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

Dima L, Alan actually wrote the answer to your reasoning, thus outperforming me and my thoughts, for which I personally thank him! ;)
P.S. He saved me from having to type...

P.S.S. Dima L, may I offer some advice... play on the most difficult difficulty level?;)
No offense.

Sincerely, VDV_forever

But that's not necessarily true! They're still working on the third installment... or rather, 3.5. They're planning to release 3.59 soon... so everything flows, everything changes ;)

I'm talking about the classic third installment – it's been immortalized, and no one has taken on the task of continuing it after the release of other game series!
And 3.5 is a completely different story; it's a SEPARATE PROJECT!
As far as I understand, this is a fan project! (correct me if I'm wrong)

I will definitely play on the hardest difficulty. )))
I haven't been actively playing the third game for very long, so I might not know some things. I'll just say that I used to hate it for many reasons (after the second and fourth parts).
Thanks, Alan, for the answer.
I'll read it later. Maybe I'll have something to say about it. I don't have time right now – I have to go to school. )))
Best regards.

I will definitely play on the hardest difficulty level.)))
I haven't been actively playing Heroes of Might and Magic III for that long, so I might not know some things. Just saying, I used to hate it for many reasons (after parts two and four).

I think you should sign up for an offline Tournaments event for Heroes of Might and Magic III; there you can play at any difficulty level. At the same time, you can test your skills. ;)
/topic/at/40626/

Sincerely, VDV_forever

Here, playing on the hardest difficulty level in Heroes 4 is actually easier than in the other installments.
And it's all thanks to the fair market system!

Alan, I decided to respond to you. 1. "In the 4th game, you can collect everything that lies around without any guards, because you have dozens of collectors... this destroys the balance and makes the beginning easier. If you don't understand this, then..." No, I don't understand. Imbalance means unequal conditions and opportunities. Everyone has equal conditions and equal opportunities. And "an easier start" is a highly debatable statement, mainly due to the serious shortage of gold at the beginning. Even a magistrate is not a panacea. If you mean that the first two levels are passed too quickly, then I disagree - the lack of gold introduces its own limitations. Although I don't see anything wrong with a more dynamic development, and I don't think there is an overabundance of this in the fourth game. 2. I don't know what you mean by "illusory choice." The choice will be determined not only by the opponent's decisions but also by other factors (terrain, resources, neutral creatures, etc.). And simply by the banal "I like it and I will play that way" or "I want to play that way now." What's wrong with variety? The "fork" fulfills its main task - it adjusts the strategy depending on the choice. Now you can play for the same Castle in different ways, without relying on the always identical set of creatures. 3. I agree that some campaigns were not very successful (I'm not talking about the plots and atmosphere). And even more so, they are not representative at all. I don't really like playing campaigns. I prefer scenarios with computer opponents - that's what's most important to me. The fact that your hero (and even only at level 10-12 (and how much higher?!) ) didn't get killed, and even more so, that your hero was hunted in another campaign - this is not a flaw in the concept at all. It's the fault of the stupid AI and some stupid moments in the campaigns. I agree with that. But the "independence" of the heroes is pleasing. I don't think it's worth discussing the fourth point, everything has already been said. With respect. P.S. "There are really a lot of people who are "zombified" by the third part, but has it ever occurred to you that this is because it is the BEST?" Is this a question? Many things come to mind - not everything remains. For example, I quickly discarded the thought that the third part is the best. I play, I like it, it has both weak and strong sides. The project is, of course, the most large-scale and complex (in structure) in the series, but whether it is the best... I wouldn't categorically state which part is the best. The third part was successful - that's why it has so many fans. And when a person is a fan, he doesn't like changes ("if it's good, why change it?"). The fourth game was unlucky that it was released after the third and was too different from it, however funny it may sound.

Regarding the first point, I forgot to add something. In all the games, you first fought monsters and then collected resources. And only in the 4th installment can you have ONE hero collect resources, and only then will you be attacked... This is mostly what creates the imbalance. Hiring one hero in the first week ALWAYS paid off. Hiring ONE hero in the 3rd game on an impossible difficulty could be unprofitable and severely hinder the early game.

It's just a simple case of "I like it and I'll keep playing that way" or "I feel like playing that way now."

This might have worked against the AI, but against real players or in tournaments, there was no choice (unless you wanted to lose). And the choice of creatures remained practically minimal; there were just fewer of them and no upgrades. As for the 3rd game, I think you haven't played it much... there are many choices about which creatures to rely on and which not to build at all.

I was talking about the heroes' independence, and I just gave an example of when this is especially evident. And this is precisely a flaw in the concept, because any hero either turned into a killing machine or was killed by a single hit from anything. And, plus, the heroes lost their individuality (expressed in their specialization).
And the campaigns (there are many who like to argue about the "spirit of the heroes") are precisely an indicator of this essence, as they are what convey the plot twists of the game to us, and if they fail, and especially if the plot is boring, then this is a huge drawback of the game.

P.S. I've written many times that if the 4th game had been called something else and released by someone other than 3DO, it would have received much higher ratings, it would have had more fans, but it would have made less money.

The fourth game was unlucky because it was released after the third and was too different from it, as funny as that sounds.

But if a game is released and called Heroes, it should live up to that. You know, the third game was released after the second and became more popular. And besides, the 4th game wasn't the only failure; there was the terrible 9th M&M, there were a bunch of pointless chronicles for the 3rd game (just to make money), and add-ons for the 4th game with the same goal, the disastrous Crusader of M&M, Legend of M&M. As a result, the fans' patience ran out, and the company went bankrupt.

I have already expressed my opinion, so I probably don't need to repeat myself – and there's no need to argue.
Just a couple of points.
Firstly, regarding the third installment. Naturally, I played enough to notice the diversity not only of creatures in the castles but also of the castles themselves – which, in my opinion, is excessive (I used to be very critical about this, considering it a drawback; now I've become more tolerant).
Secondly, the second part of the series was probably not as popular as the third. Try to understand my point – that's precisely why the third installment achieved such success (the second hadn't yet managed to "get under the skin" of the less numerous fans of the series), while being less different from its predecessor than the fourth is from its own.

Enough with the tyranny towards the Fourth game!:mad: uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu:eek:

It doesn't need fixing; it needs further development. All its drawbacks are quite solvable. It's a pity that this wasn't done before the game's release, and even after. They simply didn't have time. It's a shame, because the ideas were very good. But now, much of what was planned can't be recovered, and no matter what, most people have negative associations with the fourth installment. It's a pity.

(I see the posts here are quite old, but I want to join the discussion too (it's not my fault I only registered recently.))
Anyway, I've read the posts and will write some replies. Figure out for yourselves who is who))) ok.?
1) For ARDENT lovers of MONDAY (I repeat, ardent ones, those who simply cannot do without it.) Play RTS instead of heroes (WarCraft 3 for example.) there are also heroes and you have to develop over time.
2) For those who find 2 lines of buildings repulsive, and for whom there are too few creatures in the Castle (play Total annihilation), there..... well basically a lot of everything))) Why are you so obsessed with the 2-line system, after all, now there isn't a single bad 4th-level (final) creature. Besides, the game is called HEROES - meaning plural, not creatures. I have at least 3 heroes in my army ))) Although, "Creatures of Might and Magic" also sounds own not bad))) (should I patent it?)
3) For those who don't like the company. Read the plot, this is almost an RPG.
Uh, they're... kicking me out of work, alright, I'll come back tomorrow to finish writing.

I mentioned earlier that I wouldn't change anything, but rather add and improve upon existing features. So, yesterday, while playing as Haven, I thought about adding something that would allow repairing mechanisms (for example, a mechanical dragon). After all, you can heal living units...

2) For those who dislike the two-tiered building system and find the number of creatures in castles insufficient (they should play Total Annihilation), there's... well, a lot of everything! So, why are you so fixated on the two-tiered system? Now, there isn't a single bad Tier 4 (last tier) creature. Besides, the game is called HEROES, meaning in the plural, not creatures. I have at least 3 heroes in my army. Although, "creatures of Might and Magic" also sounds not bad.

Or maybe I shouldn't play it at all? :o

There aren't any bad Tier 4 creatures. Especially if you know who you're playing against, you can figure out what to best counter. But there's no variety of creatures. In the second part of Heroes, there was more variety. It turns out that by the second week of the game, you're already building Tier 3 creatures and there's nowhere else to go. Unless you save up for Tier 4.

It turns out that on the second game week, creatures of level 3 are already being built, and there's nowhere else to progress. Unless you save up for level 4.

There is actually plenty to strive for! You need to approach the game from a more serious perspective. It's essentially a strategy game. You need to fortify your castle, improve your income, build units, and upgrade your hero. At the champion level, it's unlikely that you can even reach level 3 on the second week, especially when all resources are depleted... and capturing anything is problematic.

1. You don't always need to fortify your Castle. The AI either attacked me in campaigns or when there were about one and a half Earth Elementals stationed in the city. The AI behaves somewhat inadequately in this regard.

2. I don't acknowledge difficulty levels above average. Beyond that, it's just pointless masochism. Especially if you allow neutral armies to roam around – then you won't be able to leave the Castle.