Difference between revisions of "Talk:War Machine"

From Heroes 3 wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
This all adds up to: the ballista may be useful to a might hero in the lategame, particularly if they have Archery.
 
This all adds up to: the ballista may be useful to a might hero in the lategame, particularly if they have Archery.
 +
 +
:Well, this is of course somewhat matter of opinnion, and the tone of the article is quite strict. However, I would still argue that Ballista is a liability more than advantageous feature. First of all you would have to have control over the Ballista, which means that you would have to "sacrifice" one of the secondary skill slots to [[Artillery]] skill. Secondly, in order to do considerable amount of damage (couple of hundred) you would have to have a notable level hero with high level primary skills, in which case the damage of creatures would be measured in thousands rather that hundreds. There probably is situations where Ballista would give hero a slight edge, but I would argue that those situations are rare and mariginal. It significantly more likely to benefit from some other secondary skill than Artillery combined with Ballista and Archery. –[[User:Kapteeni Ruoska|Kapteeni Ruoska]] ([[User talk:Kapteeni Ruoska|talk]]) 14:36, 31 March 2015 (CEST)

Revision as of 12:36, 31 March 2015

Capitalization

Is it "War machine" or "War Machine? –Kapteeni Ruoska 07:30, 21 March 2014 (CET)

Debate on Ballista

Is the Ballista actually useless as the article states? I know I've had it on a hero with a fairly high Attack skill and it was dealing around 110-120 damage per round (with Archery, but not Artillery) Even if all it did was snipe two of them, it has paid for its own cost. Depending on a couple other factors, it could be conceivably up to ~200 which is enough to put a couple Naga Queens down. That pays for the cost of the Ballista alone.

Also, if the enemy attacks it directly with a creature stack, that's one turn of it not attacking your creatures. If the enemy wastes a spell on taking it out, same deal. Even if it dies to a chain lightning, it halved the damage for another creature down the line. Not bad for a 2500 gold machine that doesn't take a slot in your army.

The dangers of having one against Magogs, Liches, and Dragons is well-known, but this can be mitigated with good army placement and may not be a factor depending on what you're up against.

This all adds up to: the ballista may be useful to a might hero in the lategame, particularly if they have Archery.

Well, this is of course somewhat matter of opinnion, and the tone of the article is quite strict. However, I would still argue that Ballista is a liability more than advantageous feature. First of all you would have to have control over the Ballista, which means that you would have to "sacrifice" one of the secondary skill slots to Artillery skill. Secondly, in order to do considerable amount of damage (couple of hundred) you would have to have a notable level hero with high level primary skills, in which case the damage of creatures would be measured in thousands rather that hundreds. There probably is situations where Ballista would give hero a slight edge, but I would argue that those situations are rare and mariginal. It significantly more likely to benefit from some other secondary skill than Artillery combined with Ballista and Archery. –Kapteeni Ruoska (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2015 (CEST)