So what's the final verdict on Heroes V?

[Meandor]

It seems that big part of us have their own definitions of tactics/strategy

[ProMeTheus112]

Could be turned into a decent game if level design was good.

That might be a valid point, I know when I booted up heroes 3 the first map I tried was definitely had more open than most h5 maps. By that I mean there were multiple routes everywhere.

But, have you tried all the maps available?

http://www.maps4heroes.com/heroes5/maps ... ze=&sort=4

I remember Zandragar's stratagem being pretty good but it requires one of the expansions.

Actually, since I was very unsatisfied by the maps included in the game, I made one myself to try and improve how the game was played in 1v1 :p After I completed it I only played on it with my friend and the games were 10 times better, as he agreed too :p
I just submited it recently and it's currently on the front page ("Altered Twins"). I will probably post an updated version to maps4heroes later.

[ProMeTheus112]

In H5, it is possible to defeat large stacks of slow neutrals with tiny stacks of fast creatures and a hero. That kind of battle requires pure tactics to win. In HIV, that kind of battle would require strategy.

Like PhoenixReborn said this doesn't have much to do with tactics or strategy at all as it is only a trick or exploit. Tactics isn't using an algorithm that you learned to solve a problem, it's analyzing a small scale situation and putting yourself at an advantage in this situation, thanks to your analysis.

[Muszka]

Well, attacking a sea monster with strong units is a bad choice. Ranged attacks, direct damage spells and soaking retal with low-value units are the ways to go. Fact that you cannot steamroll every army with hundreds of dragons is just diversing the game IMO.

That varies a strategy a bit, isn't it?
It's not exactly where the tactics lack but where it is gain.

I think you see this from the wrong side. The problem, does not stands if I have to kill a Sea Monster, because it can be killed by two 5-10 lvl heroes. And it's highly unlikely, that those heroes wander with anything near 100 Black Dragons.
My point rather was in "big army faceing many small armies" problem, what occured to me in higher difficulies only.
For to give a much realistic example, I played ByteBandit's soon-to-be-relased Atlantic Empires. I played necro, my army consisted of a might and a magic hero, Bone Dragons, Vampires Ghosts. Now, when I was fighting I could not use Ghosts until I didn't cast Vampiric touch on them, and to do that in every single battle just to hit 50 lvl 2 units, what would die because of Vampire or BoneD, in the next round, and so I won't have loses. It true this may give some diversity to game, and may mean that you need to do tactical fights, but when you do the same in 100 fights, it makes me bored, and makes Ghost partially ineffective. And just for comparation: in H3 I had the same feeling, only after 20battles/day, for multiple days(e.g. Blood! The Vampires Tale).

[wimfrits]

Like PhoenixReborn said this doesn't have much to do with tactics or strategy at all as it is only a trick or exploit. Tactics isn't using an algorithm that you learned to solve a problem, it's analyzing a small scale situation and putting yourself at an advantage in this situation, thanks to your analysis.

I don't get it. I would say that identifying your opponent's (= the AI) weak spot and taking advantage of that is a perfect example of "analyzing a small scale situation and putting yourself at an advantage in this situation, thanks to your analysis"

[TheUndeadKing]

I like H4, but if there is a part what I dislike, that is the simultaneous strike, because I can have 100 Black Dragons, still I cannot strike a single Sea Monster without the chance of loosing a unit. And that's where H4 tactics and strategy lacks in my eye.

So, when in a war, defending armies shouldn't fight back, they should just stand there and do nothing and get slaughtered, right?

[ProMeTheus112]

Like PhoenixReborn said this doesn't have much to do with tactics or strategy at all as it is only a trick or exploit. Tactics isn't using an algorithm that you learned to solve a problem, it's analyzing a small scale situation and putting yourself at an advantage in this situation, thanks to your analysis.

I don't get it. I would say that identifying your opponent's (= the AI) weak spot and taking advantage of that is a perfect example of "analyzing a small scale situation and putting yourself at an advantage in this situation, thanks to your analysis"

Strategy and tactics are plans that you adapt in real time to a situation. In the case of the AI exploit, planning to use it in itself isn't really a strategy at all : it is an always-winning trick, but you could argue that at the moment when you actually use it, you have to watch which squares are available for you to move in so you can avoid the attacks, and that is tactics = analysing!... okay... well if you are used to playing real strategy games, you know that this kind of stuff is insanely basic and low level ^^

[Muszka]

So, when in a war, defending armies shouldn't fight back, they should just stand there and do nothing and get slaughtered, right?

I didn't said that. In a real fight the simultaneous strike is less probable(e.g. a melee fighter against a shooter).

[PhoenixReborn]

[quote="ProMeTheus112]well if you are used to playing real strategy games, you know that this kind of stuff is insanely basic and low level ^^[/quote]

Well that's one of the things I like about the heroes games...having the units grouped under the commander streamlines logistical calculations...in games like age of wonders and heroes iv and civilization it's frankly a pain in the *** to move the units around individually...

I'm not sure what you mean by real strategy, are you talking about board games?

[ProMeTheus112]

I don't know age of wonders, I don't think Civilization games are good strategy games, and I'm too inexperienced in board games to tell how valuable they are strategically ; but I was referring to RTS games. Of course there are bad RTS with little strategy but talking from experience, I think games such as Starcraft are infinitely more complex strategically than stuff like heroes or civilization. There is a lot more building plans and adapting to your opponent's actions in Starcraft than there is in Heroes or Civ, imo. (i'm a competitive starcraft player)

[wimfrits]

@ProMeTheus112:

Clear. Thanks for explaining.

Personally, I regard HoMM battles as a complex game of chess where every board move can be a 'tactical' decision, but that's just my interpretation of the term.

[ThunderTitan]

I think games such as Starcraft are infinitely more complex strategically than stuff like heroes or civilization.

Not really... SC is way more about tactics then strategy... Civ at least is way more strategic as where you build counts way more then in SC and there are way more options.

And don't confuse the need for fast reactions with strategy pls...

Like PhoenixReborn said this doesn't have much to do with tactics or strategy at all as it is only a trick or exploit.

Slow vs fast isn't really an exploit... it is imba in this case though.

[ProMeTheus112]

I think games such as Starcraft are infinitely more complex strategically than stuff like heroes or civilization.

Not really... SC is way more about tactics then strategy... Civ at least is way more strategic as where you build counts way more then in SC and there are way more options.

And don't confuse the need for fast reactions with strategy pls...

It is obvious from what you say that you have never played Starcraft seriously. Civilization offers you a huge plethora of different buildings and choices to make, most of which have no real strategical implications : you can easily play using an algorithm like "a lot of food around my city : specialize this city to make gold by building cottages around. Lot of gold => more benefit from +% science such as library, so priority to this kind of building in this city."

All in all I think Civilization has quite a lot of different parameters to learn to deal with, but once you grasped the mechanisms you can always play the same way and it works. You don't react much to your opponents. You're only doing management. This is different from strategy.

Now many beginners think RTS like Starcraft are all about speed, probably because they always lose games partly because they play too slowly. Well, when you play seriously, you have to be fast enough, but the game doesn't stop there, and it requires not only speed (for management and control), but indeed a lot of strategy and tactics. Almost all the choices you make in Starcraft, unlike in Civilization, have a large strategical importance and depend on your analysis of what your opponent is doing. And you're doing choices like that every few seconds. It makes for intense and fast games filled with strategy.

]

Like PhoenixReborn said this doesn't have much to do with tactics or strategy at all as it is only a trick or exploit.

Slow vs fast isn't really an exploit... it is imba in this case though.

It is an exploit because if the computer was playing properly, it wouldn't move its slow units the way it does and could reach the fast unit. In any case, it still doesn't have anything to do with strategy or tactics ^^

[ProMeTheus112]

@ProMeTheus112:

Clear. Thanks for explaining.

Personally, I regard HoMM battles as a complex game of chess where every board move can be a 'tactical' decision, but that's just my interpretation of the term.

I agree with you for battles between humans in HoMM, however I think even if the analogy with chess is definitely relevant, battles in HoMM are quite a lot simpler and involve a lot more luck. But I do agree there is some elements of tactics in there.

[TheUndeadKing]

I didn't said that. In a real fight the simultaneous strike is less probable(e.g. a melee fighter against a shooter).

Melee fighters don't retaliate to ranged attacks in H4. So, what's your point?

[ThunderTitan]

It is obvious from what you say that you have never played Starcraft seriously. Civilization offers you a huge plethora of different buildings and choices to make, most of which have no real strategical implications : you can easily play using an algorithm like "a lot of food around my city : specialize this city to make gold by building cottages around. Lot of gold => more benefit from +% science such as library, so priority to this kind of building in this city."

All in all I think Civilization has quite a lot of different parameters to learn to deal with, but once you grasped the mechanisms you can always play the same way and it works. You don't react much to your opponents. You're only doing management. This is different from strategy.

No it isn't... only using one strategy and not changing doesn't make it any less of a strategy...

But are you actually implying that some strategies aren't better then others and that whatever you do the result is the same = all Civ PvP games end in a draw?!

BTW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management

Now many beginners think RTS like Starcraft are all about speed, probably because they always lose games partly because they play too slowly. Well, when you play seriously, you have to be fast enough, but the game doesn't stop there, and it requires not only speed (for management and control), but indeed a lot of strategy and tactics. Almost all the choices you make in Starcraft, unlike in Civilization, have a large strategical importance and depend on your analysis of what your opponent is doing. And you're doing choices like that every few seconds. It makes for intense and fast games filled with strategy.

Again, strategy has nothing to do with speed... having to change your tactics every few seconds doesn't make it more or less strategic. Makes it more exciting if you're into that kind of thing.

But SC is filled with Tactics... Strategy is more along the lines of "crippling the enemies economy" or "building my economy faster/better", "overwhelming numbers assault" or "sneaky micro attacks" etc. and those don't really change as often as you want to believe in a game of SC... (that's why there are so called micro and macro players).
It's your tactics that change constantly...

It is an exploit because if the computer was playing properly, it wouldn't move its slow units the way it does and could reach the fast unit. In any case, it still doesn't have anything to do with strategy or tactics ^^

Not really... there are units that are fast enough for the way you move then slow units not to matter... coz they get 2x turns.

And neither strategy or tactic has anything to do with fairness or balance... using exploits is a strategy, breach of fairplay or not.

battles in HoMM are quite a lot simpler and involve a lot more luck. But I do agree there is some elements of tactics in there.

There's tactics in any battle... FPS, Sports game etc...

[zarko]

hi everyone. one small question. i just bought the golden edition of heroes V. What patches do i need to put on ? Do i need to put them all ? Can someone please help me in this.

Thanks very much in advance

[Bandobras Took]

All in all I think Civilization has quite a lot of different parameters to learn to deal with, but once you grasped the mechanisms you can always play the same way and it works. You don't react much to your opponents. You're only doing management. This is different from strategy.

To suggest that Genghis Khan plays the exact same way as Louis the XIV reveals a somewhat lacking grasp of strategy. And the person who does not make decisions based on what his opponent is doing in Civ IV is going to die. Quickly.

[Mlai]

I agree that SC has a fair bit of strat/tactics, even tho it's not my type of RTS game (its entire fetch-resource-micro-individual-units system is too out-dated). However, a big part of the rate-limiter is the fact that you need to react and have high clicks-per-sec. Don't pretend that it's more complex than it really is. If it is a turn-based game, it wouldn't be more complex or deep than many other TBS games out there (but might be more balanced, what with ONLY three factions and all).

[ProMeTheus112]

No it isn't... only using one strategy and not changing doesn't make it any less of a strategy...

But are you actually implying that some strategies aren't better then others and that whatever you do the result is the same = all Civ PvP games end in a draw?!

Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than rigid set of instructions.

Rigid set of instructions is almost how Civ is played. Which is what I meant.

Again, strategy has nothing to do with speed... having to change your tactics every few seconds doesn't make it more or less strategic. Makes it more exciting if you're into that kind of thing.

You missed the point here. I pointed out that you are making strategical and tactical choices every few seconds in starcraft to show how different it is from Heroes where you almost never make any or Civilization when actually strategy/tactics implying choices are rare. Time is always a factor in strategy anyway. Chess games are played with a time limit, and giving half as much time to a player is considered a huge handicap. You are better at strategy when you can figure it out faster.

But SC is filled with Tactics... Strategy is more along the lines of "crippling the enemies economy" or "building my economy faster/better", "overwhelming numbers assault" or "sneaky micro attacks" etc. and those don't really change as often as you want to believe in a game of SC... (that's why there are so called micro and macro players).
It's your tactics that change constantly...

Well "crippling the enemy's economy" or "overwhelming numbers assault" are few out of many possible elements that you can include in your strategy in starcraft. They aren't strategies in itself. If what you meant is that strategies in SC don't vary as in "they are a redundant string of instructions among those possibilities" you are 100% wrong. And they go beyond what you are thinking yourself. I won't go into details though, just check out www.teamliquid.net for pro matches comments or something (like this one for example), it's too long for me to describe.

Not really... there are units that are fast enough for the way you move then slow units not to matter... coz they get 2x turns.

And neither strategy or tactic has anything to do with fairness or balance... using exploits is a strategy, breach of fairplay or not.

Okay, then call it trick or whatever but it still has nothing to do with strategy or tactics ^^ It is a rigid set of instruction :p
Just like attacking your opponent with overwhelming masses isn't a strategy in itself in Starcraft. When it becomes included into an adapatable plan, that plan is called a strategy.

There's tactics in any battle... FPS, Sports game etc...

Yes, but to a different degree. There is certainly little of that in Heroes or Civ, quite a lot in RTS, and FPS are ALL about tactics and are great at that (well, there are poorer and richer FPS of course).