Discussion of third-tier monsters. — General

dnaop-wr

8/8/2011 7:50 AM UTC

Auto-translated

heroMES

You really went too far. 6 (or at least 7!) Crusaders take down 3 vampires. Because:
A. Death Ward (meaning they regenerate less HP, and therefore the vampires regenerate less HP).
B. 2 attacks! (The first one is when either the Crusader deals a little bit of damage, or the vampire doesn't lose any HP at all. The second one is when the Crusader completely destroys the vampire, and the vampire doesn't regenerate)
Heh, these are vampires. He's even cooler than a Djinn! (but you can cast antimagic on anyone). He's weaker than a Slime. It's a pity, but balance is balance, and there's still an alternative to Crusaders. Well, and maybe Griffins (not everyone can respond to two attacks). Crusaders may not be the most powerful, but they can definitely claim a place in the top 5 of level III units.

The point is not that the Crusader is bad, but that the vampire didn't let him land a single attack. That is, without the support of a hero, the Death Ward didn't help. I didn't cross the Slime with the Vampire (I was too lazy), and regarding which unit is stronger (without a hero), I conducted a small test and gave a summary in post 216.

Gremlin From Kremlin

8/11/2011 8:19 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Voted for Vampires. After all, life-draining is cool.

In reply to dnaop-wr

heroMES

8/21/2011 6:21 PM UTC

Auto-translated

dnaop-wr

The point isn't that the Cross is bad, but that the Vampire didn't manage to land a single hit. Meaning, without hero support, the amulet didn't help. I didn't crossbreed the Slime with the Vampire (I was too lazy), and regarding which unit is stronger (without a hero), I conducted a small test and provided a summary in post 216.

Where did you get the idea that the Vampire is better than the Cross? I tested it, and the Cross remains the winner. Whether with buffs or without, whether with a Tactician or without, it still defeats the Vampire. Test results: 1 round = 1 Vampire. In total, after 3 rounds, the Cross, thanks to its double attack and amulet, defeated the enemy (and dnaop-wr was wrong :-)). And in a real situation, it would be shot down first, and then the Cross, fully buffed, would kill it. That's how it is.

Герои IV - 4EVER
Жизнь рулит
Герои III - Отстой

In reply to heroMES

dnaop-wr

8/21/2011 7:00 PM UTC

Auto-translated

heroMES

How did you conclude that a vampire is stronger than a crusader? ...

You didn't read carefully. I repeat – the vampire didn't let the crusader land a single blow. And, of course, both were without heroes. It's good that the crusaders didn't have morale drop on the first turn. If 18 crusaders had managed to hit 4 vampires even once, there wouldn't have been anything left of them... Conclusion: don't attack the weak (vampires), or you might regret it! :smile24:

Zybr

8/22/2011 1:13 PM UTC

Auto-translated

This is purely an offline scenario. But if the crossbows were indeed used in conjunction with the crosses, then credit should be given for the skillful execution and heroic patience. Because you can't replenish your vampires' health with crossbows. If there were archers or monks instead, it would be much easier. Although, 5+5+4+4 crosses are still not easily defeated.

Барон "Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!

In reply to Zybr

CTPAHHuK

8/23/2011 5:57 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Zybr

...Because you can't replenish your troops with ballistae. If there were, for example, archers or monks, it would be much easier...

Monks with a protection amulet are also an inconvenient target for Vampires :) I haven't seen Vampires in online battles for a very long time. There are people on the Equilibria forum who still advocate for the bloodsuckers. I really want to play a game on Spot with them sometime, just to have them drop on the market :)

Heroes of might and magic 4 on-line World Championships

In reply to CTPAHHuK

Zybr

8/23/2011 8:13 AM UTC

Auto-translated

CTPAHHuK

Monks with amulets are also an inconvenient target for Vampires :) I haven't seen Vampires in online battles for a long time. There are people on the Equilibrius forum who still advocate for bloodsuckers.

Well, 0 is one thing, and 50% is another. But the greater benefit is that you can hide monks behind trees, thereby reducing damage.

Overall, vampires are cool, but in a purely local context, they are good for taking out living, non-magical units of levels 1-2. A big plus is that they can do it even without a hero. In all other situations, it is more effective to use venom.

Барон "Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!

In reply to Zybr

Силос Занж

10/30/2011 4:44 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I think the best tier 3 creatures are the Djinns. They cast spells, they fly, and besides, I prefer the Haven faction.

Alexsander13

12/6/2011 3:48 PM UTC

Auto-translated

aren't djinns just useless illusions? Okay, cancel that. While they work against neutrals, they're completely useless in Fortress battles. Monks... well, vampires reach them in 1 or 2 turns, and the resistance becomes irrelevant because of the 1/2 damage in melee. In my opinion, Crusaders are much better: they always have double strike, they move far, they have death resistance, and they keep neutrals away from the heroes. And with teleport, they can quickly drag enemies into Fortress battles, which puts the tactic in the plus. I think that's a good option. But vampires seem like a more or less alternative option for level 4, since they're easier to buy in two or three castles (meaning there will be a lot more of them than devils or skeletons). They have a decent attack, and against neutrals, lifelink seems very effective.

Тебя оскорбили - забудь...тебя унизили - прости...тебя ударили - вспомни всё и убей!!!
:smile10: :smile17: :smile19:

Армия* - это люди, собранные в одном месте с единственной целью: исправлять ошибки дипломатов.

Д. Дэниелз

Zybr

12/6/2011 7:56 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Vampires become less effective against those from whom they cannot drain life. Whether you laugh or get angry, if you rely on a powerful vampire stack at a certain point, you won't be able to break through golems, elementals, or undead.

Барон "Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!

Alexsander13

12/7/2011 7:57 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Here, brute force will be the only deciding factor, meaning high damage from the vampires and no retaliation. Alternatively, you can bring a huge stack of Imps to sacrifice them and resurrect vampires.

Тебя оскорбили - забудь...тебя унизили - прости...тебя ударили - вспомни всё и убей!!!
:smile10: :smile17: :smile19:

Армия* - это люди, собранные в одном месте с единственной целью: исправлять ошибки дипломатов.

Д. Дэниелз

Zybr

12/7/2011 8:17 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Not only that. You can't allow vampires to be the focus of all neutral creatures. They have low HP, only 75, and despite having quite good attack and defense modifiers, they won't withstand a large onslaught. On the other hand, a group of 3-5 vampires can defeat almost any living neutral creature on their own, without any support. That is, they can be left to roam freely.

Барон "Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!

dnaop-wr

12/7/2011 10:13 AM UTC

Auto-translated

In all these small-scale skirmishes where you attack with a smaller force and the enemy retaliates with a larger one, there's one problem: you might encounter a slow-moving unit with a higher speed (not range, but speed), or its morale might be high – in that case, you might not have time to react and dodge, and it can take you out with a single attack. So, until you've weakened the enemy and lowered its morale, the risk might be too great...

Техника в руках индейца мертва.
Справочник по НоММ-4 http://handbookhmm.ru/pamyatka-dlya-heroes-iv.html

Памятка по НоММ-3 http://handbookhmm.ru/pamyatka-dlya-homm-iii.html
и HotA http://handbookhmm.ru/vyishla-obnovlennaya-pamyatka-dlya-homm-iii-hota.html

Zybr

12/7/2011 10:35 AM UTC

Auto-translated

No, if you can drink blood, let the neutral creatures attack as much as they want – the vampires will restore everything.

Барон "Vampires"

Отдай свои прошлые сны,
В сомненьях себя обрети,
В бешеном танце душа кружится!
Не думай, что будет потом,
Здесь и сейчас мы живем,
Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!

Sinistar

1/14/2012 3:24 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I voted for the vampires (I feel sorry for the poisonous creatures, but they don't stand a chance against the competition from the Necropolis) - probably the best creatures in the game in terms of price/quality ratio. In large numbers (and this is not a problem for a Necromancer's game), they recover from almost any damage, so without a specialized tactic against them, there's nothing you can do. Especially against neutrals. However, the Djinns, with their ability to disable and copy units, are also very good, allowing you to destroy huge armies without losses. And an army of Cyclops can wipe out troops more effectively than mass-effect magic.

Цвета ночи гранитные склоны,
Цвета крови сухая земля,
И янтарные очи дракона
Отражает кусок хрусталя -
Я сторожу этот клад...