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.
A mysterious situation. The standard editor shows that Armageddon is banned, while the extended editor shows that it is not. Now I have questions about how this is possible. At the same time, if a built Grail grants Armageddon, it clearly indicates that the correct display is in the extended editor.
Well, it seems the extended editor allows you to check a box in the right column. But in any case, Counterstrike and Inferno will appear there. The Grail grants absolutely all spells, even Death Wave, Sacrifice, and Curse, which also cannot appear in the Conflux. The Grail does not grant spells that are banned in the map settings.
Marlo_Stanfield
Auto-translated
Funny. It turns out that in the standard editor, you can't configure it so that when the Grail is built in Fortress, it doesn't produce Armageddon, Curse, Wave of Death, Animate, and Sacrifice. The windows opposite these spells in the right column in the standard editor are inactive. And if you ban these spells in the global map settings, the Grail will still produce them.
Even if you ban these spells in the global map settings, the Grail will still grant them.
It shouldn't.
Marlo_Stanfield
Auto-translated
Yes, it does. The priority is determined by the spell settings within a specific map. For example, in the map being discussed, Armageddon is disabled in the global map settings.
Yes, it does. The priority is given to the spell settings within a specific map. For example, in the map we're discussing, Armageddon is disabled in the global map settings.
Yes, I remember, if you disable it directly in the map, then the Grail won't grant the spell.
Real-time speedruns in Heroes are also quite amusing. There are even videos where a complete newbie clicks like in Starcraft, trying to show some kind of micro-management, even though they can't even properly conduct battles, but they still managed to write two letters, WR.
Is that Sept, the cute old-timer? I think he was trying to speedrun not only in real-time but also by the number of in-game days.
Returning to the battle against the champions on the Obi map: Obi
the main thing in this battle is to find a configuration in which 4 out of 7 stacks of champions die within the first 5 turns; after that, everything becomes much easier.
Are we even talking about the same thing? The main thing, actually, is to survive the champions' second turn, and that's where the problem lies (let's set aside the issue of standing behind one wall). If you survive the second turn (and most likely, 2 stacks will be lost), then it will be easier. This is the state that could not be achieved after trying hundreds of variations. And that's why this battle, along with the map, starts to become very annoying. wenwell
But, in my opinion, if you find the right moves in the initial rounds (there aren't that many variations), then everything goes normally.
Excuse me, there aren't that many variations? For the option with one stack of fey, we have 70 possible hexes for the placement in the first turn on the tactical map. And about 30 hexes for the placement of the first wall, and the behavior of the champions can differ depending on the position of the wall. This is already 2100 action variations before the champions' first turn. In the second turn, there are even more action + wall placement variations, but if we remove the obviously unnecessary ones, then logically useful ones (where the second wall is next to the first) and at least the first stack doesn't kill you, there will be about 10 variations. In total, we get over 20,000 action variations that will likely allow you to survive the 2nd round. But that's not a certainty. After all, there is also the option of removing +1 speed (we become equal in speed to the 1st stack) and taking actions through wait - this is also several thousand variations. And there is also the option of splitting into 2 stacks. This is no longer 70 placement variations on the tactical map, but 70*69=4930, and the variations of actions in two turns are already about 1.4 million. And with all this variety of options, the only hint for the first 2 turns is "don't spend more than 13 walls," when the actual problem is how to at least survive until you can place the 3rd wall? This seems inadequate. There is a cognitive bias called something like "the curse of knowledge." When knowing something, a person may perceive something as obvious to others. I am very glad if you were able to quickly find the right solution for at least the first 2 turns, but you are wrongly not taking into account the space of empty variations that others have to dig through, while you were lucky enough not to get stuck in it. I would understand if the solution was found in at least the first few hundred most obvious variations. But, alas, it seems that I was not lucky with my intuition. And exploring other tens of thousands of variations, I do not consider an interesting or even somehow justified task.
I don't really enjoy battles with a wall. It's not very interesting to just sit there and guess how the AI will decide to act.
Marlo_Stanfield
Auto-translated
Maybe this will help: if you block the Fairy with a wall in the first round, the Champions will stay in place. This will give you the opportunity to place 2 walls in the next 2 rounds and move the Champions through them.
Let's get back to the battle against the champions on the Obi map. Are we even talking about the same thing? The main goal, actually, is to survive the champions' second turn, and that's where the problem lies (let's set aside the issue of standing behind a single wall). If you can survive the second turn (and you'll likely lose 2 stacks in the process), then it will be easier. This is the state that we couldn't achieve after trying hundreds of variations. And that's why this battle, along with the map, is starting to annoy me. Sorry, are there really not that many variations? Just for the option with a single stack of Faeries, there are 70 possible hexes for the initial placement on the tactics map. And about 30 hexes for the placement of the first wall, and the champions' behavior can differ depending on the wall's position. That's already 2100 possible actions before the champions' first turn. On the second turn, there are even more action + wall placement options, but if we remove the obviously unnecessary ones, there are logically useful ones (where the second wall is next to the first) where at least the first stack doesn't kill you, let's say about 10 options. In total, we get over 20,000 possible actions that could potentially allow you to survive the 2nd round. But that's not a certainty. After all, there's also the option of removing +1 speed (we match the speed of the 1st stack) and acting through wait - that's also several thousand options. And there's also the option of splitting into 2 stacks. That's no longer 70 placement options on the tactics map, but 70*69=4930, and the number of action variations over two turns is already around 1.4 million.
And with all this variety of options, the hint for the first 2 turns is "don't use more than 13 walls," when the real problem is how to even survive long enough to be able to place the 3rd wall? This seems inadequate. There's a cognitive bias called something like "the curse of knowledge." When someone knows something, they may perceive something as obvious to others. I'm very glad if you were able to quickly find the right solution for the first 2 turns, but you're wrongly ignoring the space of empty options that others have to dig through, while you were lucky enough not to get stuck in it. I would understand if the solution was found in at least the first few hundred most obvious options. But, unfortunately, it seems my intuition failed me. And exploring other tens of thousands of options, I don't consider it an interesting or even somehow justified task.
There are many options in this battle, but in my opinion, it's obvious that the best possible configuration is to stand behind a single wall in the first turn, forcing the champions to stand still (which reduces the number of initial positions from 70 to 5), so that by the 3rd turn, you can attack the champions with 2 walls at once. Splitting the Faeries into 2 stacks is also obviously pointless, because in that case, you can't stand behind a single wall without losing any of the Faeries, and you yourself wrote that you know that all the Faeries need to be preserved. I don't want to argue or prove anything; if you really don't like this battle, I can give you a more obvious hint (for example, write the correct placement of the first n walls, n - you choose), or send you the solution in a private message.
it's just a matter of guessing how the AI will decide to proceed.
Hmm, it shouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer the AI's decision-making algorithm, so why not make a new option in Heroes of Might and Magic/Might & Magic that provides a hint about the AI's next move? Although, as far as I understand, it seems to be based on a random timer.
There are many options in this battle, but in my opinion, it is obvious that the best possible configuration is to stand behind a single wall for 1 turn, forcing the champions to stay in place (which reduces the number of starting positions from 70 to 5), so that by the 3rd turn, you can burn through the champions with 2 walls at once.
But this is not obvious at all! And this is precisely an example of a good hint, and this is exactly what is sufficient! Because it immediately eliminates many branches of development: the combination of unit position + wall placement reduces the number of options not from 70, but from 2100 to 5. This is the problem, oh my god, the author assumes this is obvious! Why could this be obvious? When you have a fast-flying unit + tactics, why would you need to wait 1 turn behind a single wall? By the way, at first glance, I don't understand what changes, but this is precisely a reason to think. And this is exactly what should be in the hint. Currently, what is in the hint is very thick trolling. I had many options where 2 stacks were burned in the first 2 turns, and almost succeeded with an option involving waiting, with the speed and burn artifact removed, starting from the very first round. Why does the author think that the two-stack option is an obvious wrong approach? On the contrary, it is the fastest possible and least mana-intensive way to win. It doesn't even involve hiding behind a single wall. Currently, the problem with it is that you lose 1 unit. But why is it obvious that in the remaining 1.4 million possible actions in 2 turns, you won't get the desired outcome?
This is a surprisingly clear example of the curse of knowledge and the blindness of analyzing the solution space. It's a criticism, but it's a normal phenomenon that someone couldn't look at the problem with an unbiased perspective – it's really not easy. I can give an example so that you can feel what it's like from the other side: many people can solve quadratic equations. It turns out that this knowledge is enough to solve cubic equations. There is a very simple approach, no additional knowledge or skills are needed; you just need to do a couple of simple operations, and the cubic equation will be reduced to a quadratic one. Can you figure it out on your own? I, for example, would never have guessed, but it's brilliantly simple.
