Posts from Heroes 6 - Discussion Auto-translated

Why is it bad? We need to fight against the abundance of cheap, high-level heroes in Might & Magic.
I've made some adjustments:
Hero cost = 1000 + (1000 + 250 x D) x L, where
L is the level of the hero being purchased,
D = 0 if the difficulty is Very Easy
D = 1 if the difficulty is Easy
D = 2 if the difficulty is Normal
D = 3 if the difficulty is Hard
D = 4 if the difficulty is Very Hard
D = 5 if the difficulty is Heroic

Is this better?

A level 1 hero will cost between 2000 and 3250, and a level 20 hero will cost between 21000 and 45000, depending on the difficulty level.

In the tavern, after an unsuccessful battle (either your own or someone else's), you can easily buy a hero with any level of development for a ridiculously low price. That is, both a newbie with 1000 experience points and a veteran with 10 artifacts behind them cost the same. And this is somehow wrong.
For example, you could offer 2 stacks of heroes in the tavern, with different characteristics: one stack would contain weak heroes with little experience (and their cost would be the same), and the other would contain powerful heroes with randomly generated experience and artifacts (and their price would vary depending on their usefulness).
That's it.
Or you could have 3 stacks. In the 3rd stack, provide a list of recently defeated heroes who gained experience through player battles.

Or, implement the ability to upgrade taverns. The higher the tavern's level, the higher the level of hero you can purchase, but not exceeding, say, level 10. And I think that if you kill a hero, that hero shouldn't reappear in the tavern for at least a month. And the higher the hero's level, the longer they should remain unavailable. In Heroes 2 and 3, it often happens that you kill a powerful hero, and they're back in the tavern a week later. Also, I think the number of heroes that can be purchased per day should be limited. Sometimes, when playing with the computer as an ally, it creates a bunch of heroes in the early game, divides its army, and sends them off in different directions, neglecting the capital. And after a couple of days, its heroes have explored everything and are just sitting around doing nothing. What's the point of having so many heroes if they're just wasting money? And in Heroes 5, they introduced this stupid mechanic where, when you attack a computer opponent that's slightly weaker than you, it immediately runs away. Why? Just fight a little, let me deplete its army a bit. No, it attacks a couple of times and then immediately flees, and this happens very often. I don't know, they made the computer opponents in Heroes 5 incredibly dumb. Or, sometimes, two computer opponents are fighting each other, their armies are roughly equal, but for some reason, the slightly stronger one always wins and always (or almost always) without any losses. This is probably because the weaker computer opponent immediately runs away, just like in a battle against me. There are so many flaws that don't benefit the game; I hope there won't be any of these in Heroes 6. I have a question: who is in favor of bosses being able to fight, just like in Heroes 4?

I think that if you kill a hero, they shouldn't reappear in the tavern until at least a month has passed. And the higher the hero's level, the longer they shouldn't be available.

Maybe I'm not understanding, but what's the point of waiting? Well, I captured an enemy hero, so why, as I suggested, can't I buy them back on the same day, but for an amount corresponding to their level? Maybe I really need them.

the graphics could be like in Heroes 5, and the gameplay like in Heroes 3. Adding new factions might not be necessary, but if they are added, they shouldn’t be like in Heroes 4, because that would make it a different game with elements of Heroes.

Edited: OFF-TOPIC in the message

Maybe I'm not getting it, but what's the point of waiting? Well, I surrendered my hero as a prisoner, so why, for example, as I suggested, can't I buy him back on the same day, but, say, for an amount corresponding to his level? Maybe I really need him.

It's not interesting if you lose, it means that, in theory, your hero should be dead, and you shouldn't be able to buy him back at all, but to make it not too harsh and to give a chance to buy a defeated hero, either the opponent's or your own, they made it possible to buy a defeated hero, but after a few days or weeks. And what's the point of the "escape" function, if you escape, then you save your hero.

Added 4 minutes later
You didn't answer my question: who is in favor of bosses being able to fight, just like in the 4th part?

In the fourth installment, hit-and-run tactics aren't very effective. There, a hero can single-handedly defeat an army without needing his own. There was a fun mechanic: you could escape by casting a city portal on the battlefield, and you wouldn't lose your army. And fallen heroes would end up in the prison of the nearest city belonging to the victor. The "fallen" hero could be freed from prison by capturing the city.

@ 5p74
If heroes behave on the battlefield as they did in the fourth game, it won't bother me personally, but IMO, many won't like it. To be honest, the fourth game offered more opportunities for mapmakers to create good story-driven maps.

I'm waiting for a fool who will decide to buy the rights from Ubisoft and make decent Heroes of Might and Magic and Might and Magic games. It's scary to watch how a series that I've dedicated many years to is slowly dying...

Why is it dying? Although...
Heroes 5 became more of a remake than a full-fledged sequel. Now that people have played the third installment of Heroes, with the proud label of Heroes 5, to their heart's content, it would simply be absurd for the developers to continue to stay in the swamp that Nival created from the classic universe of the series. And I'm sure it's not their fault - most people actually liked the third game, while most rejected the fourth as some kind of foreign body.
Therefore, many things in Heroes 5 were literally copied from the beloved third part. This may indicate a certain conservatism among players. On the other hand, the innovations of the fourth game became too much for many... That's why everything remained as it was in the good old days - titans for the wizards, minotaurs for the Dungeon, angels and monks remained in the Castle, and the isometric view was removed. I think the stage of reviving the values of the series has passed. The sixth game, while preserving the spirit of Heroes, will not revive it further, but will rather develop ideas (within the genre, of course).

@ Tuzo-puzo
I'm afraid you didn't understand what Glom was talking about. Heroes of Might and Magic 5 is a great project, but the "old-timers" are trying not to notice it. They miss Void, and the old castle compositions. Many of them don't like the fact that the game has strayed too far from the familiar setting and other aspects. Some dream of hexes and turn-based combat. Most of them have found a new home in King's Bounty. Some are bothered by the 3D graphics. There are many reasons. For example, my brother can't handle the skill wheel and the new castle upgrade system. He prefers the old one. And I'm glad that the old setting has been abandoned. Personally, I think Ashan is better than Void. Most of the "old-timers" look at me askance. How? I just didn't like it. I simply don't like when fantasy is mixed with sci-fi. I hoped that Heroes would avoid this, and that 3DO would smooth out this moment, but the fact that there could have been a Forge in Heroes... There were also huge problems with the castle compositions. In Heroes, I always didn't like that the castle compositions were a mishmash. Dwarves with elves - where have you seen that? - In Heroes. Centaurs in the forests - where have you seen that? - In Heroes... In the fourth game, all this was fixed. Dwarves were sent to the mages, centaurs to the barbarians... But 3DO messed up again with its Death expansion.
Nival and Ubisoft are great. They made, in my opinion, the right decision. To create a new universe, carefully considering the place of each race in the game. And for that, thank you. Why is this decision correct in my opinion? Because 3DO led Void into a dead end, and it was not clear how to develop the setting further. Jon van Caneghem himself refused to participate in the development of Heroes 5, although Ubisoft offered him. However, he didn't participate much in the development of the fourth game either, leaving the game entirely in the hands of 3DO. And that was a mistake.
The fifth game gave Heroes a new life. Heroes played with new colors. And for that, thank you. Many fans don't like the plot of the fifth Heroes. And that's a mistake. The main problem with the Russian version is the localization. It's sad, but it's true. In a way, I was lucky. Heroes 5 was released in our city immediately in version 1.2. I wanted to play it. So I bought the buggy 1.0 version. If I hadn't bought it, I would have had to wait a long time for the licensed version to appear. This was a pirated localization of Heroes 5. The localization surprised me. Perhaps those who made it really liked Heroes, as the translation was good, while in the licensed version that I bought later...

The only thing Ubisoft really messed up was the third add-on. As I understand it, Ubisoft was afraid that Heroes would look pale. After all, there were new technologies (at least DX10). Therefore, work on it was curtailed, and its plot, in my opinion, was transferred to the sixth game. Some storylines remained unfinished: the Nagas and the campaign of Rai'lag. It was the third add-on, not the second, that should have put all the dots on the i's, but...
Here is some information to think about - http://www.psatkha.narod.ru/NCF_Other/test_30.rar
Psatkha found some content from the third add-on: a Naga model, a lizard, a swamp troll (probably), a Beastmaster, a military outpost, a "samurai" and its upgrades. This could have been implemented in the fifth game, but..

To put it mildly, this is a very controversial post. It looks more like an advertisement for Nival and Ubisoft. Apart from the new graphics, the fifth installment of Heroes didn't offer much new. And some of the factions were almost completely copied from the third game.

Don't say that; in the 5th installment, a new system was introduced: initiative, unit movement ranges were added, and each faction received specializations. I think the developers were simply afraid to add too many new features to the 5th installment after many players didn't like the 4th installment and its innovations, so they decided to bring back the beloved 3rd installment with minor changes. But I think the 4th installment turned out pretty well; yes, there are some flaws, but the fact that it introduced many new things is a good thing. I think the 6th installment should also add something new, but not go overboard, so as not to deviate too much from the beloved Heroes system.

but the fact that there could be a Forge in Heroes…

I also think they went too far with the Forge.

In Heroes, I always disliked that the composition of Castles was a mishmash. Dwarves with elves - where have you seen that? - In Heroes. Centaurs in forests - where have you seen that? - In Heroes… In the fourth installment, they fixed all of this. Dwarves were sent to the Mages, centaurs to the Barbarians…

Are we playing Warcraft or Heroes of Might and Magic? I often see comments saying, "down with the Castle mishmash - let's have pure races." One thing is unclear: if several, albeit quite different, creatures could be put into one faction not randomly, but by motivating this with some common philosophy for them, why should this immediately cause rejection and a desire to make another Warcraft, where, as far as I remember, units were divided precisely by racial affiliation. I don't see anything wrong with dwarves in Rampart (where it is indicated that this is precisely an elven Castle?). It's clear that fantasy fans are upset, but after all, not only they play Heroes!

By the way, why can't a centaur be a forest creature? Maybe it's a special, forest centaur :-))))))

The fifth installment introduced a new system: initiative, a line of movement for units appeared, and each race also had specializations.

and an improved system of skills/abilities.

In Disciples 2, the centaur was also a unit for the Elves. And in general, you need to read ancient Greek mythology; it seems that centaurs lived separately from everyone else, and it's not clear where to categorize them.

Firstly, in ancient Greek myths, they lived not in the forest, but in caves. Therefore, in the second game, they were in a dungeon. Secondly, they were distinguished by their wild manners, as they were half-human, half-animal. Therefore, in the fourth game, they were placed with the barbarians. Honestly, that's where they belong. With centaurs, it's somewhat forgivable, but gnomes… For the elves, the main idea is harmony with nature. This is noticeable in the Heroes games as well. In all parts, their castles literally exuded it. But gnomes in all fantasy settings cannot stand the surface. They live in dungeons and live off what the mountains can provide.
In Варвар (Varik), there's a different story. In the Alliance, we have humans, high elves, and gnomes. High elves have much less connection to nature than wood elves, whose role in Varik is played by night elves. Gnomes still live off the mountains. But the mountains cannot provide sustenance. You can't live on metals and precious stones. Therefore, gnomes obtain their livelihood through trade, as in all normal fantasy settings. And they trade in the products of blacksmiths and jewelers. High elves and humans are their main (and perhaps only) trading partners. They sell what the mountains give them, and they buy what the mountains cannot give them. In fact, gnomes acquired their normal appearance only in the fourth game, when Ufretin separated them from the elves.
In Асхан (Ashan), the gnomes are unique. On the one hand, they live in complete isolation, but on the other hand, the situation is such that the gnomes would simply starve. Therefore, there are Clans that engage in trade (mainly with the Holy Empire). Wulfsten was the head of one of these Clans.