Posts from - What are the drawbacks of Heroes 3? (What didn't you like about it?)

I don't understand, why would the outcome change for others just because of one Phoenix?

I think it will give us the first turn and the opportunity to cast spells right away, and as a result, win!

But in general, everyone has their own opinion about the balance. Even the testers and the developers of the expansions argue, let alone other versions :D

Judging the game solely by its graphics isn't very accurate. Doom 2 was a whole era, while the third part is just a name.
Yes, I also play with imbalances, but I just point it out as a flaw. I just couldn't reconcile myself with In the Wake of Gods. It's just too complicated.
Regarding the outcome: The spectacular dragons read all sorts of nonsense, especially in the early game. And with the phoenix, you can cast antimagic on hydras for dozens of turns, and the battle is easily won.

But there are still 4000 of them. Can 300 hydras really defeat 4000 mythical dragons?

But there are still 4000 of them. Can 300 hydras really defeat 4000 mythical dragons?

With Heroes of Might and Magic, it's not even a question.

I’ll kind of pull out some pieces of phrases, don’t be too offended. So, here it is:

black dragons and knights are very different, but thanks to the well-thought-out construction costs, prices, and a certain dominance of strength over magic in the card set, we get approximately equal results.

Balancing with cards is not what you should strive for. Put a 2-cost unit on a random template and let's see what happens. I highly doubt that a knight and a warlock will be in equal conditions.

approximately equal total results in days

Offline, in my opinion, is not an indicator at all. Firstly, it strongly depends on the AI's behavior, or rather, on how stupidly it acts, and secondly, due to various generators, you can turn a predetermined losing battle into a victory.

In general, everyone has their own opinion about the balance. Even the testers and the developers of the scenarios argue, let alone other versions.

Well, that's logical, after all, they are different people. :)

But I agree about the cheating. The strangest thing is that, judging by the topics, it is only increasing:smile32:

Not 100% sure, but in Heroes of Might and Magic, they can generally defeat them even without the Phoenix.

Not 100% sure, but in Heroes of Might and Magic, they can generally defeat them even without a Phoenix.

No, there's really no other way, unless Thorgrim is a very high level, then it might be possible.

It turned into a discussion about the scenario. It was a huge campaign, possibly Eternal Love, or maybe I'm mistaken. I remember it being incredibly cool. And we had to defeat 7 stacks of dragons, totaling 4000. I had Titans, Phoenixes, and White Behemoths (I could have saved the army from the previous scenario). But the losses from the dragon spells when gathering a large army to then carefully resurrect everything were too great, and I didn't mind losing Hydras that much, and I lost fewer than 100 of them (although I could have tried leaving a few dragons, waiting 30 turns for the anti-magic to end, and then using resurrection). The dragons were acting strangely – they would even fly up and not attack (some kind of flaw in the monster tactics). In general, this dragon is a very controversial monster; they're loaded with spells, but they haven't learned how to fight in melee.
Another thing that annoys me in the third game is that the wall doesn't take into account the attacker's defense and the defender's attack. This is still abnormal. And there's a big imbalance towards magic compared to the first and second games. A hero without wisdom and earth magic is not a hero, even with stats of 99.
And Zybr, I invite you to join the discussions about the second game; it's clear that you know your stuff.

By the way, this isn't a controversial dragon monster; it's a hydra with its area-of-effect attack, a controversial monster that players are afraid to attack.

If someone enjoys playing with only one hero and troops of the initial levels, then I think it speaks to the player's insufficient skill level.

1. Apparently, you didn't read my message carefully, as there was no suggestion to play with only one hero. The criticism was about the lack of increased income when purchasing a new hero.

2. The ability to use all resources (even the first levels) is actually a sign of skill (I'm talking about using 5 heroes).
This is completely different from playing with only archangels.

Moderated: OFF-TOPIC in the message

Moderated: OFF-TOPIC in the message

In order not to go off-topic, I'll say that in general, Heroes 3 is playable and interesting for me. I won't deliberately look for flaws.

Hydra is one of the best units at level 7. Even the gray bears are afraid to fight them. I once won a battle without magic, with only minor losses, against bears with a large stack, by moving the hydra forward. They didn't attack it; there were few archers, but they completely ignored the hydra when it was standing next to several stacks. As a result, I managed to win with relatively small losses for such a situation.

The lack of increased funds when purchasing a new hero was criticized.

What made people think that this would be better? In my opinion, it's the same. They just did it this way, not another. I don't see any pros or cons in terms of balance at all!

2. The ability to use all resources (even at the first levels) is a sign of skill (I'm judging based on 5 heroes).
This is completely different from playing with only Archangels.

It's immediately clear that you're judging based on 5 heroes. For example, I personally don't remember when I even had Archangels in an online game; they are rarely reached. From level 7, Bears, Hydras, Firebirds, and Angels are mainly used (because they are given in conservatories), and the rest of the game is played mainly with monsters of levels 1 and 2! So, the comparison is more than incorrect.

Moderated: OFF-TOPIC in the message

Everyone has their own idea of the ideal game. For example, I would rather play Heroes 1 or 2 than 5, and it's precisely because of the graphics. And no one needs the 3D in the fifth game! In general, if we're talking about the fifth game, I personally think that the monsters and heroes are drawn disgustingly and hideously, so I didn't play the fifth game! That's my IMHO!

Guys, we've all been tricked. Nival Interactive promised to make Heroes 5, but instead made 3 Demiurges. It's a beautiful game, with stylishly drawn heroes, great music, and a complex skill system. Everything is a 5 out of 5 individually, but together it doesn't work. Where is the strategy that would make me stay up all night?
That's right – that strategy is in Heroes 3. )))

Show me who loves playing as the much-suffering Swamp faction!

I love playing as it! And I firmly believe that the Swamp can actually make other factions suffer!

Tazar is awesome ;)