Quote Originally Posted by Prodigy the 5 View Post
Yes but that's also a point, in age1 you can take pride in that 1 hero you have worked on for a long time, while in age 2 you say that the gems can be used on all your heros. So if you loose that hero but save the gems then its no big deal. You can raise another hero to lvl 100. So loosing a hero doesn't realy matter. I still think the old system was beter.
hmmm... you stated that age2 doesn't give incentive to go out farming again when your heroes are lv 100. That was what I replied to, but now you change the argument lol. You obviously never seriously played age2 (can tell from your post). You should try it, it's way better than you think

To counter your new argument: age2 has historical heroes. They go to lvl 150, can have way better stats than regular heroes, and you really don't want to loose them. They are much more heroes to be proud of when you have them and it hurts way more when you loose them.

When you compare the complete hero systems of age1 and age2 than I really prefer age2... it's much better. It's true that you don't get instant troops but you can build fast enough with top heroes: 250k archers per 24h is not too difficult.

Another difference is the leadership attribute. It kind of forces you to hunt down some historical heroes if you want to attack or defend with big armies (historical city rally spots need historical heroes to avoid stat-penalties).

cheers,
DeVerm.