Posts from The eternal question: which heroes are better, mages or warriors?

Without artifacts???? My mage is twice as weak without them. After all, many artifacts increase magic power. And I don't keep that kind of junk, like scrolls, in my inventory.

Yes, you can definitely manage without scrolls. And a mage without artifacts – that’s a reality. The main thing is wisdom!

}\{ЕК;51296

Actually, artifacts don't make a person a full-fledged mage! A full-fledged mage is someone who can use spells without any help from artifacts, scrolls, etc., i.e., on their own!:p

So, if you build a guild and buy a book, are you already a mage???? :confused: Probably not!!!

Of course, a battle mage.:) He can both wield a sword and cast a complex spell.:rolleyes:

The real question is whether we're talking about mages or warriors. A bare warrior is worse than a bare mage. The latter at least has a chance to fire an arrow without retaliation and escape, or deal more damage while the warrior is approaching.
List me some cool warriors – there are only a few.
List me some cool mages – there are only a few, so there's no getting around the imbalance of power. The warrior protects the mage, and the mage supports the warrior.
I first learn all the schools of magic + wisdom, then logistics and pathfinding, and that's basically the game won. If a warrior is strong, I'll run away (logistics and pathfinding) and gather more resources and artifacts, and then attack. And to minimize losses on my side, I'll use different types of magic.

Regardless of whether the hero is a warrior or a mage, it’s still necessary to develop them in a balanced way. For me, the essential skills for the main hero are Earth Magic, Air Magic, Logistics, Pathfinding, Attack, Defense, Wisdom, and Learning. In other words, the skills should be constantly active, regardless of subjective factors (whether the hero has a Tent of Healing, a Ballista, or whether there are still unexplored areas on the map, etc.). Any hero should have mobility, combat prowess, and magical abilities that develop quickly and consistently.

The larger the map and the armies, the better the warriors become, as enhancing troops with attack and defense, and skills like "marksman," will benefit them more than spells (even powerful ones like Prayer). On a small map with a low difficulty level, mages definitely rule. You build a guild and wipe everyone out. But generally, I prefer a combination. No matter how cool a warrior is, they'll have a hard time without dispel. And where there's dispel, there's mass blessing, and from there, it's not far to Prayer... And that's how you can easily get hooked on magic, like blood elves:D:D:D In my opinion, the main advantage of mages is strategic.

Magic is a useful thing, but it's not reliable. It can fail at the most crucial moment. Especially if the game has been going on for a while, and everyone is loaded with artifacts like a Christmas tree with ornaments. There are a thousand nuances (that's why everyone loves this game:D), but a warrior against a mage should have a numerical advantage. This is an elementary law of logic (imagine what one Susasbrot can do with 1 black dragon and Armageddon)...
By the way, this is not an indicator of advantage. Because if even one spell in the mage's chain of planned spells is reflected, the whole chain collapses.

Magic is a useful thing, but it's not reliable. It can fail at the most crucial moment, especially if the game has dragged on, and everyone is laden with artifacts like a Christmas tree. There are a thousand nuances (that's why we love this game:D), but a warrior should have a numerical advantage over a mage. This is an elementary law of logic (imagine what one Susabrod with 1 black dragon and Armageddon can do)...
By the way, this is not an indicator of advantage, because if at least one spell in the mage's chain of planned spells is reflected, the whole chain collapses.

If you are an excellent mage and tactician, then no artifacts will save your opponent... That's what

In principle, I am for reasonable balance. And, of course, a mage should have a strong enough army to manage in the event of an Orb of Forbidding (a rather cheat-like artifact, it should be noted... now if an artifact had been created to accompany it that reduced non-magical damage almost to zero - then the warrior supporters would have howled...).
But I personally prefer mages. And I'll explain why using an example. Everyone remembers, I think, the campaign from Armageddon's Blade as a mage (Dakkon, I believe... I don't remember anymore, I don't have the disc on hand). Well, in one of the missions, a key passage was defended by thousands(!) of nagas. I wonder which warrior could have handled that... I was saved by expert slow, and then expert berserk and a series of blinds. Hitting a unit blinded by expert Fire Magic is a pleasant thing, only sometimes prolonged.
Of course, such cases are not common... but neither is the Orb of Forbidding, so here you have one extreme in response to another...

I believe that skills should never be mixed: if you're a mage, take magical skills, but you can take 1-2 combat skills. However, magic is completely unnecessary for a warrior! Achieving balance is extremely difficult and pointless!

I don't think that's quite right. It's possible to achieve balance, and it's extremely beneficial. A Mage can do without a whole range of abilities (like Intelligence or Divination; and all 4 elements are, in my opinion, unnecessary) and fill those empty slots with combat skills; at least Defense is very important for a Mage!

How can you do without intellect? You need to cast spells 2 times a week (if you still have the Dimension Door spell, then 1 time?). And you need at least 3 schools, both magic and wisdom. This leaves you with 3 more skill points. You can take magical skills from the 4th school, mysticism (by the way, if you're a Necromancer, you'll only have 2 skill points left), or take something from the warrior skills.

And where is the balance here?

Look – 3 magic schools + wisdom – 4 slots. Let's say you take intelligence (I wouldn't, because there are wells and cities where you can just stay for a day; you almost always have enough magic for a battle); that leaves 3. Of course, if you're a Necromancer and take Sorcery and Mysticism, that's it. But I almost never play as Necromancers and prefer to take not this incredibly weak Sorcery and pointless (in my opinion!) Mysticism, but Logistics, Defense, and/or Attack. As a result, your troops fight well, and you have decent magic. I only sacrifice skills randomly (like Leadership), Ballista and Catapult control, and Diplomacy. Pathfinding is worth taking if the map is suitable.
And

I only sacrifice skills randomly (like leadership), ballista and catapult control, and diplomacy. Pathfinding is worth taking if the map is suitable.
And you get a cool battle mage:)

You have 5 military skills and 3 magic skills – so what kind of battle mage are you!
And what are your magic skills:
Wisdom +2, school of magic
Wisdom +1, school of magic + spellcasting.


This is not balance.