Posts from What would you change in Heroes of Might and Magic IV?

I wouldn't touch the core idea because it's actually quite good, but I would improve the graphics. The graphics are a major drawback in this game, but otherwise, it's decent...

Well, if the game needs its graphics improved, then there's essentially nothing else that needs to be changed, because graphics are a subjective concept.

I would remove the bottles. Maybe leave a couple. But lately, their quantity and variety have become quite annoying.

In my opinion, the worst thing about Heroes 4 is that it differs too much from the previous installments in the series. In reality, the game is excellent, but there are some aspects that I personally didn't find very good. This includes the hero on the battlefield; the idea is interesting, but the hero quickly becomes too powerful and no longer needs an army. Also, too much attention is paid to hero development, which makes the game more like an RPG than a strategy game. And, frankly, the idea of a hero on the battlefield – I've always considered the hero to be more like a commander who stands behind the troops, observing the battle and giving orders. He doesn't need to personally rush into the thick of the fight; imagine, for example, if Napoleon himself rushed into battle.

too much attention is paid to hero leveling

And what else do they level up in Heroes?)) The army?:)

And, in fact, the very idea of a hero on the battlefield, I have always considered the hero to be something like a general, a commander who stands behind the troops, observing the battle and giving orders. And he absolutely does not need to rush into the thick of the battle himself; imagine, for example, if Napoleon himself rushed into battle.

If we are comparing the hero to real commanders of the past, then we should compare them to an earlier period, namely from antiquity to the Middle Ages. Of course, not every commander was on the front line, but it was possible to reach almost any commander, and battles were often won by striking at the commander. For example, let's remember Alexander the Great.

In Heroes 4, the battlefield is quite large, and the commander can be either behind the troops or on the front line - it all depends on the player.

In the fourth game, I would fix the walking animation for the Barbarian and Leprechaun heroes; they don't walk like that!

In my opinion, there are significantly fewer things that need fixing in the fourth game compared to the third and fifth, as I consider this game to be the best in the series. However, I still have a few wishes (which, unfortunately, will never be implemented). Here they are, in order: 1). Remove the simultaneous attack for archers. It just doesn't make sense – eagle-eyed crossbowmen notice that hobbits are aiming at them with slings and, at the same time as the enemy, release their mechanisms)))) Or, for example, vigilant centaurs see a cloud in the sky and throw spears at the titans – their reaction must be good))) Simultaneous attack is a great thing for melee units, but archers should always take turns. First, the first ones attack, then the second ones respond. And nothing else. 2). Either reduce the heroes' independent strength, or include separate slots for troops and separate slots for heroes. So, five slots for troops (and only for them!) and two (three, four – it's possible, but a bit too much) only for heroes. Otherwise, we end up not using three (sometimes even four) types of creatures from our castle. That is, we do use them, but only in the early stages of the game – and in the final stages, everyone drags around only heroes and creatures of the 3rd and 4th levels. Because of this, the Magic of Life becomes the weakest, as it is focused on supporting one's own troops. It's an imbalance! And it's just boring. In the third game, even the coolest warlord needed spearmen, or, say, gnolls. And they served him not as "cannon fodder," but as a powerful striking force! This is absolutely correct – because wars are won not by "big" warlords, but by "small" soldiers! 3). Add a random map generator. The "overused" nature of tournament online maps is a bad thing. We shouldn't turn Heroes into Starcraft. 4). Fix some spells. Having practically identical speed boosts for Nature and Chaos, and only slightly different Slow and Fatigue spells for Order and Death, is not good. But the division into Exorcism, Cancellation, and Dispel is correct, in my opinion. 5). Add a higher-level hero class for warriors. In the fourth game, warriors have essentially become an appendage to mages; even barbarians are forced to find some kind of magic for themselves. Mages have a superclass – Archmage, which everyone strives to get, except perhaps Demonologists. But what do warriors have? Only ordinary combined classes. We need to introduce a class that requires leveling up 3 non-magical disciplines to the third circle: for example, Nobility, Tactics, and Combat. It can be called anything, even Generalissimo, but such a class MUST exist. And the bonuses should be appropriate: for example, +25% to the attack and defense of all troops, including the attack and defense of the hero himself. 6). Barbarians need a skill that gives magic resistance to their troops. At least 20-30% should be mandatory; otherwise, the race becomes unplayable in games that last longer than a month. In the Equilibrum expansion, Magic Weakness was fixed – that's good, but it's not quite the same. We need a hero skill. 7). Set a limit on the use of Potions of Immortality. In my opinion, the best option is "one battle – one Potion of Immortality." This elixir should be just an *insurance policy*, but not the basis of tactics.

well, that's not bad.
but:
1) - it doesn't really affect the game.
2) - this is, in my opinion, a highlight of the game - it shouldn't be removed.
3) - definitely.
4) - partially true, but everyone is already used to it - it's not critical.
5) - is it even necessary? does anyone use the Archmage?
6) - a good idea.
7) - hmm... it's unlikely to be needed - it will create an imbalance - life will become unbeatable, races that have access to life magic will make it their main hero, and races that don't have access to it - well, it's obvious anyway.

and here I completely disagree

Because of this, Life magic becomes the weakest, as it is focused on supporting its own troops. This is an imbalance!

there is no imbalance - life is the most powerful magic. the question is rather - who knows how to play with it.

1) Well, archers need some way to defend themselves, so naturally, if they are attacked, they should retaliate!
If simultaneous attacks are removed, then the archers who go first will always win, because they will simply shoot down the enemy archers without any repercussions, and there will be no one left to retaliate.
2)
Do you really think that separating heroes and armies into slots or reducing hero stats will solve the problem?
I highly doubt it! Even if that happens, no one will take levels 1 and 2; the slots will either be empty or filled with something else. Taking level 3 still makes sense, though. There's really no point in taking low-level units, in my opinion. And usually, there isn't enough money for that anyway. Would you rather buy a couple of Black Dragons or Rogues with Orcs?
And to start taking small units (levels 1-2), they need to stop being just cannon fodder! This means they need to be made better. And this is actually already being discussed on the Equilibrium forum. STPAHHuK has some very interesting ideas about this. But this is still just a plan for the next version of Equilibrium.
There's no need to fix the heroes. Rarely does anyone use 2 heroes, except maybe on very small Rush maps, and even then, they only start leveling up 3 of them. On medium-sized maps, where the game lasts at least 3 weeks to a month, usually by the end, there are 3-4 heroes, sometimes even 5-6.
3) Yes, a random map generator would be very interesting. Of course, it's nice to play on a well-known map, where you know all the advantages, but on a random map, both players will have equal chances.
4) I agree with Motor; I don't think this is critical.
5) No one makes an Archmage, in my opinion. And leveling up all three branches... well, that's practically impossible, except maybe on large maps. And what's the point? Sometimes it's more important to create a fully developed Grand Master in one area than to spread yourself thin across several.
6) Maybe.
7) One potion per battle? And what if the opponent has Counterspell or Spell Steal? And that's it! Your hero is left without Immortality. But now the opponent has two! Or an immortal unit caught your hero. Then what do you do? And Motor is right; the Life Mage will be a favorite hero, only because they have Guardian Angel or Resurrection in their arsenal.
In my opinion, this shouldn't be done! Happiness isn't found in Spellbooks. You can lose even if you have 10 Spellbooks, while your opponent has only 1-2.

Actually, the topic is "what would you change in Heroes 4?", not "what would you change in the latest version of Equilibrium?".
Now, please reread my post based on this information.
Regarding Life - the "Resurrection" spell didn't exist originally. "Hand of God" is only a backup in the case of a very, very powerful cleric (Paladin with 5555 combat skills). Otherwise, the cleric will be taken down by level 4 units (Cyclops, Devils) on the very first turn - considering his initiative. The Guardian Angel is removed just as easily as Blessed is, with "Cancel".
As for the fact that with a large number of troops, everyone will choose a Life hero - yes, I have nothing to object to here. He will indeed become the most useful hero, given the low number of blessings in other schools. And while Death and Order can still compete with the Life hero on equal terms, Chaos and Nature will definitely lose in this scenario. When there are huge armies of various units on the battlefield, the Druid summoning will no longer be as critically useful, and direct damage magic will generally be useless. This is exactly what happened in Heroes 3 - a wizard focused on direct damage magic (Solmyr, Deemer) had to rush very quickly, otherwise he became significantly weaker than a blessing/cursing hero. I don't think this was a good feature of the game - it really just made it more boring. Heroes 4 is much more enjoyable in this regard.
Of course, introducing those weak level 1 units onto the battlefield will only burden the army. Therefore, either a full upgrade of these creatures is needed (for example, a noticeably greater bonus from tactics skills) - or replacing them with adequate level 2 units. But such a replacement exists only for Nature (elementals), and something still needs to be invented for the other races... of course, it's easier to just dismiss my idea of "introducing" simple soldiers onto the battlefield. However, I will remind you once again: soldiers fight, generals command. Vampires, djinns, ifrits - these are, in theory, the "special forces" of the army, and not the main striking force. An airborne brigade can quickly capture the center of the enemy's communications, but the most ordinary infantry will hold out "to the last" in the trenches...
In fact, this shortcoming of Heroes 4 cannot be fixed without a fundamental change in the gameplay. This will be a completely different game, so let's forget that I even suggested anything :)
And as for the single-use Blessed - IMHO, this would be correct. Death can remove Blessed with "Cancel", Order - with "Dispel", Nature - with "Antimagic" (if I'm not mistaken, it dispels the target during casting) and then finish it off with summoned creatures, Chaos - hit with "Despair", and Life, in compensation for the lack of ways to remove Blessed from the enemy, has "Hand of God" on itself (if the cleric is not killed on the first turn). But the absence of a second chance to drink Blessed will greatly reduce the "coolness" of the heroes. All monsters (and Barbarians) with double attack become more important ;) I, frankly, am annoyed by an army of five supermen on the battlefield, complemented by weak, frail creatures that, according to the canons of fantasy, should be able to compete on equal terms with the entire squad of heroes (dragons, phoenixes, titans - why do we kill them with one hit?).
As for the simultaneous attack of archers - that's exactly how it should be, so that the first squad clears out the second => whoever has more initiative wins. In life, this is exactly the case - whoever shoots first is more likely to win. Whether it's a bow or an artillery gun.
As for the super-warrior class - this is for campaigns, not for short games :) Simply in campaigns, the hero is most often reduced to the archmage class (unless a demonologist is needed) - so let there be an adequate alternative for warriors. Otherwise, it's boring to play as a warlord :)

Actually, the topic is called "what would you change in Heroes 4?", not "what would you change in the latest version of Equilibrium?"

Equilibrium has already received many useful changes, so when we talk about Heroes 4, we mean Heroes 4 version 3.51.

"Hand of God" is only a good backup if you have a very, very powerful priest (paladin with Combat 5555). Otherwise, the priest will be taken down by level 4 units (Champions of the Dungeon, Devils) on the very first turn - considering his initiative.

And what if without Combat 5555, but with 2-3 "Divan" units right away? ;) By the way, Devils are losers, look at their damage :)

I know that Devils are losers. Their damage is less than that of Titans, yes. But they have greater initiative and are dependent on morale. Under a good tactical leader, they perform wonders on the first turn :) But honestly, I always choose Skeletons ;)
Equilibrium is essentially fixing the game, making it more interesting. Just consider the mass application of spells with a large number of units in a stack! This is wonderful, but based on the topic, I understood that it was about fixing the original... and possibly fixing it "in a different way," i.e., not necessarily based on Equilibrium. Because I don't agree with everything in Equilibrium, and if I have to, I'll write a post on the topic of "what would you fix in Equilibrium" :) :) :)

Regarding Life – the "Resurrection" spell wasn't initially available. "Hand of God" only serves as a backup with a very, very powerful priest (paladin with Combat 5555). Otherwise, the priest will be taken down by level 4 units (Devils, Imps) on the very first turn, considering their initiative.

What a "backup"! Is raising a pack of heroes with a single spell now called that? And who will deploy it for you so you can kill it in the first round? You don't need a powerful one; even without Combat, it can still help.

Nature – with "Antimagic" (if I'm not mistaken, it dispels the target during casting).

That's news to me, honestly – how is it possible to cast Antimagic on an enemy?
And regarding alcohol – it's rare to drink more than once in battle, not counting what's drunk before the battle.

That's great, but based on the topic, I understood that it was about fixing the original... and possibly fixing it "in a different way," i.e., not necessarily based on Equilibris.

In my opinion, it's still about the game as a whole, and not about a specific base version:)

Because I don't agree with everything in Equilibris, and if you want, I'll post something on the topic of "what would you change in Equilibris."

There's a topic somewhere here for discussing Equilibris:) feel free to post there if you want;)

And regarding the potion - it's rare to be able to drink more than one in battle anyway, not counting what's drunk before the battle.

Come on, it's not that rare:D Look at Luchik, she's a heavy drinker, I've seen it myself:D Especially when she doesn't want to surrender, she immediately starts chugging potions by the crate:D
But even so, no matter how actively the potion of immortality is used, it rarely decides the outcome of the battle (in the sense that whoever has more will ultimately win:).

As for the main topic, I wouldn't risk changing much else besides the random map generator, in a fundamental way. I think the main problem with the 4th game is the time spent playing it. The length of some battles, the movement of individual units, and so on, add up to those 4-8 hours, or even more, per game. For example, no one will risk playing XL maps online, just as they won't risk playing L maps.

And somewhere here there’s a thread for discussing Equi:) write there if you want;)

the thread for discussing Equi is closed. it was already closed when I came to the forum.

Oh, come on, it’s rare:D Look at Luchik, she’s a notorious drunk, I’ve seen it myself:D Especially when she doesn’t want to surrender, she immediately starts drinking alcohol by the crates:D
But still, no matter how actively the Potion of Immortality is used, it rarely decides the outcome of the battle (in the sense that whoever has more will win in the end:)).

I don’t know, in my opinion, when you start using it every turn, it usually means that defeat is imminent. I usually hesitate between whether I can do something more useful with the hero or drink the Potion of Immortality so that he doesn’t die. I myself saw when I sacrificed a Necromancer, would you take the risk?
but this, if the hero is not a pure tactician, the most useful thing a tactician can do is to stay alive:D and in that case, it’s really better to get drunk.

Added 6 minutes later

I would like to correct the existence of Heroes 4.:) it’s a pity that it’s not possible. Heroes 3 is the best!!!!

what do you mean by that, if I may ask? that is, “correction” means that they shouldn’t exist at all? listen, did you read the topic title? and why are you writing this here? we’ve already heard “Heroes 3 is the best!!!!” many times – why write it here again?

Perhaps the editor’s capabilities could be expanded a bit.