Forum Talk

[protecyon]

If you would like to take a look at the original page visit this link:
https://www.celestialheavens.com/1119369733

[Campaigner]

and fear of losing all successful Heroes IV features, like caravans





You forgot to add IMO.

[Pitsu]

While I think the idea of caravans is good, I did not really like Heroes IV way. It was still quite a lot of micromanagment and since creatures were not as important as heroes, used it little. "IMO" isn't therefore perfect addition. Maybe "in the opinion of 9 fans out of 10"?



By the way, thanks to you noticed that the link was broken. Should work fine now.

[wredny]

hmmm...mayby "in opinion of 8 of 10 ". I dont like Heroes IV to. It's more RPG then strategic game to me (or should I say quasiRPG, to much RPG elemnts for TBS and to less for real RPG). I like the way that Heroes V look for now.

[Gaidal Cain]

Since 'Successful' can (and perhaps should) be interpreted as 'liked by almost everyone', calling the caravans that isn't that iffy. It would have been another thing is it was something like Fog of War, which seems to both have caused a larger split, and isn't optional in the same way. If there should be a change, maybe something like 'generally liked' instead of 'successful' would be better.

[King Imp]

I'm glad to see that they are still open to suggestion and what we desire may still make it in the game, but what annoys me to no end is this statement.



"Importantly, it is not only your opinion, but also the reasoning, why this or that feature/object/hero should (re-)appear in Heroes V."



Sure, on some things it might need a reason, but as far as I'm concerned numbers should speak for themselves on others. I'm eferring to the polls, both here and on the official site, that are clearly an overwheliming favirte for bringing the caravans back.



I guess numbers don't matter, unless someone makes a convincing argument. I'm sorry, but to me that is just the cheap way out of explaining why a certain feature didn't make it in. "Yeah, we saw a lot of people wanted it. 80% and greater in some cases, but they didn't say why."

[kurios]

HOMM 4 was the first Heroes game i played. I have looked at Heroes 2 and 3 and i still say they pale in comparison really. They are good games but i just like the elements in HOMM4 but then i was a huge Disciples fan too. I dont think its a good idea to take the Heroes out of the combat. I mean what would make them actually a hero if they can't fight. The game just becomes a troop generation/resource manipulation game. The heroes make it actually important which hero you brought to a fight.

I also want to include an idea. Age of QWonder has a good idea it thier tactical combat screens. They allow any other armies that are adjacent to the combat to be included in the combat. Since the new combat screens seem more free form than the old battle screns, i think that feature would be an excellent addition to the combat here, especially if the heroes are not going to be included. Especially if stealth is going to be included....imagine suddenly a horde of bandits appear in a combat because you did not see then....traps and ambushes would be possible then and add an exciting new element to the game.

[Pitsu]

King Imp, I am sure polls matter. Has someone said they don't? However, reasoning is also (pressure "also") important. I think even Campaigner said that he would have voted "yes" instead of "no" if .... Which means that he did not like the Heroes IV version, but a imporved version may be acceptable. Several "yes" voters asked for changes too. Votes give peoples answer to a certain question, but arguments clarify what is truely important and helps the system to evolve, that is my opinion. And what do you think on which side are more good reasons: on the side of majority or minority?

[wredny]

@Pitsu: and you think which side is minority ? And btw. IMO they dont make changes like putting caravans, when they after over a year of work and just 10 months to releas HoMM 5.

[Pitsu]

@wredny. Minority is the side with less supporters . I have no idea whether developers can or want to add caravans or any alternative transportation methods.

[midnight]

an invisible caravan (h4 style) has little risk, compared with maintaining a hero chain (h3 style) that an enemy has a chance of attacking. Really, an unattackable caravan seems strategically boring to me, not to mention slower than a hero chain.

[startune]

If anyone was interested, when we began considering doing a card game adaptation we did our own market research at gaming conventions. They indicated a much stronger fanbase for Heroes III than for Heroes IV. With Heroes IV we kept getting things like "like the game and artwork, but the implementation is slow" and "I wish I could intercept caravans" and "I miss being able to upgrade my creatures" and "why are Potions of Immortality so easy to get" and that kind of thing. With Heroes III responses were almost universally 100% positive. Not to mention, sales of the Heroes III title seemed to bare out this perceived superior public image. Perhaps the Heroes V developers got similar results in their market research.

[Blueman]

I like almost everything I learned about the features implemented in Homm5. H3 was/is a great game and a lot of fun to play both single and multiplayer. Actually, I gave up H3 long ago. Using caravans and just moving creatures around without having to buy an extra hero is much better. It took some time to get used to the frail hero on the battlefield, but I would give them up for a simultaneous retaliation system in H5.

Creature upgrade is not a must, but the creature number and availability (H4 style) is important.

I still believe that a H5 demo version would cause the opinion H5urricane.

[lpatenaude]

What HoMM4 lacked was a clear and present identification of each town's true alignment. Therefore, caravan or not, a bad troop alignment chosen and, bang, can't get any good or even excellent morale out of the troops.

So, having the hero/general/main spell-caster onto the battlefield = a morale of rather worst or best according to the alignment currently onto that battlefield. In other words, one of the sides could cast more spells than the other side, because of the best morale affecting that lucky to have proper alignment of troops situation.

I'm definitely not saying, though, that simultaneous retaliation and HoMM4's awesome graphics shouldn't be in the picture of it all.

And, absolutely, we do need a demo soon(very soon would be nice) so we(the large population of maniacal players such as us) could give some very constructive feedback. Fixing a large amount of bugs before the main release of the game could prevent too many patches following.

Do any one feel that the Hero/General/Main spell-caster should be able to learn the secondary skill of Horseback Riding so he/she could gain the rank of Champion Hero/General/Main spell-caster just like in HoMM2's growth ranking?

[Habeas Corpus]

I would like to suggest an alternate way to move armies quickly, that is a throw-back to HOMM3. I was thinking along the lines of the structure in the "Inferno" towns which allowed an army to "gate" to another town containing a gate as well. I don't think the structure should only be limited to Demon towns. In use, it would be similar to constructing teleporters--which are somehow made on the maps, already. The teleporters on maps are not treated as archaic, so, it should be possible to constuct more--with the proper lore.

Sorry, the hero chains of H3 are CRAZY when an army moves...and moves...and moves again in the same turn. H4 made it a very tactical game when the hero chains were done away with. Teleporters, or gates, fit within the framework, and would still provide the "OMG, how did you get an army here so fast?" effect. Remembering how deadly the town portal with expert earth magic was, it should still be VERY difficult to construct a gate.

BTW, I loved both H3 + H4, and thought they were both worth every dollar spent to purchase them. I did feel that H4 gave more options to the player as to figuring out "how to skin the cat." I also feel that H4 requires a bit more thought and savvy to master. I would be terribly disappointed if H5 had real-time elements in anything other than the turn-timer for multiplayer.

[CloudRiderX]

All of you have very good points, but all you who favor IV more than II or III, try to ease up on these guys making V. A few people that I knew looked on the internet when IV came out, and EVERYBODY said it was horrible. I looked on websites where everyone, even people who played it, could not stop criticizing it. I was dissapointed, but got used to it, then I found it had new features that well made up for the old ones that were lost. I agree, hero chains suck, caravans are very convenient, but you can't attack them until they arrive at the castle or out in front of it. I'm just saying, remeber these guys are going by the things they have heard, and many people had nothin good to say about that game. Of course, there are many things that are at controversey here. Caravans, retaliation type, alignment type, spell classifications, heroes in battle or out of battle, etc. And the trouble is, all but caravans seem to be split right down the middle. And now everyone is startin to like IV, is confusing to some people.