What is your opinion about Heroes IV?

I finished school two years ago. Now I'm studying at the academy. And, unlike some, I can type quickly, but I might make a mistake, and I often skip commas.

Two years already???!!! That's crazy... I understand about the mistake. But in almost every other word - that's a bit much. "Unlike some" - who are you referring to? Do you know how fast someone types? Are you peeking?

And I'm not saying anything bad about the Angels, they have resurrection. I mean in its pure form: restoring the living and restoring the undead - two spells.

Yeah. Nope. If it's "in its pure form." Is that a negative for the game? It's a big plus. I still remember hoarding mana in the third game and fighting battles of almost any difficulty without losses. Blind the last stack of enemies and fully restore your troops. It's sad.

Yes, I wrote that I have nothing against 2 heroes in a squad, on the contrary, I'm for it (referring to the + above), but when there are 4 of them for one player and for another player, it's STUPID.

So, two is good, three is so-so, and four is stupid? :D
Good job. You've drawn a clear line. :D

Okay, for example: vampire or spitters. On the one hand, vampires because they self-heal, they fly, on the other hand, spitters because they are the only shooting unit in the castle. Why not make it like in Heroes 3 or 5, as usual?

You don't want an interesting game - you just want it "as usual"? On one map, I'll put vampires, on another, venomous. With some neutrals, griffins, with others, unicorns. This is invariance. Choice. You don't like to choose? Do you only like to do what you're told? Then choose one monster for each castle and don't worry. Build only them. Those who know how to play will be more mobile. That's all.

No, but why do units grow every day and not on the first day of the week? It's inconvenient to collect recruits.

Here's a mega tip. Don't recruit anyone for a week, and on the first day of the week, take the weekly recruits. And it's almost like in the third game.

I'd be happy to play, just tell me where and when.:rolleyes:

Play this map without saving. And tell me on what day you finished it. Then we'll talk.

Barbarians have a cool castle (especially the outpost), but it's monotonous. It's not fun without magic. I'm not criticizing, I'm just pointing out what's wrong so that it can be fixed. I don't want a comparison with the 5th game, please, in the 3rd game, they have a guild of mages up to level 3. And not 5, but not 1 either. At least something.

Don't play as barbarians if you "don't know how to play them." Besides, the fourth game is good precisely because you can almost always find magic on the map - books, shrines, other cities. And you can also develop heroes in different ways.

Not because it was (and is) in other versions, but because it's stupid in itself - luck reduces damage or increases damage when a unit is attacked. Why not do the opposite? If there is no morale, the unit doesn't move - that's understandable, but here only the last one (if any) moves or the 1st (+), and otherwise, just recruit skeletons, elves, angels, etc. - it's very inconvenient. And also, if luck = 10 or morale = 10, then it's always like that - it shouldn't be, it should be random, but the more there is, the higher the probability that it will happen.

That's right. The higher the value, the higher the probability. With +10 - 100 percent. :D
"It's stupid in itself" - that's not a very strong argument. You didn't provide any other arguments besides comparing it to other Heroes games.

1. Not everyone -
2. The comparison is not only with 5, but also with the other parts (2, 3).
And finally, I'm not saying that Heroes 5 is better than 4, I wrote that not everything (far from everything) is ideal in 5. I think that only Heroes 3 is the best part of all the others (but it's not perfect either, but at least the situation is better than in the others).

Well, compare, compare. It's very funny to compare a game that is absolutely revolutionary in its ideas with its traditional versions. And to say that "everything is wrong there."
You think the third game is the best? Many people think so. I know many very strong tournament players who love the third game and haven't accepted either the fourth or the fifth. But here's the thing. Their opinion is more interesting to me than yours. They at least don't talk about the graphics. :D

Well, you're blind (no offense). You yourself said, write your own + and - about the 4th game.

Ah... So, "write," not "napishy." :D Now I understand. :D
Read the thread. Everything has already been said here. I'm unlikely to add anything new.