Orcs – discussion about the race. — Stronghold

Fireball

3/17/2008 8:54 AM UTC

Auto-translated

You're not calculating it correctly.
The Out of Unit (OOU) ability shifts the hero by 0.25 on the scale, and the hero will start the battle within the range of [0.25; 0.5].
This means the unit's initiative range is [10; 20], below which the unit has no chance of going before the hero, and above which the unit will definitely go before the hero with OOU.
A unit within this range has a chance to go either before or after the hero.
Orc units, without any artifacts, fall within this range, meaning they already have a chance to go before the hero with OOU.

My math is fine; it's part of my profession. Due to the significant initial spread, I assumed, FOR THE SAKE OF ESTIMATION, that all units have an AVERAGE starting position of 0.125 on the ATB (Action Turn Bar). By the way, this is mentioned there. And if the assessment, under these EQUAL conditions, shows that the hero goes first, then he will go first in more than half of the cases (under the natural assumption that the spread is symmetrical relative to the average), i.e., in more than half of the cases, the Orc will definitely lose, because, at the very least, he didn't bring his entire army. As can be seen from the same post, even with a 10% increase in the Orc's initiative due to artifacts, he loses with a probability of more than 1/2. Moreover, for the described tactic, it is necessary that not just one stack goes before, and the Cyclops needs to be hit more than once. If the form of the probability distribution for the initial spread were known, then it would be possible to estimate the probabilities much more accurately.

Furthermore, the tactic was described, as can be seen from the example, for the late game.
This means that many initiative artifacts will likely be collected.
This needs to be taken into account. These artifacts are not fully compensated for by anything, and the hero's initiative is not increased either.

I agree, it is not fully compensated, so I also conducted an assessment for +10% initiative. Of course, if there are many small initiative artifacts and 2 rings, or if we know that we will start with level 1 of Rage, then we can confidently engage in battle; even the Staff won't scare us. In less pleasant cases, it's at our own risk.

Furthermore, 120 Warlords, 10 per week, even from a single castle, is 12 weeks.
Not 5 months, but only 3.

Of course, 3, it was a typo, but it's still a long time. Although, in my opinion, I didn't evaluate anything beyond 10 weeks.

In reply to Fireball

Psionic

3/17/2008 9:27 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Fireball;160758

Considering the Offensive Unit (OU), the hero starts with a position of 0.625 and initiative 10.

I understand you're talking about the average, but this is incorrect.
I was referring to this when I said you're not calculating it correctly. :)
On average, a hero with OU starts at position 0.375.
Furthermore, an Orc can easily have an initiative higher than 15, and it's quite possible that they will go first, even against a hero with OU.

By the way, controlling a Necromancer and this tactic have nothing in common.
Controlling an Orc is an imbalance that cannot be countered by anything.
This tactic can still do something, so regarding the question of controlling in relation to this Orc tactic, it's only a plus for the tactic. :)

By the way, controlling is sometimes prohibited on maps for better balance.

Fireball

3/17/2008 9:41 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I understand that you are talking about the average value, but this is incorrect.
I wrote about this, that you are calculating it wrong.

Did you read further?

Before his turn, 0.0625 of some unit of time must pass.

It is obvious that I divided 0.625 by 10, i.e., I took 0.375 as the starting position in the calculations, and 0.625 remained to be covered. Now I will check the post for such intermediate errors and correct them so as not to tempt people; the results there are correct.

furthermore, an Orc may well have an initiative higher than 15, and it is quite likely that the first turn will be theirs, even against a hero with Offensive Guard.

Yes, but he can also have an initiative of 7.

by the way, the Necromancer's control and this tactic have nothing in common.

Control can be used by anyone; this is a counter to this tactic and to the Orc in general, otherwise, he is already too strong. Berserk is often not superfluous, because the thought of it forces the Cyclops to immediately move far forward and expose themselves.

by the way, control is sometimes prohibited for greater balance on maps.

.
Perhaps this makes sense on some maps, but banning it altogether, especially against the Orc, is an even greater imbalance, only in the other direction.

Psionic

3/17/2008 10:03 AM UTC

Auto-translated

basically, then it's correct if it's a typo. I just showed the same thing more clearly, based on the initiative intervals of the units. So, you can say that any Orc tactic is a panacea: "Subjugation with sharp wit." This is the imbalance. Either remove subjugation completely, or change it somehow, or give the Orc a way to counter it. As for the imbalance in the other direction, who would be against removing it? For example, stronger effects on morale from different creatures or Necromancer skills, or a greater increase in corpses through necromancy in a long game, or something else that you can play with. There's little point in playing with a cheating subjugation. Added after 8 minutes By the way, with this tactic, Cyclops don't have to be afraid to move forward aggressively and expose themselves. If they go before the Necromancer hero, then no Berserkers against the Cyclops are scary anymore, and exposing them to the Necromancer's army is not scary at all. If that army had gone first... :) And it's not necessary for only Cyclops to go before the Necromancer hero. Any Chieftain will do, which greatly increases the chances of the Cyclops going first. And Shamans can also speed up someone a little. Well, and at least the Orc will protect the Cyclops from subjugation with Anti-Magic. Added after 5 minutes In general, this tactic for the Orc is more of a counter to the Necromancer with Darkness, and not vice versa. Because otherwise, it will be much more difficult for the Orc to fight against such a Necromancer...

Fireball

3/17/2008 10:13 AM UTC

Auto-translated

You can say the same about any Orc tactic – subjugation combined with cunning is a panacea.
This is what creates the imbalance. Either remove subjugation completely, or change it somehow, or give the Orcs a way to counter it.

Against the Orcs, Undead is truly devastating, even more so than subjugation itself. Because if there are no Undead and the game is long, Goblins can severely disrupt spellcasting, and the probability of this will increase over time. Considering the Silence spell, Cyclops become virtually uncontrollable, and other units are subjugated, but their initiative is significantly reduced, and they may not even get a turn. By the way, the 5th mission in the Orc campaign teaches this if you pay close attention; the developers did a good job. And the Orcs have their own powerful abilities, like Horde Fury and Roar, not to mention absorbing damage with a single point of Fury, which is very unpleasant if you're not playing as the Necromancer. And the Necromancer shouldn't relax either.

As for the imbalance in the other direction – who would be against removing it?
For example, stronger morale effects from different creatures or Necromancer skills, or a greater increase in meat production through necromancy in a long game, or something else that allows for strategic play.

If you're going to balance things, don't do it against the Necromancer; this vile creature will resist anyway (Berserk, Readiness + Vampirism, Converter). But what about the others without Subjugation?

And it's not necessarily the Necromancer hero who needs to go first, especially for the Cyclops.
Even one or two War Chiefs going first will significantly increase the chances of the Cyclops going first.

Without top-tier initiative artifacts, you need at least two War Chiefs to go before the Cyclops, because otherwise, the chances of the Cyclops getting two turns before the Undead Legions, which is highly desirable (because with skeletons dealing 3-4 damage, Liches, Vampires, and Messengers, and no Cyclops, what will you use to deal damage later with this tactic?), will drop dramatically.

In reply to Fireball

Mdance

3/17/2008 10:20 AM UTC

Auto-translated

By the way, if you're interested, I can share a dueling preset for this Orc. Personally, I used it to easily defeat three computer-controlled heroes in a 3x3 duel. And that was with only 2 stacks of 30 Orc Chieftains.

Я видел, как Небо окутала Тьма, и Небо смирилось с Судьбой,
Горящие реки сходили с ума, пытаясь остаться водой,
Земля пропустила коварный удар, раскрывшись на шаге вперёд,
Взлетел разъярённым драконом Огонь и понял, что тоже умрёт...

Psionic

3/17/2008 10:21 AM UTC

Auto-translated

what about the absorption of damage with a single point of Fury? I've heard rumors that it absorbs the full percentage of damage and the Fury goes into the negative. I haven't verified it myself, but I've seen how the Shield of Fury works when absorbing 100% of the damage. If a single point of Fury absorbed the entire percentage of damage, then in this case it would absorb 100% of the damage and there would be no damage to health. This is not observed; single goblin units die perfectly well from any attack. I don't know what to do specifically against my Orc tactic. Here's a method with Darkness and Keen Mind, which is more or less suitable, although an Orc with Anti-Magic, I think, will still bury the Necromancer. I don't know of any other methods, except perhaps a universal answer in the form of a Knight in a long game with his mega-cheating training.

Fireball

3/17/2008 11:14 AM UTC

Auto-translated

What about absorbing damage with a single point of Fury?
I've heard rumors that it absorbs the full percentage of damage and the Fury goes into the negative.
I haven't verified it myself, but I've seen the Shield of Fury work with 100% damage absorption.
If a single point of Fury absorbed the entire percentage of damage, then in that case, it would absorb 100% of the damage, and there would be no damage to health.
This is not observed.

A single point of Fury will absorb the percentage of damage it's supposed to, for example, 70% on Expert difficulty. Fury will be reduced according to the formula and go into the negative, meaning the Orc always withstands the first hit to the maximum.

This is not observed; Goblin units die from any attack.

I can assume that this is an old feature of the Heroes games; they don't work with fractional numbers. That's probably why, when wearing the Amulet of Necromancy, a skeleton is raised for 1 mana.

I don't know what to do specifically against my Orc tactic.
The method with Dark Magic and Keen Mind is more or less suitable, although the Orc with Anti-Magic will still probably defeat the Necromancer.
I don't know of any other methods, except perhaps the ultimate solution in the form of a Knight in a long game with his mega-cheating training...

It all depends on the numbers of your own and enemy secondary skills. If we have a classic distribution, such as a starting town + 2 enemy secondary skills (or something similar), and some dwellings, then the Necromancer (leveling up on low-level resources) will often defeat absolutely any race. But if you have just 3 of your own castles and a level 7 growth building, the Orc will tear everyone apart, and training won't help the Knight.

Psionic

3/17/2008 11:37 AM UTC

Auto-translated

with three native castles?
or on a map with gold mines and utopias?
I think in a game like this, the opposite is true; the Orc has little chance against the Knight.
especially when all three castles are built and training is in full swing in each one.

regarding the Necromancer on a map with non-native castles, I don't know, maybe he'll dominate. Or maybe not, if we don't count any recruitment...
especially if the additional castles are used only to obtain low-level troops.

_Prizrak_

3/17/2008 11:48 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I think in a game like this, it's quite the opposite; an Orc has little chance against a Knight.

Oh, no!!! Even with training, Orcs have a great chance of winning. The main unit of the Knights is the Paladin, but they won't be able to spread out because the Paladins will move before them and simply stand in front of them... and there's a lot more... in general, IMHO, the Stronghold will win if played well.

:smile02:Клан "Lost Heroes" - Заместитель лидера:smile02:

Fireball

3/17/2008 12:07 PM UTC

Auto-translated

with three native Castles?
or on a map with gold mines and Utopias?
I think in a game like this, the opposite is true; the Orc has little chance against the Knight.
especially when all three Castles are built and training is in full swing in each of them.

If there are a lot of mines, the situation changes if you can't undermine the economy. Against the Knight, Roar helps a lot. I don't know, but maybe it's worth leveling up the Call skill against him, so that he can Roar more often and use Fury?

as for the Necromancer on a map with non-native Castles, I don't know, maybe he will tear them apart. or maybe not, if you don't count all sorts of summons, of course...

With Summons, of course, with his native ones.

especially if you use additional Castles only to get low-level troops.

There will be enough money to buy the full growth of 3 Castles up to level 6 (and level 7 Necromancer dragons can go to hell), as long as there are resources to build them, or the Castles are already in a combat-ready state when you take them from the AI.

Psionic

3/17/2008 12:14 PM UTC

Auto-translated

well, let's take paladins as an example. let's compare levels 6 and 7. three castles - a total of 51 paladins per week, which is quite realistic when the game is long, the map is rich, and the castles are already built. and 6 angels each. this is in addition to everything else that the knight has. the orc will have 12 wyverns and 6 cyclops per week. it's interesting who will be stronger...

Added after 4 minutes
Fireball

If the necromancer only buys low-level units from the new castles, taking into account that their growth rate may be very small due to the characteristics of these factions, then I have some doubts about how he will defeat the orc with anti-magic in a long game, even with darkness...

In reply to Fireball

Mos.keen

3/17/2008 12:14 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Fireball;161051

It all depends on the number of friendly and enemy secondary towns. If we have a classic distribution, like a starting town + 2 enemy secondary towns (or something similar), and some dwellings, then a Necromancer (leveling up on low-level fortresses) is a good choice.

But why, if there are secondary towns, should a Necromancer use zombies instead? It's much more convenient to place a level 4 building for vampires or, at worst, a level 5 building for liches – that's clearly more useful. As for humans, I would still bet on them because with a few trainings and mass upgrades to cavalry, they can tear through poor Paladins, not so much with speed, but with their numbers... So, in my opinion, in the late game with additional (with any, actually) castles, the Necropolis faction crushes everyone, and then come humans and Inferno (one with training, the other with summoning), and the rest, well, probably except for Gnomes, are not viable... :)

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

Psionic

3/17/2008 12:17 PM UTC

Auto-translated

maps with random castles and random dwellings are not suitable for faction competitions. If you compare them, it should only be to ensure everything is consistent. Under these conditions, in a long game with multiple castles and dwellings, the Necropolis has almost no chance due to the poorly implemented racial ability.