Posts from Which creatures from the alternative upgrade options do you choose?

1) in defense, because they are tougher. 2) because they look like homeless people) ragged and live in miserable huts. 3) strangely enough, my grammar is actually quite good; I just sometimes deliberately write incorrectly) to add some variety to my speech. 4) so, what about the Shamans? Am I wrong? Do they have something that I haven't understood?

Sylvan faction:

1. Nymphs, because they heal themselves very well (although Ents are practically useless).
2. Probably Wind Spirits. Because of their agility.
3. If there are artifacts that allow the hero to shoot without penalty, I take the old ones. Otherwise, I take the new ones; they have one shot that's as good as two from the old ones, and even more powerful, in my opinion.
4. Here, I usually take the old ones. Lightning is expensive.
5. I haven't quite decided. It depends on the situation.
6. Trading defense for attack is great. I take the Altos.
7. The old, reliable Crystal Dragons are still good.

new archers are, in my opinion, more powerful. They also ignore half of the armor and push enemies back one tile.
And you might be disappointed, but the old favorites are the Emerald ones.

I wouldn't say that shamans are completely useless. Considering that they can slow down or speed up units by 30%, the effect can be quite significant. I always cast it on centaurs first, then on executioners/chieftains, and then depending on the situation. Maybe sacrifice a unit and cast magic again, or maybe send them into battle. There are also situations where a ranged unit needs to attack before the centaurs. You cast the slow spell on those ranged units, and the centaurs attack first (of course, if the initiative difference is small). I'm more inclined to use Daughters of the Earth. However, I don't hire them at the beginning of the game because they are too expensive; they are more useful from level 5 onwards.

I wouldn't say that shamans are completely useless. Considering that they slow down/speed up by 30%, the effect can be quite significant. I always cast it on centaurs first, then on executioners/chieftains, and then depending on the situation. Maybe sacrifice and cast magic again, or maybe send them into battle. There are also situations where some archer needs to go before the centaurs. You cast the slow spell on these archers, and the centaurs attack first (of course, if the initiative difference is small). I'm more inclined towards Daughters of the Earth. However, I don't hire them at the beginning of the game, as it's too expensive; they are more useful from level 5.

At the beginning, Daughters of the Air are good against various powerful slow units (ent, titan), because there is time to cast Chain Lightning, but later it's better to upgrade them to Daughters of the Earth. By the way, Daughters of the Earth are good at casting slow on tough opponents - then the Daughters' attacks will be unanswered. And also, when Daughters attack, they inflict weakening, vulnerability, and a destructive ray;)

What do you think about this: placing Centaur Archers, giving them support and speed buffs – I think it works great: archer attack, support, and a speed boost!

I think the opposite; at the beginning, Daughters of the Earth are better because they will slow down and attack neutrals without taking damage in return. With a leveled-up hero and a large army, Blood Wrath comes faster, while with Daughters of the Sky, Blood Wrath doubles their spell power at level 2 and quadruples it at level 3. This results in very high damage.

Yeah... They definitely messed up with Dungeon by removing all the ranged units from the army:smile48: :smile48: :smile48:. Here are my thoughts on Dark Elves:

1. I'll definitely take Assassins. But for scouts, I'll take Elves: if the enemy's main hero attacks, the Elf will turn invisible, and meanwhile, the hero will blast them with fireballs and other spells. Just one Elf is enough:D!
2. Megeras are more durable, so I'll take them.
3. I'll take Sentinels for their double attack.
4. The new units have a good ability – random attack:D :) :D. I'll take them.
5. Acidic Blood is cool. Elves.
6. Of course, I'll take the old ones. It would be a shame to refuse such powerful ranged units.
7. The Reds are better with their special attack.

Regarding Necropolis: 1. I take the new ones because they are more durable and powerful. If you get something like Battle Fury, Resilience, Amulet of Blood Claws, or Ring of Vitality, they become a serious offensive force. Also, if you get the Celestial Shield on level 5 of the tower, that's a great find. 2. In principle, there isn't much difference – zombies still have the same role: to be a punching bag. The new ones can take more hits and reduce morale, while the old ones hit harder. I usually take the old ones because the weakening effect stacks, resulting in a more powerful effect. 3. I choose the new ones because of their stats. There's practically no point in taking the old ones anymore, except maybe against mages (although by that time, they hardly have any mana left). 4. I'm all for stability, so I take the old ones. I think the new ones would be good to combine with Soldier's Luck and/or Mass Expert Dispel, but I haven't tried that yet. 5. It's a very difficult choice, but I still lean towards the new ones because they allow you to minimize losses. However, if you're fighting hundreds of liches, the old ones will be more useful (but not in battles against undead, of course). 6. It depends on whether you get various artifacts, such as the Cloak of Death's Shadow, Ring of Broken Spirit, etc. In the case of low enemy morale and good defense, use Banshees (they are more durable), and the rest should be Messengers. Also, Banshees have a skull instead of a face, which is a plus for them =). 7. To be honest, I don't understand how Death Gaze works. Does it reduce morale after the attack, or does it affect everyone at the beginning of the battle? For now, I take Astral ones because they deal more damage and have Sorrow. And a well-developed Necromancer can apply weakening himself, even in a mass effect, unlike Sorrow, which only affects individual targets.

Regarding Necropolis:
1. I take the new ones because they are more durable and powerful. If you get something like Battle Fury, Resilience, Amulet of Blood Claws, or Ring of Vitality, they become a serious offensive force. Also, if you get Celestial Shield on level 5 of the tower, that's a great thing.
2. In principle, there isn't much difference – zombies still have the same role: to be a punching bag. The new ones can take more hits and reduce morale, while the old ones deal more damage. I usually take the old ones because the weakening effect stacks, resulting in a more powerful effect.
3. The new ones are better because of their stats. There's practically no point in taking the old ones anymore, except maybe against mages (although by that time, they hardly have any mana left).
4. I prefer stability, so I take the old ones. I think the new ones would be good to combine with Soldier's Luck and/or Mass Expert Dispel, but I haven't tried that yet.
5. It's a very difficult choice, but I still lean towards the new ones because they allow you to minimize losses. However, if you're dealing with hundreds of liches, the old ones might be more useful (but not in battles against undead, of course).
6. It depends on whether you get artifacts like the Cloak of Deadly Shadow, Ring of Broken Spirit, etc. If the enemy has low morale and you have a well-developed defense, take Banshees (they are more durable); otherwise, take Specters. Also, Banshees have a skull instead of a face, which is a plus =).
7. Honestly, I don't understand how Death Gaze works. Does it reduce morale after an attack, or does it affect everyone at the beginning of the battle? For now, I take Astral Specters because they deal more damage and have Sorrow. A well-developed Necromancer can also apply weakening himself, and even in a mass effect, unlike Sorrow, which only affects individual targets.

Necropolis:

1. Well, I don't know... I think archers are better. But if there are 100 or more liches, then you can use warriors.
2. I can't decide about the zombies. Sometimes it seems like the Plague Zombies are better, and sometimes the Rotting Zombies.
3. I take the new ones, although I'm still not sure.
4. The Specters with Stun are better. Why do you need retaliation when you can just knock them out? ;)
5. If there are more than a hundred, Specters are definitely better. Raising so many undead is :smile20:!
6. I take Banshees. They are always surrounded by a lot of enemies, and then they scream!
7. I don't even know. It depends.

2Cr@zy Wolf
Regarding the dungeon: I disagree with many points!
1) I always take the Hunters (maybe only before the final, if there is an opportunity, I will switch them), because with invisibility now it is easy to defeat various archers and casters, even high-level ones!
2) I will take Furies, they have more speed, and if you took the Tactics skill, they can easily reach the archers.
3) I agree :)
4) No, the new ones are generally terrible! Their new ability is approximately equivalent to a lizard bite, and not like a super-useful charge attack that removes all or almost all of the target's defense.
5) Perhaps the new ones...
6) So-so, average archers... but still, probably better than the old ones.
7) Depending on the situation... against various old mages, but against new combat units.

Added 6 minutes later

Necropolis:

1. Well, I don't know... It seems to me that archers are better. Well, although if there are 100 or more liches, then you can take warriors.
2. I can't decide about the zombies. Sometimes it seems that the plague zombies are better, and sometimes - the rotting ones.
3. I take the new ones, although I'm also not very sure.
4. The alts with stunning are better. Why is a retaliatory attack needed if you can just stun them?;)
5. If there are more than a hundred, the alts are definitely better. Raising so many undead at once is :smile20:!
6. I take Banshees. They are somehow always surrounded by a lot of enemies, and then they scream!
7. I don't even know. It depends.

1) It is better to take archers at the beginning for breaking through, and then switch them, although it is always useful to separate a small stack of bone warriors to protect allies from archers.
2) The old ones are better, there is more use from weakness.
3) It depends... for now, I like the old ones more with their mana drain.
4) The chance of stunning is not high without Soldier's Luck, and Luck is not the best skill for a Necromancer, in my opinion, there are more useful ones.
5) I rarely have more than 20, and you have 100... but still - raising on the creeping is great, and it will also be useful in the final.
6) If there are fewer than 10, then definitely the old ones, and if more, then probably the new ones.
7) Usually, I don't build level 7 units in Necropolis

Well, I recently appreciated the shamans in the fourth mission of the campaign. I wouldn't say they're own super; many mages are better, but well... they'll do against some neutrals... like a hit-and-run tactic... although let's be real, they can't compete with furies :) The saddest part is that they require a lot of resources, and you can't build executioners without them. And that's very bad. In general, I'll probably upgrade them last. And again, all these sacrifices... those are just wasted turns. No, not wasted of course... but it still doesn't compare to an extra turn from an archmage or a druid. Fortunately, Fire Ball is much easier to aim than Chain Lightning.

Kent with reinforcements is legit; I think everyone does it that way.

Dungeon, my favorite castle—I checked out all the upgrades yesterday. The funniest thing is that everyone is upset about the lack of shooters. It's just ridiculous. The only Dungeon shooters are the ladies. Assassins don't shoot at all; they only poison. Their ranged damage is so low that... sometimes I even sent them into melee myself. But during sieges, for example, or in a big battle, they are certainly good... because they'll poison everyone. It's bad that there aren't many of them, which means less poison damage.
1) That's why I use the new ones. Invisibility is just an overpowered thing; it allows you to break through shooters/mages/various ubers absolutely without losses. With magic, naturally. 5 assassins broke through 23 Nightmares. 20 assassins broke through 15 Dragons. That says something, doesn't it? You just stand in invisibility and cast spells. If facing shooters, you move closer at the same time so that you can strike at the decisive moment. Finally, Dungeon has attained a higher degree of elegance.
2) I take the old furies (they aren't even that old, heh;)), because high initiative decides everything. Honestly, I think the devs simply lacked the imagination to come up with something equivalent to "no retaliation" with return. So they came up with some nonsense: immunity to curse. Wow... dreamed of this my whole life... and their slightly boosted stats also play no role, because furies already tear everyone apart thanks to speed, initiative, and no retaliation. And they don't take any hits back. There are your shooters, by the way—very decent :)
3) Generally speaking, I almost never build Minos. There aren't enough resources as it is, plus you need a forge, and who even builds that? Sometimes if I have plenty of money, I might build some and then throw them into a pit to increase their own growth :) but because they are slow, I don't use them. But if I have to choose, I'll pick the new ones. They don't do anything for me anyway; they just stand there and wait since they move rarely—so let them at least spread a useful aura over the troops.
4) Now this is truly a difficult choice. Both are wonderful. Sometimes I really miss the charge, but you can lower armor with the lady's beam too... I make different ones depending on my mood.
5) Hydras! One of my favorite units, and why does nobody appreciate them? Haste, or even better—Surprise Attack—and they are just killing machines. I go with the old ones because although the new ones are cool and evoke memories of others, they are actually nonsense. It says blood does a quarter of the damage. I still haven't figured out: a quarter of the hydra's damage or a quarter of the damage dealt to it? If the former, there should be many hydras for the acid to do anything, but where have you seen many hydras? They aren't cheap and their growth isn't hellish. If the latter—it means they must take a lot of damage, which implies the death of hydras and heavy losses among them. That's not legit. For me, hydras were always a symbol of reliability, strength, tanking.
6) For me, the choice is obvious—the former. Because the new ones are no different except for the lack of shooting, but they have invisibility... sending matrons into melee is too expensive a pleasure, even if they hit pretty well with their little whips (;))
7) I can't say anything definite yet. Stats dropped only slightly, and ability damage is 1.5 times higher and without retaliation. But there's no magic immunity... idk.

Necropolis:
1) New ones, of course, because until you have at least five hundred skeletons, the archers are just pathetic and represent absolutely nothing. And with the new ones, it's simply easy to break through shooters.
2) Again, I can't say anything, because by the start of the second week, zombies are already sent to the scrap heap -.-
3) Also a doubtful upgrade. An old, rarely used ability was replaced by a new one, slightly more frequently used but much less useful. If ghosts actually reach mages, that's cool, because they revive immediately. But if you steal 3 arrows from a bow master, he won't care; something will still be left. It's better to attack them and block their shooting at the same time. And if the enemy has a wagon, there's absolutely no point in the new ability.
4) This is all quite banal: if you have few vampires—the old ones are more durable (of course due to no retaliation); if you have over a hundred—the new ones, as they deal more damage and blind often with Soldier's Luck.
5) Here it's the opposite: if there are few liches—new ones; if many—old ones. It's very simple—when there are few of them, they deal little damage, and the cloud is just trash, plus at that moment the hero has little knowledge (i.e., mana), so you often can't raise your own. But the liches' resurrection is strong and helps a lot. Later on, the damage becomes better, the hero will have plenty of mana, and the cloud will deal solid damage. Then go with the old ones.
6) I think I said this somewhere already, but there's almost no difference; both the old and new abilities are useless. So I often take the new one purely for the look. The scream deals ridiculous child-level damage anyway.
7) Idk, both are good.
I wrote about Necropolis somewhere, but now I've written it more extensively)

Since I have nothing to do right now, I'll write a monstrous post about the others that I'm not too lazy to list)
Heaven:
1) Whatever, I don't upgrade them, but if I had to choose, the old ones. Stun decides more often than a CHANCE for a second attack.
2) New ones definitely. I think there are no other options here.
3) New ones, because double attack makes them some kind of damage dealers rather than just stupid cans with a same-damn amount of armor.
4) Depending on the mood, as both are good. But preference probably still goes to the former.
5) Neither adept nor inc impress me, but inc, due to more buffs.
6) New ones, because everyone has a charge, and "laying on of hands" (what an awesome name for healing) is nonsense.
7) Again, depending on the mood.

Sylvan:
1) Honestly, I don't care, but probably new ones, as the swarm dealt little, and here there's at least something new :)
2) New ones, because they die like flies, and defense somehow saves them.
3) New ones, already said why.
4) Old ones, because lightning decides. Increasing power by 10 is certainly tempting, but it won't change the weather. I tested it.
5) Don't care, again depending on mood.
6) The new ability is good, but there's no entanglement when you use it; oh well, still them) the old ones got boring.
7) New ones, they're cool :) and earth protection doesn't make much of a difference.

Inferno:
1) Depending on pits. If pits are casters, I take new ones; if I make warrior-pits, then old ones.
2) New demons are cool. Jump is a cheat :)
3) New dogs, as stats are almost the same, but the fire... by the way, does anyone know if hellfire works on the second attack cell?
4) Idk. New ones are good when you need to disable a top shooter, and while chain shot is cool, it weakens with each new victim... but idk.
5) New ones are cool, but I make old ones more often; they're prettier)
6) Mostly casters, although I perfectly understand that they aren't that great. The new ones aren't such slow-pokes, and there's real benefit from them opening a portal instead of casting Fire Ball...
7) New ones, because teleport is cool :), and to revive pits you need corpses, and losing troops is not my method.

Not much I can say about the others. Except for Temple:
1) Shamans, if playing against Academy or Warlock or Necro -.- although honestly—magic corruption is nonsense. The benefit is very small.
2) More often combat ones; they look cooler :) although demonic ones have more damage.
3) As it happens. If there's Soldier's Luck and many troops, then demonic. If not or few—then swordsmen.
4) Well, I already talked about them...
5) More often executioners, as the double strike and their damage combined work wonders.
6) Depends on the time, but more often brown ones, because I really love Dark Messiah ;)
7) Cyclopes are my favorite unit now ;) great animation and great abilities :) club-cyclopes are just killing machines; appreciated them in a duel when the mage and spearman stood aside under the protection of dwarf faties, and I hit everyone at once and almost sun-annihilated all of them)
I appreciated the red ones when the enemy started constantly missing their hits, which allowed me to win and preserve my already battered army -.-

Whew, I'm exhausted from writing this. Most likely this post will be left in vain, but oh well, I had to write it ^^

Regarding the Orcs:
1. At the beginning of the game, Trappers are useful because they help with clearing out creeps by stopping enemies and allowing the Centaurs to attack again. In a large battle, this is unlikely to be useful due to the unpredictability and variety of the opponent's moves, so at the end of the game, Shamans are better, as they can inflict a curse on the hero.
2. Combat Orcs are better because they are more durable, and there is no penalty in melee combat, meaning the Nomad's maneuver deals half damage to anyone, while the Combat Orc deals full damage to the enemy.
3. These are two complete opposites. In principle, the choice of which to take is also decided for Tier 5, i.e., Executioners-Warlords, Chieftains-Combat Orcs. Warlords are practically invincible under the effect of Blood Fury (due to +unlimited retaliation and a solid + to defense), while Combat Orcs crush everything. I don't think it makes sense to take Executioners-Combat Orcs because of the risk of these stacks being destroyed in the first few turns of the battle by some powerful units. Also, I don't see the point in taking slow Warlords and Chieftains without a second attack, hopelessly stuck in the attack.
4. As mentioned in a post above, early game - Earth, then Air.
5. Chieftains provide good support while dealing almost no damage (due to Blood Fury), which helps attack, for example, Cyclops. And Executioners are 100% stack-splitting units. When to take which, see point 3.
6. Paoka are clearly superior due to their electric breath, which helps attack the weakest stack while also damaging the strong one (for example, attacking archers + the Ents guarding them). In addition, the ability to consume corpses will pleasantly surprise the enemy in large battles. And they have more health. The poison of Dark Wyverns and slightly higher attack are not strong enough arguments to outweigh the advantages of Paoka.
7. Free Cyclops with a reserve of Fury are generally awesome, crushing absolutely everything, and also in an area. The penalty to luck for Blood Cyclops is simply
nothing due to the damage, which is even less than that of un-upgraded Cyclops. A Blood Cyclops reduces luck, while a Free Cyclops stands on a mountain of corpses. =)

Added 18 minutes ago

6) I think I mentioned this somewhere before, but there is almost no difference, and the abilities of both are useless. So, I usually take the new one just because of its appearance. Anyway, the scream deals a funny, childish amount of damage.

The damage from the scream = 10 - the target's morale for each Banshee (if at close range, as it is halved through one cell and quartered through two), i.e., if the opponent has low morale, as I wrote above, say -5, then the damage will be 15. The Banshee deals 22-27 damage, which is more, but this is not critical, considering that there is no retaliation to the scream, and there is also a chance of hitting several stacks, this is a very good ability. And Messengers are actually the only real dispel ability for Necromancers, and they will also be useful for clearing out small stacks of level 7 units when clearing out creeps. So, the abilities of Tier 6 Necromancers are normal

and in general, fighters and executioners won't fall on the very first turn. they will fall on the second...
leaders, of course, urge them on, moving the portrait on the line by 1-2 cells, but the hero can do the same, but the hero cannot bring death and destruction like the executioners. the Stronghold has no magic=( sometimes this is very frustrating.
regarding cyclops - a free one stands on a mountain of corpses, not only of enemies=(, and the red one significantly reduces losses.
all these shouts are, of course, good, but imagine that the enemy's morale is not -5 at all. and -5 is 1 case out of a thousand. sometimes it's better to kill 100 gremlins with one blow than with 10 abilities...
and regarding the herald... tell me, do other factions have a dispel? that's right. and if you are going to fight dragons in this way, you will have to divide the Nazgûl into several stacks for efficiency, and this means that you will not have your entire army available, and besides, 5-6 of them already kill at least one creature...

Here's a breakdown: 1. I didn't say on the first turn; I said during the first few turns. 2. The hero deals significantly more damage while gaining Fury. And let's not forget the initiative bonus for surrounding units. 3. Regarding Cyclops, it's all about control. 4. Regarding morale, I mentioned that I was considering the case of receiving artifacts that reduce morale (for example, this happened to me in the campaign with Arantir, but it's also possible on larger maps). 5. Regarding dispel, I meant obtaining a spell that removes enchantments; it's difficult for a Necromancer to do this, and besides, you'd have to level up an unnecessary skill. Regarding dragons, again, as I said, it's about initially crippling a small number of level 7 monsters (around five). Added 26 minutes later

5) I still don't understand, is it based on the Hydra's damage or the damage dealt to it?

It's based on the Hydra's damage.

3) New hounds, as the stats are almost the same, but the fire... by the way, does Hellfire work on the second attack range?

Of course it does! The hound attacks like a dragon and hits 3 targets!

7) New ones, because teleport is cool, and to revive pets, you need corpses, and losing troops isn't my style.

In the final battle, summoning pets is a huge advantage, and the opponent usually can't do anything about it.

Whew, I'm tired after writing all this. This post will probably be left unanswered, but that's okay, I had to write it.

Well, look, the post wasn't left unanswered