Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition.

Interesting project. I just don't understand why the mod on the website is 300KB, but from the hosting it's 6MB? And there's not much information on the website - it's unclear whether the project is still active. Maybe you could add some, I'll be following it with interest.

I'll allow myself to give some advice: bring back the old unit names, at least some of those that don't contradict the description. They looked more harmonious. For example, calling a dwarf a Viking is a bit much. Also, there are many inconsistencies in the unit names and menus. Seriously, the descriptions are good, but most of the names are terrible. Or Berserk-Wolverine... where did that come from? It's a matter of taste, of course, but in my opinion, they don't fit into the game's universe; it feels disjointed. It's like calling an Ethiopian Ivan.

You can only retrain already purchased units between an upgrade and an alt. But since all three options are now equal, it sometimes turns out badly.

Are you planning to edit the AI for your mod? Battles with a good AI on this mod would be a great pleasure. The current AI is terribly stupid, even for modders. They created Eternal, but today I defeated its aggressive AI on heroic difficulty with some scraps of my only vanguard squad. If someone could bring it up to the level of the third game, it would be much more enjoyable.

It would also be helpful to know which mods your mod conflicts with or may conflict with, if there is such data.

Different strokes for different folks. There are plans for two versions: one with full names (as it is now) and one with short names. In the short version, for example, a berserker-wolverine will simply be called a berserker. But a Viking will remain a Viking, because for some, it's too much, but for others, it fits in quite well, since dwarves are very close to that culture.

No, I'm not working on AI fixes. Full-fledged fixes are only available to the author of Eternal; for me and others, these resources are closed.

So, you can only feel the difficulty if you give the AI a lot of resources, faster upgrades, etc. And the neutrals will be difficult at a high level, with the number doubling every week. So, offline hardcore players won't be left without something to do.

Compatibility with Eternal is planned for when the project reaches the appropriate stage (i.e., when there are games on the map, not just duels).

In any case, as I already wrote, especially on large maps, playability will be present even WITHOUT active AI resistance, simply because the player (on a high difficulty) will be competing with neutral creatures. Every week on such a difficulty, the number of neutral creatures will double, which means that if the player plays slowly and not efficiently enough, they will lose (be unable to win) simply because they won't be able to defeat the necessary neutral creatures in time. Since they will not be able to double the power of their army every week, over time, the relative growth rate and strength of their army will slow down significantly. And they will be forced to break through as quickly and efficiently as possible, capture cities early, hire additional heroes and new troops, etc., in order to complete objectives before they become impossible. Thus, for a competitive (sporting) element, AI is not necessary. It will be possible to play maps without any active AI participation at all.

This is certainly true for duels. But it won't work in offline mode. Rapid development and capturing mines, key locations, etc., within a limited time frame isn't ideal. This kind of development implies perfect knowledge of the map, the faction, extensive experience with heroes, and knowledge of all units, factions, and classes in this mod, etc. In short, all newcomers, those who prefer a slower pace, and those who enjoy playing defensively will simply be unable to play. I think this forced acceleration is unnecessary, at least for offline play against the AI. It's better to focus on the quantity/quality/prices of buildings and recruitment, or on certain tactical elements and unique features of each faction – this would provide extremely flexible gameplay with a huge number of diverse tactics without artificial stimulation from external factors, and leave the pace of development and other nuances up to the player's choice.

So, I understand that we're talking about a hardcore difficulty level, and you can set it to medium to make it less harsh with the neutrals. But as I understand it, the AI level will also decrease. As a result, playing on medium will not be interesting, and playing on hard will be impossible.

In my opinion, it's all logical: a person who plays slowly (inefficiently) should choose easier levels, since they play weaker.

But as I understand it, the AI level will also be lowered. As a result, it will be uninteresting to play on medium, and impossible on hard.

I see neutrals as an additional obstacle. You – as the main opponent. Eliminating neutrals, even very quickly, will soon become boring. It's monotonous. For a good offline game, interaction with a good AI is needed.

Subjectively, when the difficulty is lowered, the AI becomes easier.

Hydras are questionable for this faction. Some kind of spiders would be very appropriate.

Blood sisters and witches are logical, but they are bland and boring. And they don't look good – it's obvious that they were hastily made.

Minotaurs would be more suitable for barbarians in general. Instead of wyverns, for example.

Now, the Tower faction is a mishmash of swamp and dungeon creatures from Heroes 3, plus some kind of mediocre units.

Since the balance is being reworked anyway, it's just a matter of a couple of new models.

It would also be great to replace the dwarven dragons. They don't fit and look like generic garbage. And there are clearly too many dragons in the game.

It would be good to replace the death messengers with knights in the necropolis, and put the messengers instead of dragons on level 7. Bone dragons are, of course, a classic, but death messengers are a great replacement for them.

The mages have some kind of rakshasas. The old, good nagas were much nicer. Or, for example, elementals.

There don't seem to be any such colorful creatures as cyclops, harpies, hippos, etc. in the game. Hippos and harpies would look very good for the barbarians.

Regarding the heroes. 6 skills at the beginning is debatable. It turns out that I haven't even started playing, and the heroes are already one-third upgraded. And not with what I need for my tactics and play style. Or will there be an opportunity to choose these six skills or some of them? I understand that diversity is important... but what's the point of all these educations if you're going to cut them down? Also, the dwarven warrior has a low chance of getting leadership, but a high chance for... a death knight. Why does he need it? The necromancer has the battle machines skill, but the death knight doesn't. It's not logical.

And another thought occurred to me. "Defense" now increases the squad's defense by 50%, instead of 30% in the old games. That is, the tactic of retreating, waiting, and so on has been significantly expanded. But the barbarians have been deprived of this, as blood rage does not allow them to defend and wait. That is, the barbarians are somewhat disadvantaged compared to the other races. Is this taken into account? Will there be any compensating bonuses for the barbarians? For example, something like a bonus to attack/speed/initiative for each defending enemy, or something like that.

And by the way. I saw your answer to the request to replace heaven with conflux. If this is possible, why not replace the academy with conflux? There are five models in the game, and two more, and that's it. The cities are identical in terms of magical orientation. But conflux is much more specific and interesting than this oriental thing.

There is a free city of outcasts; you can make it, not from the academy.

Regarding replacements, it's essentially just a recolor. The other aspects are much more complex, and creating models from scratch is almost impossible.

Hydras are hydras, it's a matter of taste. Why can't a hydra be an underground creature? Again, I have nothing against spiders (although in Ashan, spiders make sense for the undead), but who will draw them?

The warrior women are just warrior women. The only problem is the heels.

Why would they be for the Barbarians? Don't they have enough of that kind of meat (orcs, executioners)?

I advise you not to compare it to Heroes 3 in this regard, because the game world is completely different. There, by the way, I also got the impression of a collection of random things, not in Heroes 5, where in the Dungeon, 4 out of 7 units are units of the main faction (Dungeon).

I liked the original (as in the developers' artistic concept) version of the gnomes more, but unfortunately, there is no such model in the game.

I might have supported this idea before, but not now. Because everyone has their own role. Necrodrakes in the Stronghold are clearly debuffers, while death knights would be more like damage dealers, which doesn't fit the current style of the undead (where damage dealers already exist – heralds).

Rakshasas are rakshasas, a perfectly normal alternative to nagas. Why not? But I have a rather negative attitude towards elementals as full-fledged castle units, because they are boring (and poorly drawn in Heroes 5).

In Heroes 5, the cyclops performs the role of a behemoth; I would say that it is even more similar to a behemoth than to a cyclops. And harpies – why are they needed if there are the same furies?

There are 6 skill branches, not 6 skills. And that's a lot, actually, because each branch gives 6 slots (racial – 8). For comparison, in Heroes 3, there are 8x3 slots.

The penalty for education is huge in Heroes 5, but, as they say, if you don't want it, don't take it, what's the problem.
Necromancer leadership is planned to be necromantic leadership (minus to enemy morale).