I think the shortcomings of the AI are obvious (it often behaves unintelligently :rolleyes:), as are the unbalanced difficulty levels and the clumsy implementation of the difficulty increase (a telling example: when playing on an easy level, you don't encounter particularly fierce resistance and easily defeat the computer opponents; when playing on the next level, "master," nothing changes except that you are now facing hordes of creatures, and the process turns into a tedious, drawn-out grind of accumulating a sufficient army), and the not-so-successful, somewhat drawn-out campaigns. At first glance, that's it. In my opinion, most of the "criticisms" of the fourth installment can be expressed in one phrase: "Oh, how different the fourth part is from the third!" The fourth game is not as rich in content, which is why, for people accustomed to the third game, it seems "sparse" and "tedious"; however, it is, in many ways, more refined and balanced (!!!), contrary to the popular opinion in some circles. :) You can start with the convenient and intuitive interface, which is easy to understand. Clear schools of magic with a clear and unambiguous connection to races and castles, which in no way limits the complex system of magic implemented in the fourth game, and, of course, a druid can always start learning death magic, and there are many combinations of magic - and not only magical ones; there is also an excellent system of skills. In general, everything related to the hero and his abilities is, in my opinion, brilliantly implemented in the fourth part, and the emphasis on RPG elements does not bother me at all; on the contrary, I am glad when, as a result of a long... um... "work" on the hero, I get a real monster who can defeat even a black dragon. This adds extra variety - and that's a good thing. :) Cities and races, and the aforementioned direct connection between them and the schools of magic. Now the system has become much more logical and understandable: the city of chaos - chaos magic, the city of life - life magic, and so on - essentially, that's how it is. There are now six types of cities, as in the second game, and that's only better. It's easier to balance six than nine, and the balance, in my opinion, has indeed become more correct. The swamp, elementals, and elves fit into the city of nature - this, in principle, pleases me and seems logical; inferno and dungeon fit into the city of chaos and the city of death (inferno), which is also true (there was no inferno in the second part, and I don't see the need for a separate city of demons, which is very close in "ideology" to "chaos," and a couple of creatures really fit into "death"); in the second game, "warlock" corresponded to the "chaos" of the fourth, and "death" was and remains. In the end, the cities of the fourth part essentially repeat the cities of the second, even in terms of the composition of creatures (for the most part). The overabundance of spells, as some have said... I don't know, it doesn't seem that way to me; at least, it doesn't hurt my eyes, it doesn't interfere, and it doesn't create any particular imbalance (even the much-maligned "hypnosis" doesn't, and it was also present in the third part). In general, everything related to magic in the fourth game is very pleasing to me. The "fork" of buildings in cities is a good solution; it only adds variety to the process. The daily increase in creatures, firstly, does not apply to creatures of the highest level, and secondly, it only gives an advantage to the defending side. Where does it disrupt the balance - explain it to such a hardened hotseater as myself (I don't play online), I don't understand? "The weakness of creatures of the first three levels" - this is not entirely true; the third is quite competitive, and the first two are decent, solid meat, as they should be. Moreover, sometimes they are quite effective. This is my opinion. I have, of course, played all the parts (the first - a little, the fifth - also not much). Now I'm hooked on the third, but the fourth is still my favorite. By the way, I think it has a lot in common with the second. Don't you think? :) Only the second is much more dynamic, of course... All of the above is IMHO.