What is your opinion about Heroes IV?

I must disagree with the notion that the third game is inferior ("the third game is like checkers, while the fourth is like chess"). The fourth game is certainly interesting, but it's far from perfect, and I doubt it's better ("smarter") than the third. I'd say that in terms of the ideas behind the game, the fourth might be a step above the third, but the flawed implementation negates all potential advantages.
In the fourth game, the ideas in the combat mode are particularly well-executed (counterattack simultaneous with attack, 1/4 shot power to the other end of the field, mana for creatures with magical abilities, the hero as a unit, potions, etc.), but the overall presentation leaves much to be desired: the battlefield is awkward, and it's inconvenient to calculate the squares, and I won't even mention the castle siege – if THIS (the siege in Heroes of Might and Magic 4) isn't absurd, then what is?:D? Here, I completely agree with Shurik. As for the "classes" awarded when leveling up 2 or more skill schools, something similar appeared in the third game in the Trial by Fire expansion, as well as other additions that add variety to the gameplay (such as the bank, creature experience, and tax on their upkeep, etc.). If something similar to Trial by Fire or Warlords of the Wastelands had been released for the fourth game, maybe I would have returned to that installment:rolleyes:...