Jolly Joker wrote:Now H 4. H 4 has not new features it has CHANGED features which translates to a very different concept (we all know that)
Hold on.Shouldnt this be different?How can basically the same but a bit changed thing like upgrading some units turned into upgrading all units be a new concept,yet almost a comepletelly different game like HIV has changed concepts?
Jolly Joker wrote:This is one example for a conceptual feature that plainly spoken just SUCKS. You don't want wasted units (and you can easily compare that with Heroes I and II and the necessity to leave one unit out). However, it's a feature as well. I'd "award" negative points for this "feature".
Werent you the one defending small BF because it is more tactical?Even when I pointed out that you cant place 7 large units on it,but have to leave some out?
Jolly Joker wrote:Moreover there are debatable features (features that gain and lose at the same time). An example wpuld be potions. An additional but completely unnecessary feature (considering most potion effects are available as map objects) cluttering your inventory and so on.
Bad implementation,not bad concept.If the potions stacked,no one would complain.
Jolly Joker wrote:There are lost features (Heroes in IV are basically back to those in Heroes II; gone are the specials). That one sucks and is a missing feature as well as a conceptual error. There are more.
Not really.It eliminated overpowered heroes that everyone took and underpowered ones that no one used for anything except squire duty.I find classes a much better way of diferenting heroes.
Jolly Joker wrote:@ Hodge Podge
Last time I checked FANTASY didn't mean IDIOT (even though, having a look into a lot of the available fantasy novels one could get doubts here). Considering how many SQUIRES 1 Vampire in Heroes 4 can kill, a level 17 Barbarian who has Combat and nothing else is simply a god on the battle field. Fantasy or not, that's just stupid.
Jolly Joker wrote:To quote DL: it makes no sense to justify something stupid with something that is equally stupid. And it doesn't make even less sense to sell human idiocy as good game concept.
Now he sees my points?And all those defending of heroes attacking through walls because its a fantasy game?
Jolly Joker wrote:Now, the untouchable hero is not set in stone. I think that Nival paved the way. What you simply need is a way to interact more between HEROES and ONLY heroes. Counterspell, direct attacks, heroes fighting heroes while the armies fight it out. I'd call it a real tactical decision if you could cast a mass spell on your army or attack the opposing hero (damaging him, reducing initiative, reducing hit points, forcing him to react, and so on.
It could work.Much better than untouchable heroes anyway.