XP implications on hero behavior

[kenc80]

I'd say I'm up to 5 or 6 games in B3 (which is excellent by the way) and the system for XP & bonus allocation has got me thinking about how best to use my heroes in early game expansion.

Since there are not items yet, the big payoffs for ruin visits are XP, $$$ & moves or strength. It also seems that its taking my heroes much much longer to get that 2nd point of command than it did in B2. I guess I havent gotten in a lot of late game fights but whenever I get XP with the dreadknight I just give him more moves. You hate to wait 2 or 3 more bonuses to save up for command.

In land based maps I feel like the female/amazon hero with the extra moves is going to be the pick for early heroes. To me its just so risky to get XP early via battles that I'm basically using my heroes really just to grab money at this point. Maybe thats common sense but it just seems like i'm fighting less with my heroes early now.

In sea maps I've been going with the dreadknight bc with the boats why bother with the extra moves. Along the same lines I've been building dwarves in port cities bc theyre such cheap str 4's and you can boat them too to negate their short moves.

Anyways lots of fun so far, great job pirahna, snotling and all the mapmakers!

[KGB]

Kenc80,

To me its just so risky to get XP early via battles that I'm basically using my heroes really just to grab money at this point. Maybe thats common sense but it just seems like i'm fighting less with my heroes early now.

That's the only purpose for heroes until at least turn 15+. Ruin picking for gold is the most important thing your first 2 heroes can do since that leads to more heroes/allies and better production.

What's important to realize is that the cut off point for getting an ally now seems to be 1000 gold. So it's generally a good idea *not* to take a 2nd hero right away on turn 2/3 if you will shortly (later that turn, next turn) get enough gold from a ruin to pass the 1000 mark to get an ally.

Along the same lines I've been building dwarves in port cities bc theyre such cheap str 4's and you can boat them too to negate their short moves.

Heavy Infantry for me. Cost half as much (200 vs 400 for Dwarf/Pikeman) but have 3/4 the strength and move further (12 vs 8) once you do start moving inland. Then top it off with less upkeep cost.

The only other 1 turn units I ever buy are Bats/Elves. Everything else is just what I find in the neutrals / enemy cities.

KGB

[kenc80]

KGB wrote:
What's important to realize is that the cut off point for getting an ally now seems to be 1000 gold. So it's generally a good idea *not* to take a 2nd hero right away on turn 2/3 if you will shortly (later that turn, next turn) get enough gold from a ruin to pass the 1000 mark to get an ally.

Right but then what happens is I start debating whether to wait for dragons/demon heroes or just start buying pegasi. Take for example our riverwar game 649 with you, me, steff, pillager, piranha and others. I'm saving money for a good hero with allies and pillager already has a pegasi 8 stack in my territory. so i'm trying to cobble together a fighting force and he's roaming about with allies deep in my territory on turn 13. So right the debate becomes to wait for a crappy hero or start buying allies. Ugh. what to do? guess this is what makes it fun!

[Pillager]

Roaming deep in your territory eh?!...Good to know.

I started out favoring the dreadknight due to the stack bonus...I didn't realize that the dreadknight's +1 attack didn't stack with pegasi/dragons. Now I'm tending towards the amazon (for the speed). But the paladin is also a decent choice (for the learning). I've also has some success powering up the dreadknight's attack stack bonus to +3.

I'm not building light cav anymore. They just don't have the punch. Like KGB, I'm buying mostly heavy inf.

[Moonknight]

I've really become fond of Wizards, especially if I'm anywhere near a Strength +1 temple...that's a deadly combo!

[KGB]

Moonknight,

EVERYONE is fond of Wizards. Problem is the only ones you get are in neutrals. You never spend 1400 to buy them in a city. But you do buy plenty of 1 turn units so getting the right ones is important.

KGB

P.S. Incidentally I think Elves / Lt Cavalry are a bit to expensive now. Lt Calv probably need to be 250 and Elves 300 since they both went from 3 to 2 strength. That would at least allow them to be bought a bit more often.

[kenc80]

if youre going to spend 1400 on wizzies might as well wait and pony up for the big boys at 2000.

KGB I tend to agree with that. When is the unit/bonus section of the warpedia going to come out?

Pillager wrote:
I started out favoring the dreadknight due to the stack bonus...I didn't realize that the dreadknight's +1 attack didn't stack with pegasi/dragons. Now I'm tending towards the amazon (for the speed). But the paladin is also a decent choice (for the learning). I've also has some success powering up the dreadknight's attack stack bonus to +3.

Pillager I saw that thread a while back but didnt understand what it implied. So are all Hero Command bonuses not stacking with allies stack bonuses? As in, if I have a pegasus plus a DK then im only going to get +1 to stack?

Roaming deep in your territory eh?!...Good to know.

And yes you are and yes you stole MY ruin!

[KGB]

Kenc80,

Pillager I saw that thread a while back but didnt understand what it implied. So are all Hero Command bonuses not stacking with allies stack bonuses? As in, if I have a pegasus plus a DK then im only going to get +1 to stack?

No, hero command bonus's DO stack with allies stack bonus's. This works the same as beta2.

What doesn't stack is the extra +1 stack bonus the Dreadlord starts with. That bonus is the same as the stack bonus that the Pegasi/Dragon/Elephant-in-open/Wolfrider-in-swamp gives. So it doesn't stack. Thus if you take a Dreadlord and add a Pegasi with him then he only is a +2 bonus (1 from command, one from stack) rather than +3 (2 from command, 1 from stack).

So when you are looking at hero bonus's the command bonus is the big one. That is unique to heroes and stacks with bonus's from units. But the stack bonus when attacking/defending/various terrains doesn't stack. Thus it's basically useless to ever take as an upgrade.

Personally I find the fact the hero can have both bonus types to be counter-intuitive. I wouldn't mind at all if those stack bonuses to attack/defend etc were simply dropped in Beta4. The only one that is remotely useful is Anti-Air.

KGB

[Zajoman]

Counterintuitive is exactly how I would describe it.

[Pillager]

Darklords had heroes that could gain both morale and leadership bonuses. This never seemed counterintuitive to me. Warlords 3 had a system of names that made the abilities easy to understand. I would love to see Warbarons adopt the Darklords system. But, if they choose not to, I think they would do well to adopt a system of unambiguous names for the various bonuses.

Currently, the term 'command' is used for the hero only stack bonus(in darklords this was leadership). then you have 'stack bonus' (instead of morale) for the bonuses given to stacks by pegasi, elephants, dragons and suchlike. This name is a poor choice and likely to cause confusion, because command is also a stack bonus.

Then there are terrain bonuses, which add to the strength of the unit with the bonus. But, some of the stack bonuses are terrain specific as well (they aren't terrain bonuses though). This point confused me for quite a while, and I suspect that many players are still scratching their heads about this one.