Posts from - Замок (Castle)

Yes, Haven is the simplest faction, and that’s why it’s designed to be easy for new players to understand in the game. But simple doesn’t mean easy ;) It’s just always easier to understand and get used to the fact that swordsmen are recruited in the barracks, cavalry in the stables, etc., than to explain to the player that manticores live in this cave, and pegasi in this waterfall. Later, the player will get used to it and figure it out, but at first, it’s easier to introduce them to the game with Haven.

The Human Castle is extremely well-balanced, and the tactics are straightforward, so there's not much to discuss. :)

In what sense are the tactics straightforward? The Human Castle is one of the few where building levels six and seven are not interconnected. Moreover, the optionality of building levels two and three provides a wide range of tactical options.
Of course, you can limit your own choices by playing exclusively with a 160% Valkyrie build on a patch with a level two building. Then, in every game, you'll upgrade archers on the first day and proceed according to schedule. But you can limit yourself in this way with any castle.
I think that the Castle is the one that offers a real choice of development – because the balance allows you to choose different paths.

And sometimes there are situations when, for example, they skip Cavaliers and try to build a lot of ranged units (monks + archers) or try to place Angels at the beginning of the second week, and in which case is it possible to do so, or is it not a viable option at all?

Regarding having many monks at the expense of cavalry – such cases are extremely rare. Monks are generally not the strongest tier 5 unit, but cavalry (upgraded externally for free) in skilled hands can do a lot...
As for angels – of course, this happens when angels are deployed instead of cavalry. Whether or not to do this is a complex question; I can only offer some thoughts on the matter.
1. The main hero, Turis, is an argument in favor of cavalry.
2. The presence of an external stable is an argument in favor of cavalry.
3. A large number of hives. IMHO, this is an argument in favor of angels (there is a much lower chance of losing an angel in a hive than a cavalry unit).
4. The presence of conservatories is an argument in favor of angels. But what is the tactic for taking them without cavalry? Presumably, it's the same as usual: archers in the corner, protected by spearmen and angels, with angels supported by magic as needed (healing, shield, stone skin).
5. A hidden stash is an argument. Of course, angels with a hidden stash are incredibly powerful!

Regarding Turis, many praise her; it's clear that the tactic is very useful at the start. But why her? Valeska seems times more pleasant, and the shooters are also very good at the start. What exactly is this hero loved for—the standard bonus, perhaps, or is the progression somehow better than Valeska's? Sure, one point of speed etc. for cavalry, but that' same small. In general, could you comment on why Turis instead of Valeska—only because of the starting tactic? Or because of the cavalry bonus? If she started with even 1 cavalryman, it would be great, but as it is, I don't quite understand why she's praised compared to Valeska. I'm playing SoD, but I read somewhere that heroes from specializations in some version increase growth, but overall the question is specifically about SoD.

Regarding tactics. It is useful not only at the start. It is also needed during the final battle to neutralize the opponent's tactics. By the way, plus 1 speed for cavalry is also +5% damage. And Turis will have a longer move on horses... As for Valeska, she is an excellent choice; she brings many archers and they are fast... It' same funny that in hives and Dragon Utopia, tactics don't rule as much as low-hit shooters do...

In my opinion, cavalry is a better offensive force than archers, which is why I prefer starting with Tyris. Of course, you can also use cavalry with Valesk. But with Tyris's bonus and tactics, the cavalry has an easier time, and the archers can effectively play a supporting role. It's true that starting with Valesk is easier, but on larger maps, Tyris is probably still better.

...It seems much more enjoyable with Valeska...

"Everyone has their own taste," said the Indian, getting off the monkey.
That's what's great about the forum – sometimes you learn interesting things that you wouldn't normally pay attention to. And you don't necessarily have to read other people's answers for this – you need to read other people's questions and try to answer them. I was just thinking about it and came to the conclusion that Turis is, in some ways, better than Valeska. In addition to what Qwerty mentioned, she has a few more tactical options compared to Valeska. As for the disadvantages related to Turis, I would name this: not on every map, especially for single-player, is there an opportunity for quick construction and upgrading of horses – Valeska doesn't have this problem with archers. However, on 80% difficulty, this problem won't exist anywhere.:D :smile13:

Yes, the advantages of tactics are well-known, but Valesk also often comes up with good tactics, and what bonus does Turis have... 1 to movement for all horses, 1 to attack, and 1 to defense for 6 levels, or something like that. It doesn't seem very convincing. Anyway, this isn't about arguing who's better, but rather about an alternative to Valesk, perhaps for those who appreciate aesthetics. Although, maybe I just haven't reached the point where I can fully appreciate Turis. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'll play more. I want to test Orion more thoroughly and fully understand how effective his specialization is.

What’s the problem with upgrading horses? You just go to the stable, and the game constantly spawns them near human castles.

What's the problem with upgrading horses? Just go to the stable and it's done.

There really aren't any problems with upgrading horses. The problem might arise with building them – after all, you need 20 wood just for the hippodrome. And another 10 for the stable, without which the hippodrome can't be built.
And you don't always find that much wood.
Besides, the tactic with Tyris and cavalry has a significant drawback – you have to play very carefully, because an unjustified loss of even 1 cavalry unit in the first 1-2 weeks is not a pleasant thing.

Yes, the advantages of tactics are known, but Valiska also often comes up with tactics, and what bonus does Turis have? 1 to movement for all cavalry, 1 to attack, and 1 to defense for 6 levels, or something like that. It doesn't seem very convincing...

You see the quantitative characteristics but don't see the qualitative ones – what is called the ability to play. Tactics may come to Valiska, but Turis already has them. Besides the cavalry bonus, which will be quite significant, there are at least 3 more tactical advantages in battle. For Valiska, these advantages turn into disadvantages. I decided to do a test – 6 Turis knights (army of the 8th day) break through 95 Valiska archers without losses:smile10:
I decided to check the battle using the Heroes III Combat Simulator – it works without taking into account the hero bonus (and tactical maneuvers, respectively). So, it shows that after the battle, 70% of the archers remain alive.

I don't see any point in taking Turis. It's better to take Valeska, get a stack of archers, and if you're lucky, find another decent hero. Knights are not the best choice, considering their leadership.

In War of the Throne, Turis is a different story, as he provides 25% to monsters and +1 spawn.

To each their own.
Don't forget about the pikemen, by the way; Valkyries are vulnerable without support.

160 is fine, but 200 is a bit weak. It might not even be feasible :D