Elvin said:

---

Trees in H7 are really ugly. It marred the sylvan campaign.

---

Stevie said:

---

Dies_Irae said:

---

Now we are at an advanced stage where I don't belong anymore, for the simple reason that my only H7 playing experience is the Beta, and only briefly at that. To be able to form a sound opinion on the game I need to play it as it is now, which I can't due to PC requirements.

---

Goodness' sake, are you for real? So you pre-ordered the 100€ collectors edition box just for the Ivan figurine?

---

Dies_Irae said:

---

anyone keep track of how many GB's this all adds up to?

---

Dies_Irae said:

---

Stevie said:

---

Dies_Irae said:

---

Now we are at an advanced stage where I don't belong anymore, for the simple reason that my only H7 playing experience is the Beta, and only briefly at that. To be able to form a sound opinion on the game I need to play it as it is now, which I can't due to PC requirements.

---

Goodness' sake, are you for real? So you pre-ordered the 100€ collectors edition box just for the Ivan figurine?

---

It's a strange world we live in

---

Salamandre said:

---

IMO, if you guys consider that what assured this great game survival and success is somewhat "cheesy tactics" then probably H7, as it is, is the game you asked for. Risky decisions, a lot of them without any link to previous great sequels, stubborn about innovating while no roots to essentials are kept, speculations about what could be interesting or "deeper", while most of those giving advice are people who played 0 games online, yet they keep talking like experts.

I mean discussing and proposing is one thing everybody likes to share, but looking back and saying "is cheesy" or "childish auto-mode" while all you got after heroes 3 is -to be polite, crap, except H5 who hardly mobilized a few dozens of active players and whose biggest maps keep randomly crashing -so let's call it a tie, sounds to me like a definitely wrong direction you loudly insist on taking. Be it.

---

JollyJoker said:

---

H4 hasn't been "crap", by the way. H4 is a VERY good game, and it's best feature is that you can play H4 AND H3 (or H5), because H4 is a different game.
It's just a DIFFERENT Heroes of Might and Magic, opening up a different universe, and it's the old game that has aged best of them all, because it's fun, it's difficult, it has great maps, it has interesting story telling - and it's "complete" (it would be difficult to expand it).

It's basically not a sequel, but its own grand dead end boulevard, a niche, a bubble universe, whatever you want to call it, massively innovative, and everything working as it was supposed to work, when it comes to game mechanics.

I mean, just take game difficulty and XP gaining. In ALL other Heroes games, when you turn the difficulty screw, your INITIAL fights may become harder, because you have bigger guard stacks, but when you beat them, you get more XP, so your hero(es) level up faster, making you more powerful sooner, and once you reach a certain threshold, it doesn't matter anymore whether you have a couple more opponents.
No so in H4, though, where you will get THE SAME XP, no matter what. When you play normal diff, you may have to fight 60 guards for 900 XP; on Advanced you would fight 90 guards instead - but for the same 900 XP!
Or the concept of MOBILE guards - I LOVE that, guards coming after you.
Or the Stealth ability.

Which brings me back to H7. The difference between H4 and H7 is, I can list a ton of great H4 features, but try as I might, I have my problems finding some for H7.

---

Salamandre said:

---

JollyJoker said:

---

I mean, just take game difficulty and XP gaining. In ALL other Heroes games, when you turn the difficulty screw, your INITIAL fights may become harder, because you have bigger guard stacks, but when you beat them, you get more XP, so your hero(es) level up faster, making you more powerful sooner,

---

In heroes 2-3 the guards are harder depending on difficulty? You must have a special edition then, the JJ heroes edition?

---

JollyJoker said:

---

You mean, you take the fact that in H1-3 difficulty settings didn't affect guard stacks at all as a point against the fact that H4 is the only Heroes game in which difficulty settings do affect guard strength BUT stronger guards don't lead to more XP gain?

---

Pawek_13 said:

---

Similar system was implemented in Heroes V (in TotE, at least.) On higher difficulty settings, initial number and rate of growth of neutral stacks increased but the experience gained for one united was decreased by x%. This is mentioned in the fantastic fan manual added to TotE.

---

JollyJoker said:

---

This is only in campaigns. As far as I remember, this feature was added, because campaigns did indeed suffer from that effect, but it's not a regular game feature.

---

Salamandre said:

---

@Hermes

Either you discuss and present some arguments, or then just don't post at all, if you plan running away then covering your ears after starting a confrontation.

When I said tradition, I mean there is a content of specific values which was inherited by H3 from H2, then by H2 from H1. Thus players from the first could naturally advance to next game while retrieving this very known environment, with all the tricks they enjoyed + new goodies. We saw the result when H4 decided to ignore the legacy, I won't call it simple hazard, but wrong decision.

What you think about the thousands of enthusiastic people still playing and enjoying those "stupid tactics" game has no interest, moreover I don't see how it would fit in any thread, except in Heroes 1-4 forums. If you dare.

---

JollyJoker said:

---

You are wrong, which is not surprising because you are totally biased. For example, in H1 and H2, flyers have unlimited range on the BF (which means, playing H1 and H2 you are used to being able to immediately block shooters with guys like Gargoyles. Not so in H3 anymore.
H4 is simply a DIFFERENT gaming experience. ALl new. Period. Or some such.

First and foremost, what you have to understand is that "tactical tricks" against the AI is ALWAYS an exploit of the fact that the AI cannot learn.

H4 also gave us MIXED neutrals, for example, and having to fight mixed stacks of Tigers and Elves is a completely different ball game from fighting either the former or the latter.

Fun? Sure! But there is no reason to be proud or something, justbecause people learn a couple of tricks against an opponent who misses the ability to react on it. It's not that different from playing Donkey Kong, learning that a certain sequence of joystick movements will make you overcome a difficult passage - if an opponent is always reacting in the same way to a certain situation, once you found the "right" combination, it's game over.

I think, it was in H3 when I eventually found out that you can beat stacks of Level 7 monsters by offering them easy targets. Instead of ganging up on your killer Behemoth stack, they would kill single Goblins instead (as long as there were any).
Tactical acumen? Nah, not really. Just exploiting a blind side of the AI. EVERY TIME AND AGAIN.

Same thing about stack-splitting: if guard stacks in H3 would look like 3 stacks with 5 Elven Archers each plus 2 stacks of 20 Centaur Caps, instead of having 1-4 stacks of Centaur Caps OR a couple of Archers, things would look VERY different, because your task would be twofold: not EITHER neutralizing the ranged forces FAST OR guarding your ranged forces from being attacked by melees, but having to do both at the same time.

Ultimately - let me repeat that - it's about FUN, but there is no reason to glorify what has in effect to do with learning all the moves of a braindead automaton, and then find the right counter-measures. It is creative, yes, but just up to a certain point.

So H4 meant, your learned moves wouldn't work anymore. How mean of the designers...

---

Salamandre said:

---

H3 has tactics skill which increases your army range. H3 has 3 speed artefacts vs none in H2, H3 has mass haste as 1st level spell, H3 has terrains where your basic haste becomes mass, H3 has one hero with +2 speed, so you beat a dead horse there by trying to tell me it changed at core. Heroes 3 offered better alternatives following same pattern, it does not change by proposing out of nowhere concepts. Play online and you will see that blocking other side shooters occurs as soon as first week if you know how to.

Saying Heroes 4 is a new game is a poor translation of "Heroes sequel to H3 had nothing to do with H3 and failed, in terms of reception and online gaming". That the game has great things, I do not deny, I spent several months to translate features and graphics from it to H3.  

And again the weird "you are biased" argument, while in all your comments you show that your knowledge about Heroes 3 is very superficial. We already argued about when you came in Fortress thread claiming inaccurate things about skills and general play, when several experienced players including Marreti -5 times world champion told you are wrong, yet you continued your rant without reading what others say. Is not me who is biased.

---

JollyJoker said:

---

Then start giving the game its due instead of stating, it's crap. It was never intended as a "sequel" in the sense you use the word. "It's all new. Period.", is in fact a warning, that it may have a 4 behind the name, but will actually be something like a new beginning.

Which has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is, let me remind you, that you state: "OMG, morale penalty for losing a stack is nullifying the strategic backbone of the beloved Heroes gaming principles."

If that sounds ridiculous - well, it is, but that's what you claim and that's absolute nonsense, because no matter what you say about how online play will be an eye-opener - it will be an eye-opener only in the mastery of exploiting a CERTAIN AI behaviour and how limited the tools of the AI in some ways really are.

In other wortds, what you say is, I want my exploits against the AI to work in a sequel as well. Oh, sure, you also say, I don't want the AI to be DUMBER than it is in H3.

But when you are against a simple rule that HELPS THE AI, without being unfair (it's true for both sides), then you have obviously no interest in making play more challenging, but only in keeping the same rules of how to screw over the AI.

---

Stevie said:

---

Salamandre said:

---

H3 has tactics skill which increases your army range. H3 has 3 speed artefacts vs none in H2, H3 has mass haste as 1st level spell, H3 has terrains where your basic haste becomes mass, H3 has one hero with +2 speed, so you beat a dead horse there by trying to tell me it changed at core. Heroes 3 offered better alternatives following same pattern, it does not change by proposing out of nowhere concepts. Play online and you will see that blocking other side shooters occurs as soon as first week if you know how to.

---

Inherent movement on all BF hexes, much like Heroes 3's true teleport, and accumulation of speed via artifacts, spells, skills, terrain and hero specials is massively different. With the former you're absolutely sure you'll always get to block your opponent's shooters by week 1, day 1, fight 1, while with the latter you're left at the mercy of randomness and game context. It's not a question of knowing how to do it more than it is of getting to do it in the first place.

Salamandre said:

---

Saying Heroes 4 is a new game is a poor translation of "Heroes sequel to H3 had nothing to do with H3 and failed, in terms of reception and online gaming". That the game has great things, I do not deny, I spent several months to translate features and graphics from it to H3.

---

That's because Heroes 3 wasn't the basis for it and the comparison is only on grounds of being part of the same franchise. If Heroes 4 was a spin-off, it would've been called a great spin-off, but it's a Heroes game so it gets to be compared, like apples and oranges getting compared because they're fruits. The idea is that JVC wanted to depart from the RPG style to transition to a more strategic approach, and he succeeded in that respect. Heroes on the field, isometric BF, retaliation and splitting armies, those were all new elements that played in their own way, and personally I didn't like them too much, but I can see past my bias to grant it some degree of appreciation. It was greatly received despite what you might think, but it aged poorly with time as the community preferred the alternatives of Heroes 3 and Heroes 5.

---

Avirosb said:

---

Heroes on the field strikes me as being somewhat more RPG-ish rather than less.

Never understood why they all had to dismount their horses upon entering combat.

---

Salamandre said:

---

Stevie said:

---

With the former you're absolutely sure you'll always get to block your opponent's shooters by week 1, day 1, fight 1, while with the latter you're left at the mercy of randomness and game context.

---

This has been discussed 1 billion times in the appropriate forums, heroes class have different racial based percentages of getting skills, for instance you are sure to get tactics with at least 5 classes, then  you are 100% sure to get wisdom with ALL classes, then, and the most important, shooters in H3 have distance penalty. Then also if you want to block early, there are several towns which have such flying units. There is more gold around, units and dwellings cost less, there is less need to attack every shooter by week 1. There is not real randomness in H3, and this is why people had fun to specialize, because they felt the smart one can outcome the luck factor, and it worked. Also if you don't play such game over and over, competitive and eager to win and progress, you can't learn it only from manual. Is not about being smart, is about first hand experience.

My point is that the H3 player didn't open that game then said "wtf, where is my heroes game" like he said for H4. Where are my town sounds I enjoyed so much, where are my town amazing designs, where is my clean and accurate battlefield and so on. I don't care about a new game; if it has Heroes as label, I am expecting the things everybody enjoyed still there, not all of them out. I don't even want to discuss about H4, it should be out of references, considered as stand alone.

Quote:

---

It was greatly received despite what you might think, but it aged poorly with time as the community preferred the alternatives of Heroes 3 and Heroes 5.

---

Stevie, I was HERE, you weren't. Don't tell me how it was received because I was in the middle of storm, show me ONE single veteran from H3 who moved to H4, there is none. Browse ToH rankings, history, you will see, H4 bring a totally new community.

Anyway, my point before everyone started to point a finger to my person instead of my ideas, is that, in order to get a better game than previous, you have to stick both to what players lack in actual game then also improve or innovate when there is real and precise demand. This is why the future in gaming is only for moddable platforms, as Civilization or WoG for instance, because the mods the community come with will show the direction they wish the game to take. They nailed it with Kael for Civ3-Civ4 transition.

---

JollyJoker said:

---

Salamandre said:

---

My point is that the H3 player didn't open that game then said "wtf, where is my heroes game" like he said for H4.

---

No.
Your point is, when you open H SEVEN and see that your troops lose morale when you lose a stack, then you say, "wtf, where is my heroes game".
THAT has been your point - and, frankly, in my opinion it's a preposterous thing to say.

---

Stevie said:

---

Exactly. No matter how you look at it, the morale change is a risk factor that doesn't make one stacking obsolete or unavailable and it doesn't take anything away from the game. I attempts to make a more acceptable exchange between a good stack's turn vs an expendable one stack's death which is the real issue, not morale per se. I'm not sure how well versed in Heroes 5 you are Sal, but Last Stand armies are nothing to scoff at.

---

verriker said:

---

lol sorry to screw my pledge for a moment but it is entertaining as **** to grab popcorn and watch epic battle of wits between Salamandre and Jolly Joker, it's like watching titan vs black dragon fight lol

---

The_Polyglot said:

---

It's not so much a battle of wits as a wattle of bits. See their bits wattling, so wow, much awesome, very posh  

---

Salamandre said:

---

JollyJoker said:

---

THAT has been your point - and, frankly, in my opinion it's a preposterous thing to say.

---

I spent years to play, study then materially try to improve that game, therefore it is not preposterous to expect something in that continuity. I don't know why you always need so badly to psychoanalyse your interlocutor.    

On the other side, you kept talking and speculating. Thus for you a new Heroes pattern is an blessed event, as you obviously have no interest to go deeper in previous, the next step requiring intensive competitive play. I think it boils down to a simple thing as this. Heroes 3 is still far away from uncovering all its secrets, and no matter how you type in caps, it is still the majority preferred game.

---

Stevie said:

---

Sal, this thread is a Heroes 7 thread where people try to see what positive things Heroes 7 brought to the table. JJ said that the morale changes given by stack kills was a a good thing that people requested and even received. You came in here and said it's shockingly against Heroes tradition based on retaliation stealing with (one) stacks. Then Dark-Whisperer fairly pointed out that it's the same level of fairness in principle, because it's a trade-off between a turn and morale stats, both of which are stack based. I then mentioned that the new dimension of morale affecting stack death is an addition and not a subtraction from one stacking at all. And now we're at the point where you nonchalantly claim Heroes 3 superiority... on a Heroes 7 thread.

Do you see what's wrong in this? Your mentality about Heroes is indivisible from holy cow that is Heroes 3. Me and JJ are more progressive than that, and more than anything we're actually on topic. Parallels are healthy and necessary, but since you self confessed you haven't even touched Heroes 7, what are you comparing actually? An idea of yours about how things might be with how things are Heroes 3? Come on...

---

Galaad said:

---

Sal may be off-topic but is right on the big picture, the morale isn't what's really being discussed here, and you both are missing it, which is the continuity of Heroes.

As we could see with TotE's gameplay then 5.5 (kind of wog in 3d), proven basis has been worked upon and expanded to an extent, while MMH6 tried -like IV- to establish new grounds and if someone is looking for arrogance, look no further than the Erwinubi team trying to reinvent the wheel or thinking they can replicate it without understanding its core mechanisms.

---

Stevie said:

---

Of course it's about morale, that's what sparked this conversation. But for the sake of the argument, was the "Heroes continuity" lost when Heroes 5 introduced ATB? Or when it made the switch to 3D? Or when battlefields became squared?

Practically, what is this Heroes continuity to begin with? Because it sounds like some sort of mystical concept that everyone must bring reverence to but no one has a clue about what it actually is.

---

Galaad said:

---

Conversation went beyond morale.

I don't like that ATB shows, looks like a cheat to me, but Initiative system is a good example of battles continuity IMO, yes the switch to 3D, by implementing it in such way, made many fans turn away, then came a new fan base, the h5 fan base, unless unlike the one from h4 or h6, is much larger, simply because core mechanics of gameplay came from h3. Squares or hexes is a detail IMO, I personally prefer hexes, but squares didn't ruin it, how is it better though? I don't know.

---

JollyJoker said:

---

It's not the TACTIC that is retared - it's always the AI that is, because it cannot learn, cannot adapt, cannot become better, cannot react, cannot surprise.
When you play against an AI, which is what Heroes players do mostly, when they play, online or offline, then you act based on the information you have about the AI behaviour, and if the AI behaviour is retarded (in certain situation) or "handicapped", exploiting the retardedness - or handicap - gains the best results.

THAT in turn has more to do with a dog learning a trick than with creatively playing a game, because in essence it means, once you found the magic key that makes the AI stop fighting, you own the game.

Generally spoken, everything you can pull against the AI that you couldn't pull against the human OR is based on a certain setup only, that could look different, cannot seriously be defended as being defining for the series or whatever, because it's based on an exploit. You are not supposed to own all games of a brand, just because you learned (and put in enough time and effort) to own ONE of them.

It doesn't matter how long it took people to find the blindside - it IS one, and it's enough if that blindside is part of one game. If another game tries to change things to make them more challenging, then this is good.

That's why I came up with the example of flyer having unlimited range in H2, because that just means that fast flyers will ALWAYS be able to block shooters from turn 1, except when you can guard your shooter stack with even faster units, because there is no tactics Phase (skill-based or otherwise) to start in guarded deployment.

Players used to H2 had to learn the hard way (playing Tower, for example). That your Gargoyles suddenly wouldn't reach opposing shooters anymore. That meant, they had to find other ways to block them.

That's what happens in H7 with single-unit-stack tactics. You may overlook it first, but the first time that shooter stack of yours loses a turn (or a stack you wanted to move to close a gap or steal a retaliation with), you'll go, wtf, and start researching what's the matter.
And then you'll have to cope one way or another - probably REFINING your general tactics, but not throwing them away. Which is good again.

---

Stevie said:

---

fred79 said:

---

lol, prime? what the snow is that for? transformers!?

---

I'm glad you're taking an interest in Ashan lore, fred. Many of us here hold the equivalent of a Ph.D on it, some through no fault of their own. It's just that sometimes you have to fight fire with fire

That said, prepare yourself for the biggest mental roller coaster of your life:

Sar-Issus said:

---

Author: Sar-Issus

While we should strive to follow in our master Sar-Elam's footsteps and seek enlightenment, it is important to remember the origins of our world. While there is no denying the existence of the Dragon Gods and the Demons, I wouldn't consider all of the following tale an absolute truth. There is no doubt in my mind that some aspects of this ancient story are actually clever and intricate metaphors, holding the keys to unlocking the path to becoming the Dragons' equals.

In the beginning there was Magic and the Void. Magic formed itself into the Cosmic Egg. Inside the Egg the Dragon twins Asha and Urgash, Sister and Brother, Order and Chaos, were nurtured with Primordial Magic until they hatched. Spawned from Magic to exist amidst the Void, the Primordial Dragons were the first with the potential to harness its unlimited power. While the brother Urgash basked in Magic's infinite possibilities, dreaming of its potential for unlimited freedom, the sister Asha decided to give it shape and purpose.

Asha defined and named six "colours" of Magic that she had identified floating amongst the cosmic Void. They were Darkness, Light, Earth, Fire, Water, and Air. These were the threads with which she would weave the universe. Asha gave birth to six Dragon Children, manifestations of the colours of Magic, to both guide and rule her creation. Malassa daughter of Darkness, Elrath son of Light, Sylanna daughter of Earth, Arkath son of Fire, Shalassa daughter of Water and Ylath son of Air. Together with her children, they created Ashan, the world that would be named after her.
Urgash looked upon the Elemental Dragons, and the world that Asha had made, and he was filled with envy and disgust. What his sister had created, he would destroy, what she had organized, he would unravel and corrupt. In mockery of the Elder races, Urgash spawned the Demons, a race of creatures who live in a constant state of change, yielding to every urge they feel no matter how base. Order and Chaos collided during what would later be called the "Wars of Creation". This was an all-out conflict, fought on all levels of reality.

The forces of Order were ultimately victorious. Urgash, vanquished but not destroyed, was banished and jailed in Ashan's fiery core, and his monstrous offspring fled to the far corners of the world. Lurking in uninhabited places, they slowly gather their strength. When Asha laid her eyes on the devastation brought to her creation, and on the wounds received by her children, she shed myriad tears that cleansed the world from the corruption of Chaos.

The tears of Asha split her creation in two. First, the material world which would be subject to the cycle of Time, of Life and Death, of the seasons and the passage of night and day. And second, the spirit world, which would be a mirror-image of Ashan before it was corrupted by Chaos, perfect and unchanging. The two worlds would be separated by the "Veil", a magical gate, an antechamber filled with dreams, ghosts and frozen memories. The Dragons would inhabit the spirit world, leaving their servant races forlorn on the other side of the Veil.
The creation of the Veil marks the end of the Mythic Age and the dawn of the Ancient Age...

---

---

fred79 said:

---

somehow missed your post before mine, stevie(the one with the lore). i don't concern myself with lore at all. lore is another person's take on an fantasy world; if i can work with the matter of that world, then i prefer my own lore. especially when you can make it up for each individual(or campaign) map.

---

Stevie said:

---

I guess there's nothing wrong with telling a story, it's just that I find it wrong when it leaves no room for anything else like imagination or a different take. Vagueness can be better sometimes.

---

fred79 said:

---

@ stevie: i understand lore insomuch as being associated with premade maps or campaigns, but if you can make stuff yourself, their lore should go out the window. i never paid any attention to the lore from homm2 or 3, either. i certainly won't care about the lore from a game that doesn't follow the winning formula; good ideas sprinkled here and there or no.

every good idea since homm3 could have been implemented in 2d(with the same battle grid), and with better graphics each time. no sense in going off the beaten path, when that beaten path is loved. improve what you want about the wheel, but don't think you can reinvent it. there's a reason why wheels are still round.

that's why i never even played homm4, or any homm after it. i saw it(just as sal and many others do) as a different game, and not of the same series at all. looks always come first, because that's what people always associate first.

---

EnergyZ said:

---

But, have you considered looking the game from a different angle? After all, Might & Magic series also has many spin-offs: Warriors, Legends and Crusaders of Might and Magic.

I doubt people have given then much of a chance, since those games have not been on a good reputation. Heroes IV, as much as it may be distasteful, has different qualities.

For you never know what you could learn from it. At least it could give you some new ideas for ERA, for example. At least it does not have any more bugs than Heroes VII does. Or VI. Probably V as well.

---

fred79 said:

---

off-topic @ energyz/

the scripters already have the scripting taken care of, for the most part. what i would add that mostly hasn't been added yet, would require a great deal of scripting or even hardcoding. what i want to do, is add to the game, without taking away, though. one thing: i want multi-layered 2d maps(not just an above and below-ground; i'm talking many different 2d-level dimensions in the same map), not 3d. because pure 3d takes away from what made the series "heroes" in the first place.

that said, i DID enjoy video games becoming 3d. because that world is one that can expand radically, and take every direction. it's a different platform, so it can be allowed. i never was into 3d computer games, at all. just a personal preference. i think the two platforms have their own niche's, and should stick with them. with console games, the sky's(dimensions) the limit, because they're played on a t.v.

with computer games, you're focused on a smaller screen, so it should be more concentrated. and that works perfectly with 2d.

you don't sit a foot and a half away from a t.v. screen, but you DO, with a computer screen. thus, 2d is the way to go. it's not a restriction on dimension, but a focus. and that's a big thing the newer "heroes" games got wrong.


an addendum to what i said: why do you think the internet isn't presented in 3d? because it's impractical, and would be more difficult to navigate. the internet would no longer be the reigning distraction anymore. people would turn to t.v.'s as their main source of electronic entertainment.

---