Which creatures from the alternative upgrade options do you choose? — General: Tribes of the East

Vadimh

6/14/2015 9:31 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Alek-Smolin

The Zealots with Ossir are a special case, and as you know, every rule has exceptions. Everything depends on the circumstances; it's clear that the reds are not a good match against Ossir.

There are enough decent archers in the game. Elves, humans, and mages can deal a lot of damage with any hero, and there are also machinists with ballistae.

Alek-Smolin

I just don't understand why the red cavalry is bad against Necromancers?
If the Necromancer doesn't position his troops 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 perfectly good replacement for the Paladin's ability.

Humans don't have that much mana. If you start casting removal spells and anti-magic from the very beginning, it will cause a delay in casting and significantly weaken the human in a prolonged battle, and the mana will run out. At the same time, there may be situations when Paladins manage to remove control/berserk at the beginning of the turn, while the hero cannot. Also, white horses are immune to berserk. Necromancers are tough and difficult to kill in a few turns.

Alek-Smolin

To be honest, I just didn't think about the Warlock case.
But I prefer magic golems only because of their ability to resurrect using magic. If they end up in the thick of the battle, and the hero plays as a Chaos Knight, you can not only kill enemies but also resurrect the golems.

Academics are good because they can play in any school and in various combinations of schools. There may not be Chaos. Steel golems can be buffed, and it is difficult for a combat hero to kill them under the Stone Skin spell.

Alek-Smolin

If a demon finds a couple of artifacts for magic power (I once played with a friend, and he managed to dig up one of the artifacts of Sar-Iss, which increased magic power by 6, the battle was fierce). And the upgrades depend very simply:
Better to have imps, because mana goes to the hero, and not to the Cave Lords (although if the hero has enough mana, you can take devils).
Elders are better for attackers (especially when jumping and under the Blessing spell, with their scatter), but they are simply not suitable for a Chaos Knight, because after 1 jump, they will take a lot of damage in return.
Fire hounds are better for breaking through defenses, again for attackers (although they will also work for Chaos Knights, the difference is not that big).
Temptresses are generally excellent, they should be taken without hesitation if the enemy is not immune to magic and not 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 Knight (and summoners really hate them, the phoenixes cry).
The upgrade for devils is clearly better for Chaos Knights, because having another stack of cave creatures is a good thing, and for attackers, the alternative upgrade is better, because you can pull out any creature from any artifact and kill it with demons.

Gnomes have Armageddon with resistances and signs and 30% for spell power, Academics have the same 30% and a mark, League has Arcane and elemental wave and as much as 45% for spell power. Necromancers just have the same 45% spell power and high hit points. And demons have no skills and abilities for Chaos and only 15% for spell power increase. This is just funny. I wrote a little about the demon upgrades above, if briefly, then:
1. Only the mana regeneration itself is important. If they can pump mana for a couple of turns without consequences, then black imps. No? Then red imps.
2. Only jumping, retaliation, and someone will remove it anyway. Red imps have a weak ability.
I don't see any connection between the upgrades depending on Chaos. The survivability is approximately the same for all upgrades, and nothing else matters.

Alek-Smolin

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, and the regular one will also have a lot of problems in this case.

The task of lizardmen is to run with a charge, deal a lot of damage, and die after that. The old ones will deal a lot of damage due to ignoring armor, and the exchange will pay off. The new ones will just die. And the League has no troop survivability, so they die quickly, and it is important to kill the enemy faster than he kills the League.

In reply to Vadimh

Alek-Smolin

6/15/2015 3:39 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Vadimh

There are plenty of decent ranged units in the game. Elves, humans, and mages can deal significant damage with any hero, and there are also artillery units with ballistae.

I doubt anyone will waste a turn using a ballista on them if there's even one more important target. And the ballista might even break down by the time those priority targets are gone.

Vadimh

Humans don't have that much mana. If you start casting dispel and anti-magic spells from the beginning, it will hinder your ability to cast other spells and weaken the human in a prolonged battle, and you'll also run out of mana. At the same time, there may be situations where paladins can dispel mind control or berserk before the hero can. Also, white horses are immune to berserk. The Necromancer is tough and difficult to kill in a few turns.

If the hero is going to buff everyone, then it wouldn't be a bad idea to take Adepts and use dispel to remove mind control or berserk, and give the hero the opportunity to buff the creatures calmly.

Vadimh

Academics are good because they can play in any school and in various combinations of schools. Chaos may not even be present. Steel Golems can be buffed, and under Stone, it's difficult for a combat unit to kill them.

I haven't seen many light academics, but in that case, I agree with you.

Vadimh

Dwarves have Armageddon with resistances and signs and 30% spell power, academics have the same 30% and a mark, the League has Arcane and elemental wave and a whole 45% spell power. The Necromancer simply has the same 45% spell power and is tough. And demons have no skills or abilities for chaos and only 15% spell power increase. That's just funny.

It seems like we're not talking about effectiveness compared to other factions, but about the very fact that there are demons that play with chaos, and such demons exist (even if there are not many of them).

Vadimh

I wrote a little about demon upgrades above, if briefly:
1. Only the mana drain itself is important. If they can pump mana unpunished for a couple of turns, then black. No? Then red.
2. Only the jumping ones, someone will dispel the retaliation anyway. Red has a weak ability. I don't see any connection between the upgrades depending on chaos. The survivability is approximately the same for all upgrades, and nothing else matters.

1) The ability of imp upgrades is not limited to draining the enemy's mana; you also need to use the fact that the mana goes to the hero/cavern dwellers, and this also plays a role. 2) Where is the guarantee that retaliation will definitely be dispelled? Although the other creatures of Inferno are initiative, this does not give a 100% guarantee, especially in the middle and at the end of the battle.

Vadimh

The task of the lizardmen is to run with a dash, deal a lot of damage, and die after that. The old ones will deal a lot of damage due to ignoring armor, and the exchange will pay off. The new ones will simply die. And the League has no troop survivability, so they die quickly, and it's important to kill the enemy faster than he kills the League.

Can't agile units compensate for the damage difference in the form of damage that will be dealt by a hit?

Асха все обращает на пользу!

Vadimh

6/16/2015 10:07 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Alek-Smolin

I doubt anyone would waste a turn using a ballista on them if there's even one more priority target. And the ballista might even break by the time those priority targets are gone.

The point of the armored units is that they protect their neighbors from ranged attacks.

Alek-Smolin

If the hero is going to buff everyone, then it wouldn't be a bad idea to take Adepts and use the dispel magic spell to remove mind control or berserk, allowing the hero to buff the creatures without interruption.

Dispel doesn't work on berserk. Mind control on the hero is not removed very often due to the level difference. And you only have one dispel spell (or more with magic secrets). It's not very reliable.

Alek-Smolin

It seems like we're not talking about effectiveness compared to other factions, but about the fact that there are demons that play a chaotic role, and such demons exist (even if there aren't many).

No one is stopping you from leveling up a human in 4 schools and using spells. But the effectiveness of this is questionable.

Alek-Smolin

1) The ability to upgrade Imps isn't just about draining the enemy's mana; you also need to use the fact that the mana goes to the hero/cave dwellers, and that also plays a role.
2) What guarantee is there that a counterattack will definitely be removed? Even though other Inferno creatures have high initiative, this doesn't guarantee it 100%, especially in the middle and at the end of the battle.

1. The alternate upgrade for cave dwellers is almost always better, and it doesn't require mana. The hero usually has a lot of mana anyway. So, the process of draining mana is more important than where the mana goes.
2. The hero often has the "Dispel" skill, which allows them to jump in without consequences. All demon upgrades reduce initiative, so someone will be able to remove the counterattack.

Alek-Smolin

Can't agile units compensate for the damage difference with the damage they deal through "hit and run"?

So, without considering abilities, the damage of both upgrades is approximately the same. The upgrade completely ignores armor. Let's say the target has 40 armor, and the lizards have 20 attack. Completely ignoring armor will result in an approximate 200% increase in damage in this case. For the alternate upgrade, you need to hit 8 targets 8 times. But the enemy might have more defense.

In reply to Vadimh

Alek-Smolin

6/16/2015 6:18 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Vadimh

The main purpose of armored units is to protect their allies from ranged attacks.

Okay, but what if the enemy has Chaos magic and uses it? Or if the enemy is a Dhalebian?
In that case, if you use an armored unit to protect a group from ranged attacks, you could lose up to half of your units.

Vadimh

The "Remove" spell doesn't work on Berserkers. Subjugating a hero with a lower level than yours doesn't happen very often. Plus, you can only use it once (or more with magic skills). It's not very reliable.

To be honest, I didn't know that, so I apologize and admit I was wrong.

Vadimh

1. The alternate upgrade for Cavern Stalker is almost always better, and it doesn't cost mana. Heroes usually have a lot of mana anyway. So, the process of using the ability is more important than where the mana goes.
2. Heroes often have the "Dispel" skill, which allows them to move around without being targeted. All demon upgrades have lower initiative, so someone will always be able to remove the debuff.

1) If the demon has magic, that amount of mana might not be enough. Besides, the ability itself is then used incompletely; you should try to use all its aspects (but not at your own expense, of course).
2) What if you're playing on a map where each player only has one city, and there are few players (or even just two)? There's a chance that the hero will learn a spell in the city. But what if no spell drops in the city? Relying on altars is foolish; the drop rate is quite low, and there's nowhere else to learn spells (unless the enemy uses one, and you have the "Uncover Secret" perk, but even then, the chance isn't that high). + If a turn is made with cavalry attacking another stack (or they manage to move after the cavalry but before the demon), the Imps (or their upgraded form) won't reach them. What then?

Vadimh

So, without considering the abilities of both upgrades, the damage is approximately the same. The damage increase completely ignores armor. Let's say the target has 40 armor, and the Lizardmen have 20 attack. Completely ignoring armor would result in an approximate 200% damage increase. For the alternate upgrade, you need to hit 8 targets along the way. But the enemy might have even more armor.

But what if the enemy is a Dwarf? (We're talking about the "Armor" skill).
Or what if the enemies have less than 12 initiative, but more than 11? (Swift Riders have 12, which is 1 more...)

Асха все обращает на пользу!

Vadimh

6/16/2015 6:50 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Alek-Smolin

Okay, but what if the enemy has Chaos and keeps adding it? Or if the enemy is a Dhalebb.
Then, if you defend the formation with a Spearman, you could lose up to half of your stack.

If it's a Dhalebb or an Adept using Chaos, only one stack needs to be protected. Against the League, Zealots will be better, as they don't shoot very well. You need to assess the situation, not always use the same unit.

Alek-Smolin

1) If a demon has magic, this ordinary mana might not be enough. Besides, the ability itself is then used incompletely; you need to try to use all its aspects (but not at your own expense, of course).
2) And if you choose maps where each player has only one city, and there are few players (or only 2), there's a chance that a hero will learn a spell in the city. But what if no spell drops in the city? Relying on altars is foolish; the drop rate is quite low, and there's nowhere else to learn spells (unless the enemy uses it, and you have the "Uncover Secret" perk, but even then, the probability isn't that high). + If you make a move with cavalry attacking another stack (or they manage to move after the cavalry but before the demon), and the Imps (or their upgraded versions) don't reach, what then?

1. Demons have a high knowledge growth rate and often consume corpses, so mana isn't a problem for them. But for Necropolises with 0 mana and no way to increase mana from their faction skill due to the Black Imps, things are difficult. 2. The first turn is for summoning. By the second turn, there will be a lot of units, and if you occasionally look at the attack bonus scale, you can always find someone to counterattack with. But for the Red faction, the ability is completely useless.

Alek-Smolin

What if the enemy is a Dwarf? (We're talking about the "Armor" skill).
Or what if the enemies have less than 12 initiative, but more than 11? (Swift Riders have 12, just 1 more than that...)

11.5 or something? There's no such initiative. Against Dwarves, Lizards won't reach Harpooners, and there's no damage against Warriors with their shield wall, and Warriors are taken down with magic. And Frightening Bears will be better against the League, and they don't have armor. Plus, there are also Great Lords and Dragons, which are very useful for spreading out.

Alek-Smolin

6/17/2015 4:45 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Okay, I give up!)))
You have much more experience than I do, so it's not surprising that you turned out to be right.))
I'll keep your answers in mind.

Асха все обращает на пользу!

In reply to Alek-Smolin

Stor

6/18/2015 7:53 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Vadimh is slightly mistaken.
Imps (an alternate upgrade for Fiends) steal twice as little mana as Devils (the standard upgrade). Therefore, if you skip a couple of turns with Imps due to mana drain, the effect will be the same as with Devils at the very beginning of the battle without skipping turns. So, if the goal is simply to deprive a Necromancer of mana, Imps are not very suitable. It is better to open a gate with Devils.

In reply to Stor

Vadimh

6/18/2015 5:50 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Stor

Vadimh is slightly mistaken.
Imps (an alternate upgrade for Fiends) steal twice as little mana as Devils (the standard upgrade). Therefore, if you skip a couple of turns with Imps due to mana drain, the effect will be the same as with Devils at the very beginning of the battle without skipping turns. So, if the goal is simply to drain the mana of a Necromancer, Imps are not very suitable. It's better to open a gate with Devils.

The whole point is that in a long battle against Necropolis, after 2.5 turns, black Devils will drain more mana than red ones. At the same time, while they are alive, the Necromancer will not be able to drain mana using Mark. The Necromancer has nothing to quickly kill the Devils with. Yes, he can cast Summon, Berserk, or Blind. But the fact that he will use high-level spells on the Devils means that the main combat stacks, such as Knights or Demons, will be fighting. And the hero might also have Vampirism.

In reply to Vadimh

Stor

6/18/2015 9:07 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Vadimh

The only thing that matters is the mana drain itself. If they can drain mana unpunished for a couple of turns, then Imps are the way to go. Otherwise, it's Cherubs.

It says "a couple of turns." I'm saying that a couple of turns is not enough.
Let's say we have 200 Imps and 200 Cherubs. On the first turn, the Imps steal 50 mana from the Necromancer and open a gate. On the first turn, the Cherubs steal 25 mana and don't summon anything. On the second turn, the Imps become an independent combat unit (by the way, they are not as vulnerable to general weakening as the Cherubs). 80 Imps are summoned (with skillful gate opening). The Cherubs steal another 25 mana (if they aren't accidentally hit by Archliches, the Ring of Cold, or some other general plague, if they even get a chance, because Necromancers like to lower morale). On the third turn, the Imps are still fighting, if they survived, of course. The summoned Imps steal 20 mana (if they haven't been wiped out before the turn) and run into battle. The Cherubs steal the same 25 mana, and they simply don't have time to summon anything.

In total, by the third turn, the Imps steal 70 mana, while also being able to fight. By the third turn, the Cherubs will steal 75 mana if their number hasn't decreased. That is, for the sake of argument, on the third turn, you exchange 280 fighting Imps for 5 extra units of mana (and if the Necromancer feels the need to interrupt the mana drain, he will simply blast the Cherubs with bone arrows/Archliches/magic). In my opinion, it's not worth taking Cherubs just to deprive the opponent of mana – they need to be protected, and it's not worth losing a combat unit for dubious gain. By the way, it's unclear how you can determine in advance whether the Cherubs will be able to stand for several turns or not – it all depends on the Necromancer's desire. I can't imagine a battle in which the Necromancer allows his mana to be stolen for more than three turns if it's critical for him.

If there are a lot of Imps by chance (for example, creature dwellings, no losses of Imps against neutrals, joined troops), then due to their speed and with some randomly obtained divine power, the Cherubs can be an excellent unit. Also, if the armies are not too large, and the Cave Lords can still change things with their magic, then the Cherubs will be useful. In all other cases, Imps are more reliable, as they don't miss turns.

P.S. I don't quite understand how Cherubs will prevent the Necromancer from using Spiritual Link? It gives a lot of mana with large armies, and the hero is only pushed back by half a turn. And if the armies are small, then the Cherubs won't steal much mana either.
Besides, you're only looking at Dark spells cast by the Necromancer. Has Chaos been officially banned? Necromancers quite like the Ring of Cold with cold perks.

In reply to Stor

Vadimh

6/19/2015 7:57 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Stor

It says, "a couple of turns." I declare that a couple of turns is not enough.
Let's assume we have 200 Imps and 200 Familiars. In the first turn, the Imps steal 50 mana from the Necromancer and open a gate. In the first turn, the Familiars steal 25 mana and don't summon anyone. In the second turn, the Imps become an independent combat unit (by the way, they are not as vulnerable to general weakening as the Familiars). 80 Imps are summoned (with skillful gate opening). The Familiars steal another 25 mana (if they are not accidentally hit by Archliches or the Ring of Cold, or some other general plague, if they even survive, because Necromancers love to lower morale). In the third turn, the Imps are still fighting, if they survived, of course. The summoned Imps steal 20 mana (if they haven't been wiped out before the turn) and run into battle. The Familiars steal the same 25 mana, and they simply don't have time to summon anything.

In total, by the third turn, the Imps steal 70 mana, while also being able to fight. By the third turn, the Familiars will steal 75 mana if their number has not decreased. That is, for the sake of argument, in the third turn, you exchange 280 fighting Imps for 5 extra units of mana (and if the Necromancer feels the need to stop spending mana, he will simply blast the Familiars with bone arrows/Archliches/magic). In my opinion, it's not worth taking Familiars just to deprive the opponent of mana – they need to be protected, and it's not worth sacrificing a combat unit for dubious gain. By the way, it's unclear how you can determine in advance whether it will be possible for the Familiars to stand for several turns or not – it all depends on the Necromancer's desire. I can't imagine a battle in which the Necromancer allows his mana to be stolen for more than three turns if it's critical for him.

If there are a lot of Imps by chance (for example, creature dwellings, no losses of Imps against neutrals, joined troops), then due to their speed and with some randomly obtained divine power, the Familiars can be an excellent unit. Also, if the armies are not too large, and the Cave Lords can still change things with their magic, then the Familiars will be useful. In all other cases, Imps, which don't miss turns, are more reliable.

P.S. I didn't quite understand how the Familiars would prevent the Necromancer from using Spiritual Link? It gives a lot of mana with large armies, and the hero is only pushed back by half a turn. And if the armies are small, then the Familiars won't pump up much mana either.
Besides, you are only looking at Dark spells cast by the Necromancer. Has Chaos been officially banned? Necromancers quite like the Ring of Cold with cold perks.

The first turn for the Black Imps is also summoning. It is important to maintain distance so that the Necromancer can only hit one stack of Black Imps with one ring. After summoning, there is a rollback of only half a turn. Then 2 mana drains, and they have already drained mana like the Red Imps. If the Necromancer is on the Ring, and he will throw all the rings at a single stack of Imps, then this is already a huge advantage for the Demon. At the same time, it is not so easy to reach the Imps with an army. As a result, the Necromancer either spends precious hero turns fighting two stacks of Imps, or he quickly loses all his mana. And the point against Spiritual Link is that all the new mana will be drained by the Black guys.

Stor

6/19/2015 10:44 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Vadimh

It is important to maintain distance so that the Necromancer can only hit one stack of Black Imps with a single spell.

Vadimh

If the Necromancer is using Chain Lightning, and he keeps casting it on a single stack of Imps, that gives the Demon a huge advantage.

Speaking of Chain Lightning, there's also Lightning Bolt and Meteor Shower. The number of spells needed depends on the size of the stack. 200 Imps can be defeated with two spells (with an amulet), and even after one spell, the Imps won't be able to generate mana as quickly. But when the stack is 500, Chaos magic becomes ineffective. And the Necromancer won't bother developing Chaos magic on a large map; it's better to go for Howl of Terror (which, by the way, makes any Imps useless). By the way, Imps are usually a priority target for neutrals and are eliminated fairly quickly if the hero isn't Delaeb.

Vadimh

After summoning, there's only a half-turn cooldown.

Yes, I forgot to factor that in... and there's also "Quick Portal Opening."

Vadimh

At the same time, it's not that easy to reach the Imps with an army.

If they are standing separately to avoid the Cold Ring, even a dragon can get through. Especially vampires, who can heal well from Imps.

Vadimh

The point against Spiritual Link is that the Imps will drain all the new mana.

Hold on. Let's define the army sizes. If there are 1000 Imps (without summoned ones), the Necromancer needs to deal a little more than 9000 damage per turn to a unit with Spiritual Link to replenish 125 mana per turn, otherwise, it will lose all its mana in two turns. But the trick is that the Necromancer can deal only 1500 damage to the linked stack before his turn, and the mana gained will be enough for one Dark spell, and the Necromancer won't be able to cast more spells in his turn. And let the Imps drain everything to the end; before the next turn, the Necromancer can replenish the mana to the required level for the spell again. On the other hand, since Chaos magic doesn't play any role with such armies, the Imps can be neutralized with Archliches or Bone Archers. I think it will be with one shot, since the Necromancer's army should be many times larger under other conditions.

If there are about 200 Imps, they will drain the Necromancer's mana for at least five turns, without taking Spiritual Link into account. In that time, something can be done to them, and Chaos magic still works.

In general, it all depends on the Necromancer's desire. He definitely has a counter to Imps, and often they will be more useful in attack.

Not that I completely reject such a tactic (Spiritual Link may not even work for the Necromancer), but to always take Imps because of this potential opportunity to put pressure on the enemy...

Vadimh

6/19/2015 11:13 AM UTC

Auto-translated

I'm talking about a quantity of around 200-300. It's not difficult to counter Archliches. There are more problems with archers, that's true. A lot also depends on the starting attributes; Necromancer archers or Demon heroes come out earlier. Melee units generally won't reach the demons in Necropolis. Chaos can be different. If it's a meteor shower, that's bad. If it's a ring, that's a bonus; the damage from a ring to a single target isn't very high. While he's throwing Chaos at the demons, the rest of the army won't take much damage. After all, a ring aimed at one stack of summoned black demons and two stacks of real demons differ significantly in effectiveness. By distracting the hero, the black demons will be more useful.

In reply to Vadimh

Stor

6/20/2015 1:30 AM UTC

Auto-translated

300 is, by the way, a good option for this tactic. They steal mana for 40 already, and spiritual bond doesn't yet provide 20 mana per hit (except for attacks by high-level creatures). Although 10 mana will also be useful - you don't cast control every turn, you can also use blindness and vampirism, and something general. And for 10 mana, it is enough to deal 750 damage between the turn of the imps and the turn of the necromancer, which is not a problem. The main thing is that the necromancer does not go immediately after the imps, but even this can be fixed. But for me, in this discussion, the more interesting question is: what ways can a necromancer have to kill a stack (or at least a large part of it) of creatures with medium priority without using nerves, which are sitting in defense. Let's say these are 300 imps, the necromancer has 20 spellpower (it may be under 30, but at least that much), about 150 mana, and a disproportionately larger number of creatures (there may still be 1000 skeleton archers, but there are definitely no 500 liches). The demons do not have a ring of resistance and the "resistance" perk. Options: 1) Single chaos spells. Ice block: 336 damage, -56 imps (504 with amulet, -84 imps) - insufficient damage, more than 200 imps will remain, I don't take perks into account. Lightning: 420 damage, -70 imps (630 with trident, -105 imps) - with the trident, it's already something, but you still need at least two turns of the hero, which we don't want. Freezing wind: 630 damage, -105 imps (945 with amulet, -157 imps) - with the amulet, it's not so bad, the imps will cost 20 mana each instead of 40. Earth shock: 840 damage, -140 imps (1260 with boots, -210 imps) - already a solid nuke for 18 mana, but it is still impossible to kill everyone at once without increasing spellpower. And the summoned 120 imps still remain a threat, consuming 15 mana each turn. 2) Small area spells. Ring of cold: 336 damage, -56 imps (504 with amulet, -84 imps) - useless, even if you manage to hit someone else. Fireball: 420 damage, -70 imps (630 with cloak, -105 imps) - if you manage to hit someone else, the effect will still be average (but this is unlikely - dogs, horses and imps will run away, succubi, demons and broods will be separated from the imps). 3) Large area spells. Meteor shower: 420 damage, -70 imps (630 with boots, -105 imps) - it will work, you can cover several stacks and slightly reduce the number, especially with boots. If you manage to hit the summoned imps, it will be even better. Chain lightning: 525 damage, -87 imps (788 with trident, -131 imps) - from chaos magic, probably the most effective way after earth shock, but it's still not very desirable to spend two turns. 4) Unexpectedly, a general slow of -40% initiative will delay the moment of parting with mana by almost twice, during this time you can deal with more pressing problems, and it will not be superfluous against demons. Again, unexpectedly, expert sorrow, giving -4 to morale, together with the passive ability of ghost dragons, banshee's cry and, possibly, a ring with -2 to morale; in total, this gives -8 to morale (without the cry of horror), takes one and a half turns of the hero and, in the absence of the lion set for the demons, allows you to postpone the parting with mana by about twice. 5) Spells with gradual damage. General plague: 192 damage per turn, -32 imps (960 damage in five turns, -160 imps) - an interesting tool if you manage to put it on someone else, for example, on the summoned imps. Then you can finish them off, but most of the mana will still be consumed. But it is still desirable to have at least 30 spellpower for this spell. I will also include the plague from 100 archliches (just in case, I will calculate 50 liches). 100 archliches will deal 280 damage per turn, -46 imps (1120 damage in 4 turns, -186 imps) - a normal amount of damage when the liches are blocked. 50 archliches will deal 232 damage per turn, -38 imps (928 damage in 4 turns, -154 imps) - this is a little worse, but still a good option when the liches are blocked. If the hero can simultaneously hit the imps with chaos, then the problem is solved. 6) Control spells. Berserk: an excellent option if cave imps are within range. And remove the retaliation, and kill all the imps. It only takes one turn and 15 mana, and it lasts for two turns, just in case the imps go to their own summoned ones. Blindness: a way to forget about the imps for 5 turns, only the summoned ones remain. During this time, I think you can solve the problems on the front line, and if not, the necromancer will lose even without the imps. Subjugation: lasts 5 turns, reduces initiative by 40%, like with slow, costs 18 mana and one turn of the hero. A quite normal option - subjugate and forget, and also give mana to the liches for the demons. Again, you can subjugate cave imps and then have fun for a long time. 7) Ranged attack. Skeleton archers will naturally outnumber the imps by several times. How many - depends on the course of the game and the overall strategy of the necromancer (maybe he is trying to spend all the resources on vampires). But let's assume that a stack of skeleton archers almost completely destroys a stack of imps, demons are not famous for their defense. One but: it's a pity to waste the archers' turn if there are targets for attack without a penalty. Archliches or higher liches: necromancers usually raise them quite willingly, I think that there will be at least 50 of them for 300 imps. They will definitely destroy the entire stack if they are not blocked. And if someone accidentally ends up next to the imps, they will take damage from the cloud of archliches. 8) Melee attack. Higher vampires or vampire princes: theoretically, they can go into the back rows on the second turn and kill the stack in one hit. But it's not worth doing this on the first turn, because the archdevils may not have gone yet. But when the vampire stack is battered, going to heal on the imps is the best thing to do. Healing will be most effective on them, but it will not happen earlier than the third turn. Skipping a turn with vampires can be critical, but if the hero has managed to cast a general slow, then it is worth it. Spirits or ghosts: spirits can theoretically attack imps on the second turn, but they will not be able to kill everyone almost certainly. At most, they will kill half. Moreover, there are not many spirits. Ghosts may not even reach the second turn. Unexpectedly, ghost or astral dragons. They don't have much to do there, but if the imps are berserk, the dragons can move away for safety. They will not kill the stack of imps in one hit until the second turn. I will not rely on death messengers, and, of course, not on zombies. And, of course, a lot depends on the preparation for the battle. If the necromancer sees imps and cave imps, he will suspect either this tactic or boots of speed / aura of speed. He probably won't cast spells on the imps on the first turn, but then nothing prevents him from dealing with the problem if it becomes very acute. In any case, the imps can help to win when everything is going towards it, but they will not save from defeat. We remember the trick with spiritual bond)))

Magistar

6/25/2015 8:19 PM UTC

Auto-translated

It's time to finish writing about the rest.

Haven:
1. I prefer stunning over the ability to deal additional damage, but I prefer stunning more. These units are weak, and it's better for them to avoid being captured, so I prefer the older versions.
2. Here, I prefer the newer versions. Shooting without a penalty significantly increases damage, and stronger close-range attacks rarely provide much benefit.
3. Both options are good, but the older versions are worth taking only against armies with strong archers, like the Forest Alliance, to protect important units. Otherwise, I take the newer versions more often, as they deal good damage with two attacks.
4. This is a difficult choice. The advantage of the new griffins is that they return to their original position, unlike the old ones, which could end up impaled on stakes or in the enemy's clutches, where they would be immediately captured. Also, the new ones are more durable and deal more damage with a counterattack, which is useful with continuous retaliation. However, the old ones have much better initiative and can fly multiple times, which greatly helps in leveling up against tough monsters like ents and hydras. With acceleration, they could dive on them several times before they move, and I practically won battles thanks to them. So, it depends on the situation; both options will work.
5. The new ones shoot slightly harder and remove buffs, which might be a little more useful, although the old ones buff better.
6. The new ones are better only against armies where you need to target hidden archers; otherwise, I usually take the old ones, as laying on of hands is sometimes very useful, and immunity to berserk is always a plus.
7. Resurrection is always good to have in an army, and the old ones don't have damage variance, which is also good. However, on the other hand, the large damage variance of the new ones can be used to your advantage with divine power, and then no seventh-level creature can compare to them in damage, and divine retribution will also be effective towards the end of the battle. So, the new ones can definitely be taken.

Stronghold:
1. The new ones are more suitable for protecting archers, but I prefer the old ones.
2. Here, too, I prefer the old ones, as it's more useful to significantly reduce the speed of particularly fast units than to pull someone one square closer. In addition, they also provide decent defense in melee combat.
3. Both options are good here, but I like the abilities of the new ones more. They not only scare the main target but can also scare nearby units, which can be a good way to disrupt the enemy's formation and push many back on the initiative scale. However, fear doesn't work on everyone, so sometimes a paw attack might be better.
4. Here, too, I prefer the new ones. The old ones are good with their enhanced and retaliatory attack, but the new ones deal better damage to large monsters, increase stats when taking damage, and can stun. I think that, overall, the new ones have more advantages.
5. I also lean towards the new ones. Launching two fireballs is better than one wall of fire. True, there's no crossfire attack, but they deal more damage to a single target.
6. But here, something seems off. Previously, there were only lightning-based ones, and now they've been put in the new column, while the fire-based ones have been put with the old ones. The Yarls are better against a single target, although sometimes there's a fire wave, but it's not as strong. The Erls are well-suited against many units, especially if you have the rune of battle rage and there are many enemies nearby. The low damage is compensated for by the double attack, although, as I said, the Yarls are better against a single unit.
7. Closer to the old ones. Sometimes it's fun to start a fire on the battlefield, especially since the dwarves have many units with fire immunity, but I like the fire shield more; it makes life difficult for melee units. And the old dragons are more durable.

Academy:
1. I like the old ones more, due to the repair ability. Although sometimes delaying the machines is useful, for example, when defending a castle.
2. Here, the old ones are clearly better. The new ones have some kind of vague ability. Slightly increasing damage and scattering your own units doesn't make much sense, especially since there's a risk that their attack will harm your own units if they cast a mass spell at the beginning of the battle before they move. But the old ones, which have good defense and immunity to three schools of magic, are good for blocking enemy archers.
3. I prefer the new ones more. Although I also like the old ones for their continuous retaliation, with the new ones, you can have a lot of fun with spells, including Armageddon.
4. Closer to the old ones. They have a larger arsenal of spells, and the new ones don't even have a fireball. Although with the new ones, you can shoot well under cover, and with a large army, this can be more beneficial.
5. Although the old ones are fun, their spellcasting is unpredictable: sometimes they cast something useful, and sometimes not. The new ones only have luck manipulation, so you don't have to worry about them casting something inappropriate. And the new ones are also more resistant to spells. In the end: with a successful spell, the old ones will be better, but that doesn't always happen, so the choice is quite debatable.
6. Still, I lean towards the old ones, as a retaliatory attack helps a lot. But there are cases when hitting multiple targets is more effective. Again, it depends on the situation.
7. Surprisingly, both upgrades have absolutely identical stats. The only difference is in the special ability, so both options are good. The old one can reach a target even when blocked, and the new one can slightly spoil the archers' day with its thunderstorm. It's hard to say which is better here.

Necropolis:
1. I must say that the new ones have good stats. They have increased protection against everything, cover, and a stunning attack. Although they are better than the old ones when sieging a castle, otherwise, it's worth playing with the new ones.
2. There isn't much difference here, although the new ones are slightly more durable, and the aura is good, so I lean towards them.
3. It depends on the situation. In some armies where there are sorcerers, the old ones are more suitable. Otherwise, you can use the new ones.
4. Somehow, I'm more used to the old ones. It's better to heal when they don't get stunned. The new ones don't always get stunned, but it might not work. But the new ones can sometimes effectively take enemy units out of action, but again, they won't be able to neutralize all enemies, and sometimes a tent can heal paralyzed units. So, the new ones are applicable, but not always.
5. Overall, I like the old ones more. The damage from the cloud helps against a crowd, and the plague is also useful. But the new ones can temporarily replace the hero and revive their own units, which is also good. Maybe you can play with the new ones at the beginning, but otherwise, I prefer the old ones.
6. Here, I prefer the old ones. Against high-level units, touch is very helpful, and the new ones' spell might only do something useful at high levels and with good armies, but then it might be worth taking them.
7. Both options are good; it's hard to determine which is more effective, but I like the new ones more.

Феникс50

1/31/2016 4:56 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I'm not an expert in Heroes, but I've played quite a bit, including the fifth installment. I'll try to describe my preferences. Human Castle: 1) I always took Militia, the basic unit. The ability to critically hit and push back an enemy stack is more useful than hitting twice. Even three times won't help; there's no damage. 2) Definitely the new ones with direct attacks at any range. The ability of the old ones is too situational. 3) I also prefer the old ones. Protecting allies from ranged attacks and, again, the critical hit is more appealing to me. But the new ones are also viable; I took them in some cases. 4) A difficult choice. As a combat unit, the new one is definitely better, but the initiative... In general, it depends on the situation. In a hero's army, the old ones are still preferable. In siege battles, when playing defensively, in castles – only the new ones. 5) I didn't see much difference between them, but I preferred the new ones. They have stronger attacks and cast a punishing strike. I took them. 6) The new ones. The ability to damage two stacks at once is worth it, and I think, if I'm not mistaken, the red ones had stronger attacks. 7) Archangels. They provide healing and more consistent damage. Undead: 1) It's a tough choice. On the one hand, they're a very strong unit (for a level 1 unit), and on the other, they're archers. If you've upgraded Battle Frenzy or have that ability that gives +1 damage (or both), I take the archers. If not, I take the new ones. Although I always try to take the new ones, just for a small stack to protect the army from ranged attacks. 2) Only the old ones. They have more damage and the ability to inflict weakness. The new ones are just cannon fodder. 3) I didn't see much difference; I took the colorless, old ones. They're practically the same. 4) The new ones. They're basically overpowered. They constantly cast Stun, almost always. Considering their increased speed and HP, the choice is almost obvious. 5) In the early stages, I took the new ones, for the resurrection ability, and so on. In the later stages, I took the ones with area-of-effect attacks. 6) The old ones. They have slightly more damage, and their ability is much more practical. I still remember a battle where I won solely because of that ability. 7) I took the old ones. It's just more familiar, they're slightly stronger, and they curse. Although the new ones with their sorrow are also quite good. Dwarves: 1) The old upgrade. They have a very good ability to reduce damage based on distance. But the new ones can also be useful, as they protect against ranged attacks. 2) Again, the old ones. The new ones are only better with higher damage, but if you upgrade Battle Frenzy or that ability, the difference isn't so noticeable. And the ability to cripple and deal good damage up close is very cool for a ranged unit. 3) I took the ones that attack with their hand. After moving 5 squares, there's a 100% chance of hitting with their hand, especially with a more favorable stack size ratio. Importantly, it affects everyone, unlike the roar. 4) The white ones that critically hit. And in general, they're stronger. 5) Both are good in principle, but I took the ones with stronger attacks against a single target and a fire ball. Although launching a wall of fire to stun ranged units is also cool. 6) As a rule, I chose the Erls, the ones with fire. Although the alt is definitely good. And with a mass attack rune in a crowd... 7) The old ones are more interesting. They have more defense and a fire shield. They're just an impenetrable wall. It's a shame they only attack once per battle. Inferno: 1) The standard option. They hit harder and steal mana more effectively. 2) Definitely the alt. Thanks to the jump, they're actually useful. 3) It depends on the situation. But usually the alt; if you manage to get them into the thick of things, they'll deal damage to the entire army. 4) Probably also the alt. Subjugation is an interesting ability. 5) The alt. The aura with damage is very effective. 6) In the beginning, the standard ones, later the alt. I think it's obvious why. 7) Probably the old ones. Although the new one is tougher, -1 to initiative and speed... no. Elves: 1) In the beginning, the old ones because of their swarm, later the new ones. They're stronger, and the mutual healing with Ents is a good thing. 2) Only the new ones. They're a very strong unit; the old ones die like flies under a fumigator. 3) Only the new ones. The choice is so obvious that it's almost embarrassing. Even with a bow, the new ones will still win when attacking medium units. There's no question about high-level opponents. The old ones will only win if they're attacking a lot of level 1 units and have a bow. But that's a very situational thing. 4) In the beginning, the old ones because of magic, later the new ones. 5) I didn't see much difference between the horses, but I prefer the old ones; they suppress magic well. 6) Only the old ones. The purpose of the tree is to protect the archers. The longer it lives, the better. 7) Usually the old ones. The new ones are unpredictable because of their random breath; they can even hurt their own units. Dark Elves: 1) In the beginning, the new ones, it's very convenient to harass neutrals. Later, I take the old ones, to shoot and poison. Especially if they have a bow. 2) The old ones. Initiative is more important than HP for this unit. 3) The new ones. They're tougher in defense and better suited for me. 4) Only the old ones. This helicopter is no comparison to the charge. 5) Probably the new ones. They're faster and spray acid. They're somehow more dangerous. 6) The old ones. At least one archer should be there. 7) It depends on the situation. The red ones are also interesting, and quite a lot. Cast vampirism, and the dragon is practically unkillable. Mages: 1) Probably the new ones. They seem to be stronger, if I'm not mistaken. And sometimes it's useful to blow away a dangerous ballista or catapult during a siege. 2) The old ones. The new ones have strange abilities. 3) Also the old ones. Endless retaliation is great. 4) I took the ones with the fireball. Because of the fireball. 5) The new ones. They're tougher and seem to fly further and can reach the enemy immediately, unlike the old ones. And they even look nicer. 6) As a rule, I took the Rakshasa, the sweeping attack is really cool. 7) They're the same, but the blue one's cloud isn't very good; the old ones are more effective with lightning. Orcs: 1) The ones with the trap are somehow more interesting. They're more useful; reducing the path by 1 square is enough to prevent the most dangerous stacks with a speed of 8 from reaching you. 2) They're practically the same, but I took the ones that don't have a penalty in melee combat. 3) I took the Warg... well, you know. When they get pumped up with rage, they become practically unkillable. And the ability to deflect an attack is also quite interesting. But only the old ones for attack builds. 4) I took the ones without lightning. They cast some kind of nasty spell with each attack, which is great. 5) The leaders are more interesting. They're more durable, they boost initiative, and they have a good ability. 6) The Paokai. For the mass attack. 7) The ones with the eye. The guys with the club can destroy their own army, and I don't want to have to replay battles 10 times because of that. And the luck reduction is also great.