Heroes of Might & Magic 4 Defense Thread

[Lacrymas]

Yeah, like I've said before, HoMM4 commercially failed because it was different from 3, not because it was a bad game or decline, and that's what got people's panties in a twist. They also probably disliked the lack of superficial features, like unit upgrades. Seriously, what does that add? Nobody uses unupgraded units once upgraded ones are available, so it adds this unnecessary middleman to the whole ordeal. HoMM4 does have a rushed quality to it that is most evident in the balance department (genies, vampires, Grandmaster Archery), but it still outshines 3 in aspects that matter, it just needed 3-6 more months in the oven to really bring out the juiciness. Maybe Equilibris fixes that, I'll use it when I get to 4 and see for myself.

This series is indeed a stagnant beast, ever-failing to recapture the audience of HoMM3 and running itself into the ground more and more with each samey entry because of that.

 

[CptMace]

I wouldn't ignore the new engine to explain heroes IV poor reception.
I think it was one of the main complaints back then, because of the visual aspect partly inherited from it. Town screens are much less impressive than the former game and are to be noted as well.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Up next on the codex: IV is better than III cause it has less factions!

 

[Lacrymas]

The number of factions doesn't solve the design problem, it just adds to the amount of superficiality. I'm actually willing to listen to why people think HoMM4 is bad, if they think that at all. "It has less factions" isn't a very compelling argument.

 

[hello friend]

The biggest problem with HoMM4 was it's soullessness. The plastic look killed the mood. The second biggest problem was combat heroes, particularly archery focused ones.

This is also the issue with the new King's Bounty games. Horrendous mobile graphics and chests scattered about the tactical map.

For all of the simplicity of it's gameplay, the 2d and 3rd HOMMs (the third one especially), had a magic to them of the sort that few games do. And some of the campaigns were pretty good on the story side, although HOMM4 is the clear winner on that front, solely by virtue of the Gauldoth Half-Dead campaign.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Up next on the codex: people asking with a straight face why a sequel to a super popular mp/tournament game released without mp and rmg was not warmly received by the community.

 

[Dr Skeleton]

I'm actually willing to listen to why people think HoMM4 is bad, if they think that at all. "It has less factions" isn't a very compelling argument.

Combat is a giant clusterfuck. Heroes (horribly implemented and balanced, not needed in the first place), sieges, balancing, the angle and the lack of combat grid give me no clearly visible paths between obstacles and no clearly visible positions to defend heroes or archers. The ugly graphics and tons of other smaller problems didn't help. 4 had some improvements over 3, there are parts of it that were well done, but I can't enjoy it as a whole.

 

[Lacrymas]

You have to go into more details. "Combat is a giant clusterfuck, sieges, balancing, the angle" doesn't tell me anything. Yes, Archery is overpowered and so are vampires and genies, we've been over this (fixed by Equilibris?), but so are Vampire Lords, Vidomina, Galthran and the entire Conflux in HoMM3. Also, it may come as a shock to some people, but I don't think the graphics are bad or that the game is soulless, quite the contrary, the graphics are charming and the map is colorful (maybe a bit too colorful from time to time), so yeah, graphics don't bother me at all.

 

[Lujo]

You have to translate it for it to make sense. From my experience talking with a bunch of Heroes III fans these are the translations:

"Combat is a clusterfuck" - "Old combat was a simple, clear affair, where the most important thing was counting hexes so that you can strike the other guy first. It's not like that in IV, and this bothers me."
"Horribly implemented and balanced heroes" - "There are hero units on the battlefiled, and there used to not be any." Although there's thruth to this argument because the combat capabilities of particular types of hero were wildly different.
"Sieges" - "Upgrading castles didn't get you anywhere, there was no catapults and it was too different", although, again, the Heroes IV sieges really aren't the best. They had the right idea - make sieges less random and revolve less about who has the catapult skill (old sieges were pretty silly), but the way it ended up being implemented was very meh. In a way folks didn't like, too - your basic Heroes III fan thinks having his archers sit in an unreachable / untouchable position and massacre the other guys is great (Why do I only get to do that while fighting in a castle? I should be able to always have my ranged troops untouchable by the enemy!).
"Balancing" - well, thruth here, but what they often mean is "Having too many "clearly better options" when developing cities kinda made also having fewer units per city available not feel like an improvement"
"The angle" - "I'm used to the old angle" also often means "Mah hexes!"
"No clearly visible positions to defend heroes and archers" - It's a variation on "Oh, noes, mah hexes!", if you take hexes away people who're used to "strategy" (tactics?) of Heroes I - III get very upset. Heroes II and III were games of "Step". It's a child's playground game where each person gets one move at a time, and if the other person manages to step on your foot, they win. Heroes IV wasn't such a game.
- "Ugly graphics" - It's a bit too colofrul and has a strange art direction, that's true, but the main problem is that it has "unconvincing" graphics. It looks more like a cartoon than it's prececessor and this was taken to be a big step back. Folks who like their Heroes III want to feel like they're playing a serious, "realistic" game. The important word there, though, is "feel".

 

[Dr Skeleton]

You have to go into more details. "Combat is a giant clusterfuck, sieges, balancing, the angle" doesn't tell me anything. Yes, Archery is overpowered and so are vampires and genies, we've been over this (fixed by Equilibris?), but so are Vampire Lords, Vidomina, Galthran and the entire Conflux in HoMM3. Also, it may come as a shock to some people, but I don't think the graphics are bad or that the game is soulless, quite the contrary, the graphics are charming and the map is colorful (maybe a bit too colorful from time to time), so yeah, graphics don't bother me at all.

For start: I look at this and I can't tell where units can pass and where they can't. I can't tell how many units at a time can fit between these random shrubs and rocks, I can't tell how many units I'd need to from a wall to protect my hero or form a chokepoint. Does the barbarian take more room than the halfling or is it just a bigger model that takes the same amount of "space"? And that's without archers and bigger units. Compare that to how easy to read the combat screen is in any other HoMM game or most TBS, off the top of my head I can't think of one where it was done this badly. This isn't "muh hexes", having clearly defined fields for units to occupy and seeing what's passable and what's not is basic functionality in a game like this.

"Old combat was a simple, clear affair, where the most important thing was counting hexes so that you can strike the other guy first. It's not like that in IV, and this bothers me."

"No clearly visible positions to defend heroes and archers" - It's a variation on "Oh, noes, mah hexes!", if you take hexes away people who're used to "strategy" (tactics?) of Heroes I - III get very upset. Heroes II and III were games of "Step". It's a child's playground game where each person gets one move at a time, and if the other person manages to step on your foot, they win. Heroes IV wasn't such a game.

You won't get an argument from me here, HoMM3 suffers from the old "go first, haste all, attack first, win" problem. It has nothing to do with my problem with HoMM4 battles though.

"There are hero units on the battlefiled, and there used to not be any." Although there's thruth to this argument because the combat capabilities of particular types of hero were wildly different.

If you're going to do such a drastic change for a 4th game in the series you'd better do it well and they did it anything but well. Low level heroes die way too easily, while high level ones are overpowered and completely fuck up the balance with their damage output with free (or virtually free) resurrecting when compared to regular units that take time and money to buy. Heroes on the battlefield COMPLETELY change the value of units, how combat is played, and consequently how the entire game is played. There are other TBS where commanders are units that take part in combat and can die and yet somehow only in HoMM4 I find it so frustrating and poorly balanced. Some of it is because I don't think HoMM should have heroes on the battlefield in the first place, sure, but mostly it was just done really badly.

The graphics aren't all bad, much of the world map looks pretty good actually, towns and the UI are passable, I mostly take issue with unit models and portraits, those are really, really bad for the most part. Compare that to how HoMM 2 or 3 looks, how the entire game shares a similar feel and quality.

And again, I think HoMM 4 had some neat ideas and improvements over 1-3, the difference is I can play and enjoy HoMM 1-3 (maybe even 5) just fine despite their simplicity and problems, HoMM 4 I can't.

 

[hello friend]

Dude, you sound like a liberal.

"Anyone who has a different opinion than me is speaking in mooncode, and this is what they *really* mean:"

 

[theSavant]

- "Ugly graphics" - It's a bit too colofrul and has a strange art direction, that's true, but the main problem is that it has "unconvincing" graphics. It looks more like a cartoon than it's prececessor and this was taken to be a big step back. Folks who like their Heroes III want to feel like they're playing a serious, "realistic" game. The important word there, though, is "feel".

Uhm... what? Actually I liked the art style in HOMM4 because it looked less like cartoon. It looked kinda "real". HOMM5 was a step back, because it was cartoony again.
This depends on the personal taste however. I dislike cartoon style everywhere except in TV cartoons or books.

 

[Lacrymas]

The problem I see here is that you are trying to force the gameplay style of 1 to 3 into 4 and getting frustrated because it doesn't work that way anymore. I don't think you CAN encircle-block ranged units at all anymore, there's also the fact it still works on a hex-based grid, it just isn't as obvious, you can enable the hexes in the options (like with other titles), I think. The hexes are most obvious when dealing with targeted spells. The heroes in battle thing is indeed implemented in an iffy way, especially the immense gap between low and high levels, but that is an issue of numbers (fixed in Equilibris?), rather than an issue of design philosophy. Yes, having heroes on the battlefield does indeed change how the entire game is played, why is that a bad thing? I'd think that was the point and a way to shake up the by-then stale formula.

What I agree with is the lack of catapult in sieges and consequently the lack of destructible walls. The gate creates a funnel for melee units and it isn't very elegant. I have no idea why they thought that was a good idea, it's clearly not an issue of budget, as a catapult model already exists. They could've made the catapult skill baseline. Even if the catapult thing is removed, we still should've been able to destroy walls somehow.

Anyway, what I think is happening, like I said, is that people are trying to play by HoMM3's rules, but those rules have changed.

 

[Dr Skeleton]

The problem I see here is that you are trying to force the gameplay style of 1 to 3 into 4 and getting frustrated because it doesn't work that way anymore. I don't think you CAN encircle-block ranged units at all anymore, there's also the fact it still works on a hex-based grid, it just isn't as obvious, you can enable the hexes in the options (like with other titles), I think.

I'm almost sure there was no grid when I played it, but apparently it was included in an add-on. And from what I can find it looks like this:

Spoiler

No hexes, no squares, just a tile pattern that doesn't show impassible terrain and units that have oddly shaped spots they occupy (the orc is 5x5 without corner tiles, and the beholder is a 4x4 square, nomads and centaurs seem to be rectangles), it doesn't even show the exact spot the unit will occupy after move. Playable? Sure. Good? No. Positioning units in HoMM4 is a fuck up on a fundamental level.

The heroes in battle thing is indeed implemented in an iffy way, especially the immense gap between low and high levels, but that is an issue of numbers (fixed in Equilibris?), rather than an issue of design philosophy. Yes, having heroes on the battlefield does indeed change how the entire game is played, why is that a bad thing? I'd think that was the point and a way to shake up the by-then stale formula.

Is the idea of heroes in combat bad in itself? Not necessarily. Was the implementation bad? Yes. You asked why people think HoMM4 is bad, I won't give it points for trying to "shake up the by-then stale formula" if they did it badly.

Anyway, what I think is happening, like I said, is that people are trying to play by HoMM3's rules, but those rules have changed.

Yeah, but those new rules were often wonky and badly implemented and people are naturally opposed to change in established series. Most will take shitty aspects they know in HoMM3 over shitty aspects in HoMM4 because they're used to HoMM3, maybe it's not fair but the devs must've realized it. You'll get people bitching about the smallest changes no matter what (like removing unit upgrades, I think it was one of the good changes but for a lot of people it was a big deal), but if you also rushed the game and really fucked up some of the changes? That's why people say HoMM4 is bad.

 

[Archibald]

On one hand grid was kinda fucked up in HoMM4 and you can't deny it, but on the other hand I played lots of HoMM4 and I don't remember it ever being an actual problem. Would it be better if it showed impassible terrain? Sure, but at the same time you play couple of maps and you get a feel of what is and what isn't passable. And well you can use your brain too, like if there is a tree I probably can't stand on it.

 

[Lacrymas]

Dr Skeleton, you make it sound worse than it actually is. The weird grid never bothered me and it never diminished my ability to execute tactics and have never really been confused of what obstacles can be passed and what can't. Yes, you can't protect units by encircling them with other units anymore, I think that's a neutral change, it just changes up how you use ranged units. The heroes being somewhat overpowered on higher levels only really goes into play in the campaigns, where they do indeed wreck everything at one point (I really need to check out Equilibris) and can clear entire maps by themselves. That's true in Age of Wonders 3 too, though, but you can't get that powerful in multiplayer.

Having these issues in mind, which I really don't think are that big of a deal, especially in practice, I still do think people say HoMM4 is bad only because it changed the formula. Yes, certain aspects of it could've been handled better, but that's true for every game ever, the issues people bring up aren't gamebreaking or prevent your enjoyment on any kind of fundamental level. The system is fine, the numbers is what haven't been tested and needed tweaking, especially some high level hero skills, but those have probably been handled by Equilibris. Maybe Maculo can shed some light on that.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I still do think people say HoMM4 is bad only because it changed the formula.

Repeat it twenty more times and it just might become true. It's nice that you like it, but people say IV is bad because it's bad. As a homm game and as an "innovahsun!" game. Why is V, with its horrible, eye-raping visuals, taking dump on homm lore and plethora of its own problems, generally appreciated? Because it actually innovated in a good, thoughtful way. Initiative, skill wheel, special abilities for every faction, the branching upgrades from the standalone addon - all of these are very cool and each one of these things is separately worth more than all the stillborn ingenuity of IV. And this is coming from a grizzled veteran of the series who has played III for literally thousands of hours. I don't really blame the devs for it, I think the game was obviously rushed due to the financial situation of the publisher. I mean, do I have to spell out "homm game without multiplayer" for you. But I'm not giving any brownie points for that. And innovation for innovation's sake is cancer.

Also, acting like you know what other people think and acting surprised that the community did not appreciate stuff like changing the unique graphics of the series to a tired iso of every other strategy game ever makes you look super retarded. You might want to consider stopping.

That's true in Age of Wonders 3 too

Lol, no it's not. This was a problem in 1 and 2, but 3 fixed it perfectly and the overall power level of heroes and how they work well with properly picked stack is very spot on and satisfying. There is absolutely no comparison with how heroes work in IV.

 

[Archibald]

I think you quoted wrong person somehow.

 

[Lacrymas]

Your demagoguery still says nothing, though. You can proclaim decline all you want, but you still haven't said anything to back it up. Bolting on additional features in 5 that only bloat the system is not innovation. Anyway, you can rush a lot of the single player campaign maps in AoW3 with only what's-her-face, the elf rogue, at least her campaign.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

You can proclaim decline all you want, but you still haven't said anything to back it up.

It doesn't need any backing up, it's an age old discussion and you didn't bring a single new thing to it, apart from sheer dementia like this:

Bolting on additional features in 5 that only bloat the system is not innovation.

Suuuure

 

[Lacrymas]

Link me some discussion on the matter if it's such a widespread debate. With more substantial arguments than "muh graphics" and "a lot of people hated it", of course.

 

[Lujo]

Equilibris didn't fix issues with heroes, what it did is attampt (and succeed somewhat) at making different units more viable choices when choosing which buildings to upgrade. The problem with heroes wasn't just level disparity, it was that some heroes were clearly better at combat than others, and since not all kinds of heroes were available to everyone this did cause problems. In multiplayer we restricted immortality potions to one per battle locally, it worked fine.

Also, one thing folks don't usually mention which confused the hell out of people intially trying to play heroes IV is things like the marketplace being available only through a menu and not through a building. Sounds silly, and it's obvious why they did it - they wanted to reduce the unneccessary building bloat. But this made people, and I'm not kidding, think they took out the marketplace althogether. They couldn't find it, didn't understand english very well so menus might as well not have been there at all, and there you have it.

 

[Dr Skeleton]

you make it sound worse than it actually is.

I don't think I do. One of the worst things I remember about it was either being unable to pass where I thought I could or getting attacked from where I thought there was a wall or a creature blocking the way. And if that screenshot is anything to go by they’ve only slightly improved it. You get better at it the more you play, yeah, but it never works as well as it should. When I look at the combat screen I should be thinking how do I use the terrain to position the units to my advantage from the get-go, not "can I fit that fat guy between the rock and the shrub and will that block the enemy guy or will he slip by because he’s 1.5 tiles smaller?".

Yes, you can't protect units by encircling them with other units anymore, I think that's a neutral change

I don't. It’s not like it was a deliberate decision on their part, more like a by-product of shoddy design. You CAN block the line of fire or protect units, you just can’t do it consistently within clear rules, that’s the problem.

I still do think people say HoMM4 is bad only because it changed the formula.

Believe what you want. I’m sure some people disliked it on principle just because they had changed stuff but I gave you a number of examples and all you've got is "it's not THAT bad" and talk about innovating and other games. Ok, maybe it’s not that big of a deal to you, but you can’t dismiss it all as HoMM3 fans disliking change when you yourself admit problems exist. Do you think HoMM4 would have been more successful if it wasn’t a HoMM game? Because I think it would’ve been remembered as a bad HoMM knockoff instead of a bad HoMM game.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Also, one thing folks don't usually mention which confused the hell out of people intially trying to play heroes IV is things like the marketplace being available only through a menu and not through a building. Sounds silly, and it's obvious why they did it - they wanted to reduce the unneccessary building bloat. But this made people, and I'm not kidding, think they took out the marketplace althogether. They couldn't find it, didn't understand english very well so menus might as well not have been there at all, and there you have it.

Requesting cool story bro button.

 

[Lacrymas]

Dr Skeleton, of course I admit there are problems, I said so in the beginning, but I also don't think 3 is some Holy Grail of design and perfect in every way, only ideologues believe that. The only really big issue with 4 that can potentially turn the tables is the overpoweredness of high level heroes and the abuse of immortality potions. It is indeed shitty to lose a game because your opponent had more of those potions than you. You can do what Lujo does and restrict their usage in MP games. It's not like Conflux and Vampire Lords weren't routinely banned in HoMM3 games. It's also worth noting that you need a loooot of xp to get to the really crazy stuff and I'd wager most MP games didn't last long enough, but I only have a limited sample size of my own experiences with hotseat.

I don't know what to say about the grid, it never bothered me and I haven't registered it as an issue at all.