Auto-translated
The same goes for the fifth installment. Because the combat mechanics were inherited from the third game.
- The damage calculation system was the same in all parts in principle (everything was determined by attack, defense, luck, etc.), only the formulas differed. If luck works the same way in the fifth game as it does in the third and fifth, then morale is different everywhere (by the way, has anyone noticed the similarity between the Retribution perk and the fact that in the fourth game, after Morale triggers, damage is increased?)
- In terms of magic, the fourth and fifth games are, if not twins, then sisters. There you have access to high-level spells only from the specialized school (and not just an expert in Wisdom), there you have the concept of friendly (neighboring) schools, and there are also perks that enhance magic itself + a strong dependence of damage on skill, unlike the third game. The fourth game stands out only by the absence of the concept of SP, and accordingly, "permanent spells," but this was not a very successful idea.
- Bonuses from the hero to the armies are common to all, such as Attack and Defense skills, similar to the third game (adding the hero's stats), and again, its own (Resilience, BB, etc.)
In the fourth game, heroes are on the battlefield, meaning that an unimaginable number of actions can be performed in one turn. I don't consider myself a specialist in probability theory, but Horn, for example (for some reason, I often remember him today), being a teacher of this very discipline, didn't hesitate to calculate it.
The greater variability of the fourth game compared to the third (in terms of combat) is obvious, but I don't know how to adequately compare it to the fifth.