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.
Okay, let me start by saying that I haven't played against live opponents in a long time, maybe ten years (a couple of games with my dad don't count), so I might have serious disagreements with tournament players. But I didn't see "The most difficult Castle in a tournament game" in the topic. I agree that on a small map, a Warrior will win by quickly overwhelming the opponent with "three Gnolls and two Goblins." But if the map is large, with many neutral creatures and objects, a Mage hero's attack and defense stats won't be much different from a Warrior hero's. But mana regenerates, while creatures don't. The ability of Mages to move quickly around the map (portal, flight, door), and fight without losses (blindness-resurrection) gives the Mage the opportunity to gather a larger army than the Warrior (with his loss of Castles and creatures), and even if they meet in a "fair" fight without magic, the numerical superiority will be on the side of the Mage, and then it's anyone's guess who will win. Regarding archers: will the Castle's archers really be defeated by Swamp creatures? Valeska and Wistan have a specialization for their archers, which gives them the same bonus and shooting ability – let's discard these parameters, let's say there are 10 archers (str) against 10 Lizardmen (lizard). Archers have damage of 2 or 3*2, attack 6, defense 3, Lizardmen have damage from 2 to 5, attack 6, defense 8. It's unlikely that the Lizardmen will constantly hit for the maximum, and besides, the archers go first... Regarding building up an army – do you always manage to leave slow creatures to guard/in the Castle/with another hero every turn? I don't have time to play against people, except maybe in offline mode, and even then, it's not certain... But the tournament players are right here :D
But in the thread, I didn't see "The most difficult Castle in the tournament game."
Can you clarify? What exactly do you mean by "tournament game"? Padavan
I agree, on a small map, a Warrior will win, quickly overwhelming the enemy with "three Gnolls and two Goblins."
Well, the thing is... on small maps (S-M), Mages actually rule :D And on large maps, Warriors do. (Who also become Mages during the game) Padavan
But if the map is large, with a lot of neutral creatures and objects, a hero-mage won't differ much from a hero-warrior in terms of attack and defense parameters.
Why? A Mage's development will always lean more towards strength and knowledge, simply because the probabilities are set that way. Padavan
Fast movement of Mages across the map (portal, flight, door),
Well, who said that a Warrior won't use these? Padavan
battles without losses (blindness-resurrection) allow the Mage to gather a larger army,
Who said that a Warrior won't use these? Padavan
than a Warrior (with his loss of Castles and creatures)
So, it seems that, in your opinion, a Warrior is some kind of clumsy log, wooden, without a book, who relies exclusively on close combat?? And you just build him, blow things up, and resurrect yourself? No. You are deeply mistaken. Padavan
and even if they meet in a "fair" duel without magic, the numerical superiority will be on the side of the Mage, and then it's anyone's guess who will win.
Again. Where did you get that from, that he will have a numerical superiority? In my opinion, it depends on the skill of the player. Padavan
Regarding ranged attacks: will the Castle's archers be defeated by Swamp creatures? Valeska and Vistan have a specialization in their archers, which gives the same bonus and ranged attack – let's discard these parameters, let there be 10 archers (str) against 10 lizard warriors (yaw). Archers have 2 or 3*2 damage, attack 6, defense 3, lizard warriors have 2 to 5 damage, attack 6, defense 8. It is unlikely that the lizards will constantly hit at maximum, and the archers go first...
You underestimate them. If a hero has ranged attack, and Vistan does, then they will deal a lot of damage. Of course, he also has a special ability. But even without a special ability, he is good with ranged attacks. You need to consider everything as a whole, and not just archers with zero-level heroes. Take a Swamp hero, he levels up well in defense, improve the lizard warriors. And go to a town, say, to rest with a stack of Griffins, what will happen to Valeska's archers? They will be eaten by many. The lizard warriors will also suffer losses, but there will still be someone to shoot at! Let's say when there are 70 of them, that's already very serious. And it is not uncommon for Vistan to defeat Valeska in ranged combat. (Of course, the heroes always have different parameters) Padavan
Regarding rapid movement – you need to constantly leave slow creatures to guard/in the Castle/with another hero – do you manage to do this every turn? ...
What's so special about that? Near the main hero, there are always weak heroes to whom the army is temporarily given for the night. Padavan
I don't have time to play against people.
Well, then what is there to argue about? It's better to convince yourself.
What I'm trying to convey to you: if you start with a Warrior, it's easier to get him to have a portal, flight, explosion, and so on. Because on the map itself, he can defeat more monsters and gather an army faster. With which he will acquire valuable items. But a Mage needs to replenish his mana, and mana wells are not on every corner. Returning to the Castle for the night, etc. And all this is wasted time, during which the Warrior will build up his advantage.
It should be noted that I am talking about playing on random maps of large size.
Well, the thing is..., on small maps (S-M), mages are actually quite strong :D But on large maps, warriors are better. (Who also become mages during the game).
So, if Crag Hack comes at you with ramparts at the beginning of the second week, will your mage easily defeat him? I thought that on a small map, speed and warrior skills are more important than a level 2 mage guild and 30 mana points... But you know better. Lider1
Why? Upgrading a mage will always focus more on strength and knowledge, simply because the probabilities are set that way.
Well, at level thirty, the difference isn't that big, plus artifacts still exist. Lider1
So, who said that a warrior won't use them?
Well, I rarely see a warrior with wisdom, earth, air, water, and intelligence. Or am I forgetting something...? Lider1
So, it seems that, according to you, a warrior is some kind of dull log, made of wood, without a book, who relies exclusively on close combat?? And you create him, blow him up, and resurrect yourself? No. You are deeply mistaken.
Thank you for opening my eyes to the warrior. But tell me, can a warrior throw a berserker at five enemy units, clone archers, cast a prayer on everyone, scout where the enemy heroes are, teleport to any city, etc., and so on in one game? I won't even talk about the difference in mana...
Lider1
And it's not uncommon for Vistan to outshoot Valesk. (Of course, the heroes always have different parameters).
But earlier you wrote that lizards are definitely better...
Well, honestly, I rarely play Heroes (because I have very little free time) and yes, I play against the computer, but I always play on the hardest difficulty and interesting, complex maps (Campaigns) from users... I won't argue anymore, I've already spent my annual forum limit today
When playing against the AI, it really doesn't matter which town you choose. You're right. But when playing against other players, it's important not just to "click on everything with the right mouse button," but also to maintain a good pace. The outcome of the game depends on the speed of your development. And it's much easier to do this with some towns than with others. That's the whole point.
But weren't we talking about mastering the towns?)) It's still a long way before you can start learning to maintain a good pace.
So, if Craig Heg comes to you with Roars at the beginning of the second week, will your mage easily defeat him? I thought that on a small map, speed and warrior skills are the most important, not a level 2 mage guild and 30 mana points... But you know better.
Let me tell you, as someone with some experience playing on random M maps. Mages are particularly effective there. Because the fewer troops the heroes have, the more valuable the damage from magic becomes. A mage can easily trade his army for a warrior's army and continue the game, while a warrior without an army will be unable to fight an opponent or clear the map. On L maps, mages are also usable as main heroes, but to a significantly lesser extent. On XL maps, choosing a mage as your main hero will be a mistake in most cases. Padavan
Well, at level thirty, the difference isn't that big, plus artifacts still exist.
I've never leveled up my heroes to level 30, but even at level 20, the difference is quite noticeable, believe me. And the main reason here is not in the stats, which can indeed be boosted with artifacts, but in the skills that are vitally necessary (attack, defense, tactics, logistics), and which a warrior has a higher chance of getting.
Padavan
Well, I rarely see a warrior with wisdom, earth, air, water, and intelligence. Or have I forgotten...?
3 magic skills is too much; it rarely makes sense to develop more than 2. Intelligence is also rarely taken, although it can't be called useless. But skills like scouting or ranged attack are often more valuable.
Padavan
Thank you for opening my eyes to the warrior. But tell me, can a warrior cast Berserk on five enemy units, clone archers, cast a prayer on everyone, scout where the enemy heroes are, teleport to any city, etc., and so on in one game? I won't talk about the difference in mana...
You are talking about 4 different magic skills at once. Developing 4 magic skills simultaneously is very foolish; it's almost a guaranteed defeat. There is a strongest magic skill - earth, which is essential for the main hero (if he doesn't have it, then it should be with someone else so that at least someone can create town portals). The second strongest is air, which is also highly desirable. Fire and water are already more specific and are chosen depending on the situation, for example, for a magic book or an available scroll. I repeat, having 3-4 developed magic skills is usually a waste of slots. And yes, a warrior can develop them just as well as a mage; after all, magic is given to him every 4 levels, and wisdom every 6.
Padavan
But earlier you wrote that lizards are definitely better...
Lizards are better in the final battle because, due to their HP, they outshoot archers even despite the archers' first shot. But for clearing the map, marksmen are better. In general, these are approximately equivalent units; the difference is that marksmen are in most cases a mandatory upgrade for a castle, while the swamp has enough options without upgrading lizards.
Padavan
Well, honestly, I rarely play Heroes (because I have very little free time), and yes, I play against the computer, but I always play on the "ferz" difficulty and choose interesting, complex maps (Campaigns) from users... I won't argue anymore; I've already spent my annual forum limit today.
In other words, if Craig Heg comes to you with Roars at the beginning of the second week, can your mage easily defeat him?
Well, if he doesn't have any tactics or haste, but only Roars. Then what's so special about that? You can solve it with one lightning bolt. With some Grindan. And if you also sit in a town, there are no options. Of course, if he brings another ten angels, then that's the end. Padavan
I thought that on a small map, speed and warrior skills are more important than a level 2 magic guild and 30 mana... But you know better.
30 mana for a hero starting from a Conflux of level 1. That's ridiculous. Or take heroes from the Dungeon: 2 knowledge + doubling already gives 40. Without leveling them up. And if you level them up to level 7, and find some artifact for strength or knowledge, then it looks completely different. Definitely not 30. Padavan
At level thirty, the difference isn't that big, plus artifacts still exist.
Okay, do an experiment. Take Tazara at level 25, and take some mage, whichever you like best. Give them both the same amount of experience in the editor. See how they leveled up. On primary stats. "Not such a big difference"?)) You can also give them the same army and magic and try to have a battle. And then, for the second time, equip them with a red orb. And fight again and see what happens. Padavan
Well, as far as I know, a warrior with wisdom, earth, air, water, intelligence is rare. Or am I forgetting something...
Water and intelligence are superfluous. Earth or air is enough. Wisdom is no problem; it's offered every 6th and 12th level. And if you get lucky with this log, attack, defense, tactics - it's a fairy tale. Padavan
But tell me, can a warrior cast Berserk on five enemy units?
If there's expert fire, why not? Of course, fire magic itself isn't popular, but that's just details. Padavan
clone archers, read prayers to everyone,
it's all the same. Padavan
see where the enemy heroes are, teleport to any town, etc., in one game. I won't talk about the difference in mana...
It's more important to find the ability to deal damage, fly, teleport, etc. And then you will find how to use them. As a rule, the main hero knows earth magic. So there will be no problems with the city. You can even use flight without air. And such a cheat artifact as wings doesn't hurt either. Padavan
Earlier you wrote that lizards were definitely better...
I didn't write "definitely." I said:
play as Vistan. And see how "weak" they are.
Of course, it depends on what parameters the opponent's hero has, the number of best archers, and generally the army he has. Of course, magic cannot be ignored. It is quite possible to win against Valesk with Vistan. And against neutrals, he just shines. Padavan
Thank you for opening my eyes to warriors.
Your eyes would open much wider if you found the time and started playing online)) Padavan
Well, honestly, I rarely play Heroes (because I have very little free time) and yes, against the AI, but I always play on the Queen difficulty and interesting, complex maps (campaigns) from users... I won't argue anymore; I've already spent today's annual limit on the forum:)
Playing against the Artificial Idiot is funny in itself, but it's not an indicator. Yes, sometimes it's fun. But building strategies based on this is useless. They will only work against the AI, and against a human player, it will be a failure.
And as a teaser, here's the final table of the "Favorites in Battle 3" tournament (everyone registers by choosing their favorite city and plays with it) 40 participants /attachments/35765/ winner: Swamp
Favorites in Battle 4 - 78 participants /attachments/35766/ winner: Castle, Swamp in 5th place. How did that happen? The Swamp should have been at the bottom))
and here's some old statistics for winter 2009, results of the season from 470 games, 86 players /attachments/12006/
The strongest cities were Rampart, Swamp, Dungeon, Stronghold, Necropolis (% difference is minimal). At the same time, Castle shared 6th place with Conflux, and Tower and Inferno lived up to expectations.
Added after 20 minutes Be3y4uu
But isn't the conversation about mastering castles? It's still a long way before you start learning how to keep pace.
What do you mean by "mastering"? Building a Capitol? Of course, anyone can build it. But actually playing, which naturally implies keeping pace and everything else - is easier with one city than with another. That's what we're talking about.
Padavan
11 years ago
Auto-translated
I reread the correspondence. I'm still glad that Heroes is alive and kicking, and people are actively playing it. I'm glad that we're having these last warm days. I'm in a good mood, even though few people care, and this is all off-topic. We're all chatting about things that aren't really related anyway. We're here teaching a naive newbie how to play properly. Everyone now understands that I'm one of those players who likes to take their time and play on an interesting map against the AI. And the latest user-created campaign, "Return," was simply amazing. And yes, I made a mage with all the schools, wisdom, intelligence, archery, and magic (it was like that from the beginning). With 2k mana and almost all the spells (except for flight and teleport, which were forbidden), primary stats at 99, and a vulnerability aura, I didn't care that I didn't have logistics (no gloves or boots), that my opponent had expert attack and defense, tactics, and resistance... Cloned snipers, buffed with prayer, accuracy, and blessing, were shooting down slowed, blinded, and blasted hydras, titans, archons, and black dragons, while firebirds stood modestly aside, giving the first turn... It was interesting, and I believed that this hero could kick everyone's butt without exception (I would, of course, like to swap magic for ballistics, for example, and intelligence at the end for armor/attack/leadership)... I liked my hero... Now everyone is just crushing him. The old-timers keep repeating the same thing: you're eating the sandwich wrong, you need to play as a warrior, push through, take control of resources, find Utopia... All the online players know the standard gameplay, everyone acts the same, and often everything depends on the starting conditions? Does the one who encounters more Pandora's Boxes and Conservatories win? Then that's sad and disappointing... Then I'm for interesting user-created maps, where you can enjoy the beauty and originality of the idea, laugh at a joke, and replay a difficult battle... I understand that playing against a human is radically different from single-player, but I don't have time to play against real people, so is it worth retraining?
P.S. If I do decide, will an hour or two in the evening (from 10:30 PM to 11:00 PM Kyiv time) be enough to play online? And to find a patient player who will agree to a game? :D
I reread the correspondence. I'm still glad that Heroes is alive and kicking.
Me too :smile20: :D Check out this website http://heroes3.tv/ from time to time; you can watch how others play. When you don't have enough free time or don't feel like playing, you can watch others. In the evening, there are always games going on, so you have plenty to choose from. Padavan
Everyone now understands that I am one of those players who likes to play slowly on an interesting map against the AI.
That's your choice. But the AI cannot provide decent resistance in principle. It's incredibly stupid. Padavan
and I believe it
That's exactly the point. No, of course, if you manage to get that mage you're talking about into a real game by the second or third week, it will be very difficult for everyone. But you have to manage to do that. And that's impossible in such a short time. And in general, stats of 99 are impossible to achieve in any game on random maps. Padavan
Everyone who plays online knows the game's pattern, everyone acts the same way, and often everything depends on the starting conditions? Does the one who encounters more Pandora's Boxes and Conservatories win? Then that's sad...
That's not true. Not at all. And the beauty of random maps is that, even though they are generated according to a certain pattern, they are still different each time. We used to play on fixed maps. But I didn't experience that time. They were more balanced, but there, too, grinding was very important; if you didn't move 200 turns correctly, you lost (at least, according to one player who played all of that). And besides, as far as I'm concerned, playing the same map or the same maps is just boring.
Of course, random maps are much more unbalanced, and many people, after a game (especially if they lose), curse the generator. But still, the rules of online games + skill still determine that the skill of the player wins more often than luck. Padavan
Then I'm for interesting user-created maps, where you can enjoy the beauty and originality of the idea, laugh at a joke, and replay a difficult battle...
I understand perfectly. I used to play that way myself, but there's one drawback: the computer can't respond adequately. You can give it a much larger army or stats at the start, but it will still remain a stupid log.
And by the way, those who taste the "forbidden fruit" and play online for a certain time (about 50 games) will no longer be able to play against the computer. It will simply be uninteresting. What used to lead to addictive behavior will become dull, boring, predictable, and monotonous. So think about whether you need it. Padavan
but I don't have time to play against real players, so is it worth switching? P.S. If I do decide, will an hour and a half in the evening (from 10:30 PM to 11:30 PM Kyiv time) be enough to play online? And will I be able to find a patient player who will agree to a game? :D
It all depends on you. I don't think it's worth starting with an hour and a half. You need to have 5-6 hours. But if you still decide and want to do it as quickly as possible, I recommend templates from the M200 series. It seems like nothing is faster than that. You should be able to play a game in about 2-3 hours.
Heroes13
11 years ago
Auto-translated
For beginners, Necropolis. To play well, you need to be able to produce skeletons. And for that, you need to be able to conduct battles of varying difficulty, with minimal losses, and strategically position chains of heroes, etc.
I would put Inferno in second place; playing with demons requires a certain skill. The units are weak, and it's very difficult to manage without significant losses at the beginning.
It's easier for beginners to manage cities that have a good ranged army at the start. Managing melee units is a bit more complex.
Eleondor
11 years ago
Auto-translated
Lider1, what makes the AI so dumb?) It seems to play quite well, bringing in a melee army.
Can you provide some facts?
I don't play the third game very often, and I haven't played it online at all (by the way, can you tell me how? I think it's only online via LAN, or am I wrong?).
And by the way, I wanted to ask about Conflux - how often is it used in online games, and is it even allowed in tournaments? As well as Necropolis.
Lider1, but what makes the AI so dumb?) It seems to play quite well, bringing in a powerful army. Can you provide some facts?
The fact is that it's easier to show than to tell. It simply plays poorly. Stupidly. Weakly. And so on. Here, at http://heroes3.tv/, there are streams of Heroes games; watch any stream where people play against the computer. And see how easily it gets defeated. As if by chance, as something self-evident. See how far a human player can develop and how far the computer can. It's incomparable.
The fact is that it can't do anything. It’s limited to building capitals with two or three heroes. It cannot conduct battles, clear the map, maintain pace, or assess the situation on the map. Noth - ING. Eleondor
I don't often play Heroes III, and I haven't played online at all (by the way, could you tell me how? It seems like only local multiplayer is available, or am I wrong?).
You can do it this way, or that way. You can arrange matches here; look at the last page and write there. Eleondor
And by the way, I wanted to ask about Conflux – how often is it used in online games, and is it even allowed in tournaments? As well as Necropolis.
Of course, it is allowed. But with restrictions. More details here: /topic/10593/
bolotnik
11 years ago
Auto-translated
I came back, read this thread, and... it's a strange question, to say the least. It all depends on the map, the template, the layout... If we're talking in general terms, then Inferno is the most difficult: it requires a decent amount of resources, but not more than some other factions. Demon units are complex and require experience to use effectively. You also need to know how to maximize the potential of many of its units. And probably Tower, on some maps, due to its resource requirements.
Added 7 minutes later Eleondor
Lider1, what makes the AI so dumb? It seems to play quite well, bringing in a meat-grinder army. Can you provide some facts? I don't play the third game very often, and I've never played it online (by the way, can you tell me how? I think it's only online via LAN, or am I wrong?). And by the way, I wanted to ask about Conflux – how often is it used in online games, and is it even allowed in tournaments? As well as Necropolis.
Yes, that's true, but a lot depends on how the player plays. If a player doesn't stay put, then all this meat-grinder army will be defeated by a human player with a smaller army, often even half the size. The AI is dumb in terms of using spells and in terms of its movements. If the player starts to play poorly, then of course the computer won't give him a chance, but if the game is played at full intensity, then the computer has no chance
Lider1, but what makes the AI so dumb?) It seems to play quite well, bringing in a powerful army. Can you provide some evidence?
Of course, I can. I'm attaching an archive now: it contains an autosave and a save file. The autosave is from before the battle with the AI. The save file is from after the battle with the AI. It's a clear example of the AI's idiocy, where blue simply throws itself against the wall, and the battle ends up being very long (in the end, it's just finished off with magic arrows and towers firing at a strike force of 200+ Royal Naga).
All you have to do is end your turn, and blue will attack. Changing anything with artifacts is pointless, but you can buy a transport to allow for infinite firing. More experienced players will probably want to attack blue themselves.... although, in reality, there's not much for experienced players to do there.
P.S. Don't attack me now, saying that the map should have been much more explored and that there should be almost nothing left of the AI, considering that at least 3 heroes with good artifacts and decent armies are just standing around doing nothing, while only one is running around with all the troops... This allowed the AI to develop for a little longer than it should have. The game is being played on Duke difficulty, although on this map, you could easily play on King difficulty, and there's no point in taking anything below Queen, as there are plenty of resources anyway... Here's an example of how the AI is not intelligence, but an idiot, whether it's on Duke, Queen, or King difficulty, and here's an example of the AI's stupid behavior in battle. A human playing as blue would never lose in that situation
