Posts from Heroes of sword or magic? Auto-translated

However, in general, the fourth-tier heroes also deviate from the aforementioned thesis.

As you know, in Heroes 1 and 2, magic castles had exclusively magic heroes, and combat castles had exclusively combat heroes, and even the guilds were of the same size, so, if you don't hire a non-native hero, the path of development was predetermined. But the creatures themselves were completely different in strength. For example, the Warlock has the strongest creatures, while the Human has weak and mediocre ones (yes, fast construction and so on, but that's not important now). Therefore, a Human or a Barbarian could not simply "easily learn all the same spells" or have enough strength and knowledge to use them effectively, and mass slowing and speeding were separate spells that could appear, or they might not appear in the guild; it is not enough to simply choose "earth" after the first chest and visit a hundred buildings on the map (the game was noticeably faster). At the same time, the Warlock does not end up in a situation where he has a bunch of weaklings who are incapable of opposing a powerful combat hero, because the hero does not have dragons or hydras. And in the first part, spells were generally in charges, replenished in the guild, and if you have little knowledge and strength, you don't cast them often.

Since you can't just jump into the same utopia as Solmyr.

By the way, I think the general slowdown and speed-up are much more of a cheat than Chain Lightning or Stone Rain.

Both warriors and mages can learn all spells, only the mage gets a small bonus to spell power.

In general, the larger the map, the more effective the warrior is.

If it doesn't involve tiny maps, attacking magic (like lightning) is simply not effective.

And I also want to add that warriors have a lot of artifacts that will help them defend against magic even better and destroy the mage to smithereens.

Okay, let's not touch the 4th level skills.

Firstly, in Heroes 1 and 2, castles or towns of races other than the starting one appeared slightly less often, so the argument about units doesn't hold up (and even if they don't appear, what good are these hydras with 0 defense to a hero if my attack is 10!). Also, in Heroes 1, due to the absence of secondary skills, any hero could, after building a complete guild of mages, learn all spells at once, so low-level mages were mainly good for minor "harassment" (which the computer readily used) in the form of learning Storm or Armageddon - take a level 1 mage (thankfully with +3 strength), learn the spell, attack a strong hero, cast it, and that's it. And for a normal, large battle, mages clearly lost to warriors (especially if the difference in attack and defense is around 10, which is clearly visible in the first two games). Also, another plus for warriors in the first part of Heroes is that any curse placed on your unit can be removed by any positive spell cast on yourself (in Heroes 5, not every dispel or antimagic will save you from a curse if your magic power is much lower than the opponent's magic power, which gives mages some advantage).

With a full build in the Strength branch, a warrior gains immunity to magic and excellent ranged attack. With this setup, an enemy mage hero is defeated in 1 turn, and all that remains is to deal with his army.

With a fully developed Strength skill tree, the warrior gains immunity to magic and excellent ranged attack. With this setup, an enemy mage hero can be defeated in one turn; all that remains is to deal with their army.

But meeting him on the 2nd week would also be an unpleasant affair.

The difference is only in the specific hero's specialization and stats, but the latter can be fixed with artifacts.

Yes, it's obvious that there's no point running around as a mage for 3-4 months! Especially since no one plays that long anyway.

It's not about the map, but about the game time. Again, you shouldn't drag the game out.

5p74
And it also depends on the mage. If it's a specialist in things like Stone Skin, Bloodlust, Resurrection, Prayer, then the Utopia is taken simultaneously with a warrior.

Dragon Utopia CONS Hives SHAR

The point isn't that. Because of the fully developed combat skills branch, the Warrior excels at the beginning and, to some extent, in the middle of the game, especially when armies are still small. Let's say, with 2-4 units, he can handle it, but with 5-8, he'll start having problems. And the further you go, the more troops there are, and the harder it becomes for the Warrior. But the Mage, on the other hand, will be able to manipulate these large armies, and the Warrior will have a tough time.

No, thanks to the line of sight, it's not possible.

It depends on the map. A Warrior might be able to afford losing 1 turn to get within range of the Mage.

But doesn't a warrior go around alone and without an army? No, I actually like answers like that.

And for a barbarian to get magic is a real pain, yes, I can learn Wisdom and Magic, but I'll never forget when I had 17 attack, 2 defense, 2 strength, and 1 knowledge. And after that, you tell me that a warrior will be equal to a mage in spells, and I'll laugh.

But a mage should also be able to acquire artifacts that boost attack and defense.

You should read the entire post carefully. At the beginning, the Warrior doesn't need an army; it only serves as cannon fodder to capture something valuable. He breaks through everything with potions and his own strength. Therefore, he can easily move around without an army and still defeat a small mage's army, either in one go or in two.

As for mages, if they are not Chaos or Druid mages, they can't do much without an army, and even these two "independent" types require constant mana control.

Eventually, the Warrior also needs to build an army, which is logical. But with only attack and defense bonuses, his army won't go far in a battle against a mage. Without Dispel, it's better to surrender immediately.

Post #21: The Leader will help you understand that there isn't.