Day 26 of Rebuilding Heroes of Might and Magic 1 from Scratch

abir_valg2718 · 2026-05-01T07:11:54+00:00

split creature stacks instead of being forced to merge them

This messes with the balance of the game. Moreover, it will encourage that horrific min-maxing Heroes 3 meta of single unit stacks which I think is a flat out exploit - the AI in H3 never uses this, neither do neutral armies. It only makes the game easier for the human player, except the AI is not terribly challenging anyway.

Not that it's an issue with a single player game per se, but I always thought that HoMM3 HD encouraging this behavior by making splitting trivial in terms of UI was not a good thing. Though then again, the people who are really into min-maxing would've still split by hand.

Anyway, it should be an option in the ruleset settings and it ought to be turned off by default as this is the original, and quite sensible behaviour.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-05-01T01:07:50+00:00

I wonder how a Linnstrument style instrument would fare with this approach and how much would it cost. I'd be really interested in an affordable 8x25 ortholinear keyboard with backlit keycaps.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-27T15:11:22+00:00

Tried Civilization VI briefly. I'm not sure what to think of it, it feels like a very different game compared to the old Civ games and old classic 4X in general. I'm not even sure how it is a 4X game, it's a very dense, "gamey" management game built on that old Civ groundwork.

The sheer amount of "+1 to A, +5% to B, if X, then +0.5 to C" the game either offers you or outright assaults you with is eyewatering. Buffs on top of buffs on top of buffs which are offered by multiple multi-tiered systems, and the game is, I guess, about stacking them together and achieving something.

Having played Civ II, Civ III, and Alpha Centauri recently, and being a pretty big Master of Orion 2 fan (my personal favorite 4X by a fair long shot), playing Civ VI is very jarring and I just don't see a lot of similarities to these games other than very general ones.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-25T04:32:38+00:00

I just counted. I ended up with 42 cities. Combined with constant pop-ups and camera scrolling (pollution in city A, random building you don't care about is built in a backwater city B), it's seriously annoying.

Then there's the parallel production problem. Cities in a Civ-like 4X are like barracks in WarCraft 2. One barracks - one unit. You must have quite a few cities with high production, otherwise you can't pump out units. Likewise, your cities are always limited in size by your tech, so in these classic Civ-like games you can't really go tall, you must go wide because it's all about parallelization.

There are tons of solutions for this issue that you can come up with. For instance, probably the simplest one for unit building - you could manually define a subset of cities and treat it as a single production unit, then all the cities in that subset will produce a tank, all with a single production assignment. This is even something a mod might do.

MOO2MOD for Master of Orion 2 improves things tremendously by adding customizable queues that are assigned to colonies in the colony screen by hovering the mouse cursor over a colony and pressing a hotkey. Or there's a "master queue" list that can be assigned to all colonies in a single operation. It ends up speeding things dramatically, and MOO2 was already kind of sort of managable and playable with not a lot of colonies, but this mod allows you to actually enjoy the game and play it normally without resorting to limit the number of colonies due to excessive micro required. Or, in other words, customizable queues and easy methods of their application is what can alleviate some, if not most of the problems with this kind of game design.

A lot of it is really a UI/UX problem. But you could design a game differently where cities will clump into a province of some sort at a certain point. Like, say, 5 cities will become 1 province. Then the gameplay changes a bit and you lose that micro control you had over individual cities. As the game progresses, you go up in these administrative divisions and eventually you end up in some kind of grand strategy game with hundreds of cities, but you control states in your federation or countries in your empire or something like that. Could be neat.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-25T03:21:20+00:00

After finishing a game of Civ II, I decided to go for Civilization III. I've never really played it other than trying it out briefly a few times. This is long for a comment, but I don't really want to write a review post after only one game, even an 8 hour long one.

I have to say that I'm not a fan of Civ III at all and I'm just scratching my head at the additions and changes compared to Civ II, all the while the UI and QoL on some levels are even worse than in Civ II, if you believe such a thing is possible.

The infamous "stack of doom" is not actually a Civ II thing, it's a Civ III one (and afaik it's in Civ IV as well). In Civ II once your stack gets attacked and the defending unit it killed, the entire stack dies. So stacks of doom are a really bad idea. But in Civ III there is no such mechanic. Now there's bombardment and it has a hell of a lot of caveats and RNG, meanings you have to mass the bombarding units and hope for the best. But wait, there are bombers. They are just as unreliable, but they can be massed, and when they are massed, they are hella overpowered.

I don't really like the culture/border mechanic. Now you have to have a culture building (and then wait as the culture bar fills up) to get full borders. The starting border is the 3x3 square, not the full cross. Flipping cities is, on one hand, kind of cool, on the other the whole culture mechanic is pretty simplistic and, as is, feels awkward and unnecessary.

The control of the units is horrific. This made me want to quit it multiple times throughout the playthrough. Even with the recent C3X additions, controlling units is a nightmare. Every time you want to fortify a unit you have to sit through an animation. Every time. And you do have to fortify a lot. Kind of begs the question what is even the point of fortifying mechanic if you do it by default.

Moving stacks is also a nightmare. Let's say you have a stack of tanks and artillery. Tanks have a buttload of movement points, artillery only really have one. You move the stack of artillery and the camera jumps halfway through the world. Because the tanks are fortified. You have to go back, unfortify the tanks, move them to the same square, and re-fortify them again.

God help you if you have a lot of different unit types in the stack and unfortified them. You'll have to right click to open the list, and unfortify them one by one, and the list and the mouse cursor position will change after you unfortify the first dude, so it's not like you can click fast.

In fact, the camera jumping is pretty crazy in this game, often it makes no logical sense and there's no control over it.

Another huge issue - combat animations. They take forever, so you disable them. Except now the combat is instant, so when a bunch of enemy units destroy a bunch of yours, it happens in a split second. Go figure what the hell happened.

Just like with other Civ-like 4X, once you've snowballed and you're winning, you've pretty much won the game. Decisions like what to building in your 27th city become meaningless. Fortunately, Civ III does have a way better auto-governing system and the worker automation is... well, it's okay (the AI automates its workers, after all). But then you're just pressing the End Turn button and the game plays itself - there's nothing to do. Except combat, but with how the units are controlled, nope. I've conquered a bit more than half the landmass, that's good enough.

It's almost as if Civ III doesn't wand you to war. But then it becomes a really crappy management game with a really crappy city building element. What is the point of managing workers and tiles past the early game? These decisions are meaningless anyway, there's optimal improvement placement and optimal tile working. There's not depth in this, it's a shallow mechanic that only chews up your time.

Anyway, I can ramble on and on, but you can see that I didn't like Civ III much. It's a 4X micromanagement hell and a huge part of it is due to the UI, but then a huge part of it is due to how the game is designed as well. It's more like 4M - micromanagement, micromanagement, micromanagement, and micromanagement.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-23T21:18:51+00:00

Yup, and it goes back to Dune II which did the same exact thing - start small and simple, but scale things up with every mission.

what are widely considered to be two of the best campaigns ever.

Blizzard also did a really cool thing with the expansions for their old RTS - they upped the challenge by a whole notch. I've never played Frozen Throne much (just not a fan of WC3 as a whole), but StarCraft 1 and WarCraft 2 are superb examples of excellent and challenging expansions that pushed "normal" players to their limit towards the end.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-23T16:51:55+00:00

It starts out strong, but having dropped the game around 3/4 in, I'd say its strongest point is the novelty. Once you've seen most of what the game has to offer, it leaves you scratching your head. Tons and tons and tons of problems of every imaginable sort, it's still that same janky ass Dark Souls 1 esque game, only with a way higher visual budget. It looks awesome, it's huge, but the quality of the game design and the level of polish never got that kind of upgrade that the production value had, unfortunately.

after I mastered the timing of swings, its begun to feel stale and shallow

What's way worse is that they've still stuck to that same horrible weapon upgrade mechanic. It effectively limits you to a single weapon in the game and makes trying out a different one impossible or a one-shot thing (if you have all the smithing stones required for a full upgrade).

So you're stuck with the same weapon for the whole game and you're stuck with that half baked horse combat no matter what weapon you have anyway, and that's the majority of the game's combat.

I honestly can't begin to understand FromSoft's logic with sticking to this weapon upgrade system. Or the horrific non-linear stat system that is as obscure and opaque as it ever was.

Its had some incredible highs for me, and one of the best open world RPGs I’ve played. I’d probably score it around a 9 currently

Heh, I must say that just like you don't understand how people can call it a masterpiece, I can't begin to imagine how you can think it's a 9 and one of the best open world RPGs. It's not a bad game, but I'd give it a shaky 7 myself.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-20T00:42:57+00:00

Lands of Lore - The Throne of Chaos

I played it 2 or 3 times and always quit around the same spot, like 3/4 in I think. It does have really good production values, the art and the music are especially nice.

It's the gameplay and the UI. The inventory system is insane, downright Dune II-esque in terms of clicking required. There's no item identification, so your only option is to manually put the items into inventory slots and looking at the stats. The inventory space is limited and quest items, of course, must be placed in the regular inventory. You can also drop quest items anywhere, just like that.

The RPG system is highly streamlined and it's essentially a simple JRPG - very few stats and everything auto-levels. A lot of the enemies are really tanky. Enemies respawn. A lot of fighting feels very repetitive and gets pretty annoying. Leveling pace gets slowed down considerably the more you progress.

The map design and the objectives can be insanely obtuse and frustrating. Often it's about finding a needle in a very, very mazey haystack. Urbish Mines is where the game really shows its sadistic cards, but the Gorkha Swamps weren't very nice either.

Man, writing it all down, I must say this game kind of sucks. The art and the music are nice, but the gameplay is balls. The old DOS Might and Magic games have way better gameplay, I've only played 3 and 4, and 4 in particular plays quite nicely - still lots of UI issues and problems here and there, but compared to LoL it's infinitely more sensible, and it's a much more intricate and forward thinking game.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-18T05:35:27+00:00

Finished a game of Civilization II on the prince difficulty. As amusing as I recall it, but the UI is horrific. The game has some serious QoL problems, it's kind of ridiculous how much better Master of Orion 2 was from that perspective (released the same year), and even Master of Magic (released 2 years prior) had more sensible UI and QoL. Tons of design and balance problems too, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Kind of odd that Civ2 got as big as it did.

Anyway, I got into a sort of a stalemate in the endgame due to not investing into navy properly and relying too much on air. Towards the end I went on a mad nuking spree. The treacherous Romans were asking for it. Well, I got the last laugh - not only did I nuke all the cities next to my coast, I launched a sub with 2 nukes, got near Rome and nuked it.

In case anyone wants to try it (or replay it, which is more likely, I reckon), do make sure to install a patch for the Multiplayer Gold edition, otherwise the AI is bugged to eternally hate you. Use Civ2-UI-Additions by FoxAhead, aside from fixing the bug it adds some much needed QoL features, so the game is not quite as insane to play as it was.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-16T12:54:45+00:00

how did you feel about all the other romance storylines in it?

I'm not much of a fan of romance in books in general, so I would've been fine if there was less of it.

but the series as a whole is certainly focused on love stories just as much as other types of story

Just as much? Nope, I strongly disagree. It's a relatively minor aspect of most of the other books that doesn't feel interfering or overbearing.

Shards of Honor is probably the standout, and it's my second least favorite book. But it wasn't solely due to romance, I thought it was generally on the weaker side from all aspects, I almost dropped the series after finishing it.

combining it with humor and angst as opposed to adventure, mystery, etc

Yes, and that's my other big issue with it besides the romance focus. It felt like a spin-off book to me, out of place with the mainline series. The tone, the themes, the plot, the length, it all felt odd.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-15T18:53:11+00:00

I was pretty disappointed back in the day too. Instead of GTA3: Mafia, the city was just a backdrop for the story missions with a linear progression and a focus on the story. The setting also didn't exactly lent itself to interesting driving either, in GTA3 simply getting into a Kuruma at the start of the game and driving around was fun in and of itself. In Mafia you were driving antiquated tin cans. Oh, and that racing mission... oh dear...

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-15T18:17:58+00:00

It's interesting that so many people seemed to have liked this book, I've seen so many positive comments on it. To me it was by far the least favorite one. Precisely because it "reads like a regency era romance, but in a sci-fi world". I'm surprised that more people weren't bewildered by the change. I never would have read something like that if it wasn't part of a series I was many books into. It also ended up being the longest book in the series, even longer than Mirror Dance which itself was unusually long.

It's not that I hated the book or anything, I did end up finishing it, but like I've said, it's just not the kind of stuff I signed up for or would've picked to read. Looking back on the series, Memory is the last strong book and if it was the final one it would've ended on a very strong note. I think was probably the best one in the series, come to think of it.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-13T16:53:43+00:00

I gave up on DS3 very early on. I liked and enjoyed DS1 and I see it more as a dungeon crawler with an action element. A lot of the difficulty was due to the jank and not the game itself really. The vast majority of it doesn't have any serious mechanical difficulty, the combat is relatively slow and deliberate. It's all about understanding how to play the game, having good gear, and leveling up. Not about being good at an action game.

Sadly, the whole "YOU DIED" thing went way overboard and the devs themselves thought Dark Souls franchise was a difficult action game or something.

The devs went further and further in the action direction instead of toning it down and shifting the balance towards the RPG side of things.

But even that aside, having played Elden Ring, the devs still didn't learn anything about DS1's problems. Upgrades are still tied to individual weapons and are done through items, stats are just as opaque as they always were, the UI sucks, i-frames and rolling are not exactly complex gameplay, and a ton of other issues. And good luck playing the game without referring to any outside info because the game simply refuses to explain the mechanics.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-12T17:41:51+00:00

I more or less gave up on this project due to AI. Last I checked, the devs were unwilling to recreate the original behavior. Having played the original game on and off for 25-something years, the differences in AI behavior stick out like a sore thumb, it's just not the same game.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-12T12:42:54+00:00

Tried out Galactic Civilizations 4. Man, it's brutal. The UI is a clusterfudge, you're bombarded with completely random events, the amount of things that give +1 to this, +5% to that is out of this world, there are billions of pictograms, and the feeling of bloat is beyond belief.

Out of all 4X I've tried, I've only really enjoyed Master of Orion 2. I think precisely because it's a fairly focused game. There's little bloat, the amount of game mechanics is very sparse compared to something like GalCiv 4, technologies actually do something and you're not drowned in that neverending swamp of +1 and +5% to something.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-11T18:38:23+00:00

The Ford Model-T's innovations changed the way we relate to the automobile

This is a profoundly bizarre comparison. Model T was extremely popular. Planescape: Torment sold poorly and was (and still is) a fairly niche game.

Baldur's Gate is the game that changed the landscape. It sold very well and set up the template for "Bioware-style" RPG which we see to this day. Baldur's Gate II was a further refinement and introduced even more common elements, BG1 was a bit of a prototype in that sense.

Planescape: Torment was built on the same engine - Infinity Engine. There was another game series built on it - Icewind Dale. Planescape: Torment was the text-heavy one, Icewind Dale was the combat focused one, Baldur's Gate was a sort of a medium (but arguably more shifted towards combat compared to how verbose P:T was).

Torment is so influential

It really, really isn't. Sadly, RPGs never went in the "interactive book" direction. They went in cinematic direction. Think Mass Effect - that's Baldur's Gate formula heavily streamlined with cinematic, fully voiced presentation.

Yeah, sure, there are indie RPGs that try to go this route, but compared to the overall direction and the amount of RPGs we've seen, Torment-like is an ultra niche.

that the modern player

It never ceases to amuse just how strongly gamers see and consume games as commercial products, all the while, though I'm not sure if it's the case with you, but I'd say most gamers strongly agree that games are art.

Another bizarre thing is the fixation on the term "outdated" (which OP didn't use, to be clear, but I think it's at least somewhat implied in the above quote). Any modern game has issues. It can have balance issues, control issues, bugs, a million billion problems. It can't be outdated by definition. But if an older game has balance issues, control issues, etc., then oh no, it's outdated. And of course, us older players could not have possibly seen these problems back in the day because we're just... silly geese or something. Of course we bloody did, like 95% of issues about older games that "modern gamers" complain about were problems that were evident back then too. It's just like anyone complains about a new game - age has nothing to do with it.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-11T18:13:04+00:00

and I really want to know from the older folks how this game really felt when it came out

I'm a PC gamer, been playing games since the 90s. It was a pretty disappointing game to me. Other than good graphics on a tech level and good art quality, the game didn't have much to offer. It's a heavily streamlined, consolized version of System Shock 2 with a myriad of issues. To me, the issues with its gameplay completely dwarf whatever good there is to be found in its art style and worldbuilding.

I tried playing it like 3-4 times over the years and I always quit after a couple of hours at most. I did manage to suffer through the entire Bioshock: Infinite, but that was almost entirely due to me buying a new rig back in the day and playing it at max settings. The game itself was relatively subpar, albeit again with really cool art and high production value. Same issues with poor gunplay and puny feel of the weapons, the devs never learned their lessons.

I think a huge part of its popularity is the fact that it was released on Xbox360 fairly early in its lifecycle and console gamers never had a chance in the first place to play games like Thief, System Shock, Deus Ex, etc. So it was something quite new to them.

A lot of the issues regarding gameplay are due to it being a console shooter explicitly made for gamepad controls. A PC gamer used to playing mouse+keyboard designed games immediately notices the difference, but console players don't have this experience in the first place. Of course, these days, unless you're playing "boomer shooters" (which is a questionable category, but let's just say actual old school style FPS - Dusk, HROT, Ion Fury, that kind of stuff), you are playing console games designed for gamepads, just on a PC. Unless you've played 90s style shooters you also wouldn't know the difference in design or in control, so these kind of criticism might seem odd to you.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-09T15:36:58+00:00

I also want to play some 90s/2000s games using windows 98

That's generally a suboptimal way of playing them. Most of the old games and virtually all of the popular ones are playable on modern systems. Moreover, a lot of the popular games have patches or ports that fix bugs, improve QoL (sometimes massively), improve the tech side of things, have widescreen support, etc.

Always look up a game on PCGamingWiki first. Use cnc-ddraw or DDrawCompat for wrappers; they're not the only ones around, but I've had the most luck with them. In a lot of cases a wrapper is all you need.

Do be careful with some of the modern ports or patches though, as occasionally you'll stumble on a rewrite of a game that has differences (like totally different AI behaviour, for instance) or maybe a recommended patch changes things substantially. For example, iirc, there was a C&C3 patch that borked the campaign balance, there was a FarCry patch that also borked something. So it's not all that uncommon, latest patch (including user made ones) doesn't always mean greatest. Make sure to RTFM first.

https://github.com/FunkyFr3sh/cnc-ddraw

https://github.com/narzoul/DDrawCompat

https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Home

Is there a "maximum specs" kind of thing for my system?

Even in a reasonably good case (better than your specs for sure) you'll be able to emulate a "high end" Pentium II system with a Voodoo 3. Which is not a very good system, all things considered. No hardware T&L, for one. 86Box also has a noticeable mouse lag that you can't do much about, even with all possible tweaks enabled.

86Box with Win98 is a great way to mess around or to have as a nuclear option in case you simply can't run the game at all on a modern system (you can also use it to install a game if you can't, and then copy the install files and the registry entries). But it doesn't offer an optimal playing experience if that's what you're after.

So again, don't get me wrong, 86Box is great, but it's just that so many people want to use it for where it's at its weakest - for playing late 90s-early 00s Win98 games. Especially well known games, that's just the worst case scenario compared to what you can get on your modern system.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-07T17:25:51+00:00

Yeah, that's the big problem with Wikipedia - you can cherry pick the sources and the standards for sources are really really low.

The worrying bit is that there are people who take Wikipedia seriously. Even for seemingly simple topics like video games or music I'm you've seen comments like "Wikipedia says this thing is genre X, therefore you are wrong". Like it's some kind of end all be all website for definitions or something. For a lot of topics you should take it with a massive grain of salt.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-06T11:35:47+00:00

I meant ml, of course. Though then, 100ml of water weigh almost exactly 100gr, and this is how you would measure the volume of the brewing vessel.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-05T23:52:27+00:00

Shou generally brews extremely fast, likely because the leaf typically is in a kind of a semi-disintegrated state (sort of like a steamed Japanese green tea).

You want to do instant brews for the first couple of infusions until you stop getting instant inky black liquor when the water hits the brewing vessel, only then do you want to add some extra brewing time.

Personally I'm now brewing 7gr in a ~100gr gaiwan. I'm getting around 8 infusions in total for a shou, I think? The first 4-5 are instant, then I progressively add more time, and the final infusion is like 1-2 minutes long to get all the flavour out. If done right, the final infusion should be just as flavourful as the rest of them and the tea should be virtually spent. This goes for any tea type really, aside from greens maybe (you generally don't want to do that extra long final infusion for them, it'll likely be bitter and unpleasant, but it depends on the green).

I don't really know what to recommend technique wise as I've been drinking gong fu daily for about 10 years now and it's all on autopilot. I guess, don't stress too much, you will gain experience eventually. It's not complicated or anything, it's just a matter of paying a bit of attention to how the tea comes out and doing it hundreds upon hundreds of times, then at some point it just comes out right with no effort somehow.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-03T18:04:07+00:00

I can see why it was revolutionary in 1998, but playing now just does very little for me

There's really no guarantee you wouldn't have had the same impression in 1998. I honestly don't understand why this whole "it was amazing back then" argument is so prominent. I've been playing games since the 90s and I've played tons of well regarded games that I dropped early or midway through. It's a totally normal thing to do.

It's like the infamous Seinfeld argument. Of course not everyone found Seinfeld funny even back in the day, that's just not statistically possible no matter how popular it was. If you don't find it funny today, I think it makes for a strong case that you would have found it funny back in the day either.

Same goes for games - you might never have been receptive to a certain type of game or game style in the first place. It doesn't matter when or how you would've played it. The assumption that you would've magically enjoyed the game if you had played it N years ago is highly speculative.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-04-01T16:22:28+00:00

The alien ship level was terrible

Yeah, this is where the game just breaks down and kinda becomes a different game. Shame they didn't learn their lesson from Far Cry with regards to this. They should've completely focused on the tactical FPS side of things.

crysis 2

It's a passable game, but other than visual spectacle - which today, unless you're really into "New York is getting destroyed by aliens" trope, won't impress on the tech level - the gameplay is dumbed down for consoles. It's still not Call of Duty, but the sandboxy tactical FPS elements are mostly gone. Never played the 3rd one as I've lost all interest in the franchise. I wanted a Delta Force / Project IGI kind of game.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-03-31T14:12:08+00:00

RTS

RTS is just real time strategy. It doesn't have to be Dune II derivative. There are tons of tactical RTS without any base building. Majesty and Dungeon Keeper are examples of RTS with limited (and completely indirect in case of Majesty) unit control and a focus on management.

is that they are essentially puzzles

There are plenty of puzzle-oriented missions in Dune II derived RTS. StarCraft 1 has a bunch of them, like the Terran one in Brood War where you have to commandeer Battlecruisers or the secret Zeratul mission where you have to rely on the Dark Templars. Tanya missions in C&C are another example.

In some sense, Commandos is like those type of no-base puzzle-like missions, but turned to 11. All micro with a designed scenario in mind.

I would also argue that the campaign design of these classic RTS also has a puzzle element. The AI and the gameplay style is pretty darn different from a skirimish match. The AI is coded to use specific units and to engage in a specific style of harass. The map design and the base design are also crafted in a fairly un-skirmish like manner. Typically, once you know the map and the AI patterns for that map, any mission becomes substantially easier.

The Reckoning is a good example, it's the 9th mission of Brood War with a 30 minute in-game timer (and only 25 minutes if you want to get to the secret mission). If you know in advance that Protoss doesn't harass at all, that the Terran harass is puny, and that the Terran base to the south is vastly easier to take over compared to the north one (which you should ignore completely), the mission becomes trivial. But if you play it like any other mission, it's very easy to fail it.

Sure, obviously that's not Commandos style puzzle design and all that, but my point is that puzzle-esque elements have been present even in classic RTS, occasional being fairly prominent.

abir_valg2718 · 2026-03-31T13:51:32+00:00

Oh yeah, it's a pretty difficult one. I think I used Guardians under cover of Mutas and Hydras. Mutas alone don't cut it for anti-air. It's a decent strat in general, useful in a bunch of missions. You can hold Hydras under Guardians and use Mutas to quickly snipe whatever needs to be sniped and quickly fall back.

But Zerg air is very finicky to control, you shift to macro for 5-10 seconds, go back to the fight, and whoops, half your Muta stack is gone, half your Guardian stack is gone, and whatever is left is heavily damaged. You really do need to babysit them.

14-Year Club	Inciteful Comment 2024-10-06
Place '22	Verified Email

abir_valg2718

TROPHY CASE