Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Heroes 4 - Lands of Axeoth > Thread: Heroes IV: Theory Analysis
Thread: Heroes IV: Theory Analysis This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · NEXT»
ThE_HyDrA
ThE_HyDrA


Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
posted April 05, 2003 03:54 AM bonus applied.
Edited By: Lich_King on 16 Apr 2003

Heroes IV: Theory Analysis

The period prior to Heroes IV being released was one of theorizing. Hundreds of threads, and thousands of posts devoted to ideas and the poster’s thoughts about what could, should and would be in Heroes IV. After all that intense posting, I am very surprised that nobody has followed it up with a thread or post that expresses their opinions on how Heroes IV turned out, and how the new changes that we predicted or did not predict have changed Heroes IV. What this thread is meant to accomplish is to review the changes that were made in Heroes IV, and give our previous thoughts (Before it was released), and our current thoughts (After playing the game for nearly a year). For people new to the community, you can just express your current opinion.

Heroes

Heroes in Combat:
This is a very topical debate, which is still raging for Heroes V. In late 2001, this was a huge talking point, and a controversial addition to Heroes IV. I believe that it was for the better, as it made the Heroes more important on the battlefield, and made them a hero in every sense of the word. There were many problems with balancing a hero, and these, unfortunately, were not addressed. However, a hero being on the battlefield added to the excitement and intrigue of the game, which meant it was fun to play. The strategy of having a hero also increased. As a result, a greater distinction came about between might and magic, which in turn resulted in the might hero not casting spells very often and the magic hero almost never attacking through melee or range. It was an interesting idea before Heroes IV was released, and lived up to most expectations. A worthy addition.

Heroes no longer vital to an army:
This also meant that more than one hero could be in an army, or even a whole hero-army. While this idea gave more depth and decision to the battles and the level-up system, I don’t think it benefited the game too well. One hero per army is better, as it gives the hero a sense of leadership, not a whole squadron (or two) heroes commanding an army.
The hero not being vital was a better idea, since if there was no hero the army could not claim any adventure map objects, which still made the loss of a hero from the army a serious matter. While not a huge change, it certainly worked out well, since I thought it was a bit unrealistic if in Heroes IV your hero died, and so did your whole army. (Luckily, that was not to be)

Recruiting Heroes:
I have mixed opinions with this method. When we first saw a screenshot of ‘the wheel’, it seemed like an excellent idea. This incorporated not being able to choose opposing alignments’ heroes, which worked out quite well in practice. But, a flaw I noticed was that you could recruit any heroes from the three alignments you had available. This worked in conjunction with the heroes not having a specialty, which in my mind, is unacceptable for Heroes V.

Adventure Map

Graphics:
From the screenshots that the community was privileged to see in 2001 looked excellent, a huge step forward from Heroes III, like it was from Heroes II. The sprawling mountains, lush grasses and scorching lava all made for a great effect. All of the adventure map objects looked very unique and special, such as the Dragon Cave, with many dragon eyes staring back at you, the tall, disjointed quest hut was a marvellous sight, and the pirate dwellings in the ocean looked very original. And they were even more spectacular in motion once we got the game. However, one aspect that we were slightly disappointed upon was the water. It did not move, and therefore gave the illusion that it was just a piece of blue ground at some points in time. Overall, though, I was very pleased with how the graphics were done.

Scripting Adventure Map objects:
We were all excited about this plan, hoping it would increase the playability and make the adventure map more interactive. It did live up to its ‘hype’ in the fact that one could edit the quest huts and make very elaborate scripts in order to confuse and challenge the players of your map. It made making maps a whole lot more fun to do. An excellent carry-on addition to Heroes IV from a Heroes III expansion.

Battlefield

The Isometric Perspective:
While I cannot speak for all people on this topic, I can say that in the screenshots, I though it was an excellent perspective, not having to look at the sides of your creatures all the time, creating the delusion that they were pieces of paper cut out in the shape of a creature and moving along the battlefield. With the isometric perspective, it looked as if you were actually the hero, and you were commanding your creatures. Although, this became a downfall for some people because they didn’t like seeing the backs of their own troops. I did not mind this, because, when they went out into the battlefield, they changed direction and you were no longer looking at their backs. This battlefield was implemented very well into the Heroes IV game, and I am hoping for something like this in Heroes V.

Line of Sight:
This feature was discussed within many threads as to how exactly it would work. Before the game was released, I was under the false impression that creatures and heroes were able to hide behind trees and other large obstacles in order to activate the line of sight. This, was not the case as I found out in my first battle. I like this idea because it adds realism to battles, and no longer can you shoot ‘through’ a creature to reach an enemy. It is also implemented well enough that your own creatures to do not act as an enemy creatures would. (I.e. you are able to shoot around them).

Towns

4 levels?
This was perhaps one of the most argued upon topic preceding Heroes IV’s release. A Heroes game had never seen only 4 levels per town, and 5 recruitable at that. While there were 8 creatures in the town all together, the 5 recruitable meant that there was a maximum of 5 per every castle. This raised the question in people’s minds (including mine) as to whether 5 recruitable creatures per town will grant enough longevity and gameplay to the towns. One must also remember that this is only with 5 recruitable creatures without upgrades. In Heroes III, there were 14 recruitable creatures per town, and for a number to lower so dramatically certainly meant trouble. However, I was partially wrong, as the longevity of the game did not decrease, but the number of creatures per army did. In Heroes III, I was very used to not having enough room in my army, but in Heroes IV, it was quite the opposite. The only town which offered as many creatures as Heroes III, was the Preserve. When I played the game, I agreed that four levels was not enough, and did not suffice in my mind. The six levels, which are planned for Heroes V, seem perfect to me.

The Hexagon:
When Heroes IV was being developed, it seemed like another intriguing new idea that was to be implemented in Heroes IV. The hexagon did work very well in the initial game, as they were all linked by the magic the town used, and this influenced other things such as magic annexes, recruitable heroes, and morale. It was a good way to link the towns-at first. But when it came to adding more towns in the expansions, it was almost impossible, since the hexagon would be broken and therefore the towns would need more opponents, and it would probably get very confusing. So the idea has its merits, but it was too constricting.

The creature decisions and their side-effects:
I certainly thought that choosing which creature you wanted to recruit for that level would be a wonderfully strategic experience. While it did increase strategy, it didn’t do so immensely, and also had some negative side effects. One of these was that all towns looked exactly the same, just with different dwellings and different art for the common structures. If there can be some way to have a choice of creatures without having these side effects, I will certainly chime in to support the idea.

After reviewing all these ideas which we said would be good, or bad, or in between, it appears that many of our theories and ideas were correct, and they were implemented in Heroes IV. How well they were implemented and how well they could have been implemented are two different issues. Such as Heroes in Combat, which needed a bit more work to complete such a large undertaking. Other ideas, such as the isometric perspective were almost flawlessly executed. Now that I have provided you with my opinion, I would like you to share yours.

What can I say.... +Qp applied for a good post and good discussion !

____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
TheEmperor
TheEmperor


Hired Hero
posted April 05, 2003 01:29 PM

Great post Hydra. You have some good points. I do think 4 levels is too little for creatures. The two level one creatures are both pretty weak, and it would be better if they had these creatures on different levels so that you could have 5 levels of creatures. Six levels seems perfect for HoMM 5.

Heroes are simply too weak. While magic heroes can be great spellcasters(though this usually takes way to long time), the might heroes are next to useless. You should not use him/her in the beginning because they simply die too easy. Later on when they are stronger, the creatures you battle against are much stronger, so still compared to the creatures you're fighting against the might heroes will be weak, unless you find a huge amount of experience.
In HoMM5 they should either make the heroes much more powerful or they should take them out of the battle.

The thing which is good about the Heroes in HoMM 4, is that they are not that important to the other creatures in the army. A hero's stats doesn't affect the units in any way(unless you have certain artifacts on the hero). This is a good improvement. In heroes 3 you were encouraged to build up as few as possible "main" heroes because their stats affected the creature stats. That basically ment having your creatures with any other hero but your strongest was a waste because they would always be most powerful along with your strongest hero.

Other improvements is that towns doesn't earn as much gold each day. Which means you usually can't in the beginning of the game buy all the creatures at once when they become available. More strategy. Also Fort, Castle etc. does not affect unit growth, and you only buy it if you have use for it. If you have ranged attackers a Castle is a good choice because these will have more protection, but if you have only melee units there is no real big deal about a Castle, you will have to walk out of it to attack and leave the enemies with an advantage if they manage to take your town.
____________
Guitar, black metal and HMM4

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
dushan
dushan


Hired Hero
posted April 07, 2003 12:48 PM bonus applied.
Edited By: Lich_King on 3 May 2003

It's always pleasure to read your posts, Hydra.

As I played Heroes IV first, and Heroes III after (I am in minority, I guess), I will share some thoughts:

Heroes in combat:
Well, as I said I played Heroes IV first, and soon became an addict. Then I heard that Heroes III was even more popular game, of course I installed it, played it for some time, but somehow I missed heroes in the fight. The game is more realistic and more fun with the heroes there. Just imagine Aragorn sitting on the horse 1km away from battle with orcs...So, I think it was good to have might heroes in the battle, but magic heroes should be more protected. Here I can imagine Saruman standing at the top of the hill, behind his army, well away from the battle, casting spells. There he is not so vulnerable, but in the game you can't protect your mage that easily. Somehow it is not right to develop combat for magic heroes.
It's a great pleasure you can kill enemy's hero, BUT they should have put Immortality potion limit or make heroes stronger.
As for our wishes for the game, I remember there was a poll maybe 2-3 monhts ago on celestial heavens about putting heroes in battle or not. I voted then, and think there was maybe 50% FOR heroes in battle, 25% FOR heroes in battle, but some improvement and of course 25% AGAINST. There was some 200 votes or something like that. But something strange happened in the following days. Suddenly, there was some 50% people AGAINST. I wonder what happened...

Adventure Map:
As for graphics I can say I was very disappointed when jumped from Heroes IV beautiful graphics into Heroes III. There I think they made huuuuge step forward (yes water is bad) and they shouldn't waste energy for the graphics improvement in V.
It's strategically OK to have scouts on adventure map, also you can get resources and that way not waste hero's precious movement. It is good they removed heroes chaining.

Battlefield:
Here I strongly agree with you - I like isometric. You said it right - you have the feeling of commanding your troops, and some 3D atmosphere also.

Towns:
If they want to put L6 in heroes V, they must make more recourses. Especially in multi, where regardless of the map you won't have enough money and time to build all you wanted and in the same time buy all L4.
I remember how I was suprised when entered first time in the town in HeroesIII. That really looked like the place creatures lived in...



+Qp for the poster of the month award.



____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ThE_HyDrA
ThE_HyDrA


Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
posted April 08, 2003 10:06 AM

Thanks for the posts and encouraging words :)

It seems that TheEmperor and Dushan are the only two members as interested in this topic as I am. I for one think that Heroes IV is nearly up there with Heroes II (The best in my opinion), and better than Heroes III. The changes that took place in this game were very much a risk, and I think that most of them did pay off, especially the new isometric battlefield. That was certainly one of the gems in Heroes IV, along with the graphics. However, I do hope that NWC make decisions based on the fans opinions and the overall strategic gameplay of the game itself. If it does not give that strategic element, then I think that it may have strayed from the original formula too much....

TheEmperor:

"Great post Hydra. You have some good points. I do think 4 levels is too little for creatures. The two level one creatures are both pretty weak, and it would be better if they had these creatures on different levels so that you could have 5 levels of creatures. Six levels seems perfect for HoMM 5."

Thanks. Yes, level one were quite weak compared to their senior levels, especially since the jump wasn't too great from level 2 to 3 or 3 to 4. However, the Stronghold town did have very powerful first level creatures, especially the centaur, which might have a chance of beating some of the level twos if the centaur has luck going its way. Six levels is perfect, I agree. 7 levels wih upgrades in Heroes III were too excessive, as it did mean 14 creatures per town and only 7 slots for the creatures. This did mean you had to buy another hero to accomplish ferrying problems. This was not a problem in Heroes IV since
1. Creatures don't need heroes for them to travel around the adventure map
2. There were no upgrades and only four levels, which could have been perceived as a downfall of the game.

"Heroes are simply too weak."

Yes, that is really the basic line. While Spellcasters do have very penetrating spells that can eliminate many creatures and render them helpless, they also are defeated very easily by an enemy spellcaster or a ranged creature. It is a big problem because, if you do not alter the formation, the heroes are likely to get defeated in the first round. If the formation is changed to 'tight' they might survive for 2 to 4 rounds, which is really not enough for a high level hero in a critical situation.

You are right again that Might heroes are weaker than magic heroes in combat, and even though they are slightly more difficult to defeat in battle, they are far more useless, as they usually do not have spellcasting abilties, and their only saving grace is a long range attack, which takes a very long time to get proficient in.

Heroes should be more powerful in Heroes V. They need to be a fighting force right from the beginning, since that is where the experience and level building occurs. So, my proposal is that the experience table progresses more quickly than it does, and Heroes begin with 100-200 HP, depending on their class and type.

"The thing which is good about the Heroes in HoMM 4, is that they are not that important to the other creatures in the army."

I believe this is fairly good improvement. While I believe that they should still have impact such as morale and luck, the heroes should not determine the added attack bonuses (or defense) of the creatures, since I see no way of that really happening. If this is what you are referring to, I would agree. Heroes should look after themselves, and only affect creatures with luck and morale by accomplishing chivalrous and loyal acts (or disloyal if you are necropolis )

"other improvements is that towns doesn't earn as much gold each day."

This was a good improvement, but I think NWC over did it a bit. While 4,000 was too much gold for a town to be producing, I think that a mere 1,000 is too little. 2,000 for a capitol, or whatever the highest town structure is called is perfect. 1,000 gold makes the town seem like a more diverse gold mine with creature dwellings. I would also like to believe that a large town would make a higher income than 1,000 gold.

"Also Fort, Castle etc. does not affect unit growth, and you only buy it if you have use for it."

This is good, in a way, since the Castle and Fort should affect other aspects of the town. However, the state that they were in in Heroes IV was too weak and insignificant. I hardly ever bought the citadel since I knew the computer wasn't (I'm not a ToH Player, otherwise the strategies might be different) going to come and make a siege upon my castle, and it did not provide enough benefits for 7,500 gold. While it is better that it does not affect creature growth, it should affect the income slightly, and the scouting radius of the town, etc.

Dushan:

"It's always pleasure to read your posts, Hydra.
As I played Heroes IV first, and Heroes III after (I am in minority, I guess), I will share some thoughts:"

Thanks for the kind words. Was Heroes IV the first Heroes you had ever played, or did you play Heroes II or I?

"but somehow I missed heroes in the fight."

Yes, I agree. This is also what happened to me when I installed Heroes II. I thought that the Heroes did not play a big enough role to make their levels, experience and artifacts important to use. As you say, it is also unrealistic in that the hero would not just sit on his mount and cheer whenever his/her creatures defeated the opponents. The heroes really should be involved, that way, they get to utilise their individual skills and strength, and their abilities don't go entirely to waste.

"Here I can imagine Saruman standing at the top of the hill, behind his army, well away from the battle, casting spells."

Yep, it certainly seems like the magic hero in previous series of Heroes. Even the might heroes took the part of a magic hero stance. I could just imagine the creatures rebelling to go and attack the enemy hero in Heroes II, they were so close to the action!

"It's a great pleasure you can kill enemy's hero, BUT they should have put Immortality potion limit or make heroes stronger."

In my mind, Immortality potions were just a scheme that NWC tried so that the Heroes would get killed so quickly. It was the easy was out of a difficult situation. I believe they really needed to sit down and think how to make the creatures and heroes more balanced so that the heroes lasted the duration of the battle, like most creatures. By stacking two or three immortality potions on the hero, this could be achieved. But what we're after is the whole hero to attain an equilibrium with the other creatures, so that the hero seems like a difficult opponent to defeat.

"But something strange happened in the following days. Suddenly, there was some 50% people AGAINST. I wonder what happened..."

I voted at that time, too. As I remember it, in the initial stages, there was about 85% for Heroes in Combat in general. As it progressed, that number slowly decreased, and when it ended, the final % count was about 65% for, and 35% against. This is a fair difference, but the poll should have stayed on for a longer time.

"As for graphics I can say I was very disappointed when jumped from Heroes IV beautiful graphics into Heroes III."

In contrast, I could say that I was ecstatic with the new Heroes IV graphics compared to Heroes III, Heroes IV's were so lifelike and vibrant. It was a joyous occassion

"and they shouldn't waste energy for the graphics improvement in V."

From the screenshots I've seen, they have not developed the graphics too much, but they certainly look more detailed and with a greater quality of art. The Necropolis town and the phoenix look like masterpieces. Even though they are made with the same engine, they look quite different.

"Especially in multi, where regardless of the map you won't have enough money and time to build all you wanted and in the same time buy all L4."

Yep, I would agree. Since I play on champion, one starts off with no resources and gold. This means that you must fight very difficult creatures (at the time) for resources you desperately need. I think it is just a matter of the availability of resources, or the extreme prices of level 4 dwellings.

The posts were much appreciated, it is very promising to see two people who share very similar views on the game as I do.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
dushan
dushan


Hired Hero
posted April 08, 2003 12:04 PM

Yes, my friend, Heroes IV was the first in series I have ever played. The story goes <this is offtopic I am afraid, but hope interesting enough>, that I first heard for Heroes III in 1999. It was played by my colleagues-students in the classroom at the faculty where 20 comps are in LAN. Being busy with my graduation project, I actually have never seen the game and it was good, because I think I would never finish my studies (I hope some of those students-players did).
Started working, I forgot the game, and came across Heroes IV in march 2002, when I was in the army. It made my army days a lot easier... As I served the army some 90km from my home city, I "tried" to get out during weekends, travelled to my city, played heroes till Sunday evening and then travelled back to my "L1 creature dwelling"... So our officers became L10 general, L9 thief, L12 Death Knight, L99 Necromancer, L8 Life Knight, depending on how good/bad attitude they had towards us. My friends and I were of course score of squires, with the -10 morale. My army tasks became quests like "carry these 20 bags to that point and you'll get 0.5 hour of rest". When army ended I gave myself 3 days of constant heroes playing, just for the recovery...  
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
countzero
countzero


Adventuring Hero
posted April 09, 2003 06:11 AM

I hope that this does not sound too ridiculous but imo the most far reaching innovation of H4 was the humble caravan. Also high on the list is the automatic collection of weekly resources.
Prior to H4 a lot of my time as a player was spent supervising a horde of weak feeder heroes whose sole task was to gather weekly resources and to carry creatures from one town to another, or to a place where they could be upgraded. Incidentally, thank you to the people who decided to do away with upgradeable creature dwellings.
I am especially fond of heroes on the battlefield and will be disappointed if H5 sees them revert to the role of battle spectators.
While I am on the subject of seemingly innocuous H4 innovations, let us all pay homage to the "Buy All" button.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheEmperor
TheEmperor


Hired Hero
posted April 09, 2003 11:16 PM

Quote:

"The thing which is good about the Heroes in HoMM 4, is that they are not that important to the other creatures in the army."

I believe this is fairly good improvement. While I believe that they should still have impact such as morale and luck, the heroes should not determine the added attack bonuses (or defense) of the creatures, since I see no way of that really happening. If this is what you are referring to, I would agree. Heroes should look after themselves, and only affect creatures with luck and morale by accomplishing chivalrous and loyal acts (or disloyal if you are necropolis )




Yep that's what I ment. It's just insane that one certain unit with a strong hero would be two times more powerful than the same unit with a weaker hero.

About the gold, maybe you're right and 1000 gold is little. This low gold limit might slow down the gamplay because you'll have to wait for money to buy the units you need before you can even start thinking of attacking. Also in some towns like Order the 4th level Titan requires Castle plus the standard cost of a 4th level dwelling(14000 gold + a bunch of resources). If you're a bit unlucky with the map you may use several weeks before you can afford to get your 4th level dwelling, after that you need 4000 gold(on most towns) + 2 resources to get one 4th level creature. That's four days of income. In a week you earn 7000 gold from your town and the two LVL 4 units you usually gets cost 8000. You still need money for hiring the level 1-3 creatures, and how people manage to afford to take experience instead of gold early is beyond me.
____________
Guitar, black metal and HMM4

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheEmperor
TheEmperor


Hired Hero
posted April 09, 2003 11:29 PM

CountZero, those are very good small improvements that I think we all forget to mention. The caravan is a very smart invention. Not only can it send troops to another town with one click, and you don't have to worry about your creatures getting attacked by enemy heroes and neutral creatures blocking their way. When I think of it, the Caravans in the game are really usefull.

Another thing which is cool is also if you have a two or more towns. The weakest town is getting attacked next day, but the day before the attack(when you still have the town)send some strong units in a caravan to the town. Depending on the distance between the towns, in 1-5 days troops will arrive in front of the town ready to take it back.


The Buy All function is also something the game needed. In Heroes3 you had to click on every dwelling each time to buy a unit. The Buy All button is a timesaver!
____________
Guitar, black metal and HMM4

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ThE_HyDrA
ThE_HyDrA


Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
posted April 12, 2003 10:39 AM

Heroes IV is a diverse game

There is no doubt that Heroes IV is a very complicated game, probably more so than Heroes III, and it definitely surpasses Heroes II in that respect. The changes made were phenomenal, and it was a huge risk, as I have said before, but, taking all positives and negatives in, I think Heroes IV is a superior game to Heroes III. While it did have its fair share of disappointments, it made up for them (in my eyes) with the new inovations like caravans, fog of war, and the new town system.

Dushan:

Your story is very interesting indeed. It is quite intriguing that all you and your army squadron became so attached to Heroes IV that you gave yourselves prefixes and assigned levels and creatures. My question is how did you figure out who was a necromancer and who was a knight, why did your scores of squires have -10 morale? Didn't you get along with the other members of your group?

CountZero:

"I hope that this does not sound too ridiculous but imo the most far reaching innovation of H4 was the humble caravan."

Certainly not. I have (obviously) failed to mention this ingenious design. I must say that it works very well for slower creatures, and you can compensate speed for power if you have a caravan built. While it does cost 4,000 gold to build, If you play a large, medium, or extra large map, and have more than one or two towns, this is certainly a huge feature that is a must. It could have been made more prominent if the creatures did need a hero to travel around the adventure map, since that would be their only mode of transport without a hero, and you would not have to recruit one everytime you needed your creatures to commute.

"Incidentally, thank you to the people who decided to do away with upgradeable creature dwellings."

I still have mixed feelings upon this point. It does make the game more diverse, and the towns more complex with upgrades, however, it does in fact make the process of transpoting creatures more tedious, although, it can be solved with the caravan in some cases, and especially if you could transport creatures to gates and mines. I am still undecided, but at the present moment, my vote would go for upgrades-but maybe no for all creatures. This is a very slight downfall of Heroes IV.

"I am especially fond of heroes on the battlefield and will be disappointed if H5 sees them revert to the role of battle spectators."

Yes, indeed. Heroes on the battlefield brought forth the efferfescent nature of the Heroes, flaunting their power among the weaker creatures, and getting slaughtered by the stronger creatures. It made battles more interesting, and it certainly was a thrill actually commanding your creatures' leader. It also added to the strategy in choosing skills for your hero, as well as making the distinction between might and magic greater, even if this distinction was unbalanced. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case for Heroes V. There is still time for change...

"While I am on the subject of seemingly innocuous H4 innovations, let us all pay homage to the "Buy All" button."

Yes, quite a handy option, actually. Where would I be without this button? Probably not finished as many maps and campaigns as I have.

TheEmperor:

"If you're a bit unlucky with the map you may use several weeks before you can afford to get your 4th level dwelling"

I can assure you that it can take a whole lot longer than that. On a champion level small map, I generally do not reach the fourth level because of the sheer cost of the structures, and the lack of resources I have available. I can only attain level 4 status in this scenario if there is an abundance of resources, or I play with Preserve. However, it is not only this, but the small income increases with the castle upgrades is not enough to sustain the structures price and creature growth. 2,000, with increases of around 675 gold each upgrade would be very commendable.

"You still need money for hiring the level 1-3 creatures, and how people manage to afford to take experience instead of gold early is beyond me."

Any difficulty higher than Intermediate requires you to pick gold everytime. You have to worry about hero development later. I can see how they pick experience-they play on novice.

Another aspect of Heroes IV which I have failed to mention is:

Non-Weekly Creature Growth
Quite an interesting factor in the way one develops their town and income strategies in Heroes IV. It has certainly changed the approach to buying creatures and taking castles. A negative to this plan is that it subtracts the strategy from the intensity of capturing an enemy town before 'the week' as I used to say. However, a positive is that it is difficult to predict how many and what creatures will be available for that day. I kept swapping between waspworts and mantises every week, and it was an interesting experience. Despite this deliberation, I am still undecided on whether this feature is positive or negative. Or maybe it works well both ways?

While the input has been excellent by the three who have posted here, I would like to see your opinions on the influence the changes made in Heroes IV had on the game compared with that of previous Heroes Series.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
EldarionZTG
EldarionZTG

Tavern Dweller
posted April 13, 2003 12:09 PM
Edited By: EldarionZTG on 13 Apr 2003

heroes in combat

I'd like to comment on the heroes in combat discussion. IMO they should definetly not be in combat. In real middle age battles commanders of troops would always stay at the rear overseeing, and commanding their armies. There were exceptions, but those were very rare, and are mostly unproven legends.

Gamewise, heroes in combat are just a nuissance. You have to spend most of your time worrying that they survive, and they can die soooo easily...

For me, Heroes in combat was the worst change made for Heroes IV, and I do hope they are removed in V.
They should not have gone so far in that segment.

As for other things, I belive that diversity adds to any game, and the Heroes series could only benefit from even more creatures and other things that they are already abundant with. Heroes 3 was far from being too complex, and while 6 levels is acceptable, there should definetly be upgrades or more towns...

Other small changes were great like better graphics, caravans, and other things mentioned, (I like both the Heroes 3 and 4 battlefields...), but Heroes in combat was just a big mistake, both historically and gamwise...

There, I hope my english wasn't to bad. (it's not my native language)

Oh, and just to mention one other thing. Is it not strange that a hero with one shot from his bow can kill something like 30+ creatures. What kind of an arrow is that???
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
countzero
countzero


Adventuring Hero
posted April 14, 2003 05:37 AM

Quote:
I'd like to comment on the heroes in combat discussion. IMO they should definetly not be in combat. In real middle age battles commanders of troops would always stay at the rear overseeing, and commanding their armies. There were exceptions, but those were very rare, and are mostly unproven legends.

Gamewise, heroes in combat are just a nuissance. You have to spend most of your time worrying that they survive, and they can die soooo easily...

For me, Heroes in combat was the worst change made for Heroes IV, and I do hope they are removed in V.
They should not have gone so far in that segment.

As for other things, I belive that diversity adds to any game, and the Heroes series could only benefit from even more creatures and other things that they are already abundant with. Heroes 3 was far from being too complex, and while 6 levels is acceptable, there should definetly be upgrades or more towns...

Other small changes were great like better graphics, caravans, and other things mentioned, (I like both the Heroes 3 and 4 battlefields...), but Heroes in combat was just a big mistake, both historically and gamwise...

There, I hope my english wasn't to bad. (it's not my native language)

Oh, and just to mention one other thing. Is it not strange that a hero with one shot from his bow can kill something like 30+ creatures. What kind of an arrow is that???


At first I just did not know what to do with a Hero on the field of battle. Then I played a campaign where on one level the user was forced into a position of using an army of 7 heroes. It was such great fun that I became a fan of the concept.
Heroes taking a role in battle also has the effect of making it crucial that the player makes the right choices in the development of their heroes. This adds another dimension to the game.
Quote:
In real middle age battles commanders of troops would always stay at the rear overseeing, and commanding their armies. There were exceptions, but those were very rare, and are mostly unproven legends

Ah, but it is the unproven legends (not reality) that form the basis of HOMM
Quote:
Is it not strange that a hero with one shot from his bow can kill something like 30+ creatures. What kind of an arrow is that???

LOL. Either its a magic arrow or all the creatures are standing in a line :-)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Vlaad
Vlaad


Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
posted April 14, 2003 10:52 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In real middle age battles commanders of troops would always stay at the rear overseeing, and commanding their armies. There were exceptions, but those were very rare, and are mostly unproven legends
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true. Heroes took part in battles, gained their glory and died in them. You can take any famous hero for example, from ancient Greece to Middle Age...

It was rulers ( kings, popes, sultans etc ) who stood aside.

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
night_on_earth
night_on_earth


Hired Hero
posted April 15, 2003 09:39 AM bonus applied.
Edited By: Lich_King on 3 May 2003

On heroes in battles

<Heroes are simply too weak.>

While I like the concept of heroes in battles in general, I (like many others) agree to this point. After a few games it dawned to me why heroes are offered the combat (primary) skill that often. My lowlevel spellcaster was killed seven times in victorious battles, and because he was killed, he got no xp and therefore no additional hitpoints.
An approach to solve this problem could be to give starting heroes additional hitpoints and defense value.
A more radical solution would be the player's option to let heroes participate in battles or to stay out. For example, they start in a small area not accessible to creatures, and the player can decide in the course of the battle if they march onto the battlefield or cast spells from outside.

<The thing which is good about the Heroes in HoMM 4, is that they are not that important to the other creatures in the army. A hero's stats doesn't affect the units in any way(unless you have certain artifacts on the hero). This is a good improvement.>

Certainly! Why should creatures double their efficiency when a high level hero leads them? Training effects in  battles are perfectly emulated by the tactics skill school. And that is enough.

I also like the clear distinction between might heroes and magic heores. This is another improvement to heroes3, where most heroes ended up with expert offense, archery, and tactics/ defense on the might side and expert wisdom, earth magic and water/air magic on the magic side.


<Other improvements is that towns doesn't earn as much gold each day. Which means you usually can't in the beginning of the game buy all the creatures at once when they become available. More strategy.>

I agree again. But I would like more flexibility in development. Maybe players could pursue a more economic approach by developing economic buildings in towns - in addition to the town governor, who already adds creatures and ressources. I like the idea from heroes3, that players can improve the exchange rate at market places. But I dislike the way it was in heroes3 - more towns (up to nine), better exchange rates. This was in favour of players who already had the leading edge in the game. Heroes4 got rid of this (IMHO) flaw, but at the same time economy decreased in importance and flexibility. Ressources (beside gold) are not nearly as important as in heroes3, because you can built a complete town with a fraction of ressources.

+Qp for good posting during the month !
____________
night on earth

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ThE_HyDrA
ThE_HyDrA


Admirable
Famous Hero
The Leader of all Hydras
posted April 16, 2003 08:19 AM

Heroes in Combat and other Issues

It seems that there are mixed opinions, even on what I perceived as being one of the most beneficial changes to the heroes series. I conceed that it was not implemented as well as it could have been, but it added excitement and strategy to the game nonetheless. If the system can be improved to an extent, then I see no reason why heroes shouldn't be in combat in Heroes V. Removing them from combat would be taking the easy way out in my opinion. The system can certainly be imrproved, and there have already been ideas arising as to solutions for this problem. However, this topic isn't one of them. ;

EldarionZTG: (Are you 'Darion' but with a modified name?)

"You have to spend most of your time worrying that they survive, and they can die soooo easily..."

That wouldn't be the way that I would put it. Instead, one has to think about what skills he would need in order for him to flourish in battle, and then employ those skills there. Why worry when you can directly change the course of the game? They can die so easily, but if you're smart enough, they won't.

It is also known that the hero will certainly last a few rounds before getting killed. If the army is weak enough, the hero will survive the whole combat, and gain experience. In my opinion, the main flaw is the start of the game, as heroes are often killed by rangers and flyers, and since they have only 100-150 in their early levels, it is difficult for them to gain experience. Thus, they fall behind the rest of the creatures, and by the end of the game, they are unbalanced. If they decide to heighten the strength of a hero to begin with, it may not be so difficult.

"I belive that diversity adds to any game, and the Heroes series could only benefit from even more creatures and other things that they are already abundant with."

I would have to agree. If more features are added to the game, it can only make it more strategic, as there are more things to choose from, and therefore creating more paths for the player to follow. It is also difficult to add new things and make them work, more creatures would benefit the game; but only if they are unique. Redundancy can kill a game, luckily this hasn't happened to Heroes....yet.

"There, I hope my english wasn't to bad. (it's not my native language)"

Italian is my native language, but I try to make english work. As for you, your english was excellent. Couldn't notice any mistakes.

"Oh, and just to mention one other thing. Is it not strange that a hero with one shot from his bow can kill something like 30+ creatures. What kind of an arrow is that???"

It is quite strange when you think about it. However, this game is set in the time of heroes, and heroes are capable of anything. And for that matter, so is the 'Flaming Arrow'.

Night_on_Earth:

"An approach to solve this problem could be to give starting heroes additional hitpoints and defense value."

This is a feasible solution, however, this must set the hero in good stead for the rest of the game. The might heroes would not benefit as much because defense and hit points is part of what they are trying to develop, while magic skills are the essence of a magic hero. It is possible that the magic heroes go down a different path, and their defense does not increase. To solve this, I believe defense, attack and HP should go up every level, not just HP. This could solve it, although nothing is certain if it has not been practised.

"This is another improvement to heroes3, where most heroes ended up with expert offense, archery, and tactics/ defense on the might side and expert wisdom, earth magic and water/air magic on the magic side."

Just as much it was an improvement to Heroes IV. But instead, it was exerted in a different way, it was done so on the battlefield. The might and magic heroes used so many different strategies to defeat opponents, which made the distinction even greater, in my opinion. It was certainly beneficial to the game, and made the choice of hero types highly important.

"But I would like more flexibility in development."

Wouldn't we all. But in order to get the best out of your town, you're going to have to take the best from both parts, and that means building economic structures, and building creature structures, as well as incorporating the miscellaneous strcutures in. It is very difficult, if not impossible to find 'the best' plan.
However, flexibility also depends on outisde resources, and how many mines you own. This does really play a large role in development. It is very difficult to be flexible, but a change for the worse in Heroes IV was all level structures cost the same amount of gold and resources, just in different proportions and types. There needs to be some variation before flexibility.

There have been many positive replies here, so I congratulate you for that. Continue to post at your own will.
____________
"Dragons may breathe fire, but Hydras have many heads." - The Creed of Hydras
"As the Dragon drew its breath, the Hydra pounced, swiftly but powerfully, and the Dragon was defeated.”

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
nasty
nasty


Known Hero
castor nebun si orb pe cinste
posted April 18, 2003 02:00 AM

Indeed 4 creature are to little and i dont like that you have to choose between them...many creatures havent been used at all.Another think i didnt like were the stories...there arent any interesting stories...I've recently completed Winds of War and i aspected a story..a movie...but nothing...i was dissapointed.And where are the special abilities?thats something very important....when you say gelu you think at the sharpshooters...when you say aislyin you think at meteor shower...but in heroes4 there are no such things.The spells are also not perfect..the chaos magic has all the damaging spells.The nature magic has almost only summoning..they should have at least meteor shower.
____________
You can trick me with food.Possesions mean nothing to a navajo.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Vlaad
Vlaad


Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
posted April 18, 2003 11:24 AM

While I love the current magic system, I agree on heroes. They used to be unique - that's why we loved them!
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
EldarionZTG
EldarionZTG

Tavern Dweller
posted April 18, 2003 07:04 PM

Quote:


EldarionZTG: (Are you 'Darion' but with a modified name?)





No, I'm not Darion...


Quote:


"There, I hope my english wasn't to bad. (it's not my native language)"

Italian is my native language, but I try to make english work. As for you, your english was excellent. Couldn't notice any mistakes.




Heey... we're neighbours, I'm from Croatia...




____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
van
van

Tavern Dweller
posted April 19, 2003 08:13 AM

Than we are even closer neighbours ...
Ja sam u Zagrebu.

On Heroes subject.
They are not too week. Sometimes ,they are too strong. Nothing that cant be solved via good strategy thinking ,though. Im talking about human against human , be it hotseat or online.
Singleplayer games - I dont understand how someone can find heroes week . Especially with  current, brain dead AI.
In my opinion ,Heroes on battlefield - biggest inprovement over H3 , big plus for NWC here.

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
EmperorSly
EmperorSly


Known Hero
Destroyer of Liver
posted April 20, 2003 12:47 PM

heroes in battle and elsewhere

as was mentioned, Saruman is likely to cast his spells safely inside his castle and not poke his nose into the battlefield. damn right. but then, the next day, he gathers his army and moves on to discover the world -- outside the safety of his castle. and attacks a group of elves on an empty plain in the middle of Gondor. would you say he now also has the option to stand safely aside? the best he can do is climb a tree and hope he wont get shot down. yet better would be to hide behind his trusted golems and maybe cast blur on himself. in any case, heroes must be on the battlefield, because while on travel WHERELSE COULD THEY BE?

are the heroes too weak?

on the contrary, i would say. (ok, maybe i feel so because i just finished the dogwoggle campaign. the guy was so tough i needed no creatures at all, only a couple of imps for him to ride on). seriously, a good barbarian can beat a bunch of dragons all by himself. in heroes III hero with one halfling couldnt even dream of killing a dragon.
alright, if you are a magic hero, you might have difficulties surviving any direct attacks on you, but thats why what you have your magics for -- to make sure you wont get attacked. and theres always the immortality potion. in fact, heroes are such a power that on expert difficulty i prefer to take exp from the boxes to develop the hero and forget about the creatures -- army is good but hero is better.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
EldarionZTG
EldarionZTG

Tavern Dweller
posted April 20, 2003 08:20 PM

And that is exactly why they should be removed! Heroes of M&M is just a title of the game, but that does not mean you play only with heroes.

Waging great battles with lots of different creatures was always a trademark of this game, and if heroes replace them completely than we will have nothing left but a very BAD rpg...

Creatures are the most important element of the Heroes of M&M series. And that's a fact.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1036 seconds