Posts from What are the advantages of Heroes V? How do you see them?

I like it significantly more than I dislike it. And most of the drawbacks are bugs (I'm 99% sure they'll be fixed in the release). So: + 1) The uniqueness of each faction (and racial abilities), forcing you to develop heroes of different factions in completely different ways – this is a huge step forward compared to all previous installments. 2) Magic. Both the skill upgrade system and the effect of spells on the battlefield are pleasing, especially the increased role of direct damage spells + abilities that add additional properties to such spells (Master of...). The idea of enhanced spells for double mana is also interesting, but it doesn't work yet. I was also pleasantly surprised by the implementation of mass buffs (the fact that they became area-of-effect) – now you don't have to worry that some dumb barbarian with mass haste will immediately defeat a larger army. 3) The initiative parameter and the ATB scale. Fast units retain their advantages, but slow units, although they move less often, no longer crawl a couple of squares – that is, they can actually hit someone. 4) The value of upgrades. The vast majority of upgraded units have a very significant bonus compared to the basic version, but the cost of the upgrade is much higher than building. 5) The ability to pre-arrange units before the battle, invisible to the opponent. This also includes the ability to remove units to reserve. 6) The entire Dungeon Castle. The design of the units, the worldview, the abilities of the units, the skills, and the hero's development. Disadvantages (I will try to list only those related to balance; it's pointless to criticize bugs – they need to be fixed). 1) Non-linear dependence of the damage of caster units on the stack size. 2) Fixed value of mini-artifacts + to damage and + to HP, regardless of the unit level (it would be better if it was a percentage). 3) The same with the toughness ability (not 2 HP for each unit, but a percentage of the base value – IMHO, this would be more correct). 4) Sylvan's super ability (All units always hit with luck) – this is too strong; other factions cannot boast of this. That's it for the major drawbacks; I don't have time to comment on each unit

I'll mention a few positives that make it a solid 50 (IMHO):
1) The game combines all the best elements from all the Heroes games.
2) The hero progression system is the best of all the schemes I've seen, as it again brings together all the best features and introduces new ones.
3) Heroes is not a REVOLUTION, but an EVOLUTION.

I don't agree with everything that's been written. And I criticized Heroes 5 a lot. But since the topic is about the good things, here are some:
+ The first and undeniable 3D graphics.
+ (Which could be a drawback, but for now, it's a plus) Transparency of objects on the global map, because it's difficult to rotate the camera hoping not to miss gold nuggets hidden behind rocks.
+ Introduction of new skills and a new dynamic combat system.
That's probably all.

-Return to the old system (as it was in Heroes of Might and Magic III, Heroes of Might and Magic II... )
-3D, although it often spoils the game
-New heroes

Compared to the beta, the demo includes another very important feature: now, on the battlefield, you can not only deploy your units but also split or merge your stacks depending on the specific enemy, both in single-player and against other players.

In the demo, compared to the beta, another very important feature has appeared: now, on the battlefield, you can not only deploy your units but also split/merge your stacks depending on the specific enemy, both in single-player and against other players.

I, however, consider this a huge drawback. And after learning this news, Nival's "game developers" have fallen even lower in my estimation.

Katrine
Are you kidding? That's amazing! It's not just about organizing your defense well, but also about trying to guess the opponent's tactics! And being able to do it correctly! Breaking up the stacks properly is very satisfying. It reduces the headache because it's known that the army arrangement changes at least depending on whether or not the Varag can shoot. There are other factors too. I think it's definitely a plus. I just didn't mention it because I only found out about it last night :)

It's so great, you need to not only organize your defense well but also try to guess the opponent's tactics!

Question: Should the attacker have an advantage over the defender in the case of a surprise attack?
Answer: Yes. Always.
Question: How will the stack division at the moment of troop deployment, as proposed by Nival, help the attacker?
Answer: In no way. Moreover, if the defender was aware of the number of the enemy beforehand, he can divide his stacks in the most optimal way.

The attacker should have an advantage. If his opponent wanders around the map with a single stack of 100 archers, that's his problem, and he should die quickly and painlessly. That's why the attack is carried out. Does this innovation provide such an opportunity? No. Because even the worst player will definitely divide the stacks at the moment of deployment. If one of the players cannot control the situation, then there is no need to help him. Time will tell.

I won't even mention the negative realism of this "innovation." Is it normal for an army to have been stationed in a camp for a month, and when the enemy approaches, they build fortifications in other places in 5 minutes? And regroup, and do many other things.

Tell me, what is the difference now between the attacking and defending army in Heroes 5?

Katrine
This is more of an old habit from those earlier games. This distortion of reality in turn-based strategies shouldn't be associated with real battles. The fact that we couldn't properly deploy our forces while defending – on the same day as the enemy! – but had to wait for the enemy's "day" to end and our "day" to begin is undoubtedly a drawback of the past. After all, when attacking the enemy, your army also somehow manages to regroup in real-time, so why can't the defending army do the same? Or sometimes, when breaking through the guard on the map, you find yourself on the enemy's territory and forget to regroup your army, or you need to see the enemy army's position before the battle – in these cases, the enemy runs up to you, looks at your ranks, and – lo and behold! – in 10 seconds, they have a completely new formation, but you? Did you hesitate? Do you not have enough time? Strange... The turn-based system is undoubtedly good for developing and organizing the battle, but for these little things that sometimes cause you to lose the game, maximum balance should be introduced, and the developers have delivered on this.

2 Katrine:

The attacker usually has an advantage in the number of troops and/or the strength of the hero; otherwise, what's the point of attacking? This is quite enough, in my opinion. And the ability to split/merge stacks adds new tactical possibilities. Here's an example from duels: I always play as Dungeon, but against different opponents, a different setup is needed. Against Academy, Necropolis, and another Dungeon, it makes sense to put everyone together so that fewer stacks are affected by the Meteor spell, but against Haven and, especially, Sylvan, this is a sure path to defeat. The Sylvan hero is incredibly strong; he has 110 Grand Elves, which he specializes in, and 60 Druids with a golden bow, allowing him to attack at full strength across the entire battlefield, and also 35% magic resistance. My only chance is to split 15 Matriarchs into 4 stacks (thank you, Nival, for making them 1*1), then the probability that one or more of them will go before the Grand Elves is close to 100%, which will allow me to cast Forgetfulness and let them shoot at 1/4 strength instead of full strength ;) . Besides, this nasty guy also knows Mass Haste, so the Matriarchs will start "re-educating" his stacks with Slow ;) . And you say that this innovation is a minus; I disagree!

2 katrin
Why exactly is there such a harsh attachment to reality? "the army stood for a month and then regrouped"... well, what else were they supposed to do??? Stand still??? And not notice your (for example) two hundred Squires, archers, and monks stealthily creeping across the field???:)....
What is the point of bashing this innovation if other alternatives would cause much more criticism. For instance, I was fed up with dragging a "tail" behind the main hero just to take the dragon castle... or constantly losing elves while taking a zero-level castle...
And as for the fact that the attacker has no advantage over the defender... so much has been said about combat tactics etc. and so on... so this will be an opportunity to show your skill under EQUAL conditions for both opponents...
Imho, this is not a critical problem at all...

Magnus’s and Uke-by_HoMM![Zavulon]'s non-serious posts have been moved here.

2Phoenix_1973

Duels don't count because the armies are predetermined. Neither player is the attacker;) I have no complaints about Duels because I haven't played them myself yet.

2Ellin

Please name another strategy that disregards realism to such an extent. Even in RTW, the attacking side had the right to choose the formation, not the defending side (except when defending a castle).

2CTPAHHuK

Situations where two absolutely identical armies meet in Heroes are rare. Therefore, one army is always weaker. If my army is smaller in number, but I attack, then I should have an incentive. I should see what gives me the advantage. If I see that the opponent has made an obvious mistake in the formation, I will attack. If there is no such mistake, I will retreat and try to attack with reinforcements. But in the 5th game, what incentive do I have to attack if my opponent can still arrange his troops as he pleases? What is the advantage of scouting? The game has become very simplified. My monsters are slower, and his are faster, but if he couldn't arrange them, and especially split the stacks, I could, for example, put my slow units under attack to deal with his archers, and then go through his rear. Because he has a corresponding formation.
Remember how important army formation was in the 4th game;) And the choice between dense or not dense formations in the 3rd game. Or just the correct placement of stacks in the 2nd and 1st games :)
If my opponent makes a mistake, he should SUFFER, not have a free chance to correct it.

In the end, this is just my opinion. And I don't like this "NEW FEATURE".

Katrine
Ehhh... no... the conclusion about not being able to draw conclusions from the absence of two absolutely identical armies is incorrect. There's nothing to guess here; after all my hundred and a half battles against humans, I've understood one unpleasant, and sometimes pleasant, thing. "Strength" isn't in the army; "strength" is in the mind. And in the beginning, and even in the last half-year, I sometimes won solely due to experience. Often, playing against a newbie online – but he's been playing HotS for 8 years!!! – goes in a relaxed mode because I think, "I'll win anyway," with mastery, as they say. But then comes the day of the finals, and oh my God! He's actually quite good. He assembles an army 2 or even 5 times larger! But knowing some of the hidden aspects of the arena allows me to easily dismantle a pile of meat scattered across the field with my – at first glance – small units. I agree that there are no two identical armies. But there isn't also the fact that one is necessarily weaker than the other. There are two people, one smarter or more resourceful than the other... or, at worst, luckier. :)
And the arrangement helps to reveal which of the two players is more level-headed.

P.S. By the way, we decided to only write about the good things in this topic :D

The initial setup (in the Nival implementation) does not help in identifying a sensible player. If a player makes a mistake when distributing units and fails to consider the possibility of my attack (doesn't conduct reconnaissance), then they should DIE in a BLOODY SLAUGHTER. The army should be completely wiped out, and the commander burned at the stake:D There should be a price for mistakes. In chess, you don't rearrange pieces before a decisive attack. Currently, in Heroes 5, there is no difference between an attacking and a defending army – this is nonsense. There shouldn't be equal conditions. Whoever attacks gets to decide and arrange things. And the other should wait for their fate. They have a chance to correct their mistake in battle. But before the battle, there is no need to give them that chance.