Posts from The most USELESS monster. Auto-translated

I could just as easily say that it's impossible to determine once and for all which monster is the MOST USEFUL!
So, what then? Is that it?
Pandor, you're surprising me...
Sincerely.

Opt, you're the one surprising me. What does useful or useless mean? Look at the poll in another thread, what did it come down to? To usefulness, you think? As for me, I agree with Arandor that it's a rating of cool (strong) monsters. I write about the right tactics in both threads, where any monster can become useful. Don't believe me, check it out, read my messages...

With no less respect, Pandor.

Sometimes you might not even notice when a summon has activated and automatically attack something.

So, what does this or that unit have to do with it...?

I know the most useless archer. It's the Centaur. As an archer, it's a zero. They probably have poor eyesight. A Cyclops can aim better with just one eye.))) It can be somewhat useful for protecting a hero-archer or a hero-mage. If someone gets close to the hero (for melee attack), there's a chance the Centaur won't miss too badly. And they don't shoot for very long. Their spears run out quickly. But in Greek mythology, Centaurs were the best spear throwers. According to myths, only Heracles could throw a spear further and more accurately. But the world of Heroes isn't connected to Greek mythology; it just borrowed mythological creatures from it.

The centaur may not be a great archer, but it excels in melee combat and can shoot effectively at close range. It's better than an orc. The most useless... hmm, it's hard to say. It depends on the situation. Even slow creatures, like those from the Hive, can be useless. They can only be useful within the castle. The peasant and the leprechaun... they don't offer much, but they can protect the heroes in battle, which means they're already helping. Plus, the first one brings gold, and the second one brings luck, even if it's just once. But I'd probably choose the peasant; its stats are better. As for the pirates... I don't even remember when I last hired them. But they can also be used like the two mentioned above, for defense and just as cannon fodder. And their stats are better, I think. The dwarves also belong to this category. They're good for covering the heroes and archers. Otherwise, they can only help in battles with neutral creatures. They're not very effective against humans; they'll reach the enemy and die quickly. So, it's better to use them to protect heroes and archers. The berserker may be dumb, but it can hack down a certain number of enemies if it's against neutral creatures. But if it's against humans, you need a lot of them for them to survive and reach the enemy. P.S. It's hard to choose a useless creature, especially at the beginning of the game when you're glad to have any creature join you. But at the end, you don't take anyone because you already have your own creatures, and there are many of them, and there's no more space. So, it turns out that they're not needed and are useless in that situation.

Opt, you're surprising me. What does "useful" or "useless" mean? Look at the poll in another thread, what did it come down to? To usefulness, you think? As for me, I agree with Arandor that it's a rating of cool (strong) monsters. I write about the right tactics in both threads, where any monster can become useful. Don't believe me, check it out, read my messages...

Heh...Pandora, did you read the first post?
"""...Who do you consider to be such a monster and in what situation?"""
I think this sentence is worth paying attention to.
Sincerely.

Heh... Pandor, did you read the first post?
"""...Who do you consider to be such a monster and in what situation?"""
I think this question deserves attention.
Sincerely.

Ahem... heh-heh. And did you read my first message in this thread? It seems I clearly stated that if you can't choose a suitable monster for a particular situation, you are a poor tactician. That's all. Or is there something wrong with my speech...?

Ahem... he-he. Did you read my first post in this thread? I think I made it clear that if you can't find a suitable monster for a particular situation, you're just a bad tactician. That's all. Or is there something wrong with my speech...?

I'll try to answer instead of OptiMAL.
So, your speech is fine.
The topic is about the most USELESS monster, where creatures are discussed in a particular situation. And this doesn't mean that these creatures are often found in a player's army, and if they are, the player is a bad tactician. Any creature, even the most useful, can be useless in certain situations and therefore useless in that situation. For example, let's take me and my army: my hero is a Chaos Sorcerer. He knows all the Chaos magic from A to Z. My army consists of 20 Sorceresses, several dozen Orcs, skeletons, Berserkers, etc. On my way to victory, I encounter 17 Black Dragons and Frenzied Bulls. And what should I do? In this situation, the Sorceresses and my Chaos Sorcerer hero are the most useless. The same goes for Magic Dragons and even if I summon Djinns. Now, let's say I have Gargantuas or Dragon Lords instead of the Sorceresses. They will be more useful against the Black Dragons and Frenzied Bulls than the Sorceresses, Djinns, etc.
All of this is to say that the most useful creature can turn out to be the most useless in a certain situation. And it doesn't matter if a good tactician is in charge of the army or a bad one. )))

Basically, General Zet said everything for me. Thank you:smile20:
But I'll still add something.
Pandor, let's analyze the phrase from the first post:
Which monster and in what situation do we consider useless?
You have almost all mages in your army. As General Zet said, against creatures that have 100% magic resistance, mages will simply be cannon fodder. What is their usefulness at that moment?
Now let's analyze your post.
You said that if I have useless units in my army, then I am a bad tactician. Let's look at it. I have 100 Djinns in my army, and I'm fighting against 1 Barbarian-Rambo. But I could have taken a Naga instead of them, and they would be more useful than the Djinns. Therefore, at THIS moment, the Djinns are the most useless.

I had a situation where I was completely useless. Here's what happened: I had a mage with knowledge of 4th-level magic of Haven. In my path were gates (Garrison). There was a guard – 3 magic dragons. In my army, there was also one djinn left over from the previous battle. The djinn went first. He flew to the gates, and a lightning bolt killed him (from the magic dragon). He seemed to enjoy it. His morale increased, and he cast another lightning bolt on my hero. It didn't do much damage. The mage didn't know teleportation. I wanted the wizard to come out from behind the fence and fight me in melee combat. I cast the "Berserk" spell on the dragon. Then, the mirror spell activated. That was it... we were done... They stood there under the effect of "Berserk" for a long time, just skipping their turn. I waited for a minute, then another. They kept skipping their turn. I couldn't do anything except Alt+F4. And for those two minutes, I was completely useless. That's the story.

well... 20 Sorceresses might be more useful than ten skeletons and other units)
because they have better stats)) so they can be just as good in melee combat as skeletons and Berserkers.

Well... 20 Sorceresses can be more useful than ten skeletons and other creatures.
After all, they have better stats)) so they can be just as good in melee combat as skeletons and Berserkers.

I wasn't saying that skeletons and the like are more useful than Sorceresses. I meant Gargantuars, Kings, and almost all level 4 creatures that don't deal magic damage.

I think peasants are the most useless creatures. They reproduce quickly, so I don't take特别 care of them.

I think leprechauns, satyrs, and all the other creatures from the portal are useless, with the exception of elementals and mantises. I personally prefer the latter.

I find the following units to be useless: Leprechauns, Satyrs, some elementals, Trolls, Mummies, Troglodytes, and so on. It's clear that you can't build a strong army with them alone, which is why I don't particularly like them. I consider the following to be the most useless: Pirates, as they are difficult to access and a weak unit; and Sea Serpent, when you already have a strong army, and you were given a couple of them for completing a quest. In my opinion, they are not very useful, just like, for example, 1 Mega Dragon, when you already have a large army.

Leprechauns, satyrs, peasants, elementals, trolls, mummies, troglodytes – can be very useful at the beginning of the game or in a rapidly developing war where you don't have to make choices. Leprechauns are useful because of their luck, and luck sometimes helps to win. A satyr with the "enthusiasm" spell can also be very useful, and higher morale sometimes plays an exceptional role and becomes the key to victory. A peasant brings gold; if you are short by 1 unit of gold and cannot hire an angel, you lose. If you had a peasant, its benefit of 1 unit of gold per day could allow you to hire an angel and win. Trolls are very useful with their regeneration, and creatures of the same level as a troll (level 2) find it difficult to defeat it. Mummies cast a curse on enemy creatures or a hero. Under the influence of the curse, the characteristics of creatures are reduced. A troglodyte can distract the enemy from the hero or serve as cannon fodder. All of this shows that every creature has some benefit; you just need to see and understand it. And in certain situations, even the strongest creature can be useless compared to a satyr.

I understand that perfectly, but it's more about the "early game" or the lack of alternatives – these are specific cases. When large-scale battles take place, I don't think such a unit is an indispensable asset, although the zeal and luck of Leprechauns and Satyrs have saved me more than once, even though you won't find their dwellings everywhere, and portals are expensive...

P.S.: This applies to all neutral creatures...