Heroes on battlefield

[ThunderTitan]

Well, I just stand behind two simple facts : 1.Creatures are the only ones that are open for attack; 2. Heroes influence the battle but are invulnerable. That's just how it was before the demon spawn of Heroes 4, and I'm glad Nival realized it was a mistake.

Yeah, we already have that game. It's called Heroes 3. And 2, and 1.

And I wasn't aware that H4 had spawned demons.

[Infiltrator]

It did. See you are possessed by one as you are typing that, but I am aware of your evil scheme demon, you can't fool me

[ThunderTitan]

Damn. Guess i'm just gonna have to kill you and use ur body as a host for one of my spawn-brothers.

[Infiltrator]

Except you can't touch me unless I admit I like Heroes 4, which will happen when hell freezes over, poor possessed man

[LordHoborgXVII]

I think it has already frozen over, if it's spawning Ice Demons...

[Infiltrator]

No, that's what they want you to think. It makes perfect sense, they put Ice Demons in Heroes 4 only to trick you into believing it's frozen. How trecherous can a plot against humanity get?

btw, this is getting way off topic

[ThunderTitan]

Well Ice Demons do are found on the battlefield, so it's half on topic.

[Gaidal Cain]

That's just how it was before the demon spawn of Heroes 4, and I'm glad Nival realized it was a mistake.

Err... Venom is spelled with a V. And you switched the "n" and "m"... Otherwise, it's OK

[Ethric]

Where did the topic at hand go...

Ah yes. I for one like the idea of heroes in battle, and I don't think it was as bad in H4 as many claim. With some modifications (or a whole revamp, if you got the time), it could work marvelously. So I think any claim that it *couldn't* be done balanced in H5 in any case, is just plain wrong. Then it is better to say you don't like the idea at all, that is your straightforward opinion and no-one can fault you for it.

Further, having heroes be able to do some onesided physical interaction in battle, that is hit but not *be* hit, only compounds the lack of logic for me. As one of the main things about heroes in battle I like is that they are vulnerable, not untouchable spelltotems. But, I like the rpg-aspect of the game probably a lot more than many more or less pure strategy-fans, so I'm inclined to like aspects that heighten the rpg-aspect, but that strategy-fans would find unnecessary and cumbersome.

[Kalah]

Yeah.. What he said.

[Orfinn]

heh...

[ThunderTitan]

Where did the topic at hand go...

Ah yes. I for one like the idea of heroes in battle, and I don't think it was as bad in H4 as many claim.

It went that way. Go get it boy.

My problem with H4 was the hero only armies. Sure it was fun, but it really made creatures unnecessary except in the beginning.

[Ethric]

Then you played on to easy maps\settings

[ThunderTitan]

Ok, they're not exactly unnecesary, but when ur hero reaches a certain lvl/skills he can pretty much go out on his own to level up and defeat neutral stacks. And there's always the annoying hero bomb.

[Ethric]

Ah, but those points can be fixed.

[chaosgorgon]

those points can be fixed......

thats actually the words that we always needed to H5, not that ridiculous behavior of some fans like "i hate H4" -that btw isnt the case of TT-, agree that H4 have`problems, but if more ppl just would said that, then we shouldnt have a H3 copycad -even admited by the devs-, and we should ended with the best heroes ever

[ThunderTitan]

Ah, but those points can be fixed.

Of course they can. But i still don't like the ideea of a tactician getting killed. He should be stationed somewhere away from harms way.

[Symeon Star-Eyes]

I'm a huge fan of having heroes on the battlefield. For me too, the rpg aspect is very important, and as the heroes came much more to life in HIV than in HIII, reverting back to the HIII system is imo a bad thing.

Sure, the hero system in IV wasn't the most balanced, but it was fun! And you really came to care about your heroes. It added to the game's character and atmosphere, and I for one really liked going off with my one or more -hero-only armies to explore and conquer.

So all this banning everything remotely linked to HIV is as far as I'm concerned a very very bad idea. HIV was and is a great game, and had it been given the proper dev time it deserved, I think it would have been absolutely amazing. This is relevant to the heroes on the battlefield discussion too, for if the developers had had enough time to tweak the feature, it might have been recieved very differently among the fans.
I really hope HV will be a great game too, but I'm not at all sure that reverting completely to HIII in (almost) every way is a good thing. A franchise such as HoMM needs to evolve to survive. So while not going over the top with creative out of the box-thinking with their first Heroes game, taking the best from HI-IV would have been much better than to simply copy HIII.

And as for placing some hero-types on the battlefield and some outside the battlefield, it could certainly work. But I don't know whether it would be any easier to do than to simply tweak the HIV system.

Oh, and I'll also miss hero-less armies.

[ThunderTitan]

And as for placing some hero-types on the battlefield and some outside the battlefield, it could certainly work. But I don't know whether it would be any easier to do than to simply tweak the HIV system.

I don't care about it's easyness, I just want to be able to have pure Tacticians/Spellcasters/Fighters. That would be really cool.

[LordHoborgXVII]

Of course heroes on the battlefield could be done in such a way that it would work, and it would be very enjoyable and add a great deal to the game. I am relieved, however, that in H5 the developers did not try to implement something like this, because they have yet to get aquainted with making HoMM games, and if they were to try it right now they would probably result in another disaster like the heroes on the battlefield in H4. It's much more reasonable to first get the basics down, and then attempt to innovate. Given the on-the-verge-of-collapse state of the HoMM franchise, it's perfectly logical. Although I do have to admit that heroes on the battlefield are quite fun.

Oh, and despite Nival's apparent aversion to anything H4-related, we have to keep in mind that many of the features in H5 are actually more similar to Heroes IV than to III. Take the skill tree, for instance. It includes general skills similar to the primary ones in H4, with various abilities associated with them, like the secondary skills. This resembles H4 much more than the array of all-secondary-skills in H3. In short, they are not completely opposed to everything H4, and are willing to implement some of the improvements that game offered. The fact that this doesn't extend to caravans continues to baffle me, though.