[Anonymous Player]

Your character in the game can be a hero chosen from the campaigns or added to the list if your civilization lacks one.

Heroes are much stronger compared to other units and have a unique ability and regeneration.

However, you can only use one hero and they can be created only in the Castle or Imperial Age.

Simply put, you can add a hero to your skirmish gameplay.

[ArsCortica]

Simply wouldn’t be worth the hassle of constantly having to babysit it.

There was a reason why most people simply parked their heroes in castles or whatnot in the original campaign missions – or why the later campaigns made them disposable in the sense they would eventually respawn when killed.

[TWestAoe]

Might be fun as an occasional alternative to Regicide, where the King is instead a hero who is useful in battle.

[Blocklies]

I wouldn’t like that, imagine dealing with the hero raiding, or if you got an elephant archer or battle elephant hero.

[valiant491]

Sounds like the explorer in AoE3, I think it would be hard to balance, and we already have scouts that do the essentials early on.

In my opinion, it’s unnecessary.

[South_Garbage754]

I haven’t played age of mythology in 20 years but isn’t that kind of what it’s about?

You could definitely balance it

[nelliott13]

I could see it being an interesting option to play around with in a custom game, but I wouldn’t want it in standard games.

There’s already a lot to keep track of in this game and I don’t relish the idea of adding another thing.

I think that it would add an unnecessary level of extra variance to games, both in terms of civ strengths/weaknesses and in the ability of a player to micro their hero.

And I also think that it would be hard to balance the cost and strength of a hero to make it both worth using and fun to play with/against.

[Majorman_86]

I would feel bad about it.

There’s Warcraft 3 for that.

[Author]

Posts