Balance Between Factions In HoMM 2-4?

[DaemianLucifer]

There are a lot of castles where you cant by all creatures in one turn!
Like Castle

I didnt say one turn,I said one week.

[MrSteamTank]

Heroes II was close. Then they added the Well. That building screwed everything up. When Warlocks are eventually building 3 Black Dragons per week, a Knight's 4 Crusaders don't have a prayer. That's why Knights always have to capture something else to survive in an extra large map. If the growth ratio there were 1:2 like it should be, a Knight castle might stand on its own.

The other problem is magic. A long game comes down to two things: Black Dragons and spells. Magic in Heroes II can allow a vastly inferior force to win a battle it has no business even thinking about fighting. Go play the final scenario of the Price of Loyalty campaign for an example. Going back to Knight vs. Warlock, again the Warlocks hold all the cards. Knights simply have no way of defending against a high-powered Lightning (or most other spells for that matter) spell. Their defense is supposed to be greater numbers, but the Well killed that option.

The only saving grace is here is map size. If you stick to smaller maps, these imbalances fall away somewhat. Warlocks don't have time to get that many Dragons and spells before being engaged by Knights and Barbarians. I'd say any of the six alignments could clear the mainland of Broken Alliance on its own. Once you go above a Medium map though, all bets are off.

Definitely agree with you. Those are the main imbalances in homm2. The other one is melee units that are very slow. Units like non-upgraded dwarves, golems, etc are absolutely worthless because they basicly are unable to move. Only hydras are decent due to their all adjacent target attack.

Honestly to balance this game have
1. Remove the well or have an additional well upgrade solely for knights/barbarians.
2. Put in a spell dmg reduction hero skill(10/20/30% dmg reduction)
3. Upgrade all very slow units(except hydras) to slow.

That imo would fix about 80-90% of the imbalance in homm2.

[grobblewobble]

About H2:

Kristo's remark about the well is very clever. With no well, there would be a better balance among the tiers as well as among the castle types. The well is a rather uninteresting building anyway. It is a cheap but mandatory build in week one for every faction and doesn't really add anything to the game.

Regarding magic resistance, I don't think the game requires it. Paladins and such are rather vulnerable to it, but that's just common sense because they're high on attack and defense. So it's logical magic damage is their prime weakness. Besides, magic resistance does exist in the form of artifacts. Maybe some units could use a slight boost in their HP, but that's all the game really needs IMO.

However, I think the greatest problem with balance is between hero types, not town types. Might heroes are king. For several reasons:

-Attack and defense adds greatly to the power of your army.
-The best spells are often haste, slow and blind, all easy to learn, even for a might hero. (And they don't cost huge amounts of precious recources to get, either.)
-There are many artifacts (and map features) adding some basic knowledge or spellpower. As long as you just want to use some simple spells, spell power or knowledge above 5 is just overkill.
-Might heroes have better chances to learn the most useful secondary skills, too (logistics, leadership, luck, archery..)

Some people playing H2 think the sorceress army is the weakest. But it isn't; it is the sorceress hero that is the weakest. As many sources advise, you should hire a barb hero. Likewise, I think a knight is the best leader for warlock troops (high defense is great for a flyer/walker army).

[PhoenixReborn]

Heroes 2 expansion added a dwelling where you could purchase ghosts. This was obviously imbalanced, though it doesn't favor one particular faction.

Even in Heroes 1 when the ghosts had the same power, it wasn't a good element in the game.

[BoardGuest808888]

When one hasted genie halved your stack of 1,000 black dragons,

you'd scream imbalance far longer than it would take to get that thousand blackies

[Caradoc]

As I recall, in Heroes II the Sorceress town offered significantly better creatures. However, the Sorceress heroes were not so good and the best combo was a Barbarian hero leading Sorceress armies.

In Heroes III, the Conflux was so overpowered that it was pointless to play it.

And in Heroes IV, the towns were fairly well balanced to begin with and Equilibris mainly fine tuned the level-to-level parity. The main imbalance there was heroes vs creatures, which allowed Might to gain the advantage.

[Campaigner]

Heroes II

Very unbalanced in gamemechanics.
With ranged creatures able to shoot anywhere for full damage except over castlewalls and flyers crossing the whole battlefield in one turn, that's enough to make me stop playing it.

The equality regarding magic is also bad. Barbarians and knights were able to cast every spell except DD just as good as Wizards and Warlocks and with big armies curses and blessings were better than DD spells which made Wizards and Warlocks again worse than the might classes.

If those design decisions would be corrected, Heroes II would be a no-brainer compared to Heroes III atleast in my book.



Heroes III

The equality of the factions in regards to powerlvl and everyone having 7 upgradable dwellings made balancing quite easy but also made the towns quite dull and generic.

But the biggest balance disaster was the magic. A Knight or Barbarian could use a magictype with the same proficiency as a Wizard or Warlock but here the best curses or blesses cost only like 4 or 5 manapoints on expert which broke the magicsystem completely!

That part of the magic system ruined it. You go up a lvl in f.e. Earth magic and the spells not only grows in power but it also costs less! Mass slow f.e was a gamebreaker and costed only 4 manapoints while the Wizard or Warlock had to dispel that enhancement and couldn't use his own best way of using magic.
It was pretty hard to believe that such an important part of a sequel was made worse....



Heroes IV

The factions in this version was suprisingly wellbalanced against eachother but that was only because they all had something broken that was insanely powerful.

The Knights was the most versitale of all factions with either a solid longrange unit or a great allaround melee unit on all tiers that allowed a Knight player to adapt to any opponent.
And since spellcasters and ranged units are so powerful in this version, Haven was quite powerful with their ranged lineup and their Life magic.

The Elves was also a "stay back and unleash hell" faction with their Elven archers, Fairy Dragons, waspworts, Ranger heroes and summoned creatures but could also charge the enemy with their Griffins and summoned troops if the situation demanded it. They are more versitale compared to the Knights thanks to their summoned troops and can change tactics on the fly thanks to their summoned troops.
I would say they are among the top 3 factions because of their hero the summoning Druid. He can summon a lot of quickstriking distractors to take out much more powerful enemies.

The Wizards with their spellcasters, ranged attackers, Order mages and nobility support heroes was the ultimate "stay back and unleash hell" faction. They were completely unbeatable on medium and smaller maps. They also had a good chance on Large maps against Necromancers which is more then every other faction had.

The Warlocks was the DD faction and were pretty offensive. They had a good, fun mix of troops that disabled, paralyzed and outright burned to a crisp whoever stood in their way. But as armies grow bigger, DD spells lose their importance. Their ranking in the faction powerlist goes lower as the week goes by....

The Necromancers and their Inferno Undead was the most powerful faction. Their lowliest creature, the Imp, drained enemy mana so enemy units couldn't perform their special abilities. This crippeled Academy with their Mages and Genies and even took a beating on the mighty Order mages. The Cerberi was a fast, multiheaded attacker but the Ghost was more durable with its double defense. The Venom Spawn was a bad joke with its poison attack. There was no reason to build them when you could have the superpowerful Vampires instead (that look like Jim Carrey with that pot hearcut) that never died unless you concentrated fire on them.
Lastly, the Bone Dragons caused fear on almost all foes, making it impossible to retaliate against them. They were also nigh immune to projectiles....
The Devil (or FireAnt) was an alternative to the Bone Dragon but they had less staying power but was useful as assasins with their teleporting and powerful attack.
While all this is poweful in its own right, it's their leader, the Necromancers who made the faction unbeatable on Large and XL maps. After 12 lvls you would get Vampires at a fantastic rate and have more Vampires than Ghosts! Throw in a Death Knight with GrandMaster Tactics and you can't lose. The solid, lifesucking Vampires will ofcourse get targeted like they had a big bullseye painted on them but the DeathKnight with his Tactics, Offense, Defense, and last attribute I don't remember would make them superpowerful and more than able to be all the army you'll ever need. The Necromancer with his terrible curses would make it even easier. Nothing can withstand a Necromancer with his Vampires.

The Barbarians had the most powerful troops lvl for lvl but without magic and supportheroes they are nothing. They get crushed like ants by any other faction, especially by the Wizards who will disable the Cyclops immedietly or even turn them against their former master! They have no chance. Only their hero got a small chance, but even if he's immune to magic can he do much, since the Wizards will just summon illusionary troops with Mirror of Pain and bless their Titans and halflings.


The mageguild costed WAY too little. Resources didn't matter....actually, balance wasn't the problem of this game, it was design.

[Darmani]

Heroes II

Very unbalanced in gamemechanics.
With ranged creatures able to shoot anywhere for full damage except over castlewalls and flyers crossing the whole battlefield in one turn, that's enough to make me stop playing it.

Spoken like a true H3 fan...

When game mechanics affect everyone, game mechanics are never unbalanced. If flying as a mechanic is overpowered, then you can balance around that fact by making all flyers weak. The only really strong flyers in Heroes II are Green/Red/Black Dragons. Of course, those are so difficult to get that by the time you do get them if you try to, a more rush-y faction will either have a)Near-defeated you (in a Small-Medium map) or b) Conquered much more than you, which justify their power. (Not to mention it takes near the entire income of a castle and a Gold Mine just to buy them).

Generally, in Heroes II, Flyer beats Shooter, Shooter beats Walker, Walker beats Flyer.

If you were a Heroes II fan, your statement would look more like this:

Heroes III

Very unbalanced in gamemechanics.
With ranged creatures unable to shoot for a good amount of damage on half the combat map, and flyers being nothing but a walker that can bypass the occasional obstacle, that's enough to make me stop playing it.

The equality regarding magic is also bad. Barbarians and knights were able to cast every spell except DD just as good as Wizards and Warlocks and with big armies curses and blessings were better than DD spells which made Wizards and Warlocks again worse than the might classes.

....Are you trying to be funny?

That statement is ridiculous for many reasons. A Warlock that casts Mass Haste will not have to caste it again 2-3 turns later. A Barbarian or Knight likely will, due to lower spellpower. An extremely powerful spellcaster could greatly cut down on losses by casting ressurect true at the end of the battle. A Barbarian or Knight would have a lot of trouble doing that, because, not only would they not have enough spellpoints to cast it enough times, each cast would ressurect less.

Now, for my own opinions:

Heroes II

Knight: Although their units are weak, due to cheapness and strong level 3-4 creatures, they can expect to be out and conquering while stronger factions are still building up, which levels the playing field.

Barbarian: Similar to Knight, but lesser. Their War Trolls make them capable of holding out in the later game, and Ogres do a lot to spoil lossless town takeovers.

Sorceress: Their quick troops allow for both lossless battles (it's a good thing for the Sorceress that turrets don't fire) and being able to run from slow neutral armies. They do have some power in the late game and with rushing.

Necromancer: With large amounts of Skeletons, the best level 1 creature, the Necromancer can be effective in both the early and mid-game, and, with large amounts of Vampire Lords and the spell Animate Dead, the late game.

Wizard: Steel golems can be effective with haste, and Rocs could be effective with an Attack Bonus, but, otherwise, everything sucks except for Level 5 Mage Guild with Library, Archmages, and Titans, which, except for Archmages, will only be seen in late-game.

Warlock: While the uber-ness of Black Dragons cannot be denied, the only things they have going for them in shorter games are the Dungeon and Minotaur Kings. However, if you get a Barbarian to lead them, then they can be quite capable.

Might versus Magic: In shorter games, might has a decent edge. Once high-level magic comes, it's well balanced. Berserk, Chain Lightning, Town Gate, and Ressurrect True all can be used to great effect (of course, others can to; those are just some of the better ones.) Dimension Door is just a little too powerful though; once a strong hero with a good army gets that, it's game over unless another strong hero with a capable army can get it.

Heroes III

Faction vs. faction: I haven't played this game in-depth for quite a while, so I'll skip this.

Might vs. Magic: Horribly unbalanced. The effects of the might skills have been halved. That alone is more than enough to give a slight edge to magic, but it's worse. Now you can cast Mass Haste/Slow for the price of regular Haste and Slow. The Intelligence skill breaks the trade-off between Knowledge and Power, or, for knowledgeable spellcasters, makes the existence of finite spell points almost meaningless. There are also more ways to boost the effectiveness of spells that can do things such as make Chain Lightning strike more stacks. Many, many powerful new spells have been added. Frenzy can do some scary things. Implosion is just wrong in power; I've seen Implosions that can do in excess of 1000 damage, enough to take down a Catapult in one hit, which will gives some serious trouble to an attacking Might hero. It is also the solution to an HII hero that attempts to rely solely on magic - difficulty taking down large stacks. Now you might as well almost not have creatures...

Heroes IV
Faction vs faction: Can't comment beyond the fact that IMHO Death magic is weak (their curses don't do too much), while Order magic is incredibly strong (Forgetfulness, Mass Slow [combined with the Academy's strong shooters], Precision [same], etc).

Heroes: Definitely imbalanced. It's easy to glance at the abilities list of secondary hero types and think "Woah! Those two abilities are about as far from equal as you can get."

Skills: Also imbalanced. Any hero will die easily,unless they have Combat, in which case they'll be very powerful. In the "Glory of Days Past" campaign, I never hired a single creature except in the first scenario...

Might vs. Magic: Less of an issue.

[Banedon]

Actually I agree with campaigner that Heroes II mechanics are imbalanced. If you can shoot for full damage everywhere, you put a whole lot of priority on ranged creatures too. If you can fly units across the entire battlefield, you put a lot of priority on flyers as well. Which means walkers are quite minor problems. Heroes III improved this aspect in my opinion, as well as the ever-helpful Wait button.

Might vs. Magic is justified as well. A high-level Knight might have 5 SpellPower for instance, more than enough time to establish dominance over the battlefield. A high-level Warlock might have 15 SpellPower, but then what major difference is there between a Mass Haste cast at SpellPower 10 and SpellPower 100?

As for Heroes IV, I more and more agree with csarmi's view. Without Equilibris, Death is clearly the strongest race, with Nature second. In my opinion, Chaos comes third with Life and Order next, and Might last (unfortunately).

That statement is ridiculous for many reasons. A Warlock that casts Mass Haste will not have to caste it again 2-3 turns later. A Barbarian or Knight likely will, due to lower spellpower. An extremely powerful spellcaster could greatly cut down on losses by casting ressurect true at the end of the battle. A Barbarian or Knight would have a lot of trouble doing that, because, not only would they not have enough spellpoints to cast it enough times, each cast would ressurect less.

A Knight or Barbarian won't have 2-3 SpellPower...with +SpellPower items and Stone Rings to visit, they should have more than that, maybe 5-6. That's long enough. As for Resurrect True, it doesn't matter much because you shouldn't be losing much (if any) creatures to neutrals anyway. I won't say it doesn't matter at all, but it shouldn't matter much.

Might versus Magic: In shorter games, might has a decent edge. Once high-level magic comes, it's well balanced. Berserk, Chain Lightning, Town Gate, and Ressurrect True all can be used to great effect (of course, others can to; those are just some of the better ones.) Dimension Door is just a little too powerful though; once a strong hero with a good army gets that, it's game over unless another strong hero with a capable army can get it.

In my opinion you got things in reverse. In shorter games, magic has the edge because Lightning Bolts can flatten half the Might hero's Rangers, for example. Once higher-level magic comes, the Might hero catches up and overtakes the Magic heroes. Direct-damage spells lose their potency and everything else can be cast with just as much effectiveness by the Might heroes.

In Heroes III, the same thing applies, though buffed-up direct-damage spells like Implosion get a lot more useful. You can't say go without creatures though since AntiMagic would be the death of you

@Heroes IV balance -

Death rules Heroes IV vanilla. They simply expand too fast for any other race to cope with. You can get Vampires at turn 2 and they simply push through most neutral stacks around. GM Necromancy and Mass Cancellation compound this problem, with quick access to a Pathfinder as well. Death has everything, and will win with ease in general.

Nature is, in my opinion, second best. You get to deploy two level 4 creatures while melding two powerful magic lines (I personally like Life Magic the most out of all magic trees). With Chaos as an allied faction and Sprites / Wolves being decent creatures, you can move quickly through the map (though hardly as fast as Death).

The other races come naturally. Order and Life armies are extremely slow (thus giving Chaos the edge in my opinion), but they compensate with excellent magic. Order isn't unbeatable in smaller maps as well; in fact, they are extremely beatable by Death and even Might. Might's the weakest of the lot unfortunately. You'll have to do a lot of hit-and-run warfare and / or rush your opponent to win.

Might vs. Magic in Heroes IV is a clear victory for Magic. With Immortality potions helping with deaths and Divine Intervention resurrecting heroes, you can raise and live much easier. In the meantime, the pure Magic skills extract a terrible toll. You must have at least some magic, unless it's a campaign.

[Darmani]

A Knight or Barbarian won't have 2-3 SpellPower...with +SpellPower items and Stone Rings to visit, they should have more than that, maybe 5-6. That's long enough. As for Resurrect True, it doesn't matter much because you shouldn't be losing much (if any) creatures to neutrals anyway. I won't say it doesn't matter at all, but it shouldn't matter much.

What did I say about neutrals? I was more talking about larger battles. A "superhero" that attempts to take out an opponent in a single charge will have a much easier time if s/he manages to resurrect most of his/her losses. If you lose your entire stack of Titans while engaging one of your opponent's strongest heroes, without massive resurrection, you're not going to kill another one.

In my opinion you got things in reverse. In shorter games, magic has the edge because Lightning Bolts can flatten half the Might hero's Rangers, for example. Once higher-level magic comes, the Might hero catches up and overtakes the Magic heroes. Direct-damage spells lose their potency and everything else can be cast with just as much effectiveness by the Might heroes.

a)There is no Might hero. This isn't Heroes IV.
b)There are no Rangers. This isn't Heroes V.
c)There is no Heroes game where a faction called/with the alignment "Might" has a creature called "Rangers," so I have no idea what you're getting confused with.
cYou won't see very high Spell Powers in short games.
e)Many other spells cannot be cast with as much potency. Resurrect, for example.
f)Many other spells that can be cast with as much potency cannot be cast as much. Disrupting Ray for example.
g)There is another example for (f) that will probably defeat any argument you can muster: Dimension Door.

Not to mention that citing the example of a nonexistent creature really dampens the case for the validity of your other opinions....

[Gaidal Cain]

What did I say about neutrals? I was more talking about larger battles. A "superhero" that attempts to take out an opponent in a single charge will have a much easier time if s/he manages to resurrect most of his/her losses. If you lose your entire stack of Titans while engaging one of your opponent's strongest heroes, without massive resurrection, you're not going to kill another one.

If it's the final battle, resurrect is of no use. If it isn't, your in deep shit anyway or the opponent really blundered. And the hero who avoids those losses from the beginning is better off than the one that needs to rely on getting a certain spell to recouperate from them.

a)There is no Might hero. This isn't Heroes IV.

Knight and Barbarian. They might not be officially labeled "might heroes", but if you don't think they can be called that, you're arguing semantics, and not the game.

b)There are no Rangers. This isn't Heroes V.

Check the name of the level two upgraded Knight creature again.

c)There is no Heroes game where a faction called/with the alignment "Might" has a creature called "Rangers," so I have no idea what you're getting confused with.

As above.

cYou won't see very high Spell Powers in short games.

There's no need. A spell power of 5 or so is enough to cause serious damage with Lightning bolt.

e)Many other spells cannot be cast with as much potency. Resurrect, for example.

The power of Resurrect True is insignificant next to the power of Mass Haste. Magic heroes won't win any map if they need to rely on it, because Might heroes can cut down the losses enough that they are insignificant.

f)Many other spells that can be cast with as much potency cannot be cast as much. Disrupting Ray for example.

And noone is going to rely on disrupting ray either. There are far superior spells.

g)There is another example for (f) that will probably defeat any argument you can muster: Dimension Door.

A powerful spell, but with enough wells, you don't need much Knowledge to utilize it.

Not to mention that citing the example of a nonexistent creature really dampens the case for the validity of your other opinions....

And your ignorance of it's existance doesn't help yours.

[Darmani]

Congratulations; I have been partly convinced.

What did I say about neutrals? I was more talking about larger battles. A "superhero" that attempts to take out an opponent in a single charge will have a much easier time if s/he manages to resurrect most of his/her losses. If you lose your entire stack of Titans while engaging one of your opponent's strongest heroes, without massive resurrection, you're not going to kill another one.

If it's the final battle, resurrect is of no use. If it isn't, your in deep **** anyway or the opponent really blundered. And the hero who avoids those losses from the beginning is better off than the one that needs to rely on getting a certain spell to recouperate from them.

How are you in trouble if you have Resurrect True? I suppose the logic is that if you spend the resources to get a Level 5 Mage Guild, the tradeoff is that your opponents will come destroy you. Of course, that is absolutely false, as in the large maps that produce games long enough to get this spell, you may find yourself with plentiful resources after the initial buildup.

a)There is no Might hero. This isn't Heroes IV.

Knight and Barbarian. They might not be officially labeled "might heroes", but if you don't think they can be called that, you're arguing semantics, and not the game.

Actually, my focus was more on the capitalization of the word Might, which implies that the author was talking about a proper noun, such as the Might alignment in Heroes IV. If you're going to accuse someone's citation of semantics as an attempt at a fallacious argument (I wasn't attempting to argue there), at least accuse them of the right thing.

e)Many other spells cannot be cast with as much potency. Resurrect, for example.

The power of Resurrect True is insignificant next to the power of Mass Haste. Magic heroes won't win any map if they need to rely on it, because Might heroes can cut down the losses enough that they are insignificant.

A might hero can't save his army from the fury of Armageddon in the hands of a powerful spellcaster. A might hero can't save his Crusaders from Lightning bolt in the hands of several mediocre spellcasters. Since a larger troop advantage decreases the expected time taken to complete battles and expected losses from opposing forces, the more Lightning Bolts a Knight on a conquest charge takes, the more he's going to take. And once a Knight's Crusaders and Champions are gone, his other troops will be less able to reach their full potential.

f)Many other spells that can be cast with as much potency cannot be cast as much. Disrupting Ray for example.

And no-one is going to rely on disrupting ray either. There are far superior spells.[/quote]

Did I say anyone was? That's just an example of a case where Knowledge can make a difference. I can give as many other examples as there non-level-1 spells. But, as for some of the better ones: A might hero can only cast a few Mass Hastes before he has to rest. If a Knight encounters the Green main hero and finds he only has 9 mana after engaging a couple of secondary heroes, then knowing Mass Haste will do no good. In long, drawn out battles, the Knight might quickly run out of mana, and be unable to dispell any Paralyzes or Berserks thrown at him. And God forbid the battle wind up with the magic hero's flyers against the might hero's flyers and walkers, else the might hero will soon find his souped-up defense useless against Mass Slow combined with a multitude of direct damage spells.

g)There is another example for (f) that will probably defeat any argument you can muster: Dimension Door.

A powerful spell, but with enough wells, you don't need much Knowledge to utilize it.

A might hero doesn't need any Wells to utilize Dimension Door. But if you want to capture three castles in one turn and still have enough spell points left for Mass Haste at the end, you better hope the mapmaker was really generous.

[Banedon]

How are you in trouble if you have Resurrect True? I suppose the logic is that if you spend the resources to get a Level 5 Mage Guild, the tradeoff is that your opponents will come destroy you. Of course, that is absolutely false, as in the large maps that produce games long enough to get this spell, you may find yourself with plentiful resources after the initial buildup.

I don't think anyone said you're in trouble if you have Resurrect True - after all, you don't lose anything by knowing one more spell. What Gaidal Cain meant was that if you find yourself casting Resurrect True in the final battle, either

#1. You're in trouble and have to cast Resurrect True or you'll lose the battle in the next turn.
#2. There is a gross skill mismatch between you and your opponent.

Actually, my focus was more on the capitalization of the word Might, which implies that the author was talking about a proper noun, such as the Might alignment in Heroes IV. If you're going to accuse someone's citation of semantics as an attempt at a fallacious argument (I wasn't attempting to argue there), at least accuse them of the right thing.

Hey, you yourself used 'Might vs. Magic' in your post. So I would be justified in wondering what game you're playing, since there's no race by the name of Magic in any of the HoMM games

A might hero can't save his army from the fury of Armageddon in the hands of a powerful spellcaster. A might hero can't save his Crusaders from Lightning bolt in the hands of several mediocre spellcasters. Since a larger troop advantage decreases the expected time taken to complete battles and expected losses from opposing forces, the more Lightning Bolts a Knight on a conquest charge takes, the more he's going to take. And once a Knight's Crusaders and Champions are gone, his other troops will be less able to reach their full potential.

Yes, he can. AntiMagic would end the battle, and you don't even need AntiMagic every time. You might want to take a look at this topic.

viewtopic.php?t=5705

As for hit-and-runs, don't forget, Knight has the UltraFast Champions in his ranks, and hit-and-runs extract a toll on your economy. In response to your hit-and-run spellcasters, a Knight might cast Mass Haste and kill them. Your mediocre spellcasters would be gone and if you have to use level 1 Warlocks to do the hit-and-runs, you'll cripple your economy for only small gain.

Did I say anyone was? That's just an example of a case where Knowledge can make a difference. I can give as many other examples as there non-level-1 spells. But, as for some of the better ones: A might hero can only cast a few Mass Hastes before he has to rest. If a Knight encounters the Green main hero and finds he only has 9 mana after engaging a couple of secondary heroes, then knowing Mass Haste will do no good. In long, drawn out battles, the Knight might quickly run out of mana, and be unable to dispell any Paralyzes or Berserks thrown at him. And God forbid the battle wind up with the magic hero's flyers against the might hero's flyers and walkers, else the might hero will soon find his souped-up defense useless against Mass Slow combined with a multitude of direct damage spells.

Knowledge makes a difference, undoubtedly, but you were talking about SpellPower earlier, not Knowledge. Incidentally, it would take a rather stupid Knight to get himself caught without mana, unless he has been using Dimension Door to warp around the map. 50-60 mana is a lot as well, especially since the battle's going to be decisively resolved in a few turns (less than 5 turns).

A might hero doesn't need any Wells to utilize Dimension Door. But if you want to capture three castles in one turn and still have enough spell points left for Mass Haste at the end, you better hope the mapmaker was really generous.

There's a reason why Dimension Door is generally banned - it is unbalancing. But let's not focus on that. If you're going to capture three castles in one turn you'll be draining a heck load of mana points. What's stopping the Knight from using Dimension Door to go next to you and engage in a no-mana vs. no-mana situation? Don't forget, you wrote 'if a Knight encounters the Green main hero and finds he only has 9 mana after engaging a couple of secondary heroes, then knowing Mass Haste will do no good'. Easily enough, I could twist it around and write 'if a Warlock encounters the Green main hero and finds he only has 9 mana after casting Dimension Door so many times, then having 15 Knowledge will do no good'.

[Darmani]

How are you in trouble if you have Resurrect True? I suppose the logic is that if you spend the resources to get a Level 5 Mage Guild, the tradeoff is that your opponents will come destroy you. Of course, that is absolutely false, as in the large maps that produce games long enough to get this spell, you may find yourself with plentiful resources after the initial buildup.

I don't think anyone said you're in trouble if you have Resurrect True - after all, you don't lose anything by knowing one more spell. What Gaidal Cain meant was that if you find yourself casting Resurrect True in the final battle, either

#1. You're in trouble and have to cast Resurrect True or you'll lose the battle in the next turn.
#2. There is a gross skill mismatch between you and your opponent.

In that case, what Gadal Cain says is mostly irrelevant. In most of the games I've played, the final battle is not one of the more grandiose ones.

Actually, my focus was more on the capitalization of the word Might, which implies that the author was talking about a proper noun, such as the Might alignment in Heroes IV. If you're going to accuse someone's citation of semantics as an attempt at a fallacious argument (I wasn't attempting to argue there), at least accuse them of the right thing.

Hey, you yourself used 'Might vs. Magic' in your post. So I would be justified in wondering what game you're playing, since there's no race by the name of Magic in any of the HoMM games

"Might" and "Magic" was capitalized in my posts for the same reason "New" is capitalized in "Brave New World." It was used in a heading. You capitalized "might" and used it as an adjective. I have no idea what your native language is, but in this one, the only capitalized adjectives are proper nouns in adjective form, e.g.: "Machiavellian."

A might hero can't save his army from the fury of Armageddon in the hands of a powerful spellcaster. A might hero can't save his Crusaders from Lightning bolt in the hands of several mediocre spellcasters. Since a larger troop advantage decreases the expected time taken to complete battles and expected losses from opposing forces, the more Lightning Bolts a Knight on a conquest charge takes, the more he's going to take. And once a Knight's Crusaders and Champions are gone, his other troops will be less able to reach their full potential.

Yes, he can. AntiMagic would end the battle, and you don't even need AntiMagic every time. You might want to take a look at this topic.

viewtopic.php?t=5705

Sorry, I should be more accurate. I meant not "can't" but "in all likelihood would not." Say you've been fighting a long battle with a Wizard with 12 spellpower, and you manage to decimate his army and get his big stack of Titans down to to 605 hp. Said Wizard pulls Armageddon on you and runs. Chances are you would not have Anti-magic'ed every one of your creatures by then.

As for hit-and-runs, don't forget, Knight has the UltraFast Champions in his ranks, and hit-and-runs extract a toll on your economy.

The current debate is how the length of the game affects the balance between might and magic. In a long game, this is less of an issue. Well, it's certainly possible to have a long game on a Medium map, but it's more likely to occur on an extra large map. I've been treating "long game" and "large map" near-synonymously. In an extra large map, you're more likely to have 80k gold lying around.

In response to your hit-and-run spellcasters, a Knight might cast Mass Haste and kill them. Your mediocre spellcasters would be gone and if you have to use level 1 Warlocks to do the hit-and-runs, you'll cripple your economy for only small gain.

The Knight has 4 creatures that, after being mass hasted, will have a speed above Very Fast. If the Knight does not have any mass-damage spells (most of which are either high-level/mana cost or rare outside of Necromancer castles), then an army of 5 gargoyles will get a chance to go. Once the Champions are gone, then an army of 1 gargoyle will get a chance to go. Then the Knight could have some problems.

Knowledge makes a difference, undoubtedly, but you were talking about SpellPower earlier, not Knowledge.

No, I was talking about might-oriented heroes versus magic-oriented geroes.

Incidentally, it would take a rather stupid Knight to get himself caught without mana, unless he has been using Dimension Door to warp around the map.

Not necessarily. If you fight three enemy heroes in quick succession, then capture the weakest one of a cluster of three enemy castles on day 7, and there's no well nearby, you're going to want to be able to capture a second one before your opponent gets his turn the next day, meaning yes, you'll be without mana. And no, that is not an extreme example that I pulled out of thin air just to nitpick.

If you're going to capture three castles in one turn you'll be draining a heck load of mana points. What's stopping the Knight from using Dimension Door to go next to you and engage in a no-mana vs. no-mana situation? Don't forget, you wrote 'if a Knight encounters the Green main hero and finds he only has 9 mana after engaging a couple of secondary heroes, then knowing Mass Haste will do no good'. Easily enough, I could twist it around and write 'if a Warlock encounters the Green main hero and finds he only has 9 mana after casting Dimension Door so many times, then having 15 Knowledge will do no good'.

The Knight scenario is far more likely. The Warlock is more likely to know about the enemy hero before he runs out of mana.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking about this earlier today, and I realized that this debate is focusing on a lesser factor of the balance between might and magic, and that other factors are probably larger contributors. Probably the largest decider is army size versus hero level. That depends on many other factors other than game length/map size, such as aggressiveness of the player, density of castles in the map. In a huge map, someone who uses three main heroes (= only 5 secondary heroes that might have to travel great distances to deliver reinforcements) for a multi-pronged attack might mostly be using medium-size armies led by high-level heroes with only a few weeks of creatures for most of the game. In that case, magic would be superior. If you attempt to win more slowly using one hero, you might prefer might. The mentioned factors also produce other deriders. For example, on an extra large map with 30 castles, magic heroes might easily take out the many small garrisons without taking any turret fire. A might hero whose army does not entirely consist of very fast flyers or shooters will likely take at least one round of turret fire. With the standard Knight army, quite a bit more. In an extra large map with 6 castles, defenses will be stronger, conquest will be less frequent, armies might accumulate more, and thus might will rule the day.

[Banedon]

In that case, what Gadal Cain says is mostly irrelevant. In most of the games I've played, the final battle is not one of the more grandiose ones.

Let me guess: you're playing the AI, not another human, where you can reasonably hope to wear your opponent down by defeating his smaller armies one-by-one. If that's what you're doing of course I won't argue with you. I'll just say that a human opponent will concentrate his armies and the final battle will be the most grandiose of the game.

Sorry, I should be more accurate. I meant not "can't" but "in all likelihood would not." Say you've been fighting a long battle with a Wizard with 12 spellpower, and you manage to decimate his army and get his big stack of Titans down to to 605 hp. Said Wizard pulls Armageddon on you and runs. Chances are you would not have Anti-magic'ed every one of your creatures by then.

Why do you care then? You've won the game. You gained the experience, you gained map control, you can push your opponent to his castle and barricade him in there. So what if he decimates your army with Armageddon? You can't expect not to lose creatures in a final battle after all.

The current debate is how the length of the game affects the balance between might and magic. In a long game, this is less of an issue. Well, it's certainly possible to have a long game on a Medium map, but it's more likely to occur on an extra large map. I've been treating "long game" and "large map" near-synonymously. In an extra large map, you're more likely to have 80k gold lying around.

You'd then be feeding your opponent experience in exchage for his spell points, which is something he can easily restore by entering a castle or a well. Not really a good trade in my opinion. Don't forget, there is a cost to playing hit-and-run, even though it's generally termed an exploit and banned. You spend gold and you fuel your opponent's levels.

The Knight has 4 creatures that, after being mass hasted, will have a speed above Very Fast. If the Knight does not have any mass-damage spells (most of which are either high-level/mana cost or rare outside of Necromancer castles), then an army of 5 gargoyles will get a chance to go. Once the Champions are gone, then an army of 1 gargoyle will get a chance to go. Then the Knight could have some problems.

In response to your hit-and-run tactics, the Knight simply gives all his armies to a secondary hero, splits the Champions, casts Mass Haste and claims all 5 of your Gargoyles' heads in a sack. Hit-and-run may be dastardly, but it's not uncounterable.

Not necessarily. If you fight three enemy heroes in quick succession, then capture the weakest one of a cluster of three enemy castles on day 7, and there's no well nearby, you're going to want to be able to capture a second one before your opponent gets his turn the next day, meaning yes, you'll be without mana. And no, that is not an extreme example that I pulled out of thin air just to nitpick.

So he's inside the castle. Are you going to attack it?

I guess once more that you're playing against the AI. Against another human, if you fight three enemy heroes in quick succession you'll simply be eliminating his supporting heroes (transporters as I call them). You lose little if any spellpoints against them.

The Knight scenario is far more likely. The Warlock is more likely to know about the enemy hero before he runs out of mana.

Why?

I was thinking about this earlier today, and I realized that this debate is focusing on a lesser factor of the balance between might and magic, and that other factors are probably larger contributors. Probably the largest decider is army size versus hero level. That depends on many other factors other than game length/map size, such as aggressiveness of the player, density of castles in the map. In a huge map, someone who uses three main heroes (= only 5 secondary heroes that might have to travel great distances to deliver reinforcements) for a multi-pronged attack might mostly be using medium-size armies led by high-level heroes with only a few weeks of creatures for most of the game. In that case, magic would be superior. If you attempt to win more slowly using one hero, you might prefer might. The mentioned factors also produce other deriders. For example, on an extra large map with 30 castles, magic heroes might easily take out the many small garrisons without taking any turret fire. A might hero whose army does not entirely consist of very fast flyers or shooters will likely take at least one round of turret fire. With the standard Knight army, quite a bit more. In an extra large map with 6 castles, defenses will be stronger, conquest will be less frequent, armies might accumulate more, and thus might will rule the day.

I don't see why using multiple heroes means magic is superior, unless you mean it effectively extends the 'early-game' phase where magic is superior. You say a might hero cannot attack small garrisons without taking turret fire - to that I would answer, yes he can. That's because he won't be using his own armies anymore. A Barbarian, for example, could end up with Sorceress armies or Black Dragons or whatnot. Standard Knight armies won't exist anymore because they are weaker, and they will be supplanted.

But I digress. If you agree that might gains in power as the game goes on while magic loses it, you'll also agree with me, which ends this debate

[Darmani]

Why do you care then? You've won the game. You gained the experience, you gained map control, you can push your opponent to his castle and barricade him in there. So what if he decimates your army with Armageddon? You can't expect not to lose creatures in a final battle after all.

I have no idea why Gadal Cain brought up the "final battle," but I can assure you that that paragraph was not referring to it.

You'd then be feeding your opponent experience in exchage for his spell points, which is something he can easily restore by entering a castle or a well. Not really a good trade in my opinion. Don't forget, there is a cost to playing hit-and-run, even though it's generally termed an exploit and banned. You spend gold and you fuel your opponent's levels.

a)4 Gargoyles do not give much experience
b)You cannot enter a well during your opponent's turn

In response to your hit-and-run tactics, the Knight simply gives all his armies to a secondary hero, splits the Champions, casts Mass Haste and claims all 5 of your Gargoyles' heads in a sack. Hit-and-run may be dastardly, but it's not uncounterable.

You'd have to be expecting that. You can't do that during your opponent's turn.

Why?

Sorry, I thought it was obvious.

a)The Warlock has more mana
b)Dimension Door is most efficient in already explored territory.
c)The biggest reason: When using it an unexplored territory, if you spot an enemy hero, chances are you'll spot him after using a dimension door that is not your last one. That gives you an opportunity to run away. Since the Knight moves more slowly, even if he has expert Logistics, if he encounters an enemy, he's not likely to have enough movement points to get away.

I don't see why using multiple heroes means magic is superior, unless you mean it effectively extends the 'early-game' phase where magic is superior.

Magic is not superior in the early game for many reasons. Spellcasters are less powerful, rely on weak spells, and getting said weak spells heavily detracts from the rush buildup. That might is superior in the early game is a main facet of the debate.

Think of it this way: If you have one battallion with 50 soldiers and a cannon, and another battalion with 500 soldiers and a cannon, then the cannon is more valuable to the battalion with 50 soldiers. The same applies here: If you have three high level spellcasters, each with an army containing 2 weeks of creatures, then magic will be more necessary than if you have one very high level spellcaster with an army cntaining six weeks worth of creatures, as it provides an extra punch that does not depend on reinforcements. This strategy is bolstered by the fact that 3 high-level heroes might have as much combined experience as a single hero only slightly more powerful (as level requirements increase polynomially).

You say a might hero cannot attack small garrisons without taking turret fire - to that I would answer, yes he can.

I never said that. Let's look at my exact quote:

A might hero whose army does not entirely consist of very fast flyers or shooters will likely take at least one round of turret fire

Now, there are three ways the above is possible: 1) Have a secondary hero stay in close proximity to your main in order to hold his army in case you come across a castle (impractical, as you main is more likely to have Logistis and Pathfinding, and also stops him from doing so many of the other tasks an extra large map demands). 2)Use troops from multiple factions, and reap the minuses. 3)Have a single creature type take multiple slots at all times (and deny yourself all the other available creatures). None of those can be done without significant cost. And just having nothing but flyers and shooters does not guarantee that you won't receive turret fire.

P.S.: Actually, I just realized that this can be done with minimal costs if your army contains Phoenixes, Greater Elves, Elder Druids, Archmagi, Titans, and Mass Haste, but that does require some luck to get and use, not to mention an awful lot of dedication. It's far easier just to have Chain Lightning, some flyer or shooter, and whatever army you want.

But I digress. If you agree that might gains in power as the game goes on while magic loses it, you'll also agree with me, which ends this debate.

Might gains in power when troops accumulate. Accumulation is not guaranteed for most of the game; a powerful hero might land near a castle on the other side of the continent from your main, requiring you to put a large army in less capable hands to defend. Magic gains in power as heroes learn more and better spells and gains levels. If you're not learning new spells, then either you lack in resources, or you're not conquering (or you're just unlucky enough to get the same spells again). Magic never loses power. Might can make magic lose power only by killing the magic heroes, which is difficult to do. Magic can make might lose power by killing troops (easy to do) or killing might heroes. It is far easier for a magic hero to defeat a might one without offering a chance to retreat (with Blind, Paralyze, and direct-damage spells) than for a might hero to do the same.

[Banedon]

I have no idea why Gadal Cain brought up the "final battle," but I can assure you that that paragraph was not referring to it.

I think you're looking at the wrong paragraph. The paragraph I quoted was the one involving 605HP Titans and Armageddon. That is the final battle, because in a non-final battle you won't be up against Titans.

a) Gargoyles do not give much experience
b)You cannot enter a well during your opponent's turn

Defeating a hero gives 500 experience.

And you know, if you insist on doing hit-and-run (generally banned), then surely the Knight player should do it back to you. What's stopping him from doing so?

You'd have to be expecting that. You can't do that during your opponent's turn.

You should be expecting that. I don't think any good player approaches where his opponent's territory may be without scouting it out first. If he does, then he's also taking a huge risk: he has no idea what the size of his opponent's army is, and for all he knows he might have no chance of winning that battle.

Incidentally, since the secondary Warlocks are unlikely to be highly trained, the Knight with Logistics / Pathfinding / Dimension Door should be the attacker, not the defender.

a)The Warlock has more mana
b)Dimension Door is most efficient in already explored territory.
c)The biggest reason: When using it an unexplored territory, if you spot an enemy hero, chances are you'll spot him after using a dimension door that is not your last one. That gives you an opportunity to run away. Since the Knight moves more slowly, even if he has expert Logistics, if he encounters an enemy, he's not likely to have enough movement points to get away.

Your statement was 'the Warlock is more likely to know about the enemy hero before he runs out of mana.' What I understood was that you're expecting to Dimension Door all over the place, find your enemy hero and then Dimension Door out. Problem with that of course is that you're expending two times the mana points just for intelligence purposes (you have to Dimension Door in, spending mana points, and then Dimension Door out - spending more mana points). This is highly risky: if you Dimension Door and find your opponent's main hero, he might chase you down with his own Dimension Door and force a battle with no mana points on both sides, for example.

I don't see why Dimenion Door working on explored terrain is relevant, I don't see why you can run away when your opponent can Dimension Door after you and finally, I don't see why the Knight army moves slower than the Warlock army, unless the Warlock is carrying only Black Dragons.

Magic is not superior in the early game for many reasons. Spellcasters are less powerful, rely on weak spells, and getting said weak spells heavily detracts from the rush buildup. That might is superior in the early game is a main facet of the debate.

Think of it this way: If you have one battallion with 50 soldiers and a cannon, and another battalion with 500 soldiers and a cannon, then the cannon is more valuable to the battalion with 50 soldiers. The same applies here: If you have three high level spellcasters, each with an army containing 2 weeks of creatures, then magic will be more necessary than if you have one very high level spellcaster with an army cntaining six weeks worth of creatures, as it provides an extra punch that does not depend on reinforcements. This strategy is bolstered by the fact that 3 high-level heroes might have as much combined experience as a single hero only slightly more powerful (as level requirements increase polynomially).

Magic is weaker early game alright. But then so is might. You have to consider their relative strengths. Between a might hero with 6-6-1-1 stats and a magic hero with 1-1-6-6 stats, the magic hero will have a definite advantage. He can flatten his opponent's armies with direct damage after all. Please don't say he has to rely on weak spells. Lightning Bolt does 25 damage per point in spell power, and 6 spell power means 150 damage - enough to decimate half a might hero's stack (which will necessarily be small at this point).

As for raising three high-level heroes, I doubt that's possible. If you divide your army, you're also asking to get defeated one-by-one, and to get three heroes all to a high level requires a really big map. Maybe in a very long game you can start training more heroes (and then I too would train magic heroes, because low level might heroes are relatively weak).

And I don't know - you're saying that magic provides an 'extra punch that does not depend on reinforcements'. Isn't that equal to saying that magic is stronger early-game, when armies are small?

P.S.: Actually, I just realized that this can be done with minimal costs if your army contains Phoenixes, Greater Elves, Elder Druids, Archmagi, Titans, and Mass Haste, but that does require some luck to get and use, not to mention an awful lot of dedication. It's far easier just to have Chain Lightning, some flyer or shooter, and whatever army you want.

You see, you're acting under the assumption that the Knight player will still be using Knight armies later in the game. In a very large map, this will not be the case. Knight units are subpar - 2 Black Dragons annihilate 4 Crusaders easily. If Knight is to compete, Knight must capture more castles, use different alignment's creatures. If he doesn't, it's bad play, and he deserves to take damage from the turrets.

I don't think there's much luck involved in this scenario as well. You yourself mentioned a map with 30 castles. Surely a Knight hero would have other castles of other alignments then. An awful lot of dedication? Not necessarily; in such a large map you gain an awful lot of gold per turn. Building up other castles becomes easy, and if you don't, it's bad play.

Might gains in power when troops accumulate. Accumulation is not guaranteed for most of the game; a powerful hero might land near a castle on the other side of the continent from your main, requiring you to put a large army in less capable hands to defend. Magic gains in power as heroes learn more and better spells and gains levels. If you're not learning new spells, then either you lack in resources, or you're not conquering (or you're just unlucky enough to get the same spells again). Magic never loses power. Might can make magic lose power only by killing the magic heroes, which is difficult to do. Magic can make might lose power by killing troops (easy to do) or killing might heroes. It is far easier for a magic hero to defeat a might one without offering a chance to retreat (with Blind, Paralyze, and direct-damage spells) than for a might hero to do the same.

Troop accumulation will always happen. I think you're making more flawed assumptions now: no powerful hero will land near an important (ie fully built) castle without you realizing it, and if he does, you've not done a good job of scouting. This is Heroes II after all, not Heroes IV, where there is no fog of war.

As for magic not losing power, yes, magic will lose power. Not by decreasing the damage done or anything, but consider this scenario. A might hero has 1,000,000 Bone Dragons. A magic hero has a 150,000 damage Lightning Bolt. So the magic hero casts Lightning Bolt, killing 10,000 Bone Dragons. That's just 1% of the might hero's stack. Earlier in the game the magic hero might have been able to kill 50% of the Bone Dragon stack. Surely magic has lost power!

You make it sound like a magic hero can kill a might hero but not the reverse. That's not going to happen. In a human vs. human battle, the moment one side has to retreat from the final battle, the game is essentially over. It doesn't matter if the magic hero can win the battle without allowing the might hero to retreat - if situations of that kind occurs, the might hero has already lost, and retreating won't save the game for him. Same thing applies to magic heroes. If the magic hero has to retreat from battle, the game is over, and it doesn't matter that the player can immediately recruit the hero again.

[Gaidal Cain]

Magic is not superior in the early game for many reasons. Spellcasters are less powerful, rely on weak spells, and getting said weak spells heavily detracts from the rush buildup. That might is superior in the early game is a main facet of the debate.

Yes it is. The reason for this is simple: The kind of magic you can use with a magic hero that is effectively barred from a might hero is direct damage. It relies on the ratio between stats and creatures. Might, on the other hand, relies on the product between them (roughly speaking). Both grow through the game, which in itself means that might gains power relative to magic (which is what matters, since there is no vacuum with which to compare). But it doesn't stop there- stats growth is essentially logarithmic, since it gets progressively harder to reach higher levels, while creature growth is linear, which tips the scales even more in favour of might. It thus follows that iif Magic is to dominate at any time, it's early game.

[BoardGuest808888]

I often wonder, what's the threshold of balance between direct damage and non direct damage spell ?

(Direct damage = direct HP modifier including resurections)

[grobblewobble]

boardguest
Direct damage spells are generally worth it at the moment they kill the enemy stack completely. If they don't, a spell like paralyze, blind, (mass) haste or (mass) slow will probably help you more.

Darmani
Have you played against human opponents? As Banedon said, the AI splits up its own armies into little chunks. Therefore, you will be conquering many defended castles and defeat many heroes with medium-sized armies. Your reasoning so far has been like "magic heroes are better because if they keep winning many medium-scale battles in a row, they can conserve their creatures better". Against a smart human opponent, you can't expect to be winning many battles in a row.
As for the idea of having 5 stacks of 1 gargoyle - yeah, against the AI that will work well. A human with even 1 Ultra Fast army may be smart enough to cast Death Ripple before you can do anything (even if it hurts his own troops a little bit).
But I feel this discussion could continue forever, without anyone being convinced. So I have a proposal. Why don't we play a multiplayer game to see which hero type is best (might or magic)?
Name a map and difficulty level. We choose the same (magic) town type, but I will keep hiring heroes until either a knight or a barbarian turns up and use that one as main hero. You use a magic hero (or several magic heroes) as main.
Next, to be absolutely sure the battle was fair, we play the same map at the same difficulty with the same town type, but with the colours reversed.

What do you say?