Strategic AI + memory leaks: worrying stuff

[DaemianLucifer]

I think the catapult should be invulnerable, since it's indispensible during siege. I'm undecided on whether or not it's good to have units kick in the door, but as long as Nival make the catapult invulnerable, we can live without it.

Best would be if each race had different ways of destroying walls,and doors were destructable by all units.There could be units that destroy walls(like cyclops,behemots,treants,or such),spells,or special war machines(like catapult and trebuchet).

Notice that I don't dislike the spell system of Heroes 4, but simple the fact that I didn't have speels such as dimension door and town portal, special artifacts such as Armageddon's Sword. Heroes 5 has added artifacts with very specialized effects, so to say, and has added the necessary adventure spells, while doing a good job of balancing their effects, which were seen as imbalanced.

There was town portal in HIV,and it wasnt as imbalanced as in HIII.And there were very nice artifacts in HIV as well.

More was bad because morale penalties were so big and affected you so badly that it was simply impossible to create an useful army consisting of creatures from different factions (with few exceptions where morale penalty wasn't as bad).

So?Mixing units shouldnt be done wthout some penalty.Having titans,archangels and dragons in one army makes it pretty strong.It should be limited.And that one is a big tactical decision.

I have explained this is the above post. When 50% is actually 20%, it's quite confusing Otherwise, Heroes 4 made sure relevant information was always available, I don't disagree with that.

And 50% is 20% in which case?

I have already said myself that it's unfortunate that Heroes 5 has overly focused on graphics, and it really scared me when I heard of this. The thing about speed doesn't apply to the heroes series, but was simply an example of how major unfortunate changes in the gameplay can happen to acheieve certain effects. I don't think Heroes 5 is removing useful information to "speed up gameplay".

Really?No kingdom overview,no pop up window when you collect resources,no information what artifacts you picked up from the hero you defeated.

Waypoints might be a decent idea, but I stand by the system of manually having to get adventure map benefits. It feels good when you do, and doesn't hurt you too much if you don't.

Its very nececary on most occasions if you want to win,and it is quite boring.It really isnt such a choice.

Only if you had a rediculously good hero and great artifacts. Otherwise, as explained in an earlier post, I don't think it necessarily brings that great an advantage. It's all on how things play out.

Nope,all you need is expert earth+slow.

Tough one. I loved daily growth, but I don't see the problem you mention and any great balance disturbed. After all, you still have to capture the town; if you do, reaping the benefits is fair enough. Daily growth might be more tactical since you can re-supply you lines more flexibly, but then again weekly growth means you have to be more calculated and that you don't feel urged to buy creatures for your army every day

There are ways to counter this.For example implement a waiting period between capturing a city and being able to buy units from it.

I think it's very tactical. You can use imps, ghosts, whatnot. You have to make certain it will have the effect you want. With smaller armies you have to make sure that it's worth it, and you have to make sure that the timing is right if you want to block the opponent, eat up retaliation strikes, etc.

There is a difference between a tactic and an exploit.Oh and what about two stacks of 10 druids doing more damage than 1 stack of 20 druids?

[Ethric]

Second edit: Ethric, are you saying that there are a great change of direction and gameplay between Heroes 2 and 3? I certainly don't think so.

There are lots of changes. Whether they are "great changes" or not is entirely subjective.

I just feel that many supporters of Heroes 4 want something different than what the gameplay of the series is all about, but yet want to change the Heroes games instead of playing something else.

And that's the core of the problem right there. Repeat after me:

I am not God or another allknowing entity.

My opinion isn't universal law.

I do not have a patent on what HoMM is all about.

Do you see where I am going with this? People have different views on how things should be done, and none of those views are more right than others. Not mine. Not yours. Argue for your views, don't try to make up reasons for why your opinion is better by discrediting others. That your reasoning is flawed as well doesn't help, as I tried to show with my example with H3 vs H2.

In your previous post, you simply said "superficial" as if it was an adjective that applied to you as a person instead of an adverbial that applies to the verb 'to play'. So, you did seem to imply that, even if it wasn't on purpose.

Superficial as pertains to the matter at hand, that is HoMM and the playing thereof. Not superficial in every walk of life, I'm sorry if that wasn't sufficiently clear.

[ThunderTitan]

By the way, I think the thing you are quoting as actually about Heroes 5 ... But it applies to Heroes 4 as well, of course.

No, H5 is rather unpolished and full of bugs, but it is roughly finished. They implemented their ideeas the best way they could. In H4 they didn't.

And ur confusing nr. of spells available to actual spells that weren't in. Nobody here said they should take out spells.

And the gameplay changes weren't as big as you claim. The H4 gameplay felt so different because of the flaws in the system. It wasn't such a huge departure from H3's gameplay, it's just the bad way it was implemented that made people think so.

You seem to be letting the flaws in the morale, spell etc. systems get in the way of seeing what people want from them that was better then H3. Most people here want a game that's more between H3 and H4. Or like H4 without all the flaws, which would make it be between 3 and 4 in most of our opinions.

And the changes between H2 and H3 were almost as big as between H3 and H4, but the fact that H3 didn't introduce as many flaws doesn't make it as apparent.

[DaemianLucifer]

ThunderTitan, I suppose you might be right that I am overdoing my general critizism of the gameplay and appeal of Heroes 4. I mean I played it a lot and I did like it and was greatly saddened that the AI ruined the game. My sentiments are triggered by people constantly saying "Nival ignored Heroes 4, they should have this, etc." refering to terrible things such as having the heroes in battle, the siege system, spells available, morale effects, retaliation system and a few other things that I cannot remember while writing this (I'm making food at the same time, so a bit distracting ) ... all terrible things that deviated from the nature of the previous Heroes games. The changes that Heroes 4 made cut in on many areas. Only allowed six players, for instance, is just horrible.

Whats so terible about retaliation,spells,sieges and heroes in battle?Heroes in battle wasnt balanced properly,but the idea is good.Sim retal is way better then turn retal.Spells were excelent in HIV,and there almost werent useless ones.Sieges were as bad as HIII sieges(both had big weaknesses).

I was in doubt about the town portal thing, actually, but didn't bother to check. I must have thought of another spell then. Still, I recall being pissed because the town portal to take you to a random town, instead of the nearest town as in Heroes 5.

It does transport you to the nearest town.

Second edit: Ethric, are you saying that there are a great change of direction and gameplay between Heroes 2 and 3? I certainly don't think so.

Not great,but a change.No more chaotic upgrades,no cursed artifacts.

@Ethric

[Gaidal Cain]

Waypoints might be a decent idea, but I stand by the system of manually having to get adventure map benefits. It feels good when you do, and doesn't hurt you too much if you don't.

Sitting and seeing my knight gallop across the scenery from one dwelling to another doesn't make me feel too good. Still, it gives enough of an advantage to be worth the gold, and time is a resource i have plenty of.

I agree that it would be tedious to use. I think I forgot to add in my last post "if people really want to use their time to do this". As said, I don't think it's any great advantage, but more of a tactical choice, so I wouldn't mind my opponent doing it while I didn't. Like visiting windmills or using one creature in a slot, it's one of the small things that can give you an advantage if you really bother.

Being able to use the same army at two different places is a great advantage.

I think it's very tactical. You can use imps, ghosts, whatnot. You have to make certain it will have the effect you want. With smaller armies you have to make sure that it's worth it, and you have to make sure that the timing is right if you want to block the opponent, eat up retaliation strikes, etc.

Hardly a great challenge. It would take a lot for you to come out worse when splitting compared to not splitting.

[on splitting]Once again, a tactical choice. You only have seven units slots, so there's a limit to the impact on this. Everyone can do it.

Early on, you have enough slots free thatyou're not leaving anything out, thus that argument falls away. And "everyone can do it" doesn't mean it's good for gameplay.

Notice that I don't dislike the spell system of Heroes 4, but simple the fact that I didn't have speels such as dimension door and town portal....

Thanks for bringing up two other great problems of H3, one of which has been brought back in a form that's only slightly weaker than before. Leaving Dim Door out and nerfing Town Portal was a very good design decision of H4's.