Heroes I-IV Poll

[DaemianLucifer]

If you think a bit , that "retaliation thing" which was changed in HIV actually destroyed many good tactics which ones you were able to use in H2 and 3.

You call them tactics,I call them exploits.Really,slaughtering a whole army of 50 devils without a single loss in melee?Youd have to be some kind of a super genious to devise such a tactics.

And about that balancing, HIV was really unballanced or ballanced to much (actually dont know which one is right), but it was to much of it

True,it was imbalanced,but thats why we have equilibris.Besides,there were imbalances in HIII as well,and especially in HII,but it didnt make them any less good.

And maybe you were right about saying that i didnt playd it enought , but i couldnt take it , the graphics made me almost puke...

Graphics isnt the main point of a strategy game,its gameplay and atmosphere.HIV had those.A lot.HV,for example,has the best adventure map.You can spend hours marveling at those trees and mountains.But when you have to spin your camera like a madman around those trees to pick up a single chest,thats when the puking comes.

[Metathron]

If you think a bit , that "retaliation thing" which was changed in HIV actually destroyed many good tactics which ones you were able to use in H2 and 3.
And about that balancing, HIV was really unballanced or ballanced to much (actually dont know which one is right), but it was to much of it

And maybe you were right about saying that i didnt playd it enought , but i couldnt take it , the graphics made me almost puke...

I'm not really sure which tactics the HoMM IV approach 'destroyed', but if it did in fact do that, then it opened up many more new ones. Also, there is no doubt that simultaneous retaliation is much more realistic and logical.

I thought the HoMM IV graphics were absolutely beautiful and adorable, but hey, it's of no use quarrelling about taste - it's a very subjective category.

[ThunderTitan]

I thought the HoMM IV graphics were absolutely beautiful and adorable, but hey, it's of no use quarrelling about taste - it's a very subjective category.

But you have to get used to the view before you can judge the graphics. Personaly I liked the engine, but the creatures were kinda disapointing. Most of them looked like unupgraded versions or just bad.

And Sim Retal destroyed the "kill them in one blow without losing anything" and "kill the weakest but numerous stack with ur strongest one for min dmg " tactics. No tactics I missed. But i still say the attacker should get some sort of bonus.

[Metathron]

I thought the HoMM IV graphics were absolutely beautiful and adorable, but hey, it's of no use quarrelling about taste - it's a very subjective category.

But you have to get used to the view before you can judge the graphics. Personaly I liked the engine, but the creatures were kinda disapointing. Most of them looked like unupgraded versions or just bad.

And Sim Retal destroyed the "kill them in one blow without losing anything" and "kill the weakest but numerous stack with ur strongest one for min dmg " tactics. No tactics I missed. But i still say the attacker should get some sort of bonus.

I didn't think the isometric, quasi 3-D view needed much getting used to at all. I generally like the creatures, except a select few (e.g. the phoenix is not very impressive). By unupgraded I take it you mean the creatures looked too plain to you. While I may agree to an extent I'll pick the 'too plain' of HoMM IV over 'too exaggerated, overdone or tacky' of HoMM V any time.

I would really have to disagree that simultaneous retaliation destroyed that "tactic", it simply made it far less common. You could still apply it by attacking with creatures who have an inherent first strike ability or by granting said ability artificially via the (two) spell(s).

[ThunderTitan]

I didn't think the isometric, quasi 3-D view needed much getting used to at all.

Trust me, after playng H3 alot the view is a shock, even if you played H4 alot before.

By unupgraded I take it you mean the creatures looked too plain to you. While I may agree to an extent I'll pick the 'too plain' of HoMM IV over 'too exaggerated, overdone or tacky' of HoMM V any time.

You and me both, brother (no more Lost for a couple of months ).
But IMHO the creature looks have been getting worse from H2 onward.

I would really have to disagree that simultaneous retaliation destroyed that "tactic", it simply made it far less common. You could still apply it by attacking with creatures who have an inherent first strike ability or by granting said ability artificially via the (two) spell(s).

Yes, but that was an ability, not standard fare. Kinda like Lightning Strike or Jousting. Or No Retal as a closer example.

[Humakt]

The best heroes game was a second part. Although heroes 1 and 3 were good too. But i just created acc here to say that heroes 4 were a total crap... Maybe most of the ppl checking these forums started playing heroes only few years ago or smth like that... i dont know, but heroes 4 were worst because of the "new" battle system, mixed factions and the "technology tree", and im very happy to see none of these bugs in heroes 5.
The real heroes were I and II because they simply had a style and only the old players will understand what im talking about i guess...

Heroes IV> Heroes 3> Heroes 2. And while we are at it Warlords 2: Deluxe > Heroes 2 and Fantasy General > Heroes 2. Heroes 2 is like Disciples, it's only fun for a while until you realize that there's little to no strategy (although Heroes 2 had much better AI than Disciples, and better style than Disciples). Oh yeah, and I played the games in the proper order as you said except H1 which I've never played. I've yet to play Heroes V though, but I prolly won't get it before I heard of Map Editor (and if it's crap, I won't prolly get it at all).

And none of the "bugs" you listed are actually bugs but improvements or features. Even dead monkey should realize that H4 skill system was a huge improvement to earlier one not to mention spell system. What comes to combat, well, it's generally better than in earlier versions but it has its shortcomings. But I agree little on mixed factions especially on Death town, inferno creatures should have just left out of the game.

Reasons why I like Heroes 4 better than 3 or 2:
+ MAP EDITOR!
+ Scripts.
+ Spell system
+ Skill system
+ Heroes in combat
+ Multiple heroes in army
+ Can travel creatureless or heroless.
+ Caravans.
+ Buy all button.
+ No more chaining.
+ Chosing which creatures to recruit.
+ Better taverns.
+ Better morale & luck system.
+ Factions were more different than before.
+ Stealth.
+ Graphics (especially adventure map).
+ Music.
+ Potions.
+ Storytelling in campaigns were pretty good compared to earlier incarnations (exluding WoW and GS campaigns).

But then the minuses:
- Adventure map AI (especially in initial release)
- Initial release (memory leak and no multiplayer back then)
- Some flaws in balance (Equiblris has done good work in this aspect)
- Still has few minor bugs in scripting
- 3DO
- Official maps. (They were mostly terrible with some exceptions: Beebee(?) and three pigs)
- Some poor info or no documentation considering hotseat (it was there in initial release)
- Siege combat (kind of)

And Sim Retal destroyed the "kill them in one blow without losing anything" and "kill the weakest but numerous stack with ur strongest one for min dmg " tactics. No tactics I missed. But i still say the attacker should get some sort of bonus.
Why? Common sense dictates that defender should get the bonus, especially when attacking uphill. Consider these: Defender knows the terrain, has had chance to make some defensive arrangements, and hasn't had to tax their energy by charging to attack.[/i]

[ThunderTitan]

Why? Common sense dictates that defender should get the bonus, especially when attacking uphill. Consider these: Defender knows the terrain, has had chance to make some defensive arrangements, and hasn't had to tax their energy by charging to attack.[/i]

When defending. And not always (a well executed charge can break a defensive position etc). I have nothing against the Attacker losing the bonus when the other creature has Defend on. But there hould be some advantage in attacking.

[DaemianLucifer]

When attacking,the attacker usually has to cross some distance before striking.Thats tiresome.And in the meantime,the defender has time to prepare his attack.So it should be like this:If the attacker moves before the attack,the defender gets the bonus.If the attacker flanks,he gets the bonus.If the attack is from the rear,attacker gets heavy bonus.

[ThunderTitan]

When attacking,the attacker usually has to cross some distance before striking.Thats tiresome.

Ever heard of Adrenaline? Or Momentum? And like I said Defend button = preparations.

And the guy that picks the BF gets to prepare, so it's the hero that gets attacked, not the defending stack.

[DaemianLucifer]

Ever heard of Adrenaline? Or Momentum? And like I said Defend button = preparations.

Momentum doesnt work same for all weapons.And adrenaline works for both the attacker and defender.Defend button means more preparation then usual.The defender still prepares,even without the defend button.

And the guy that picks the BF gets to prepare, so it's the hero that gets attacked, not the defending stack.

Its not always the attacker that picks the BF(sieges,for example).

[ThunderTitan]

Momentum doesnt work same for all weapons.And adrenaline works for both the attacker and defender.Defend button means more preparation then usual.The defender still prepares,even without the defend button.

Not necesarly, especialy in the heat of battle. And adrenaline works better when ur moving (effort = blood pumping faster). And stand still and have a guy run into you, see who has the advantage.

Its not always the attacker that picks the BF(sieges,for example).

Ups.. mispoke. I meant the hero that gets attacked (coz he doesn't move.).

[DaemianLucifer]

Not necesarly, especialy in the heat of battle. And adrenaline works better when ur moving (effort = blood pumping faster). And stand still and have a guy run into you, see who has the advantage.

This all depends on the weapons the attacker and defender are using.If you use a masive weapon like an axe,or a sledge hammer youll have the advantage if you run.A spear can give you advantage in both situations(depends on its lenght).A sword might be better if you stand still(not two handed sword though).

[Sir Alock]

I own every HoMM game including all expansions & add-ons. Even have every strategy guide ever made, including HoMMV.

I'm the LONE person who voted for HoMM1!!! It was my very 1st PC game that I ever purchased. Played that many hours into the night! It's not the best HoMM game ever, but it's so near & dear to me!

HoMMIII was & still is the best of all time IMHO, but HoMMV (once patched) & Map Editor is done, could be a very close 2nd IMHO.

[^Dagon^]

Heroes II of course!

[Campaigner]

And none of the "bugs" you listed are actually bugs but improvements or features. Even dead monkey should realize that H4 skill system was a huge improvement to earlier one not to mention spell system.

This takes the prize for the post of the year (not saying which category but it isn't a good one )

HIV skillsystem was terrible! They took a spellschool and made it selfsufficient. And it took forever to get Grandmaster <X magic school>
And if you intead maxed Combat then you didn't bother to take a spellschool....

Well, people that consider HIV best of the series aren't real TBS fans (and certainly NOT HoMM!) IMO since HIV is more of a RPG.

Do you guys who like HIV better then the rest prefer RPGs over other type of games?

Oh, voted Heroes II.

[Shhejtan]

Oh, joy! You can't believe what a happy sight this is! I agree with everybody who voted for Heroes IV. I've played them all from Kings bounty to Heroes V, and Heroes IV by far the best and King's Bounty a second. Oh my god, I feel so happy I could cry.

Any of you guys that voted for Heroes IV ever got looks of concern, disgust and disbilief acompanied with words: "Heroes IV sucks! You think you are smarter then everybodey else? Everybody KNOWS Heroes III is the best!". I bet Giordan Bruno got the same looks back in the day.

And to think that some people have the nerve to consider themselves true fans, when it was their conservative, narrow and unimaginative outlook that drove the people who gave them Heroes I, II and III to a choice between bankrupcy and making the same game over and over again (which is quite simmilar to the classic torments of hell, IMHO). Thanks a lot, you killed the franchise. You've got a game that's way clunkier then the original Heroes IV, with less of everything then Heroes III. You happy?

Heroes IV was one of the bravest things anybody has ever done in the history of gaming. And for all you purists, the creatures of Heroes IV are the most simmilar in appearance to those of Heroes II.

[DaemianLucifer]

This takes the prize for the post of the year (not saying which category but it isn't a good one )

I completely agree.Your post does deserve that prize.

HIV skillsystem was terrible! They took a spellschool and made it selfsufficient. And it took forever to get Grandmaster <X magic school>
And if you intead maxed Combat then you didn't bother to take a spellschool....

Lets see...Now I know there is grandmaster swordsmith that forges katanas and he devoted his whole life just to forging katanas.So you are saying that a normal being can become a grandmaster in a very hard skill of spellcasting during his passtime as being a general? Even in a fantasy world,this is a complete rubish.And you being a grandmaster in 5 extremly different skills,of which each needs a whole lifetime to perfect.Not even immortal elven race should be able to do that.

Well, people that consider HIV best of the series aren't real TBS fans (and certainly NOT HoMM!) IMO since HIV is more of a RPG.

You are right!A strategy means just tossing huge masses of men to devour the enemy in their murderous rampage,it has nothing to do with expirience.Those people that put highly skilled generals that have decades of fighting behind them as organizers of battles are idiots because thats of no use.And those generals are idiots because they use expirienced war hardened soldiers for the main assaults and rookies for simpler missions,because expirience doesnt matter.

My only regret is that they didnt implement creature XP in HIV,but maybe that would be one inovation to much,and the level of realism would turn the game into a real world,which is a bad thing.

Do you guys who like HIV better then the rest prefer RPGs over other type of games?

No,we prefer hack and slash,of course.Why must there be a sensible story or realistic characters with beliavable backgrounds?All that is needed is swarm of troops and masses of weapons,and the bloodbath can begin!

Oh,and you forgot to trash the FoW,because it is completely dumb not being able what your opponent is plotting inside his teritory.And the line of sight,since it is just natural that archers shoot targets that they cannot see with the same accuracy and the same deadlines.