Posts from Hero without an army.

Complete idiocy with situations where a hero is left ALONE.
Actually, in the regular Heroes 3, this is prohibited – either you get killed,
or while running away, you end up in a tavern with a single pikeman.

In 3.5, at a certain stage of development, you realize
that an army for a commander with 1000 hit points, Armageddon up to 1500,
and 95% magic resistance is basically unnecessary.

And then the stupidities begin. Sometimes, after a battle, only this
1 stupid pikeman appears. Or the game freezes, and Windows displays errors.
Does anyone know of a patch?

I don't know about the patch, but in Heroes 3, it's possible for a hero to be without an army. When your castle is attacked, you can summon various elementals and clones, and the army you had before dies. If you win, your hero will be left without an army!

And both heroes die. Not just one hero is left without an army.

I don't know, I don't know. In my case, it was possible and impossible to leave the Castle because a message appeared saying that the hero must have at least one warrior (I had this in The Shadow of Death).

I don't know about whether the hero remains alive after winning a battle with summoned elementals... But it's a fact: heroes without any equipment are not uncommon, both in part 3 and in 3.5. Just surrender to the enemy for 0 coins, and you'll be in the tavern with nothing on, excuse me, but your rear.

I had something similar happen in one of the maps – a Seer wanted certain monsters, I gave him everything, and I ended up wandering around without an army – the result was 8 clones of the same hero:smile40: :smile40:

How can a hero be left alone while the commander still has troops?

Hey guys, what's the problem? :D I don't get it.

Guys, what's the problem?:D I don't understand.

That's why they're wondering if it's a bug or some kind of glitch. Of course, it depends on the versions...

I think this is a flaw... or maybe not=)). But it's not very fun to explore without an army with just one commander (even if he can defeat up to 10 Azure Dragons). After all, army battles are interesting=););)

Yes, playing with armies is much more interesting, but we also need to determine the actual strength of the commanders in order to develop more balanced specializations in the future.

Playing with armies is much more interesting, but we also need to determine the actual strength of commanders to develop more balanced specializations in the future.

This is turning into some kind of RPG... No thanks, it's no longer fun to specifically level up and evaluate commanders. If they move around with an army, then let them level up.

No, it’s still a useful feature for improving commanders... For example, I’m playing as Stronghold and leveling up the commander with attack, health, strength, and damage skills, and he alone can defeat huge armies, and artillery with a bunch of ballistae is just devastating... But if you don’t level up a warrior, then the commander is weak and useless in battle... So, saying that it’s not interesting to run around with one commander isn’t entirely correct.

Moreover, you can also develop your troops in the Fortress.

And there are some really cool upgrades, for example, for the Pegasus – they don’t take damage and fly away nicely... As for the Commando, here’s an example: if they constantly cast Blind on him, he won’t move, and they’ll cast Blind on him again (of course, only if he doesn’t have magic resistance).