Auto-translated
Hey, we're actually talking about the third game here! The fifth one is a completely different topic!
Феанор
Posts from Secondary skills in Heroes 3.
samadura
Auto-translated
1 - Logistics
2 - Wisdom
3 - Earth
4 - Air
5 - Ballistics
6 - Sorcery
7 - Leadership vs. Luck
8 - NECROMANCY (as standard) :)))))))))))))))
Forget about diplomacy - it's for beginners... it's not interesting later on.
If sorcery for a mage can somehow be debated, then ballistics or leadership with luck... in my opinion, there are more important skills to replace them with, such as Tactics, Magic Resistance, or Intelligence.
Added 5 minutes later
Hmm... a second hero?! Leveling up a second hero?! Not leveling up Wisdom?! The only thing additional heroes need is +resources and Economy. Maybe also Navigation + Scouting + Logistics, but that would only create a scout who can carry an army from the castle. Making two combat (in the sense of attacking) heroes is, in my opinion, just stupid. Unless, of course, that's what was meant...
gamer-kirill
Auto-translated
to samadura
By the way, regarding the second hero, as well as the third and fourth... if you're going to create them, Necromancers have the best conditions for it. By equipping the army with vampires and other creatures, you can increase the number of skeletons without paying much attention to the number of "supporting" units. This way, you can get several heroes. Moreover, Necromancers are slow, and it's better when several armies clear out neutral creatures simultaneously, so the skeletons grow faster.
In any case, when I play as the undead, I always create many heroes. Then, each of them can give a major battle (of course, you need to merge all the armies under the command of your favorite hero beforehand).
By the way, regarding the second hero, as well as the third and fourth... if you're going to create them, Necromancers have the best conditions for it. By equipping the army with vampires and other creatures, you can increase the number of skeletons without paying much attention to the number of "supporting" units. This way, you can get several heroes. Moreover, Necromancers are slow, and it's better when several armies clear out neutral creatures simultaneously, so the skeletons grow faster.
In any case, when I play as the undead, I always create many heroes. Then, each of them can give a major battle (of course, you need to merge all the armies under the command of your favorite hero beforehand).
samadura
Auto-translated
to samadura
By the way, regarding the second hero, as well as the third and fourth... if you're going to create them, the Necromancers have the best conditions for it. By equipping the army with vampires and other creatures, you can increase the number of skeletons without paying too much attention to the number of "supporting" units. This way, you can get several heroes. Moreover, Necromancers are slow, and it's better when several armies clear out neutral territories simultaneously; the skeletons grow faster.
In any case, when I play as the Undead, I always create many heroes. Then, each of them can engage in a major battle (of course, you need to merge all the armies under the command of your favorite hero beforehand).
And regarding collecting skeletons, the main... the lion's share of all skeletons still comes from the main hero, no matter what... he has the army and the necessary artifacts... and those that run around separately and collect...
But this takes time; you'll definitely send them out no earlier than the first month + you'll have to detach them from the main forces, at least with 10 upgraded vampires + while they are learning Necromancy level 3 + there is a high probability that they will be defeated somewhere in foreign lands with those 10 vampires = at best, half of them will return home, and those 300-500 skeletons that they collect for you won't make much difference (Vidomina or Izra in a "good location," and even with the right artifacts, can raise that many in a couple of days) and don't forget about time... it always takes a long time to travel with Necromancers due to constant battles, and if you have to pack skeletons with a couple of additional heroes with "weak troops" in addition to the main one, then imagine how much time it will take... who will like it if you take "an hour" to make a move?
gamer-kirill
Auto-translated
to samadura
I read the post carefully. Maybe I wasn't understood correctly. I meant the main heroes, each of whom can give a decisive battle. Of course, the idea of moving "one unit per turn" wouldn't appeal to many people. By the way, this is one of the reasons why I don't like playing as Necromancers. As for armies, it's good that Necromancers can gather small forces of skeletons. They have resources for this: vampires, the spell to raise the dead. And they have excellent archers of the fifth level.
I'm not saying that there necessarily need to be many heroes.
I read the post carefully. Maybe I wasn't understood correctly. I meant the main heroes, each of whom can give a decisive battle. Of course, the idea of moving "one unit per turn" wouldn't appeal to many people. By the way, this is one of the reasons why I don't like playing as Necromancers. As for armies, it's good that Necromancers can gather small forces of skeletons. They have resources for this: vampires, the spell to raise the dead. And they have excellent archers of the fifth level.
I'm not saying that there necessarily need to be many heroes.
eXeCuToR
Auto-translated
I definitely disagree that there should only be one main hero! My father constantly played with multiple heroes, and he did a great job. He's actually a better Heroes player than I am, so I can only tell you that it's not useless at all. On the contrary, it provides more opportunities to complete the game faster.
samadura
Auto-translated
to samadura
I read your post carefully. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I meant the main heroes, each of whom can lead a major battle. Of course, the "one turn per hour" thing isn't something many people would enjoy. By the way, this is one of the reasons I don't like playing as Necromancers. And regarding armies – it's actually a good thing for Necromancers that they can gather small forces of skeletons. They have resources for this: Vampires, the Raise Dead spell. And they have excellent archers of the fifth level.
I'm not saying that you necessarily need a lot of heroes.
eXeCuToR
Auto-translated
Sorry for being blunt, but when someone says that you should have several main heroes, it means that the person is either not very experienced or hasn't played enough games against other players.
Now, let me give you a few arguments as to why having several main heroes is simply stupid.
1. First... again, it's a matter of time... it's one thing when you develop one hero, fight, and so on... and "weaklings" just help (scout the territory, provide support, etc.), and it's completely different when you have two or more of these heroes, each of whom needs to fight, etc.
2. Second... in order to develop a hero, you naturally need to move around the map and fight, right? ...so, in order to fight, the hero must have at least some strength... even more than just some, but decent strength... that's logical... and now, let's do some simple math: if all opponents are developing at approximately the same rate... the total number of units in the royal army will also be approximately the same... and in this case, the player whose forces are concentrated in one hero will always win...(you might encounter one of your main heroes against a fully equipped opponent and lose part of your forces!) Therefore, whenever possible, the entire royal army should be with the main hero... even if you lose a city, you can recapture it later... but losing part of your royal army is a big setback in development!!!
3. In order to control the entire situation on the map, it is not necessary to have a bunch of additional heroes... and by developing your main hero, learning the spells Town Portal and Teleport, you have more than enough control and can quickly move to any corner... these two spells are the basis of the entire game!
I wouldn't judge so quickly in your place. You need to consider all game tactics.
1. The time spent is not more than when developing one hero; they simply develop in parallel. For example, you are developing one hero, and the opponent is developing his hero at the same time. And by developing a second hero, you prevent the opponent from developing his hero. You can level up the second hero where the opponent's hero was supposed to level up.
2. And is it necessary to give only reinforcements from the starting castle? There are neutral castles, castles captured from the opponent, and neutral dwellings. Besides, if your first hero is far from his home castle, the second hero can take reinforcements and not give them to the first, but go with him to where the first hero has not yet been. Then the map is explored faster.
3. These spells really help to control the situation on the map, but it is not a fact that you will get them. Besides, I want to play not "Who finds the portal to the city faster," but Heroes. That is, you need to play according to different scenarios.
gamer-kirill
Auto-translated
Yes, Executor said it all.
If having one main hero is a dogma for samadura, then, like any dogmatist, he closes himself off from other possibilities.
I'll add that the most interesting moments in Heroes come when you deviate from dogmas and standards in favor of effective solutions dictated by a specific situation.
Heroes has its own physics, its own methods and preferences, and each player has their own style of play. But I wouldn't present this as an absolute truth.
P.S. I didn't say that there MUST be several main heroes.
If having one main hero is a dogma for samadura, then, like any dogmatist, he closes himself off from other possibilities.
I'll add that the most interesting moments in Heroes come when you deviate from dogmas and standards in favor of effective solutions dictated by a specific situation.
Heroes has its own physics, its own methods and preferences, and each player has their own style of play. But I wouldn't present this as an absolute truth.
P.S. I didn't say that there MUST be several main heroes.
samadura
Auto-translated
I wouldn't judge so quickly in your place. You need to consider all game tactics.
1. And it doesn't take more time than leveling up one hero; they just level up in parallel. For example, you level up one hero, and the opponent levels up theirs at the same time. And by leveling up a second hero, you prevent the opponent from leveling up their hero. You can level up the second hero where the opponent's hero was supposed to level up.
2. And is it necessary to give units specifically from the starting castle? There are neutral castles, castles taken from the opponent, and neutral dwellings, after all. Besides, if your first hero is far from your home castle, the second hero can take units and not bring them to the first, but go with them to where the first hero hasn't been yet. Then the map is explored faster.
3. These spells really help to control the situation on the map, but it's not a given that you'll get them. Besides, I want to play Heroes, not "Who finds the portal to the city faster." That is, you need to play according to different scenarios.
2. I won't say much about your second point. I HAVE EVERYTHING AVAILABLE IN THE SECOND (DISPERSION OF FORCES AND THAT'S IT!!!!) This is a big MINUS, it's a WRONG, STUPID tactic!!! And you can't gather a decent army from neutrals to level up to 200% when there are hordes all around... you can't do much with neutrals... (and you still have to "earn" an expert in diplomacy), it will take time... a lot of time...
3. Yes, it's not a given that I'll get these spells right away (I've had cases where I didn't find a Town Portal even in 15 level 5 castles)... but that's still no reason to split the royal army into pieces!!!
eXeCuToR
Auto-translated
1. "They level up in parallel, and it doesn't take more time than with one": D Do you ever think about what you're writing? OF COURSE, IT WILL TAKE MORE TIME FOR TWO!!!! BECAUSE THERE ARE 2 OF THEM, NOT 1!!!! BECAUSE YOU NEED TO CONTROL BOTH OF THEM!!!! Plus, besides fighting, they also need to be leveled up, which means planning their movement on the map!!! This isn't some "beggar" that you automatically send wherever you want for scouting...
2. I won't say much about your second point. I already have everything written out in my second post (fragmentation of forces, and that's it!!!!) This is a big MINUS, it's a WRONG, STUPID tactic!!! And you won't gather a decent army from the neutrals to level up to 200% when there are hordes all around... you can't do much with neutrals... (and you still need to "earn" the diplomacy expert skill) This will take time... a lot of time...
3. Yes, it's not a fact that I'll get these spells right away (I've had cases where I didn't find a Town Portal even with 15 level 5 castles)... but that's still not a reason to split the royal army into pieces!!!!
You know what... You should first learn to understand other people's thoughts. I wrote exactly what I wanted to say. The game time spent will be exactly the same as with one. Or have you forgotten that this is a turn-based strategy? If you wanted to show how much smarter you are, you didn't succeed.
I disagree with you on the second point. And there isn't much of an army split.
P.S. Arguing with you is not enjoyable, as you clearly don't respect other people's opinions. Sorry, with all due respect, Executor.
gamer-kirill
Auto-translated
to samadura
Perhaps it would be best not to rush with an answer, but instead dedicate time to more attentive and unhurried reading of the opinions expressed by other forum participants?
Perhaps it would be best not to rush with an answer, but instead dedicate time to more attentive and unhurried reading of the opinions expressed by other forum participants?
samadura
Auto-translated
You know what... You should first learn to understand other people's thoughts; I wrote exactly what I wanted. The game time will be exactly the same as with one player. Or have you forgotten that this is a turn-based strategy game? If you wanted to show how much smarter you are, you didn't succeed.
I disagree with you on the second point. And there isn't much army splitting going on.
P.S. Arguing with you is not enjoyable, as you clearly don't respect other people's opinions. Sorry, with all due respect, Executor.
You are contradicting yourself..."not much is happening" means you already agree that something is happening...and if, for example, the Necropolis can replenish its losses by raising skeletons...then for other castles, losing even a small part of the main army is bad + don't forget about visiting utopias and other conquests...the Necropolis will have replenishment, while other castles will suffer losses.
Added after 17 minutes
to samadura
Perhaps it would be better not to rush with an answer, but instead dedicate time to more attentive and unhurried reading of the opinions expressed by other forum participants?
And all this is not empty boasting, but a LOT OF EXPERIENCE (more than 9 years) and hundreds of games played, both against people and against the computer...against rushers, smashers, and others...
I myself, when I was just starting to play, was a rusher...the style of the game was all about speed...quickness...then, over time, with experience, I became wiser...I already played with friends who, like me, were also learning the basics of the game...such cavalry raids became less and less effective, only the computer could be easily caught with this tactic.
Over time, you grasp the ESSENCE...you understand all the nuances of strategy, development, and so on in this game.
I'm not saying that it's not chess, and the factor of luck plays a big role in this game...but still, let's say that if a strong player plays against a weak player and they play 100 games, then the strong player will win much more often!
Auto-translated
YES, IN ANY CASE, MORE TIME WILL BE SPENT ON TWO!!!! BECAUSE THERE ARE 2 OF THEM, NOT 1!!!! BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM NEED TO BE MANAGED!!!!! + BESIDES FIGHTING AND LEVELING UP, YOU ALSO NEED TO PLAN THEIR MOVEMENT ON THE MAP!!!
(DISPERSAL OF FORCES AND THAT'S IT!!!!) THIS IS A BIG MINUS, IT'S AN INCORRECT, STUPID TACTIC!!! AND YOU CAN'T GATHER A DECENT ARMY FROM NEUTRALS FOR LEVELING UP TO 200% WHEN THERE ARE HORDS ALL AROUND... YOU CAN'T DO MUCH WITH NEUTRALS... (AND YOU STILL NEED TO "EARN" AN EXPERT IN DIPLOMACY) IT WILL TAKE TIME... A LOT OF TIME...
YOU JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE ESSENCE... YOU UNDERSTAND ALL THE NUANCES OF STRATEGY, DEVELOPMENT, ETC... IN THIS GAME.
DON'T FORGET ABOUT VISITING UTOPIAS AND OTHER CONQUESTS... THE NECROMANCER WILL LOSE OUT AT OTHER CASTLES.
And on the topic. :D Level up scouting and literacy with wisdom - so that enemies don't jump out of the darkness (the army is divided - 8 main heroes :D), and so that you can immediately notice a level 6 dwelling - you have to go around the mountains to get to it. And a literate and wise guy, or girl, will bring a portal to the city in time - so that you can immediately return from the treasure room to your home. :)
gamer-kirill
Auto-translated
2 samadura
Samasura writes:
[And all this is not empty boasting, but a LOT of experience (more than 9 years) and hundreds of games played, both against people and against the computer... against rushers and other players.../QUOTE]
He-he-he... here, such experience is unlikely to surprise anyone)))))):D
If we talk about the topic:
The advantages of having several heroes are very well described in the previous post.
Let me clarify right away (for the third time) that there are situations when you need one hero, and there are situations when you need several. So now I want to describe situations when several heroes are better.
1. On small maps. If you are building chains, you can transfer troops from one end to the other along the chain, from one main hero to another.
2. I don't know if it's worth carefully buying out the entire population and carrying it around the map. Personally, I ALWAYS divide the army. This gives me several advantages. First, it saves money. For example, I don't buy out zombies or other slow-moving units. I only take those that will be directly needed in the UPCOMING battle. For example, I'm playing as the Swamp Castle. I buy dragonflies and a tent in one army to clear the map. (this hero has the ability to move quickly and clear out minor squads of levels 1-2, the downside is that dragonflies melt quite quickly, plus, due to the range of movement, there are many battles in one day, but the increase in dragonflies is large). The other hero has wyverns and lizardmen archers for clearing the map. When I come across a Medusa lair, a Canned Castle, or a Utopia, I take Hydras, Basilisks, and Mighty Gorgons. Thus, I constantly combine the composition.
If I suddenly have few troops in a slot, I'd rather leave it empty, as they won't be of much use anyway. Maybe it's better to fill this slot with someone else.
3. As was rightly noted in the previous post, two heroes develop faster simply because they are fighting simultaneously on different ends of the map. And on large maps, one hero is often not enough. Plus, in the game, you often have several built castles, and you simply cannot equip one army with all the units. But you can give the other part of the population to the second hero. I don't think you'll lose out on development because of this.
And I don't understand at all what rush has to do with it? Why are you writing about it?
Samasura writes:
[And all this is not empty boasting, but a LOT of experience (more than 9 years) and hundreds of games played, both against people and against the computer... against rushers and other players.../QUOTE]
He-he-he... here, such experience is unlikely to surprise anyone)))))):D
If we talk about the topic:
The advantages of having several heroes are very well described in the previous post.
Let me clarify right away (for the third time) that there are situations when you need one hero, and there are situations when you need several. So now I want to describe situations when several heroes are better.
1. On small maps. If you are building chains, you can transfer troops from one end to the other along the chain, from one main hero to another.
2. I don't know if it's worth carefully buying out the entire population and carrying it around the map. Personally, I ALWAYS divide the army. This gives me several advantages. First, it saves money. For example, I don't buy out zombies or other slow-moving units. I only take those that will be directly needed in the UPCOMING battle. For example, I'm playing as the Swamp Castle. I buy dragonflies and a tent in one army to clear the map. (this hero has the ability to move quickly and clear out minor squads of levels 1-2, the downside is that dragonflies melt quite quickly, plus, due to the range of movement, there are many battles in one day, but the increase in dragonflies is large). The other hero has wyverns and lizardmen archers for clearing the map. When I come across a Medusa lair, a Canned Castle, or a Utopia, I take Hydras, Basilisks, and Mighty Gorgons. Thus, I constantly combine the composition.
If I suddenly have few troops in a slot, I'd rather leave it empty, as they won't be of much use anyway. Maybe it's better to fill this slot with someone else.
3. As was rightly noted in the previous post, two heroes develop faster simply because they are fighting simultaneously on different ends of the map. And on large maps, one hero is often not enough. Plus, in the game, you often have several built castles, and you simply cannot equip one army with all the units. But you can give the other part of the population to the second hero. I don't think you'll lose out on development because of this.
And I don't understand at all what rush has to do with it? Why are you writing about it?
Statistics
Welcome our newest member:
recijeb
Users Online 9 users 1325 guests
Today's Visitors 32
- ALVYDAS
- Arandor
- AstralLein
- burymm
- Dark Jack
- dotahcxun
- elizbar1967
- fktifzobr@mail.ru
- Golvek
- Happy Life
- Heroist
- Hottler
- HwKeeper
- IchGViji
- kcfgogbfalgfl
- LifeForm
- Narron
- OrnsteinDragonslayer
- PingWing
- Ple-Sen
- Sir Syddan
- Siverfale
- Valery59
- Валера 111
- Граф Орлов
- Джек
- Драккошка
- Дугал
- Злобный Ящур
- Небо
- Нэйко
- Саргон