It's time for some critics.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by it-ogo

First some very general statements. Usually we don't really know why do we like a game. I can say (suppose) why HOMM V is bad: small number of castles killed the strategy and new battle mechanics killed tactics. But I can not say why HOMM IV is bad. It has many improvements which are very nice by itself. A fraction system, magic system, hero promotion system, battle system in particular were very nice with few minor faults. But overall gameplay was much worse then in HOMM III. I don't really know why.

Second, my position towards Disciples 2: I strongly appreciate its style-atmosphere-art and storyline, but the gameplay for me was slightly too boring. I did not finish expansion campaigns.

Then about KB:L. It has lesser potential and replayability then HOMM III mainly because of absense of random generated games and limited modding possibilities. It's too early to compare campaigns as KB:L expansions are to be made. But the battle system is better then in HOMM III. How do I mark it: a hardcore player have longer way to perfection. Many may have a pleasure of playing but few can make something like "no losses on impossible". So you are always have a way to become better tactician and strategist. It was not so realy in HOMM III IMHO - the cap of perfection was much lower.

And I really like the the concept of rune-sphere system of hero promotions (as well as its concrete implementation). I think it is the first system of that kind in gaming but I know analogies in the area of sensorics. That is what really can provide flexibility and specificity in the same time - that means great variaty of viable pathways and good adaptation mechanism.

It is hard to compare tactics in KB-HOMM with XCOM-Jagged Alliance. The latter have much bigger and diverse arenas while the former have developed magic system and those make different kinds of tactical systems. Now I don't see the way to combine it successfully. Maybe AD&D gives something intermediate.

I would argue otherwise based off playing heroes 3 and 5 extensively online.

When you play against the computer you play at a level to achieve what your goal is, whether it's to beat the game on impossible or shortest amount of days.

In HOMM 3 & 5 online you have to play against people with hundreds of games under their belt, with large variation in strategies due to difference races, artifacts and tactical approaches.

HOMM has both tactical and strategic considerations, where as KB is more about exploiting very effective strategies, units and artifacts once you discover them.


I like both games for different things, KB is fun single player, HOMM is great in multiplayer if you have an experienced opponent.

I'm still playing through my first game of KB, and (probably due to my HOMM experience) am not having much difficulty on impossible with a paladin.

Anyway both are great games!

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Zhuangzi

It's funny because the first campaign in HOMM V is just absurdly easy, even on Hard. It's so boring; you just have to slog through it.

On the other hand, the Tribes of the East campaign is a real challenge for me right now on Medium difficulty. I just played the second mission, Last Soul Standing, and I had a LOT of fun. I won by the skin of my teeth. It's a timed mission and I reached the objective on the last possible day, and then died three times trying to defeat the castle guards (I am still learning this game ) On my fourth try I won with 2 archers and 5 zombies left. What fun I had! So I will try to forget about the HOMM V campaigns and see how far I can get with ToE.

I only played the campaigns to prepare me for online play. If you can complete all the camgaigns on the hardest difficulty then you will be an above average player online, although it partly requires a different skillset as online play is about rapid expansion and striking first, where as in the campaigns.. even on the hardest difficulty often you can sit back and grow somewhat passively.

An aggresive style of play is better against humans however.

[Smash]

Hmm... I still remember mission from campaign in Shadow of Death when you starting with randomized hero (yog?) and one castle (Stronghold - aka the weakest) against computer with something like 5-6 necropolis (aka the strongest) on highest possible difficulty. Man when i met his army his only vampire stack could beat my whole army easy oO. That all what i can say about passive play next game i rush him and start taking his castles while running away from his main hero (cat and mice play), it was very tiring, long and stressful, i won and go back to scenarios (aka skirmishes) for more enjoyable play .

[MajorS]

Originally Posted by Smash

it was very tiring, long and stressful, i won and go back to scenarios (aka skirmishes) for more enjoyable play .

Thats why i like KB so much, its pace is so much faster than any HoMM. The older i got the more impatient i became Dont have time to grind/waste anymore. I just installed HoMM V again just to give it a try but im not even having half as much fun as KB. I dont care much about AI, strategy etc anymore. I just play for fun

[Ish]

Originally Posted by MajorS

Thats why i like KB so much, its pace is so much faster than any HoMM. The older i got the more impatient i became Dont have time to grind/waste anymore. I just installed HoMM V again just to give it a try but im not even having half as much fun as KB. I dont care much about AI, strategy etc anymore. I just play for fun

For sure if you are playing single player KB is more fun than HOMM5, partly due to the rediculous story in heroes 5

Try an online game vs someone from TOH (which is a group that holds tournaments etc) or other experienced player, and it will be lots of fun.