Posts from Which faction is stronger, or a template for comparing cities based on their strength!

I studied several topics comparing cities based on their strength, after which I had an irresistible desire to create a template, using which, dear Heroes fans, will be able to most effectively "analyze" cities in the context of their confrontation. In other words, the emergence of the template is due to the loss and failure to take into account many factors that, to a greater or lesser extent, affect the balance in the confrontation. I ask you, dear reader, to help with criticism and possible additions to the template. As they say, I am striving for the common good. I will clarify that the comparison should be complete, without excluding obviously strong heroes of the city from the list (usually such heroes are prohibited in tournaments). That is, we compare everything, and based on the data obtained, we draw a general conclusion, which, as far as I can tell, by definition cannot be unambiguous. There are too many "buts" in the game. Please do not forget about this. I think that the strength of the players for these cities should be equal, to reiterate the obvious. So, when comparing cities in terms of strength, in my opinion, it is necessary to highlight the following important points. a) The resource intensity of the city, i.e., the total cost of "upgraded" creatures from level 1 to level 7 (gold and resources). This should also include those buildings that are necessary for the construction of creatures, but are not creatures themselves. b) The features of the city (special buildings) that are specific to it and that can potentially and actually give the city an advantage in the early, mid, or late game of the confrontation. c) Guild of Mages. d) What does building the Grail give? Introduced for the most complete coverage of the problem of confrontation. After all, the possibility of building the Grail is not ruled out. General conclusion about the cities. Comparison of heroes based on their specializations, innate secondary skills, and innate spells. Separate highlighting of heroes that are specific to this city (or something similar is missing from the opponent). A conclusion is drawn about the heroes. a) The total resource intensity of the units, i.e., the total cost of upgraded units (gold, resource for level 7) from level 1 to level 7. b) Average speed, average damage (for those with a "gap" in damage, we take the average value), average number of hit points of a fully upgraded army. This is obtained by adding the specified characteristics of all seven units, and the result is divided by 7. Let the numbers be fractional, but this indicator can provide significant assistance in comparison. We are studying, so to speak, one average virtual unit. c) Unique abilities of units that are specific to this type of city. Indicate the obvious leaders and outsiders among the units. d) Comparison of units at each level separately. Then, here, a conclusion is drawn about the combat effectiveness of the army as a whole, since a situation may arise, and sometimes does arise, when one unit tips the scales of the balance in favor of its city. But a separate analysis is also necessary, since it provides a detailed picture. A general conclusion is drawn about the units. Comparison of cities in their confrontation on the following maps: a) S, M (S can be excluded). b) L, XL (there is practically no difference). c) Random (no comment). The influence of the landscape, possible features of the map on development and confrontation. Conclusion. Here, we discuss tactical subtleties specific to this confrontation, taking into account the characteristics of units, heroes, spells, and artifacts (using the information obtained above). We talk about strategies and counter-strategies. A general global conclusion is drawn using all the information. I repeat that the conclusion may not necessarily be unambiguous, and considering my experience, I can say that it will always be ambiguous!!! There are enough nuances in the game - you understand. Thank you for your attention! I look forward to criticism and suggestions. Sincerely, Dmitry_A_S

The topic is interesting; I also used to think about it a lot. However, I think we should consider not just one specific castle, but pairs of them. Let me explain with an example. In my experience (which is subjective and just an example in this thread), it turned out that the Swamp beats the Stronghold, but loses to the Tower. The Tower beats the Stronghold, but loses to the Swamp. The Swamp beats the Tower, but loses to the Stronghold. Again, please don't criticize the example; everyone has their own approach, but haven't you observed similar situations?

Your opinion is clear. How many castles to take for comparison is up to those who are actually doing the comparison (from the topic, it seems clear that if desired, you can compare two or more castles - it doesn't matter).
The main thing is that the conclusion will always be ambiguous, which you have confirmed with a clear example.

Yes, it would be VERY interesting to see the results of the castle analysis. And additionally: comparative characteristics of pairs of castles, as suggested by Lord-Aries.

Yes, it would be VERY interesting to see the results of the castle analysis. And additionally: comparative characteristics of castle pairs, as suggested by Lord-Aries.

The characteristics of pairs can be calculated... 36, if my arithmetic is correct...
There is also a suggestion regarding comparison with a neutral virtual castle (I read somewhere that forum users managed to find out the level of neutral castles...) --- it's a bit of a crazy idea... but still...

I was curious to see who would be brave enough to take on this task.

I would venture to add that comparing cities in terms of strength could be done on a specific, individual map. Then, the entire analysis could be tied to the existing, fixed circumstances established by the map creator. Otherwise, each parameter that can be discussed does not have a constant "weight" (significance) in general. For example, let's take a hero like Gem. She has a very valuable innate ability – the ability to summon a boat. So, on a map where summoning boats is prohibited in the map settings, Gem will have a very high value. On a map without water, she will have practically none... What conclusion can be drawn from this? We need to assess which type of map is more common – with water or without water... :) After that, it all becomes a complete absurdity – from a mathematical and logical point of view, the problem is fundamentally unsolvable, and from the point of view of the assessments and feelings of individual players, there will be no consensus... So, even if a template is developed in detail (which seems possible), it will not be applicable in practice. Not at all...

Thank you for your feedback, AmberSoler! I will take your opinion into account. However, you should understand that the aspect you suggested, I had in mind in the section about heroes (in your example - innate hero spells) and maps (I meant - the landscape). What you provided as an example, in my opinion, can easily fit into the existing framework (a global conclusion implies this). This is obvious to me (if you had carefully studied the post, it would be obvious to you too). The question that arises from you (given the conclusions you have drawn) is - why did I do this? Read the posts comparing cities... Regarding a specific map for comparison - this is an ideal case. Specificity eliminates many things in the comparison and adds nuances, taking into account the data already obtained according to the template (or do you have a Gem without troops, etc.?). It is interesting what you think I mean when I say that the conclusion will be ambiguous. Well, finally, I will say that you do not fully understand the meaning and practicality of this template. The practicality here lies in weighing all the pros and cons. Assessing the advantages and disadvantages of castles (without missing anything). And if you wish, taking into account specific features (maps, heroes, etc.), apply the template to specifics. For clarity, I will give an example with your Physmig. Let's take the section - analysis of the effectiveness of units of each castle and the overall impression. It is obvious to me that the effectiveness of a particular unit can be highly dependent on specifics. And your conclusion that "at first glance, the human army will easily defeat an equally powerful necromancer hero" (presumably referring to the army of the necromancer hero) in relation to specific map features, where equally powerful troops cannot exist in principle, looks "impractical," as does the entire section where the effectiveness of units in general is considered. But the whole point is that this information is valuable in itself, in general (your overall impression), regardless of a specific case. And already using the information obtained, everyone can apply it in a specific case. P.S. I had the opportunity to thank you for Physmig. Thank you again for your feedback. Sincerely

I won't ask "why are you doing this?", but I'll share my opinion:
1) Opinions about the strength of different factions have always been and remain ambiguous, but in general, the picture is clear to most... what will this template give? ... because most likely, the difference in some areas will be within 5%-10%, and things like "skill," "opponent compatibility," and "luck" play a much larger role in the overall result.
Although, on the other hand, considering the nuances of the game, individual points may have a greater/lesser effect in different situations....
2) How can "reasoning" be divided into several separate points?

Thank you for your feedback. 1. Please read the preface more carefully, as this is essentially a collection of information, nothing more. Accurate information will allow for fewer errors when comparing cities. Essentially, comparing cities is a discussion, and this template will help to discuss it in more detail, without the risk of missing anything. 2. What do you consider to be balance then? I would like to know more specifically what confuses you about the template or what might confuse others. The subjective factors you mentioned are not discussed here, because what is the point of having such discussions if everything you listed is, by definition, equal? Thank you for your feedback. Sincerely.

Thank you for your feedback.
1. Please read the preface more carefully, as it is essentially a collection of information, nothing more. Accurate information will allow for fewer errors when comparing cities. In essence, comparing cities is a discussion, and this template will help to discuss it in more detail, without the risk of missing anything.
2. What do you consider balance to be?

I would like to know more specifically what confuses you about the template or what might confuse others.
The subjective factors you mentioned are not discussed here, because what is the point of having such discussions if everything you listed is, by definition, equal?
Thank you for your feedback.
Sincerely.

I reread the preface, but I still don't understand how it (the template) will help.
It reduces the risk of missing something to "0". But such data as the cost of units, etc., is already known – it's in your head (of course, you may not have all the data or there may be inaccuracies). But I'm trying to convey the opinion that if the cost of a griffin, for example, is not 200 gold, but 240 gold, what will that change?
2) For me, balance is a kind of equality of all races, regardless of the specific situation, taking into account all the points you listed... but what is the proportion of these points?
The template doesn't confuse me, as I perceive it as informational. But firstly, not everyone perceives it that way, and secondly, if you ever come to some conclusion, what specific case will you refer to? Or are you planning to create some kind of universal analysis?

You correctly grasped the essence this time. The template is needed precisely to ensure that, when comparing (even if abstractly, in the absence of specific data), nothing is overlooked, and I already mentioned this above. Comparison without specifics is generally an unrewarding task, but it is invaluable as a means of gathering information (precisely because of its ability to collect it comprehensively). In other words, information collected using a template takes into account all the nuances of the game without considering those subjective factors that you have already mentioned (player skill, map, luck, etc.). As you rightly pointed out, without specific data, this is nothing more than a general analysis of a universal nature, which, nevertheless, can be useful to many, and this is more than obvious. P.

p.s. You didn't answer the question - how could a template potentially confuse others, since we are talking about (confusion)?
Respectfully

Well, I thought it was obvious from my post:

[/QUOTE] (The template doesn't confuse me because I perceive it as information. But first of all, not everyone perceives it that way, and secondly, if you ever reach some result, which specific case will you tie it to? Or are you planning to perform some kind of universal analysis?) [/QUOTE]

Not all players (especially beginners) will perceive it adequately, because as you already said - this is a collection of information, and information, until analyzed, remains just information. Where is the guarantee that in practice the results will correspond to the theory of the template? (at least partially)

You have somewhat exaggerated the obviousness of your conclusion, because if, based on correctly collected data (and the template helps to collect all the data, which is its purpose), you or someone else makes an incorrect conclusion (which will be an acknowledged fact), then the template will not be to blame, but rather you yourself.
This is more than obvious.
I repeat, the purpose of the template is to help collect complete information about cities, and the conclusion is, of course, made by the person comparing the data. In this case, the subjective factor of the person cannot be avoided; this is a fact.
Sincerely.

Okay, then everything is clear!
1. The title bothered me (especially the first two words).
2. And the phrases about "analysis" and "conclusions" did too.

P.S. Whether it will be useful depends on how it is done, but in any case, it will be faster to find some details (nuances) with it than to do it manually...
...I remember... I once wrote down the parameters and cost of all units from all castles... but that was a long time ago, and it was on paper...
You're welcome!