Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Which creatures from the alternative upgrade options do you choose?Auto-translated
Let's start with demons:
1. If the hero is a mage, use the old ones; if not, use the new ones.
2. Always use the new ones, as the old ones lack speed.
3. First, take Cerberuses; fire breath is useless against neutrals, then, if you have enough money, switch to Hellhounds.
4. Use new Demonesses only against demons.
5. Definitely use the new ones; 10 damage to everyone nearby is great.
6. Initially, the old ones are more useful because of their spells, but in the later stages, use the new ones, especially since their stats are better.
7. Use the old ones because of their speed and initiative; the abilities of the old and new ones are almost equivalent.
E si sui vius, er mi grans benananza, e si ieu muoir, er mi grans deliuriers
Now, let me share my opinion on the Orcs:
1. Take Trappers – if the opponent has many fast units. Take Shamans if the opponent's hero is a mage.
2. I take Centaurs with the first upgrade – more powerful archers are more beneficial to me.
3. Warmongers are more useful – as they can protect an allied unit.
4. Here, I'm not entirely sure – but I take Daughters of Earth.
5. I take Ogres. But for a simple clearing of the territory, you can also take Executioners.
6. I take Cyclops – usually, a lot of corpses accumulate in serious battles.
7. Free Cyclops are useful during sieges, but Blood Cyclops can throw Goblins.
Наш мир полон тайн и чудес. Многие их ищут, многим они вовсе не нужны, а многие даже не замечают их, не понимают что они вокруг нас, каждый день, везде. А эти чудеса порой, сокрыты в обычных, привычных предметах.
Free Cyclops attack within a range of 4 cells; as a result of one successful maneuver, you can lose part of your army, which is not ideal, especially when Shamans and Goblins are nearby.
Inferno
I rarely play as them, but I have a pretty clear idea of which units to upgrade:
Imps - +1 to speed, and they also give mana to the lords.
Greater Demons - for obvious reasons.
Hellhounds - they deliver the first powerful blow to the small units gathered in the corner.
Succubi - the damage from the chain lightning isn't that great...
Hellsteeds - versatile, unlike Nightmares, and generally stronger.
Cave Lords - not only because of their magic, but also because of their cleaving sword.
Archdevils - firstly, they summon lords, and secondly, Archdemons don't have time to reach anywhere (especially if the enemy has Storm Wind).
Necropolis
I often play as them and have a very clear idea of which units to choose:
Skeletal Archers - they are archers, after all.
Plague Zombies - the weakening attack is very helpful when sieging a city (they usually live there), and they also deal more damage.
Wraiths - again, because of their speed.
Vampire Lords - +5 hit points, +1 speed, stunning attack. This is only not helpful against undead.
Elder Liches - a guarantee of a lossless victory in battles of medium difficulty.
Death Knights - a more useful ability, stronger.
Astral Dragons - one bite, and the target moves every other turn, and even then, not very well.
Dark Elves:
1. Definitely Hunters, because Assassins deal massive damage with their ranged attacks.
2. Furies, because initiative is more important than survivability for these units.
3. It all depends on who I'm playing against.
4. Old build.
5. New build, with higher initiative.
6. Unlike Assassins, Witches are stronger as ranged attackers.
7. Depends on the opponent's hero.
E si sui vius, er mi grans benananza, e si ieu muoir, er mi grans deliuriers
New upgrades were a good idea, although sometimes it's hard to choose. I'll go through all the factions, starting with my favorites.
Inferno:
1. I prefer the old ones, as they immediately deprive the hero of a lot of mana, while the new ones steal a little at a time and spend a turn doing so. They are useful for lords, of course, but you probably won't manage to steal much in one battle.
2. Here, the new ones are definitely better. Although their defense is lower, with their jump ability, they can finally reach the enemy quickly and deal a lot of damage. Plus, there's one more unit in Inferno that can bypass fortress walls, and there aren't many of those, unless you count opening gates. The old ones might be better only if they serve as cover for some demoness.
3. The new ones are still better. They are a little weaker, but they can hit many enemies at once, whether they are standing next to each other or are protected by ranged units. But against single targets, the old ones are still better.
4. Here, the old ones are better because of the chain shot. But at higher levels, against another hero, you can quite easily use the new ones, even a single subjugation can play a role.
5. I like the new ones more. When there are many horses, their aura deals good damage to nearby enemies. But at the beginning, the old ones can also be useful against individual enemies.
6. I prefer more of the old ones because of their magic, and there are so few ranged units anyway, and the cleaving sword is sometimes useful, say against a phoenix, and in general against high-level units. But in battles with large armies, I prefer the new ones. They deal good damage to crowds of small units, and their magic resistance is good, and overall their stats are higher.
7. Here, I'm more in favor of the old ones. Although they have a little less health, they are a little faster. And the summoning of lords, who can summon another squad of lords through the gates, is still more useful than the teleportation of others. Sometimes this teleportation can be useful, but it's much better to just attack than to spend a turn on it.
Dungeon:
1. The new ones are good; they have strong stats for their level. You can quite easily try to clear out neutrals with them alone. Go into stealth, and while they're doing that, bombard them with spells.
2. The new ones are tougher, which is useful considering they are the main target for enemies, but the old ones have more initiative. So, overall, they are roughly equal.
3. The old ones are better for attack, and the new ones are better for defense. But the new ones also have an aura with morale, which can sometimes be useful, so I prefer the new ones, but sometimes the old ones are better.
4. The charge attack is good, but you won't get a good run-up many times in a battle, but the ability to hit a target or without retaliation before hitting it, and sometimes even several targets, is quite good. So, the new ones are a little better.
5. I prefer more of the old ones, as regeneration sometimes helps to get out of battles with neutrals without losses, but the new ones are dangerous against melee units.
6. The old ones are better, as a ranged unit of this level is always useful, and I don't want to change all the ranged units to invisible ones.
7. The old ones are more useful in a battle with another player, as complete immunity to spells is very helpful, but you can't cast useful spells on them either, which is sometimes bad. And the new ones have a good attack from the start without retaliation, but it depends on the specific situation who to give preference to.
Sylvan:
1. The new ones are better, because the damage from the wasp swarm is insignificant, but healing yourself and the trees is very good.
2. Here, I'm more inclined towards the new ones. Hitting everyone around is good, but you don't always manage to hit many, but the new ones have better stats, not to mention the additional stat boost for moving.
3. Here, it's difficult to choose. In general, two shots with a penalty and one without a penalty roughly balance each other out, although the new ones pierce armor, which is better against well-protected creatures. But the old ones hit better at close range and when they have a unicorn horn bow. So, the choice largely depends on the circumstances.
4. The first ones are better in combat, and the second ones buff the hero, but at the beginning, the old ones are better, and with large armies, the new ones might be better.
5. I like the old ones more, as the magic resistance aura is very useful, but it's also fun to watch the new ones copy buffs.
6. Although many people like the new ones, I prefer the old ones. They have saved me more than once with their attacks. They can hold back enemies, then root themselves, thereby increasing their defense, and always deal damage. This helps to survive in a difficult battle. And removing defense and roots, which are very useful, in exchange for attack, is not very appealing.
7. Here, too, I'm more in favor of the old ones. Having immunity to earth magic, which is the most destructive in terms of damage, is always a plus, although the new ones can sometimes be useful.
The new upgrades were a good idea, although sometimes it's hard to choose. I'll go through all the races, starting with my favorites.
Inferno: 1. I prefer the old ones, as they immediately deprive the hero of a lot of mana, while the new ones steal a little at a time and spend a turn doing so. They are useful for warlords, of course, but you probably won't have time to steal much during a battle. 2. Here, the new ones are definitely better. Although their defense is lower, with their jump ability, they can finally reach the enemy quickly and deal a lot of damage. And also, there's one more unit in Inferno that can bypass fortress walls, and there aren't many of those, unless you count opening gates. The old ones might be better only if they serve as cover for some demoness. 3. The new ones are still better. They are a little weaker, but they can hit many enemies at once, whether they are standing next to each other or behind ranged units. But against single targets, the old ones are still better. 4. Here, the old ones are better because of the chain shot. But at higher levels, against another hero, you can definitely use the new ones, even a single subjugation can play a role. 5. I like the new ones more. When there are many horses, their aura deals good damage to nearby enemies. But at the beginning, the old ones can also be useful against individual enemies. 6. I prefer more of the old ones because of their magic, and there are so few ranged units anyway, and the cleaving sword is sometimes useful, say against a phoenix, and in general against high-level units. But in battles with large armies, I prefer the new ones. They deal good damage to crowds of small units, and their magic resistance is good, and overall their stats are higher. 7. Here, I'm more in favor of the old ones. Although they have a little less health, they are a little faster. And summoning warlords, who can summon another squad of warlords through the gates, is still more useful than the teleportation of others. Sometimes this teleportation can be useful, but it's much better to just attack than to spend a turn on it.
Dungeon: 1. The new ones are good; they have good stats for their level. You can easily try to clear out neutrals with them alone. Go into stealth, and while they're doing that, bombard them with spells. 2. The new ones are tougher, which is useful considering they are the main target for enemies, but the old ones have more initiative. So, overall, they are roughly equal. 3. The old ones are better for attack, and the new ones are better for defense. But the new ones also have an aura with morale, which can sometimes be useful, so I prefer the new ones, but sometimes the old ones are better. 4. The charge attack is good, but you won't get a good run-up many times in a battle, but the ability to hit a target or several targets without retaliation before hitting them is quite good. So, the new ones are a little better. 5. I prefer more of the old ones, as regeneration sometimes helps to get out of battles with neutrals without losses, but the new ones are dangerous against melee units. 6. The old ones are better, as a ranged unit of this level is always useful, and I don't want to replace all ranged units with invisible ones. 7. The old ones are more useful in a battle with another player, as complete immunity to spells is very helpful, but you can't cast useful spells on them either, which is sometimes bad. And the new ones have a good attack from the start without retaliation, but it depends on the specific situation who to prefer.
Sylvan: 1. The new ones are better, because the damage from the wasp swarm is insignificant, but healing yourself and the trees is very good. 2. I'm more inclined towards the new ones. Hitting everyone around is good, but you don't always manage to hit many, and the new ones have better stats, not to mention the additional stat increase for moving.
3. Here, it's hard to choose. In general, two shots with a penalty and one without a penalty roughly balance each other out, although the new ones pierce armor, which is better against well-protected creatures. But the old ones hit better at close range and when they have a unicorn horn bow. So, the choice largely depends on the circumstances. 4. The first ones are better in combat, and the second ones buff the hero, but at the beginning, the old ones are better, and with large armies, the new ones might be better. 5. I like the old ones more, as the magic resistance aura is very useful, but it's also fun to watch the new ones copy buffs. 6. Although many people like the new ones, I prefer the old ones. They have saved me more than once with their attacks. They can hold back enemies, then root themselves, thereby increasing their defense, and always deal damage. This helps to survive in a difficult battle. And removing defense and roots, which are very useful, in exchange for attack, is not very appealing. 7. Here, I'm also more in favor of the old ones. Having immunity to earth magic, which is the most destructive in terms of damage, is always a plus, although sometimes the new ones can also be useful.
Info 1. The new imps make gnomes and necromancers suffer in long battles. 4. Subjugation is much cooler than a chain attack in most cases (not against necromancers, of course). 5. Horses with an aura for leadership are better than burning ones against melee units. Against magical races, burning ones are better. 7. Teleport gives a lot of opportunities. Pulling a ranged unit out of the box and stomping on everyone with them is quite serious. Dungeon 1. New ones for neutrals, old ones for the final battle. 4. The old ones are much better. One charge attack can one-shot, and seeing the damage from the follow-up attack makes you want to cry. 7. Depends on the race of the opponent. Elves 1. The old ones have a removal spell, which has saved me more than once. 2. Depends on the length of the battle in the final. For short battles, the old ones, for long battles, the new ones. For neutrals, the new ones. 3. The old ones are only good for neutrals. In the final, only the new ones. 4. Similarly. 7. The new ones have much more damage with a high luck stat. But they can dispel blindness. Protection from earth helps the old ones against the Dungeon or Necropolis.
Info 1. New Imps in long battles cause problems for Gnomes and Necromancers. 4. Subordinated creatures are much better than chained ones in most cases (except against Necromancers, of course). 5. Horses with an aura for leadership are better against melee units than those with burning aura. Against magical units, burning aura is better. 7. Teleport provides many opportunities. Pulling an archer from the reserve and overwhelming them with your forces is quite effective.
League
1. New ones for neutral creatures, old ones for the final battle.
4. Old ones are much better. A single attack with a charge can one-shot, and seeing the damage from a follow-up attack makes you want to cry.
7. Depends on the enemy race.
Elves
1. Old ones have a dispel ability that has saved me many times.
2. Depends on the length of the battle in the final stage. Old ones for short battles, new ones for long battles. New ones for neutral creatures.
3. Old ones are only good for neutral creatures. New ones only for the final battle.
4. Same as above.
7. New ones deal much more damage with upgraded luck. But they can dispel Blind. The earth protection of the old ones helps well against League or Necromancers.
1. The problem is that Imps don't live long, so it's often more useful to deprive the hero of as much mana as possible, especially when it comes to Warlocks.
4. Old ones are often better in quality, but against players, new ones are usually better.
5. When there are many horses, the aura of the new ones is more effective. Battle morale doesn't work on everyone, and if the enemy also has leadership, it's not that effective.
7. It's useful, but summoning Lords is just as useful, and new ones are slower, which is also a disadvantage.
1. Against other players, new ones are also useful, although I don't often take them.
4. You won't get any one-shots from the old ones, but they can be more useful, it depends on the situation.
7. In general, that's true, although I'm more used to black creatures, but sometimes it's so bad that you can't cast Vampirism on them.
1. If it even works, which isn't always the case.
2. Still, new ones survive better, and that's useful.
3. With a unicorn horn bow, new ones are better in any case, but otherwise, I prefer the old ones.
7. Maybe I haven't played with new ones much, and it seems that Necromancers don't often use Chaos magic.
Added 13 minutes ago Stronghold:
1. At the beginning, I take Trappers because they are good against melee units, and against players, Shamans are also quite suitable.
2. Although I like the feint ability, Centaurs are too large, and they don't always manage to use it. And if you add that they are the first target for enemies, it's better to have more armor, and the ability to deal good damage up close is also a plus. So, I usually take Warriors.
3. Here, I choose Warmongers because they really carry in large battles. Warriors can attack twice, but they are generally weak. Warmongers are armored, have a strong counterattack, and protect their own well, deflecting attacks, say, from Centaurs.
4. I prefer Daughters of the Sky only when sieging a castle or defending, due to Chain Lightning, but otherwise, I take more Daughters of the Earth. They hit harder, and enemies may not be able to retaliate.
5. The same situation as with the third ones. Executioners deal a lot of damage, but their survivability is sometimes lacking. So, I prefer Leaders. They are durable and help speed up units.
6. I like Dark Wyverns more, but sometimes Paoka are more useful. The former are more useful against single targets, dealing small damage and regenerating. Paoka are better in large battles. They can attack several units and eat someone, although this takes a turn, which is also not great. So, it depends on the situation.
7. Here, I take Bloodeyes because it seems that Free creatures sometimes cause almost as much harm as they provide benefit. With their range, they need to be kept at a great distance from their own. It's unpleasant to see some fast unit from the enemy army reach them immediately, and they counterattack and destroy both it and their own unit. And sometimes it happens that you can't attack the enemy without hitting your own. With Bloodeyes, at least you can fight calmly, and the luck reduction is also good.
1. The problem is that imps don't live long; it's often more useful to drain as much mana from the hero as possible, especially regarding a Warlock. 4. In terms of quality, the old ones are often better, but with players — yes, usually the new ones here. 5. When there are many horses, the aura of the new ones is more useful. Morale doesn't work on everyone, and if the enemy also has leadership leveled up, then it's not that helpful. 7. Useful, but summoning lords is no less useful, and the new ones are slower, which is also a downside.
1. Against other players, the new ones are also useful, although I don't take them often. 4. You won't get any one-shots from the old ones either; sometimes they are more useful, it depends on the situation. 7. Generally yes, although I'm more used to the black ones, but sometimes it's so bad that you can't cast the same vampirism on them.
1. If it even works, which doesn't always happen. 2. Still, the new ones survive better, and that is useful. 3. With the unicorn horn bow — the new ones are better in any case, otherwise I prefer the old ones. 7. Maybe, I've barely played with the new ones and it seems Necros don't use chaos magic very often.
Added after 13 minutes Stronghold: 1. At the start, I take trappers because they are well-suited against melee fighters, and against players, shamans are perfectly fine. 2. Although I like the hit-and-run gimmick, centaurs are too large and can't always pull it off. And if you add that they are the primary target for enemies, it's better to take more armor, and the ability to hit hard in close combat won't be extra either. So I usually take the combat ones. 3. Here I'm for the warmongers; they really carry in large battles. Fighters can hit twice, but they are generally frail. Warmongers are armored, counterattack strongly, and protect their own well by drawing attacks, say, from centaurs. 4. I prefer daughters of the sky only during castle sieges or defense due to chain lightning; otherwise, I take daughters of the earth more often. They hit harder and might not be answered. 5. Same situation as with the third. Executioners hit hard, but their survivability sometimes leaves much to be desired. So I'm more for the chieftains. They are both hardy and help well with unit acceleration. 6. I prefer dark wyverns more, but sometimes paokais are more applicable. The former are more useful against single targets, hitting bit by bit and regenerating. Paokais are better in large battles. They can hit several and eat someone, although this spends a turn, which is also not great. So it depends on the situation. 7. Here I take the blood-eyed ones, because it feels like the free ones sometimes cause almost as much harm as benefit. With their swing, they need to be kept at a great distance from your own. It's unpleasant to see some fast unit from the enemy army reach them immediately, and they wipe out both that unit and their own with a counterattack. And sometimes it happens that you can't even hit the enemy to avoid hitting your own. With the blood-eyed, you can at least fight calmly, and the luck reduction is also good.
1. Necros or dwarves simply have nothing to kill black imps quickly. They'll have enough time to drain all the mana. Obviously, against the League, only the old ones. She has the means to respond quickly. 4. Not better. Subordinates are more useful in terms of quality. A subordinate stack doesn't hit our troops and removes counters before the summon from the gates. 5. There won't be many horses for the whole battle. Meanwhile, the aura also ruins the plans of opponents with retribution or empathy. 7. By the time the native stack dies, by the time the summon triggers, by the time the new lords open the gates, by the time they move... the battle will already be over.
1. Assassins spread poison to all stacks (melee fighters can't do that) and deal a lot of damage due to poison. Trappers are only for hitrans or necros in the finale. 4. If the target has 40 defense and the lizards have 20 attack, then lizards with a charge will deal about three times more damage. A trivial amount. Let alone 25% damage when running nearby.
1. Against abilities and casts of other creatures (vampire blindness, seductress temptation, etc.), it works almost always. 2. If the battle is fast, it's easier to wipe almost 3 stacks with one attack immediately than to wait for 16 defense to work. In long battles against other combatants, the new ones are better due to defense. 3. If the target has 40 defense, then even with a straight arrow, the damage of the new bows is higher. 7. But necros love the plague.
1. If the opponent is a combatant and attacks themselves, then trappers will still be much better. 2. If a berserker or subordinate is expected from the opponent, red cents are better. They'll only hit their own with half strength with their hooves and run away from the double attack. 3. In an attacking variant, only orc fighters; taking warmongers against the League or Academy is nonsense. Warmongers are good for wearing down some dwarves. 4. Earth ones hit harder and will hang many good and different debuffs from the attack. And the lightning of the air ones is not great. 5. If you've brought a lot of attack and have goshak, you can go deal damage with executioners; otherwise, chieftains are more reliable. 6. A very weak unit. Ducks only justify themselves for breaking through due to regen. You should only upgrade and buy them for the finale if there's absolutely nowhere else to spend gold. 7. Also, the blood-eyed ones can reach the target from the first turn with tactics and aura.
1. There's nothing that can quickly kill black demons against the same Necromancers or Gnomes. They won't have enough time to drain all their mana. It's clear that only old units are effective against the League. They have ways to respond quickly. 4. Not better. Subordination is more useful for leveling up. Subordinated units don't attack our troops and absorb retaliatory attacks until they are summoned from the gates. 5. There won't be many horses throughout the battle. Moreover, the aura also spoils the plans of opponents with Retribution or Empathy. 7. By the time the main stack dies, the summoning takes effect, new lords open the gates, and they move... The battle will already be over.
1. All sorts of subordination and berserkers are still useful. And Gnomes almost always get there quickly with the Energy Rune. 4. When there are many groups of archers, Demonesses can immediately eliminate everyone, but you can't rely on just one subordination without losses. If there is only one or two stacks, that's a different story. 5. But while there are many, they can inflict decent damage with their aura, but Nightmares are also useful and sometimes more applicable; there's no arguing about that. 7. Demons and dogs are often quickly destroyed, and it's not necessary to open the gates with summoned units; it depends on the situation, although, with the quick opening of the gates, they move soon after opening. As for the new ones, the minus in speed and initiative is not very good, and if you also spend turns on teleportation, they won't even have time to fight properly. If they hadn't reduced them in this regard, it would have been better.Vadimh
1. Assassins spread poison across all stacks (melee units can't do that) and deal a lot of damage due to the poison. Hunters are only for tricksters or Necromancers in the final stage. 4. If the target has 40 defense, and the Lizards have 20 attack. Then the Lizards will deal approximately three times more damage with a charge. It's a small thing. Where is the 25% damage bonus from running next to them?
1. In general, that's true, but I usually take archers. 4. This applies to well-protected targets, and it's not always possible to gain momentum, although you're right, perhaps the old ones are more effective. However, what I like about the new ones is that they can simply run past and damage units without engaging in direct combat with any of them.Vadimh
1. It works almost always against the abilities and spells of other creatures (vampire blindness, seduction of succubus, etc.). 2. If the battle will be quick, it's easier to destroy almost 3 stacks with one attack than to wait for 16 defense to take effect. In long battles against other combat units, the new ones are better due to their defense. 3. If the target has 40 defense, even with a direct shot, the damage of the new bows is higher. 7. But the Necromancers love plague.
1. Although, how much mana does it take? For one time or more? But I usually level up light magic with Elves. 2. There are situations where they are useful, but the damage taken from them is still greater, but these are minor details. 3. This applies only to large opponents, but the old ones are better at destroying crowds of small units. But if there are no archers, I take the new ones. 7. Does plague deal earth magic damage? I've never even thought about what it deals with.Vadimh
1. If the opponent is a combat unit and attacks, then Trappers will still be much better. 2. If the opponent is expected to use Berserk or Subordination, then Red Centaurs are better. They will only hit with their hoof at half their strength and run away from a double attack. 3. In the attacking version, only Orcish Warriors, and taking Warmongers against the League or Academy is nonsense. Warmongers are good for tormenting some Gnomes. 4. Earth elementals deal more damage and have many good and different debuffs on attack. And lightning is not very effective for air units. 5. If you have a lot of attack and a good hero, you can deal damage with Executioners, but otherwise, leaders are more reliable. 6. A very weak unit. Ducks are only justified for breaking through defenses due to regeneration. Upgrading and buying them for the final stage is only necessary if there is absolutely nowhere to spend gold. 7. And Bloodseekers can also run to the front line with tactics and aura on the first turn.
1. Well, that's understandable. 2. If there is somewhere to run. I find Nomads more interesting, but often extra defense and the ability to attack in melee are much better. 3. Warmongers in a normal quantity survive for a long time; sometimes I only win battles thanks to them, including in campaigns. And protecting their own units has helped more than once. 4. I use Daughters of the Sky only in battles in the castle. In the same campaign, they helped break catapults and destroy archers when the enemy's army was much larger. Otherwise, I take Daughters of the Earth. 5. Even a plus to initiative helps. 6. Sometimes they are good for clearing out neutrals without losses, thanks to regeneration. They are not weak; they just deprived them of their fury, and that's a serious drawback. 7. All the better, and in any case, I take them; I don't want to destroy my own units.
Info
1. Suborning imps instead of making a normal hero move is already a significant advantage. Dwarves don't deal enough damage to kill black imps if they are protected even slightly.
7. Units from both tiers are weak for their cost. The pull ability can cause a lot of trouble. Plus, demons tend to cluster together, and pulling them into the center of the group is quite effective.
Elves
1. It's not a hero's job to cast dispel on enemy creatures in the early turns; it's better to quickly apply buffs, and there might not even be a dispel ability on the hero. Without the "Secrets" skill, there's only one dispel.
3. Without a bow, you often have to shoot with a reduced chance to hit, and considering armor penetration, you deal noticeably more damage, even against moderately armored opponents. And enemies with 0 armor are rare, as are bows.
Orcs
2. Berserk battle boars can deal a lot of damage... So, they are only useful against the Undead faction.
3. Warmongers are only tough when they are enraged; at the beginning of the battle, they are easily defeated.
6. The damage-to-health ratio compared to the cost is simply terrible. Without rage, they are of minimal use in the late game
Haven:
Only tier 2 units, except for Adepts, as I prefer Inquisitors in this faction.
The exception is when the hero can apply all these buffs to the army themselves.
Academy:
Only tier 2 units, excluding Mages (but only at the beginning of the game, when Archmages are much more useful, later on, it's Combat Mages) and Djinns (it all depends on the situation).
Inferno:
If I'm playing as Chaos, I only take regular upgrades, excluding Succubi (unless the battle is against Necropolis). Otherwise, it's the exact opposite.
Dungeon:
Hunters, Minotaur Guardians, Swift Riders. I decide about the rest as the game progresses.
Necropolis:
I decide about Skeletons as the game progresses.
Zombies are always Plague Zombies (it's easier to get them next to the enemy than to attack them + it reduces defense, the exception is when playing against Necromancers).
Only Ghosts, as their ability is more useful and their initiative is higher than Spirits (they have lower speed, but I don't think that one speed difference compensates for it).
Vampire Princes, obviously, for the reason. If against undead, then higher tier.
As long as there are few Liches (less than 20), higher tier, otherwise higher tier.
As long as there are few Undead (less than 15), Death Knights, otherwise Banshees (if against Necromancers, then only Death Knights).
I always have a dilemma with Dragons, but more often I choose Astral Dragons, but if I'm playing against Necromancers, then Spectral Dragons (because the curse effect works, but Grief does not).
Haven: Only alternate units, except for Adepts, because I prefer Inquisitors here. The exception is when the hero can apply all these buffs to the army himself.
It seems a bit too one-sided. Would you take Zealots against Ossir or Red Riders against Necropolis? Well, Blue Griffons are clearly better in most cases because they deal damage, not just fly around aimlessly for half the battle. Angels are quite debatable and depend on many factors.Alek-Smolin
Academy: Only alternate units, excluding Mages (but only at the beginning of the game, when Archmages are much more useful, later on, Battle Mages are better) and Djinns (it all depends on the situation).
Again, a lot depends on the opponent and the Mage's development. A Warlock will laugh hysterically at the sight of an Elemental Golem. Golems with infinite retaliation can decide the game.Alek-Smolin
Inferno: If I'm playing as Chaos, I only take regular upgrades, excluding Temptresses (unless the battle is against Necropolis). Otherwise, it's the exact opposite.
Infernal units with their spells? How is that even possible? And how can this affect the upgrades?Alek-Smolin
Dungeon: Hunters, Minotaur Guards, Swift Riders. I decide about the rest as the game progresses.
Swift Riders without Charge are very weak; they should never be taken.Alek-Smolin
Necropolis: I decide about Skeletons as the game progresses. Zombies are always Plague Zombies (it's easier to stand next to the enemy than to hit him + reduces defense; the exception is when playing against Necromancers). Only Ghosts, because their ability is more useful, and their initiative is higher than Spirits (speed is lower, but I don't think speed alone compensates for that). Vampire Princes, of course, for obvious reasons. If against undead, then Higher. Until there are few Liches (less than 20), Higher; otherwise, Higher. Until there are few Undead (less than 15), Death Knights; otherwise, Banshees (if against Necromancers, then only Death Knights). I always have a dilemma with Dragons, but I usually choose Astral Dragons, but if I'm playing against Necromancers, then Spectral Dragons (because the Curse ability works, but Grief does not).
3. Stealing ammunition from a Spirit is clearly more useful. A good Human can decide the whole game. Mana Steal is needed less often and doesn't affect the game as much, except perhaps against a Demon. 5. I don't understand about the Liches. With Resurrection, on the final stage, and with Weakness.
It seems a bit one-sided. You would take Zealots against Ossir or Red Riders against Necromancers? Well, Blue Griffons are clearly better in most cases, as they deal damage and don't just fly around aimlessly for half the battle. Angels are quite debatable and depend on many factors.
Zealots with Ossir is a separate case, and as you know, every rule has exceptions; it all depends on the circumstances. It's clear that Red Riders are not a good match against Ossir. But I don't understand why Red Riders are bad against Necromancers? If the Necromancer doesn't position his units correctly (or if the Knight is just lucky with the positioning), he can hit 2 key stacks (you shouldn't rely on the opponent being a noob, but still...). I think this is a worthwhile replacement for the Paladin's ability.
Vadimh
Again, a lot depends on the opponent and the Mage's upgrade. The Warlock will laugh hysterically at the sight of Elemental Gargoyles. Golems with infinite retaliation can decide the game.
To be honest, I just didn't think about the Warlock case. But I prefer Magnetic Golems only because of their ability to resurrect through magic. If they end up in the thick of the battle, and the hero plays as Chaos, you can not only destroy enemies but also resurrect the Golems.
Vadimh
Info on Chaos with its own spells? How is that even possible? And how can upgrades depend on this?
If a Demon finds a couple of artifacts that boost magic power (once, I played with a friend, and he managed to dig up one of Sar-Iss's relics, which increased magic power by 6; the battle was intense). And upgrades depend very simply: Better Imps, because mana goes to the hero, not to the Cave Lords (although if the hero has enough mana, you can take Lesser Imps). Greater Imps are better for attackers (especially in a jump and with a blessing, with their spread), but they are simply not suitable for a Chaos Demon, because one jump and they will take full damage from the retaliation. Firehounds are better for breaking through boxes, again for attackers (although they will also work for Chaos, the difference is not that big). Succubi are generally excellent; you should take them without hesitation if the enemy is not a magic user or a Necromancer. Cave Lords, although they cannot deal much damage to low-level creatures, are very good against large creatures and provide very good fire support to the Chaos hero (and summoners really hate them; Phoenixes cry :) ). The upgrade for Devils is clearly better for Chaos, because having another stack of Cave Lords is a good thing, and for attackers, the alternative upgrade is better, because you can pull any creature out of any box and kill it with Demons. Vadimh
Nimble without a charge is very weak; you should never take them.
I agree, they are weak, but doesn't the fact that they hit everyone on the way compensate for this disadvantage?) Although... if the enemies surround him and don't let him move, the Riders will have big problems; however, the regular unit will also have many problems in this case. Vadimh
3. Stealing ammunition from the Spirit is clearly more useful. A strong Human can decide the whole game. Stealing mana is needed less often and does not affect the game as much, unless it's against a Demon.
Yes, mana theft happens less often, but I take Ghosts only because of their higher initiative than Spirits. Vadimh
5. I didn't understand about the Liches. For breaking through with resurrection, for the final stage, and with weakness.
Greater Liches can reduce losses at the beginning; their resurrection power compared to the damage of enemies (especially neutrals) is very high, allowing you to clear out a lot without losses and survive an encounter with the enemy without too much pain. But later, when there are already many units, the ratio changes in the opposite direction, and their resurrection becomes useless (unless you can resurrect Ghosts/Spirits to cover other stacks and remove retaliation; for other purposes, they are not very useful due to the small number of resurrected units). With Plague, Archliches are the opposite - at first, the plague is not so useful, then it becomes more or less useful. If we consider the usefulness of Greater/Archliches in relation to debuffs, then Archliches simply have a larger arsenal, which means they will be more useful (for example, with the Greater Demon - with its spread of damage, weakening is somehow more effective than weakness).
Граф Орлов
