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

I would remove the "movement" of troops without a hero; it's just absurd.

I believe this isn't nonsense, but a unique feature of the game. An important feature that the third and fifth installments critically lack. For example, you're exploring the adventure map in the third game. You encounter 400 Minotaur Kings. And – what a surprise! They decide to join you. And then you frantically think – should you discard the Harpies (and lose the ability to quickly and easily deal with small groups of neutrals), or discard the Angels, which you collected in five Conservatories one by one, or maybe get rid of the five hundred Pit Lords that joined you a month ago... In the end, you discard one of the useful, necessary units, and take these damned Minotaurs. No less useful, necessary, and powerful.
Question: why discard anyone at all? Where is the logic, where is the playability, where is the meaning, in the end? It turns out that if a diplomat hero has gathered an army of his city (all seven levels of creatures), he must prepare in advance to discard various parts of his army during the game? That is, the money spent on the creatures is doomed to be wasted. Or should he leave the least useful creatures in the city in advance (which reduces the "meat" and lowers the chance of neutrals joining him) in the hope of replenishing the unit with creatures of other races.

Troop movement without a hero, their gathering of resources, setting up "guards" designed to keep the fog of war open on the borders of the kingdom – this is correct and logical. After all, in the fourth game, troops without a hero cannot capture a mine or claim a foreign city as their own (even if they kill all its guards) – and in the end, in the fourth game, troops are an order of magnitude weaker than heroes. No one will ever FIGHT with hero-less troops.

After all, in the fourth game, troops without a hero cannot capture a mine.

I assure you, Equilibris made the game resemble Heroes 3, because in that game, if you don't have a free slot for creatures, whether through diplomacy, charm, or necromancy, you'll have to part with some of your own. Otherwise, the recruited creatures will disappear. And in the actual game, this problem of choice rarely occurs.

1). Remove the simultaneous attack ability for archers.
2). Either reduce the independent strength of heroes or add separate slots for troops and separate ones for heroes.
3). Add a random map generator.
4). Fix some spells.
5). Add a higher class for warrior heroes.
6). Barbarians need an ability that gives magic resistance to their troops.

I assure you that Equi has become similar to Heroes III in this regard because in it too, if you don't have a free slot for creatures joined by a diplomat, charm, or necromancer, you will have to part with one of your own; otherwise, the joining ones will disappear. Besides, such a problem of choice rarely occurs in a real game.

2). What do you think about making small monsters stronger?

Someone has already suggested replacing Nature's "First Strike" with "Ignore First Strike." We haven't had any ideas about Slow or Fatigue yet. I think it would be interesting to expand Fatigue to Slow, reduce the effect (instead of halving the speed, reduce it by -3), and lower it by 1 level.

Regarding the Barbarians, it has already been suggested to give them 20% resistance from each Castle Absorber. And not only that, there's more detail there.

...if anything, I'll post something on the topic of "what would you change in Equi."

Regarding capturing a mine with an army without a hero, I don't have any ideas. As a flight of fancy, I can only suggest this: the hero-less army marches to the outer tavern and hires a hero. Or, it picks up a tomb on the map, goes to the Haven, and revives a hero.

The idea of making small monsters stronger is exactly what is needed! I am all for it!

The problem is that in the third game, there were UPGRADES. A disgusting, annoying feature that doesn't add anything useful to the game.

Because of these upgrades, there were a lot of problems: Necromancers couldn't turn skeletons into skeleton warriors (because the "Necromancy" skill only made regular skeletons, which, without a special slot in the army, simply disappeared). For example, you find a squad of 500 Gnolls. And you have to think - either discard your 400 Gnoll Marauders for them (and then pay money to upgrade these five hundred to Marauders), or miss such a great opportunity to replenish your army.

5). We need to ask Dalai if they can add new classes.

In the latest version, Equips don't disappear.

Yeah, then higher-level creatures won't be needed at all.

They also changed the classes of heroes, so they know how to do it.

And what is considered the latest version? I was talking about 3.51 - they seem to disappear there.

The problem is that in the third game, there were UPGRADES. A nasty, annoying, and useless feature that doesn't add anything useful to the game.

Because of these upgrades, there were a whole bunch of problems: Necromancers couldn't turn skeletons into skeleton warriors (because the "Necromancy" skill only made regular skeletons, which, without a special slot in the army, simply disappeared).

It should be noted that at least in SoD (and possibly already in AB, I'm not sure), if there is no free slot in the army and a stack of warrior skeletons is present after the battle, and there is no hero-necromancer, then it receives upgraded skeletons.

Lords look like the least useful heroes. What if you made it so that a Lord could influence the resource exchange rate?