do you think Age of heroes is bad or underrated?

[CoolDude]

i think its sort of the 2.i mean,loyalists get WAY more versatile than anoyone else(since a spearman have 3 more lvl up choices) making them quitly overpowered compared to others.

but of course,its just depends of the player,loyalists can just defeat a undead in low seconds,because they have


-a healing unit(whitemage)
-a arcane damage unit(whitemage)
-a super impact user(shocktrooper)
-a fireball user(no guys,its not ryu,its red mage)
-and a well-areound one(leautnant)

[Hulavuta]

Personally, I think it's unbalanced, since it gets rid of the XP required for lvl 2, since you can jump straight to it. XP is an important part of balance, because extremely powerful units are balanced out by taking a lot of XP to gain.

[monochromatic]

What Hulavuta said. And some factions have level one units that are particularly good only to advance to a particularly bad level 2 and vice versa. AoH completes ignores this aspect.

[Velensk]

I just think it's unbalanced. It was incredibly fun demonstrating this with a silver mage leader on Cysaurian Battlefield.

[pauxlo]

Could this be balanced by changing the recruit costs of the level-2-units?
Like, "lots of bad units" may still be better than "only a few good units", if done right.

[Hulavuta]

I just think it's unbalanced. It was incredibly fun demonstrating this with a silver mage leader on Cysaurian Battlefield.

You just made my day.

[Velensk]

Could this be balanced by changing the recruit costs of the level-2-units?
Like, "lots of bad units" may still be better than "only a few good units", if done right.

Actually, it still is generally better to recruit level 1 units than level 2 units in terms of efficiency (at standard gold settings) but this does not stop balancing problems. Access to even a few level 2 units in certain match-ups can unbalance things severely because of lack of a sufficient counter (white mages against undead, goblin pillagers against the same, Wraiths against knalgans , leader units against knalgans/northerners, and a few others that I don't care to come up with at the moment), then there are the effects of level 3 leaders (especially the aforementioned silver mage but it's not the only problematic ones).

[Sangel]

Age of Heroes is indeed poorly balanced, for the various reasons people have mentioned above. I don't believe it's intended to be balanced, really - it's been around since ancient times, and while the Default era has been carefully honed over the years, I don't believe the multiplayer mods have spent any time working on Age of Heroes.

Perhaps a better question - is it worth spending the time to balance Age of Heroes? It's quite fun as it is, and balancing it would probably require removing a bunch of L2 units from various recruit/leader lists, which might detract from the enjoyment.

[monochromatic]

Age of Heroes is indeed poorly balanced, for the various reasons people have mentioned above. I don't believe it's intended to be balanced, really - it's been around since ancient times, and while the Default era has been carefully honed over the years, I don't believe the multiplayer mods have spent any time working on Age of Heroes.

Perhaps a better question - is it worth spending the time to balance Age of Heroes? It's quite fun as it is, and balancing it would probably require removing a bunch of L2 units from various recruit/leader lists, which might detract from the enjoyment.

IIRC there was also Great War era, right? (alliance of light and alliance of dark, 1.4 and before). Yeah, those weren't really balanced.

I'd say balance AoH. It'll take time, I know, but since we already have default multiplayer it's not a rush. Why? Simply because it might be fun to have an alternative era that is shipped with the game, thus things like tournaments might be more varied and interesting, and same for ladder games. Again, not cruical, but would be nice.