Posts from What were your expectations for Heroes 4?

I was also confused at first, but I got used to it. And sometimes criticism is justified, what can you do? :)

It's not so much justified as it is subjective :) but it does exist, as it fits within the bounds of correctness.

I don't even remember thinking about these divisions. Angels and knights were with the humans - and that's good enough :D The main thing is that the campaigns were interesting, as was the game itself :) Although at first, I was annoyed by the presence of heroes on the battlefield - they were killed quickly :)

Like every fan of Heroes of Might and Magic III, I remember waiting for the sequel, improvements, and so on. The first time I played Heroes of Might and Magic IV, I played for about an hour and turned it off (it didn't click). I tried again a week later, and I haven't stopped playing it since. :smile01:

Guys, you're amazing! For me, on the contrary, every change is a good one... I like the heroes on the battlefield, the choice between units, and the griffins for the Elves. I don't know why, though...
As for Zik68, in my opinion, from a legal point of view, it's acceptable, but if you look at things directly, it should be done in a more gentle way so as not to infringe on the opinions of other players... right?)

I remember the moment when the fourth installment of "Heroes" came out. I expected to install the game and finally put my computer to good use. That's how it was when I first encountered the second, third, and later the fifth game. Of course, I didn't get that feeling. Everything was too different; it was difficult even to defeat a few peasants, which I used to crush with legions of 20 rangers in the second game. I started browsing through about 20 scenarios I had at the time. And everywhere, it was just as difficult. I gave up in the face of these difficulties and started playing the older versions again.

I didn't expect anything, as the fourth installment was my first "Heroes" game, and after I got into it, I appreciated it highly because of its vast strategic possibilities. After all, graphics and gameplay are secondary. The most important thing is that there is room for strategic and, importantly, tactical (less developed in the third game) planning. I started with the fourth game, and therefore my perception of the graphics and everything else is the opposite of the opinions and feelings of many players who started with the third game. After the fourth game, the graphics of the third game seemed quite simple and primitive; there was no three-dimensionality, and the creatures were worse drawn. The hero and combat system was also very different, which I also didn't like, as I was already used to and had mastered the tactics and strategy of the fourth game, while the third game seemed simpler. As for the many bugs and shortcomings, this is a pattern: whenever the system becomes more complex (I think no one will argue that the fourth game turned out to be more complex), it is impossible to foresee everything. The balance between the factions was again worse than in the fourth game.

The balance between factions was again worse than in the fourth game.

In my opinion, it is completely incorrect to compare the balance of factions in the 3rd and 4th games. The 4th game is not "focused" on units, and therefore the balance between factions is essentially only between heroes. After all, in most cases, the game is played with 5-6 heroes of level 12-15, who do not really need an army, except perhaps an extra unit of level 4 for a powerful stack, and even then not always. Of course, there are maps where the army is important, but in general, adjusting the conditions with a map is the last resort. In the 3rd game, everything revolves around units, in the sense that you cannot win with just one hero, and therefore the balance problems are different there. If we compare only the creatures, then yes, the overall balance in the 4th game is better, and there are no headaches with hero specializations at all (by the way, I think they did the right thing by not including this nonsense in the 4th game). But on the other hand, the 3rd game does not have problems with heroes in battle. In Woge, something similar is used, but only one unit (the commander) is allowed there (by the way, there is something to it). Well, okay. In general, since this is the 4th game section, I am still waiting for a random map generator (I curse it every time in the 3rd game, but memorizing maps in the 4th game is sometimes even more annoying), and also for a weakening of the role of heroes on the battlefield (while the trend is going in the opposite direction). That's how it is. All IMHO

In my opinion, it's completely incorrect to compare the balance of factions in Heroes of Might and Magic III and Heroes of Might and Magic IV.

Correct, ZYbr, correct. This is just a comparison of the equivalence of starting conditions. It's even correct to compare it to the color in chess. Starting conditions are starting conditions, no matter what the game is called. And what the game emphasizes – that's a secondary matter.

Yes, I agree with Oxygen. For example, they gave me a Fortress at the beginning, and my opponent got a Castle, and no matter how you look at it, the start will be very different. And even in the final, if there is no possibility to recruit creatures in other Castles (which often happens in the final stages), the Fortress's troops have no chance against the Castle's troops. And here it doesn't matter what heroes the players have and what their specialization is. Even if the Fortress has a better-developed hero (although this is unlikely) and the best specialization possible in the game, it will still have almost no chance against an even slightly less developed hero of the Castle with a completely "stupid" specialization, precisely because of the poor selection of creatures compared to the Castle. In other words, I am not comparing the strategic systems of the game in the third and fourth installments, as they are different. But within the framework of the system established in each version, we need to answer the question: is it possible to win with a weaker race in a certain situation, with skillful actions by the player and a little luck (we shouldn't forget about it)? After all, absolute equality cannot exist; one race will always be slightly stronger, but it is important that the skill of the player plays a decisive role in the victory, and not the choice of race.

Uh, you're getting something wrong... A castle has fewer chances against a fortress than the other way around. I'm a newbie in Heroes 3, but the Swamp is one of the best starting locations...

Correct, Zubr, correct. This is just a comparison of the equivalence of starting conditions. It's even comparable to the color in chess. Starting conditions are starting conditions, no matter what the game is called. And what the game focuses on is a secondary matter.

In Heroes 3, a lot depends on the starting conditions, especially considering that fixed maps are used much less often than in Heroes 4. Or rather, Heroes 4 doesn't have a proper generator for such maps:)
Therefore, in Heroes 4, the variance in starting conditions isn't as critical; usually, it's artifacts, Dryads, and neutral monsters, which don't always affect how easily they can be defeated by the forces of a specific castle. In this sense, perhaps only the Necropolis with its vampires stands out; by getting 2-4 of them, you don't even need to think much in battles with living troops of levels 1-2, but this is more of an isolated case.
Although, maybe I misunderstood something about the starting conditions.

Hmm, I think you're mistaken... A Castle has fewer chances against a Fortress, not the other way around. I'm a newbie in Heroes 3, but swamps are one of the best units there....

Really? I didn't know that. I'm not an expert in Heroes 3 either; I've played it a couple of times, but I always thought that Fortress wasn't that strong. I mean the original Heroes 3 with the expansions. Can someone explain why Fortress is stronger than Castle?

The balance between factions was again worse than in the fourth game.

My opinion is the opposite. In the third game, critical imbalance is excluded by the equally accessible availability of magic.

Really? I didn't know that. I'm not an expert on the third game either; I've played it a couple of times, but I always thought that Fortress wasn't the strongest faction. I'm talking about the original third game with its expansions. Maybe someone can enlighten me: what makes Fortress stronger than Castle?

The units in Fortress are tougher, their defense stat is high, and it seems to grow at about the same rate as the attack stat of Barbarians. Plus, heroes like Bron, Vistan, and Tazar provide excellent offensive capabilities.

My opinion is the opposite. In the third game, critical imbalance is excluded by the equal availability of magic.

Excluded? :eek: Then why do they have so many rules regarding necromancy, for example? And you can't even upgrade firebirds into phoenixes.
In general, in the third game, mage heroes are considered weaker than warrior heroes, and the most widely used spells are, surprisingly, level 1 spells.

Wow, the magic system in the third game offers such balanced accessibility. But is it really balanced when some castles only have 3 levels of magic, while another has 4? As for the first-level magic – haste and slow – they become mass haste and mass slow for advanced heroes in that magic area, and so on.
In the fourth game, I didn't quite grasp the magic system; it's just too complex. And figuring out how to properly develop a hero is also tricky. My best result was building black dragons on a ship, or whatever is better than a normal one. When I bought 3 of them, the game ended because my friend had irrevocably lost his castle. When I saw how they took his castle, I didn't fully understand it either – it reminded me of a chess setup.

Well, if that’s all, then it’s not critical.

1) In your opinion, how does the equal availability of magic hinder critical thinking?
2) And what is considered critical in Heroes of Might and Magic IV?:) Is it the difficult access to a specific school of magic or the rarity of finding a specific spell for a particular faction?