Auto-translated
well, you know, Cavaliers always have their bonus, but Black Knights only have it every other time, so it's debatable!
parus
Posts from Necropolis or Castle (Which one is stronger?)
Sergh
Auto-translated
You know, Cavaliers always have their bonus, but Black Knights only have it every other time, so it's debatable!
parus
Auto-translated
The Knight has it, but doesn't always manage to use it effectively... although, in my opinion, Knights are better... (I know that Black Dragons are generally considered the best...)
There's a lot to debate here, and many factors influence the outcome.
Qwerty
Auto-translated
Black Knights are stronger, but cavalry upgrades are often free.
And griffins increase in good numbers and, after upgrading, can handle anything.
A request to the moderators of this thread: remind participants that this topic is about Heroes of Might and Magic III. Not about Heroes of Might and Magic IV, WoG, or Heroes of Might and Magic V.
And griffins increase in good numbers and, after upgrading, can handle anything.
A request to the moderators of this thread: remind participants that this topic is about Heroes of Might and Magic III. Not about Heroes of Might and Magic IV, WoG, or Heroes of Might and Magic V.
TOMArABK
Auto-translated
Don't you remember the weekly growth ratio? :)
3 Mantises for 2 Cyclops? :D I think the Mantis growth is LESS than the Cyclops growth, and nobility doesn't work on the portal, so it's MUCH less... and you'll have not 3 Mantises for 2 Cyclops, but the other way around... and that's in the best case... so...:o
AlexeyPank
Auto-translated
In the third game, I always considered Necropolis to be stronger. But once, when I played with a human ally (I was Necropolis, he was Haven), the humans showed themselves to be stronger. He was able to handle those who were too difficult for me. But here, such factors played a role – he had diplomacy. True, I raised free liches. And still, only through joint efforts did we complete the map (he took my liches and, with their help and his army, defeated the enemy). So, the question is debatable. Necropolis is strong, but humans are often given diplomacy. And then...
***JOKER***
Auto-translated
True, I raised free liches. And even so, we only managed to complete this map through joint efforts (he took my liches and, with their help and his own army, defeated the enemy).
But seriously, it all depends on skills and preferences (maybe that's why the human race seemed stronger to you). I would find it easier to play as Necropolis.
AlexeyPank
Auto-translated
Morale was boosted by Archons and Archangels. And fighting against a hero who is joined by dozens of Archangels and hundreds of Griffons, not to mention smaller units, is difficult. It was simply an unfavorable situation for my Necropolis faction. If the Humans hadn't had diplomacy and so many neutral units willing to join them, things would have turned out differently.
***JOKER***
Auto-translated
Actually, everything seems fine here... there are no combined super artifacts yet... and overall, the balance is pretty good, so I wouldn't be so categorical... :)
Sergh
Auto-translated
it's just that collecting the King of the Undead's cloak is an even bigger fairy tale (I personally only collected it twice)...
***JOKER***
Auto-translated
Well, I don't know... I collected it quite often... I found it on random maps from Utopia (in parts, of course... :)) and so on.
parus
Auto-translated
In the third game, I always thought that the Necromancers were stronger. But once, when I was playing with a human ally (I was playing as Necromancers, and he was playing as Humans), the Humans showed themselves to be stronger. He was able to handle those who were too difficult for me. But there were factors at play here – he had diplomacy. Although, I was raising free Liches. And still, only through our combined efforts did we complete the map (he took my Liches and, with their help and his army, defeated the enemy). So, the question is debatable. Necromancers are strong, but Humans are often given diplomacy. And then...
and Necromancers also get diplomacy + free Liches!!! and then...
Added 1 minute ago
No, no, no matter how you look at it, in the 5th game, the Necromancers became much stronger than in the 3rd. And if you add "combined super artifacts," we will be invincible. This is facilitated by many factors, for example, raising Archers, which, as you remember, was a fairy tale in the 3rd game, only by collecting the King of the Undead's Cloak – which is an even bigger fairy tale (I personally collected it only twice)...
and they raise not only Archers!!!
Aviator
Auto-translated
Hi everyone. I just registered and wanted to share my thoughts on this matchup.
If I'm wrong, please correct me. I usually play 1v1 with people on a map with the maximum level, meaning there are no starting money or resources. In this scenario, building Dead Nights or Knights from the Castle in the first or even second week is very difficult.
Firstly, Knights require a significant amount of wood and money, which means you have to focus on units and neglect building the 2000-cost structure, let alone the 4000-cost one (the economy develops very slowly).
By the second week, this will result in a shortage of money to simply buy Knights. In the first two weeks, I usually play with Archers and level 1 units in the Castle, focusing on gathering money and waiting for the Angels to be built (20,000 for Angels is also not easy to obtain).
The situation with the Necromancer strategy against the Knight is also not ideal. Dead Nights require Vampires, then Liches with their 10 sulfur and 10 gems, and then the Knights themselves, which also require 20 gems and 6000 gold. If the map is not rich in resources, it will be difficult to build Knights in the second week without neglecting the economy.
For Necromancers, Skeletons are the key in the early game. You buy 2 heroes and go around killing minor creatures on the map near the Castle. Then you switch to Vampires and travel with two heroes. One hero with Vampires fights and gives the raised Skeletons to the other hero nearby. By the second month, you can realistically gather 400 or more Skeletons.
Regarding who is stronger, it depends on luck. On random maps, anything can happen.
The only thing is that the Necromancer has only 5-6 useful levels, while the Knight has all 7. I consider useful those levels that I usually play with.
If we don't take magic into account, the Knight needs to try to kill the Necromancer as early as possible. The Knight's units won't increase significantly over time. The Necromancer will simply keep producing Skeletons in large numbers, and you'll be lucky if the hero isn't Galtran. (We don't play with Isra, Vidomina, Tanta, and Sir Murligh (unofficial rules)).
If I'm wrong, please correct me. I usually play 1v1 with people on a map with the maximum level, meaning there are no starting money or resources. In this scenario, building Dead Nights or Knights from the Castle in the first or even second week is very difficult.
Firstly, Knights require a significant amount of wood and money, which means you have to focus on units and neglect building the 2000-cost structure, let alone the 4000-cost one (the economy develops very slowly).
By the second week, this will result in a shortage of money to simply buy Knights. In the first two weeks, I usually play with Archers and level 1 units in the Castle, focusing on gathering money and waiting for the Angels to be built (20,000 for Angels is also not easy to obtain).
The situation with the Necromancer strategy against the Knight is also not ideal. Dead Nights require Vampires, then Liches with their 10 sulfur and 10 gems, and then the Knights themselves, which also require 20 gems and 6000 gold. If the map is not rich in resources, it will be difficult to build Knights in the second week without neglecting the economy.
For Necromancers, Skeletons are the key in the early game. You buy 2 heroes and go around killing minor creatures on the map near the Castle. Then you switch to Vampires and travel with two heroes. One hero with Vampires fights and gives the raised Skeletons to the other hero nearby. By the second month, you can realistically gather 400 or more Skeletons.
Regarding who is stronger, it depends on luck. On random maps, anything can happen.
The only thing is that the Necromancer has only 5-6 useful levels, while the Knight has all 7. I consider useful those levels that I usually play with.
If we don't take magic into account, the Knight needs to try to kill the Necromancer as early as possible. The Knight's units won't increase significantly over time. The Necromancer will simply keep producing Skeletons in large numbers, and you'll be lucky if the hero isn't Galtran. (We don't play with Isra, Vidomina, Tanta, and Sir Murligh (unofficial rules)).
Qwerty
Auto-translated
I suggest we agree that assembled artifacts should not be taken into account, as in the actual game, they are rarely collected, and in a regular battle against the AI, you can play as any race.
If we talk about the real state of affairs, the latest trends highlight the following most relevant aspects:
1. The ability to have a quick start;
2. The ability to form three powerful stacks of troops.
Regarding the ability to have a quick start, the Knights' chances are at least as good – pikemen and archers are a strong force.
Regarding the ability to form three powerful stacks. The Necromancers have two powerful stacks – these are vampires (in a good number) and, of course, skeletons. The Knights have griffins, crusaders, and champions. In the future, the Necromancers' skeletons and vampires become stronger, and black knights appear, but the Knights have angels/archangels. This is significant.
Champions are clearly stronger than vampire lords, and this is an argument in favor of griffins, and a very serious argument at that. Vampires truly enter the game in the third week, while champions do so in the second week, and this is also an argument.
Furthermore, there is an interesting option: angels recruited in the griffin conservatory are upgraded in their native castle, and the resulting archangels revive the rest of the army.
The counterweight to this is the "Raise Dead" spell.
Finally, the difference in the speed of the Necromancer and Knight troops is a very serious argument.
Thus, as I see it, there is no clear advantage for either side.
AlexeyPank
Auto-translated
Comparing vampires to champions is absolutely wrong—there's a two-level difference. If we judge it that way, then death knights are much stronger than crusaders (the same two levels). Regarding the fast start—skeletons are stronger than spearmen at least in terms of numbers. However, archers are stronger than zombies, and that is already significant. Third level—griffins against wraiths are much stronger, I agree. But vampires against crusaders—this is debatable. Vampires resurrect and fly, so I think the advantage is on their side. Fifth level—liches against monks. Both units are ranged, but liches deal area damage, and that is where their superiority lies. Champions against death knights. The most interesting duel, but death knights are easier to build and their bonuses are much more substantial than those of the champion, which effectively only works once. Angels against skeletal dragons. Here angels look stronger, but also more expensive. On maps with a shortage of resources, undead clearly seem preferable. But if humans can make it to angels, then the forces even out.
Statistics
Welcome our newest member:
recijeb