Looking backward: First impressions on HoMM4

[Akul]

Anyhow, I love the Chaos campaign, it's full of excitement and adventure, and the maps are very well laid out and attractive.

Totally agree! They are big, but still not to big. And some of theme need a bit more strategy.

[csarmi]

yea actually even building a tactician is better (use Tawni for this)... or building a pathfinder

ofc sth is funny

[gravyluvr]

Stealth on campaigns where you have level limits is pretty wasteful. On huge XL maps it is almost worth building first since you can flag and grab mines quickly and the quicker you get the Stealth up the faster you level up on your own.

[Bandobras Took]

Still, it is 6 (I missed 1 earlier) points invested in a skill that does not help you win battles. Those 6 points spent in a different way means you can fight your way through instead of sneak your way through. Especially in the early levels, skill choices are crucial in determining your hero's ability to win battles. And 6 combat-effective skills make a very big difference.

Granted that the Heroes 4 AI doesn't pose much of threat, Stealth still helps you get a relative resource advantage by allowing you to grab resources/artifacts/mines that you wouldn't consider trying normally. This becomes more true as the difficulty level goes up; not less.

Stealth on campaigns where you have level limits is pretty wasteful. On huge XL maps it is almost worth building first since you can flag and grab mines quickly and the quicker you get the Stealth up the faster you level up on your own.

And since the Chaos Campaign consists of Large and XL maps, that makes Stealth a good choice. Especially, as I've said, since you've got two heroes to work with.

[wimfrits]

Stealth still helps you get a relative resource advantage by allowing you to grab resources/artifacts/mines that you wouldn't consider trying normally.

Well, that's the point. It doesn't. A better way of putting it would be:
-Investing in stealth forces you to sneak past neutrals instead of going straight through.-
I agree that difficulty has a say in this on certain highly specific non-standard maps, but not in normal maps and certainly not in campaign maps where the hero stat boosts blow things out of proportions.

[Humakt]

I use thieves mainly for pathfinding with other factions (Nature/Death/Might). But if I'm Chaos and map has enough thief-holes between guardians (i.e it's not intentionally made stealth proof) then I'll hire thief as my 2nd-4th (provided it ain't first) hero (in addition to the pathfinding hero). I don't think those maps are that RARE as people here seem to suggest but it just may be because of the maps I play. With tavern building(s) on map it is much more likely I hire stealth hero (and especially if there are enough learning stones or other good sources of experience). I practically never use stealth hero in main army unless at very beginning.

[Jolly Joker]

I would object here.
A campaign is a special single player mode, and I'd encourage every player to do what he's inclined to try because this is supposed to be fun more than anything else. I find the battles in H 4 to be not much fun most of the time, more a work of labor than anything else, and everything that breaks the routine of battling is welcome.
So it simply doesn't matter if a Tactician would have more use for your armies when you have a couple of special elements in your Chaos town that want to be explored.
Moreover the sneaking xp bonus is something you gain in addition, and in a campaign you might have a high level thief in the last map on that bonus alone.
Standard maps are something else, of course.

[Bandobras Took]

Stealth still helps you get a relative resource advantage by allowing you to grab resources/artifacts/mines that you wouldn't consider trying normally.

Well, that's the point. It doesn't. A better way of putting it would be:
-Investing in stealth forces you to sneak past neutrals instead of going straight through.-

A still better way of putting it would be:

Investing in Stealth allows you to sneak past neutrals in addition to going straight through. And there are fights, especially in the beginning of the Chaos campaign maps, where you're not going to go straight through until you get some troops.

[ThunderTitan]

Best way of putting it: Pete Girly + Stealth skill = more fun.

[gravyluvr]

Pete Girly? Scouting and Nobility!

Seriously though, stealth is an awesome skill for a Combat/Stealth ranger who will be able to scout lands quickly and be able to take the xp bonus as well as serve in your army when needed.

But I still likely cross developing many stealthy heroes - especially on Large, XL and custom campaigns with no level limits since they can double dip. In fact, I've actually sent out groups of stealthy ones with equal stealth levels in order to xp up on nuetrals. Once the stealth reaches master, they can cross into unchartered territories with great ease and by the time they are in any real danger I've already given them enough additional combat to withstand the first wave so they can run.

[wimfrits]

A still better way of putting it would be:

Investing in Stealth allows you to sneak past neutrals in addition to going straight through.

If that is the case, it would mean you're trading 6 combat-effective skillpoints only for a tiny experience boon and a lot of micromanagement.

Aside from an experience boon, stealth should have the traits of (1)allowing passage of otherwise (at time x) unpassable stacks and (2) staying unnoticed by the enemy. Unfortunately, (1) does not apply to anything but highly irregular maps since a better skillchoice allows direct passage and (2) does not work in a game versus AI. So indeed, all that is left is the tiny experience boon that will only yield 1 or 2 levels in the end.

Is that really worth the 6 skillpoints and added micromanagement? No way!

And there are fights, especially in the beginning of the Chaos campaign maps, where you're not going to go straight through until you get some troops.

There are. In map1. Where you can only pass after getting some troops and building up some skills. If you pick the right skills, you'll pass a lot sooner

Like I said, I can understand you want to pick stealth with one hero for fun or for other not-to-be-mentioned reasons that others hinted at.

If you still feel that stealth also is an effective way of playing the chaos campaign, then let's just agree to disgagree.

[gravyluvr]

If you still feel that stealth also is an effective way of playing the chaos campaign, then let's just agree to disgagree.

Seconded.

[Qurqirish Dragon]

Well, it has been a while for me, but I have just finished the last of the H4 original campaigns.

Final thoughts on chaos:
At least for the campaign, stealth wasn't too useful. At the beginning of each map when Tawni was alone, it earned a little extra experience, but I generally kept my heroes together, and that reduced the effectiveness.

The strength of higher-level heroes once again appeared, as in the last two maps, I never used a troop of level 1 or 2. Any battle that didn't need an efreet or dragon was simple for the heroes. For that matter, unless a dozen level 4s were needed, I found the heroes more than sufficient. Even fighting alone, I only used one potion of immortality in the last three maps combined (I always bought a few for insurance against an unlucky q-round combat. Once I got GM magic resistance, this was no longer a problem.

Chaos magic has lots of direct damage, but I generally found haste and confusion spells more useful. my heroes were doing more damage with ranged and melee attacks than with spells, except for the big guns (inferno, chain lightning, incinerate), and those weren't needed too much.

The campaign did have a very good story, and the fact that Oba was Tawni's father came as a surprise. I did figure it out during the last map before it was made obvious, but I really hadn't thought about it before then. Maybe it was obvious and I just didn't care.

I think that having Oba as a hero rather than Cyrca would have made more sense, as the medusa really didn't figure much into the storyline.

Anyway, now that I have finished all the campaigns, it is time for my conclusions about Heroes IV.

How does H4 compare with the other heroes games?
For each of the following categories, I am ranking H4 among the other (base) heroes games. Thus, "1" is the best, "5" is the worst, but this is all in a relative sense. Being best or worst is only when compared with other heroes games, so being ranked "5" does mean I disliked the aspect.

Graphics: I have always been partial to the more cartoonish graphics of the first couple Heroes, and as I said, I felt that most things were too muted or muddy. There are a few exceptions but in general they left me feeling a little bland. It is tough to compare with some aspects of the others, but once comparing with the town appearance, it definitely is a low point in the series for me. rank: 5

Town development: This is a much more interesting category, as there are four distinct development styles throughtou the series - common style (heroes 1 and 3), chaotic upgrades (heroes 2), branched (heroes 4) and town-level based (heroes 5). I see aspects from each of these that I like. I think a combination of the 2-4-5 structure would be optimal for me: a branched build tree, with town-size requirements for later buildings, and some creatures having upgrades while others don't. Given the requirement to choose between each of these, it is a tough choice between 2 and 4 for which I like best. However, I did find that many choices in H4 were obvious, and several creatures were under-used. The most recent example was in the Chaos campaign, where I think I only used hydra once, to see how they played, but then stuck with dragons. Perhaps with a bit more tweaking this would be better, but for now I think I need to give the nod to H2, and so H4 gets ranked at #2 here.

Adventure map: This is the easiest category. Without hesitation H4 gets ranked at #1 among the heroes games. There are more sites, more site types, aquatic locations, the option to turn down free skills, and many more aspects. The only downside was on the graphics side, but I covered that above. I did find the fog-of-war to be a bit annoying at first, but that was probably more due to how I was used to the other heroes games. I never worried about FoW in games like Civilization, and once I got used to it, it ceased to trouble me. I don't know if I prefer having it or not, but it does change things quite a bit.

Hero development: This is another tough choice. The inter-dependence of skills with subskills is nice, but the magic schools really suffered here. While I could see the use for a subskill for spell effectiveness, the one for spell points in each category really feels wasted. If each type of magic needed its own magic reserve (e.g.: white magic for life, green magic for nature, etc.), then I could see a need for it, but not in the way H4 implements it. I would have much preferred to have a different subskill placed here, or at least have some benefit with synergies between two types. This was apparant from demonology spells that something could have been done, and in my opinion should have been done. H4 also goes overboard with specialization. Once you get an advanced class, it is VERY hard to get any skill that doesn't promote that class. Combining this with the lack of hero specializations from 3 and 5 give the heroes a real cookie-cutter feel. This wasn't so bad in heroes 1 and 2, when there was so much less that could be done, but in 4, after 3, there should have been SOMETHING to distinguish heores of the same type. The big question for me is where to place 4 relative to 3. I like the heroes 5 system best, and both 3 and 4 are much better than 1 and 2. It basically comes down to which I think is more important - interdependence or specialization of skills. This is really too close to call for me, and so I think I will leave them tied. Rank: 2.5

Town Balance: This is hard to judge, based solely on the campaigns, but I found that I did not have an easy or hard time based on the town town type. In all cases, once the heroes got to a high level, they dominated everything. Most of the weaker creatures came in larger quantities, and so this seems a wash. Some towns had more difficult decisions at various points (for example, dragon golem vs. titan is a tough choice; dragon vs. hydra isn't), but overall they all seemed to be similar in ability The balance is definitely closer than in most of the others. Granted, the H5 balance is still being tweaked while I got the finalized form of H4, but by this point H5 SHOULD have settled down, and hasn't. Not surprisingly, I am once again stuck with comparing 3 and 4 for the position. I think that there is a larger discrepency in H3, and so I need to give the nod to 4 here. Rank: 1

Combat: This is the major stumbling block for H4. The isometric perspective doesn't work well. I have had more mis-clicks in this than any other heroes game. It is also hard to see what is lined up, and putting the combat grid up hurts my eyes to much to use. Combine this with the overpowered heroes and although the battles are still fun, they have more of an annoyance factor than any other. Similarly, line-of sight for ranged attacks was a good idea, but with the perspective, you have to check every enemy to see who can be attacked! The battlefield is about the same size as that of H2 or H5, so I really do not see the problems a lot of people had with H5. Most upper-level creatures can still cross the field in 1 turn (one of the big compaints we've all heard from H5). There are more choices of what to do in battle (with the differeing hero skills), but the brute force of higher level heroes makes this a moot point (and low level heroes haven't developed enough skill to have much effect!) Rank: 4 (only beating H1 because spells couldn't stack there)

Overall: I see both the good and the bad aspects of Heroes 4 that I have seen others praise / complain about. Most of the comments are well deserved. I can see how some people were disappointed with the drastic change from H3, as well as what was lost when going to H5. To compare with each of the other heroes games:

Vs. Heroes 1: Aside from the nostalgia factor, the only things that aren't trivially better than the original heroes game is the spell system and the graphics. As I said above, I like the more cartoonish graphics, and this is a point in H1s favor. The spell memorization system (vs. spell points) is fun to play with, but is too restrictive. It works in paper-and-pencil RPGs, and to a lesser extent their computer-based analogs, but spell points are better. Not surprisingly, H4 easily surpasses H1.

Vs. Heroes 2: Heroes 2 was (and still is) the only Heroes with the chaotic-upgrade system. It also has the greatest feel for the early-vs.-midgame.-vs. endgame faction balance. What I mean is that each faction was definitely better at different stages of the game. The old "barbarian with sorceress troops" combo is still one of the strongest crossover-strategies from any heroes game. This is in direct contrast to H4 where all of this is reversed: no upgrades, but creature choice; large benefits for NOT using crossover forces. H2 also has my favorite graphics set. However, everything else (which the possible exception of cmobat) is definitely an improvement.

Vs. Heroes 3: As you see from the above comments, this is the closest battle here. Each games has many things to recommend it. This really comes down to a matter of personal playing preference. I have a feeling that my opinion will tend to favor the one I haven't played as recently. From a less subjective viewpoint, I do know that it took longer to get the old "just one more turn" feel in H4 than in H3, and so that really has to be the deciding factor: Although only by a little bit, I seem to have enjoyed H3 more. Thus, H3 just edges out H4.

Vs. Heroes 5: Before I began this, I knew that this should have been the toughest battle, as although I am playing H4 last, H5 is a newer game. However, H5 was not developed by the same crew as 1 through 4. To some degree, I think people have been waiting for my comments here more than on any other single topic. From the above, you can tell that all three of the more recent games (H3,4,5) have their good points and bad points to recommend them (or their 'foes'). H5 is by far the least polished from a gameplay perspective of them. Whether by hook or by crook, it does have a bit more challenge over the timid H4 AI, but I think H3 is better that either one here - but H3 already had its say. H5 suffers in a few notable places vs. H4. First, there are many fewer map sites. As noted above in the adventure map section, H4 really excels at this aspect. Strangely enough, one of H5s greatest strengths, in my opinion, is also one of its main problems: hero development. It has what I feel is the best development scheme, but H4 at least guarantees that if you can get enough levels, once you get a primary skill, you can get every abilitiy associated with it. If H5 let you replace an ability with another after a skill got all 3, then it would allow you to have this aspect, but as it stands, bad luck can completely destroy your planned strategy by forcing a choice of a skill you do not want to your hero. This can happen in H4 as well, but only at the primary skill level (although, as mentioned above, over-specilizing of heroes is a flaw in H4)
Some game concepts from H4 were lost going to H5. The loss of some of these were good, in my opinion, some were bad. Some were neither.
The good: flaggable windmills, leprechauns, etc. All this did was turn these sites into weak version of mines. Although with the fog of war, you needed to have more flaggable sites, These sites lost their uniqueness. Yes, it is nice not needing to visit them periodically, but if produced resources built up (so you could go once a month or similar), then allowing a creature to collect them would have been sufficient.
The bad: mine construction. This was a very nice touch. Getting a needed resource was not always just a matter of locating it. You might need to make a significant investment to get that sulfur mine, for example.
- sea objects: the water became a lot more interesting with dedicated sea creatures.
The neutral: caravans. This would have been in the "bad" category, but they got added in later. The reason why I list it at all is that they changed form. In H5, you cannot transport already hired troops, which is a definite minus, but the interface includes the hire-from-town ability which is definitely lacking in H4. Also caravans in H5 can be intercepted - a plus if interecepted by the hero you want to grab the forces, a minus if the enemy can. In either case, however, you can send a caravan in H5 if the path is blocked - it will go as far as it can and wait for an opening. With the wandering monsters in H4, I found I spent a large amount of time trying to keep the shipping lanes open. It is ridiculous that a caravan with 5 black dragons can't go because 3 trolls spawned in the road.

Still, at least in the current situation (this may change as H5 continues to evolve), the imbalance in H5 has to be weighed against the inconvenient combat interface of H4. The other pros and cons above also need have to be considered. I think that just as H3 barely edges out H4, so does H4 barely outweigh H5.

Heroes 4 therefore gets ranked a #2 on my heroes list, with 3,4, and 5 all very close to each other.

[Kristo]

Thanks QD! This has been a very interesting read.

[Orfinn]

It has, very in-depth and interesting.

[Akul]

Agree with Kristo here
You don't see such good (and honest) reviews every day.

[Metathron]

That was a great read, QD. And this whole thread in general has been exciting as it gave us a chance to see the game from the perspective of someone new to it.

[Robenhagen]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. It made me play those original campaigns again, with some enjoyment.

[gravyluvr]

Excellent!

I'd be interested in seeing you keep this thread alive as you either play fan made maps or Equi.

[HodgePodge]

… Still, at least in the current situation (this may change as H5 continues to evolve), the imbalance in H5 has to be weighed against the inconvenient combat interface of H4. The other pros and cons above also need have to be considered. I think that just as H3 barely edges out H4, so does H4 barely outweigh H5.

Heroes 4 therefore gets ranked a #2 on my heroes list, with 3,4, and 5 all very close to each other.

Your in-depth and comprehensive summary was quite enjoyable to read, Qurqirish. I agreed with most of your feelings (but not all ) I do agree with your overall score of #2. Thanks again.