Next Logical Hero to be Added...

[KGB]

once again I have to say I don't like this idea. thief sneaking into city and oppening gates? come on, this is so implausible.

You mean as implausible as the Trojan Horse Seemed to work just fine for the Greeks and is an excellent example of a Thief type skill being used to open the gates.

Magic I think is a huge huge update to the game. Bigger than multi-terrain which you didn't like (but would be much easier to implement). An entire magic system would need to be developed rather than just allowing heroes to randomly cast a few spells.

One bonus which I sometimes really would like to see at heroes is something against ambush. Let's call that Exploration. That's could help the hero to attack a city with 8 Ghosts and a lot of infantry

Such a skill would totally kill the Ambush skill and ambush units. Just as a skill that counters Swarm totally kills all swarm units. It's much better to properly balance the Ghost unit and other ambush units than allow super heroes that can't be killed. The only value ambush has is to stop heroes or other super stacks and if those stacks can become immune to it then that skill has no other use in the game.

The Valkrie is fine for what she does. She is a pure raider and gets exceptionally high command really really fast (+14 at L4). If she got anything else she would be too good. Plus there are a LOT of items that give +X command when defending that she can acquire to have use on defense. If you want to use this type of hero you have to spent money on a Mammoth/Green Dragon to get extra moves so she can attack and pull back to safety once you start seriously attacking an opponent.

KGB

[LPhillips]

I feel like some kind of KGB groupie right now, but he's expressed my views on some of the suggestions pretty well. The thief sounds good. The valkeria needs no help. A magic system cannot be widespread. Maybe a magician hero with changeable abilities? That would present an excellent challenge: you're countering the enemy hero, but you don't know if he is set on Leadership, Morale, Chaos, Ambush...

Magician
Maybe he has an ability which gives 30% chance of +1 HP to his stack, one that gives +2 morale, +2 chaos, one that increases Ambush by 15%, and he spends points to upgrade his spells. When it starts, he can only have one spell active at a time. For 10 points he can upgrade spells (+5% to the first, or +1+1 to the second), for 50 points he can have learn to have 2 spells active. More spells are possible, maybe add a Negate spell?

Thief
+group move max is higher, fairly cheap (pathfinding)
+siege ability (eh, only good for offense...)
+ambush max is higher, cheap
+Cheap UL increase, maybe 10 with +4's or +5's (the leftover Ability Points won't break anything, and make up for his lack of more traditional leadership strength. Also makes them a truly viable hero on maps with high level ruins he can rush around and plunder)

Assassin
Support hero
+scaleable negate ability vs heroes
Low learning ability, low UL
+10% base to accompanying non-hero units' abilities, rounded up? I'd say a +5% increase for 15 points, max at 80%. (This would heavily make up for the hero's lack of individual ability, and make him a powerful option if properly leveled with good support units). Could have +18 dragons and +8 Medusas then. Requires level 22, still not broken if combined with traditional hero. For reaching level 22, he deserves it.

[magian]

Strach, implausible eh? Taking fortresses by stealth happened a lot in this world's history. Magical spells cast by wizards, not so much.

Anyway, this is a fantasy setting, implausibility is part of the fun.

Igor, what KGB said. Yes the valkyrie is a terrible defender, but that is just to make up for the fact that she is an insanely powerful attacker, and the most mobile hero to boot. I like her how she is, she just needs to be used differently than the other heroes (if you want her to shine).

Lphillips, I like some of your ideas, but others seem a bit unwieldy.

I would say that the primary magician/mage type power should be of the fireball/lightning bolt variety. This could be represented by an attack on the front rank enemy unit at the start of battle (before the main battle begins). Putting points into this power would increase the number of free attacks, giving a high level mage a chance to kill multiple enemy units before combat begins.

I suppose the above power could also work as an 'archery' power for a ranger type character (but I like it better for a mage).

[Igor]

Magian, I agree that Valkyri is great attacker and I used her as a first hero to attack neutral cities using her leadership +6 and move +16. I did it untill I lost some Valkyrias in ruins because she is very weak in it. Good attacker at the start of a game, but bad defender and bad searcher of ruins. Paladin is almost the same attacker and much better defender and ruin searcher. On my mind, Paladin and Dread Knights is the main heroes and Valkyria is another one. To add her siege bonus could to make her such main like other both. But if you like Valkyria as she is, good luck to use her, and let her be as she is.
Anyway I agree that a hero with siege bonus would be liked by all

KGB, may be you are right. I just liked the same bonus in DLR, that called Warding if I right called the name. Especially in molotov's cocktail there was a White Knight 7/4 with warding bonus who protect a hero stack from archers and assassins.
Warbarons have very good protectors from hero's leadership and chaos, but haven't good protectors for hero from ambush. But if that was especially made for to catch a hero, I will not insist.

One thing which seems interesting to me is Famine, which becomes when more than 16 units are in one city. Famine forced units to look for food. Food price are increased and unit's upkeep is increases, too. Upkeep are increased in 3 times, so if that was 4 - that will be 12 per every unit in this city. Only when the city has more than 16 defenders.
That could help to game to be more dynamic. And not to sit in cities doing nothing.

[magian]

Igor, low level Valkyries should never be searching ruins (without lots of help from +UL units). But, if you take one as your starting hero, you can (potentially) expand more quickly than someone who took a paladin or dreadknight. I am a 'ruin whore', so I usually take a paladin as my first hero. However, I prefer the valkyrie if no ruins are nearby.

[Igor]

Magian, all right, that is why I now prefer Paladin as a first hero and Dread Knight as a second.
And I think much about to take or not to take Valkyria as a third hero when her advantage of leadership means not the same as if she was a first hero.
Siege could make her stronger, but if most of people see her already strong enough, I join to all.

[LPhillips]

I don't think siege on the Valkeria is a bad idea; I just think it should be reserved for other heroes. Valkeria are really short-term heroes, reaching their full strength rapidly and asserting early dominance. But in the long-term, they're weaker than other heroes. Siege could give them better viability later on, but I think it might be better reserved for the Thief.

Magian, I strongly dislike the idea of directly offensive spells. That's getting back into the realm of rebalancing the entire game, and brings us back to the same problems that were discussed the last time magic came around in the forum. The redeeming features of your concept are that it requires the wizard to participate in battle, and that it only takes units off the front line. But I don't think it really works, because the entire battle concept is risk and reward. There cannot be an ability which violates this cardinal rule: To damage an enemy, a unit must be directly at risk. So inherent to your suggestion is the front line units' ability to strike back at the wizard, or perhaps reflect his spells. Doesn't sound good to me!

I think a hero with unpredictable, even adaptable abilities is a better fit for magic. Think of my proposition as a Sorcerer, a master of deception. The game structure doesn't really allow for the introduction of radically new abilities such as offensive magic. I think we've been over that at length before in the forums, back in Beta3.

[magian]

Lphillips, there is nothing inherently unbalanced in the idea I proposed. As far as risk and reward goes, a mage hero would be just as at risk as any other support-type unit. If the target unit was uninjured by a 'magic missile' attack, the mage would not take damage (there would be no advantage to the power otherwise). Following your logic a unit should be killed if it fails its ambush roll. Sure 'magic missiles' could be unbalanced if the attacks are too strong, or multiply in number too quickly, but that is all controllable.

Your sorcerer idea is more complicated, cumbersome and difficult to implement. And it isn't a better representation of a magic user, just a different one. Giving a mage type hero a magic missile attack, and varying the cost of some other shared hero abilities (cheap personal movement for one), would make the mage a distinct hero without requiring an overhaul of the entire hero system.

The magic missiles could have a UL value as well. If the mage's own undead lore was low and slow to raise, he could still be useful as a 'back rank' ruin explorer (hiding behind another hero and blasting).

[LPhillips]

Magian, don't mistake a statement about game balance for a personal attack. There are problems with introducing entirely new game elements. It's not some kind of biased attack on your idea because it is alternate from mine. Please don't take the conversation that direction. I'm not attacking your idea; I'm analyzing its effect on gameplay overall. Please show me the same courtesy!

A unit cannot be allowed to injure/kill other units without being at risk himself. When units have an ambush roll, first it's compared to the enemy's ambush roll. Then, they may or may not kill an enemy unit. But only the front line unit gets this shot; in return they are the first at risk to be killed. Any ability violating this basic principle (only the frontline unit can directly harm other units, and only the front line unit can be harmed) IS inherently imbalanced.I didn't say that before, but since you have, I'll now confirm it. I'm not going to lay out the details unless you ask for them, because by past experience I don't expect it to be productive. There are cardinal rules, principles, that the entire game is built and balanced around. You're talking about violating one of them. It's a major rebalancing idea.

Again, this is not some biased, immature shot where I throw a bunch of unqualified adjectives at your idea to discredit you. I couldn't care less about that. Honestly, I'm not even going to respond directly to it. Just trying to have a productive discussion!

[LichKing]

A magician, without introducing new elements and still have spells, could be like:

STR 15 (max 35)
Move 20 (max 24)
UL 8 (+2/point)
Leadership 0 (+3/15 points)
Chaos 0 (+3/20 points)

Then a special tab besides skills/equipment/abilities, that is spells. 1 new spell at 5th, 8th, 11th and 14th level, to choose among:

1. negate aura 5 (cumulative with devil/unicorn)
2. negate heroism 5 (cumulative with archons)
3. +3 HP (only for the wizard)
4. +4 group moves (cumulative with items/green dragon/elephant)
5. undead mastery (+15 UL)
6. morale +5 and fear +5 (not cumulative with units, but cumulative with leadership/chaos)
7. summoner (allies+hero cost is 70% of normal)
8. 100% critical and +15% stack ambush