Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Harmony - Troop SymmetryAuto-translated
In what standard maps for Single-player Adventure is resurrection not useful?
You don't understand...
"In simple terms"... You have one type of gameplay: "run - kill neutrals - win." This is a ready-made solution that you want to apply to win. I believe that the game should provide the player with options; he should come up with what needs to be done to win. That is, for example, the option: "run - kill neutrals - lose troops... but the experience gained is less than the troops the opponent saved" - you don't even consider it. Of course, the Single-player Adventure "on resurrection" will be strong, but it will create a linear game with one way to play (a monotonous tactic).
"Guardian Angel" is a magic skill, not a human one.
This is specifically a "human" skill; besides Knights, no one else has access to it. And what exactly did you mean by this comparison? That humans can't wield magic, or what?
Indeed, who else but its people should possess it – we are talking about the magic of light – the magic of Elrath.
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
"In simple terms"... You have one type of gameplay: "run, kill neutrals, win." This is a ready-made solution that you are eager to apply to achieve victory. I believe that the game should offer the player options; he should come up with what needs to be done to win. That is, for example, the option: "run, kill neutrals, lose troops... but the experience gained is less valuable than the troops the opponent saved" - you don't even consider it. Of course, the "resurrection" ability will be strong, but it will create a linear game with only one way to play (a monotonous tactic).
I don't understand what the difference is at all; in both options, you run, kill neutrals, and win the final battle. Where did these "different strategies" come from?
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
the skills of humans are those used by units of the human race. The fact that "Guardian Angel" is only available to humans does not mean that they create it. It simply means that someone (angels) creates it for humans. Magic is magic, and not a skill. And Special Ability is a racial ability.SRD
we are talking about light magic - the magic of Erathia
not long ago, I suggested assigning a school to a race. but this is not the case yet...
Besides: the fact that the ability is in the School of Light Magic does not mean that it comes from that school. For example: the ability of a simple ballista is in "attack"...
https://yadi.sk/d/k3FGkrx8swxoV The faceless ones are ready; they replace Hydras in the Dungeon faction, but they are level 6.
Thank you very much – excellent work, but there are a couple of comments: firstly, the faceless assassins still attack in a 180-degree arc like Hydras (this skill is not listed in the creature's characteristics, but it actually remains from the Hydras); secondly, I didn't see the corpse of the killed faceless ones (how do you resurrect it then?).
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
human skills are those used by the units of a race. The fact that "Guardian Angel" is only available to humans doesn't mean they create it. It simply means that someone (angels) creates it for humans. Magic is magic, not skills. And Special Ability is a racial ability.
Did you decide this yourselves? Well, okay, your logic is understandable, but I'm afraid the mod authors won't support it. I'm also curious how the Guardian was supposed to function for the Seraphim, considering that for it to work, the entire hero's army has to be dead.
I don't understand what the difference is at all; in both cases, I ran, killed the neutrals, and won the final battle. Where did these "different strategies" come from?
Describing different game situations is not just a matter of a few words... I won't take that on.
For example: It's not always beneficial to attack immediately. Sometimes it's more profitable to play by buying troops: gather troops, defeat a neutral unit, and you're in the plus. And sometimes: invest money in development, and you're in a bigger plus than from the bonus for killing a neutral unit. You want to increase the benefit of one solution – attacking.
Added 4 minutes later serovoy
I'm also curious how the Guardian was supposed to function for the Seraphs, considering that for it to work, the entire hero's army must be dead.
It should work as a single cast per battle on a selected unit. The unit dies – a part of it is resurrected (depending on the strength of the Seraphs' stack)
The tactic of not investing in an army, but instead focusing on development, is not very good because at any moment a plague week can occur, and the progress made over a couple of weeks will simply be lost. This is similar to: "Come on, enemy! Take my built-up city; I have no army, and I'm defenseless."
I don't understand why the game is being dragged out. The essence of the battle is war; the goal is victory, not developing the city, leveling up an overpowered hero, and aimlessly wandering around with a huge army, engaging in what is called a "total clearing." I really don't like how often everything is reduced to the final battle. For example, I watched several streams from this group http://vk.com/tgamev, and the players almost always limit themselves to the final battle. Where is the strategy in that? Yes, there is a tactical element, but the rest is boring and monotonous – just beating up AI-controlled mobs, and only one player-versus-player battle, which ends the game. The strategic importance of objects such as cities and garrisons is completely absent. It's as if people are playing together (and not just beating up AI), but at the same time, they rarely interact with each other, and 99% of the time they don't even cross paths. Where is the capturing of cities, the attempts to hold them, the loss of a city, its recapture, the encirclement of the enemy, and conversely, attempts to escape from him, break away, and reach the coveted goal? With all of the above, you need not one army with all its troops and an overpowered hero, but at least three or four. I personally used to solve this problem in a different way – I limited the hero's level; the army became strong more due to the number of warriors than due to the infamous overpowered hero. This increased the value of dwellings and cities. It is impossible for one hero to hold many cities on a non-linear map, so you have to have several armies. This, in my humble opinion, is strategy.
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
The tactic of not building up an army, but instead investing in development, isn't very good because at any moment a plague week can happen, and the growth accumulated over a couple of weeks will simply be lost – it's like saying: "Come on, enemy! Take my built-up city, I have no army, and I'm defenseless."
7 days is a long time. Besides, 1-2 units of level 6, and especially level 7, can mean much more than several smaller unit reinforcements (especially considering the advantage of having more than one battle). For example, 2 Paladins can win a battle in which units of levels 1-3 would lose. And the opponent still has to get there. If the map is bare, then of course. But if not? Rebuilding a city is something that should be done in the first month, not in the middle of the game. Although, maybe on lower difficulty levels, the hero is... I haven't played on those. There, the neutrals are weaker, right?
Added 2 minutes later SRD
Why prolong the game – I don't understand. The essence of the battle is war, the goal is victory.
Personally, I've heard that "Heroes" is positioned as "tactics," not a brawl. And tactics are not only the final battle (neutrals are not essential), but also actions on the map.
7 days is a long time. Besides, 1-2 units of level 6, and even more so level 7, can mean much more than several reinforcements of lower-level units (especially considering more than one battle). For example, 2 Paladins can win a battle in which units of levels 1-3 would lose. And the opponent still needs to get there. If the map is bare, then of course. But if not? Building up a town is something that happens in the first month, not in the middle of the game. Although, maybe on lower difficulties the hero is... I haven't played on them. Aren't the neutrals weaker there?
Sorry, but no comments... kiko
personally, I've heard that "Heroes" is positioned as a "tactics" game, not a brawl. And tactics are not only the final battle (neutrals are not essential), but also actions on the map.
"Heroes" is positioned as a STRATEGY game!!! (I hope you understand the difference between strategy and tactics).
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
"Heroes" is positioned as a STRATEGY game!!! (I hope you understand the difference between strategy and tactics)
1. It's okay... without comments, there won't be a discussion (it's up to you) 2. And what's the point of what you wrote? Okay, tactics are part of strategy. "Strategy" (Ancient Greek: στρατηγία – "art of the general") is the science of war. "Tactics" (Ancient Greek: τακτικός "relating to the arrangement of troops," from τάξις "order and arrangement") is a component of military art.
Okay, I misspoke. But it's clear what I meant by "strategy," right? Or is it you (everyone is so polite these days :) ) who doesn't understand the meaning of these words?
Now, please read message #609 again – I mentioned there that Heroes is primarily a strategy game, and playing a single final battle is not a strategy at all (it's more like a duel mode).
... И древний лес, роскошен и печален, Блистает там воздушностью прогалин. Но между кедров, полных тишиной, Расщелина по склону ниспадала. О, никогда под бледною луной Так пышен не был тот уют лесной...
Now, read message #609 again – I wrote there that Heroes is primarily a strategy game, and playing a single final battle is not a strategy at all (it's more like a duel mode).
You wrote there...SRD
...I really don't like how often everything is reduced to a final battle. Here's an example: I watched several streams from this group http://vk.com/tgamev – and there, people almost always limit themselves to the final battle, and what strategy is there, tell me? – Yes, there is a tactical part, but the rest is boring and monotonous, just beating AI-controlled mobs, and only one player-versus-player battle – and the game ends with the final battle. The strategic importance of objects like cities and garrisons is completely absent. It's as if people are playing together (and not just beating AI), but 99% of the time they don't interact with each other. Where is the capture of cities, attempts to hold them, the loss of a city, its recapture, surrounding the enemy, and conversely, attempts to escape from them, break through, and reach the coveted goal...
Maybe you should read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. ...then you'll understand (what you wrote)
For example: It's not always beneficial to attack immediately. Sometimes, it's more advantageous to focus on recruiting troops: gather your forces, defeat a neutral unit, and you're in a better position. And sometimes: invest money in development, and you'll be in a better position than if you just got the reward for killing a neutral unit.
The same applies to a strategy involving resurrection. It doesn't eliminate losses entirely; it only reduces them by half. So, significant losses still remain significant. Essentially, resurrection provides the opportunity to defeat stronger neutral units earlier with the same level of losses. For example, defeating 100 hypothetical Hydras without resurrection might result in the same losses as defeating 120 hypothetical Hydras with resurrection.
Moreover, even if we accept this point of view, developing in the single-player campaign is already a deliberately chosen strategy. Why should it be applicable to all decisions?
Added 4 minutes later kiko
Building up a town is something you do in the first month, not in the mid-game.
In the first month, the mid-game, or even the end-game often begins. The clear end-game is when everything is built, and there's nowhere else to expand, and you just accumulate troops (the most tedious part).
Разработчик Heroes 5.5 WarGame Edition. Сайт проекта - пока неактивен Автор Асимметричных шахмат
kiko
