I do agree with some of the things in the OP:

1) Inability to choose the hero's initial skill. This can be pretty annoying at times, especially traits that rely on using specific units/strategies that may not mesh with your style (Necromancy-related wizard traits are a big offender here).

In lieu of being able to see them in advance (which doesn't do much good if you're still stuck with the trait when you hire them), it would be helpful to present the player with an equivalent to level-up choice of three skills. You might not get any options that are ideal, but at least you won't be stuck with a stinker.

3) There is a rather large jump in power level between ranks, and smoothing this out a little would make for a less swingy game. This is currently at its worst when you first gain access to a new rank of creatures and suddenly all of the AI/neutral units are bumped up to the new rank - even if you can only field one particular type.

5) While I'm not particularly bothered by the current system, it does make situational spells much less attractive. I wouldn't advocate a mana system since that just results in the strongest spells being spammed until the hero goes dry, but possibly something akin to the 3E D&D sorcerer: you only have a certain number of spells of each level 'known', and you can cast a certain number of spells of each level, but you can choose which one it'll be at the time.

hmmm maybe i am just to amazed by the game but i can't agree with any of those points

1) the initial skill doesn't really matter - there is only one really bad one and that is necromancy (if you play a good guy otherwise it is awesome) all other skills of all heroes are useful and if you play him to be level 30 you will get all possible skills on level 5 (always thinking pure profession here) except one skill that will be on level 1 - it is a strategy game - just plan ahead - and the initial skill only really matters on the first hero - but starting with a wizard is like shooting in your own foot because you would need the spell guildes

ofc it would be nice to have a choice in the beginning but it is not really needed

2) again it is a strategy game and in the campaign even more than in a single game - if you don't want your enemies to have tier three units - wait with the conquering of the shard that unlocks the castle - conquer other shards instead first - i said it already - plan ahead

3) the spell system is just the right way - and again strategy game - plan ahead - your enemy is using necromancy - maybe you shouldn't bring mass suicide but white magic - you want to attack a dragon with your mage? - bring buffs and dragon form or just let your warrior do the job

You can use necromancy as a good guy,too, its not forbidden. I'm pure and I even summon the devil all the time, just balance it out with the occasional exzorcism and keep rescuing those mermaids.^^

Just curious but wouldn't this mean that your not really that "Pure"? lol

To all the ppl who disagree with me your entitled to your opinions just as I am entitled to mine. Also to me a Campaign has never been the best part of a game and you all seem assume that is all I am talking about . Really that is the least. 99% of the time I play single Scenarios and you never really seem to address these in your responses so really they mean nothing to me.

Anyway for the Pure Heroes it's a good decision mostly as for the Archer esp you really need to focus on taking out guys OR supporting not both. The Wizard is easiest to go both way with and even then best to take out guys if you can.

I LOVE the fact that my level 14-17 Archer was able to take down a Hydra pretty much 1 on 1 although I did have 2 Monks Inspiring me to keep up the Double Shots.

I never said it ruined the GAME, but GAMEPLAY a bit in EARLY levels where every skill matters. Two different things although they are linked I just wanted to make sure you understand the difference. This relates to Single Player scenarios really as well and may not be applicable to you. Perhaps they just could have fixed this by having each class start with a predetermined skill instead of the random 1 of 6 different ones.

I understand the difference and I agree with you that:
1. It is annoying
2. It is a drawback.

Mmmm... you know, I wish necromancy wasn't totally useless to a "good" player. It would be fairly simple to add to it that it applies penalties to enemy undead units (with the penalty count depending on how many undead units you field. Maxing out at 0 undead units under your control).

Does anyone else think that the battle field is a little bit to small? I really don't like the speed/movement of some units in this game get especially when compared to the Range, Damage and survivability of ranged units.

For instance since the battle field is so small NO unit should have more than 3 speed. Also Haste should only add 1 speed not double whatever speed you have.

Sadly I have come to see that Swordies are probably a better than Pikers even though I LIKE pikes a lot more. I really need to start a game and try it with each of them from the start with nothing else changing really in my general playing.

Also I would like to know how long it takes most players to conquer provinces outside their starting ring in single scenarios usually? The computer just seems to enter these fights and really not take any losses at all and this hardly seems fair when your playing on Expert level which is the 4th of 7 difficulty levels for this game.

Yes and no. (And I realize I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here and not hitting the specifics you brought up, but...)

If I'm going to fight manual tactical battles, I much prefer Age of Wonder battle maps to Eador battle maps. The bigger size, the inclusion of fortification walls and doors and other significant features consistent with what's on the strategy map, range and defensive bonuses for being "inside", and more opportunity for tactical maneuvering is all good stuff. On the other hand, Eador is *so* battle-heavy, it's already a major grind-fest. I'm not sure I would want to have AoW-style battles inserted into Eador as the game currently stands. I would like to see a *LOT* less grinding, and a bit more strategy and tactics. (Maybe they could make the "grind factor" be user-settable somehow in case some people actually like that much grinding.) Also, terrain movement is practically broken for a lot of unit/hero combinations -- in many scenarios all units move one hex per turn, whether they are speed 1 or speed 3 makes no difference because one hex of woods or swamp or hills will just eat all of your movement (or at least leave you with not enough for a 2nd hex of that terrain), and nothing carries over from one turn to the next (so the speed 3 guy generally has no advantage at all over the speed 1 guy unless there is some "plains" available right where you need it).

But then, compare it to something like Warlords 3, and the Eador battlefield is quite a bit bigger (since in Warlards 3 the "battlefield" is essentially the two squares at the top of the stacks where auto-resolve battles take place between units going at it one on one). It's just a matter of how much emphasis is on the strategy part of the game and how much is on the tactical.

Rather than just the battle map size, I think the bigger issue with Eador battles (and various other aspects of the game) is that it feels too "gamey", too contrived and artificial. It doesn't quite feel like I'm having "real" battles, and it definitely doesn't feel at all like I'm building a "real" empire. It instead just feels like I'm playing a game, one with far too many suspension-of-disbelief-breaking artificial rules. (For me HoMM also suffers from an artificial feel, though in different ways than and not nearly as thoroughly as Eador. Warlords 3 [strategy part] and AoW [strategy and tactical] rise above it, as do many other games.)

Hi.

I think most of the gripes come from different expectations. I usually prefer the way the game works to the proposals of the OP.

-1.The random hero ability is as random as those which you can choose from. It forces you to adapt and not play always exactly the same opening/strategy so to me it's a rather good thing.

-2.Resurrecting the dead should not be easy. It would also ruin the necromancers' ability to keep their undead minions around. Sure, it's very hard to keep a high level trooper alive. That's why you have to take care of those you wish to send. Put them in a fort while your hero brins a lot of fodder on a mission that you know will incur losses and reserve your elite troops for fights that are not suicidal. It's hard, but it forces you to think and plan in order to keep your units, so it's a good thing.

-3.Allowing a starting hero to have a rank 2 or 3 critter with him would help level him faster, I agree and think this would be good.

-4 When you need 2 iron, it means you buy 2 iron if you don't have the strategic resource, so the price is even more expensive than if you required only 1 iron. Having a single strategic resource suffice for all makes these resources really strategic. The neighboring terrain guides your strategy choice much more than if the resources were just limits on amounts of what you produce. I prefer that they limit what you produce rahter than how many you produce so in my book that's a good thing.

-5a. Regarding building schools etc., it's not worse than a commander who requires lots of troops and troop buildings. Fighters need armors and weapons in the same way mages require scrolls. It's expensive to get good spells, but when you do get them, they pack a lot of punch so that's not unbalanced imo. I'd say the commander is far weaker than the mage early on and this one needs balancing.

-5b. I dislike the lack of flexibility because you need a library to change spells from one battle to the next. However, I don't have an issue with defining the available spells before the battle. It forces you to think ahead and plan, and that's good.

-6. Yes an upgrade mechanism would really be nice.

Regarding battlefield size, it's small but that is good because it helps prevent absurd running around maneuvers (like what you could do in MoM). I like the small size a lot compared to other tacitcal battles I played with.

Commander stronger than mage early on.
He can field more units (sometimes twice as much), which furthermore buffed with his abilities, have more health, with basic items from forge become equal to T1 melee unit (axe+shield+chainmail bikini) - he can easily lasthit enemy units and get bonus exp from it.
He can get T2 slot very fast, and if you get lucky with harpy nest/ magic tree/chaos spawn ritual or even mercenary(a lot of possibilities, isn't it?), he move into midgame.

On russian forum we made offline championship about fastest killing 3 enemy AI on small shard/expert.
best results - ~15 - 20 turns for commander(thanks to siege skill).

Well just going to reply briefly on a few of the points in no particular order.

5a) as grem already stated Commander is much more powerful early on than mage for all of his reason plus one more. Troops are supposed to require "upkeep" and the fact that you can go so far into negative income makes this absurdly abusable when you compare it to the number of slots he gets. There is no real way for the Mage class to do this since if they don't have crystal stockpile to pull from they can't cast spells in combat which is hardly fair. Also comparing weapons and gear to spells is not right either. Considering the power of most gears and the fact that they slowly wear away and compare that to 1 use of a good spell in combat and it's not equal at all considering that your mage needs good levels to make best use of the spell. There are a lot more useful Gears your Warrior can get over a one shot per combat spell you get to use. Also theres no level requirement on Gear like there is on spells (spell circle >1 = lvl req really).

4) Resources distributed like they are now make things a bit to dependant on luck vs skill. Lets face it early Wood/Ore and Horses make things SOOOOooooo much easier when they are in your starting ring as opposed to say 2 or 3 rings out. If you have played it then you know HoMM3 had a way for you to purchase and trade your resources for ones you didn't have. The more Marketplaces you had the better the trade rate was.

1) Hero Starting ability, is forcing you to basically keep or waste money on a useless random hero your idea of a good thing in a game? The fix I propose is kind of simple, either let you know what they have before you buy OR make each hero start with the same starting skill like Archer for Scout, Spell power for Wiz, Weapon Master for Warrior or Offense for Commander for example.

One other thing I have found a bit annoying as I go on is choosing stats on level ups. I really hate when say one of my Ranged units gets the choice of Atk or Counter Atk to upgrade, I really think they need to specialize it more for the type of unit your using. For a ranged attacker they should rarely if ever get the choice to up normal atk/catk. Also hate how my 20+Morale guys are offered Morale for lvl up as it's so damn stupid and useless.

Also when your Hero reaches Level 10 and has the choice to continue on his path or choose a mixed path it's REALLY sucky that the skills are so random. Lets be honest here there are always skills you will never want for a mixed class but it wants to force you to take. Sometimes even the same path skill is annoying but I have found a way around that mostly by making sure I have at least level 1 in the skills I will want to use so that theres no room for them to throw the one you don't at you, or severely less chance.

Ah well obviously their are some aspects of the game I like or I wouldn't be wasting my time here or with playing it. I just want to point out some things I believe would make it more enjoyable perhaps. No one is required to believe everything I do, however have you ever notice how much we base someone elses intelligence by how much they agree with us rofl ;) (cannot remember where I heard or read that from but it's so funny, and true, it stuck with me)