Heroes of Might & Magic 4 Defense Thread

[Lacrymas]

Caution, Lacrymas, you're starting to sound like a particular bethestard who recently signed up on the codex.

You mean that Fallout 3 is better than 2 guy? No, I don't. I'm just saying there are no arguments presented by some people and that "lol, Oblivion" is a strawman, while HoMM4 opponents think they've actually contributed substantial value in this discussion and they are automatically and fundamentally the "winners" who are dealing with unruly rabble that isn't worth the effort.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

This thread has reached seriously demented levels of idiocy. Just nuke it before someone important sees it and codex gets degraded to tier three.

 

[CptMace]

yes, the only thing that makes it "perhaps" to me is the fact that all the campaigns are nearly the same plot-wise, which is necessary cuz of the mirror matched maps

"hello i'm [x], i'd really like to be more important in my land of [y], but i can't cuz of that asshole [z] who is holding me back!!!" - and then usually it turns out [z] is a traitor, you vanquish him, get the girl, and all live happily ever after

^ homm4 campaigns in a nutshell

i'd hazard saying that shadow of deff also had pretty strong writing/plots, especially all the shenanigans by Sandro leading up to the start of restoration of erathia

Yeah I figured you had sod in mind. I consider homm4 to be the logical evolution of its narration and campaign structure, with lots of dialogues and a focus on the personal story of a specific character.
Shadow of Death's quality has a lot to do with the character of Sandro himself rather than the overall writing imo, whereas homm4 campaigns have very solid writing overall. You're right about their systematic structure though.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Caution, Lacrymas, you're starting to sound like a particular bethestard who recently signed up on the codex.

You mean that Fallout 3 is better than 2 guy? No, I don't. I'm just saying there are no arguments presented by some people and that "lol, Oblivion" is a strawman, while HoMM4 opponents think they've actually contributed substantial value in this discussion and they are automatically and fundamentally the "winners" who are dealing with unruly rabble that isn't worth the effort.

you come here saying that, and I quote, "[HoMM4] still outshines 3 in aspects that matter" and expect to be taken seriously

which aspects would that be if it's not the completely busted unit balance, the huge drop in unit variety within factions, the retarded participation of heroes, the idiotic castle sieges, the dumbed down spellbooks, the much less readable overland map, the loose munsters running around the maps, the clunky as hell battle maps, no hero specialisations, no level 1 hero differentiations, and the list goes on

no, really, what are these "aspects that matter" and how does it outshine the previous heroes games in these because now i'm getting morbidly curious

you are trying to bend reality and react to everything with "lol grognards :^)", the oblivion comparison here is 100% apt

 

[cvv]

Choosing between various buildings is always a factor, it's not upgrade specific.

Exactly.

Choosing between various buildings is a key mechanics, it's not excess fat.

 

[Lacrymas]

no, really, what are these "aspects that matter" and how does it outshine the previous heroes games in these because now i'm getting morbidly curious

I'll refer you to this post.

Exactly.

Choosing between various buildings is a key mechanics, it's not excess fat.

It is excess fat when it only adds more of the things that are already there. HoMM1 also doesn't have upgrades, yet I constantly have to choose between getting units or buildings, especially the mage guild, so that dimension is already there, piling more stuff on top of it is simply bloat. And again, you don't use unupgraded units ever when upgraded ones are available, so it slows down the game for no gain. What I am saying is that it is inelegant and faux-complexity that doesn't have practical application.

 

[Lujo]

Upgrades were really just bloat. They tried to make them something beneficial to non-spellcasting castles when they added them, or alternatively give lousy units to spellcasting guys but with the option to get them better with upgrades. In practice it didn't work very well. They were a clunky and unnecessary thing.

As for some ways in which H4 "sucked" as listed here

"completely busted unit balance" - Most other Heroes games didn't have enough unit variety to have balance issues and still managed to have plenty of balance issues. There's just nothing going for Inferno in Heroes 3, for example.
"the huge drop in unit variety" - not really true, the combat system (and spellcasting) made units way more distinct than they ever were. Heroes IV has startling ammount of variety with fewer troops per castle, and being able to edit who is in your army and take some guys out and put some guys in on the fly actually leads to more varied combat than any other Heroes game ever had.
"the retarded participation of heroes" - meh, it wasn't nearly as bad as folks make it out to be.
"the idiotic castle sieges" - that they were. Although they were pretty retarded all the way from Heroes 1. These were just retarded in different ways.
"the dumbed down spellbooks" - No, there was never a deeper, more interesting and meaningful spell system in a Heroes game before or after. You can bash Heroes 4 on many fronts, but this isn't one of those.
"the much less readable overland map" - yep, that it was, and IMO ugly, but being able to split individual units off combined with caravarns was so good all could be forgotten.
"the loose munsters running around the maps" - yeah, that was a bad idea. You could turn that off, mind you.
"the clunky as hell battle maps" - "MAH HEXES!"
"no hero specialisations" - "MAH ENGDAME SPELLS AT LVL1" (And there sure were specialisations)
"no level 1 hero differentiations" - What are you even talking about? A Lvl 1 Druid was a completely different thing than a lvl 1 Priest, like, so different that you were essentially playing a different game.
"and the list goes on" - Yes, except it only continues along the way you're going if you take even harder drugs.

--

Also, don't even bother trying to interacti with the vaguely polish sounding Z guy, he's just an (unintentional?) troll. There's noting but deep fanboyism in there.

 

[Mastermind]

Why would you ever want to drop unit upgrades?

They are pure flavor. It's kinda cool to have them, but they're not needed and serve no real purpose other than to add stuff for the sake of adding stuff. homm4 was obv working on limited resources, it's an obvious thing to drop

Why would you fork units of the same tier at castles AND make them so ridiculously unbalanced? (My favourite example is the choice between minotaurs and medusas - nigga, why would you ever consider minos)

Because minos are the best meatshield in the game. in many scenarios I could take on armies I would otherwise not be able to take because I split up mino stacks and their block ability gave the rest of my army a couple extra rounds to beat them down.

Why would you drop spell effects scaling with magic skills (like omni-slow/omni-haste)?

They do scale with magic skill. Every magic type has a skill that boosts its effects. sounds like you're butthurt you can't cast unbalanced mass spells on the cheap anymore. i guess imbalance isn't so bad when heroes 3 does it.

The list goes on. And then you have shit like castle sieges which are super-terrible, OP heroes in combat, critters moving around the overworld without heroes, eeeeetttttcccccccc.

None of these are problems, they're just things you don't like because HOMM3 did them differently.

they also abused the retarded map design from Shadow of Death, aka "enemy castle is behind a border gate and also happens to have a one-way teleport to your base, HF!"

Only legit complaint in this thread.

 

[Darth Roxor]

 

[Black_Willow]

I love how this fanboy Roxor got pwned ITT and now everybody everywhere shall know that HOMM4 >>> HOMM3.
Take that fanboys!

 

[FeelTheRads]

"the clunky as hell battle maps" - "MAH HEXES!"

Why is every imbecile using the same imbecilic strawman?

So what if "muh hexes"? What it actually means is that an element of the combat was gutted.
And it's got nothing to do with hexes. Precise positioning simply was fucked up in this game.

I think H4 is great, but defending its stupid design choices with retarded shit like "but it doesn't matter anyway!!!!11" is just Bethestard level of retardness.

Idiotic fanboys can't seem to understand that a game can be good even if it has flaws. You don't need to defend every stupid shit the game has.

Of course, the "spells don't scale" criticism is pretty much retarded as well. The system is simply different and it's better with each faction having completely different spells and thus different tactics and utility spells that are actually useful.

 

[Citizen]

First off I gotta say that I see HoMM1 as not only the best heroes game but also my favourite TBS, it was already 20 years old when I got to try it after playing HoMM4. Its only after playing HoMM1 that I realized the wasted potential of HoMM4.

I kept hearing people saying HoMM3 was the big heroes game a bit like BG2 vs BG so I was super exited to jump in it. Sadly its been quite a disappointment so far. Ive been through all of the big maps and was shocked by the lack of interesting building choices.

Units are dull and mostly feel one dimensional, hexes are boring, magick system is bare bone, campaigns are dull and super linear/fedex style, town themes are dull, level design and map layout are uncreative, written lore is almost nonexistent... this is hardly a proper heroes game, or even a proper TBS like people claim.

I get it that HoMM3 is turn-based and stuff but the overall design is so poor (especially writing) that it fails to use it's potential. And the whole tone of the game is such a joke that I dont see how it could ever be called a classic, even Warlords 4 wasnt as retarded as what I have seen in HoMM3.

I know that HoMM4 isnt a classic heroes but I find it to be more in the spirit of the series than HoMM3 which is a total joke.

 

[Deflowerer]

I think you'd like HOMM2 the most then.

 

[Mastermind]

i like heroes 1 especially since i played the shit out of the gameboy version* but heroes 2 is just heroes 1 with better graphics and more shit.


*i just remembered that i sold my gba and all my games in a fit of insanity and stupidity. it still hurts.

 

[Darth Roxor]

heroes 2 is just heroes 1 with excess fat

fixed

 

[Mastermind]

some of it (like unit upgrades ) is, but it also adds two new castle types and some other stuff that is genuinely new and enriches the base experience.

 

[Black_Willow]

Heroes 7 is Heroes 3 without excess fanbase and copies sold.

 

[CryptRat]

I played a lot of 1,2,3,4 and the reason why I consider 4 the worst of the bunch (I think it's still fun) is that they took unbalanced units to an unfun level. Overall I'd say I'm neutral towards other changes, I think they make the game worse but as a one-shot they're not all bad changes, but the unit unbalance is ridiculous.

Talking only about single player, in HoMM 2, for example, there is at least one small map scenario (with the barbarians) where I ridiculously relied on Vampire lords (and on enemy AI), but Vampire lords were not extremely stronger overall and unlocking them early was very expensive and a choice you wouldn't even make in bigger maps if you know you'd got some time for things to get serious. But genies in HoMM4 are just utterly ridiculous, they make single player close to impossible to lose, that's not even close to comparable.

 

[Lujo]

Homm2 has serious flaws. Like big fat ones. The original heroes (as in factions in HOMM1) were balanced with how sieges work in HOMM1 and with the size of the battlefield from HOMM1. Then they kept the factions the same - but changed the size of the battlefield and especially how sieges work. That's not even getting into the spellpoint system which only works to some degree because you're obliged by law to put wells all over the map. AND they didn't have the good sense to introduce ranged penalties and flying penalties. Its spell system is still better (read not ridiculous) as the system in 3 was, but so many things were mishandled it's not even funny.

A proper HOMM1 mod which added the wizard and necro (original KB necro which was a mix of inferno and necro units), made hero bonuses (pathfinding, morale, and such) clearly visible, improved the AI a bit and added/tweaked a few small things would make a better game than H2 or H3 were, honestly. The only saving grace 2 has is some appeal to it's graphics as compared to the later instalments, but as far as development goes the transition from 1 to 2 was more messed up than the transition from 3 to 4.

 

[Lujo]

Oh, and one cool thing about HOMM1 is that it's not exactly casual.

 

[Maculo]

Took me a while to find this one:

 

[Lacrymas]

I like how Ubisoft is impotently flailing its arms in a vacuum and nobody caring.

 

[GrainWetski]

 

[thesheeep]

I just love his videos. So full of hilarious and funny bullshit, yet still informative and bringing up many valid points.

I couldn't really get into HoMM4, but maybe it would be different today.
Looking back at 5-7, four definitely did one thing right and that was try and change things. The series is dead now because they listened to "fans" and made the same game three times in a row - of course, the bugs, Ubisoft crap and terrible art style didn't help, either.

 

[Darth Roxor]

The series is dead now because they listened to "fans" and made the same game three times in a row

what the fuck even