Problems with Heroes of Might and Magic IV.

In the anthology of Heroes 1-4, I had "HoMM: Excalibur". It's a cool addition, and the music is new.

OptiMAL;110269Maybe not Excalibur, but Equilibris?
because Equilibris is a mod with additions. Its version is 3.51 (Excalibur, Whirlwinds is version 3.0).

:) No, he means Excalibur specifically. Besides the Excalibur campaign, there are two more bonus campaigns: "The Lord Of The Rings" and "Dungeons and Dragons". I have the complete disc (it comes with 2 discs). Luckily, it was cheap (140 rubles). It's basically a pirated copy, and it's famous for this. I don't know what M@rkeL meant by "additions" in his post. The intro and music are beautiful (in my opinion, they were also stolen, like everything else). The cutscenes for the campaigns are simply taken from fantasy movies. The campaign names are actually the names of these movies. All the images are also screenshots from movies or taken from somewhere on the internet. Furthermore, it's worse. The campaigns are built from standard maps that were also taken from the internet from various forums, and there may even be some standard ones; I don't remember anymore, and they practically have no logical connection to each other. In my opinion, there are also untested maps - not tested for completion. In short, if you want to get a negative impression of the fourth game, play these campaigns. And if you want to have a positive impression, play the "Impending Doom" campaign to the very end!

Added 1 hour 0 minutes ago

Magic like flight and teleportation is very limited and can be quite difficult to obtain in a normal scenario; it is mainly used in campaigns. But the price of such magic is also high, but that's why it's high-level magic.

I've heard from experts in the third game that magic like flight, city portal, and dimension door creates a strong imbalance if someone on the map gets it and someone else doesn't. And this is what they attributed to its shortcomings. In the fourth game, the use of such magic was minimized, and some of them were completely removed.

Units in the 3rd game also move, taking logic into account. For example, phoenixes, fairies, and archangels are the fastest, while golems, zombies, and hydras are slower (understandably, for certain reasons).

Well, regarding realism, it's already clear that transferring any units over huge distances is not a problem in the third game, and it is only limited by the number of heroes in the chain. That is, it's unrealistic that, for example, 100 unupgraded gremlins can cover the distance that eight heroes covered by passing this hundred to each other in one round. Where is the realism, brother? These hundred heroes in the third game were carrying them in a backpack, so the gremlins didn't spend any strength or movement points. But, to be fair, this is exactly what I like about the third game. However, what does the comparison of game playability and its approximation to realism have to do with it, and it is often opponents of the fourth game who make such a comparison of the fourth game with realism. But there is more realism in it. Although I don't really like that the movement of units has been limited, and now they can't be passed along the chain as they could in the third game.

And the poison spell in the 4th game is annoying because it poisons everyone, especially hero-mages.

Well, how can I believe you if you write such a thing - poison can affect everyone? Try poisoning skeletons, for example, or mechanical creatures, or gargoyles. Also, a lot of potions of immortality and some types of magic can help against poison, such as antimagic.

Furthermore, I can't bring myself to call the 4th game more realistic, either in terms of gameplay (when one hero defeats a huge army),

:) I absolutely agree. It's silly to compare any of the versions with realism. But the fact that a hero defeats a huge army is a problem in the third game as well. For example, in the last off-line tournament, 15 vampires defeated a hundred upgraded hydras, or 150 upgraded harpies defeated a LEGION of minotaurs and a LEGION of gargoyles. And look at fantasy movies like Conan the Barbarian. He also defeats quite large groups almost alone, but he doesn't stand aside smoking a bamboo pipe; he actually acts on the battlefield. And for some reason, none of you write angry letters to Hollywood about the unreality of the events presented there. :)

or in terms of appearance (the average tree is sometimes bigger than a city or an army).

It's better not to talk about such nonsense. :)

I was defending the 3rd game, but I liked the 4th game in its own way. It definitely has a lot of potential, perhaps if it had been released under a name like "From the world of fantasy" or "Slaughter in the kingdom", then,

It not only has a lot of potential, which was curtailed by continuing the development of Heroes in the fifth version. The 4th game currently has the most powerful functionality; it introduced fundamentally new magic and artifacts (specifically related to poison), many diverse units that also have good magic, and a new skill called scouting, a key component of which is camouflage (invisible heroes), calculating a counterattack simultaneously with the attacking blow, the presence of several of your heroes on the battlefield AT THE SAME TIME, the combat activity of heroes on the battlefield, battles of units WITHOUT the presence of heroes in the squad, separate movement of heroes from units on the adventure map, and much more that FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes Heroes 4 from all other versions. That is, there are many things in Heroes 4 that are not in other versions. But what is fundamentally new in the 4th game that is not in other versions - I don't know. Maybe someone will enlighten me?

P.S. Commanders and generals shouldn't go into the thick of the battle; they were given too much freedom.

I'm not sure. There are many historically real examples of commanders leading their soldiers into the attack by personal example. Or are you comparing every hero to a generalissimo and a president? I, for example, compare them to field commanders or Conan the Barbarian, who traveled with a small squad and single-handedly kicked the butt of any crowd. If you don't want to put your hero in the thick of the battle in the 4th game, don't. Protect him with supporting squads, use obstacles on the battlefield, run away from the enemy in a circle - there is plenty of space there. You can even not take him to the battle at all - no one forbids it. :)
This is what functionality means - it's a multitude of ways to solve one problem. :)

P.P.S. And now, what is the purpose of this post? It's stupid to reject the 4th game, because it's a good game, but it's also stupid to say that it's better than all the others. It's just a good game.

That's exactly what I mean. I even like to play in tournaments of the first game, although the functionality there is the MINIMUM of all versions. :)