Posts from Heroes of Might and Magic V [Game Discussion]

Why is everyone so fixated on the small battlefield? In my opinion, the possibility of new combat tactics more than compensates for this shortcoming. And in general, combat tactics are far from the most important element in a strategy game. As for the fourth installment, it still wasn't successful. The third game, despite its age, is far superior. And regarding playability, even a beta version won't provide a complete experience, let alone some videos or screenshots. So, in my opinion, the only correct decision is to wait for the full version to be released. And only then can we lavish praise or offer criticism.

First question. List 10 new tactics imposed by this battlefield. If you name them, I will have to agree that the criticism is unfounded. For now, I see the blatant overuse of Fire Wall and Mines. Even in Heroes of Might and Magic III, with some skill, you can gain a huge advantage from these two spells, and on this battlefield, even more so.

Perhaps the map was intentionally made small so that the player couldn't spend too long pressing the defense button and accumulating ATB (suggestion by Katrin). Honestly, how can one thoroughly criticize and dismiss a small map if most people haven't even tried it themselves and are only relying on other people's opinions...?
And as for the "Rules of Mines" and "Fire Wall" spells... even in part 3, they were not very popular spells... and I also didn't see "Fire Wall" in part 5.

Let's take a look at that amazing fighter who would actually benefit from mines and fire walls, besides defending a castle, and even then, not always. And the fact that the map is small simply adds new dimensions to the battle tactics. I believe that this should make the battle more dynamic. If someone wants battles that last thirty turns, I can suggest a game of chess, but the game, especially in multiplayer mode, should be clear and fast, without running around the battlefield while there's still something to fight with or in similar situations. In general, I'm neither for nor against a small map. There are both advantages and disadvantages. The balance of possible tactical decisions and spell effects will show everything.

First of all, the Fire Wall spell exists; see this thread. Secondly, I heard someone say "plus one." "I think that this should make battles more dynamic." Hmm. A dubious plus. The maximum movement range is 7. The map length is 10. Teleport + defense, and my unit accumulates initiative, then takes out everyone. It's not difficult to do. You just need patience. Battles in other Heroes games were also dynamic. 4-6 rounds, and the outcome is predetermined. Unless the opponent intentionally prolongs the battle (and I love doing that – under equal conditions, prolonging the battle leads to the fact that at least once the opponent will make a mistake, and that's when you take him down). Regarding Rulez Min and the Fire Wall: Firstly, the Master of Fire can block the entire field with mines in three turns. All that remains is to maneuver and drive the enemy onto the mines. An excellent weapon against warriors. Against mages, a different tactic applies. Namely, the Fire Wall. As everyone knows, Phoenix is the fastest unit in the game. Playing as an Elementalist, you can do the following (hero Luna): press wait and place a Fire Wall in front of the phoenixes. With her specialization towards phoenixes, no one will get close. Then the phoenix calmly flies out from under cover and eliminates the enemy stacks one by one. If the phoenixes die, resurrection is used. With a strength of 5, Luna kills 14 Chimeras with 10 Storm Elementals. And on a small map, it’s practically impossible to avoid mines or the Wall; you always have to use teleport. But what if the wall is standing in front of the Chimera? And while the Chimera accumulates initiative:D I am quite the fighter:) Do you need screenshots? What are archers for if you can reach them in two moves? Blinded and reached :) Initiative helped :) It didn't help :) There's no need to talk about the predictability of moves. It's obvious. Especially when the hydra is blocked by obstacles

It's simply amazing how tactical decisions can be made using mines and walls, and it all looks beautiful, but only if you don't take into account a whole range of countermeasures that can be used against the speed of Phoenixes or any ranged unit (whether magical or not). It's pointless to go into the details of such tactics; it's like saying "my brother is a boxer" or "my dad is a hunter," and so on. So, until the full version is released, all this fuss is pointless. By the way, regarding artifacts – is it really about the quantity?

So, until the full version is released, any fuss is pointless.

When should we start this fuss then?;)
We've given the developers time to rethink things. Now it's up to them.
I agree with NecroFill that when the game comes out, we'll either say "masterpiece" or send it to the dusty shelf. No one will need any fuss anymore, neither us nor the developers.
As for artifacts, the more, the better. In the second part, there were 99 of them :) Awesome. :)

Just wonders of tactical decisions using mines and walls.

Where are the wonders here? It's all obvious.

Yes! You can never have too many artifacts!

Katrine, how do you have such influence on the developers? If you influence the developers with such methods, you could get a new Fallout 3 (sorry if I spelled it wrong). We are very different from the developers... We just talk (in this case, we type), while they think, invent, and make, make and make, in my opinion, a good game, despite the noise of "constructive" criticism.

This was about the Petition.
If they agreed to it, then there is at least some influence over the developers.

they think, invent and make, make and make in my opinion a good game, despite the hum of "constructive" criticism.Everything was invented before them. They shouldn't be making the game from "0". They are making a sequel to a specific game. If Terminator 3 didn't have Schwarzenegger, would you have watched that movie? I doubt it.
It is the same here. And the game should be criticized specifically before release, not after. After that, a verdict is simply delivered.
I am not going to claim that my criticism is 100% constructive.:) That is clearly not the case. There are far too many emotions in it:)
I was interested in the new features announced by Nival, but they removed them from the game:( And ATV is not suitable for strategies. With it, RPGs become arcade-like.
IMHO.:)

I don't think it's about the petition; it's about the real lack of time. That's why they decided to postpone the game's release. And if they attach this to the petition, it's only to show everyone that the customer is their top priority.

Guys, what's the point of this argument? It's just Heroes 3 in a new wrapper; it seems Nival didn't put much effort into it. But! The graphics are a complete degradation; it looks like something from a kindergarten! If Heroes used to be played by both adults and children, now it seems only children will play it. And this is after the magnificent landscapes of Heroes 4 – now we have ugly, identical, mathematical trees and primitive terrain like in real-time games from the mid-90s. I used to enjoy creating maps for Heroes 4 and even 3, but here, Nival has arrogantly taken that joy away from me. Furthermore, the artists who created the units are talented, but explain to me, what force flattened your characters so much? It's like something from the bottom of the sea, crabs and other arthropods in exaggerated armor. Moreover, the units in battle turned out to be unremarkable; it's difficult to tell who's who at first glance. You have to use deduction (and then say that the battles aren't intellectual). And why are the ideas so banal? Is it a lack of ideas or ignorance of existing games? The castles themselves are interesting in their own way, but after Disciples, it's very weak. Also, there could have been more branches and levels of development – building has always made the strategy more interesting. And here, we see just Heroes 3, a game that, I must say, is quite outdated. The game's interface is uninteresting and lacks richness, even compared to games from Russian developers, and again, it strongly resembles the mid-90s. In my opinion, they could have left the panels as they were; the old layout was quite convenient. And this flying camera in battles only slows down the battle and irritates with its unwanted change of view. And these cheap magical special effects, which we've already seen a hundred times in other cheap games! I don't have any animosity towards Nival, but I want to point out: you made a game for children called "Demiurges," but that doesn't mean you should now churn out clones of it under various names. And I don't understand why you think you'll earn more money by repeating other people's or your own ideas? What's been made under the name Heroes 5 is just an alternative version of Heroes 3, and not a very good one at that. It lacks the spirit of Heroes, its charm, intrigue, beauty, and legend; only the engine remains, and it's quite outdated. In response to those who say that Heroes 4 fans don't like Nival: I love both Heroes 4 and Heroes 3, and I played Demiurges, although I didn't appreciate it, but I don't have any animosity towards Nival. I have animosity towards domestic developers who create all sorts of things, heavily advertise them, and make a profit from the fact that we buy it and then throw it on a shelf because, even though it's bad, we still feel bad about spending money on it. I'm afraid that's what will happen with this parody of Heroes.

First question. List 10 new tactics imposed by this battlefield.
If you name them, you'll have to agree that the criticism is unfounded.
For now, I see the ungodly dominance of Fire Wall and Mines. Even in the third game, with some skill, you can gain a huge advantage from these two spells, and even more so on such a battlefield.

Where have you seen the ungodly dominance of Fire Wall and Mines? Have you even played the beta?:confused: Placing 2 mines on the battlefield that deal 60 damage at medium level is ungodly dominance?:D Don't make me laugh... You can easily list more than 10 new tactics, but now the tactics are no longer based on the size of the battlefield; rather, they are based on the skillful interaction of units:
For example, in Heaven, it is very beneficial during a battle to teleport archers to the rear of the enemy army, as their damage increases tenfold in close combat. But this is very difficult to do because you need to calculate a lot of things, ensure cover for the archers, and "reserve" a place in advance. This is what I call tactics. But even a person with limited intellect can come up with the idea of slowing down enemies and blessing archers (this is a clear example of "third game" tactics). I will refrain from commenting on the fourth game. In the past, almost all factions had a "universal" army building scheme (we shoot with archers, mow with magic, and then throw in the beasts). Now, try to sit back when Inferno drops reinforcements into your Castle or the undead use their scream to lower everyone's morale and then crush them after they start moving 2-3 times more often... In general, there are a huge number of tactics. If you want more, read the Nival forums. If not, I will still list them for you... but not now. :)
I was just struck by the fact that many people are shouting that the field is too small, even though they haven't even seen it:mad: The 8x10 field is PERFECT for the NEW battle concept; area-of-effect spells are practically useless because the Hero who casts them usually moves in the middle of the battle when the troops are scattered across the field, and it is no longer so advantageous to cast them. The battles have become much MORE INTERESTING. I say this as a player with 10 years of experience, starting with King's Bounty, and I would be very sorry if the size of the field is changed due to the hysteria of those who haven't even seen the game

Animik What you wrote suggests that you haven't even seen the game, and if you have, you have no idea about it:D, and your arguments are incredibly amusing (no offense). Please take the time to download the beta, play it once or twice, and I'm sure you'll laugh at many of your statements, even if you don't like the game, at least your arguments will be justified and weighty.
With respect.

I don't know about others, but I like the innovations in Heroes 5. Yes, the plot is disappointing, and the graphics are cartoonish. But after the failure of Heroes 4, the game needed to be saved. So, these steps were like an amputation. Without them, it would have been even worse. The main thing is that the spirit of the game remains unchanged (compared to Heroes 3).