Heroes of Might and Magic IV

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I have acquired a copy of this game. Is it any good?.

[Cespenar]

To put it in a nutshell, it's more of a RPG than turn based strategy (possibly), as opposed to its famous prequel, but a pretty solid game overall. I would play it only for the surprising amount of good writing it displays in the six main campaigns, and that's just me.

[peacenlove]

It has some balancing problems (i am looking at you Necromancy + Dark magic + Nature magic who can summon 40-50 devils and those toxic elementals and resurrect 3-4 vampires per battle) but then again none of the heroes games were actually balanced :smalltongue:

However its a fun game with solid campaigns (i heartily recommend the half dead one), if only vastly different than heroes 3 and 5. Get the expansions also they add very interesting campaigns and material to the game.

[toasty]

I think its Better than V, honestly. Three is pretty good, but 4 is a very strong contender for my favorite Heroes game of all time. I have no clue why it did so badly.

[Selrahc]

It has some balancing problems (i am looking at you Necromancy + Dark magic + Nature magic who can summon 40-50 devils and those toxic elementals and resurrect 3-4 vampires per battle) but then again none of the heroes games were actually balanced :smalltongue:


To get to that level of nature and death magic is incredibly difficult though. Basically you have to fully master both those schools which is a minimum of thirty levels assuming you get ideal skills available at each level. Doing it that way also leaves your hero as an incredible glass cannon, with no defences at all. Realistically you're going to wanting a few levels of combat and magic resistance which pushes the whole thing up to level 36.

Granted you could probably shave a good dozen levels off that if you found a lot of magic academies or altars of death/nature but it still takes an impractically long time to set up. Odds are by the time you start summoning heavy demons the scenario is over.


I'd say a far more achievable and almost equally broken caster can be achieved incredibly early just by having master Order magic. Master order magic can be grabbed by level 8 or earlier and utterly annihilates anyone not immune to mind magic.

[Mushroom Ninja]

I have acquired a copy of this game. Is it any good?.

Personally, I consider it the worst game in the series (well, sort of on par with 1, but that's just because #1 came out so long ago). It took all that was awesome about II and III and destroyed it:

It replaced the simple-but-clear/effective view of the battlemap with a hideous overhead view.
City battles got completely screwed up (now you can attack people through walls -- with swords :smallconfused:
Balance was... less than obviously present, especially with some of the spells
This may seem a little nit-picky, but I feel the music suffered in Heroes IV. The sickening, meandering faux opera interspersed with saxophone solos greatly irritated. This isn't to say that the other games in the Heroes series had great music, but at least their faux opera numbers didn't meander to the same degree.
Personally, I disliked the change to the hero system. Having the hero as just another unit seemed a disappointing step down to me.

[Gamerlord]

Here is my personal list of heroes games, by ranking:
1. III, awesomesauce of the HIGHEST DEGREE
2. V, nice graphics, not too bad
3. II, its good
4. I, meh, its old, have to forgive it for it's many shortcomings
5. IV, being at the bottom of the list pretty much describes it's quality.

It REALLY STINKS.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I never really liked those kind of games... Units are so unbalanced, the size of armies are limited. You can summon non-thematical unit by your side (Death force who captured elven encampment will have unicorns? wtf?)

And.. yhea, that's pretty much it. Same thing for Age of Wonders, and the like.. I have some fun, but then I grow bored very quickly :smallfrown:

But maybe there are somes who are better, and should be worth trying out?

[Morty]

In essence, Heroes IV had some nice ideas that got ruined by poor execution. The hero development system, for instance, was good in theory, but impratical. And of course, some things were just plain bad there, like combat, sieges in particular. And many of the good things from HIV were used in H5 - like caravans and spellcasting units.
Still, Heroes IV isn't a bad game. It's just not as good as other games from the series.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Here is my personal list of heroes games, by ranking:
1. III, awesomesauce of the HIGHEST DEGREE
2. V, nice graphics, not too bad
3. II, its good
4. I, meh, its old, have to forgive it for it's many shortcomings
5. IV, being at the bottom of the list pretty much describes it's quality.


This basically sums up my hierarchy of Heroes games except that I'd switch Heroes II and V. However, this may just be because II was the game that brought me into the series and now has a great nostalgic hold over me.

[Vitruviansquid]

Things that made IV suck:

- Necropolis had demons AND undead and guess what? They didn't actually get along. You're either using undead or demons, no mixing and matching that makes every other army interesting.

-Each faction has eight units... but there are only 4 tiers and no upgrades. Furthermore, you can only ever have dwellings for 5 units in one city. So in general, there's much less unit variety than you would see in HoMM III or V. On the other hand, each unit does something unique and interesting compared to each other unit... but so do the units in HoMM V, and *they* have upgrades, more tiers, etc.

- For good or ill, heroes are now active participants in combat.

- Instead of simple hexes or clear squares for unit movement, you have this crazy battlefield where the land is divided into itty bitty tiny squares and that each unit occupies a large number of squares. This makes combat look nutty and makes sure you never really know whether your melee units will be in range to attack until you actually try it.

Things that made HOMM VI great:

- ehhh... the campaign stories, if I remember correctly, were usually well narrating and entertaining. Not sure if I truly remember correctly, though.

- It's probably cheaper these days than HoMM V, which is, in my opinion, a much better game than HOMM IV in every way possible, unless you really enjoy having heroes on the battlefield.

- Perhaps I am more perverse than I previously thought, or there is something great in the game that I'm mis-identifying, but writing about HOMM IV has actually made me want to reinstall it. So perhaps there is something to

[factotum]

I didn't have a big problem with HoMM4. It wasn't as good as 3, but it wasn't a terrible game either. The main issue I had with the heroes actually being on the battlefield was on maps where you had "if this hero dies, you lose" set--if you happened to run into a stack of Medusas their ranged instant-kill skill worked on heroes too, so chances are you'd instantly lose the map due to a random chance, or else have a blockage you couldn't risk taking your main hero and his army through.

[Tengu_temp]

In essence, Heroes IV had some nice ideas that got ruined by poor execution. The hero development system, for instance, was good in theory, but impratical. And of course, some things were just plain bad there, like combat, sieges in particular. And many of the good things from HIV were used in H5 - like caravans and spellcasting units.
Still, Heroes IV isn't a bad game. It's just not as good as other games from the series.

Pretty much this. A step back in comparison to III, but still an okay game. Nostalgia factor aside, it's better than I and maybe than II too.

[toasty]

My biggest problem With 5 is that the Demon Campaign is, without cheats, unbeatable. THe 3rd level is unbeatable. I can't move past it. This makes me REAAAAAAALY pissed off. :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfrown:

In Heroes IV this isn't the case. I can win any of the campaigns (or should be able to, I never did) without cheats.

And the heroes in combat, while a good idea, was actually bad because heroes are far too squishy at the higher levels. A level 12-15 hero is simply no match for a proper stack of creatures. They'll get one-shotted with ease.

Edit: What I meant to say is that in Heroes III, IMO it was just better to get an amazing caster with cool spells than actually bother with combat skills. In Heroes IV combat skills can be rather useful (and a hero with Master Archery is quite good, actually) but your heroes are just far too squishy to do more than sit in the back and shoot at the weaker or non-ranged units. Otherwise they die really easily. I remember one battle I played where I had to reload because the I focused on a certain unit, when another unit then just one shotted my hero. :smallsigh: Next time I made sure to kill that unit instead.

[lord_khaine]

And the heroes in combat, while a good idea, was actually bad because heroes are far too squishy at the higher levels. A level 12-15 hero is simply no match for a proper stack of creatures. They'll get one-shotted with ease.



never leave home without a propper stack of potions of immortality.

[toasty]

never leave home without a propper stack of potions of immortality.

Which is obnoxious because then I've just spend thousands of gold so my hero can eat 2-3 in a battle....:smallfurious:

[Cespenar]

Actually, if you want to toughen up your heroes, spend a level or two on Combat skills, it makes a big difference. Oh, and things really get wackier if you continue on that tree. Barbarians who are %100 immune to magic and can kick twice, offing a few Black Dragons at each one? Yeah, pretty common.