H3: Are certain heroes too good?

[Derek]

In Heroes III there are a great numbers of heroes to choose from at the start of every map, this is a given. However, in competitive play are there heroes that ruin gameplay due to their advantages. Thant/Gunnar/Kyre/Sir Mullich all have great abilities at their disposal, but does this make them unusable in tournament play?

I ask this because my brother is calling foul on a game we played not to long ago. He claims that I only won the map because my Necropolis army was headed by Thant and I was able to reanimate 2 Ghost Dragons a turn. Is this a fair complaint? Isn't this the only advantage that the Necropolis has?

[Gaidal Cain]

I think your brother sounds a bit like a sour loser... If there are heroes that you consider too strong to use, make a rule before you start playing, so that none of you can come complaining afterwards. But Necropolis does have a couple of other very good heroes: any that boosts Skeletons or necromancy is very potent.

[Pol]

Well, here are some heroes which are better than others but you may always counter this by company of your special younger heroes. It's only question how you know the game. (Different strategies also works)

It will, of course, not works on small or some other unique, maps.

Thant Animate Undeads is great advantage, as Thant tend to have Schollar too it's always my assurance that my Undeads will know this spells. However the provided bonus it's completely irrelevant later in the game. (mostly)

on time back with Thant

[Gaidal Cain]

I don't get the Scholar part: isn't it Mysticism he starts with?

[Derek]

I don't get the Scholar part: isn't it Mysticism he starts with?

Yeah, it is mysticsim that he starts with. IMO a good ability because of the frequent use of Animate Dead.

Perhaps he was a sore loser, but does he have a point? I guess what I am asking is this: when any of you have, or had, tournaments in Heroes III did you ban any of the heroes from use?

[Gaidal Cain]

I'm not a MP player, but I understand that banning certain heroes are standard fare. Most common seems to be Sir Mullich, and those who specialise in logistics or Level 4 spells, give or take a few extra.

[Pol]

I don't get the Scholar part: isn't it Mysticism he starts with?

Yes, but prob. for learning Earth Magic for Necromancer is 8/112, for Scholllar it is 6/112 and for Magic Resistance it's only 1/112 maximum is for Necromancy skill which is 10/112.

That's what makes Straker valuable btw. (The real procentual probability is a little higher though)

source: hctraits.txt

[Pitsu]

Yes, but prob. for learning Earth Magic for Necromancer is 8/112, for

It is actually close to or even full 100% that a necromancer is offered Earth magic AFAIK. The thing is that wisdom and magic schools do not actually follow that probability table. They are too important :p. If you do not have a magic school you get offered one in regular intervals no matter of probabilities. The same with wisdom. Out of magic schools Earth goes the best (here you can check the probability table) with necromancers IIRC

I agree with Gaidal: if you did not make a rule before game, then Thant was as fair as any other hero.

[Pol]

IRT: Pitsu

Yes, I know that. Point was that Schollar skilll is also offered often.

Sure, that's only fair. Always. Rules are go to be set before the game.

[difool]

On the old forum there was a big thread on this. My opinion was that you
could rank the specialties into groups as follows (best at top, worst at
bottom):

Logistics specialists
Offense
Armorer
Necromancy (with undead armies)
Archery (with certain armies)

Prayer
Haste
Bless
Stoneskin
Bloodlust
Weakness

Intelligence (depends on map)
Sorcery
Resistance
Navigation (depends)

Meteor Shower
Chain Lightning
Resurrection

Level 1 creature specialists [bonus is the highest here]
Level 2 specialists
[Above L2 or so it depends on the creature more than anything]

Other spell specialists
Other skill specialists

* * * *
The biggest controversy was where the damage spell specialists should
rank (this includes Sorcerors). My thinking was that Solmyr might give
you a 3-7 day head start when flagging certain mines and capturing
useful artifacts, but this advantage isn't nearly as significant as you might
think when it comes down to the big battle, where mass spells rule the
day, for the most part. I'd rather have Thorgrimm, where up to half or
more of my troops would be unaffected by a mass spell, which could be
crucial for winning the big battle. Really it all depends-Aislinn would rule
on a small map, where army sizes would be small.

Certainly the top 4 rule, and are the ones most often banned. I don't
think any of the others are necessarily overpowering, tho there are some
which aren't any better than no specialty at all. I also wondered why we
never had specialists for

Ballistics (extra shot)
Scouting (larger radii of view with experience)
Scholar (trade 5th level spells)
Learning
Sorrow (imagine -4 to morale-wooh)
Summoning spells
Curse

[Banedon]

I do not think it is a fair complaint. Thant is a good hero, undoubtedly, but he is not broken. 2 Ghost Dragons a turn can be easily cancelled out by a simple Implosion. More importantly, if Thant wasn't banned outright he should have another, also very powerful, hero. But I agree that some heroes are too good, and once one side selects them, the others are forced to do the same. My personal preference is banning all Logistics specialist while allowing everyone else.

Animate Dead is not the only advantage Necropolis has. Necropolis derives its power from two sources: Necromancy and the awesome lvl 4-6 creatures. In long games you can fully expect to field an enormous Skeleton Warrior army (which, while maybe not devastating, is definitely intimidating), while in shorter games you can hope to overwhelm your opponents mid-game. In my experience games tend to start out with Castle and Rampart leading (their early Ranged units are the best), but not long later (around the middle of the second week on Expert difficulty) Inferno catches up and soon stands heads and shoulders above everyone thanks to Efreet Sultans. After that once everyone deploys level 6 units Necropolis comes as the strongest, and after that it's rather unpredictable. But in general, all races in Heroes 3 should stand a chance in fair battle, though some are surely harder to play than others. I remember how I once thought Inferno was a worthless race only for my brother to play it, build quick Efreet Sultans, charge me and annihilate my Marksmen with his speed. Ouch.

Therefore, I think you won the game on skill (unless the map was distinctly imbalanced). Your brother should accept the defeat and come back harder in the next game (as my own brothers have done - once I could be almost certain of winning, but now it's quite equal).

[Bandobras Took]

Though I've often heard that heroes that start out with diplomacy are also banned:

Ryland, Adela, and Cyra fit under that list, I believe.

[Derek]

I do not think it is a fair complaint. Thant is a good hero, undoubtedly, but he is not broken. 2 Ghost Dragons a turn can be easily cancelled out by a simple Implosion. More importantly, if Thant wasn't banned outright he should have another, also very powerful, hero. But I agree that some heroes are too good, and once one side selects them, the others are forced to do the same. My personal preference is banning all Logistics specialist while allowing everyone else.

Well, he was playing Castle so he didn't have access to implosion!

I agree with your stance of banning the logistics heroes, and I do the same on every map that I play. It seems to be the case anyways that they have to be banned, Gunnar can move around half the map with no trouble at all.

I think that Resurrection is far better than what difool listed it as. Jeddite can dominate later with an unkillable Dungeon army. Mana vortex powers his specialty to a god like plane. Obviosuly not as good as logistics, but I'd hate to fight some Minotaur Kings that couldn't be stopped.

[Gaidal Cain]

I'd say that any spell specialists benefits as much from having that spell (and from the start, no less). Being guaranteed Resurrection or Meteor shower is a pretty good bonus. Also, the extra power granted by it early on is something that can be used to get an ongoing advantage: Gold mines two days earlier means lev7 dwelling on time means you can attack with a large advantage means...

[difool]

My thinking on Resurrection is that it is good in the early mid-game (when
either Alamar or Jeddite are up to Adv/Exp Earth), but sooner or later most
heroes will be able to find it somewhere. Certainly for limiting attrition they
are useful, but it all depends on whether you would have had Resurrection
anyway from a Spell Guild. I usually don't cast it during the middle of a
heated battle, but towards the end when I have one enemy stack Blinded
(or Hypnotized!) and need to rebuild my forces, in which case all that
specialty does is save you some time and mana. Plus if you have a
trained Scholar handy, when one of them does show up, you can
just trade for it.

Same argument holds for Thant. I just dislike gambling that a certain
spell won't show up in my guild, when I can get a sure thing with
Galthran or Vidomina. [And for Dungeon, Ress. does nothing to bring back
dead dragons.]

In reference to Gaidal, what he says is true in a smaller/shorter game.
Since I tend to play XL maps, the big showdowns often occur in the 5th
month or so, when 2 extra level-7's doesn't really matter that much.
But yeah in a big fight in month 2 those extra two will make a big
difference.

I usually change the Diplomacy heroes so that they have something else.
Of all the things listed Diplomacy can be the biggest game-killer-even 8
Archangels which join you can easily turn a losing battle into a winning one.

[Gaidal Cain]

Plus if you have a
trained Scholar handy, when one of them does show up, you can
just trade for it.

Alamar is especially handy for this, as he starts with scholar- four level ups, max, and every other hero can benefit from it.

Same argument holds for Thant. I just dislike gambling that a certain
spell won't show up in my guild, when I can get a sure thing with
Galthran or Vidomina.
In reference to Gaidal, what he says is true in a smaller/shorter game.
Since I tend to play XL maps, the big showdowns often occur in the 5th
month or so, when 2 extra level-7's doesn't really matter that much.

Well, another thing with larger maps is that they also usually means more towns: if you're going to be stuck with one or two (which you also might not be able to build mage guilds properly in), then being guaranteed a good fourth level spell is comparatively more beneficial. Thant is a borderline case though, as Animate Dead usually shows up in Necroploises' mage guilds.

[Banedon]

Well, he was playing Castle so he didn't have access to implosion! devil

If he was playing Castle he shouldn't worry so much about Animate Dead. 2 Ghost Dragons can hardly threaten 2 Archangels, and since his units are all very powerful (relatively), if he loses to a Animate Dead something probably went wrong with his gameplay.

I think that Resurrection is far better than what difool listed it as. Jeddite can dominate later with an unkillable Dungeon army. Mana vortex powers his specialty to a god like plane. Obviosuly not as good as logistics, but I'd hate to fight some Minotaur Kings that couldn't be stopped.

They can. I agree with difool that Resurrection is far from overpowered. Problem with Resurrection is that it expends your spell that turn. You can resurrect 2 Ghost Dragons, but if your opponent casts Mass Bless, what are you going to do about it? The increased damage output he'd get may be sufficient to kill your 2 Ghost Dragons. Many of the other Mass spells (especially Mass Prayer) are just as devastating.

[Derek]

They can. I agree with difool that Resurrection is far from overpowered. Problem with Resurrection is that it expends your spell that turn. You can resurrect 2 Ghost Dragons, but if your opponent casts Mass Bless, what are you going to do about it? The increased damage output he'd get may be sufficient to kill your 2 Ghost Dragons. Many of the other Mass spells (especially Mass Prayer) are just as devastating.

Fair enough. However, I often find myself dealing with long, grueling, final battles where the additional units help. Obviously I want my mass spells up first, but if they're still up I may want to reanimate, say, 20 Minotaur Kings along the way. This certainly is a large advantage, not broken, but a good advantage.

[Banedon]

Technically, you're not supposed to let your units get killed in the first place. Well, maybe let the Infernal Troglodytes die a little, but not the vital units.

[Corribus]

I ask this because my brother is calling foul on a game we played not to long ago. He claims that I only won the map because my Necropolis army was headed by Thant and I was able to reanimate 2 Ghost Dragons a turn. Is this a fair complaint? Isn't this the only advantage that the Necropolis has?

I watch a lot of (American) football, and I have found that a lot of people like to complain about referee calls, and particularly they like to blame a loss on several or even a single bad call. "Well, we only lost the game because the refs made a bad call at such-and-such a point and that cost us the game - it was unfair!" Earlier in the season this year the Redskins lost a very close contest to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on what was admittedly a very bad call at the very end of the game that directly gave the Buccaneers enough points (2) to win the game by a margin of one point (36-35). It can (and has) been argued by 'Skins fans that that "unfair" call not only cost the Redskins the game, but directly affected (adversely) the remainder of their season. True. But these fans would do well to keep in mind that though that single bad call gave the Buccaneers enough points to win the game, that bad call certainly did not put the Buccaneers in the position to CAPITALIZE on the bad call and win the game. The Redskins did that themselves by allowing the Bucs to score 34 other points throughout the earlier portion of the game. (N.B. The Redskins got revenge last week, so all is well... or at least it was until they choked against the Seahawks yesterday )

The point I'm trying to make here is that it's easy for a loser to point to a single advantage of the winner that "cost them the game". Maybe the advantage was even "unfair" and unjust. But even so, the loser put himself in the position for that unfair advantage to be enough to ensure victory for his foe, and so really he has only himself to blame.

Did Thant grant you an advantage? Probably. Would you have won the match if you did NOT have that advantage? Perhaps. But whose fault was it that made it so that having this advantage was just enough to give you victory? Maybe if he had gone out and beaten Thant earlier, that advantage wouldn't have helped you. Maybe maybe maybe.

In other words: your brother needs to suck it up, lose honorably, learn from his failure and deal with this disadvantage in better fashion next time, or do better in other areas so that this advantage is not enough to give you victory. (Or he could just choose Thant next time himself!)

C.