In which city is the alt upgrade more balanced? — General: Tribes of the East

Мститель

17 years ago

Auto-translated

Fire elementals have significantly higher stats, so they deal more damage to a single target than electric elementals. But, to be honest, I rarely use fire elementals.

In reply to LordViRuS

Nightwell

17 years ago

Auto-translated

LordViRuS;201250

I agree. Dwarves have the most balanced units, although it's still not perfect. For example, with the "Tans," I always choose the electric ones, and I don't know of any cases where the fire ones would be better.

There's always one oddball in the family)
It couldn't be that there was 100% balance; that would be too much to ask.

Utiferus

9 years ago

Auto-translated

It seems like the Great Horde. Because all the troops are designed for different situations: for example, trappers to slow down fast creatures, and goblin warlocks against mages. Or orcish fighters for assault, and warmongers for defense.

Ment

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Order: archers >> crossbowmen, spearmen > zealots, archangels > seraphs
League: hunters >> assassins, 1st tier of lizard riders >> 2nd, similarly with hydras
Conflux: wind elementals > death elementals, archers >> masters
Horde: paoka >> dark wyverns, warmongers are slightly better than fighters (15% chance for a second strike – a weak ability, and there isn't much else), it's difficult with the rest, and you can probably expect all of them in some way or another
Clans: warriors > defenders, lava dragons > Arcata dragons, again, it's difficult with the rest.
Fortress: princes > higher vampires, higher liches > archliches, messengers > banshees
Inferno: perhaps a rather wide range of usefulness at levels 1-4, slightly more ambiguous with the horses, and the last levels are specialized and relatively decent
Academy: obsidian golems > steel golems, sultan of genies > vizier of genies, it's difficult with the rest. Titans and thunderbirds are almost identical.
I also stopped at the Horde. I could have voted for the Academy, but there are just too many units that are too similar, but not balanced, but different.

Magistar

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Definitely not Necropolis, many alternative units are better (skeletons, vampires, dracoliches), and liches are better in their older versions.
Definitely not Inferno, again, many alternative units are better (demons, succubi, hellhounds), possibly also dogs and pitfiends, but it depends on the situation.
Definitely not Stronghold, also several units are not very balanced (centaurs, shamans, wyverns, cyclops).

Regarding the remaining factions.
Humans are relatively balanced, perhaps archers are not very good, and monks are not always useful.
The Sylvan faction has almost all units that are good, but the archers' upgrade is very unbalanced.
In the Dungeon faction, lizards and maybe witches are questionable, otherwise, they are acceptable.
In the Academy, only rakshasas are not very balanced.
The Fortress faction doesn't have a major imbalance, but berserkers and dragons might be slightly overpowered.

In conclusion, Humans or Academy, probably, or maybe Fortress. It's hard to say for sure. Necropolis and Inferno are the most unbalanced, and Stronghold is not far behind.

Ment

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Definitely not Orcs; they also have some uneven tiers (Centaurs, Shamans, Wyverns, Cyclops).

In my opinion, Centaurs are only slightly different, relatively speaking.
Shamans: Earth Shamans are better without Blood Magic, while Air Shamans are better with Blood Magic due to Chain Lightning; it's quite clear.
Wyverns: I agree.
Cyclops: Free Cyclops are indispensable during sieges and attack a large area; Blood Cyclops have slightly better stats and are more predictable (the enemy won't catch you off guard with an area attack on their own units; with Free Cyclops, you have to be careful, which is probably especially relevant against humans), and Blood Cyclops also have an aura. In the end, they aren't that unbalanced.

Humans are relatively balanced; the only issue is with Archers, and sometimes with Monks.

In my opinion, the imbalance of Archers covers the imbalances of almost all other factions (except perhaps Elves and Terrans, which might stand out in this regard). In addition to what I mentioned, there are also Griffins. Everyone takes Royal Griffins. In general, the balance of the Order is very far from ideal.

In reply to Ment

Magistar

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Ment

Centaurs are only slightly different, relatively speaking.
Shamans – Earth Shamans are better without Blood Magic, Air Shamans are better with Blood Magic, it’s clear.
Wyverns – I agree.
Cyclops – Free Cyclops are indispensable during sieges and attack a large area; Blood Cyclops have slightly better stats and are more predictable (the enemy won’t catch you off guard with an area attack on your own units; with Free Cyclops, you have to be careful, which is probably especially relevant against humans), and Blood Cyclops also have an aura. In the end, they aren’t that unbalanced.

Nah, Centaurs are quite different. The first tier has less defense and less health, and they deal weak damage in melee, which isn’t great, considering Centaurs are easily blocked. The only advantage is their questionable ranged attack, which isn’t always applicable and doesn’t always work in your favor – they can be used like Goblins to run around mines and fire traps. Plus, they have a bonus to maximum damage, which is weak compared to all the disadvantages.
Earth Daughters are almost always better, except for sieges/defending the Castle.
Cyclops might be more balanced if the ones with clubs didn’t harm their own units so much.

Ment

In my opinion, the imbalance of archers covers the imbalances of almost all other Factions (except perhaps Elves and Tier). In addition, everything I mentioned, plus Griffins. Everyone takes Royal Griffins. In general, the balance of the Order is very far from ideal.

The imbalance of archers isn’t as big as that of Elf archers and Inferno demons, and some other tiers. The bonus of crossbowmen is also strong, but it’s hard to apply, but you can sometimes play with them.
Griffins are also roughly equal; the second tier is for playing defensively, especially against melee units. The first tier will fly once, land near the enemies, and be taken down there; that’s their role. I don’t see a big difference; it all depends on the situation: what build, against whom, and so on.
Overall, I’m not saying that Humans are the most balanced; I’m just saying that they are one of the contenders, like Mages and Dwarves. But there’s no real balance between the tiers anywhere.

Ment

9 years ago

Auto-translated

And plus, the maximum damage is weak compared to all the drawbacks.

I don't think so. The game mostly consists of dealing damage, and that's the most important factor here.

The archer building is also strong, it's just hard to use, but sometimes you can play through them.

It's almost impossible even in the late game, the radius is 3. And besides, the archers' damage is about twice as much...

serovoy

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Purely personal impressions:

- Humans - all are equally useful, except for the forgotten crossbowmen;
- Elves - all are equally useful, except for the almost forgotten masters;
- Mages - all are equally useful, except for the obsolete obsidian gargoyles;
- Dwarves - all are equally useful, except for the warriors and Arcat dragons, who clearly outperform their counterparts in terms of parameters and abilities;
- Undead - all are equally useful, except for the banshees, which are significantly less effective than their colleagues;
- Demons - all are equally useful, except for the imps, with their purely situational ability;
- Wood - all are equally useful, except for the nimble riders, with their weak flanking attack;
- Orcs - all are equally useful, except for the blood cyclops, who are inferior to the free orcs in every respect.

Conclusion: there are no ideal races, but dwarves are slightly behind the others.

RedHeavenHero

9 years ago

Auto-translated

- Orcs are all equally useful, except for Blood Cyclops, which are inferior to Free Cyclops in every aspect.

Blood Cyclops are better than Free Cyclops in terms of initiative, speed, and defense. If you simply need to prevent a one-tile gap between the Cyclops and another friendly unit, as is the case with most dragons, then Free Cyclops require a free space of approximately 30% of the battlefield to avoid clubbing half of their own army.

In reply to Ment

Magistar

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Ment

I don't think so. The game mostly consists of dealing damage, and that's the most important factor here.

The difference is only 3-5 versus 3-6, so the average damage isn't much higher, but they can also deal damage up close and withstand attacks better. The difference is noticeable on the third level of Blood, but that's rare.

Ment

It's almost impossible even in the endgame, where the radius is 3. And besides, the damage of archers is about twice as much...

You can use teleport to one-shot a stack through them, or use them in a game for defense against melee units, but more often than not, they're red.

Аграил D

9 years ago

Auto-translated

Stronghold or Haven

In reply to RedHeavenHero

Rexul

9 years ago

Auto-translated

RedHeavenHero

Bloodeyes Cyclops are better than Free Cyclops in terms of initiative, speed, and safety. If, as with most dragons, you simply need to prevent a single empty cell between the Cyclops and another friendly unit, then the Free Cyclops requires approximately 30% of the battlefield to be clear so that it doesn't smash half of its own army with its club.

I don't particularly like Bloodeyes Cyclops. Initiative and other characteristics – yes, I agree. But during the siege of castles, forts, and other fortifications, Free Cyclops are more useful. A catapult (without a perk) will take ages to break down the gates. But this beast will swing its club a couple of times, quickly clearing the way for melee units to reach the enemy's ranged troops. And it's convenient to send it into the enemy crowd. If an unwary enemy attacks it, everyone gets hurt.
And friendly units can be positioned further away. Or moved away from it if the enemy can get within melee range.
The situation with Goblins depends on the type of enemy and the map. Shamans are useful against mages, but I still find Trappers more useful. Mages are mages, but even mages have mobile units. (I like to set up ambushes for various types of Catapults). But don't underestimate the Shaman's spell. With a sufficient level of rage and the number of these units, they can even give a hard time to the strongest enemy.
Assassins: I used to like playing with Chieftains, but recently I switched to Executioners because of their ability to break the enemy's morale.
Orcs are a separate topic: Warmongers are simply awesome! I still remember the original "Lords of the Horde" campaign where, playing as Kujin, I had to unite the tribes. I threw these "football players" (that's what I called them after that battle) into the thick of the enemy forces of the last enemy hero and only controlled them. Endless retaliation is great!
=====
Another race where I liked the balance is the Undead. Lucar and Warriors can equally determine the outcome of the battle. Any type of Zombie, especially under the command of Orson, is a great force. I didn't notice any difference between Ghosts and Spirits, who is better/worse. As well as Banshees and Death Knights.
======
In general, balance can be found in any race. Artifacts, skills, and abilities of both the units themselves and the hero can smooth out all the shortcomings.