Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition. Auto-translated

The question at hand is about the impact of luck, specifically +50% or +100% damage for successful attacks. Currently, I have compiled expert estimates of the influence of luck and morale on army strength. I won't burden you with formulas, as the results are plausible. +1 Morale = 3.2% +1 Luck = 2.3% / 4.1% (with 50% and 100% luck, respectively) -1 Morale = 6.8% -1 Luck = 2.9% By +1 Morale, I mean the weight of one unit of morale with positive morale, and -1 Morale with negative morale. The same applies to luck. The final assessment (taking into account the probabilities of positive/negative values of 85%/15% for morale and 75%/25% for luck): +/- 1 Morale = 3.75% +/- 1 Luck = 2.5 / 3.8% In other words, morale is equal to 100% luck and 1.5 times stronger than +50% luck. So, the question is, which to choose: strong randomness and equal morale and luck, or moderate randomness with 50% luck and stronger morale? From a tactical point of view, morale is more consistent; its effect can almost always be countered by destroying the unit in time. But this is not possible with luck; here, randomness is almost uncontrollable. Previously, the issue revolved around minor artifacts. But it might be possible to adjust the prices and make crafting artifacts for luck cheaper. Moreover, prices will have to be adjusted anyway to balance the effects of minor artifacts. For the "luck" skill, you could add +1 to attack for each level, as is done in the Tower of Eternity expansion. Similarly, motivate players with a larger bonus for regular artifacts that grant luck.

I think the main thing is to keep the 100% luck chance, so that this characteristic itself is more or less useful, and then mini-artifacts and other things become a secondary issue and are adjusted accordingly.

I think the main thing is to leave 100% luck, so that this characteristic itself is more or less useful, and then mini-artifacts and other things become a secondary issue and are adjusted accordingly.

I had the same thoughts, which is why I'm hesitant.

The main (and very significant) argument against 100% luck is the balance between tactics and chance. Especially in the context of WGE, where units deal more damage and normally destroy a third of a stack per attack without any luck. For example, you break through an enemy dragon, and it deals a lucky counterattack, taking not 25-45%, but 50-90% of the entire stack. Even if the luck was only +1. It's one thing when there is one unit with such a deadly ability; you can somehow defend against it. But luck applies to all troops at once. With 50% luck, 25-45% would turn into 40-65%, which doesn't deviate so sharply from the range and is easier to anticipate.

It's no coincidence that in The Restoration of Erathia, they reduced luck to 70%, and people complained about the randomness.

Or, the opposite might happen: you relied on luck, but it didn't work out. In my humble opinion, everyone is on equal footing.

Or, the opposite might happen: you rely on luck, but it doesn't work out. In my humble opinion, everyone is on equal footing.

The imbalance isn't about luck being a weak or strong parameter. The imbalance is that 100% luck has too drastic an effect. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't – that's a big difference. And it's even more significant with more powerful, but rarer attacks, like in Warlords of the East. This is a balance issue not so much of luck, but of randomness. And there's simply nothing to counter such randomness, unlike morale.

I gave an example above with typical damage from an attack. Is it normal when, with luck, almost an entire stack is wiped out? And if a damage dealer hits or attacks a vulnerable unit, then double damage means an entire stack is eliminated at once. That's why I'm interested in the players' opinions about this situation: is it acceptable or not?

When high-initiative units trigger their morale, it can be even worse in terms of randomness. And it's not just high-initiative units: which is more dangerous, for example, yellow druids with a luck stat of 5 (I don't know how they've been reworked, I'm talking about the regular ones, if that's relevant) or with a morale stat of 5? Yes, if you analyze the statistics, there is a difference, but you can't immediately create a balance based on a rough approximation (even if we're talking about balancing randomness). You could try to do something about this in a first approximation: give some kind of countermeasure against the sudden triggering of luck for the opponent or against the failure of luck for yourself, but if you pay too much attention to this in the initial stages, you could lose a lot in terms of the basic interest in the game.

When morale triggers for high-initiative units, it can be even worse in terms of randomness.

Morale is most effective for low-initiative units due to the greater time offset. But it triggers more often for high-initiative units, and it's harder to counter. At least, WGE is balanced in this way: low-initiative units have a significantly stronger, but rarer, turn, and therefore morale is more dangerous.

Personally, I can anticipate morale triggers and counter them without much trouble. I have almost a full turn in reserve to eliminate the threat. You can't do that with luck.

You could try to do something about this in a first approximation: give some kind of counter to the opponent's sudden luck trigger or to the lack of luck for yourself.

How? Not engage in active combat with the enemy's troops when all of their troops have minimal positive luck? Retreat into a defensive position, prolonging the battle and minimizing the chances of defeat due to luck triggering? That's not an option.

but if you pay attention to this in a zero approximation, you can lose a lot in terms of the basic interest in the game.

That's the problem: 100% luck can kill interest in tactics. This is not balance for the sake of balance, but balance directly related to gameplay and the perception of the battle itself.

If a battle is a game of roulette for the player, then it's one thing. If it's tactical chess, then it's another. If WGE were positioned as roulette with elements of a wargame, that would be one thing. But the mod is positioned as a wargame with elements of randomness. That is, tactics are primary here, and randomness is used for variety and to complicate calculations (in particular, the damage ranges for creatures have been expanded; but unlike luck, they are large only for some units, not the entire army).

I like the option with 100% luck, as it works perfectly as a parameter without requiring additional bonuses. But as unlimited randomness in a tactical battle, I am very wary of such luck; this is the contradiction. Here, you have to choose between two evils. Tactics or a parameter. Or try to reconcile 100% luck with tactics. How - it's not clear yet. Reducing damage is not an option, as it prolongs battles and spoils the dynamics. In King's Bounty, critical hits work normally (they are approximately doubled), but the battles are twice as slow (the damage is weak), which is acceptable for a single-player game.

Added 20 minutes ago
Regarding 50% luck, I won't say that it's a useless parameter. Its effect is hardly noticeable (it falls within the damage range), but it does exist. Positive 50% luck plays not much weaker than positive morale, in terms of objective results. I tested both sides quite evenly (luck against morale), from which I even concluded at one time that 50% luck is approximately equal to morale (when comparing positive values).

How? Not to engage in active combat with enemy troops when all of their troops have only a minimally positive luck value? To adopt a defensive strategy, prolonging the battle and minimizing the chances of defeat due to luck triggering? That's not an option.

Grant creatures abilities whose effectiveness doesn't depend on luck (like the lightning spell of druids).

If a battle is just a game of chance for the player, then that's one thing.

The battle is indeed a game of chance. My approach to the game involves not only calculating everything but also minimizing risks and taking advantage of luck. So, in this case: if you see that the enemy's luck is 5, try to anticipate something, at least estimate whether it will trigger now, considering how it has triggered before.

Combat is indeed a game of chance. However, the challenge in the game isn't just about calculating everything perfectly; it's about minimizing risks and capitalizing on luck. In this case, if you see that the enemy's luck is 5, try to anticipate something beforehand, at least estimate whether it will work for them now or not, considering how it has worked before.

I have exactly the same opinion about randomness in general (I myself am a fan of randomness). But only on the condition that the player is able to counter it with something (skill, counter-strategy).

Here's a specific situation: there's an enemy with a total luck of +1 (for the entire army, as it's a hero parameter). What to do, how to counter it? Constantly expect double damage from every little thing? Then it's easier to just give up.

This is how I personally control randomness. There are units with random abilities. Against them, you can branch out your calculations, anticipating and adapting to possible scenarios. But this isn't true for all units. There are damage ranges. They are not large for everyone. A typical damage range of 1-2 for Warlords is quite stable in practice. There is morale. Everyone has it. But it can be predicted and countered during the battle, after it triggers. Everything fits together. Except for luck.

Why not? There are creatures that won't deal much damage even with double damage, and it's always better not to expose yourself unnecessarily to dragons. Essentially, the "creature deals damage only when luck triggers" option isn't so common that it wouldn't be worth spending two minutes of your life on it and trying to predict it.

Why not? There are creatures that won't deal much damage even with double damage.

The point is that in WGE, creatures deal more damage than in the original, which exacerbates the luck issue. With the same WGE ratio, the battle will be less dynamic than in the original due to reduced speeds.

From my own experience: I approach Reapers to Bears. Bears aren't very damaging in principle. But with a lucky double attack, they can wipe out half a stack. And there are only 2 Reapers in the stack. So, a simple attack from the Bears isn't scary for them if there's no focus. And how do you account for that? Not to expose yourself to any enemy unit at all? The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the hit/miss in Disciples, a rather harsh randomness.

I'll probably make both versions for testing, with 100% luck and 50%. So that you can feel the difference.

Oh, well, if there are such problems... Then you can reduce the luck stat (even if not to 50%, but to 75% somehow), but then you should also reduce the morale stat (so that it doesn't give +50%/-50% to the attack bonus, but changes it by a smaller amount). That's just my opinion. In other words, regardless of the changes, the stats should be comparable to each other.

Well, you could reduce luck then (even if not to 50%, but to 75% somehow).

75% looks awkward, like an artificial cut.
Therefore, the options are either 50% or 100%. Both are equally aesthetically pleasing (+/- 50% versus multiply/divide by 2).

Regarding cutting morale, I am strongly against it. This is what I criticize TE for. Morale, as a random element, is easily countered in most cases, and therefore does not need to be reduced. It's "controlled randomness." From an aesthetic point of view, any numbers below 50% already look artificial. +/- 50% is the standard; even waiting (and defense in WGE) is adjusted to it.

I used to advocate for equal morale and luck (as a kind of balance). But is it so important that these factors have the same weight? Not everything needs to be equalized.

I'd like to suggest another option: 50% luck, but remove the limit on maximum luck = 5. This way, you can achieve two things: the stat is useful, but it doesn't have a significant impact with small values. However, it might be difficult for me to engage in a detailed discussion, as I'm not familiar with all the nuances of the mod. But these are my thoughts.

In other words, the stats should be comparable regardless of the changes.

And they are comparable even with 50% luck. The positive luck of a hero is not much less significant than morale. I gave the following ratings: 2.3% versus 3.2% (100% positive luck would have a weight of 4.1%). In general, all the advantage of morale comes from the fact that initiative is more important than damage; otherwise, there would be equality. The same ratio existed in Heroes 3 (only luck and morale gave twice as much bonus, but they triggered twice as rarely).

Added 1 minute ago

I will suggest another option: 50% luck, but remove the limit on maximum luck = 5; then you can kill two birds with one stone: the stat is useful, but it plays a weak role with small values.
In general, I probably find it difficult to discuss, as I am not familiar with all the nuances of the mod. But these are my thoughts.

The idea is good, but there are no visible possibilities for implementation yet. On the other hand, morale quickly reaches its limit if you don't mix armies; and even +1 to luck is fundamentally psychological (due to its initial neutrality), unlike +1 to morale. In my practice, I don't even see how you can reach the limit on luck, except with a strong desire. +3 for the skill, +1-2 for artifacts, and also temporary bonuses to luck. Maximum leadership, on the other hand, seriously suffers without mixing armies, making any artifacts to increase morale unnecessary.