summons certain creatures into the army. By design, it has analogs for orcs (wolves, manticoras).
36. Sorcery: increase in direct damage from spells. Successor — irresistible magic.

Added after 28 minutes

Yes, I've looked into MMH5.5. In terms of classes/skills, IMHO it's trash — everything is given to everyone, all heroes are samey, linear progression scheme, which is strange because in MMH5.5 there are 8 skill slots.
With such potential, ideally, new skills should be introduced rather than handing out racial ones to the crowd.
There are, for example, wonderful perks from H4 like Nobility and Summoning. A perfectly implementable theme via scripts. And as an option: Ranger starts with Avenger, having a chance to get Summoning (not Summoning magic), Druid — with Summoning, having a chance to get Avenger.

MMH5.5 were pioneers in terms of classes; I'm not sure that without such an example, I would have managed to do better the first time.
Therefore, while criticizing their version, I am glad it exists and allows one to see how things can be done better without repeating their mistakes.

Added after 40 minutes
By the way, I played a game (War and Magic) where 95% of losses are restored after every battle; very interesting idea. It allows for intense PvE battles without counting every penny. This includes auto-battles (where about 20 battles are conducted per cycle).

I think I'll introduce something similar here someday. For example, resurrecting 50% of losses after each battle. This is realistic — battles usually end not when one side is completely destroyed, but when the enemy army is incapacitated. Even in a rout, most of the army survives.

What consequences this could have:

1. PvE battles will feel closer to PvP, where the goal is to win an intense fight rather than reduce losses to zero at any cost. I've noted for myself that I enjoy playing heavy fights where real resistance is felt and losses reach 20-40%. Such losses are naturally unacceptable in PvE, but 10-20% are quite acceptable (leveling up the hero one extra level can compensate for them).

2. Many abilities and abuses that are extremely effective in PvE (shooters, non-retaliators, "ones", resurrections, vampirism) will have their effectiveness halved (in terms of saving losses). This is good for balance because it will allow fighting with full combat compositions rather than pivoting to skeleton archers padded with single ghosts (because if you balance archers and warriors in PvP, then in PvE archers are definitely preferable since they are ranged).

3. All sorts of "cheese" strategies are halved in strength (since 50% of losses return). A boosted lucky Armageddon from a Warlock, for example, could easily wipe out 50% of an army (while consuming all mana); this is normal for full-scale battles, but too much for simple cheese (whereas 25% losses are another matter).

4. Players' ability to restore armies after defeats increases (losing 50% of a force vs losing 100% is a big difference). However, specifically regarding the restoration of losses upon defeat, I'm not sure if this can be elegantly implemented via scripts — for example, returning the hero with 50% of their troops to the tavern, or if they will have to be returned directly to the garrison.

Added after 3 hours 6 minutes
The spell loadout system in duels will be as follows:

1. Each race will have 3 different loadouts, depending on the magic profile. For example, for humans:
- Skilled Light + Basic Darkness
- Skilled Darkness + Basic Light
- Developed Light + Developed Darkness
2. The basic set includes:
- 2 t1 spells (all)
- 1 t2 spell
3. The developed set includes:
- 2 t1 spells (all)
- 1 t2 spell
- 1 t3 spell
- 1 extra spell
- 1 t4 spell (if its cost exceeds 75% of the hero's mana, then another extra spell instead)
4. The skilled set includes:
- 2 t1 spells (all)
- 1 t2 spell
- 1 t3 spell
- 1 t4 spell (if its cost exceeds 75% of the hero's mana, then 1 extra spell instead)
- 1 t5 spell (if its cost exceeds 75% of the hero's mana, then another extra spell instead)

Why is there a maximum cost limit of 75% mana? So that a spell doesn't sit as dead weight in the book. It is not beneficial for a hero to cast spells that immediately consume all their mana (because a combination of cheaper spells will provide more utility).

Thus, in total, there will be 6+3 spells in the book for heroes with a skilled school, and 6+6 spells for heroes with a double developed school.
With this distribution, the chance to encounter a spell in the book is:
t1 - 40-50% (if magic is profile-specific for the race, such heroes will have all t1 spells)
t2 - 15-25%
extra - 15-20%
t3 - 12-15%
t4 - 8-12%
t5 - 4-8%

Extra level spells are special spells that are not in the guild, but are granted when leveling up certain abilities; their power and cost vary from t2 to t4.

Why is t1 more common than t2? In the future, when playing on the map, most heroes will have 1 t1 spell of each profile school in their book, except for specialists whose profile spell tier may be higher. That is, at the start, heroes will have 2 spells (archmages — 4), all of which are t1. Why should there be starting spells? Heroes have magical stats and they should play out immediately without waiting for the guild to be built (just as a hero can immediately go fight with combat stats and a starting army). Why exactly 2? This is the minimum number where there is already a choice, and it's not a chore to open the book for it :) In general, it's clear that t1 should be more common than t2, and this is achieved precisely in this way.

Well, for now, there are vacant skills – Barbarian Light, Darkness, Chaos, and Summoning debuffs.

More. For example, there are unusable perks (e.g., Archer Enhancement). Or a perk where the entire effect is simply giving an active skill (Vigil, Reinforcements). These can be given as a spell, and the perk itself can be used for other purposes. From these, you can easily create a skill whose effect will be achieved through scripts and/or buffs.

The debuff effect itself definitely won't be there (there are specialized perks for this – corruption, hold, weakness – 3 perks are definitely enough to bring down any school).
But what will happen is a question (for now, just stats are suggested).

Just stats are very boring.

There is also the Barbarian education skill available (Barbarians currently do not have access to it), the effect of which can theoretically be completely blocked and rewritten.

Is this the one that glitches with the Mentor and doesn't reset stats? :D

The only requirement is that the skill must definitely play a role in combat, like the new logistics (which will additionally give a starting bonus of 0.1/0.2/0.3 ATB to creatures – and this bonus is especially strong for low-initiative creatures, like undead).

Em... I'll divide it into 2 parts:
1. Are the additional bonuses of a "strategic" skill (+units, +money for units) considered to be "playing a role in combat"? For example, like the racial bonus of the Order faction (in the part that deals with retraining) – is it considered?
2. Logistics +10/+20/+30 is very, very, very strong. This is, like, Wingael at level 30, who is cut and banned in all sorts of mods.

At one time, I liked the role-playing model from Heroes 4 (compared to Heroes 3). You can consider options from there:

I also really liked it and still do. The advanced class system is very interesting.
Not throughout the text, but only for the critical (for me) points:

4. Leadership: increases luck and morale. There are analogs – Leadership and Luck. In Heroes 4, there is defensive luck (to reduce damage), and there is also an analog of this (unlucky).

Here, I was always annoyed by the unfairness. The basic Luck skill, for which the hero spends a skill point, gives banal +1 to Luck, which is perfectly replaced by a minor four-leaf clover in effect. The same goes for Leadership. I would add additional bonuses, taking into account the possibility of using combat scripts.

5-8. Combat, Melee, Ranged, Resistances – useless, as the hero is not a unit. But there are analogs to increase the hero's damage (in the Attack branch, double damage and stunning strike).

I disagree. Yes, the hero is not a unit, but can actively participate in the battle with his attacks. There are many options here – shift forward in ATB after using a simple attack, give a chance for an automatic second attack on the same target, increase the hero's level with a direct attack (if possible), improved Vigil/Bane/Reinforcements.

13. Nobility: increases growth in the city. For this, you need to tie the hero to the city, I don't know if this is necessary. There is an indirect analog – troop gathering, +10% to the number of each unit daily (rounded down). Naturally, also add restrictions on the hero's level, for example, the total cost of such bonus units cannot exceed 100-200 gold for each hero level.

As in MMH5.5, this is implemented through the governor's scripts. Why not? A little lower – more details.

14-15. Economics and Mines. Just money and resources. I don't know if this is necessary. But as an additional effect, resources can be tied to the racial bonus of the Dwarves.

Is it necessary? Yes. This is variability. Either you dump all the experience from neutrals on one hero. You get, say, level N and a good hero-killer. Or you spend experience on a hero-killer and on a support hero who will bring additional units and additional money for these additional units. As a result, the hero-killer will be M levels lower, but with an additional army. Who will win? Quality or quantity? This is like leveling up.

35. Summoning: summons certain creatures to the army. It is intended to have analogs for the Orcs (wolves, manticores).

A strange choice for the Orcs – wolves and manticores. Melee units without access to Blood Rage.
L = Logic. And a little NCF.
League. We learn Summoning. We summon Medusas. Ranged unit. If we want to go into ranged units.
Alliance. We summon Pegasi (a very beautiful unit). If we need mid-level flying units.
Necropolis. We summon RS (I missed them so much). A heavy, accelerating stack. As a variation – with Vampirism.

MMH5.5 – pioneers in terms of classes, I'm not sure that without such an example, I would have been able to do better on the first try. Therefore, criticizing their version, I am glad that it exists and allows you to see how you can do better, without repeating their mistakes.

Yes. I would set up a dialogue with the creators of MMH5.5 so that the truth would be born in the dispute.

By the way, I played one game (War and Magic), where 95% of losses are restored after each battle, a very interesting idea. ...

Here are my thoughts on this. Leveling losses in a battle = leveling "grinders" and "players".
Let me explain.
Initially, I played Heroes 5 as a "player". I didn't know many tricks, I just played. But then I switched. I found "tricks", "abuses" and just bugs. I honestly reported the bugs, but what can you do about "abuses"? If the game mechanics, without a bug, allows you to use the fact that a fake kills a hundred zombies? A newbie doesn't know this. But I already know that with one Hunter, I can even kill a hundred slow units – initiative and speed allow it. This is game experience. Don't deprive us of this.

What I want for PvE battles is tension. There is a way to give variations to each neutral stack in terms of types (melee + ranged + casters) and a hero. (this is needed for some curses for them, but it will not be possible to fight neutrals without consequences)

What consequences can this have:

Harsh, but my brain theoretically cannot calculate this yet (my higher mathematics teacher would now say that I am lying, but this is not so – with age, I have spent my operational part of my brain). Need to think. I can hardly even perceive such things as "expected value from Luck +5". I simply accept it as +"50% to damage over time" (in the classic version, of course). Valery Ivanovich tried to hammer his theory of probability into my brain. And in general, 60% of the brain is just fat.

Um... I'm dividing this into 2 parts:
1. Are additional perks of the "strategic" skill (+units, +money for units) considered to be "working in battle"? For example, like the Order racial one (the part that handles retraining) - does it count?
2. Logistics +10/+20/+30 is very-very-very chunky. That's basically a level 30 Wingael, who gets nerfed and banned in every possible mod.

If the skill can be naturally integrated into the arena, it counts. For example, necromancy or army gathering (plus one more meat).
The Arena is a map created specifically for fast leveling and battles with an opponent.
But specifically, money from a skill isn't an interesting idea for such an arena, because additional levels are bought with that same money; it ends up being simple level compensation.

As for Logistics - I don't think it's chunky compared to Attack or Defense at 10/20/30 (moreover, it's incorrect to compare 3 skill levels to some special ability; of course a triple skill will be stronger).
Why is Wingael nerfed? Because in the original, elves always reach and hit on the very first turn. It's the most disgusting kind of rush. That isn't the case here; the advantage in starting tempo is softer. Furthermore, this ability is tailored for low-initiative units primarily, allowing their first-turn advance to be significantly accelerated.

Added after 1 hour 1 minute

More. For example, there are unusable perks (Archer's Rise, for instance). Or a perk whose entire effect is simply granting an active ability (Oversight, Reinforcements). These can be given as a spell, while the perk itself is used for other purposes. You could easily make a skill out of them, where the effect is achieved via scripts and/or buffs.

That's clear; the tools are there. The question is about specific interesting ideas.

Just stats - very boring.

But natural and in demand, for lack of anything better (for now).

Is this the one that glitches at Mentor's and doesn't reset stats? :D

You can actually disable granting stats for education in the exe and grant them via scripts however you want (or not grant them at all).

I also really liked and still like it. The advanced class system, by the way, is very interesting.

Yes, it's interesting; I skimmed through them - but the bonuses aren't interesting. Everything, as usual, comes down to interesting bonuses.

This is where the unfairness always annoyed me. Basic Luck, which a hero spends a skill point on, gives banal +1 Luck, which is perfectly replaced by a minor clover leaf in terms of effect. Same for Leadership. I would have added additional perks, considering the possibility of using combat scripts.

That's exactly what I did for luck - plus one random parameter per level. But it's still a debatable decision (I didn't do it for leadership since those abilities are already strong). Although, as recently discovered - retribution isn't that powerful; only direct damage is boosted (it doesn't work on counter-attacks).

I disagree. Yes, the hero is not a unit, but can take an active part in battle with their attacks. There are plenty of options here - shifting forward on the ATB after using a basic attack, giving a chance for an automatic second attack on the same target, increasing the hero's level during a direct attack (if possible), improved Oversight/Cursed Signs/Reinforcements.

Unfortunately, combat script capabilities are still weak.
You can track the start of a turn, but not its end, and even more so, you cannot determine which action was performed.

This is exactly how it's implemented via governor scripts in MMH5.5. Why not? More details slightly below.

I haven't tried what that looks like, so I have doubts. Why is this needed for a combat hero? Why is this needed on the arena? What specific interest do such skills bring to battle?

Is it necessary? Yes. It's variability. Either you dump all available experience from neutrals into one hero. You get, say, level N and a good killer-hero. Or you spend experience on a killer-hero and a support-hero, who brings extra units and extra cash for those extra units. In the end, the killer-hero will be M levels lower, but with an additional army. Who wins? Quality or quantity? That's how you build your character.

Everything is fine, except for the leveling part. For a combat hero, these are dead abilities. Accordingly, the same goals (leveling several heroes) are better achieved by other means.

Strange choice for orcs - wolves and Manticoras. Melee fighters without access to Blood Rage.

I haven't looked into NCF yet.

That's true. I would actually set up a dialogue with the MMH5.5 creators, so that truth could be born from debate.

I've already spoken with them, put forward my thoughts on skills and spells - but they have their own position because they play their own game. For example, combat abilities cannot be strengthened because combatants would start tearing mages apart (as if it weren't already the case with huge stacks of meat!). Buffs cannot be strengthened for the same reason. And so on.

Here are my thoughts on this. Leveling out losses when breaking through = leveling out "hardcore players" and "casual players".

I was one of those hardcore players who took utopias with furies and crystals, or broke through with t6 crossbowmen in the first week. But it gets tiring; endless abuses that are so effective they leave no room for other options.
The simplest example is shooters. All else being equal in PvE, preference will always be given to shooters because they are a key unit whose property, when dominant, reduces losses to a minimum due to non-contact combat. Therefore, the balance of PvP and PvE differs greatly. And so, to smooth out this difference, it's logical to restore part of the losses (not all, but only 50%).
This idea won't be implemented anytime soon anyway. It's currently just in the idea stage.

Even now I struggle to perceive things like "mathematical expectation from Luck +5". I simply accept it as "+50% damage over a long period" (in the classic version, naturally). Valery Ivanovich tried to hammer his probability theory into my cortex. And in general, 60% of the brain is just fat.

Interestingly, in the case of such a discrete value as luck (it triggers or it doesn't), the geometric mean more accurately reflects the bonus efficiency. I modeled a clash between 2 stacks in Excel to test certain hypotheses and found that a 50% chance for 150% damage gives the same advantages as a stable +22.5% damage (not 25).
The same applies to damage ranges; stable damage is slightly stronger than mathematical expectation (but it's expressed much less clearly there because the damage distribution isn't discrete, unlike in the case of luck).

Added after 1 hour 31 minutes
I wrote that in MMH5.5 you cannot effectively convert spellcasting into physical stats through buffs. Well, it turns out I was wrong.
What are we talking about? Spells like stone skin, punishing, weakness, which work according to the formula: (Spellcasting/3) + 6 (bonus), (Spellcasting/10) + 1 (duration). Mass casts there push back by 0.15 ATB (meaning the hero's turn lasts 0.85 rounds). Now, specifically taking duration into account, spellcasting converts normally into physical stats (provided the hero has a sufficient number of mass buffs).
That is, from a balance perspective, their formula works.
Nevertheless, from a gameplay position, I don't consider such an approach successful. Because for most of the game your buffs will be short until you push spellcasting very high. And short buffs always mean playing a tactical rush, because it's impossible to create sufficient potential for troop enhancement (under multiple buffs) for non-rush play. You can't talk about having set up some combo if every 2 turns your hero does nothing but refresh the same buffs.
In that game, there are basically no prospects for short-term play (by their standards) for a buffer (while spellcasting is below 10-15), because they won't have time to wind up their magical potential before the buffs expire.

For this very reason, I completely tied buff duration to the skill; if you want to play with a large number of simultaneous buffs - max out the school skill; if you want to play with the maximum variety of buffs (Light+Dark), or buffs + something else (or a second magic school) - focus on long-lasting buffs that last twice as long and almost don't need refreshing. If you want maximum buff strength - focus on tier 2-3 buffs and pump spellcasting for them to the ceiling.
In WGE, blessing, evasion, weakness, and slow last 2/4/6/8 rounds (depending on skill), while curse, confusion, haste, skin, and might last 1/2/3/4 rounds.
Moreover, t1 spells (blessing, evasion, curse, confusion) affect everyone (but aren't boosted by spellcasting), while the others have a 4x4 area.
Skin, Might, Weakness give a bonus of 4 + Spellcasting (yes, 100% conversion of spellcasting to physics in one cast!), and haste gives a bonus of +10 x Spellcasting %.

Yeah, I mostly understand everything. Some points are +, some are +/-. But I completely disagree with this:

The simplest thing is archers. All other things being equal, in PvE, archers will always be preferred because they are a key unit, and their ability to minimize losses through contactless combat is a major advantage. Therefore, the balance in PvP and PvE is very different.

What archers are you talking about? After the release of 3.0, I even forgot who they are. Even in PvE, I only use warrior skeletons. They practically don't suffer any losses, even against blue elves. This is no longer an abuse issue; it's just a good unit. With built-in defenses and stunning. It's a pain to raise archers. And with magic on the rise/in a tent, it's usually enough for warriors. And in general, I'm currently using Necromancy in a Psionic style. This means not upgrading units. The point is that you get about one and a half times more unupgraded units for the same amount of mana. And the cockroaches can run to the city and upgrade their legs until they can't anymore. P.S. And yes, we get undead from undead. This is extremely logical - skeletons were killed, and skeletons were raised from those same bones. The Necromancer simply took control. P.P.S. And regarding "huge meat" - we once played a map with three native cities and many upgrades. Just to see the meat. It wasn't that bad. Yes, the Warlock didn't have a chance, but he didn't lose face in battle - he looked quite decent against the Orc. We just met and fought, although we could have been more cunning with the goal of thinning out the army. I especially like the moment with the Minotaurs. It's hard to believe until you see it yourself.

I don't know, the battle was clearly terrible – there were absolutely no options for the Warlock; the Orc defeated him like a cheap neutral creature (he only lost a third of his health).
This is why the speed in WGE was initially reduced due to such terrible battles; what kind of battle was that, where he attacked on the first turn and simply defeated him with physical attacks.
We need to figure out why the double attack of the Minotaurs worked that way; it seems like the elemental damage from the first attack actually hit after the second, and luck also played a role, and the Cyclops was already low on health.

I don't know, the battle was clearly terrible – there were absolutely no options for the warlock; the orc defeated him like a cheap neutral creature (he only lost a third of his health).
That's why the speed in WGE was initially reduced due to such terrible battles – what kind of battle is it when he attacks on the first turn and simply defeats him with physical attacks?

Yes, that's true. We knew from the beginning that it would be like that. An overpowered orc against a warlock – it's like taking a candy from a child (by the way, never try to take a candy from a child – you'll be better off). However, the warlock showed its teeth.

We need to figure out why the double attack of the minotaurs worked that way; it seems that the elemental damage from the first attack actually hit after the second, and luck also played a role, and the cyclops was already low on health.

The main point is probably "low on health." And the warlock's elemental attack with the warlock's set also worked well. 3 cities with +10%, the warlock's set, and the warlock's special ability.

Well, taking a candy away from a child is very easy; just use a sharp mind and say "berserk/subordinate" to the executioners. :)
Unlike Chaos, Darkness doesn't care how much "meat" there is.

Well, taking a candy from a child is very easy; just pump up a sharp mind and cast Berserk/Subdue on the Executioners. :)
Unlike Chaos, Darkness doesn't care how much "meat" there is.

That's not entirely true. There are replays of attempts to use "Maxim Sorokin's (Psionic)" attack (also known as "frenzied assault") on a large number of units and in duels. Even a sharp mind doesn't help there. And Darkness isn't particularly popular either. 3 stacks of Chieftains (ideally). Who are we casting Berserk on?

Well, taking a candy from a child is very easy.

It's better to say "easier than tearing off a butterfly's wings."
A cat named Malassa.
I got carried away... I have to clean up.

I'm still tweaking the distribution of magic schools among classes; I'm not entirely satisfied with the parameters in some cases because, for example, there are no heroes with 40% spellcasting in the Light faction, and I need to create the most diverse builds possible. There are options for high spellcasting in the Light, and I want to explore them.

Added 2 hours 23 minutes ago
I swapped the positions of the Elves and the Undead; after all, the Undead should inherit high knowledge from the Mages, and the Elves should be associated with the Dark Elves through high spellcasting (which was exactly what the Light faction was lacking). The changes also affected the Mages. Final stat distributions:

Knight 30/40+10/20% (duels 7/9+3/5) = Leadership, Light, Darkness + Attack, Defense, Logistics Paladin 10/40+20/30% (duels 3/9+5/7) = Leadership, Light, Darkness + Defense, Luck, Education Inquisitor 20/40+30/10% (duels 5/9+7/3) = Leadership, Light, Darkness + Engineering, Education, Spellcasting

Warrior 30/40+20/10% (duels 7/9+5/3) = Defense, Light, Chaos + Attack, Luck, Engineering Veteran 20/40+10/30% (duels 5/9+3/7) = Defense, Light, Chaos + Leadership, Engineering, Education Priest 10/40+30/20% (duels 3/9+7/5) = Defense, Light, Chaos + Luck, Education, Spellcasting

Overlord 40/30+20/10% (duels 9/7+5/3) = Attack, Darkness, Chaos + Defense, Luck, Leadership Destroyer 40/10+30/20% (duels 9/3+7/5) = Attack, Darkness, Chaos + Logistics, Engineering, Education Imp 40/20+10/30% (duels 9/5+3/7) = Attack, Darkness, Chaos + Defense, Education, Spellcasting

Barbarian 40/30+10/20% (duels 9/7+3/5) = Engineering, Attack, Leadership + Defense, Luck, Logistics Huntress 40/20+30/10% (duels 9/5+7/3) = Engineering, Attack, Leadership + Logistics, Anti-Chaos, Anti-Summoning Shaman 40/10+20/30% (duels 9/3+5/7) = Engineering, Attack, Leadership + Summons, Anti-Light, Anti-Darkness

Ranger 30/20+40/10% (duels 7/5+9/3) = Luck, Light, Summoning + Attack, Leadership, Logistics Avenger 10/30+40/20% (duels 3/7+9/5) = Luck, Light, Summoning + Attack, Defense, Education Druid 20/10+40/30% (duels 5/3+9/7) = Luck, Light, Summoning + Engineering, Education, Spellcasting

Assassin 30/10+40/20% (duels 7/3+9/5) = Logistics, Darkness, Chaos + Attack, Luck, Engineering Witch 20/30+40/10% (duels 5/7+9/3) = Logistics, Darkness, Chaos + Defense, Leadership, Spellcasting Warlock 10/20+40/30% (duels 3/5+9/7) = Logistics, Darkness, Chaos + Luck, Education, Spellcasting

Reaper 30/20+10/40% (duels 7/5+3/9) = Spellcasting, Darkness, Summoning + Attack, Defense, Logistics Necromancer 10/30+20/40% (duels 3/7+5/9) = Spellcasting, Darkness, Summoning + Defense, Luck, Engineering Cultist 20/10+30/40% (duels 5/3+7/9) = Spellcasting, Darkness, Summoning + Logistics, Engineering, Education

Alchemist 20/30+10/40% (duels 5/7+3/9) = Education, Summoning, Chaos + Leadership, Logistics, Engineering Mystic 30/10+20/40% (duels 7/3+5/9) = Education, Summoning, Chaos + Luck, Leadership, Spellcasting Archmage 10/20+30/40% (duels 3/5+7/9) = Education, Summoning, Chaos + Spellcasting, Light, Darkness

Due to the change in the ratio of large and small creatures, the catapult branch will also change: 1) Artillery - before the battle, kills 10% of the enemy's small creatures (rounding up) 2) Sulfur Rain - before the battle, kills 10% of the enemy's large creatures (rounding up) The numbers have been reduced from 15% to 10%, but due to rounding up instead of down, Sulfur Rain is an effective counter against T7 (guaranteed to kill at least one creature).

And yet, all this happiness sooner or later crashes against the harsh reality of life: In theory (I specifically checked – maybe I’m playing with some buggy mod): 20 45 10 25 But in practice: And this is a High Elf. Where are we headed? This is before I even applied the “+5 to Knowledge” skill. Otherwise, it would be only 10 mana. And what am I supposed to do with them? Am I Leto, casting Plague for free…?

Randomness is randomness. There are artifacts to help you reach the desired minimum value in certain situations. As for mana, WGE has spells for every price range. Because even if you have a lot of mana, after casting a couple of top-tier spells, you'll quickly run out. If you want, cast a tier 1 spell for 1-2 mana (with Talents, it can even be 0-1; the same goes for the free "Arrow" spell). And this isn't the kind of tier 1 spell that you'd avoid because of its ineffectiveness. At tier 1, the "Arrow" spell for 1 mana is comparable to the original tier 2 "Lightning" spell for 5 (when scaling the troops). At tier 2, the "Stone Skin" spell for 6 mana is already comparable to the original tier 5 "Shock" spell for 18. Of course, I don't care about a deep late game with a huge amount of units, which isn't interesting to me. But even for such a late game, scaling applies, as you can accumulate a lot of mana, and it's always in demand (unlike the original, where magical potential is essentially developed only through spellcasting, and knowledge to a lesser extent). Everyone plays the game their own way. In MMH5.5, dragons in an army are bred in dozens, even hundreds. Here, there are only a few dragons in an army, but these are dragons that don't die like flies from the attacks of some hero-warriors.

So, the arrow icon is already good in the original, and it's perfectly fine to use it for "Livny." "Gliba" is also good. But "Shipy" is no longer ideal. I'm playing NHF and trying out different heroes. One of them has Ergar. A logistics specialist, to put it mildly. I foolishly gave him extra expertise. I didn't immediately notice that the specialist skill of the female hero Argat is being used. I struggled with him – he circles the city in a day. And the map is designed so that it should be done in three days. As a result, he goes "out into the world" without spells. And if he waits a bit, he gets additional +7 attack bonuses. Or even without them, if he takes "Pathfinding" at the first level. I understand your desire to reward logistics in battle. I'm the same – if I'm given logistics, I take it. If there's a hero specializing in logistics, I take him. They used to shout "Haggesh-Haggesh." But no way – Argat! Argat and no one else! But 10-20-30 is too much. Logistics specialists already have more advantages on the map than those with slower movement.

I don't think a 10-20-30% bonus to Initiative is that strong, given that units often can't reach their destination in a single turn. It's more of a nice combat bonus that complements logistics. In the arena, you'll probably have to pay extra gold to make sure this skill is chosen for the final battle.
The Undead faction has Dragons of Terror, with an ability that gives them, among other things, a +50% Initiative bonus at the start of the turn. However, I wouldn't say that this shift feels particularly strong for a melee unit; it's more of a small tactical advantage, allowing them to quickly occupy a good position. Perhaps, for a melee unit, +15% to survivability or Initiative is stronger than +30% to Initiative (but for a ranged unit and especially a caster, this bonus is as strong as it was in the original, because the first turn is decisive).

How can you evaluate a 30% bonus to starting Initiative? Roughly speaking, it's just +50% to Initiative, but only during the first turn. Is it overpowered? Without a starting movement bonus, it's useless.

Regarding ranged attacks – 4 mana and 1 mana (and with any discount – 0 mana) – there's a difference. Besides, in the original game, ranged attacks are only needed in the early stages; later on, they're not very useful with a good Spell Power (the cost is almost the same as Lightning, but the damage is much lower).

Added 2 hours 1 minute ago
Regarding logistics – I like the approach implemented in Disciples 2. There, the logistics skill gave as much as +20% to the unit's movement range, but each battle consumed exactly half of the turn, so no matter how good your logistics skill is, your army can't complete more than 2 battles a day.
In WGE, I've done the same (and these are already working scripts), meaning that logistics on the map gives a speed advantage, but not in Initiative, and doesn't directly increase the number of attacks or experience gained. However, like speed in battle, it allows you to choose more appealing targets for attack.
That's why I think it's right to add a decent combat bonus to the skill itself. It's been a long time coming – why should heroes with logistics have fewer combat skills than others?
At the same time, it's possible that some skills in logistics will increase the hero's "Initiative," allowing them to complete more battles a day, but that's not the skill itself; the skill only affects the unit's mobility on the map (not counting the combat bonus).

Added 8 minutes ago
I believe there shouldn't be this nonsense with endless PvE, where you complete a ton of battles a day with the same army (but it's annoying when the hero can't reach a really important object because their speed is low). If you only have one army, all your PvE is limited. If you want to complete many battles, create many battle-ready armies, and that's exactly the motivation to have several combat heroes with their own armies; it's economically more efficient than putting everything into "one stack" (and the hero on the map is strategically just 1 stack). And this is another way to combat the accumulation of a huge number of creatures in one army, even in long games on a large map. Because, in essence, it shouldn't be necessary for clearing the map, but only for the final battle, but try to catch an opponent with a super-hero who has several armies, each capturing their own objects, mines, and cities in different places on the map.
An effective army for clearing the map is one that's sufficient to clear most neutral creatures because it won't hinder economic development, like an excessively large army (instead of which you can assemble 2 effective armies).

And this, by the way, is another reason why I think the idea of restoring 50% of losses after each battle is a good one. It further enhances auto-battles. Most PvE battles should be conducted in automatic mode, and only the most interesting ones (1-2 per day) should be in manual mode. This is the optimal game dynamic, in my opinion. Probably, each manual battle should not only reduce the hero's turn by 50% (like an auto-battle) but take all 100%, so that all of their movement ends on this important battle, but we'll still be testing all these ideas in the future. This is regarding my vision of the game on the map; duels (currently) are not affected by this in any way.