Looking Forward: Final impressions on H5 and a vision of H6

[Qurqirish Dragon]

After a brief hiatus from Heroes to play some games on my PS2 (Rogue Galaxy) and Wii (Super Mario Galaxy), I finally got around to installing and playing TotE. I have now finished the campaigns, and figured that it might be a good idea to make a companion thread to this one, when I discussed my views on Heroes IV, having my first experience with it come after playing HoF.

Obviously, many of my statements in that thread reflected my views of Heroes V, and so I needed to do more than just rehash old points. Thus, in addition to commenting on the improvements to H5 with the TotE expansion, I thought I would also note what improvements I expect to see in the next heroes game.

One note of warning: I am not going to try to make my opinions here mesh with those posted before. It is possible that my opinions have changed, and I will not apologize for that.

Unlike the other thread, nobody should have any worries about spoilers in their comments, as I have already finished all the campaigns.

Onward to the graphics of H5, as it is the easiest point to handle:

Although personal tastes vary (I personally still prefer the more cartoonish graphics of the early Heroes games), H5 definitely has the best quality of graphics of the series. This is, of course, to be expected, as graphics will always improve\ as time goes by.
However, this does go a little further than just the basic aesthetics. The 3-D enviroment made for a very different experience in exploration, and once used to it, I think it made the adventure-map portion more enjoyable.
Now, what did TotE do? Basically it added more objects onto the adventure map. More variety is always welcome. The expansion of the town rosters by 50% had a chance to be either good or bad. Fortunately, not all the creatures were simple recolorings / retexturings, but beyond that, there were only a couple units where I really didn't see any difference between the creature models. Overall, it was well done.

What do I expect for H6? A few things. Some of these are almost mandatory, others more in line with my personal preferences:

1) Once 3D, always 3D. Although there are some games that (temporarily) regress to older formats (Legend of Zelda: four swords, as an example), most games, once in a 3-D environment, will remain that way. I don't think much needs to be changed with the H5 appearance in this respect, although the ability to zoom out a little more than current would be appreciated.
2) resolution: Again, it is obvious that the higher resolutions of low-priced monitors will cause a desire for more detail. What I hope they do, however, is support more widescreen format displays. None of the display modes in H5 come even close to the aspect ratio of my monitor (8:5). This causes some distortion while playing, as they also did not program it to pad the sides with dead space in unsupported resolutions.
3) Creature models. They did a good job with these, again subject to taste in style. I would like to see more original interpretations on creatures rather than borrowed ones, but that isn't too major a concern.
4) Town graphics: H5 is a step in the right direction from H2 through H4, but I still miss the truly "lived in" look from H1.Many dwellings had an animation including a representative creature that was generated there. It really made the towns come to life for me.
5) Cinematics: Face it, one there, they will always remain. TotE greatly improved the quality of animation over the earlier H5 pieces. I would expect this to continue.

Overall, aside from minor enhancements (such as male and female models for heroes), Little work needs to be done on the basic engine, and so hopefully more resources can be applied to other aspects, which I will comment on in later posts.

[ThunderTitan]

TBS players and graphics...

[Elvin]

Cinematics are alright as long as the text boxes return in campaigns. About originality sure but I'd rather not see the treants like the sorry excuse of a tree ant again Originality is supposed to be for the better.

I'd mainly want better story, decent AI, bug elimination and a more complete beginning. As long as they get those I'm satisfied. Oh and less gaps between factions in early and lategame. I like dynamic balance but that's ridiculous.

[Metathron]

TBS players and graphics...

What's wrong with wanting decent, or even *gasp* good, graphics in a TBS?

[ThunderTitan]

Nothing... too bad your definition of good is on a 5 year delay...

[Qurqirish Dragon]

Before I begin this segment, I want to respond to the few replies above - I took on graphics because it was "the easiest point to handle" Not the most important. Not the least. Just the easiest. I will be covering one point in each post. If you look at this post's subject, you will see my next point is the heroes.

Each version of heroes has modified the way heroes improve and their roles within the game. I have gone over the good and bad points in the various systems alread, and so I will just, once again, comment on the TotE changes. There are not many things new to say, but what there is, is important.

First, Ultimate skills (and I mean the "!" skill, not the 4th level of the racial ability) were made a lot easier to obtain. First by having fewer requirements (6 skills fewer than before). This is a very good thing, as other than in campaigns, it was very hard to even gain enough levels to learn the ultimate. I think these skills are nice, and needed a faster route to really be useful in a general map. There is a caveat to this statement, however - I get into that below.
The addition of the memory mentor also made getting these (or any other desired skill) easier. This also played as a double-edged sword, however. This site runs the risk of making heroes more cookie-cutter like, as you can take away any skills you don't like, and so the "one true path" to a great hero may develop. I think this site should be used sparingly in user maps, and well guarded.
An example of the problem: On map 2 of Zehir's campaign (I didn't have enough levels on map 1), I used the site to get arcane omniscience. Add to that luck (usually very useful) and light maigc (for those mass-buffs), and I had very little difficulty at doing anything that was restricted to a non-zehir hero.
The new mix of skills and abilities is also an improvement. With as many as five skills now available at the first-tier (the ourtermost ring on the skillwheel; ones that don't require other abilities first), there are a lot more choices of how to develop. I printed out the skill wheels (and looking at them now, I notice there are some skills with 6 abilities in the second ring), and am quite happy to see that there are definite sections that have more diversity than others, based on hero class. More on this when I get to H6 heroes.
One skill, however, is dangerous - but as with the memory mentor, probably only in campaigns - and that is, coincidentally enough, the "mentoring" skill. This skill alone makes it much easier to hold onto gained territory, as once you capture a town, you hire a new hero, and instantly give him (or her) a dozen or more levels. As an example, in the last mission of TotE, once I could summon Zehir's town, I was able to sintantly train a new hero up to level 30. If I had desired, I could have given that hero Arcane Omniscence (instead, as it was going to protect the town, if necessary, I gave the hero war machines, luck, light, dark, and destructive magic, but that is more for a strategy article) At lower levels, where experience hasn't taken the exponential jump between levels, This can still work very nicely - particularly if the main hero needs Scholar to learn mentoring, as the new hero can then immediately get all the spells that the main hero learned - including gaining the appropriate skills from the free levels for 3rd and higher circle spells.

Of course, there is still the debate about the hero's role in battle - on or off the field. I personally believe that part of the HoMM style really needs the hero to remain off the battlefield, in a supportive role as in H5. I think having a hero on the battlefield works better in a Disciples-style game, where every individual unit is important. Otherwise heroes either become more important than the rest of the army combined, or they become pathetic compared to the large forces. I personally doubt this can be balanced well (although if I can be proven wrong in this, I would be more than happy.)

What doI see for H6? I see an expension on the H5 hero development system. With the increased number of abilities, the skills could easily be expanded to 4 or even 5 levels of skill (as in H4), and thus make even more diversity possible. In fact I think that at least 4 levels SHOULD be present.
The ultimate skills should return, but I think in an toned down verion in many cases. For example, Arcane Omniscience is way too powerful to get as early as it can be with the TotE changes. Yet, making it take longer to get brings in the problem of high levels needed. One possible way to handle it would be to have spell power reduced for spells that are only known through the AO skill. This would also encourage a player to build up mage guilds in new towns, even if this skill was already known. The ultimate for the Orcs, giving +500 rage at the start of battle is also extremely strong, but not nearly as powerful as AO. I haven't gotten the other ultimates enough to compare them, but this isn't a matter of balancing the skills between factions, but rather balancing them with other heroes of similar level without the ultimate. I can see multiplayer maps often devolving into "who can get the ultimate first"
Hero specializations are also a must to keep the uniqueness of different heroes alive. However, you do run the risk of having too few heroes avaialble- particularly if you want battle between multiple players on the same faction! Thus, I think a blending of the H4 tavern into this system would work well. Have every town "aligned" with some of the others (the exact amount is not needed for purposes of this idea). At a tavern, you can hire a specialized hero, as now, or a "novice" hero of a faction aligned with yours. A novice hero would not have any specialization, but would come with basic skill in the racial specialization, and one of the racial abilities. Thus, they would be open to any build without the use of a memory mentor.

In my next post, I will look at the magic system, including the expanded spells brought into TotE.

[Elvin]

Actually over 3 levels in a skill works against diversity because you'll be investing in less skills and you'll end up picking three instead of four in a game. I already focus on 3 as it is, I wouldn't want heroes to be a 2 skill choice in medium maps..

Arcane omniscience is good but absolute rage is excellent. Reason is that it makes all orc units killing but also unkillable machines, to my experience only dark can do something against them. Maybe if you get some extra levels for dark-master of mind but then orcs could get shatter dark.

In any case the barbarians will kick wizard butt before they even get ultimate. You can't survive with such crappy skills. No ballista, no magic - you can only depend on mentoring but I bet that the opponent that will come knocking will be a lot stronger than your boosted secondaries, you can't achieve good level with such a handicapped main.

Another thing I don't like is that academy by playing normally and visiting a utopia or arcane shop(not to mention their guild and library, tomes from artifact merchants) will have most of the spells they wish. All the other races get good benefits, seems too much trouble for little gain.

[Qurqirish Dragon]

@Elvin: The number of skills you can get in each category shouldn't be that big a factor in the number or skills you can learn. The number of different skill groups you can get is more a function of how quickly you gain levels. Before H5, levels beyond about 20 did not get seperated as quickly as they do here. A character in H3 with the experience of a level 35 hero in H5 would be somewhere in the 40s - with an extra 6 or 7 levels, that's one more skill in each of the 6 skill sections.
But if I grant your objection, then perhaps simply allowing 4 abilities when you are at expert instead of 3? That would make getting the advanced skills easier (right now you are are too strongly at the whim of the random skill generator to get what you want in any "large" skill - such as logistics for a runemage, which has 9 abilities; if you want the 3rd tier one, you need to be lucky enough to get it out of the 6 abilities qualified for at that point)

Now, onto the next point (although by all means continue discussing older bits if you wish): the magic system.

The basic H5 magic system is a blend of the H3 and H4 systems - all heroes can learn spells of levels 1 and 2, but skills are needed to go higher (H3-style), but the skills needed only allow accress to their particular school (H4-style). I think this basic hybrid works very well, as might heroes can get their buff/debuff spells that are most useful in strong armies, but if they focus on might exclusively, they can't get the very strong area-effect or mass (de-)buffs.
The expansions have added new twists to this system. Runes are a set of spells that - for all intents and purposes - are in the style of the Heroes 1 magic system - no matter how much spell power you have, you can only cast them a limited number of times per battle. Of course, they are also faction-specific.
TotE is the first heroes game / expansion to have a true non-magic faction. Granted, heroes 4 had a might faction, but a might hero could still learn magic. (in fact, any fully developed h4 hero *MUST* have at least one magic school, since there were only 4 non-magic skills, and heroes had 5 skill slots) In TotE, a barbarian CANNOT learn magic in the normal sense. For balance purposes, the talismans for adventure spells were needed, but otherwise there were only the warcries, which although spell-like in nature, play very differently. Even the magic skills are replaced by "anti-magic" skills.
The whole theme of the barbarian faction was a very refreshing change. From the fact that Orcs were not your typical Tolkienesque evil brutes, to the fact that the weakest units were cowards, and litterally cannon-fodder (or should I say cannon balls?). I thought it interesting that the Orcs come across as more of the defenders of nature than the Sylvan faction. (by the way, where WAS that faction in TotE?)
The fact that the writing and storyline in TotE was better also improved this.

TotE also added in several new spells into the existing magic schools. I think this was very important, as having only 2 spells per school per level left the guilds quite flavorless. More variety was needed, and the fact that the added spells had new effects (as opposed to being a variant of existing spells) was key in this. If the new spells were simply a "fire bolt" to complement the level 2 ice and lightning spells, I would have been unhappy with them.

Anyway, I think that the magic system is really shaping up into the best I have seen- taking good parts from all previous games, and adding its own twists.

This brings me to my vision of the H6 magic system:
I see the basic magic system breaking up into a "core" magic group, consisting of adventure spells, and "neutral" spells consisting of a few spells out of each of the current schools - mainly the bottom two or three levels. These would fall into a single magic skill, similar to Wisdom in Heroes 2 and 3. Aside from a barbarian faction (which similar to H5 would have talismans for adventure spells, and no others), each faction would have a good chance to learn these.
Every faction, however, would have its own spell school, often tied to the theme of the town, similar to H4's breakdown, except that you could only learn spells from your faction's type, and the lower-level spells of allied factions. Warcries and runes in H5 are an indication of what can be done. Perhaps have the Inferno faction concentrate on summoning spells (which would include gating- thus part of the racial specialty.), with destructive spells as a secondary. One faction could focus on healing and buffing, with a "good" side getting regeneration and ressurrection, while and "evil" side gets vampirism and animate dead. With the H5 setup showing the necromancers are not necessarily as evil as in other incarnations, and the Knights not being as good as before, these two could be these factions.
The only question is can such a system be balaced well enough? As seen in heroes 4, it is possible to specialize factions, but in H4 there was much more cross-over between the factions' magic schools. My thought here will seperate them more.
Of course, by doing this, the existing spell-school skills would need to be customized for each faction. One possible (though naive) way, would be to have 6 factions, each with two of the skill sets to complement their own and an allied faction, and the other two replaced by the anti-magic ones. The might faction would then get all the anti-magics, and the wizards get all the positive ones. This brings us back to the same 8 factions that we have now. I don't think this would be great as I have just stated, but it would be a good starting point for more development.

[Geo]

Many good points here, I think, though I don't know about only four skill slots. Maybe it's just me, but I always fret about which skills to pick, always wanting more than I can have, so limiting me even more would be horrible

I agree with you on as good as everything else, though. Heroes VI will be in 3D, but I hope they decide to test a few different ways of displaying the adventure map, and not simply keep the current version. By that I mean to test different ways of projecting the adventure map concerning view angles, topography, map object dimensions relative to topography dimensions and so on. I believe the adventure map of HVI would look much better if topographic features were more realistic (in their implementation) and more similar to what one might find in real life in any given environment (geologically and geographically speaking). In addition I should also like the topographic features and other objects to be scaled a bit more to size. For me, the biggest gripe with HV's adventure map is that it feels sort of neither here nor there. When zoomed in I never get the feeling of intimacy and atmosphere the developer was aiming at, and when zoomed out I never get the feeling of grandness and vast distances afforded by for instance HIII.

(On a side note to the above, the underground must be changed. As it is, it is horrible to navigate and imo doesn't give anywhere near the atmosphere of an underground environment afforded by for instance HIV.)

To not make the above a nightmare to look at on the screen, it should be possible to zoom much further out than is possible in HV. This would allow players to look at the screen in a 'strategic' way when zoomed out, and to experience a 3D environment that is much more 'real' than HV's when zoomed in. The downside is of course that my scheme would take a lot more developing time, and be more resource demanding on the PC. Oh well..

Your magic system sounds nice, and if the race specific magic trees are varied and balanced enough (not necessarily balanced as in magic tree to magic tree, but faction to faction) I think they would work out nicely. I also think that if such a spell system was implemented, that there should be enough spells and of a sufficient variety to allow a faction to play in several different ways combining different creature choices with different spell strategies.

As for heroes, I would welcome heroes with more background story, and with, perhaps, more interesting specials than in HV. Now some heroes have great specials and are picked if available, whereas others are neglected. Perhaps then the heroes could have specials that truly seperate them from each other, and maybe the heroes (of the same faction) should not develop similarly in all ways. Maybe some could gain more points on attack, whereas some could earn more on knowledge; some could gain levels faster but gain fewer stat points? And in your magic scenario, maybe a specific hero of faction A could have a special allowing him to learn spells from faction B? I should like to see more individuality and variety among heroes such as this.

I look forward to reading your views on factions, creatures and battles (and battlefields). I for one should like to see an ocean themed faction, with warfare at sea with all the bells and whistles to be incorporated in the game. Just like the orcs of HV were a refreshing faction, I think an ocean themed faction could be just as novel.

[Qurqirish Dragon]

Many good points here, I think, though I don't know about only four skill slots. Maybe it's just me, but I always fret about which skills to pick, always wanting more than I can have, so limiting me even more would be horrible

I didn't say only 4 skills, I said 4 abilities per skill. Or did you mean that there would be a racial skill + racial magic + 4 skills to make the current 6? If that is what you meant, I apologize for misleading you. I didn't mean to say that there should be exactly 6 overall. Note that I was only talking about the magic system, so the four (actually 8) magic skills listed are only part of the overall skill choices, and it would be unlikely for any hero to take all 4 of those available (since that would neglect the might skills too much)

Onward to the "might" system.
Similar to the magic system, you could have might skills that are themed towards the factions. H5, however did this very well, and other than adding more abilities and adjusting specifics, I don't see much to improve. The basic skills should all be same- after all combat is known to all sides, so offense and defense should both be available. It is within the abilities that these should differentiate.

Using the dwarven faction in H5 as an example, TotE intoduced a number of abilities for them that give bonuses for turtling in battle. The Orcs have many rage-based abilities. The original 6 factions have some customization (for example, Warlock's Luck), but not as much uniqueness. Although, I will admit that I haven't payed too much attention to the old factions (as I they are not as new, and so I already had an idea of how to play with them), so there may be more variety than I originally thought.

Even within the main skills, however, different factions could have affinity for them. This is how I see the might skills develop in the next game. They will vary similar to the magic skills.

As an example, take the defense skill (note that all numbers are just taken off the top of my head, they are only to clarify my points!):
Since the knights are more defensive, rather than reducing 10%/20%/30% damage, for them it would reduce 15%/25%/35% damage. Dwarves, being even more sturdy, would have another 5% on top of that. On the other hand, barbarians (who get penalized for defending anyway) would only have 8/16/24% defense skill.
Factions that are not specifically offensive or defensive would get the standard effects.
Then the abilities would be altered to complement the new form. For example, the ability "stand your ground," which gives a bonus to defense when defending would be doubly useless for an offensive faction, But perhaps an ability that reduces enemy defense "chink the armor" might be a good name for it would work there. If an offensive hero bothered to learn about defense, he would know of weaknesses in it, and so could exploit it.
Other abilities, such as resistance, would of course still be available to all. (although I think that that might go better under the anti-magic skills for some factions)

Attack skill would be almost a mirror of defense in this case.
All 7 of the might skills could be tweaked accordingly. By doing this with all the skills, everything would play differently for each faction. The "crossover" abilities between skills would then become more important, as perhaps giving a bonus to a hero that learns about the weaknesses in his/her faction could get an even stronger bonus.

As an example of this, take the barbarian and defense, who I already said gets a reduced benefit from the skill. Perhaps make the resistance ability give, rather than the flat 15% protection, a bonus based on the number of anti-magic skills learned (say, 10% + 2% per anti-magic skill level + 2% vs. the particular type of spell; thus with expert anti-light and advanced anti-destruction, the hero would have 20% protection from summoning nad dark, 24% from destructive, and 26% from light) Thus, a barbarian that concentrates on defense and magic skills (a very strange combination, I grant you) could actually build up to 40% resistance from this abilitiy - almost three times as strong as other factions.
So, in summary, all skills and abilities would be tailored toward the various factions. Even the identical skill or ability could work differently.
If the current setup were used as a basis, it shouldn't be too hard to balance these adjustments.

Next in my list of topics will be town structure and development, probably on Monday or Tuesday.

[Metathron]

Good stuff as usual, Q. I'm following it closely, but have little of substance to add.

One tiny bit I'd like to comment on is the unlocking of perks that TotE introduced. I believe most players welcomed this with open arms, and so did I. For the most part. I feel like this made all the (sub)skills available to all factions, which had a detrimental effect on diversity. There are hardly any unique skills left, and I think they are only for Dwarves and Barbarians. So while I would definitely love to see this same openness for most skills in HoMM VI, I would also like to see each faction with SEVERAL unique subskills/perks/whatever-they-are-called available only to them.

[RustedSorrow]

The gameplay of Heroes 5 was quite all right. I think each faction's strengths and weaknesses were quite well balanced except for Academy. Their heroes are quite all right but the creatures are horrible. There is no neat organization of abilities of creatures. Titans are ok but I haven't really understood the purpose of gargoyles and Djins. The undead's power too has been checked after TOE. Haven, dungeon and Sylvan are great. I haven't played enough with orcs to really speak about them.

Graphics are pretty and quite charming as well. They should stick to the engine they developed with a few modifications to the AI. On higher difficulties, it shouldn't just bombard your unit's with puppet master and frenzy.

These are all minor points. The major defect in heroes 5 is that you can only build a hero in a specific way. And there is simply no other way to win on higher difficulties other than that specific build. For example, you have to learn summoning magic, expert sorcery etc. if you are a wizard. Otherwise, you don't have a single chance to succeed. This isn't good. The player should have the choice to build his hero in different and creative ways. This does not mean that a magic based faction can be allowed to be built into a might faction.

One way to do this is by introducing new creatures into factions. Each should be belonging to the category of spell casters, shooters, infantry, cavalry or flying. The hero in turn should be able to learn abilities that augment the power of these specific type of creatures. This gives the player an opportunity to create his own blend of creatures. For example, one may have two stacks of shooters , one stack of light infantry and one stack of cavalry. The shooters can be highly effective on enemy heavy infantry while totally ineffective versus cavalry and and moderately effective versus flying. The cavalry can be effective against shooters and light infantry and weak against heavy infantry or those who wield spears. It's like the way, things are organized in some RTS games.

What I really want in Heroes 6 is that there are different ways to build heroes and through each build, procuring a win and developing a good hero should be possible.

Plus, they really or rather desperately need some good story writers. The story was childish of H5.(it's the sort of story I write as a 15 year old budding English novelist).

[Alamar]

The things that I'm looking for in H6 are:

1. Improved AI.
2. Improved [more user friendly] map editor
3. Make it easier to develope "story" maps
4. Make the factions as diverse as possible.

While I understand that memory mentor and other things are fun to play around with I think that they can take away from diversity between heroes of one faction && how distinctly each faction plays. Personally I like diversity so I don't get the same game time after time.

As far as magic systems go I think that giving each faction a set of totally unique spells would be a good idea. Having a universal set of spells is also a good idea. I'm not really sure how far I would take this idea though because it can be hard to create a high number of totally unique spells that are balanced [so-to-speak].

*****************************************************

I would like to see some changes in how heroes of each faction interface with magic. For example right now if a Knight learns expert light magic they are basically as effective as a Wizard at casting those same spells. I would prefer to see Wizards [or other spell casting oriented heroes] get inherent bonuses above and beyond what we'd see "Might" heroes getting.

For example lets say that Expert Stoneskin gives a base of +12 to defense. I'd like to see a Knight or other Might hero only get something like +10 to defense [say -10% to effects rounded down??]. On the other hand a Wizard might get +14 to defense [say +10% rounded up??].

As an alternative I imagine that you could make all spells depend on spell power [or knowledge or whatever] so that spell casters are always going to have an inherent advantage.

Note: The same thing may apply to skills like Sorcery or Enlightenment that would tend to favor Wizards. Tweaks to attack & defense skills would of course tend to favor Might factions. Faction balance is likely to be very difficult to achieve but if rough balance can be achived I would certainly prefer this.

**********************************************************

As for perks/abilities themselves I rather like H5's system. One thing that I would certainly do though is that I'd make sure that any advanced perks be faction specific. You could make some [all?] of the basic perks universal while making sure that there is nice diversity by making sure that advanced perks are unique to each faction.

*********************************************************

As for skills I've already agree with other posters that each faction should be better or worse at certain things to match their specific flavour so that would be great. I might even take this a step further than other players have though.

For example lets look at the Luck skill. Sylvan Luck may cause more damage than other factions while Luck wielded by Dwarves may actually boost their defenses more. Luck wielded by a Necro may actually be used to dampen the positive Luck of other factions. So instead of just giving different bonuses based on proficiency with skills I would also propose [that where possible] different effects be created for different factions.

[Qurqirish Dragon]

The advancement of towns is one of the most fluid of concepts in HoMM. There are basically 2.5 forms this has taken. First (H1,2,3) is the standard build-tree structure, where you could build everything, but some structures required others to be built first. Next (H4) came the branched structure, where not only did some buildings require others, but some (the creature dwellings) also required other buildings NOT be built. Finally, H5 used the town-level set up (which is basically a modification of the first setup, thus 2.5 forms), where even if all prerequisites are satisfied, an underdeveloped town cannot build the later items. I have gone over this in my H4 comparisons, and TotE didn't change this, except in one aspect - the multiple upgrades of creatures.

Unfortunately, I think that they dropped the ball on this one. In most (but not all) cases, I have found that one upgrade was superior to the other, particularly at the same cost. For example, skeleton archers vs. warriors.

Some upgrade choices were very minor - for example the two types of titans are identical, except for the special (lightning cloud vs. lightning bolt), which I do not use too often, as the normal attack is usually much better.

Some choices are strategic, and based on your situation - such as which type of upgraded thane to get. Either the fire wave of the lightning chain can be useful, and the resistances of your enemy, and the nature of their deployment will determine the better choice.

However, not all is lost here, and in H6, I see the best of all three being used. I definitely like the town-level requirement for normal building, but in a similar feel to the faster-build towns vs. slower-build towns from earlier games, I don't think that all towns should have the 3/6/9/12/15 levels, but perhaps some towns have (assuming still 6 'tiers' of buildings) 3/5/7/9/11 (fast build), others 4/7/10/14/17 (slow build), and some with mixed rates like 3/5/7/11/15 (quick start), 4/8/11/13/15 (slow start)

Creature upgrades should return to the H2 setup, where some have upgrades, some do not. Multiple upgrades (when applicible) should be either exclusive of each other (like H4), or require seperate upgrades for each type. This would allow a weaker upgrade to still be better choice, due to fewer resources or less creature cost. Cross-training should also be allowed for some creatures, but not for others.

The branched setup should extend to non-creature buildings as well. For example, using my magic idea from above, perhaps have magic annexes (like in H4) to the mage guild for allied magics, but only allow one of the allied magics (assuming there is more than one, of course) to be built. This, in turn, may effect what sorts of creatures can be recruited.

Next, the big change that H5 introduced, but I haven't mentioned yet, was the idea of town specializations. I didn't really pay too much attention to them as I played H5, as you had no control over them. In H6, more control over the towns' characters would be an interesting addition. For example, allow a player to change (to a limited extent) the focus of a town. A wealthy town would have lower creature growth and higher building costs, but the town hall and resource silos would produce more than other towns. A military town would have greater creature growth, but less income. And so on. Nothing too elaborate (after all this isn't Civilizations of Might and Magic), but a few simple options. Cheaper factions would benefit from the military setup, while stronger ones might need more money to buy those big ticket creatures.

Finally, Caravans should be expanded to allow the transport of already purchased creatures as well as unpurchased ones. That was the single thing in caravans that I really missed from H4 (but, of course, Caravans in H4 required you to go to the appropriate towns to purchase the troops first. An annoyance on the other side!)

Overall, however, the H5 town system is very good, and only needs a few tweaks. I have a couple other ideas for towns, but I will adress those in another post.

[Elvin]

Actually I prefer the upgrade system as it is now, same price/same dwelling. What I'd want to see is equal effectiveness. Yes, even the relatively weaker upgrades have merit but there is little point if that happens rarely.

About faster building towns that could be used in giving might towns some more strength as opposed to the magic factions that can expand faster.

[Jay]

What I want out of HVI is diversity, diversity, diversity. I want towns where, based on the HIV model, you can select one or the other tier 2-5 creatures with the tier ones being your staple, but therein have the ability to upgrade each creatures' structure. For example in HIV whereby you could select either Medusas or Minotaurs for the Dungeon, once you've made your choice you can upgrade your Medusas to Medusa Queens or Minotaurs to Minotaur Kings. With a base choice of six creature types that's 18 possible variations on strategy.

I also want Nagas back. And Halflings. And fewer dragons. I'm tired of dragons. Dragons, dragons, dragons.

Overall though I think I would just like a debugged, truly ready for consumer consumption Heroes game that doesn't require three gajillion patches. And if they could find some way of making the games more platform friendly that'd be great.

In other words I'd just like the next one to make me curse less. Something to shoot for.

[PhoenixReborn]

Creature upgrades should return to the H2 setup, where some have upgrades, some do not. Multiple upgrades (when applicible) should be either exclusive of each other (like H4), or require seperate upgrades for each type. This would allow a weaker upgrade to still be better choice, due to fewer resources or less creature cost. Cross-training should also be allowed for some creatures, but not for others.

This part appears to have no rhyme or reason to me. Why should a troll get an upgrade but a unicorn not? How come a dragon gets two upgrades when no other creature does?

And why limit options, options should be available for a price.

[ThunderTitan]

Coz trolls can always get smellier...

[Qurqirish Dragon]

Creature upgrades should return to the H2 setup, where some have upgrades, some do not. Multiple upgrades (when applicible) should be either exclusive of each other (like H4), or require seperate upgrades for each type. This would allow a weaker upgrade to still be better choice, due to fewer resources or less creature cost. Cross-training should also be allowed for some creatures, but not for others.

This part appears to have no rhyme or reason to me. Why should a troll get an upgrade but a unicorn not? How come a dragon gets two upgrades when no other creature does?

And why limit options, options should be available for a price.

...but having an upgrade simply because other creatures have one makes just as little sense. Consider the disciples setup, where there are multiple upgrade paths (which are exclusive), and some creatures have no upgrades, while others have 3. Granted, Disciples uses an experience system and all units are single-creatures, but the theory can still apply. Perhaps have a choice of building creature X or Y (but not both). X is stronger than Y, but has no upgrade, while Y does have anupgrade that makes it stronger than X. Do you go for the immediate benefit of a stronger early creature, or go for the long term, knowing you won't be able to expand as quickly by doing so?

I wouldn't say not allowing you to do everything is limiting options, it just makes your choices have more consequences. For example, due to the cross-training ability, if you find that you need the other option, it is simply a resource cost consideration. Since you often have extra resources later on, this cost is not that big of a problem, so there is less incentive to actually make a choice. Perhaps on the top level creatures, where cross-training can be prohibitive, you still have it, but I see very few cases where, for example, your decision to make your gremlins in repair mode or sabatuer mode has any long-term impact, since even hundreds don't have a high retraining cost.
Some creatures upgrades as they are are simply an increase in stats. There aren't as many of these now as there were in H2 and H3, but they are still there. An upgrade should have a significant difference, in my opinion. (I seem to recall this being a big argument in the past, for that matter).

[Alamar]

I tend to agree that I like the chaotic upgrade system of H2 better than forcing one and only 1 upgrade on all creatures. This way if the devs can think of numerous cool [and balanced] upgrades then great. If not then they don't have to force some upgrade on a creature not really deserving of one.

I have no problems with Green, Red, and Black dragons for example. I also have no problems with "just zombies" [no upgrades].

I think this system [of not always forcing an upgrade] can actually help create more distinct creatures because you don't need as many creatures with duplicate abilities as you may need otherwise.

********************************************

While we're generalizing I don't mind having the alternate upgrades be chaotic also. For example I don't mind having 3 possible options for a 1st level Necro creature ... zombie, skeleton warrier, skeleton archer as opposed to making the choice between 2 creatures. The same obviously would apply for potential alternate upgrades.

Granted the "creature trees" are likely quite messy and aren't neat but I prefer this to FORCING uniformity when there isn't otherwise a need.

[I hate forcing uniformity like saying each faction must have EXACTLY 3 large creatures even if the creatures themselves really shouldn't be "large"]