Warrior on impossible is easiest at least timewise with different playing style

[tjoepee]

After finishing the game with all 3 classes I have to come to the conclusion that warrior (also on impossible) is probably the easiest timewise and also battlewise.

At first I expected the difficulty to be warrior>paladin>mage but after while and when u fully managed to exploits the units warrior beats mage. If mage can cast 2 magic every turn then it' s probably mage.

I think I spend around 25 hours max with warrior on impossible. With mage close to 40 hours with lots of loads and reloads when long fights turn out not to be worth. First u just need to rush the ruined castle mission afterwards you are so overleveled that u grind most of darlon with minimum loses using 2 1/2 stacks of marauders vampires royal stack and another whatever units. Most battle are 3 turns with few 4 turns they can be 2 turns but I want to fully use the marauders. The extra gold kick ass also allow u to buy every thing u encounter. I didn' t bother to go for as fast as possible in game time as u need to save and load often and my pc crashes frequently if I save and load to often. I think it' s known vista bug for certain games.

With warrior u can kinda easier upgrade ur intellect whereas as mage u can' t upgrade attack as easily with weapons regalia etc. The skull with +5 int and +5 defense is good example. I like the warrior tree with the ini and attack upgrades also more than any other classes as these are really usefull separately. Mage for example if u don' t need all the 3 magics to be upgraded to lvl 3 imho. For my playing style killing the enemy a.s.a.p. with minimum loses it isn' t necessary. I upgraded distortion and chaos to level 3 and didn' t bother using any order at all. Only gift

Only difficult battle I had was vs Neoka when I was underleveled (around lvl 15) very big time. I went to get her as soon I was possible, but I did clean darlion and freedom islands entirely before going to the dwarfs. I didn' t any necessary fights till I got the rage box and learning. I guess this helps also.

With the demon army u grind easily through dwarfs and elven land. The demoness just rox. Depending on the situation I use her to charm or to swap my vampire units with ranged unit. This allows me the use of 2 free sacrifes the first 2 turns on on the vampire unit and one on the units I time back. Also I abused a small unit of imp+gift to trap and then lure their strongest units that is lurable and I can' t kill the first turn.

Then I switch over to mainly sprite and dryads as damage dealers with bone dragons for the aoe damage and demons I use mainly as tanks. This strat might work with others classes also but I doubt it will be as usefull as with warriors as the attack are so overpowered. My demons have 9X attack at night and I managed to get sprite as high as 6x.

Lol I totally whooped the level 27 hero ambrosius in the land of death when I am level 22, the fight was labelled impossible. I killed the hero in freedom islands also while being heavily underleveled. Only hard to beat units are black dragons but u can abuse soul drain+diplomacy fighting them. My soul drain is only 1 turn rest so u can use every turn. If enemy have 2 stacks of 12 black dragon u don' t bother them the first turn with ur normal units just soul drain them in 2 turns ones on each and all other units are dead meanwhile third turn u use sacrifice + time back on a units to recover some of the loses the black dragon caused at start of the fourth turn the sprites finish of the dragons.

[Keneth]

There's nothing a warrior can do that a mage couldn't, and mages get an additional spell per turn so the only thing you've proven is that you weren't able to use a mage to its full potential and then used all the experience you've gathered in previous runs to play a warrior. If you had enough time to write all that you should spend some of it on your English. ;)

[Ish]

There's nothing a warrior can do that a mage couldn't, and mages get an additional spell per turn so the only thing you've proven is that you weren't able to use a mage to its full potential and then used all the experience you've gathered in previous runs to play a warrior. If you had enough time to write all that you should spend some of it on your English. ;)

Right.. nice smart ass comment at the end, well done.

I think he just demonstrated how to play a warrior quite well

[tjoepee]

Right.. nice smart ass comment at the end, well done.

I think he just demonstrated how to play a warrior quite well

thanks, i think the other guy should try kill impossible random stacks or heroes with +5 levels with ur mage army under 5 turns. He has no clue for example what 20 giants with pimped up attack can do with their earthquake.

u can equip king' s hammer, battle axe, mithril shield and if u are lucky you can even find 2 battle axes or swap for dragon slayer. I took the mithril shield instead of the runes which I usually do.

Use telescope with the 2 special dwarfs armor and ur cannoneers can even take out pesky black dragons with one shot.

Only bad thing and annoying using cannoneer and gaints are that u need to surpress the king' s hammer every 5 battle or so. The gremlin towers has 12k hp so it' s kinda annoying battle.

[Keneth]

lol, he demonstrated how to play any class, the only advantage a warrior has is that he has slightly more leadership and that his spirits level marginally faster. I wasn't trying to diss his game tactics as they are all sound, just his statement of the difference in class efficiency. :rolleyes:

[tjoepee]

well I guess u didn' t played with warrior?
With warrior u have stack of 24 giants with the ld downgrades.
U giants do 2600hp damage vs ground units.
Some battles have 10 units, this means 24k damage similiar to crits of sprites/thorns etc

With mage ur 14/15 or 16? giants do 1200hp damage vs ground units. This means 12k damage. Warrior isn' t the same try play it under 25 hours with warrior it isn' t necessary to do the poison/magic spring res/sac for 20 turns strat. I think I never passed 10 turns with the fight vs neoka as longest. Timewise warrior beats mage, even when the mage is extremely lucky with items.

Though I agree mage is easier in a way that every can finish impossible with mage after learning the exploits of the mage, but if u exploits the units bonuses warriors becomes easier. My first time was paladin on normal then mage on hard and finally warrior impossible. I find warrior on impossible was easier than mage on hard once i start abusing the units.

If you are really smart u give priority to the night and undead commander skills. This make games for 35% easier.

Oh and I am sorry for my english. It is my fifth language and I think it' s okay for being fifth language, don' t u agree?

btw warrior ld is not same as mage. It' s like warrior ld is euros and mage ld is dollars for the obvious reasons. In fact if you do all the maths I think roughly warrior ld is +200% of mage in absolute meanings.

[Keneth]

Well that's just ridiculous, you can just as easily build up your attack with a mage instead of intelligence, sure there's less shrines on the map but the majority of your stat points come from items anyway. And the difference in leadership isn't that huge either, maybe 20% at best which you can easily make up for with an additional spell on the first round. And there's nothing stopping you from getting nighttime operations and dark commander skills with a mage either, it's gonna take longer due to slower might rune gain but you'll get more than enough of them to get anything from the might tree just like a warrior gets enough of magic runes to build up his magic tree. Not to mention that night only lasts for what? 6 hours? And dark commander only works on undead which are nice but not quite as readily available if you get a bad random seed.

And yes, I have played a warrior, a lot more than I have played with a mage. Also, there's no such thing as English as a 5th language unless you live in a rainforest and there's no english speakers within a 100 mile radius. Either that or you for some reason found it more prudent to learn 3 other languages before you bothered learning English, which is somewhat silly considering that English, next to Spanish, is the most spoken language in the world. :D

Oh, or you live on Balkan and you count Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian as 3 separate languages, in which case no cake for you as they're all the same. :mrgreen:

[tjoepee]

Oh, or you live on Balkan and you count Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian as 3 separate languages, in which case no cake for you as they're all the same. :mrgreen:

this says enough what amount of knowledge you gathered before making assumptions/conclusions.

google switzerland and if you are not native swiss english is automaticly fifth language and comparing our language systems with all respect to balkan..... no comment.

if you don' t understand warrior ld>mage ld well..... maybe someone else can explain you. What you are saying is that if i have 120 euros and u have 100 dollars difference is 20 dollars. Too bad 1 euros is worth more turkish dollars then us dollars.

You have no clue also how many might runes u need to max out the might tree. U need more mights runes to max out all the skills then vice versa with the magic. As warrior almost every skills is very useable in the might tree and u only need few magic skills too fully benefit from the magic skills. As a mage you need all the might skills too fully benefit the warrior skills. And u prolly dont end needing every mage skills anyway. Alchemy is basicly worthless so is paladin runic stone skills u can abuse the dwarf and infinite money anyway this makes the warrior the only one with 2 unique skills.

Why do u think normally in rpg warrior is mainly a tank and damage dealer with no magic at all? IMHO once u gets to know and understand the game and fullly exploits everything warrior finish game fastest absolute timewise.

[Keneth]

Haha, Switzerland, no language of their own per se so they decided to speak a different one in every part of the country. :mrgreen: Also, slavic languages are in most cases more complex than italic or germanic ones so you should feel honored by the comparison. :P

Also I don't see what you mean by the value of leadership, leadership is a static value that limits the ammount of troops you can have proportional to the troops' leeadership requirement. Leadership requirements are identical for all three classes, hence the value of leadership is identical for all three classes.

And the Might tree is just as useful as the Magic tree, of course moreso if you play a warrior but the same goes for playing a mage. You have more than enough runes to max out everything you need, as well as what you don't need.

[Lari]

Having played both, i should admit that from my point of view, tjoepee is right to say that the warrior is stronger -timewise- . Overall there is no big difference, but from my esperience, it took considerably less (maybe 20%) to use the exploit for the warrior, than the exploit for the mage. Focusing first on the might tree and having a second weapon slot avaible right from the start, made the difference for me. Mage is not gimp, it just take a little more time to develop his true strenght (you can do incredible things with 2 spells per turn, even if u don't use chaos at all).

[jake21]

I found all the classes fairly easy on hard (warrior being easiest at end game and mage easier at start). I started an impossible game on warrior and find it a bit difficult - i've shelved it for now - not sure if I will finish it later - I'm level 7 or 8 - and I've gone to the land of the pirates to claim the map. I'm too weak to battle things there and I don't see a way to get stronger (hence the stalemate and a shelving for now). If I decide to finish it i'm not sure what I will do - I might pay for the map but then i won't have enough gold to buy dwarven or demon army. Hum. Have to think about it... Every game seems to have a 'hard' part that is the hump and once you get over it becomes easy - so I'm hopeful that this is the hard part for warrior on impossible and once I think of a way to get the map it will be much easier...



Having played both, i should admit that from my point of view, tjoepee is right to say that the warrior is stronger -timewise- . Overall there is no big difference, but from my esperience, it took considerably less (maybe 20%) to use the exploit for the warrior, than the exploit for the mage. Focusing first on the might tree and having a second weapon slot avaible right from the start, made the difference for me. Mage is not gimp, it just take a little more time to develop his true strenght (you can do incredible things with 2 spells per turn, even if u don't use chaos at all).

[sector24]

Have any warriors topped 30,000 leadership? I think mages usually end the game in the very low 20s, paladins in the mid 20s, and warriors in the high 20s. It seems like the difference between mage and warrior is about 7-10k leadership which can be a lot more damage potential (~25-30%). The extra spell every turn needs to equal the average damage of the extra units in every stack of a player's army to say the mage is "better". Either that or the utility of a 2nd spell needs to be so great that the mage can do things the warrior can't. With the exception of a few tricks (hypnosis->sacrifice) I don't think this is really the case.

I'm not going to calculate the damage from an extra fire rain vs. the extra units from leadership, but that's essentially the main difference between the warrior and mage.

[Keneth]

Actually the average difference in leadership is more like 3-6k depending on how much you invest in it. But even if you get every single point of leadership available to you, it will just mean that your attack is lower hence lowering your damage by some 10% at least (if we assume you traded 3 points of attack for additional leadership) which would again even things out.

[sector24]

Actually the average difference in leadership is more like 3-6k depending on how much you invest in it. But even if you get every single point of leadership available to you, it will just mean that your attack is lower hence lowering your damage by some 10% at least (if we assume you traded 3 points of attack for additional leadership) which would again even things out.


Alright well I totally disagree with you, so I went into the high scores thread to compare leadership values:

Warrior
25,000
29,000
28,000
25,000
31,000 (MajorS)

Paladin
23,000
26,000
23,000
25,000 (me)

Mage
19,000
22,000
22,000
19,000
21,000
22,000

As you can see, the difference between the best warrior and the best mage is indeed 9,000 leadership, which is a roughly 30% increase in damage. The average is not quite so high, but still in the range of 6-9k difference between the mage and warrior.

Using info from the leadership, we can deduce that the warrior would have to sacrifice ~9 Attack to offset the increase in damage from leadership (assuming 1 Attack = 3.3% damage). I doubt this is the case, in fact in the screenshots where the mages have 22,000 leadership, they are wearing at least 3 artifacts that grant leadership to get that number so they are losing the same amount of potential attack points that the warrior would.

Now these numbers are very rough and there's a lot of interpretation and wiggle room involved. But again we come to the main distinction between the warrior and the mage. Is two spells in 1 combat round better than 6-9,000 leadership?

[Keneth]

But these are still the absolute values of purist mages and purist warriors, a mage investing in leadership gets around 21-24k of leadership whereas a warrior investing less in leadership gets 24-28k. I know because I never play purist classes, hence my warrior ended up 35 Int and my mage with over 24k leadership. The argument is not how big a difference can be because I agree, it can be huge, it's how small the difference can get if you play a mage like a warrior. So let's assume that 25k is the most leadership a mage can get and take MajorS' whooping 31k for the warrior, depending on the equipment and type of army, the warrior will do roughly 20% more damage. Whether or not an average mage can top that with a nuke is a topic for a different discussion but I guarantee you that the only difference in speed when playing at top efficiency will be the time spent waiting for your mana to recharge and it won't ammount to 15 hours when rushing, not with mana potions at every second vendor. :rolleyes:

[Calinda]

It's not only the leadership.
Warrior = more leadership/ more attack/ more rage(i.e. more and better criticals)/ stronger spirits. Mage = second spell per turn for 3 turns (most important turns, we have to agree).

[milo]

You also don't seem to be taking spell buffs into account mages will be able to cast more (and more effective) spell buffs to boost their armies damage potential like mass bless, precision, dragon & demon slayer. Leadership considerations are not the whole story.

[tjoepee]

If you find the knight set together with the deductions u can hire 1250 swordsman with warrior stats. I never topped 30k ld but with 30k i think it' s even higher and if someone got 31k I think he can get closes to 200 knights? LOL using
Any one know what' s max of mage?
Using human only army the haas labyrinth is kinda ridiculous easy still most battle are labelled overpowering or impossible but I end it within 3 turns not exploiting the magic spring. I only reloaded the units few times in the labyrinth.

Also I managed to pimp up my warrior to intelect 40 with attack 30 and defense 19. Using the +5 +5 intelect and lvl 2 pain skull dunno the name but the +5 +5 thing. But I used it only for fun my end stats are 37 34 19
I used the mithril shield.

My phatom skills is 53% if i pimp up to 40 means my phanton of swordsman is over 600, lol.

With warrior vs impossible stacks u can do this and usually u win 3 turns with minor casualties:

Swap the demon with the demoness in enemy territory. If big stack ranged trap it so it has to attack u. U can use it in combo with the bone dragon poison cloud phantom the demon giot armor the dragon. The demon will clear most of them then u use sacrifice on him and timeback (if any damage of other units). In the end vs orcs doing this the first turn u do total damage of 60k. Yes using fairies sprite u can do the same but the difference is the number of enemies the damage is done on and the number of times u can attack (back) with the 2 demons stack.

[tjoepee]

But these are still the absolute values of purist mages and purist warriors, a mage investing in leadership gets around 21-24k of leadership whereas a warrior investing less in leadership gets 24-28k. I know because I never play purist classes, hence my warrior ended up 35 Int and my mage with over 24k leadership. The argument is not how big a difference can be because I agree, it can be huge, it's how small the difference can get if you play a mage like a warrior. So let's assume that 25k is the most leadership a mage can get and take MajorS' whooping 31k for the warrior, depending on the equipment and type of army, the warrior will do roughly 20% more damage. Whether or not an average mage can top that with a nuke is a topic for a different discussion but I guarantee you that the only difference in speed when playing at top efficiency will be the time spent waiting for your mana to recharge and it won't ammount to 15 hours when rushing, not with mana potions at every second vendor. :rolleyes:

I really wonder if u tried human armies vs dragon using the warrior bonuses. Maybe someone else can explain u no matter what u do if I do a roughly estimation warrior and mage in absolute meanings is at least 75% ld difference. Try using demons with both classes if the difference is only 20% damage I need new glasses.

[tjoepee]

[QUOTE=Keneth;60512]B]identical[/B] for all three classes, hence the value of leadership is identical for all three classes.
QUOTE]

So what u are saying is europe use euros, america uses dollars and china yuan. They are all money so the value is identical?
Your warrior knights has always higher attack no matter what u do or if ur mage playing like warrior. That' s impossible u don' t get offered attack as much as warrior and u don' t find the attack bonus on the map as much as possible and u can' t equip 4 weapons. Thus the ld of warrior has more value than the othes classes imho.

Not to mention playing mage as a warrior u totally screw up ur mage. Having higher attack screwing ur intelect is not worth with the mage.
For fun I pimped up my warrior to intelect 41, if u watch the screen shots I didn' t have the best of the best weapons also.
Thus making the warrior and mage difference only the high magic the warrior can have same amount of intelect I believe with still much higher attack and LD.

Iron Fist just kick ass!

[Keneth]

Europe and the States have different currencies, Warriors and Mages have the same currency with the same value. A warrior gets a bonus from Iron fist though, that's true, but it only works on human knight-type units and it's not that huge - if you max Iron Fist you can get 20% more knights, a decent bonus if you like human armies. Warriors get no bonuses for demons, iirc the only reduction in leadership requirements comes from Demetrius and a mage can use that just fine so I guess you need new glasses. Also, a mage can have well over 60 Int, buffing yours to 40 means nothing, a mage can get his attack up to 40 also and the only difference between him a and a warrior will be that the warrior has more troops and a mage can cast more spells. Good thing you tripple-posted to prove nothing that we haven't already conceded on. :rolleyes:

[tjoepee]

Europe and the States have different currencies, Warriors and Mages have the same currency with the same value. A warrior gets a bonus from Iron fist though, that's true, but it only works on human knight-type units and it's not that huge - if you max Iron Fist you can get 20% more knights, a decent bonus if you like human armies. Warriors get no bonuses for demons, iirc the only reduction in leadership requirements comes from Demetrius and a mage can use that just fine so I guess you need new glasses. Also, a mage can have well over 60 Int, buffing yours to 40 means nothing, a mage can get his attack up to 40 also and the only difference between him a and a warrior will be that the warrior has more troops and a mage can cast more spells. Good thing you tripple-posted to prove nothing that we haven't already conceded on. :rolleyes:

lmao either way u r completely dumb or try to piss ppl off for now I take it as the later. U don' t post any proofs and lack examples of whatever u say.

A warrior' s LD>Mage LD because my army have higher attack and usually deal the extra capped maximum damage whereas the mage same army deals less damage (hence my demon doing higher damage, not only doing higher damage the first attack but also the second third and so on). I posted it about this in the first post already I think u don' t think deep when u read other ppl post. And this LD only increase with not only the iron fist bonus but also the knight set bonus or dwarf hammer bonus. 20% discount meants more units and yes these units have higher attack also and does close to the max extra damage whereas ur mage plain simply don' t. If u buff up ur attack u will never reach the attack of the warrior, not to mention the LD u miss and hence u screw ur mage

A mage can' t cast more spells the spellbook is the same u get to caste twice for 3 turns which IMHO doesn' t weight as much as the 2 warrior specific bonusses.

And check the high score section u will see the warrior always have higher stats. Instead of thinking MAGE just rocks play the game with warrior on impossible at a high level and then talk.

to quote u in other section
Yes, the only way to get rage after round 20 is rage drain and chargers.
great way to use rage drain and chargers considering u have no rage income, lol....... u missed the post completely about using poison cloud being useless to get infinite money.

Every post of u so far I have read u only try to proof to some newbies u have better knowledge throwing words or things that u think r cool. Most of the time they are useless IMHO. At least i post few combo and tricks.

my 2 cents I won' t be responding to u anymore as u always miss the point of posts anyway.

[Keneth]

U don' t post any proofs and lack examples of whatever u say. I don't have to post my examples to disprove your examples. Redundancy doesn't achieve anything.

A warrior' s LD>Mage LD because my army have higher attack and usually deal the extra capped maximum damage whereas the mage same army deals less damage (hence my demon doing higher damage, not only doing higher damage the first attack but also the second third and so on). I posted it about this in the first post already I think u don' t think deep when u read other ppl post. And this LD only increase with not only the iron fist bonus but also the knight set bonus or dwarf hammer bonus. 20% discount meants more units and yes these units have higher attack also and does close to the max extra damage whereas ur mage plain simply don' t. If u buff up ur attack u will never reach the attack of the warrior, not to mention the LD u miss and hence u screw ur mage That has nothing to do with leadership, leadership of the mage and leadership of the warrior are the same, the difference in attack doesn't increase the value of leadership, the only thing increasing the value of leadership is the leadership requirements of the troops and the only advantage a warrior has in that area is the Iron Fist skill. A mage can wear sets and items that decrease leadership reqs just like a warrior can, with the exception that a warrior can wear an extra weapon assuming that you take a wife with 2 weapon slots. And we've already discovered that a mage can never have as much attack as a warrior just like a warrior can never have as much int as a mage, no surprise there, it's how the game was designed. An attack-oriented warrior will obviously do more damage to high-level troops with his army but a mage won't be far behind on that account if you assume the same style of play.

A mage can' t cast more spells the spellbook is the same u get to caste twice for 3 turns which IMHO doesn' t weight as much as the 2 warrior specific bonusses. Most fights are done in 3 turns, hence having more spells after that doesn't make much of a difference, does it? The whole point of this discussion is whether 3 spells equal the extra damage of the warrior's army, they might or they might not, doesn't really matter at this point since the difference is marginal either way but your efficiency comparison was ridiculously overstated as far as I'm concerned.

And check the high score section u will see the warrior always have higher stats. Instead of thinking MAGE just rocks play the game with warrior on impossible at a high level and then talk. The people on high score tables don't focus on their stats when playing mages, they focus on increasing their mana, int, and spell damage output. A warrior compensates for these by having higher stats hence their total is higher in average. And I don't think mages rock, I actually prefer playing with a warrior, I always have.

to quote u in other section
Yes, the only way to get rage after round 20 is rage drain and chargers.
great way to use rage drain and chargers considering u have no rage income, lol....... u missed the post completely about using poison cloud being useless to get infinite money. If you're stalling the battle, it means that there's a stack of enemies left, if you're lucky it's gonna be a reasonably large but weak stack on whom you can use rage drain repeatedly without killing them. Each use of rage drain gives you more than enough rage for a set of chargers which give you both rage and mana. For someone who keeps going on about others not thinking things through, you sure don't mind being a hypocrite and doing the same, do you?

Every post of u so far I have read u only try to proof to some newbies u have better knowledge throwing words or things that u think r cool. Most of the time they are useless IMHO. At least i post few combo and tricks I always think twice about what I write and I never use words and things just to "sound cool", if you find my use of proper english hard for your understanding, spend some more time learning it. I'm sorry that you find my posts useless but I won't sweat having one person that doesn't appreciate them. And I don't post "combos and tricks", that seems right up your alley, seeing how you apparently know everything. :rolleyes:

[Gatts]

Guys, please NO further senteces like " xy is either dumb or ..." - if anyone feels offended -> you can always report such content to admins, or if you want to solve it yourselves like big boys - continue via Private Messages (even in private messages is offensive language not tolerated - so please do not misuse it for dishonesting comments)

Everyones view/knowledge of anything, games also, is subjective and may greatly differ -> it is normal that people with strongly oposite opinions can end in "fireball" thread, if you don't want your posts deleted, or even ban, you should try to control yourself a bit.

I believe that Keneth shown is awareness and good intend by his normal and non-offending reaction - and I would like to call this type of "fireball thread" CLOSED - anyone who would like to continue in non proper and too personal manner, should expect consequenses...

Please do not misuse that this forum is quite tolerant, and try to argue using facts from the game, not irrelevant and offending remarks about others. Just that other have other opinion does not mean he is bad, or stupid. Of course some of us have "spicy" reactions - but we are able to tolerate it, can't we?

Keneth's post #21 was not stupid nor it could offend anyone as he very objectively described the ways of warrior's iron fist and compared towards mage skill - and there was nothing wrong/non-true in it.

tjopee - I like your thread as I like to see contradiction towards other threads where mage is considered owerpowered

my opinion : I played all difficulty level for three heroes, easy diff. could look like better for mage (at least first half), later in the game may look warrior better suitable, at least for players relying on manpower... I personally never had the feeling that my game is much easier just because I play paladin/mage/warrior - I had always very tough time playing any of them... (I mostly choose warrior, but use undead army - so I do not use iron fist at all, but I personally mostly like paladin, even if his ressurection does not seem to be making the game easier, I just like him... that is all)

Also I am sure that no one on this forum is or was dumb, sometimes it may look that using irony/or "spicy" language may be misused... but Keneth's post #21 does not bear any of these IMHO.

tjopee - should I play competition game (in HOMM IV - game was modded so saves does not work - you could only start it with HOMM4 - Tournament -> and if you finished the selected map - you sent your save to the Equilibris masters - who very objectively decided who did better, this is way how to compete in single player mode/games) I would go for warrior - but I am sure I would not have much easier game than if I would go for any other class...

My awareness from reading/participating on this forum shows me only that we all like KB (some more, some less) so if we like to argue - it has not reason to argue about oursevles - let's keep the topic KB, ok?

BTW: No need of commenting if anyone got or did not get any "point" as my "point" may have argue value for me, but not for others - if they do not agree with my point, does not mean they did not get it - my university time teached me that physics is much more beutiful as any other subject - two professors may have totally different opinion, still both may be true ... trust me - even these "grown" ups (I do not believe that scientists ever grow up) could not cease their argues, and we are in 21st century, when almost everything is revealed, and we should have much greater tolerance/ better behavior (not like in the movie obout the lost underworld full of prehistoric creaters, where the full scientific audience openely outluaghted the poor guy who wanted to proove that dinosaurs still ive - also he was saying that evolution does exist - what was actually the source of dishonour) But how can one human proove to other human being the real behavior of black hole, only be wathing it through space - here was the problem, even as both saw the same each of them explained it differently.
How can anyone tell me if I like warrior or not - it is my own opinion - it is my way of seing warrior usefull... I have my own value table and my own play style... also I can't tell anyone that he does not like mage - he knows he likes mage and that's it.

[Calinda]

That has nothing to do with leadership, leadership of the mage and leadership of the warrior are the same

Leadership of the mage and warrior are NOT the same; Warrior gets 60*Level from leveling; Mage gets 40*Level (and Paladin gets 50*Level, for completeness). If you picked Leadership at each opportunity you had, i.e. every even level, that is 4800 leadership difference, for level 30 character.

And attack, rage and leadership augment each other in terms of doing damage from troops, so they do increase each other's value in terms of damage. Rage is the least important of the three.

[bilsaboob]

Well, I just wanted to say that there actually is some meat to tjoepee's resoning that the difference in leadership between mage and warrior is not as simple as comparing X vs Y number of troops.

Concider this:

Mage:
100 troops with attack power 10

Warrior:
100 troops with attack power 100

Concider giving additional 50 troops to the Mage, since the attack power of the troops is low anyway, the additional troops is not that valuable.

Now concider giving additional 50 troops to the Warrior, since the attack power of the troops is so high, this will have a great impact.

So to sum this, not only does the difference in leadership mean more troops for the warrior, but from the warriors perspective the value of the additional troops will be higher than to the mage.

You could say it like this:

Mage:
-----------------------------------
100 troops * 10 attack = 1000 value
150 troops * 10 attack = 1500 value

Troop increase: 50%
Value increase: 50%

Warrior:
-----------------------------------
100 troops * 100 attack = 10000 value
150 troops * 100 attack = 15000 value

Troop increase: 50%
Value increase: 50%

Warrior relative to mage:
-----------------------------------

5000 warrior value increase - 500 mage value increase = 4500 value increase warrior relative to mage

Value increase warrior relative to mage: 900%


Lol, just to explain that the increased troops for warrior is an overall higher value than the same increase for the mage.

[Dredman]

Hum I am a new member here and I try to read all posts here about Kings Bounty and must say this is the first post I not understant. :) But anyway I have an Idea about that bubling about mage and warior. Because that is an easy when I play my warior on hard I ussualy equiped items with def,atk or some with multi bonuses and while I will be play mage in my second play I think I will equip some items with int,mana,def or also some multi bonuses because I have less trops so I need some dmg spell to get bonus dmg from spell + from troops. So in my opion there will be always big diferent for me because when I play mage i want to be good at spell and when warior at meele dmg and so on. But at the end I want to say hello to all here I am from czech republic and this game is realy great it is realy better than Homan for me now I love it :) now I starting play Armored Princess and I love it even more the princess is so nice and always bonus in leadership in every level this should be even greater diferent here maybe. After I finish it I start play Legend again on Impossible with all three class so I hope i got also some nice score to post here. I find here so many information and strategic for all class i must try them all. So thanks.

[Vilk]

Hello Dredman, welcome to the forum. I wonder why you wake up this old thread. :) About bilsaboob post, I have the same feeling the you, I don't understand a word but I feel I see roughly what he means. :grin:

About this topic, and last posts it's an error to compare warrior and mage only through leadership and skills available. That's a wrong way to look at the problem because there are the runes requirements. For example a mage won't be able to get all warrior skills at max level when it's very easy for a warrior.

All warrior skills require 42 mind runes when all mage skills require 65 mind runes. That's more complicate than this simple comparison but in practice, it's much more easy to fill the warriors skills and pick the very useful paladin and mage skills than to try with a mage to fill mage skills and pick very useful paladin and warrior skills.

Anyway, there are ton of details and differences but the real point is that the game balance is better for the warrior than for the mage in impossible mode. But that's just a global balance it's quite clear that for some battles and combinations a mage will perform better than a warrior.