Which third-level creature is the best? — Polls

Statistics

Registered: 3/20/2006 3:14 PM UTC

Posts: 2,002

11/21/2007 10:12 AM UTC #122

Auto-translated

Well, it's not entirely useless.
Here's an example, which is very relevant to me.
I start. I capture a secondary town.
It's the sixth day.
What should I build – a Stronghold in the main town or a level 3 building in the secondary town?
It's the seventh day.
What should I build – a Castle in the main town or a level 3 building (or a Stronghold) in the secondary town?
It's the first day of the second week. Which unit should I recruit: a level 3 unit in the main town or a level 3 unit in the secondary town? And if there's a path to the secondary town (meaning the number of units is comparable)?
I've had situations like this happen to me...

Not to mention that I've had completely real cases where, thanks to unupgraded Ghosts (that came with the heroes), I won battles on the first week that seemed completely hopeless (although I never actually started building them).

And what about the problem of replenishing troops? Personally, I can't traverse the entire map without losses. I haven't learned how. And replenishing the army is very important to me. This also presents a problem of choice...

Орден Феникса – харизматический :) лидер

Statistics

Registered: 6/28/2007 4:02 PM UTC

Posts: 316

11/21/2007 10:30 AM UTC #123

Auto-translated

Well, I had some very real cases (literally yesterday) where, to take down an enemy in a castle, I dismissed a perfectly powerful and combat-ready stack of one and a half hundred royal griffins to hire a mediocre (seemingly) nomad and, without losing a turn, cross the sand...

Added 12 minutes later
...and now I'm playing a map with diplomacy, covered in dirt from head to toe, packed with archmages, champions, and tons of crusaders, but I'm carrying two thieves. I could have added half a ton of pegasi instead, but no.
Why? That's right: I don't need pegasi, and thieves save real-time with their visions...

In reply to Qwerty

Statistics

Registered: 11/19/2007 8:08 PM UTC

Posts: 79

11/21/2007 10:56 AM UTC #124

Auto-translated

Qwerty;128813

Importance? For me, the most important thing about a tier 3 building is whether it needs to be built to construct higher-tier units.
Because if I see an Ifrit lair and a Fire magic book, I'll do everything to get Ifrits by the first week and raid their lair, with the idea of then transitioning to Armageddons. And no matter how excellent Cerberuses are, I'll play without them because they don't need to be built for Ifrits...
That's what importance means.
Or, if I see an external stable and have a real chance to build it in the first week, it's not a given that I'll build Griffins, even though they are good.
I don't even need to talk about Necropolis – I don't remember ever building Spectres in the first week; they're not needed for either Vampires or Black Knights.
How do you measure importance? It's different for everyone. I always prioritize army speed, so I try not to build units that slow it down.
And also, here people are comparing upgraded units. But that's not entirely correct. Because it's not always possible to upgrade, and there are other priorities.

See, you have your own development strategy, and I have mine; our opinions differ, and that's perfectly fine because it's not a given that one or another statement here will be more correct. For example, I see development completely differently and consider building each unit appropriate for other reasons

Statistics

Registered: 6/28/2007 4:02 PM UTC

Posts: 316

11/21/2007 10:58 AM UTC #125

Auto-translated

...and the nomad, by the way, has "0" in the poll. How many points should he objectively have, Qwerty? I'm having trouble answering, but it seems like it shouldn't be zero... So, we're back to the question: how can we compare these parasites?

In reply to Vanechka

Statistics

Registered: 11/19/2007 8:08 PM UTC

Posts: 79

11/21/2007 11:02 AM UTC #126

Auto-translated

Vanechka;128828

...and the Barbarian, by the way, has "0" in the poll. How many points should he objectively have, Qwerty? I'm having trouble answering, but it seems like it shouldn't be zero... Here we come back to the question: how can we compare these "parasites" after all?

He has 0 because he doesn't belong to any of the factions, he's rarely played, and he's not popular. People vote for those who are more visible.

Statistics

Registered: 3/20/2006 3:14 PM UTC

Posts: 2,002

11/21/2007 11:24 AM UTC #127

Auto-translated

In the poll, I voted "0" because the premise of the poll itself is flawed. It's incorrect to create a ranking of creatures based solely on votes for the strongest. From a methodological point of view, it would be more accurate to compare the rankings themselves. Otherwise, if you were to measure based on the fourth upgraded level, everyone would have a score of zero, except for Vampire Lords, who would have 100%. It's clear that Grand Elves are the most useful in most cases, but other creatures are also useful... You see, the very question "which is the best" is fundamentally flawed. It makes sense to talk about a ranking or a hierarchy. You're right to raise the issue of the movement penalty on non-native terrain. And the comparison itself revealed many interesting things, such as the strength of Ice Elementals and third-level flying units. And I hope that my comments about ghosts will help someone during their first week of playing...

Орден Феникса – харизматический :) лидер

Statistics

Registered: 11/6/2007 6:31 PM UTC

Posts: 398

12/5/2007 1:49 PM UTC #128

Auto-translated

Griffons are good in melee combat, but elves are also quite effective at range.

In reply to Light God

Statistics

Registered: 2/24/2008 9:37 AM UTC

Posts: 92

3/15/2008 4:06 PM UTC #129

Auto-translated

High Elves are the best IMO!!!
High Elves, attack!!!
:smile14:

Try to use fewer emoticons and provide arguments for your position. Next time, I will delete such messages...

Statistics

Registered: 2/24/2008 9:37 AM UTC

Posts: 92

3/15/2008 4:29 PM UTC #131

Auto-translated

First, explain your IMHO.

1) They shoot.
2) They shoot again.
Overall, well-balanced ranged units.

Secondly, it's not good to spam with emojis.

Okay.

Statistics

Registered: 10/19/2007 11:04 AM UTC

Posts: 168

3/16/2008 10:25 AM UTC #132

Auto-translated

I’m not the only one who thinks that Elves are awesome!

"Отыщи всему начало, и ты многое поймёшь."
К. Прутков.

Играю тут http://www.heroeswm.ru
Супер онлайн игра по Героям 5.:smile14:

З.Ы. Я вернулся на форум)))

In reply to 65RUS

Statistics

Registered: 2/24/2008 9:37 AM UTC

Posts: 92

3/16/2008 10:49 AM UTC #133

Auto-translated

I'm not the only one who thinks Elves are awesome!

If they figure out ONE third-tier creature that attacks TWICE. P.S. Although if the hero is weak, his wars will be weak too. P.P.S. I remembered! While griffins or dragonflies fly to the Elves, they will manage to make from 2 to 4 shots!

In reply to Тими

Statistics

Registered: 10/28/2007 10:28 AM UTC

Posts: 41,518

3/16/2008 1:33 PM UTC #134

Auto-translated

Timy;160781

P.S. I remembered! While griffins or dragonflies fly to the elves, the elves will manage to make from 2 to 4 shots!

This is true if it's 1 on 1, then the dragonflies will fly to the elves immediately... and the griffins on the next turn....
We use griffins like this:
wait... the elves shoot... the griffins fly... the griffins fly up and attack...

Стартовый пост - Квенты - Разное -
Резара - Аксель - Орвальд - Эмилия -

Statistics

Registered: 2/1/2008 8:54 AM UTC

Posts: 52

3/17/2008 9:16 AM UTC #135

Auto-translated

Griffins and elves are definitely the best, but it's hard to say who's better.
I voted for griffins, but I also really like elves.

In a 1-on-1 fight, it's clear that griffins would crush elves, even though elves might get two shots in. (Griffins have more health, elves have no melee damage, and griffins have a constant counterattack – that's a powerful combination.)
But in an army battle (especially if the ranger has a good strategy), if you hide the elves behind dwarves with dendrites, they can do a lot of damage.

Statistics

Registered: 11/21/2007 11:22 AM UTC

Posts: 103

3/17/2008 11:57 AM UTC #136

Auto-translated

I checked the box for the dragonflies because, in my opinion, this unit can do amazing things. You know, I'll never forget how one Polish player cursed when, in a battle against him (on magical terrain), my dragonflies removed all his buffs with one attack and then, to top it off, exploited his weakness. ...mmm +)) Anyway, I think that elves are also very tough, and griffons too, but the latter are just simple meat with some resistance. Of course, dragonflies aren't as powerful, but sometimes, with skilled hands and favorable circumstances, they can be devastating, and they also have more speed than all the others.

Главное в любом деле - руки + удача. а остальное не так важно=))

In reply to Mos.keen

Statistics

Registered: 2/1/2008 8:54 AM UTC

Posts: 52

3/18/2008 7:07 AM UTC #137

Auto-translated

Mos.keen;161072

I checked the box for the dragonflies because, in my opinion, this unit can work wonders. You know, I'll never forget how one Pole cursed when, in a battle against him (on magical terrain), my dragonflies, with one strike, removed all his buffs and, to top it off, inflicted weakness on him... mmm +))... And so, I believe that elves are also very tough, and griffins too, but the latter are just meat with resistance, and that's it. Of course, dragonflies aren't as powerful, but sometimes, with skilled hands and favorable circumstances, they're simply awesome, and they also have more speed than all the others...

I agree, sometimes dragonflies are very useful; speed + the weakness spell = cool :-), but dragonflies chronically lack bulk, and IMHO, they're not very suitable for the role of the best unit.

And in skilled hands, the same cerberi are good, and golems too (although I don't like them, but a lot of health + reflecting magic is also an argument).