Developing a Necromancer hero. — Necropolis

Ment

6/13/2015 8:02 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Why are melee units better than archers? If you don't take archers, the only archer stack you'll have is liches, and they're large and easily blocked. But even if skeletons deal little damage, they can play a very good role in a direct attack.

I think Vadimh's point was that in a battle against another player, the presence or absence of an archer stack isn't that important; what matters more is the attack power of the unit. And Necromancers always have a lot of skeletons, so they can be used alongside zombies as cannon fodder.
However, archers are needed against neutral creatures. It's not that you can't do without them, but it's better to have them...

К А
Стикеры GBF в Telegram

In reply to Ment

Vadimh

6/13/2015 10:14 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Alek-Smolin

As I said, I usually play as the Dark faction. It's more important to spend a turn using a powerful Dark spell than summoning Stone Golems at an advanced level.

Necromancers always need magic, that's obvious. Stone Golems allow you to withstand much more damage; they are worth spending half a hero's turn on.

Alek-Smolin

Vampires are already doing their job well, at least in all my time playing Heroes, I've never had any complaints about them)
And why are melee units better than archers? If you don't take archers, the only archer stack will be Liches, and they are large and easily blocked. And even if skeletons deal little damage, they can play a very good role in direct combat.

When Vampires start spawning not just often, but almost always. This is very pleasant. And the new skeletons have the plate armor shield, which greatly increases the army's survivability, they themselves have much higher damage, frequent stuns, even without a soldier skill due to their high total HP, and with a soldier skill, they completely prevent the enemy from moving. A small bonus in the form of chaos resistance, which is quite unpleasant for Necromancers. All of this is clearly better than ranged attacks.

Alek-Smolin

Yes, they are strong, but the essence of summoning magic is not only in summoning))
Just look at raising the dead, especially when you need to minimize losses, and when you are besieging a Castle, you don't even need a catapult anymore because of Earthquake.

Without spells, the hero will fall far behind in attack bonus on all these resurrections, earthquakes, and so on. In sieges, the Necromancer fights with magic. If the enemy doesn't have Chaos, then you don't even need to go behind their walls. With Darkness, disable the archers, for example, cast Plague, and the enemy will come out on their own. And in general, it's strange that you find time for several casts of useless Earthquake with a 1.0 attack bonus reduction, but not for one Stone Golem with a 0.5 attack bonus reduction.

In reply to Vadimh

Alek-Smolin

6/13/2015 6:44 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Vadimh

Without spells, the hero will be severely disadvantaged in attack and defense against all these resurrection spells, earthquakes, and so on. During sieges, Necromancers fight using magic. If the enemy doesn't have Chaos magic, there's no need to attack behind their walls. Use Darkness to disable archers, inflict plague, and the enemy will come out on their own. And it's strange that you find time for several useless earthquake spells with a 1.0 knockback, but not for a single stone skin spell with a 0.5 knockback.

Summoning is always used in conjunction with spells; if you only play with mass Darkness, they are useless.

As for skeletons... I'll probably play a few games with them, focusing on soldiers, and then I'll continue arguing, because you've really intrigued me with the advantages of skeletons))

Added after 6 hours 55 minutes
In general, I tried this build, and I don't want to anymore)).
Fortune is too fickle a mistress, and she clearly doesn't favor me, or maybe I'm just an incorrigible noob)).
Be that as it may, I'll stick to my favorite Darkness and continue to hate Imps

Асха все обращает на пользу!