Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from Problems with Heroes of Might and Magic IV.
When the fourth installment came out, I was, I think, 18 years old. Girls didn't like me, beer made me bloated, and I didn't have internet access. So, I had a lot of free time and nowhere to find out about "Might and Magic IV."
But I wasn't interested in playing it. I don't know why. Something was missing. Although gaming magazines described it as an immortal masterpiece. I was used to the fact that in Heroes, there are upgrades, four characteristics, and many different creatures. And then they suddenly took all of that away.
Yes, there are some people in Russian communities who really regret that the fifth part didn't continue the fourth. But that's not the way to do it, folks! You might as well take away the lightsabers from the Jedi and give them plastic bottles (:D), saying, "This is a revolution! And anyone who doesn't understand is an idiot!"
The comparison with the Jedi is not a good one. You know, it seems like you didn't play it very well and, rather, convinced yourself that it was complete garbage. "There are no upgrades, etc." Why don't you talk about the positive aspects? Now, the hero is a hero on the battlefield, not sitting on a horse and eating popcorn:D
When the 4th installment came out, I was, I think, 18 years old. Girls didn't like me, beer made me bloated, and I didn't have internet access. So, I had a lot of free time and nowhere to find out about "Heroes 4."
But I wasn't interested in playing it. I don't know why. Something was missing. Although gaming magazines described it as an immortal masterpiece. I was used to the fact that in Heroes, there are upgrades, four characteristics, and many different creatures. And they suddenly took all of that away.
Yes, there are some people in Russian forums who really regret that the 5th installment didn't continue the 4th. But that's not the way to do it, folks! You might as well take away the lightsabers from the Jedi and give them plastic bottles (:D), saying, "This is a revolution! And anyone who doesn't understand is an idiot!"
It's a pity that I can't properly convey my thought.:smile27:
P.S. I hope you don't get bloated anymore and that things are good with the girls, or are you a Jedi?:smile21:
С самого начала позаботься о своем месте в жизни, чтобы не уподобиться маятнику. /Херберт. Ф./
The comparison to Jedi is not a good one. You know, it seems like you didn't play it very well and, rather, convinced yourself that it was complete garbage. "There are no upgrades, etc." Why don't you talk about the positive aspects? Now the hero has become a hero on the battlefield, not sitting on a horse and eating popcorn:D
Why is it a bad comparison? Rather, it's a crude one. There is such a thing as tradition. And Lucas clearly understands this. That's why all parts of "Star Wars" are exactly "Star Wars" and nothing else.
A hero on the battlefield is a double-edged sword. Personally, I was looking forward to this innovation, and then I was disappointed. He has nothing to do on the battlefield - let him sit on a horse. A hero on the battlefield is either a punching bag or a monster. And there are no alternative development paths for the hero.
The only positive thing I saw in the fourth game was the beautiful graphics and the powerful map editor.
And what do you think, why did Mr. Caningham apologize for the fourth part of Heroes and for "Chronicles"? It was clearly not out of modesty
You're probably right, but how would you comment on the 3rd and 5th installments?
Well, let me talk about the 3rd one. It was a long time ago. I remember when my dad bought me the disc, I had this strange feeling of excitement, and of course, my computer couldn't handle it back then. Only the editor would launch, but that actually made me even more interested. The enthusiasm lasted for about a year, although I still play the third game from time to time. But that's not the point. Back then, it was truly a continuation of the series. The 3rd game advanced the ideas from the 2nd, fixed its shortcomings, added upgrades, secondary skills, and magic was further developed. Flying units could fly more or less normally (not to the very edge of the map). So, what I'm trying to say is that the game preserved the traditions of the old games but also introduced many new things. The 4th game followed the same path, but due to circumstances, it was not fully developed, in the sense that the ideas in it were too ambitious, and there was no smooth transition. Now, about the 5th part: driven by the desire to revive such a popular game, they created the 5th part, taking some ideas from the 4th, for example, they improved the chains of secondary skills, and they thought about the hero's behavior on the battlefield (although I don't like it, but it's still the only correct solution, as someone here already said, it's a win-win situation). But here's the problem: they missed the mark with the plot, in the sense that they forgot about the old lore (where do these heroes come from, and where are the old ones, at least those that were in the 4th game, not to mention the veterans?). This is the first and a big drawback. And as they say, don't put your finger in your mouth, or your hand will be bitten off. There's a reason for it, and there's always something to criticize...
I really like the 5th game, but when I play it, it always seems to me that the map is too small, as is the battlefield. And for some reason, the 5th game gets boring faster than the 4th. Here, the more the army, the better...
The 5th game is a well-made product, "polished" almost to perfection in terms of combining ideas and traditions (I'm not including the plot), but still, something is missing from this high-quality product...
...I hope you understand me.
Everything I said above is just my opinion (IMHO). You can argue, disagree, or agree, but it seems to me that it's exactly like that
First of all, there aren't any clearly outstanding strong castles and creatures (unlike in Heroes 5, where individual Druids or Rangers can wipe out an entire army). Secondly, there aren't any magic spells that create imbalance, like Flight or Teleportation – the latter is the most annoying of the three. Furthermore, stronger units move slower than other units of the same level (like the Ballista), which makes stronger armies usually slower, and armies consisting only of mobile units more agile, giving them a certain advantage. I can't think of any more examples right now, but there are others...
Well, Heroes 3 doesn't have that either, and you're exaggerating about Heroes 5. In that case, you need to take appropriate units from other castles. The Flight and Teleportation spells are very limited and can be quite difficult to obtain in a normal scenario; they are mainly used in campaigns. But the cost of such magic is also high, which is why it's high-level magic. In Heroes 3, units also move according to logic. For example, Phoenixes, Fairies, and Archangels are the fastest, while Golems, Zombies, and Hydras are slower (for obvious reasons). In Heroes 4, the Poison spell is annoying because it affects everyone, especially hero-mages. Furthermore, I can't call Heroes 4 more realistic, either in terms of gameplay (when one hero can defeat a huge army) or appearance (sometimes a medium-sized tree is larger than a city or an army). I'm defending Heroes 3, but I also liked Heroes 4 in its own way. It definitely has great potential; perhaps if it had been released under a different name, like "From the World of Fantasy" or "Slaughter in the Kingdom," it might have become Game of the Year. BUT this is Heroes, so it's not surprising that it's being compared to its predecessors. However, the presentation of the CAMPAIGNS is very good and is a level above the previous installments, and the main strength of Heroes 4, for me, lies in the presentation of these campaigns, in these quests built on a clear editor, with which you can create a completely unpredictable scenario using dialogues and sequential events. Honestly, when I was playing, I read all the dialogues and played to follow the development of events and then to find out what would happen next. The game took a huge step towards RPG, but at the same time, it wanted to remain Heroes, namely a turn-based strategy game. I love RPGs, but there's some ambiguity here, which is a bad thing. Again, IMHO. P.S. Commanders and generals shouldn't be in the thick of the battle; they've been given too much freedom. P.P.S. And now, what was the purpose of this post? It's silly to reject Heroes 4 because it's a good game, but it's also silly to say that it's the best. It's just a good game.
What is this expansion?:confused: I've never seen or heard of it. I only know: Heroes 4 Heroes 4 The Gathering Storm Heroes 4 Warlords and I've also seen something about Heroes featuring Alexander the Great. Guys, what other Heroes 4 expansions are there?
I had "HoMM: Excalibur" in my anthology of Heroes 1-4. It's a cool expansion with new music :smile20:.
Каждый подвластен смерти. Смерть властна над всеми.:smile24:
A hero on the battlefield is a double-edged sword. Personally, I was looking forward to this new feature, but then I was disappointed. He has no place on the battlefield – let him stay on his horse. A hero on the battlefield is either a punching bag or a monster. And there are no alternative development paths for the hero.
But try to kill this "stick" – a barbarian of level 20. And a hero on a horse is just a spectator, who is somehow not involved. He just casts a spell and immediately hides. There is development. With the hero participating in the battle, the gameplay becomes more interesting in terms of tactics.
Try using that unit, it's like a Barbarian of level 20. And a hero on a horse is just a spectator, who doesn't really participate. He just casts a spell and immediately hides. There is development. With the hero's participation on the battlefield, the gameplay becomes more interesting in terms of tactics.
Optimal, people just don't understand that version 4 has advanced the gameplay to a qualitatively new level. But I'm not going to claim which version is better or worse. And their reasoning boils down to something like this: I always played the first game. And then they made a second one, and I was horrified to see that there was a market. And why does a goat need an accordion if I don't know how to play it? In other words, I was doing great without a market in the first game, and now they're asking me to rack my brains with exchanging minerals. Ugh, they ruined the game.
In the anthology of Heroes 1-4, I had "HoMM: Excalibur". It's a cool addition, and the music is new.
OptiMAL;110269Maybe not Excalibur, but Equilibris? because Equilibris is a mod with additions. Its version is 3.51 (Excalibur, Whirlwinds is version 3.0).:) No, he means Excalibur specifically. Besides the Excalibur campaign, there are two more bonus campaigns: "The Lord Of The Rings" and "Dungeons and Dragons". I have the complete disc (it comes with 2 discs). Luckily, it was cheap (140 rubles). It's basically a pirated copy, and it's famous for this. I don't know what M@rkeL meant by "additions" in his post. The intro and music are beautiful (in my opinion, they were also stolen, like everything else). The cutscenes for the campaigns are simply taken from fantasy movies. The campaign names are actually the names of these movies. All the images are also screenshots from movies or taken from somewhere on the internet. Furthermore, it's worse. The campaigns are built from standard maps that were also taken from the internet from various forums, and there may even be some standard ones; I don't remember anymore, and they practically have no logical connection to each other. In my opinion, there are also untested maps - not tested for completion. In short, if you want to get a negative impression of the fourth game, play these campaigns. And if you want to have a positive impression, play the "Impending Doom" campaign to the very end!
Added 1 hour 0 minutes ago SandroXXL;95357
Magic like flight and teleportation is very limited and can be quite difficult to obtain in a normal scenario; it is mainly used in campaigns. But the price of such magic is also high, but that's why it's high-level magic.
I've heard from experts in the third game that magic like flight, city portal, and dimension door creates a strong imbalance if someone on the map gets it and someone else doesn't. And this is what they attributed to its shortcomings. In the fourth game, the use of such magic was minimized, and some of them were completely removed.SandroXXL;95357
Units in the 3rd game also move, taking logic into account. For example, phoenixes, fairies, and archangels are the fastest, while golems, zombies, and hydras are slower (understandably, for certain reasons).
Well, regarding realism, it's already clear that transferring any units over huge distances is not a problem in the third game, and it is only limited by the number of heroes in the chain. That is, it's unrealistic that, for example, 100 unupgraded gremlins can cover the distance that eight heroes covered by passing this hundred to each other in one round. Where is the realism, brother? These hundred heroes in the third game were carrying them in a backpack, so the gremlins didn't spend any strength or movement points. But, to be fair, this is exactly what I like about the third game. However, what does the comparison of game playability and its approximation to realism have to do with it, and it is often opponents of the fourth game who make such a comparison of the fourth game with realism. But there is more realism in it. Although I don't really like that the movement of units has been limited, and now they can't be passed along the chain as they could in the third game.SandroXXL;95357
And the poison spell in the 4th game is annoying because it poisons everyone, especially hero-mages.
Well, how can I believe you if you write such a thing - poison can affect everyone? Try poisoning skeletons, for example, or mechanical creatures, or gargoyles. Also, a lot of potions of immortality and some types of magic can help against poison, such as antimagic.SandroXXL;95357
Furthermore, I can't bring myself to call the 4th game more realistic, either in terms of gameplay (when one hero defeats a huge army),
:) I absolutely agree. It's silly to compare any of the versions with realism. But the fact that a hero defeats a huge army is a problem in the third game as well. For example, in the last off-line tournament, 15 vampires defeated a hundred upgraded hydras, or 150 upgraded harpies defeated a LEGION of minotaurs and a LEGION of gargoyles. And look at fantasy movies like Conan the Barbarian. He also defeats quite large groups almost alone, but he doesn't stand aside smoking a bamboo pipe; he actually acts on the battlefield. And for some reason, none of you write angry letters to Hollywood about the unreality of the events presented there. :)SandroXXL;95357
or in terms of appearance (the average tree is sometimes bigger than a city or an army).
It's better not to talk about such nonsense. :)SandroXXL;95357
I was defending the 3rd game, but I liked the 4th game in its own way. It definitely has a lot of potential, perhaps if it had been released under a name like "From the world of fantasy" or "Slaughter in the kingdom", then,
It not only has a lot of potential, which was curtailed by continuing the development of Heroes in the fifth version. The 4th game currently has the most powerful functionality; it introduced fundamentally new magic and artifacts (specifically related to poison), many diverse units that also have good magic, and a new skill called scouting, a key component of which is camouflage (invisible heroes), calculating a counterattack simultaneously with the attacking blow, the presence of several of your heroes on the battlefield AT THE SAME TIME, the combat activity of heroes on the battlefield, battles of units WITHOUT the presence of heroes in the squad, separate movement of heroes from units on the adventure map, and much more that FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes Heroes 4 from all other versions. That is, there are many things in Heroes 4 that are not in other versions. But what is fundamentally new in the 4th game that is not in other versions - I don't know. Maybe someone will enlighten me?SandroXXL;95357
P.S. Commanders and generals shouldn't go into the thick of the battle; they were given too much freedom.
I'm not sure. There are many historically real examples of commanders leading their soldiers into the attack by personal example. Or are you comparing every hero to a generalissimo and a president? I, for example, compare them to field commanders or Conan the Barbarian, who traveled with a small squad and single-handedly kicked the butt of any crowd. If you don't want to put your hero in the thick of the battle in the 4th game, don't. Protect him with supporting squads, use obstacles on the battlefield, run away from the enemy in a circle - there is plenty of space there. You can even not take him to the battle at all - no one forbids it. :) This is what functionality means - it's a multitude of ways to solve one problem. :)SandroXXL;95357
P.P.S. And now, what is the purpose of this post? It's stupid to reject the 4th game, because it's a good game, but it's also stupid to say that it's better than all the others. It's just a good game.
That's exactly what I mean. I even like to play in tournaments of the first game, although the functionality there is the MINIMUM of all versions. :)
It not only has huge potential, which was curtailed by continuing the development of the heroes in the fifth version. The fourth installment currently has the most powerful functionality; it introduces fundamentally new magic and artifacts (specifically related to poison), many diverse units that also have decent magic, introduces a new skill such as scouting, a key component of which is camouflage (heroes who are invisible), calculating the counterattack simultaneously with the attacking blow, the presence of several of your heroes on the battlefield AT THE SAME TIME, the combat activity of heroes on the battlefield, battles of units WITHOUT the presence of heroes in the squad, separate movement of heroes from units on the adventure map, and much more that FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes Heroes 4 from all other installments. That is, Heroes 4 has many things that are not present in other versions. But what is fundamentally new in the fourth installment that is present in other versions – I don’t know. Maybe someone can enlighten me?
Well, not quite; they didn’t completely abandon it, because the fifth installment does have a skill system, which is more similar to the system in the fourth installment than the third. Caravans have become a staple, and heroes now attack and cast spells at the right time, specifically during their turn, and there are quite a few other examples.
Right now, it seems to me that it might even be good that the fifth installment didn’t follow in the footsteps of the fourth installment as a whole, but instead took the third installment as its basis. Because the fourth installment became a unique, unforgettable, and well-thought-out game. And there are plenty of monsters there; there isn’t an overabundance, as in some games where there are hundreds of monsters, and then you have to figure out what each one can do. And some of the similar ones can even be confused:D.
So, the fourth installment is unique, and its only problem is that it isn’t “polished” to perfection, like the fifth installment. Because there are some funny and silly things in it, but still, it’s Heroes 4:smile20:
Отдай свои прошлые сны, В сомненьях себя обрети, В бешеном танце душа кружится! Не думай, что будет потом, Здесь и сейчас мы живем, Стань хоть на миг сам собой, слышишь!
Well, it wasn't completely abandoned, after all, there's the skill system in the fifth game, which is more similar to the fourth game than the third, caravans have become a staple, and heroes now attack and cast spells during their turn, rather than randomly... there are quite a few examples.
Okay, I understand it's not completely different, otherwise the fifth version would be indistinguishable from the third, and I'm not talking about the graphics. Everything you wrote is correct. They did take the skill system, but they removed camouflage, which was a fundamentally new skill that added a lot of variety to the game.ZYbr;110430
Right now, it seems to me that it might even be a good thing that the fifth part didn't follow in the footsteps of the fourth overall, but instead took the third part as its basis.
And I, for example, believe that the fourth game also took the third game as its basis :) Turn-based strategy, fortresses, heroes, monsters, magic, movement on the adventure map - these are the fundamentals. But a lot of functionality was added to it. I simply can't consider this a drawback. The fifth game also took some things from all the previous versions - that's natural, but in some ways, it simplified the functionality to a minimum. For example, there is no separation of units into fast and slow on the adventure map. I've forgotten something - is it possible to temporarily get rid of units in the fifth game (like at a sawmill) or not? In general, I need to play the fifth game a little more; I've only played it twice in offline mode. Both times, the results weren't very successful. Perhaps I don't know many of the features, but so far, I've noticed some useful aspects that are simply missing: (ZYbr;110430
So, the fourth game is unique, and its only problem is that it wasn't "polished" to a shine like the fifth game.
Well, that's understandable, and it only confirms my words: the less functionality we have, the easier it is to polish it to a shine.ZYbr;110430
Because there are funny and silly things in it, but still, it's the fourth game:smile20:
Name some of them, and I'll probably find the same things in the other versions as well. And if we're talking about the fifth game, I still don't see anything fundamentally new that would distinguish it from the third, except for the super graphics and some elements that were taken from the fourth. There are some innovations in the interface, and I especially liked that you can record the battle log to "video." This is a very useful feature for offline play. The fourth game has a review of the completed turn on the adventure map (I don't know if this exists in the fifth game, it doesn't exist in other versions), but the fourth game lacks battle logs - it's a pity that the developers of the fourth game missed this. Well, that's all I can say for now - we'll play and see ;)
Try using this unit, it's like a Barbarian of level 20. And a hero on a horse is just a spectator, who doesn't really participate. He just casts a spell and immediately hides. There is development. With the hero participating on the battlefield, the game becomes more interesting in terms of tactics.
Yeah, there is development - either you level up your troops, or the hero is constantly in a vulnerable state. And what's with this irrelevant topic about a Barbarian of level 20? Don't think I'm an idiot who only saw the fourth part once, and that was just in a picture. I know that a hero of level 20 and above can take down entire squads on his own - after that, you don't even need an army anymore.
Подмосковный рейнджер, не ведающий стаха
Arandor
18 years ago
Auto-translated
a hero always needs an army. Neutral armies grow, and it's difficult to defeat a 4th-level creature alone (including Utopias), and there's no point in talking about fighting another player... 20th level is not enough)).
P.S. It's only unnecessary in the last campaign of Armageddon's Blade.
A hero always needs an army. Neutral armies grow, and it's difficult to defeat a level 4 creature alone (including Utopias), and there's no point in talking about fighting another player... Level 20 is not that high.
Against another player, there's no argument. But against the AI, their heroes rarely reach level 5. If you equip a level 20 hero with good artifacts, they can defeat even a level 4 creature. I had a level 15 rogue defeat a Dragon King one-on-one.
