Discussion about Heroes 4.

Impressions: combat is the worst in the series. Not even so much because of simultaneous attacks (you can get used to that) or the presence of heroes on the field (free loot), but because of the grid. It is specifically the grid that makes Heroes 4 clearly stand out from the series. Instead of simple and clear calculations of who can reach where, you have to assess the situation and distances literally by eye. Will there be enough movement to reach and not leave yourself exposed? Or will a unit miss a single 1-millimeter cell and simply waste an attacking turn? Or will it be unable to squeeze between bushes? Can it be blocked by a single unit, or will it have enough movement to go around? Was the unit's retaliation removed, and when will it be restored? And has the unit already moved this round? With such a grid, the fact of movement cannot always be established. One could read about waiting or defending in the log, but I couldn't find a log. A multitude of complicating nuances, but technical ones, not tactical.

On the contrary, I liked that in the fourth game, unlike previous parts, you can move more freely across the battlefield, unit sizes have become fundamentally different, and the surface has become uneven and hilly. Regarding calculations: first, when hovering over any part of the field, the number of moves required to get there is displayed. Second: you can also see the moves of an enemy squad by right-clicking on it. Third: you can enable the combat grid, which clearly shows where a unit can squeeze in and where it cannot. Furthermore: a retaliatory strike is restored after a full round, meaning if there are 14 squads on the field and your unit has used its retaliation, it will appear again after 14 squads have moved. A log is certainly missing, but you can manage without it, knowing that units with higher initiative move earlier, and it's also not difficult to remember who has moved and who hasn't.

Units are quite monotonous in terms of physical stats and are trimmed to a 1:5 template (damage:survivability). With such a ratio, the combat dynamics are too low + more time is needed to assess the move "by eye." As a result, battles are dragged out.

For many units, damage varies greatly, to the point where the minimum is three times less than the maximum, so there's no hint of 1:5 here. Moreover, attack, defense, and speed also play a major role; for example, 60 brigands, whose total health is 600 and damage is 60-180, cannot handle one black dragon, which has 400 health and 55-110 damage. And the so-called "by eye" battle assessment exists in almost every tactical game, even in chess; it's just that everything is harder to plan perfectly in the fourth.

Neutrals on the map are unbalanced; essentially, you can only push through normally on "Apprentice" (the second difficulty out of five), everything else is fraught with huge losses of starting troops, or time lost waiting for growth.

As in any game, a beginner cannot simply start playing on the highest difficulty without any problems. You need to learn how to fight through large neutral armies with minimal losses, and that takes time.

Meanwhile, heroes level up extremely slowly. It takes about 4 battles to go from level 1 to 2 (with a standard start of 2 heroes).

Chests and various buildings that give free experience help with this. And if they aren't on the map, it's not the game's fault, but the map maker's.

Even the economy says: we are in no rush. Income structures pay for themselves in as many as 10(!) days, and that's only in gold. That is, we have an extremely drawn-out game, oriented more towards slow role-playing walkthroughs than dynamic Multiplayer.

I agree about the income structures — they cost too much; they should only be placed when there's nowhere else to put resources. But everything else can be built quickly and without much trouble on the highest difficulty if you learn how to do everything correctly.