|
| Thread: Strategy Preference - 1 or 2 armies? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
posted January 29, 2007 08:59 PM |
|
|
Strategy Preference - 1 or 2 armies?
First of all, my appologies if this discussion has been done before. I'm new, please don't bash me 
This is a little dilemma I've been up against in nearly every map I play, and I was curious how the lot of you deal with it. The main question is, wether the best option is to go for a 1 single main grand army, or for multiple heroes that move about seperately.
Advantages of 1 army compared to many:
- All experience found goes into 1 main hero.
- When your main army gets defeated, at least you know you got beaten with everything you had.
- You can handle pretty much any challenge.
Advantages of multiple heroes compared to 1 main army:
- Quicker expansion in more directions.
- More versatile in defending a large territory, as a main army can only be at one place at a time.
Personally I pretty much always go for one main army, and end up frustrated when 4 - 5 AI heroes move in to assault my territory and capture my recource mines.
Quicker expansion and better defense sounds very alluring to me, but I can't help but to think, whenever a second hero beats some neutral monster stack, that experience COULD have gone to my main hero...
After all, a single level 20 hero with the entire army could easily beat 4 level 8 heroes each carrying around 25 % of their kingdom's army.
Town portal is usefull, but not enough to protect your recourcemines.
Your thoughts on this?
(note that this dilemma applies to every HOMM, not just Heroes V.)
____________
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted January 29, 2007 09:14 PM |
|
|
i usually use multiple heroes. thats just me. one to stay in the town, one to ride around getting resource (dammit, i'm reveling the strategy to the enemy)
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
dschingi
Famous Hero
the guy with the dragon golem
|
|
posted January 29, 2007 09:15 PM |
|
|
Welcome!
In the beginning of a game you should have one main hero doing all the battles and 1-2 scouts to collect resources and transfer creatures from your town to your hero. With one strong hero you can fight much tougher neutral stacks than you could with a few weak heroes.
After some time it might be necessary to build a second or third army, for example if your main hero is far away from town and an enemy hero is near...
____________
open source for an open mind
|
|
sdfx
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2007 10:14 PM |
|
|
XP growth is not linear and it's impossible to do all the fights with a main hero anyway. That's why it's useful to make scouts capable of fighting - not only will they get mines/resources but most importantly they will be able to beat up enemy scouts. A strong scout can even weaken enemy main before final battle.
Might heroes are not a good material for a scout because they need an army - the only exceptions are those that start with war machines.
Magic heroes are better scouts (especially wizards) than might ones because they don't need an army that much. For example, with Arma in guild and Nathir as scout, it's definitely a good idea to level him up and get expert Destructive so later he can do something useful.
____________
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted January 30, 2007 04:43 AM |
|
|
At first I have one Hero, who gets big army/stats. I sometimes make another hero who picks up the treasure after i take the monsters. When the enemy splits up I try to power up any and all heroes, then rush home or meet the enemy.
(go sacrificaial scouts!)
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
TemjinGold
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2007 05:00 AM |
|
|
This question can be addressed by drawing an analogy to an RTS game like StarCraft. Do you play with 4 worker units or 20? You can argue that if you play with as few workers as possible, you would maximize the amount of units you can build from the resources you mine since those resources have a fixed amount. However, the reason more is better is because a lot of people overlook the RATE of resource collection. The rate is vastly more important than the actual amount.
To turn this back to HOMM, you can argue that a single all powerful hero will can have all the XP for him or herself but once again, it's the RATE of XP collection that matters. Assume a 2-player multiplayer game where you have 1 single hero and I use multiple heroes. Your one hero would collect all the XP you can find while my multiple heroes must share the XP they find. HOWEVER, the important thing to note is that I will be getting a much larger percent of the map's XP than you because I am expanding quicker. I am seeing more of the map, collecting more stuff, and fighting more total battles (especially if I chain heroes) than you because my total movement is much higher than yours.
What I'm trying to say is, don't look at it as your other heroes taking XP away from your first: Look at it as more heroes = taking more XP away from your OPPONENT. The battles aren't waiting for your hero in particular; it's first come, first serve.
Now of course, that's not to say don't make one hero stronger than the others. You do want to do that. You just also want to make your other heroes strong enough to be useful.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted January 30, 2007 08:22 AM |
|
|
That's an interesting way to look at it actually, never thought of it that way.
It would still mean though your kingdom's army would have to be split, and although you can combine your forces into one hero, it renders your heroes quite vulnerable against enemy main heroes who most likely will have bigger armies.
I guess the multiple hero-strategy works best for magic heroes, actually. Does the same apply for might heroes?
____________
|
|
Istari
Known Hero
Truth Teller, ToH
|
|
posted January 30, 2007 03:05 PM |
|
|
|
I love getting a 2 (or 3) week army with my primary hero and expanding as far as I can. That hero may make it 3/4 the way across the map and be gone for 4 weeks from my castle. I use a secondary hero during this time to defend my castle/ expand in another direction. 6 or 7 weeks into the game my little army with my primary hero is no match for other primary heroes, which is all part of my plan. When they fight my primary, I weaken him (or her) and retreat (hopefully no shackles of war). No my primary hero is back in my primary town and can learn all the spells that he couldn't learn before and I don't have to waste a bunch of time marching back across the map to do it. Now I've expanded far, have 1 very strong hero who has gathered a lot of xp/gold/resources and now has the spells + army that my second hero was caretaking. I also have a second hero with a moderate level who is now perfect for castle sitting/ guarding while my primary goes main army hunting... or do I?
|
|
Istari
Known Hero
Truth Teller, ToH
|
|
posted May 08, 2007 09:13 PM |
|
|
I've been doing some more thinking about this. Some maps are open and your exporation is limited only by time and distance (and getting their before your opponent). These maps are probably good for split heroes. Some maps however (like battle for honour) are closed, with a clear "my side" and "his side" seperated by massive guards. If no one is rushing, a second hero does rob the priamry hero of experience. If you know that you will likely clear your side and not get anything from his side, you know that there is only so much experience to be gained and "wasting" it on a second hero may be a bad idea.
Exceptions- getting crucial mines faster
- Knight secondary getting exp trainer + exp counter strike
- planning on breaking through without clearing your entire side.
- Suicide bombers (spellcasters)
- maybe for extra DE with Necro
any thoughts?
____________
Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong.
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted May 08, 2007 09:18 PM |
|
|
|
I usually prefer several heroes. I like expanding in multiple directions, and get annoyed when I have to wait several turns for my main hero to footslog across the map clearing out neutrals. If it's a relatively weak stack, I'll take it with a scout. If it'll give me lots of XP, I'll wait for my main to arrive before I initiate combat.
|
|
feluniozbunio
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 08, 2007 09:21 PM |
|
|
|
Actually i find very easy to develop another good hero on battle for honor. There is so many chests there and killing all monsters with your main hero there means too much time wasted on meaningless amounts of exp.
|
|
ZombieLord
Promising
Famous Hero
that wants your brainz...
|
|
posted May 08, 2007 09:25 PM |
|
|
Well, I can't stand having my army split up between heroes (if there are big armies, that is)
But with multiple levelup heroes I don't mind, especially if they are magic oriented and will hurt the enemy a bit with destructive spells.
I mean, the title says 1 or 2 armies, not 1 or 2 level-ed heroes
The first thing is what I don't like, the second is fine 
|
|
sdfx
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 08, 2007 11:13 PM |
|
|
Actually, splitting may be really useful with casters' because their potential isn't "wasted". For example, academy forces can be split this way:
Hero A with stronger army
titans, djinns and 5 archmage stacks
Hero B with weaker army
gremlins, golems, archmage stacks and rest.
"Hero A" from other castles - examples of 3 "strong" tiers supported by 4 spellcasting tiers:
Dungeon: hydras, grim raiders, furies(or split them instead for lizard bite) and 4 matriarch stacks - 35% slow is really nice. Vulnerability and righteous might make a really nice combo with furies and raiders.
Haven: paladins, griffins, marksman and 4 priest stacks - divine marksman(2-8) and griffins(5-15).
Inferno: cerberi, nightmares, succubi and 4 pit fiend stacks - can gate, -5 def vulnerabilty, more efficient destructive spells, more vorpal.
Necropolis: archers, spectres, vampires and 4 archlich stacks - decay to fuel mark of the necromancer.
Sylvan: master hunters, unicorns, emeralds and 4 druid elders stacks - endurance for emeralds, better spellpower output with lightnings, more efficient mana feed.
____________
|
|
Pomo
Famous Hero
The lone peasant
|
|
posted May 09, 2007 06:08 AM |
|
|
Temjin pretty much summed it up, leaving a stack of peasants (and thereby delaying gaining the resources that they guard) off in some far distant corner of the map for your main to kill later is just a bad idea. The faster you clear the map -> the faster you will develop your town(s)-> the bigger army you will have -> the earlier you can take on big fights with your main -> higher level main hero.
Of course it depends on the particular map how much you can split armies etc feasibly.
One thing a lot of people don't seem to mention is chaining (moving your army back and forth between many different heroes to do more fights quickly). Done well, this means you don't just have two or three separate armies, you move your main army around a lot more. This is also how you should protect your town in a lot of cases, not by just having a hero + some army sitting there, but by ensuring that you have a chain of heroes that can get your army to your town in one day.
|
|
sdfx
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2007 09:08 AM |
|
|
By chaining you get your army back and then you can simply TP your main hero to tavern by attacking some creeps + retreat.
____________
|
|
radar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Castle/Haven player
|
|
posted May 09, 2007 10:48 AM |
|
|
|
I like to have a strong high-level hero. Maybe it is not the best strategy but I can manage this. Thats why I am choosing one hero.
|
|
Lesij
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2007 04:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This question can be addressed by drawing an analogy to an RTS game like StarCraft. Do you play with 4 worker units or 20? You can argue that if you play with as few workers as possible, you would maximize the amount of units you can build from the resources you mine since those resources have a fixed amount. However, the reason more is better is because a lot of people overlook the RATE of resource collection. The rate is vastly more important than the actual amount.
To turn this back to HOMM, you can argue that a single all powerful hero will can have all the XP for him or herself but once again, it's the RATE of XP collection that matters. Assume a 2-player multiplayer game where you have 1 single hero and I use multiple heroes. Your one hero would collect all the XP you can find while my multiple heroes must share the XP they find. HOWEVER, the important thing to note is that I will be getting a much larger percent of the map's XP than you because I am expanding quicker. I am seeing more of the map, collecting more stuff, and fighting more total battles (especially if I chain heroes) than you because my total movement is much higher than yours.
What I'm trying to say is, don't look at it as your other heroes taking XP away from your first: Look at it as more heroes = taking more XP away from your OPPONENT. The battles aren't waiting for your hero in particular; it's first come, first serve.
Now of course, that's not to say don't make one hero stronger than the others. You do want to do that. You just also want to make your other heroes strong enough to be useful.
Y, that's right you are moving faster and so on, and you can kill the scouts with your hero. But when you meet strong main hero, your weak heros will lose. Anyway, you have to collect lots of gold to buy another heroes, and I think, you won't reagin it so fast...
____________
|
|
TemjinGold
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2007 09:17 PM |
|
|
There's this misconception that if I use more than 1 hero and you use 1 hero, your hero will always be a lot stronger than any of mine. That is simply NOT true. You are all assuming that if I had say 4 heroes and you had 1, the total amount of experience we'd each collect at a given time is equal. It will not be equal! At any given moment, my 4 heroes will ALWAYS have more total experience than your 1. Yes, you won't have any heroes to share "your" experience with but you simply cannot possibly collect experience at the RATE that I do, since my heroes are never just waiting around either. I am passing my army back and forth each turn so that each of my heroes can do as much as I can in that turn. Why won't I be behind in level? Simply because by the time you've taken the experience from 10% of the map, I've probably gotten closer to 30% of the map, due to the much greater mobility my heroes afford my army. When one of my weaker (not weak) heroes encounters your main, so what if you kill it then? Development-wise, resource-wise, you will be far behind.
Basically, you guys are assuming that we are earning experience at the same rate. We are not. If I had 4 heroes and you had 1, it's like I get 4 turns for every one of yours. If you can't see why that gives me a huge advantage, I got nothing more to say...
|
|
feluniozbunio
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2007 09:40 PM |
|
|
|
The most common problem with your strategy is that to kill most creeps you need your main hero. If you just give armies to your secondary you will have significant losses to high lvl neutrals. Its good way of clearing map of low lvl creeps but to fight high lvl ones u need your main and therefore you are still limited with your movement.
|
|
Lesij
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 09, 2007 09:57 PM |
|
Edited by Lesij at 21:59, 09 May 2007.
|
Quote:
You are all assuming that if I had say 4 heroes and you had 1, the total amount of experience we'd each collect at a given time is equal. It will not be equal! At any given moment, my 4 heroes will ALWAYS have more total experience than your 1.
Geeeezzz....
1.I kill first of your four mighty heros with my a bit mightier hero and I get loads of exp
2.I use Summon Creatures and kill your 2nd hero and gain a lot of exp.
3.I kill your third hero and my hero is so might that he becomes unstopable.
4.Your 4th hero is very easy to be killed with my big army and my very mighty hero, who after killin' 3 of your heroes gain +4-6 lvls and your hero can't just do anything, inspite of turtling in castle and w8ing for his death (which will be painful, btw.  )...
The problem is not exp collected by all your heroes but that, you have to share your army. Unless you have 4 ultimate casters that straegy isn't very good. Yes you have more movement points and so on, that's true. But you have to waste about 4000 X 3= 12000 of your money to buy all those heroes, at first you have to chain your heroes, and then you have to split all your army, so that all of them could defend themselves...
That tactics is good in early game, but in late game it becomes useless so there is no point to use it, IMHO.
____________
|
| |
|
|
