So what's the final verdict on Heroes V?

[Pitsu]

You can argue that an adaptable strategy is better then a rigid one, but not that a rigid strategy isn't a strategy.

Wikipedia says you're wrong, and I think that page I linked too. A strategy is adaptable by nature, else it isn't a strategy.

Wikipedia is not the final truth, but in this case IMO you have misunderstood it. Wikipedia as well as the other source you linked mainly say that strategy is the general plan or vision for achieving the goal. "Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than rigid set of instructions" says that usually an adaption is needed for best results (note that wording "rather than" is not definitive). Ability to make corrections to strategy makes difference between good and bad strategican, but does not necessarily define strategy.

[ProMeTheus112]

Let's see if you understand this: SC vs game-of-choice fanboi arguments have infested the internet for the last 10 years. We've had SC-vs-C&C down to SC-vs-Rocky-Road-ice-cream.

We've had enough. We don't care what you think of game XYZ compared to SC. The onus is on you to prove to us that SC is better than game XYZ, and why that even f-ing matters for anyone, considering that they're completely different game genres. We don't have to prove anything to you.

And so far, you haven't said anything that makes me care why you think SC's strategic depth is in any way relevant to H5. Maybe SC is like The Art of War or The Book of 5 Rings, in that its lessons are universal. But you haven't shown any of that. And if so, why should anyone care? We're not here in this forum because we're interested in discussing RTS or FPS. I can go to DoW forums for my SC-vs-XYZ fix.

relax dude. In case you haven't noticed I'm not discussing by myself, but merely answering what people answered to my original post that said H5 is poor strategicaly. (because this thread is to display opinions about H5, so discussing this isn't off topic)

[ProMeTheus112]

You can argue that an adaptable strategy is better then a rigid one, but not that a rigid strategy isn't a strategy.

Wikipedia says you're wrong, and I think that page I linked too. A strategy is adaptable by nature, else it isn't a strategy.

Wikipedia is not the final truth, but in this case IMO you have misunderstood it. Wikipedia as well as the other source you linked mainly say that strategy is the general plan or vision for achieving the goal. "Strategy is adaptable by nature rather than rigid set of instructions" says that usually an adaption is needed for best results (note that wording "rather than" is not definitive). Ability to make corrections to strategy makes difference between good and bad strategican, but does not define strategy.

What about according to this definition : "the practical adaptation of the means placed at a general’s disposal to the attainment of the object in view" ?

But I answered this issue already :

Wikipedia says you're wrong, and I think that page I linked too. A strategy is adaptable by nature, else it isn't a strategy. Now let's say a big group of people still call that kind of rigid plan a strategy : then Heroes, Civilization, Shoot them ups, any of the simplest arcade games, and well any game that was ever created can be played with strategy ^_^ But in that case, it doesn't mean actually playing them requires ANY strategy skills. So okay, call your H5 or Civ games strategy games and use plans without being able to do anything else that executing algorithm. What a skilled strategist you are. "

So yeah, perhaps you can call a rigid plan a strategy and then call every game a strategy game, it doesn't mean using strategy while playing it takes any skill, and if it doesn't, it's strategical value is poor.

[Muszka]

@ProMeTheus112
just give 3 good points where HoMM lacks tactic, and 3 good ones where lacks strategy, than support each with an example.

[Mlai]

H5 strat lack (compared to SC):
- Lack of build order variations.
- Inability to construct own castle defense for siege arena (make your own walls, turrets, moats etc).
- Too little consequences for switching upgrades on the fly, made worse by the fact that some upgrades are clearly better than others for most/all situations.
- Inability to permanently damage towns in sieges.

H5 tact lack (comp to SC):
- Lack of terrain bonuses (cover bonus vs ranged behind rocks, Inferno better in volcanic arena, etc)
- Max 7 stacks for fighting.

[ProMeTheus112]

@ProMeTheus112
just give 3 good points where HoMM lacks tactic, and 3 good ones where lacks strategy, than support each with an example.

That can be interesting. Let's see. It's quite complicated so it's cool if some people try to correct me to find out really how those games are played and can be compared. Also I will not proceed by giving 3 good points but explaining in detail why one particular point makes H5 poorer than SC strategically.

(I will consider H5 is played on a non retarded map (I consider about all the original maps as retarded), where you have some kind of access to your opponent since the start of the game and many places to defend or control on the map, with multiple possible paths to reach them).

- In H5, there is very little information about the other player that you have access to, or that you need to consider. Army position is made simpler because they are regrouped under a few heroes, and you have too little information to guess what your opponent can be building. You also have very little information about the skills your opponent chose for his heroes, or the spells he has (if you find that out you are already in battle, if he turns out to have awesome spells it can kill you => huge luck factor due to the penalties of losing a big battle or having to retreat). This lack of information means you cannot play by adapting to your opponent's choices as much as you do when you have more information, thus decreasing the deepness of strategy. In any case, not knowing what your opponent is building doesn't matter so much because anyway, it doesn't have many consequences on how you should react.

=> In Starcraft, you can get a lot of different information about your opponent by scouting, and this information must be constantly used to adapt yourself to your opponent the best you can. This info includes stuff like units & buildings position, units number, build order, upgrades status. Out of this info you can guess many things (depending on how well you scout, which in itself requires strategy depending on what you already know about your opponent) your opponent's economy status or what he is trying to do (many possibilities).

Example :

H5 typical game : you start developing yourself, when you finally get sight of your opponent, you take into account the position of his heroes, their levels, the number of creatures they have with them, and which mines he controls. This information leads you to modify the movement your heroes will be making using simple rules : weaker = run away, stronger = attack if in range, if not in range, move where control is important (mines or available treasures or bonus buildings. These important areas are quite easy to determine, but that difficulty depends on the complexity of the map). It won't lead you to change your building development much at all. Basically you're only trying to determine how strong his heroes are compared to yours, and where you want to prevent them from reaching.

Code: Select all

I'd like your input on that : what information do you guys use about your opponent when you play and how do you use that information to modify your actions ?

[you probably won't understand what follows if you don't know at least all the units there are in starcraft and how they interact, also basic knowledge of how zerg and protoss develop themselves starcraft]
In Starcraft, let's say I scout my opponent a little after the start of the game with a corsair and find out he has a few sunken colonies in front of his natural expansion that he made early, with only 2 or 3 hydralisks that have speed upgrade and an evolution chamber, and a relatively low drone count, no lair. I know that my opponent didn't need to build an evolution chamber only to defend his overlords against an early corsair or scout because he has early hydralisks, so he his probably using this evolution chamber for an early upgrade. The hydralisks have speed upgrade so he his probably intenting to use them in combat as hydralisks and not lurkers (plus he has no lair). His low drone count suggests he his using his larvas to make combat units instead of building a stronger economy. But he has only 3 hydralisks. Did he hide others ? No, he seems to have used the money to make 3 hatcheries earlier and the hydralisks upgrades, thus reducing the number of drones he could make. Now what does this mean ? It means his economy is going to be weak later, but right after his upgrades finish, he can build up a very numerous force of hydralisks to create a threat in the near future. I can react to this in many ways depending on my situation. If I have expanded fast as well, I shouldn't have many zealots yet and depending on the upgrades I have launched already, I might need to quickly spend money on photon cannons to increase my defense now. This has many consequences for later : the money I spent on canons couldn't be used to make movable units, so my attack force is reduced, my probe count might be reduced as well, and/or I might not have been able to launch a certain upgrade as early as I'd have wished. The situation is dangerous for the Zerg if he keeps making a lot of hydralisks to threaten me more now though : he wouldn't be able to cut through the cannons to defeat me, so he needs to find an answer using all the info he was able to get from scouting at this point... This process lasts all game. That was the simplified description of only one decision at one point in time.

Note : at the moment when I scout the Zerg, if we change a few details in what I see, it can lead to major or minor changes in the possible reactions. For example, seeing a lair and no speed upgrade changes everything (I could only add 1 canon and start a robotic to prevent the Zerg from getting lurker early enough to contain me : I will be able to detect them thx to observers, and maybe add 2 canons a little later depending on what I've seen until then). Seing a few more drones and a later 3rd hatchery means I could build 1, maybe 2 less canons.

[PhoenixReborn]

Prometheus, have you ever played an online match of heroes 5?

[Mlai]

It would be better to answer a detailed post with maybe a rebuttal, rather than a rhetorical question.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that in H5 online, you can always use a disposable scout hero to see exactly how far along the enemy hero/town is. I don't know if this is what you mean.

However it does appear true that H5 doesn't have variable build orders.

[ProMeTheus112]

Prometheus, have you ever played an online match of heroes 5?

Why ? You don't agree with my description of how it is played ? Then feel free to show me I'm wrong and explain me why.

[Muszka]

Interesting post Prometheus. I don't really want to argue about SC, nor is this the right site, nor am I so good player, since I only finished campaigns. I have only one obs., and I don't intend that to a debate. What is a bit messy for me, is the early corsair.

What I'm after is the HoMM's lack of strategy and tactics. Let's forget about the fact that you haven't answered my fairly simple question, and I will try to comment your post, thus your comments.
Not that I doubt your SC experience, but half of your post is about SC, and that doesn't explained why HoMM or H5 lacks strategy or tactics.
In the other half you someway continue your previous posts by judgeing H5, and doing that without good examples.
You say that you can rush your enemies in SC, but you can do that in HoMM too. You can scout in SC, but so you can in HoMM(probably in H4 best). As for useful info about the enemy, there is thieves guild, where you can se some financial info, and some "technical" advancement of the enemy. Any information you can't get there, can be get by your scout. Actually you can know what buildings your enemy has, since your scouts can see the armies of your enemies. With that you already have an idea about those buildings. Also after the creatures you can tell, which spells can your enemies have, at least approx., and seeing his heroes you can determine some of his skills too. In H5 this could change some strategy, since there are alt. upg., in the prev versions it had lesser impact. But it can modify a thing, and that is, artifacts, that you have equipped.
The 'luck factor' you talk about is there, but it's more likely knowledge, and experience, but we can agree, that there is luck in any war, and experience has its weight in any game, just like in real life.

Mlai mentioned, the build order. I personally think, that it can have variety, and even greater than in previous HoMM games. It has some restrictions, but it is so in all strategy games.
It's ok, that in SC you can build more than one building of each, and I would be curious how would it look like that in HoMM, but I doubt that wouldn't brake the game. Also I'm curious that Mlai's homemade defense idea, how could work in practice, since we all know, that Theory is rarely equal with Practice.

As for tactical part, where you havn't said anything, I would repeat myself, that you should play a map on the highest difficulty, where every unit counts, and every move has an increased value. A haste can win a battle, while a morale effect, can make it lost. And since morale, luck, and some randomness interacts with natural human randomness, even the same map can be a challenge for the second, and maybe for the third time too.
But if you want to compare HoMM anyway with SC, you should take in account that though both are strategy games, they are different in many, if not all the aspects, just like vine and beer.

[ProMeTheus112]

The starting corsair is something you often do in Protoss vs Zerg depending on your game plan, because the Zerg has many deadly options to threaten you due to his exceptional ability to switch techs or switch his economy mode. You really need to scout him and get details so you can spend those minerals and gas needed to make a corsair so early. Plus it also allows you to kill one or two overlords.

What I was trying to point out is that the amount of information you use in Starcraft, and the conclusions that you can make given this information, is of a far higher degree than in H5. I don't know how you guess your opponent's spells or skills, but if you do that, what conclusions can you make from this, and how can you react ? Does this kind of reaction happen many times in a H5 game, or only a couple of times ? Is there many possibilities of reacting ?

I would repeat myself, that you should play a map on the highest difficulty, where every unit counts, and every move has an increased value. A haste can win a battle, while a morale effect, can make it lost. And since morale, luck, and some randomness interacts with natural human randomness, even the same map can be a challenge for the second, and maybe for the third time too.
But if you want to compare HoMM anyway with SC, you should take in account that though both are strategy games, they are different in many, if not all the aspects, just like vine and beer.

But isn't there always one best choice and isn't that best choice pretty obvious once you know the game well ? For example, world of warcraft has a LOT of different spells but it doesn't mean that playing pvp at it takes much tactics : you basically learn a set of spells that you are going to use in a special order, and depending on some conditions nudge that order a bit. The amount of tactics there is almost nil. On the other hand watch a pro 1v1 game of Quake 3 : there might be only 5 or 6 weapons, but the players use them in different ways and move differently in every game. This is tactics.

About the luck factor in H5, I think stuff like having one hero caught by a stronger enemy hero sometimes depends on luck because you don't know exactly how many blocks they can cover in one turn. Or, in a big battle, if you lose by a very little margin, the hero that wins gets all the experience and this totally imbalances the game, even though since nearly all damage is partly random, this small margin could have gone one way or the other. Luck rolls in battle, creatures abilities triggering randomly... I think there are many things like that in heroes, that you can't forecast and have a big influence on the course of the game.

[ThunderTitan]

Fist off, the adventure map and combat more or less (less imo) correspond to Macro and Micro in SC, so when you decide to attack a enemy hero it's kinda the same as when you decide if you attack with your current force or wait to build 2 more Zealots... same concept, different ways of accomplishing it.

Now most Heroes has some drawback against SC, like not enough reasons to variate your forces (7 lvls and 7 army slots so no point in leaving something behind if you have the money etc.), but that doesn't make it require little or no strategy...

And RL strategy also involves a lot of luck, and some of us prefer it like that... (even if 2x damage is way too much).

What about according to this definition : "the practical adaptation of the means placed at a general’s disposal to the attainment of the object in view"

Read my last post again... and again, and again... i already answered that
one there, it even has it's own quote box.

It's really kind of hard to argue with someone that misunderstands simple sentences.

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?!

No, why ? It's quite a dumb question.

Precisely... it's meant to illustrate something.

The point of good players who don't like the multiple building selection idea is that it will make playing slowly easier, and it isn't cool because RTS are about strategy AND speed / control, so they consider removing the speed factor from them is a loss.

I quite well recall people for MBS arguing that strategy/tactics would not be lost and the pro-MBS/"i'm a pro player" crowd calling then n00bs for it.

Heck, yours is the first good argument for MBS i've seen... and the official forum had plenty of links to both arguments.

And see, you do agree that speed isn't strategy... even if it makes a game more exciting and maybe better, if you're into it.

- Too little consequences for switching upgrades on the fly, made worse by the fact that some upgrades are clearly better than others for most/all situations.

That's a balance issue more or less...

- Lack of build order variations.

Because you can't choose between creatures/money/ability enhancer?! The fact that one build order is better then another is balance yet again...

So Heroes is less strategic the SC because it's less balanced... that might be a good point... it certainly takes away from enjoying the strategic options.

- Max 7 stacks for fighting.

Sorry, but one can make a good argument that limited numbers increase tactical requirements... Special Forces for example are more tactical then a normal army.

[PhoenixReborn]

I would argue that in a heroes online match since you can know right from the start what faction your opponent is and you know what faction you are that you can infer many things.

For example you will know which resources are most relevant for your opponent and you will know which magic schools are favored in his guild...otoh because building is limited to once per day you can't be 100% sure of your enemy army composition...scouting and silent stalker take on much greater importance when you are not playing the dumb ai. With no reloads you have to get your fights right so you don't suicide.

edit: http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=24087

There was a nice replay in this thread. Plenty of tactics involved...and there is strategy in making the best of a bad situation.

[Muszka]

2 Prometheus

you ask, how can one define, just from a simple hero, what strategy does he/she needs. PhoenixReborn answered partiall the question. I'll try to complete him.
When you see a hero with larger army, you can conclude what faction do the enemy play. So you know which spells have greater probability to show in his town, than from the hero you can conclude what kind of skills have the greatest probability to gain by him, than there are the resources mentioned by PhR, than it's obvious you see the creatures, you'll know what can they do, and what are their weaknesses.
And how your experience grow, so can mean every little (otherwise useless) information converted into an advantage.

But let's look at all this from a different angle. We come here to disscus the positivities and negativities of the M&M games, or just to ask for help. But for some of us, this isn't just a game, some ppl here actually played M&M or HoMM for more than 10 years now (I only played it for 7 years now), and it has influenced our lives in a great manner. Then you come here and you actually don't tell anything else and than it's a dumb game. And seeming you do it without any HoMM experience. There is actually another forum: Hall of Heretics, there you can talk about SC.

[ProMeTheus112]

Fist off, the adventure map and combat more or less (less imo) correspond to Macro and Micro in SC, so when you decide to attack a enemy hero it's kinda the same as when you decide if you attack with your current force or wait to build 2 more Zealots... same concept, different ways of accomplishing it.

This analogy is too simple and couldn't serve the purpose of comparing the two games at all... For example, attacking a hero in H5 is just attacking a hero, whereas in SC you can attack your opponent, before entering "micro level" : by using 1 unit, or 2 groups of units attacking 2 places, or 3 units in one place and a lot in another, by air, by ground, using invisibility, drops, slow pushes, containments, surrounding... But it's not enough to describe and compare the games because there is a lot of other things to consider outside of "ways of attacking your opponent", such as modulating economy, securing resources, building, teching, producing... they are also done in very different ways in Starcraft and Heroes. Although I do believe that all those are a lot more complex in Starcraft than they are in Heroes too ~

And RL strategy also involves a lot of luck, and some of us prefer it like that... (even if 2x damage is way too much).

This depends on the game. In Starcraft luck is pretty small. Definitely nothing like H5's luck.

Read my last post again... and again, and again... i already answered that
one there, it even has it's own quote box.

It's really kind of hard to argue with someone that misunderstands simple sentences.

Care to explain what you think I misunderstood ? English isn't my mother tongue as you probably realized already from my phrasing, so it's quite expectable that I could misunderstand something.

And see, you do agree that speed isn't strategy... even if it makes a game more exciting and maybe better, if you're into it.

ofc, never said I considered speed was strategy. However you could probably argue that in a fast game, choosing how you spend your time can be an element included in your strategy. Which might be the argument some people are using to diss MSB. I myself thought people who said MBS was a bad thing to implement were utterly stupid, but given more thought I think I won't be able to know until I play the game.

I would argue that in a heroes online match since you can know right from the start what faction your opponent is and you know what faction you are that you can infer many things.

For example you will know which resources are most relevant for your opponent and you will know which magic schools are favored in his guild...otoh because building is limited to once per day you can't be 100% sure of your enemy army composition...scouting and silent stalker take on much greater importance when you are not playing the dumb ai. With no reloads you have to get your fights right so you don't suicide.

This is before the game even starts : you can just change a couple of the rules and priorities you're going to use in the game based on this, just like you play every map differently. It still isn't strategy in itself because it takes place before your opponent or yourself have made any moves, so it doesn't constitute any reaction and adaptation to what's going on and that you haven't seen before.

For ex in SC, simply knowing that I'm playing vs a Terran leads me to use my known vs-Terran builds, and then throughout the games take into account all that a Terran can do against me or all that I can do against a Terran (be aware of his moves because if he takes a position he'll be very strong in that position, don't let opening paths to my probes that vultures could use to kill them, beware the tank drops... whatever he can do to me as a Terran. And at the same time, think that I can use arbiters to drain out his comsats, sneaky DTs in mines, shuttles to bother his tank positions..... whatever works in particular vs a Terran). Basically, knowing that my opponent is Terran only changes the set of rules that the game is played with. It isn't strategy. It's like changing the game a little (actually a lot, in Starcraft : Protoss vs Zerg is totaly different from Terran vs Protoss, etc...).

[Mlai]

Prometheus, a bit of advice.

An entire post telling ppl how SC is played really doesn't say anything about HoMM. It only annoys ppl because we don't care about SC, by itself, on this forum. You just made a long post that IMO served no purpose. They're 2 completely different games and you made no correlation whatsoever.

In your last post you could've replaced the word "HoMM" with the word "Chess", and nothing would be different.

[ProMeTheus112]

Prometheus, a bit of advice.

An entire post telling ppl how SC is played really doesn't say anything about HoMM. It only annoys ppl because we don't care about SC, by itself, on this forum. You just made a long post that IMO served no purpose. They're 2 completely different games and you made no correlation whatsoever.

In your last post you could've replaced the word "HoMM" with the word "Chess", and nothing would be different.

Mmmh I kind of agree the last part of my last post describes Starcraft and isn't useful to the comparison, didn't realize it when I typed it.

However I don't agree for the first part : an analogy with chess would be very different. In chess, it is hard to draw an analogy to "attacking your opponent", but it certainly wouldn't be just "taking one of your opponent's pieces". Something more along the lines of taking a positional advantage. And there are a LOTS of ways of doing that in chess : threaten a diagonal with a rook, double attack on 2 pieces, check, occupying middle, moving a pawn towards the end of his course, and really countless other more complicated ways of making some kind of good move that threatens your opponent. It also overlaps with H5's battles and SC micro, so yeah, you certainly couldn't replace H5 with chess in my last post. There is no resource gathering or economy or producing or teching in chess, but those exist both in starcraft and heroes, so if we were to describe how those mechanics work in both games, I'm quite sure we could see why one is deeper than the other.

The point of my last post was to show that the conclusions you draw from the fact that your opponent is a particular faction, at the start of the game, is just a known situation and doesn't involve strategy : it rather just changes the game's rules.
And also to tell ThunderTitan that his analogy H5 Map / battles = SC Macro / Micro isn't sufficient.

[hydro123456]

Well I went back and tried starting again, but it all just felt way too clunky and time consuming, so I replayed Heroes 4 instead. Heroes 4 really brought a lot of nice features to the table, if you could combine H4 features with H3 graphics, and a few things like the skill system from H5, I believe you would have the perfect heroes game.

[The Mad Dragon]

I really need to buy heroes 4.

[Saurus]

Well I went back and tried starting again, but it all just felt way too clunky and time consuming, so I replayed Heroes 4 instead. Heroes 4 really brought a lot of nice features to the table, if you could combine H4 features with H3 graphics, and a few things like the skill system from H5, I believe you would have the perfect heroes game.

I agree.
H4 had a huge potential and several nice concepts. It really was a shame it was released so very unfinished.

H4 had much more interesting battles due to mixed stacks and much reduced micromanagement due to less "constant running to the mill and the waterwheel etc" every week as the resources was given to the owner automaticly each week.

The lack of mixed stacks in H5 was for me a game ruiner and this alone actually made me to shun away from the game for more than a year until I now picked it up cheaply.



Biggest problems with H4:
-Almost compleatly broken A.I
-Rare resources was hardly needed for anything at all and yet still there
was mines/buildings that produced them.
-Few buildings to build in towns. No creature upgrades.


Biggest problems with H5: (based on my limited experience so far)
-Boring battles vs. neutrals (was much better in H4 due to mixes stacks)
-Strangely long wait between turns (even on very fast computers)
-Lots of unnessesary micromanagement (like visiting those damn windmills every week witch was automated in H4)
-Demands a very powerful computer with a powerful GC to be enjoyable
(and even then, it never runs as smooth as H4 did)

However, overall it hink H5 is better since the problems in H4
(like broken A.I) was quite owerhelming.