Heroes 6 - Discussion — General

5p74

17 years ago

Auto-translated

By pressing the spacebar, you can only select 3 heroes; this feature doesn't work in the 5th game. And even then, with 3 heroes, you won't immediately end up in the exact spot you need, unlike in the 4th game.

Added after 6 hours and 6 minutes
I'm curious about what the new faction will be in the 6th game. What are your suggestions? What I don't understand is why, in the first three games, the faction that included orcs, goblins, and cyclops was called "Barbarians." It would have been more logical to call it "Orcs" or "Greenskins" (like in Disciples) or "Stronghold" (like in the 5th game). After all, barbarians are people, but not orcs and goblins. Nomads, berserkers, and wolves can logically be associated with barbarians, but I'm not sure about orcs. I think it would be better to create separate factions for orcs and barbarians.

Digital X

17 years ago

Auto-translated

Good day!
Does anyone know if there have been any official announcements regarding the development of Heroes of Might and Magic VI, or is there still no news and everything is quiet?

Майор Вихрь

17 years ago

Auto-translated

For now, it's quiet.

In reply to 5p74

Ty3o-ny3o

17 years ago

Auto-translated

5p74

Added 6 hours and 6 minutes ago
[/U]I'm curious, if there will be a new faction in the 6th installment, what it will be. What are your suggestions? I don't understand why, in the first three parts, the faction that included orcs, goblins, and cyclops was called Barbarians. It would be more logical to call it Orcs or Green Skins (like in Disciples) or, like in the 5th game, Stronghold. After all, Barbarians are people, but definitely not orcs and goblins. Nomads and Berserkers, and even Wolves, can logically be attributed to Barbarians, but I don't know about orcs. I think it's necessary to create separate Orc and Barbarian factions.

I heard that the Necromancer faction will be in an Egyptian style:smile24: But it's hard to call it a new faction; it seems they will simply change its style...
My IMHO regarding factions: we don't need Factions, but Castles. The difference is clear enough if you compare the factions from the 3rd and 5th games. I think I've already written about this somewhere...
In my opinion, this is more interesting. And instead of arguing about who should and shouldn't be included in a faction, we should add new, interesting creatures. Perhaps even ones that are not found in the books.
I understand that Tolkien-inspired fantasy fans will be against it, but... no one protested when the Wizard's castle in the 2nd game had a neutral creature like boars appear out of nowhere:smile53:

By the way, even though I don't like the 5th game, Nival's innovations in changing the direction of the castles pleased me. This is felt, at least, in the fact that the Titan finally changed its tired Olympian image and turned to the distant Indian culture. This is a breakthrough.
I would like to see similar changes in the 6th game.

5p74

17 years ago

Auto-translated

Yes, the boars in the game don't seem to follow any logic when it comes to mages. I also don't like that so many factions were mixed up in the 4th installment. It's not entirely clear what harpies were doing with the Barbarians, or orcs with the Sorcerers. And the fact that they mixed undead and demons is just absurd. I hope this won't happen in the 6th part. I agree about the new creatures, as long as they don't contradict the lore of a particular faction. I want them to bring back the efreets and paladins from the 1st and 2nd parts in the 6th installment. I also want them to make gargoyles more powerful (like in Disciples), because in the 5th (and even in the 3rd) they are just a "secondary product." After all, it's a large marble statue, it should be a high-level unit.

Edited: replaced a rude word.

In reply to 5p74

Ty3o-ny3o

17 years ago

Auto-translated

5p74

What I don't understand is why, in the first three parts, the race that included orcs, goblins, and cyclops was called "Barbarians." It would have been more logical to call them "Orcs" or "Greenskins."

greenskin..." ("possessing a part of the body on which one usually sits, of green color")

And officially, the Paladins, who were the most knightly force in parts 1 and 2, were sort of removed, leaving only their primitive version - Crusaders. But after all, a Paladin is basically a highly trained "enlightened" warrior. Something in between an Inquisitor and a Swordsman.
If a triple upgrade were made for this unit, it could turn out like this:
Swordsman - Crusader - Paladin (stronger than the Crusader from part 3).

Edited: replacing a rough word.

5p74

17 years ago

Auto-translated

I'm not sure about the creature upgrade system; I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it's cool to have additional buildings and to be able to improve weak units into something decent. But on the other hand, these upgrades look a bit awkward on some units: imps, unicorns, etc. Also, most of the upgraded units don't have their names changed; instead, words like "master," "lord," or "arch" are added. It feels a bit repetitive to constantly upgrade units from dwellings. Why can't they just be upgraded directly? And after the upgrade, the un-upgraded versions become useless. I'm not sure if these upgrades should be removed altogether or if they should be limited to only certain units, like in Heroes of Might and Magic II.

Ty3o-ny3o

17 years ago

Auto-translated

I'm all for it! The improvements in the second game were well-considered. Although many upgrades diversify the gameplay, there's an even greater emphasis on the economy.

5p74

17 years ago

Auto-translated

What other buildings do you think could be added to the castles? (Because in Heroes 5, almost no new buildings were added; they mostly copied them from Heroes 3).
Also, I don't like that some buildings in Heroes 5 are unreasonably expensive. For example, why does a Fortress cost 5000 when it doesn't increase the army size and only adds a wall? A Citadel costs the same, but it adds both an army and a moat with a tower. Or the upgrades for certain creatures; for example, upgrading a Priest costs 8000, but no creature of level 5 costs that much, and in general, upgrades in Heroes 3 were much cheaper. The only positive thing is that upgrading level 7 creatures has become cheaper compared to Heroes 3.

In reply to 5p74

Wistrit

17 years ago

Auto-translated

For example: why does a Fortress cost 5000 when it doesn't increase the army size and only adds a wall? A Stronghold costs the same, but it adds an army and a moat with a tower.

It costs that much everywhere.

The only + is that upgrading level 7 creatures is now cheaper compared to Heroes 3.

And what's the "+"?

I would like to see more "minuses" like those in Heroes 5 compared to Heroes 3 in HoMM 6.

In reply to 5p74

Ty3o-ny3o

17 years ago

Auto-translated

5p74

What new buildings do you think could be added to the castles (because in Heroes 5, almost no new buildings were added; they mostly copied them from Heroes 3)?

I would add such a "cheating" building as a portal to all castles. That is, when it is built, a hero located in that city could move to another city... Let it cost a lot of money and be available only towards the end of the game. Sometimes it takes a long time to run to the necessary castle.

5p74

17 years ago

Auto-translated

It would be better if they added a magic portal that allows you to choose to travel to at least 2 or 3 nearby castles, or if you reach level 25, you can choose from 2 nearby castles, 30 - from 3 or 4. Otherwise, it's really too far to travel to the castles, and teleporting like in Heroes 3 (if you have developed earth magic) to all the castles seems too easy. There needs to be a middle ground.

Added 8 minutes later

WisTrit

It costs the same everywhere.

And what is the "+"?

I would like to see more "negatives" of 5 compared to 3 in HoMM 6.

Yes, but in Heroes 3, the fortress is already built at the beginning of the game, while in Heroes 5, you have to spend resources on this damn fortress first in order to build a stronghold, which should be built at the beginning or cost less.

I don't understand, what negatives of 5 compared to 3 would you like to see?

Мститель

17 years ago

Auto-translated

Building a fortress and spending resources and money on it is, in a way, a price to pay for the significant bonuses it provides to the stronghold and castle. But what about it? Is a stronghold without a fortress really better? (although a stronghold is always better, but this isn't the case, in my opinion).

In reply to Мститель

Wistrit

17 years ago

Auto-translated

Yes, but in the same Heroes 3, the fort is already built at the beginning of the game, while in Heroes 5, in order to build a Stronghold, you first need to spend resources on this damn fort, which should essentially be built at the beginning, or cost less.

I don't understand, what are the drawbacks of Heroes 5 compared to Heroes 3 that you would like to see?

Do you want it to be easier to play against the AI in Heroes 6? Just say so.)

damn fort

In Heroes 3, it's also only in the starting Castles, and in Heroes 5, it's not uncommon.
So what's the downside? What??? m77

which should essentially be built at the beginning, or cost less

Aha!!111 Did Onatole command it?

I don't understand, what are the drawbacks of Heroes 5 compared to Heroes 3 that you would like to see?

All the drawbacks that bother you are essentially just part of the game, just not as they are in another game.
I would like to see more of these "drawbacks" in Heroes 6

5p74

17 years ago

Auto-translated

Well, maybe you're right, but essentially, the computer also needs to build this Fortress. I just think that instead of an unnecessary Fortress, they could have made some other, more useful building, or at least made it so that the Fortress adds 25% to the army.

Reading content in

Interface language

Posts from Heroes 6 - Discussion

Statistics

Library

Users Online 6 users 1280 guests

Today's Visitors 20