Connection ErrorBad RequestSession 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.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition - Tactical Edition.
Red highlights indicate creatures of a "classic" tier that have been lowered by one tier. Green indicates the opposite – creatures that have been raised by one tier. For example, an archer/zombie should have a tier of 2 based on its sequential number, but its strength corresponds to tier 1.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Renaming: - Goblin Sentinels => Goblin Bandits. Since these goblins are the most dangerous opponents, being champions in damage among the light weight class (outstanding damage + double strike), the status of simple sentinels did not suit them very well, despite the fact that they run far. - Goblin Trappers => Goblin Beastmasters? (the English version is also Goblin Trappers) - Guardians of Horn => Mountain Defenders (to have a normal concise option - mountaineers), while in the English version it is still Forge Defenders - Fearsome Raiders => Lightning Raiders (better reflects the status of a unit with 1 attack) - prismatic breath => iridescent breath
Further, there will be improvements to units that are only slightly different.
1) Monks/clerics/adepts. Too similar in stats, except for spells. You can take away 1 attack from the monks (from 2 to 1) so that they run more actively in melee. Clerics should have a greater emphasis on spells and significantly reduce attack. Adepts should be given an interesting combination of shooting without penalty + shooting at half strength, so that they also run to attack at close range.
2) Fairies/dryads. Too similar in stats and combat abilities (with the only difference being that dryads attack more often and weaker). You can take away the retaliation from the fairies in favor of an increase in defense, especially since retaliation does not go well with invisibility.
3) Young/ancient ents. Very similar in stats and abilities. You can remove the infinite retaliation from the young ents (which appears in the ancient ones when defending). Instead, give them "burning" (it will have to be renamed to "destruction", including for Red Dragons). A very interesting combination with entangling.
4) Lamias/spirits. You can make an even greater difference in stats: the former tank, the latter deal damage (and quickly collapse after the first hit).
5) Vampire Lords/Nosferatu. Weak differences in stats. You can weaken the attack of the Nosferatu and add infinite retaliation, a very interesting combination with vampirism.
6) Imps/parasites/devils. Similar in stats, identical in abilities, except for mana. You can give retaliation to the devils, at the cost of defense. Give parasites the rage from imps (since they spend the first half of the battle accumulating mana). Give imps "taste of blood" (increase attack by 8 and initiative by 2 for 1 round when taking damage). Unlike Vikings, imps do not have a heavy class, and they cannot retaliate with increased damage, but when they hit and receive a counterattack, they have time to make the next attack stronger (initiative allows, the turn comes faster than the effect ends). From an atmospheric point of view, it is simply explained: imps devour their own corpses, gaining strength.
7) Cerberuses/fire elementals. Very similar in stats. You can increase the attack of fire elementals and add a piercing attack on their own (i.e., so that their splash can damage their own, like acid hydra, dark dragons, or siege cyclops). As practice shows, a piercing attack on their own gives a very strong difference, in the case of a large splash area.
8) Crimson/ash nightmares. Weak difference in abilities. You can swap the ash and fiery ones, i.e., give the ash ones panic terror (50% chance to scare the enemy when he attacks), and the fiery ones - a draining aura plus, in addition, fire skin and immunity to fire (they are burning!).
9) Rock golems/mountaineers. Similar in abilities. You can take away the protection from arrows from the mountaineers and give it to the rock golems, and in return give them a retaliatory attack (an interesting combination with furious retaliation). Moreover, retaliation is actively used by red dwarves: berserkers with frenzy and armored ones with claw strike.
10) Granite Golems. The overpowered wall of spikes needs to be removed. Instead, give protection from arrows, protection from magic, and significantly increase attack (making them a champion in attack damage among the light weight class of heavy class). That is, the essence of the unit will not change, but they will deal high damage in a direct way, and not from hits on themselves.
P.S. Although, the unique "burning" cooldown still does not want to be duplicated on ents. Perhaps, "self-healing" would look better: catch enemies and sit in wait, especially since retaliation also increases with this tactic, i.e., the essence of the unit does not change.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Trap Goblins variants: Goblin Trappers, Goblin Saboteurs (LOL) – I couldn’t come up with any more with my wife =). Regarding Ents, I think self-regeneration looks more logical (recovering strength with young roots).
Trap-setting goblins: options include Hunter Goblins, Pest Goblins (LOL) – we couldn’t come up with anything else with my wife =).
Hunters – they were hunters. Pests – they were gremlins. Trap-setters is a good option, but I think Beastmasters sounds better (as the best translation of Trapper).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Let's think logically. These goblins set traps for beasts, and do they also set them during combat encounters out of habit? Then, indeed, they could be considered beastmasters. But there's a discrepancy here: they also set traps against humans, elves, and other humanoid creatures. If they set traps specifically for a particular advantage in battle, then they are definitely trappers.
Let's think logically. Goblins set these traps for beasts, and out of habit, do they also set them during combat encounters? Then, indeed, they are beastmasters. But there's a discrepancy here; they also set traps against humans, elves, and other humanoid creatures. If they set traps specifically for a particular advantage in battle, then they are, of course, trappers.
In "peacetime," they are beastmasters; in battle, they use their skills to trap enemies (aren't humanoids beasts too?). Similarly, assassins were not originally a military profession. Continuing the analogy, elven hunters and scouts, dwarven javelin throwers and beast slayers, and marine harpooners are not military specializations. The same goes for militias and rebels. Nevertheless, they all act as combat units. Soul Reapers can also be cited as an example; although they specialize in souls, they can also fight against mechanisms.
Furthermore, it can be noted that traps are most effective against beasts, which in most cases (except for neutral wolves) are large in size, making it much more likely that they will walk into a trap.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Okay, your arguments have swayed my opinion. Let there be Goblin Beastmasters. What have you decided regarding the Ents?
Regarding the Ents, I prefer the regeneration option. It's more logical, and I strongly object to duplicating the "burning" effect. Plus, regeneration (as a defensive perk) instead of endless retaliation (an offensive perk) allows us to increase attack and decrease HP, which will also affect the differences from the ancient Ents.
By "offensive" abilities, I mean abilities that allow units to influence the battlefield (in stats, this corresponds to attack and damage), and by "defensive" abilities, I mean abilities that allow them to resist influence (in stats, this corresponds to defense and health).
Although, of course, I would like to try the combination of entanglement + burning, but for this, it is necessary to use the combination of units "Ents + red dragons", which is not suitable for duels. Let this be another motivation to develop several cities and mix troops of different races in one army when playing on a map.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
A wise decision. I wanted to confess that I registered on this forum only because of you and your project. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm more than confident that if you finish your creation, it will be a hit in the Heroes of Might and Magic V modding community. I hope you have enough motivation, even without my encouragement.
Okay, let's go over the names. I really like doing this, you know.
Zealous rebels => Partisan rebels
I like it.
Light archers => Assault archers
I like it a lot.
Accurate shooters => Long-range shooters
Long-range? The adjective isn't usually applied to people, but it is to artillery. I've never seen it used for people. I suggest "elite shooters" – this was used in "Rome: Total War" to describe a similar type of unit: regular archers had a short range, while elite archers had a long range, and that was the main difference. Another option is "garrison shooters" to show the value of such units in defending a city.
Guard swordsmen => Guardsmen swordsmen
Just guardsmen. The type of weapon is never specified in such cases; just remember the "cardinal's guards," who were armed like musketeers. And yet, no one called them "guardsmen musketeers."
Heavy armored warriors => Legionary armored warriors
Legionaries are, by definition, armored warriors, if I'm not mistaken. If not, maybe "heavy legionaries" would be better?
Battle griffins => Storm griffins
Cat-dogs... Griffins are griffins. Storms are storms.
Militant monks => Battle monks
It sounds paradoxical. First, battle monks, then berserk hamsters... There are special names for people who live near a monastery but are not monks, but are warriors (in Russia, for example, they are called "black monks"; you could call them that). No, I understand that in Heroes, monks are traditionally a combat unit, and you, Nargott, are not to blame for this, but still, talking about "battle monks" is a bit much, in my humble opinion.
Holy clerics => Field clerics
I don't understand how clerics are related to fields... Maybe "campaign clerics"?
Knights of Justice => Retinue knights
In my opinion, "retinue" or "knight-retinue" would sound better.
Great champions => Arena champions
A perfectly suitable option, I like it.
Angels of Life => Angel Regents
Regents of whom?
Assassins of the League => Assassin Poisoners
"Poisoner" already implies killing, i.e., assassination, so it's like saying the same thing twice.
Dungeon gladiators => Interceptor gladiators
What do you mean?
Brave rudiaries => Fierce giants
Normal.
Formidable raiders => Lightning raiders
Good.
Vengeful snipers => Sniper Avengers
Good.
Mighty ents => Young ents
A complete reinterpretation of the unit? Great, I like it a lot.
High vampires => Vampire Lords
Normal.
Ominous liches => Unholy liches
So, does that mean all the other liches are as pure as babies? Well, somehow... They could be cursed liches.
Dark spellcasters => Plague liches Lords of the Dead => High liches
Good.
Fatal dragons => Dragons of Fate
Wow, that sounds great.
Imp-leeches => Voracious imps
Well, it's okay, at least I can't think of any better options.
Some not-so-euphonious Anglicism, these "spawns." It sounds like slang, and it is. It's better to come up with a replacement.
Cerberus of the Gate => Untamed Cerberus Demonesses of Agony => Demonesses of Agony True nightmares => Crimson nightmares Nightmares of Gehenna => Blazing nightmares
Impulsive? Well, that's like in some kind of psychological questionnaire; you could add eccentric Vikings, introverted Vikings, or something else, since that's the case. It's better to have something like "furious Vikings."
Defenders of Gorn => Fire-wielding jarls
Fire-wielding? You were probably trying to replace the word "fiery," which is used too often and therefore it's not a good idea to use it. But "fire-wielding" refers to weapons, not to jarls; that word doesn't fit here. You could then have "jarls of fire" or something like that, but definitely not "fire-wielding."
Well, we talked about the goblins.
It was rejected as incompatible on the AG forum. I had to revert to the previous version - zealous rebels.
Accurate archers => Long-range archers Long-range? The adjective is not used for people, but for artillery. I have never seen it used for people. I suggest "elite archers" - this was used in "Rome: Total War" to denote a similar unit: regular archers had a short range, while elite archers had a long range, and this was the main difference. Another option is "garrison archers" to show the value of such units in defending a city.
The first tier of archers is called "armor-piercing crossbowmen". I don't see any reason not to use similar adjectives for people using weapons with such properties. The fact that they haven't been used before doesn't mean that their use is illogical. Garrison and elite archers characterize archers much less than "long-range". Moreover, these are not elves, so they don't need to be elite.
Guard swordsmen => Guard swordsmen Just guards. The type of weapon is never specified in such cases; just remember the "cardinal's guards," who were armed like musketeers. And yet, no one called them guard musketeers.
Anyone can be a guard, not just a swordsman. It is very important to maintain the associations with the real unit in the name. Guard swordsmen, for example, are named so because they are elite swordsmen, individually the strongest among their peers (no counter-unit). In contrast, armored legionaries have a strong defensive formation, which may be more useful in war than the strength of individual infantrymen.
Heavy armored men => Armored legionaries Legionaries are, by definition, armored men, if I'm not mistaken. Even if not, maybe "heavy legionaries" would be better?
I moved away from the word "heavy" to get rid of the nonsense - because there are no "light" armored men.
Battle griffins => Storm griffins Cat-dogs... Griffins are griffins. Storms are storms.
I couldn't find a better name for them. The English version is Tornado Griffins, but it cannot be translated into Russian that way.
Militant monks => Battle monks It sounds paradoxical. First, battle monks, then berserk hamsters... There are special names for people who live in a monastery but are not monks, but are warriors (in Russia, for example, these are "black monks"; you could call them that. No, I understand that in Heroes, monks are traditionally a combat unit, and you, Nargott, are not to blame for this, but talking about "battle monks" is still too much, in my humble opinion.
Heroic monks are precisely battle monks. If a warrior in melee combat takes down several armored men, can he be just a simple priest?
Holy clerics => Field clerics I don't understand how clerics are related to fields... Maybe "campaign clerics"?
In principle, yes, but I still don't like either option, although it's no longer "over the top," as in the case of holy.
Knights of Justice => Retinue knights Retinue or knight-retinue would sound better, in my opinion.
Possibly. It's a matter of taste; we need several votes to make a decision.
Assassin League => Assassin Poisoners "Poisoner" already includes murder, that is, assassination; it's redundant.
An assassin is a professional killer, which a simple poisoner is not necessarily. But "poisoner" includes his specialization.
Dungeon gladiators => Interceptor gladiators What do you mean?
"Dungeon" does not convey the essence of the unit, but "interceptor" does. This unit is valuable primarily as an interceptor of enemy attacks. In battle, it has the "taunt" ability.
Ghastly liches => Unholy liches So, does that mean all other liches are pure as the driven snow? Well, somehow... They could be cursed liches.
I couldn't come up with a more suitable epithet. A lich is, in general, a one-time, heroic, and not a mass character. Therefore, their classification is not developed at all. The word "cursed" is unlikely to be better, especially since it is already used for the zombie alt. Moreover, in Ashan, the undead are devout, but unholy liches are unlikely to be.
Blazing spawns => Sulfur spawns Some not-so-euphonious Anglicism, these "spawns". It sounds like slang, and it is. It's better to come up with a replacement.
That's exactly it; the Russian translation of "spawn" never really caught on. Everyone confuses them with level 6. You can't call these little creatures demons, just as you wouldn't call a peasant an angel.
Impulsive? Well, that's like in some psychological questionnaire; you could add eccentric Vikings, introverted Vikings, or something like that. It's better to have something like "furious Vikings".
Furious Vikings are unlikely to say anything, because there are plenty of furious fighters, both in the literal and figurative sense (with the "fury" ability, which, by the way, they don't have). Impulsive, on the other hand, is very appropriate for the "bloodlust" ability (+8 to attack and +2 to initiative for 1 round when taking damage).
Defenders of Gorn => Fire-throwing jarls Fire-throwing? You were probably trying to replace the word "fiery," which is used too often and therefore not very good to use. But "fire-throwing" refers to weapons, not to jarls; the word doesn't fit here. You could then have "jarls of fire" or something like that, but definitely not fire-throwing.
Again, I don't see any reason why a word that applies to weapons cannot be applied to warriors. Troops are, in essence, weapons for an army. And if these troops are famous for their long range, armor-piercing ability, or fire-throwing ability, then they deserve a corresponding nickname. After all, what does "fire-throwing" mean? Throwing fire. Does this apply to the unit? Yes. Are there other synonyms with the same meaning? No.
As for the term "fiery," in its pure form, it is used in WGE only once (Fiery Dragons). In all other cases, it was possible to avoid a direct repetition (Flame Veterans, Blazing Nightmares, Fire-breathing Hounds, Fire-throwing Jarls, Sulfur Spawns).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Nargott, ask a girl to come up with names, preferably one with a literary background. They are all very bad. Many have already been debated. The further we go, the worse it gets.
Zealous rebels => Partisan rebels
Tautology.
Accurate archers => Long-range archers
But are they accurate at long range? Why not just call them long-range archers and give them a truck as well? Long-range weapon, long-range person??? Horrible!!
Guard swordsmen => Guard swordsmen
What else haven't they named yet?
Battle griffons => Storm griffons
A hybrid of a bulldog and a rhinoceros?
Holy clerics => Field clerics
He defended his field clerics, and now he doesn't like them...
Viking berserkers => Impulsive vikings
The epitome of facepalm. Maybe then, fiery zombies or benevolent knights?
Guild wizards => Guild mages
How do guild and mage relate? Maybe then, Hieromonk Notre Dame de Paris or Hussars of the Mexican army?
Ominous liches => Unholy liches
Tautology.
Defenders of Goran => Fire-breathing jarls
The meaning is exactly the same as "Jarl-cannon".
Vandal bone crushers => Reckless bone crushers
The risk is chosen by the player. And it sounds bad.
Pure nightmares => Crimson nightmares
Like slang (red archers, blue druids).
Dungeon gladiators => Interceptor gladiators
Griffin fighters and dragon bombers????
Light archers => Assault archers
It's easier to call siege archers with indirect fire.
Nargott, ask a girl to come up with names, preferably someone with a literary background. They're all terrible. Many have already been debated. The more we come up with, the worse they get.
We've already discussed this. Your position is that only short and concise names are acceptable. I need names that are atmospheric and convey the character of the units. I've already tried shortening the names and realized that this approach doesn't work – too much effort has been put into these units. However, you wouldn't understand that.
As for compound names, you're clearly not the best advisor here. You can't give advice on something you dislike. And this is proven by the fact that you can't offer anything constructive, only express your negative opinion, which is already known (due to your style), and doesn't matter. You can familiarize yourself with the naming style here.
I defended my field units, and now I don't like them... well, well...
I don't like them, but it's the best option available at the moment.
How do "guild" and "wizard" relate? Maybe then "Hieromonk Notre Dame de Paris" or "Hussars of the Mexican Army"?
Wizard and sorcerer are synonymous. Look at the root. And of the two, I chose the shorter and more sonorous option. In some localizations of Heroes 3, "mages" were translated as "sorcerers."
Light Archers => Assault Archers It's easier to call siege units with indirect fire.
Siege cyclops already exist. Archers are not suitable for siege warfare, and the "indirect fire" ability is not appropriate for them. Moreover, their main ability is assault.
I'll leave the rest without comment.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Wizard and sorcerer are synonymous. Look at the root. And of these two, I chose the most concise and sonorous option. In some localizations of Heroes 3, "mages" were translated as "sorcerers."
According to your logic, "Hussars-muchachos" is a normal name (Wild West riders), but for some reason, no one calls them that. You wouldn't try to excuse that, would you? Don't confuse meaning and inconsistency at the root. Imagine the Brothers Grimm in Russian fairy tales:smile24:. Tom Sawyer in Timur and His Gang:smile17:. And the Terminator in the Adventures of Elektronik:smile47:. And instead of a loaf of bread, they bring baguettes with salt.... :smile16:
According to your logic, "Hussars-Muchachos" is a normal name (Wild West riders), but for some reason, no one will call them that. You can't excuse yourself here. Don't confuse meaning and inconsistency at the root. Imagine the Brothers Grimm in Russian fairy tales:smile24. Tom Sawyer in Timur and His Team:smile17. And the Terminator in the Adventures of Elektronik:smile47. And instead of a loaf of bread, they bring baguettes with salt.... :smile16
The concept of inconsistency is very subjective; it's difficult to argue about it here (for example, you haven't provided a single argument). If a few more people express their disagreement with guild wizards, then I will consider returning the guild mages.
Are there words in the Russian language that can briefly describe the concept of "troops using long-range weapons"? No, except for long-range troops. The fact that it is not customary to call troops that way is a linguistic flaw; why should I follow it and refuse to use concepts for which "there is no name"? According to the logic of the language, such a construction is permissible.
Moreover, you don't need to distort the context: it's not a long-range person, but a long-range shooter (warrior). Which implies the use of long-range weapons, i.e., long-range class crossbows with light bolts.
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
Nargott
