Auto-translated
HMM4. Why it is bad.
>> HMM4's failure as a strategy game
>
> Now, that would be interesting to read about
Well then, a brief overview. For those who love to show off without reason, I will immediately
note that everything I am stating is my opinion. Nothing more. But nothing less.
The first and main point. In a strategic game, realism regarding
what is happening should be the last priority—or rather, it comes after
key elements such as playability and balance. This is an axiom. Those
who are primarily interested in plots, all sorts of realism, and
visuals can stop reading here. You're better off playing role-playing games—you
will like them more. The same goes for those who do not play Multiplayer, because
I consider crushing the AI to be a trivial pursuit even in HMM3, let alone in HMM4.
So, let's discuss the innovations of HMM4.
First and foremost: Heroes as separate units.
Here, the problem splits into two: heroes as separate units on the map and
heroes as separate units in battle.
The first is categorically unacceptable. In previous versions of HMM,
heroes were, roughly speaking, containers for troops. Now each army
has its own individual movement allowance. What does this lead to? To the absence
of so-called "chains," over which so many arguments have been fought.
The only major argument from opponents of chains is
their lack of realism. For them—see the beginning of the article. As someone
correctly noted here, if that's the case, we might as well cancel turn order too—since it's
somewhat unrealistic.
The positive aspect of chains is a fantastic increase in the wealth
of possibilities and game dynamism. With them, a single army can sweep
across the map in one or two turns, fighting multiple battles (provided,
of course, there is competent management). Many possible combinations emerge,
related to the clever distribution of troops and transferring units from one
place to another. Without them, troops are forced to plod boringly across
the map, unable to exceed their speed limit. With chains, a newly built dragon can be delivered to the front line in the same turn. Without them—no. The point of attacking an enemy disappears: reinforcements will always reach him first—so what is the point of fighting on his territory? And much, much more.
I should note that players usually fall into two categories. The first are those
who know how to use chains (and "know how" implies far
more than just knowing such a technique is possible). Practically none of them deny their utility. The second are those who do NOT know how.
Some of them claim: "I don't like it, and I don't use them on principle." This is nonsense. It's the same as playing chess and принципиально not using castling. They simply don't know how to use them.
Accordingly, the first are saddened by the disappearance of a powerful and
essential gameplay technique in HMM4. The second are glad that there is no longer a weapon
they didn't master anyway.
As I already mentioned, this problem could have been fixed in HMM4 in one
simple way: it could be declared that troops traveling with a hero do not spend
their own movement. However, this is unlikely to happen, as the game would immediately become
completely different.
Another point—the mobility of heroes has been lost; previously they could
"break" against neutrals and join in a city of their choice. Now,
alas, only in the nearest one. If before you could easily move a hero from one end of the map to another, now there is nothing left but to trudge for a week or two. Another blow is dealt to dynamism and the wealth of possibilities.
Second part: The Hero as a unit on the battlefield.
Even when it became known that NWC planned to make the hero a unit on
the battlefield, it was clear that balancing this would be incredibly difficult.
Either low-level heroes would be very weak, or high-level heroes
would be tanks and wouldn't need troops. In the worst case—both. This is a fundamental point, regardless of implementation. If
one considers that in a commercial game there is usually no time for thorough polishing, one could imagine how it would turn out. And so it did. We see that heroes quickly become so much stronger than other troops that only they fight the battle. Q.E.D.
A deterioration? Undoubtedly. And a very critical one at that.
Heroes, leveling, skills.
First point: Loss of individuality.
Heroes in HMM3 possessed individuality. Not only specialization played a role, but also starting skills. Experienced players know that, as a rule, one should first look at the hero's starting skills and then at their specialization, which will not be felt immediately.
Although, of course, super-specs like Solmyr, Jeddit, Dessa—were always highly valued.
Many specializations, however, were weak (such as troop specializations). There was hope that this would be improved in HMM4. Alas, the effect was the opposite. The individuality of heroes through skills vanished, as did
specializations. A huge minus.
Second point: Leveling.
Discussing new skills vs old ones would take too long. I'll note the most important general
point. Previously, a hero's development could vary significantly depending on which skills were offered and the player's own choice. In HMM4, when buying a hero, the player can predict in advance how they will look at, say, level 10. Simply because one cannot afford the luxury of taking a skill from the wrong group—there is no time for that; you must pump the priority group. Moreover, higher levels are gained even slower than in HMM3. I'm not talking about level 30 tanks—in a serious game, an encounter with the enemy will happen much sooner. (I'm not talking about playing against the computer at all—so much has been said about the AI that I don't want to kick someone who is already down and nearly dead.)
Thus, not only was the starting individuality of the hero lost, but also the individuality in the leveling process. Effectively, the only choice the player makes is which class of hero to buy. Very sad. Much depended on which hero arrived and which skill was raised. Now there are no options—everything is mindless.
Advanced hero classes seem like a good idea. However, unfortunately, the bonuses they provide are insignificantly small. Therefore, thinking about which class to choose for a hero, with few exceptions, doesn't really happen either.
Second point: Primary skills. One important change occurred in military skills: the transition from an additive damage calculation formula to a multiplicative one. That is, roughly speaking, attack/defense is used instead of attack-defense. What do we have now? In HMM3, another single point in attack/defense was always useful for a strong hero. Now, almost nothing depends on whether attack is 60 or 61. Further leveling becomes less and less important. Alas.
As for Spell Power, it has vanished. I have no words at all. If before a level 10 hero surpassed a starting one by 5-7 times in spell power, now it's 2-3. The increase of spell power with level is very slow, and pumping a special skill is costly and also not very fast. High-level mages have weakened and cannot provide worthy competition to fighters, especially considering the mocking 100% Resistance. The fragile, thin balance of strength and magic nurtured in HMM3 has collapsed completely.
True, possible combinations of warrior-mage heroes etc. somewhat balance the situation. But alas, not nearly as much as needed.
Castle and troops.
At stages where heroes have not yet become tanks, troops can sometimes be useful. However, alas, the situation has worsened for them too.
First: If a player builds up one Castle, as usually happens, they will have 5 types of troops instead of 7. Already bad.
Second: No upgrades. This is complete nonsense. With upgrades in HMM3, there were already 14 types of troops. They wonderfully diversified the game, effectively extending the development distance of the castle and troop strength. Now this is gone.
If before full build-up required constructing (starting from standard) 5+7=12 military buildings—now it's 3. In between, we just sit and hoard money.
Furthermore: Previously, lower-level troops could successfully withstand higher-level troops due to numbers and a not-so-large difference in strength. Now this is gone. A higher level wipes out the previous one instantly.
Some are terribly pleased with the choice between two troops on each tier. I am not. First of all, it's hard to come up with troops that are substantially different but roughly equal in strength. In every case, an experienced player knows in advance what is better to build, and this choice rarely depends on the specific situation.
Also gone is the brilliant—I don't fear using that word—system that directly linked troop growth to the construction of defensive structures. Now you don't need to build a stronghold or castle at all unless they are needed for dwellings. Except when someone comes to visit. And when they do, we will quickly build—and the castle cannot be taken because the castle has become completely impregnable. Combined with the absence of chains and the fog of war, this makes attacking enemy territory absurdly unprofitable.
Building costs are also madness. There is no point at all in building a City Hall that brings money if you want to play even slightly actively. It pays for itself only after 15(!) days, assuming resource-to-money exchange at the worst rate. In HMM3 it was 5. And if you suddenly need, say, crystals for construction, then it's complete insanity. Town Hall is better, but not by much. At the same time, building costs are also wild, and it's generally unclear where to get money if there isn't a gold mine or two nearby and a bunch of chests. The game turns into money-hoarding, hopelessly losing the dynamism of HMM3, where many things could be accomplished in one turn, and drags on indecently.
A separate question about special resources. In HMM3 they were always useful because it's always good to build an extra mages' guild. In HMM4, after building the last level of troops, special resources are only needed for exchange for money. Because the guild now costs pennies, and one cannot count on a second castle in the foreseeable future. Moreover, it is easy to calculate in advance how much of what will be required and sell everything else immediately.
Caravans. Firstly, their construction is expensive and can only be afforded in the late stages of the game. Then—they only accelerate a unit's movement up to its maximum, but no further. Finally, the nonsense where a caravan perishes when someone blocks its path. The utility of caravans is minimal.
Fog of war. Arguments from both sides have been expressed repeatedly on this matter, so I will be brief: HMM is not real-time; fog is an element of real-time. At most, I would give the option to enable it optionally.
Battle.
The most important point—the simultaneity of strike and response. A negative point. If before (how many times have I written these words?) many tactical techniques were possible based on strikes after which the enemy army died or weakened so much that it was unable to respond—now this is gone. It's generally unclear—why hit the enemy? Especially in a 1-on-1 fight. He will hit you back with the same effect. There is, of course, First Strike, but well, you can't put it on everyone all the time...
Absence of the grid. What was done in the patch cannot be called a grid. How many combinations could be calculated based on where and which unit could reach in how many turns, who could be blocked where! What wealth of possibilities! Now it is difficult to plan even 2 turns ahead—you fall slightly short, and everything goes sideways.
Turn order is a circus. Calculating who moves when, who responds to a strike and who doesn't, resembles some kind of insane puzzle. With morale—without morale—with anti-morale, waited—didn't wait, responded last time...
Bottles. An interesting idea, but unfortunately, it only exacerbates the already huge advantage of heroes over troops. It is better to buy a leveled-up hero extra Immortality than to buy troops that will deal mosquito bites.
Race balance. Against the backdrop of other holes in the balance, it looks tolerable. Although, of course, it doesn't compare to the balance in HMM3. Just look at the Stealth-hero and the Grandmaster Necromancy feature. Of course, this can all be fixed with patches... somehow. Theoretically. But in practice, we have something completely different.
Hit & Run. The possibility of classic H&R, which was the Achilles' heel of HMM3, is still present here. It's harder to do it with one mage because there's a risk he'll be killed quickly. But with a mage + warrior + some small fry just in case—hit-and-run as much as you want. Especially from Castle. (Another argument against attacking the enemy!) Moreover, you don't even have to buy back the hero here! He resurrects himself for free. A mockery, plain and simple.
I will note that there are good ideas in HMM4 too. Hero classes, a more diverse magic system, two-type neutrals, the very cute Fantastic Teacher object, casting units with spell points, percentage Resistance of units, dependence of castle power on the strength of the defenders, some new hero skills. Alas—these positive points are too few.
With that, I conclude this brief overview of HMM4's "successful deteriorations." I have touched only upon key points and briefly; much has been left out.
General conclusion: the game has become poorer; logic, dynamism, and strategic depth have been lost. I emphasize that I do not wish to convince anyone. The concept of "liking" does not always follow logic. (Some people like playing jacks on the street and don't care about computer games at all.) Furthermore, in my feeling, fans of HMM4 are simply lovers of a different type of game. Which, alas, are much less substantial. At least, in my not-so-humble opinion.
Be worthy of your fathers' names.
UTER
