Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition.

How can you even confuse the icons? They are all different.

Try launching a duel between Alt Demons against Alt Demons or Alt Tier 3 Elves against Alt Tier 3 Elves. And let's see if you can immediately tell which icons belong to Tiamats and which belong to Shadow Witches. There simply isn't a background there.

Besides, the circle here is much more convenient than this multicolored eyesore and doesn't lose out in practicality.

To each their own. In my opinion, the circle is an eyesore. And it doesn't provide anything that the scale, bars, and logic provide. Because you can see where the unit will go anyway (and in the case of overlapping zones, they are displayed in red in the model).

Why don't you launch a duel with alternate demons against alternate demons, or alternate Tier 3 creatures against alternate Tier 3 creatures? Then we'll see if you can immediately tell which icons belong to the Tiamats and which belong to the Shadow Witches.

In reality, it's easier to fix these two icons than to change the entire interface because of them. And the "glow" effect when hovering over the icon hasn't been removed either. But that's not really important if the modification is optional.

In reality, it's easier to fix these two icons than to rework the entire interface because of them ;) And no one has canceled the "glow" effect when hovering over the icon. But this is not so important if the add-on is optional.

Hovering over the icon to check is an unnecessary action. The purpose of the interface add-on lies in four things combined:
1) It's impossible to confuse the icons; it's easy to see where the enemy is and where your units are.
2) Convenient log (no need to scroll).
3) Convenient scale (no need to scroll).
4) Highlighting the intersection of the movement zones of two units in red.

If someone decides to redo the textures of the icons, I'm all for it. I mentioned two examples off the top of my head; it's possible that there are similar mistakes with other icons as well. Corrected icons will allow us to return to the old icon interface (but the long scale and the top logs will still remain in the add-on).

Added 7 minutes later
Regarding the triad of square buttons - in principle, it is possible to make them exactly the same as the top triad, without changing the textures. Then it will look much better.

Are the new classes ready yet?

Hero classes? No. At this stage, work on the units is nearing completion; work on the heroes will be done in the next stage.

Added 6 hours 17 minutes ago
Regarding hero classes, the following is proposed for discussion:

(starting stats for level 1 - average projected stats for level 21; stat drop chance = (BaseStat+1) x 10% in case of attack and defense, and BaseStat x 10% in case of magic and knowledge)

HUMANS (always low knowledge) - Knight 3/2/2/1 => 11/8/6/3 (40% / 30% / 20% / 10%) - Paladin 1/3/3/1 => 5/11/9/3 (20% / 40% / 30% / 10%) - Templar 2/1/4/1 => 8/5/12/3 (30% / 20% / 40% / 10%)

MAGIC (always high knowledge) - Strategist 2/1/1/4 => 8/5/3/12 (30% / 20% / 10% / 40%) - Magister 0/2/2/4 => 2/8/6/12 (10% / 30% / 20% / 40%) - Archmage 1/0/3/4 => 5/2/9/12 (20% / 10% / 30% / 40%)

ELVES (always low attack) - Ranger 0/3/2/3 => 2/11/6/9 (10% / 40% / 20% / 30%) - Guardian 0/2/4/2 => 2/8/12/6 (10% / 30% / 40% / 20%) - Druid 0/1/3/4 => 2/5/9/12 (10% / 20% / 30% / 40%)

GNOMES (always high defense) - Warrior 2/3/2/1 => 8/11/6/3 (30% / 40% / 20% / 10%) - Engineer 1/3/1/3 => 5/11/3/9 (20% / 40% / 10% / 30%) - Hermit 0/3/3/2 => 2/11/9/6 (10% / 40% / 30% / 20%)

DEMONS (always high attack) - Lord 3/2/1/2 => 11/8/3/6 (40% / 30% / 10% / 20%) - Demonologist 3/1/3/1 => 11/5/9/3 (40% / 20% / 30% / 10%) - Warlock 3/0/2/3 => 11/2/6/9 (40% / 10% / 20% / 30%)

UNDEAD (always high magic) - Reaper 1/2/4/1 => 5/8/12/3 (20% / 30% / 40% / 10%) - Cultist 2/0/4/2 => 8/2/12/6 (30% / 10% / 40% / 20%) - Necromancer 0/1/4/3 => 2/5/12/9 (10% / 20% / 40% / 30%)

DARK (always low defense) - Assassin 3/0/3/2 => 11/2/9/6 (40% / 10% / 30% / 20%) - Witch 2/0/2/4 => 8/2/6/12 (30% / 10% / 20% / 40%) - Warlock 1/0/4/3 => 5/2/12/9 (20% / 10% / 40% / 30%)

ORCS (always low magic) - Barbarian 2/3/1/2 => 8/11/3/6 (30% / 40% / 10% / 20%) - Chieftain 3/1/1/3 => 11/5/3/9 (40% / 20% / 10% / 30%) - Shaman 1/2/1/4 => 5/8/3/12 (20% / 30% / 10% / 40%)

Each class will have (in addition to racial with a 10% chance of appearing) 6 typical skills (12% chance of appearing) and 6 rare skills (3% chance). Level 1 heroes will have not only increased stats (compared to the original), but also 6 starting perks (instead of 3), plus at least 1 spell. Also, as a reminder, the concept where heroes come without troops has been canceled: now, hired heroes will come with starting troops (as in the original). However, these troops will be fixed (not random). The number of heroes for each class = 4 (i.e., there will be 12 per race).

Suggestions are welcome for typical skills for each of the classes, which ones to give to whom.

Racial schools of magic (native to the guild):

Humans = Light + Dark Magic = Chaos + Summoning Elves = Light + Summoning Gnomes = Light + Chaos Demons = Dark + Chaos Undead = Dark + Summoning Dark = Dark + Chaos

However, class-specific typical schools may differ. For example, a demonologist may have Dark + Light as typical (although he will have to look for Light on the map, since the guild will give him few spells).

Added 2 hours 7 minutes ago
P.S. By the way, luck, which was reduced to 50%, will return to its original (+100%) state. Therefore, the "Luck" skill will remain as powerful as in the original.

Added 6 minutes ago
Attack: +10/20/30% melee damage, ranged +50% ranged damage Defense: -10/20/30% melee damage, evasion -30% ranged damage Machinery: 100/200/300/400 HP for machines, +5/10/15 defense, does not increase the damage of ballista (since it already increases from the attack and knowledge of the hero). Fire arrows through sulfur rain (catapult level 2). That is, the choice is either unguided area-of-effect (ignores 50% defense + 50 fire damage), or a guided ballista with double or triple shot.

Training (racial): +25/50/75/100% retaliatory damage, discount when training 0/20/40/60%, 3/6 units per week.

Necromancy (racial): 2/4/6/8% of the victim's HP +2% for each structure, dark energy = 80+80 for each pylon, +0 for necromancers (the cost of raising a skeleton = 3, a lich = 80, a dragon or reaper = 120), i.e., we limit it primarily by %, and not by dark energy. In the original, the % of necromancy was 5 times higher, and it was easy to hit the dark energy limit in 1 battle. Now there will be a real reason to level up necromancy early to raise more fighters.

Mini-artifacts The following change is proposed for mini-artifacts: give the hero-mage a fixed temporary knowledge = 20 when entering the city (without changing mana). This will allow you to receive convenient fixed and balanced bonuses from mini-artifacts, in addition, it will allow you to use these bonuses in the early game (clearing) and will not make them imbalanced due to a very large knowledge in the late game. What mini-artifacts will the mage create with a fixed knowledge = 20: - battle spirit +3 - luck +3 - attack +6 - defense +6 - speed +2 (relevant for golems with a speed of 3) - initiative +20% - magic resistance +66% (relevant for high-level units with high vulnerability to magic) - armor piercing 2 (relevant for archers) - health +5 (relevant for gremlins)

Runes, irresistible magic, and avenger remain unchanged (for now).

Opening the Gate (racial): summon 50% of creatures up to level 2/4/6/7. The percentage is fixed so that the skill remains relevant and not in its upgraded form (the key difference is how many units will receive this ability). Summoning will take 100% of the unit's turn, not 50%.

Blood Rage: 10/20/30/40% damage absorption with rage, rage thresholds reduced to 100/200/300. That is, the higher the skill, the more damage will be absorbed and the faster the rage will be reduced when taking damage (therefore, the thresholds are reduced).

Skill Tree



The perk names in the skill tree have been intentionally left as they were to make it easier to navigate.

The skill tree is the same for all races and classes (the differences lie only in the chances of acquiring skills and the availability of certain branches). The exception is speed magic, stone strength, and arcane luck (these are not available to the Barbarian).

No connections between the branches are planned for now, to make it easier to understand and simplify the process of obtaining the desired skills (many Heroes 5 players complained about the randomness).

Racial skills, unlike the original game, have an alternative perk system (all unique perks have been moved to the racial skills). This means that players will have a choice of what to upgrade in the racial skills (instead of 3 out of 3, or empty slots).

Pay attention to the ultimate perks: now, to obtain them, it is enough to find a mastery amulet and upgrade the racial skills correctly. That is, ultimates will be real and achievable with the most diverse skill builds.

Humans, however, do not have an ultimate perk (there are no suitable candidates for this role).

OMG!

Ohh, my God!

The hero classes have been prepared: The left column shows the chances of increasing certain stats when leveling up. Level 1 heroes have proportional stats (attack and defense are 1 point lower). For example, a Knight at level 1 will have 3/2/2/1. The right column marks the skills that can be learned with plus signs (12% chance of learning). Unmarked skills are rare (3% chance of learning). The chance of learning a racial skill (if it is not already present) is 10%. Each class has 6 available and 6 rare skills. Any two different classes have 3 common and 3 different available skills (not counting the racial skill). Exceptions: 1) Classes-antipodes (1 antipode for each class): all 6 available skills are different. 2) Barbarian classes Barbarian and Shaman (antipodes of each other). They can have 2 and 4 formal intersections with other classes. However, since they have magic dampening instead of magic schools, there are no more than 3 actual intersections. Green highlights the unifying characteristics of classes belonging to the same Faction. This scheme presents the absolute maximum differences between classes that could be achieved. Moreover, this property is not lost when any rows (classes) and columns (skills) are rearranged, with the exception of the Barbarian and Shaman rows, which must remain Barbarian in any case. That is, any changes that are a rearrangement of rows or columns are permissible and are considered alternative options.

Hero scheme update. Heroes have been assigned to classes. Specializations are the same as in the original game, with the exception of Talanar (acceleration instead of Elven Fury) and Zoltan (reduced initiative instead of spell blocking). Each class has 3 heroes (a total of 9 heroes per faction). Heroes from the campaigns have been added: Godric, Frida, Zehir, Faydaen, Wulfsten, Tolgar, Agrail, Arantir, Shadia, and Gotai. Miv and Svea have been removed. Thus, 11 new specializations from the campaigns have been added to the game, and 3 old, ineffective ones have been removed: Elven Fury, spell blocking, and Unstoppable Lightning. Each hero will have 6 starting skills from 3 skill groups: racial 1+1 (basic skill + ability), first skill 2+1, and second skill 1+0 (no perks). This ensures sufficient uniqueness of the heroes, as 50% of the direction of development is determined by the starting data (and 50% by the class). Level 1 heroes have 2 skills (not counting the racial skill), indicated on the scheme by bricks of the corresponding colors (for example, Axel, in addition to the racial Training, starts with Attack and Light). Secondary skills (perks) are not indicated on the scheme. Heroes in table form: List of all skill combinations: All schemes have a perfect structure, i.e., they include all the variety of combinations and cannot be expanded without repetitions. For this reason (and also because there are no adequate new specializations), the number of heroes per faction will be exactly 9, 3 per class.

The idea is to shift the city building tiers from 1/3/6/9/12/15 to 1/3/5/7/9/11. This will make city development more flexible, dynamic, and non-linear. Starting cities will be level 2 (first player: tavern) and level 3 (second player: tavern + 1 building). This means that the second player will be able to realistically build the second-to-last tier in the first week. The advantage in buildings given to the second player is to compensate for the first player's advantage in turns (similar to Heroes 3, where some players started with an extra level 2 building, while others started without). I am a fan of Heroes 3, especially when it comes to global gameplay and city development. And there were no tiers at all: instead, there were building chains that allowed you to reach level 7 on day 7 or 8. If there are any arguments against this, please share them. But keep in mind the context: speeding up the game on the map to 2-3 weeks, as in Heroes 3 on open maps. The argument that the early levels will become irrelevant compared to the later ones is countered. Because each level has its own timeframe. The early levels are important at the beginning of the game, and their role decreases towards the end of the game. The later levels are the opposite; and that is normal (some levels are for rushing, others are for a longer game). If you want the early levels to be strong, you just need to avoid prolonging the game; that's the whole recipe. In addition, the concept of "building rank" will be introduced. A rank 1 building will have a production power similar to a level 1 dwelling in the original game, rank 2 will have the production power of a level 2 dwelling, and so on. This is done to separate the concepts of "creature level" and "dwelling rank." In WGE, they don't have to match. For example, Knights have level 5, but will have a rank 6 dwelling, which corresponds to level 6 in the original game. Skeletons can have a dwelling of a higher rank than level 1, in order to emphasize the later game. Level 5 Wyverns can be built early (as in Heroes 3) with a lower-rank building, and so on. This will achieve greater diversity between cities. Will this cause confusion? I don't think so. Heroes 3 actually uses the same mechanism. Some races have weak level N creatures, while others have strong ones. And that is the same ranking. It's just that ranks allow you to clearly see the strength of the increase.

I think banning rush strategies already levels the playing field, negating the first player's advantage over the second. Unless they're both running around in the same area, and the first player, due to having one turn advantage, manages to grab some artifacts faster. As for the resource caps, it might be a good idea. At the very least, it's worth trying. If you don't try it, it's hard to say anything about it; these kinds of changes need to be "tested." ---- I like the ranking system; I think it should be implemented.

It seems to me that banning red rushes already negates the first player's advantage over the second. Unless they are running around in the same zone, and the first player, due to the advantage of having one turn earlier, manages to grab some artifacts.

There will be no such ban in WGE. There will be no artificial bans of any kind, since everything can be set in the game itself. Without chains, where will the red rushes come from?

And the first player's advantage is not only in red rushes. The first player has half a turn more. This is the tempo, the advantage of white over black in chess. If the first player attacks on their turn, they effectively have an extra day in reserve (an extra turn, an extra building, extra resources, etc.). And this is especially important if we are talking about fast game times (where the relative weight of each individual turn is higher).

Added 19 minutes later
However, this point concerns hotseat or online Multiplayer without simultaneous turns.

With simultaneous turns, it needs to be considered separately in connection with the bug of switching to turn-based mode. Perhaps, in this case, the second player no longer needs an extra building.

Previously, the idea of **canceling chains** was put forward, according to which, when two heroes meet, their remaining turns are adjusted to the minimum among them.

However, the question arises: how to manage the transfer of units through garrisons, cities, and mines? If using the same principle, then when visiting an object, the hero should have a portion of their turn taken away, according to the previous visitors of the object on that same day. But this solution looks awkward, since the previous heroes may not have changed the garrison. If, however, it is left as it was, this motivates the transfer of troops between heroes specifically through garrisons. When heroes meet, a portion of the turn is lost, but when leaving/taking a garrison, it is not.

In this regard, the idea of **zeroing turns** looks interesting: not to equalize the turns of the meeting heroes to the minimum, but to completely zero them (end their turn upon meeting). Similarly, when visiting any garrisons, cities, or mines. And the "marauding" or "path of war" ability could cancel this zeroing in favor of the previous option (visiting cities/mines/garrisons is free, meeting heroes equalizes to the minimum).

Another argument in favor of zeroing turns is strategic. Transferring troops becomes a significant (not free) act. A typical situation: the enemy's main hero, protected by a vanguard. You have 2 heroes nearby. In the first option, it made little sense for the enemy to make the vanguard powerful: since you transfer part of the army to the second hero and destroy the vanguard, after which the first hero attacks the enemy's main hero. In the second option (with zeroing), this trick cannot be done unless you initially had a sufficiently powerful second army in the vanguard.

Thus, zeroing turns upon meeting:
1) motivates playing with multiple armies (any combinations are complicated)
2) motivates the use of vanguards with sufficiently strong troops to support the main force (if the enemy's vanguard cannot break through the vanguard, then the main hero is safe for this turn)

Still, the idea of zeroing turns upon meeting, despite the above-mentioned advantages, seems controversial. It is clear that it expands the strategic component of the game. But it is not yet clear how it affects the gameplay as a whole, whether such a strategy adds interest, or whether it is an unnecessary complication.

Also, when developing this idea, a number of additional questions arise:
1. Should the turn be zeroed when capturing unguarded cities, mines, and garrisons (and dwellings?)? My opinion is that no, because then only vanguards will make captures.
2. Should the turn be zeroed when visiting empty cities, mines, and garrisons? My opinion is yes, because otherwise a curious situation arises when, with a minimum garrison (1 pikeman), the turn is zeroed, but in its absence, it is not.

It is clear that all this needs to be tested in practice. But at this stage, theoretical opinions on this matter are also interesting.

Added after 2 hours 41 minutes
Perhaps, zeroing turns is the only normal option for developing the idea of canceling chains, since in its pure form it does not work due to the use of chains through garrisons/mines/cities.

By the way, an interesting analogy emerges between the global map and the battle. If you imagine the map as a large battlefield with a system of breakable obstacles (neutrals), and heroes as units (stacks), then it turns out:
1) heroes (stacks) attack, ending their turn (as in the battle)
2) armies (stacks) cannot attack 10 times per turn and teleport, using the chain mechanism
3) combining/splitting troops (stacks) is possible as an activated ability, taking away the remaining turn from both stacks

Other parallels: logistics = speed, path of war = area attack (if neutrals are standing nearby), using vanguards = using single units (or more powerful supporting stacks).

When heroes meet, part of the turn is lost, but when leaving/taking a garrison, it is not.

Perhaps simply track whether the troops in the garrison have been rearranged or not? Or introduce garrisons with the option of not taking troops out of them (in campaigns they are almost always used, it can also be done in multiplayer).

But it is not yet clear how it affects the gameplay as a whole, whether such a strategy adds interest, or it is just an unnecessary complication.

It adds delays, which is not very good due to the concept of the mod.

Adds lag, which isn't ideal given the mod's concept.

That's true, but following that logic, battles also "add lag" due to reduced speeds, albeit to benefit tactics. The question is what's more important. Plus, consider that the length of a hero's turn will be significantly increased.

However, Dirman writes to me in ICQ that technically, it's impossible to do this – to nullify or reduce a turn when heroes meet, because the event isn't triggered (unlike meeting neutral creatures). If that's the case, the concept will have to be revised anyway.