Posts from Mod for Heroes II.

I, for example, am strongly against mods that include any changes to the existing Factions. And the same goes for castles (it's unlikely that anyone other than the mod author would consider new buildings appropriate).
Liches being weaker than vampires when using the latter's abilities is nonsense.

Regarding Inferno... There were already some ideas about it. Overall, I think it's a harmless idea, but copying almost the entire Faction roster from the third game is not a good thing. And if you think about it, why turn the second game into the third game by introducing this castle?

Angels for the Knights, if we don't consider the lore of the world, are, in my opinion, essentially nonsense that started in the third game and was somehow accepted by most people, unlike the union of dwarves and elves. As a player who was raised on the concept of a purely human castle roster in the second game, I don't understand this.

In general, many ideas seem familiar and resemble those that appeared in the third game. Those who want to see them in action can play the third game. But we shouldn't spoil the unique charm of the second game with all this.
------
And in general: there have long been many approved ideas for a mod, including, for example, a generator for creating decent maps. And you're talking about angels and demons...

Angels for the Knights, if we don't consider the lore of the world, are, in my opinion, nonsense that started with Heroes of Might and Magic III and was somehow calmly accepted by most.

It would look even more absurd if, for example, a Tier 2 Paladin could stand on equal footing against a Devil or a Dragon. In Heroes of Might and Magic III, the creatures were balanced. There isn't a situation where one unit of the highest tier of one faction has parameters that are 2 or more times greater than a unit of the same tier from another faction.
Therefore, it would be nonsense for a Knight to have the parameters of a Dragon.

It would be great if there was a Knight, but they could compensate for that, as they did in the second and fourth games, with cost and stat increases, as well as ease of acquisition... in the end, you could come up with some kind of mechanism for them...

I wonder, in Heroes 2, was this compensated by an increase in growth? If the growth had been 5-6...

The Crusader production rate is higher than that of other high-tier creatures, with the possible exception of Cyclops. While Cyclops are not produced on a large scale, their rapid construction and higher production rate guarantee their numerical superiority over other high-tier creatures (again, with the exception of Cyclops, which are even better).

Ple-Sen, the increase is still somewhat different. I'm specifically talking about a fair fight.

Well, the main thing is that the balance shouldn't suffer. In my opinion, the factions should be quite ordinary, perhaps with a touch of magic, but without any monsters in their ranks. They should rely on discipline, tactics, and numbers to achieve victory.

Zybr, well, from that point of view – of course.
The second game is also unique because of its imbalance, which allows you to choose one of several different tactics.
Replacing paladins with angels means excluding from the game a tactic designed for relatively rapid development.

Max2009, I don't think a mod that makes the creatures in the second Heroes game equal, thereby killing one of its unique features, will be really in demand. At least among many veterans. And the "youngsters," i.e., those who haven't played Heroes 2 before, will probably not even look at the game itself, let alone a fan-made mod that combines two old parts (as follows from its description).

P.S. well, never mind, it's just a fantasy anyway. No one will want to open and rewrite the game for such additions. Unless someone happens to find an already open source code for Heroes and doesn't feel like bringing the idea to life...

A battle between a knight army and a warlock army often results in a fairly even match. It can be challenging when the warlock has a high spell power and powerful spells, but it's more manageable than when a strong knight hero replaces their army with 3 red creatures from the Dragon Shrine. In that case, the warlock is in deep trouble, almost regardless of their army. And angels completely destroy this balance, not to mention the atmosphere of the game itself.
The fifth installment needs to change something and prove its worth to sell, while the best game of 1996 has long proven its complete viability.

Nowhere does he come out on top. The Warlock's creatures of ALL levels are more powerful than the Knight's creatures of the same level. And as for the three red birds... by that point, the Warlock will have more of them, plus many other nice creatures like minotaurs and hydras.

And where will the Warlock get the money to feed all this horde? ^^ They cost a pretty penny, usually there's just enough money for dragons, and that's about it. Unless, of course, the Warlock's opponent has already given him control of several territories, and he now owns a few cities and gold mines.

I myself completed a difficult map using exactly 3 of these creatures, with a Knight hero defeating a Warlock with 4 green dragons and more than a week's worth of accumulated experience, without losing anything. I'm not even talking about 5 skeletons with a bunch of other undead and dozens of cyclops with +++.
In Heroes of Might and Magic I and II, the damage a hero inflicts on an army, or even a single dragon, can vary by almost an order of magnitude, depending on the defense and attack of the heroes.

Actually, Warlocks usually use Knights or Barbarians as their main hero. So, you can forget about any class-specific advantages.

Okay, let's move on to the retreats. Actually, the AI doesn't do this (it doesn't assign a powerful unit to the main role), so when playing against the AI, it often makes almost no difference which Castle you start with. Defeating a Warlock-led army with a Knight and defeating a Knight-led army with a Warlock takes roughly the same amount of time.
As for battles between players, a lot will depend on the map, but with sufficient resources, Paladins are deployed in the first week, while Dragons can only be deployed in the first week on one or two maps. In short, there is no imbalance; all Castles are viable!

Dragons, even with the most optimistic predictions, take about three weeks to acquire, and that's only if you're lucky and have enough resources (or if you economize and buy troops in minimal quantities).