Posts from Discussion about Heroes 4.

The spirit of Heroes is a special substance; there are many indicators, but the main thing is that the hero controls the army, and he himself only uses magic. Also, the spirit of Heroes is consistent throughout the game. The first three parts are very similar, with small improvements and additions, but the fourth part is already a foreign game in this chain. In the fifth part, they had the sense to bring the game series back on track. In the sixth part, the spirit of Heroes was somewhat spoiled by reducing resources, but this is not as critical as the atrocities in the fourth part!
I have expressed my opinion, and that's it; you can love Heroes 4 and play it, it's your right.

Impressions: combat is the worst in the series. Not even so much because of simultaneous attacks (you can get used to that) or the presence of heroes on the field (free loot), but because of the grid. It is specifically the grid that makes Heroes 4 clearly stand out from the series. Instead of simple and clear calculations of who can reach where, you have to assess the situation and distances literally by eye. Will there be enough movement to reach and not leave yourself exposed? Or will a unit miss a single 1-millimeter cell and simply waste an attacking turn? Or will it be unable to squeeze between bushes? Can it be blocked by a single unit, or will it have enough movement to go around? Was the unit's retaliation removed, and when will it be restored? And has the unit already moved this round? With such a grid, the fact of movement cannot always be established. One could read about waiting or defending in the log, but I couldn't find a log. A multitude of complicating nuances, but technical ones, not tactical.

Units are quite monotonous in terms of physical stats and are trimmed to a 1:5 template (damage:survivability). With such a ratio, the combat dynamics are too low + more time is needed to assess the move "by eye." As a result, battles are dragged out.

Neutrals on the map are unbalanced; essentially, you can only push through normally on "Apprentice" (the second difficulty out of five), everything else is fraught with huge losses of starting troops, or time lost waiting for growth.

Meanwhile, heroes level up extremely slowly. It takes about 4 battles to go from level 1 to 2 (with a standard start of 2 heroes).

Even the economy says: we are in no rush. Income structures pay for themselves in as many as 10(!) days, and that's only in gold. That is, we have an extremely drawn-out game, oriented more towards slow role-playing walkthroughs than dynamic Multiplayer.

I actually liked that in the fourth installment, unlike the previous parts, you can move more freely around the battlefield, the units have drastically different sizes, and the terrain is uneven and hilly. Regarding calculations: firstly, when hovering over any part of the field, the number of turns required to reach that point is displayed. Secondly, you can also see the turns of the enemy unit by right-clicking on it. Thirdly, you can enable the combat grid, which clearly shows where a unit can fit and where it cannot. Furthermore, the retaliatory strike is restored after a full turn, i.e., if there are 14 units on the field, and your unit has used its retaliatory strike, it will reappear after all 14 units have taken their turns. A log is certainly lacking, but you can still manage without it, knowing that units with higher initiative go first, and it's not difficult to remember who has gone and who hasn't.

Many units have significantly different damage values, to the point where the minimum is three times less than the maximum, so it's not even close to 1:5. Moreover, attack, defense, and speed also play a big role; for example, 60 rogues, with a total health of 600 and damage of 60-180, cannot cope with a single black dragon, which has 400 health and 55-110 damage.

And the so-called assessment of the battle "by eye" exists in almost any tactical game, even in chess; it's just that in the fourth installment, it's more difficult to think everything through perfectly.

As in any game, a novice cannot simply take and play without problems on the highest difficulty. You need to learn how to break through large armies of neutrals with minimal losses, and this takes time.

Chests and various buildings that give experience for free help with this. And if there are none on the map, it's not the game's fault, but the map creator's.

But everything else can be built quickly and without particular problems on the highest difficulty if you learn to do everything correctly.

According to the "Troika" community, "fast" means reaching tier 7 within 1 week.

To be fair, reaching tier 7 in the first week is only possible with the Stronghold. So, "fast" would be reaching tier 6 in the first week, I'd say. ;)
I largely agree with Nargott. Especially the observation about the grid on the battlefield. I hadn't really thought about it, but it's indeed a big problem for planning. And, most importantly, it's poorly implemented, tactically speaking; it doesn't offer any particularly new tactics, just inconveniences...

You can also view the moves of the enemy unit by right-clicking on it.

You can do the same with your own units...

The logs are certainly lacking, but you can do without them, knowing that units with higher initiative go first, and it's also not difficult to remember who has moved and who hasn't.

Recently, after a long break, I played Heroes 4.
Impressions: the combat is the worst in the series. It's not even so much about simultaneous attacks (you can get used to that) or the presence of heroes on the battlefield (easy prey), but about the grid. Heroes 4 clearly stands out from the series precisely because of the grid. Instead of simple and clear calculations of who can reach where, you have to assess the situation and distances literally by eye. ...
The neutral creatures on the map are unbalanced; in essence, you can only progress normally on "apprentice" (the second difficulty out of five), and everything else leads to huge losses on starting troops or wasted time waiting for reinforcements.
Heroes level up extremely slowly. It takes about 4 battles to go from level 1 to level 2 (with a standard start of 2 heroes).
Even the economy suggests: we're not in a hurry. Income-generating buildings pay for themselves in as much as 10 days, and that's just in gold. So, we have an extremely drawn-out game, more focused on role-playing and leisurely playthroughs than on dynamic Multiplayer....

Everything except part 4. Only in part 4 does the hero participate in the battle himself, and you can kill everyone without an army. This is already a different game; it lacks the spirit of Heroes.

Everything except the 4th installment. Only in the 4th part does the hero participate in the battle himself, and you can kill everyone without an army. This is already a different game; it lacks the spirit of Heroes.