The Best Heroes of Might & Magic Game

[Pex]

I thought to save the other thread from being hijacked, but also to encourage some nice discussion. I didn't include King's Bounty in the poll, although it was a predecessor of the series - let's keep it HoM&M clean ;)

Also, I would encourage everyone to post their opinion why they find a certain game the best of all, like what does it have that the others don't and stuff like that. When making a choice, please take into account all official expansions as the part of the game, not a separate game altogether.

Finally, everyone is entitled to an opinion, so if someone thinks that HoM&M1 is the best part in the series, you may disagree, but that doesn't mean that either is wrong. Opinion in this case is a very subjective thing.

[ianfreddie07]

Pex,

I presume you're the one who voted on HoMM5.

Super Pro Gamer meanwhile voted HoMM4.

I voted for HoMM3. It's epic. The best implementation of the Heroes formula. It gets even better with the In The Wake of The Gods expansion. :D

[Tomekk]

I voted for HoMM 3. That game is just perfect in every aspect: gorgeous graphics, amazing soundtrack, varied and balanced sides, etc.

But my true favorite will always be HoMM2, cause that's the one I played a lot when I was "little". :)

I remember I once managed to recruit some ghosts and 10 minutes later I had 300 of them :D

[hunvagy]

My vote goes to Heroes 3. As Ian already mentioned, the Heroes 3 Complete, which includes WoG, is as good as Heroes can get. Good units, good heroes, and a lot of options to customize your game. And it has a lot of things that was implemented in Heroes 4 like units can move on their own and things. Those were actually the improvements of the fourth game I liked.

But Heroes 4 was seriously flawed in my opinion. And the flaws were exactly the abundance of RPG elements. The heroes, of whom you could have more then one in your group, were so seriously owerpowered at times, that they made armies unnecessary, in thus defeating the purpose of your cities. And before someone attacks, yes I did play it, I played it for quite some time, Heroes being one of the major hotseat timespenders in the dorm I lived in. And yes, a friend of mine created a hero that didn't need armies to clean up the map. Actually it was a band of heroes: a fighter that can take down 3-4 dragons at once, an elemental mage guy, and a summoner. Besides them, I think he only had 4 or 5 Phoenixes in the group. And that was the major letdown for me in that game. That, and the abysmal music :)

[Scatty]

I remember I once managed to recruit some ghosts and 10 minutes later I had 300 of them :D
How did you manage that one? As far as I know they always attack, no matter the army's strength or level of diplomacy.

Anyway my favourite is also Heroes of Might and Magic III, it has it everything in my opinion that's used there. The special abilities of the units are working better / more often and the units themselves look better than in HoMM II, and the devil's faction makes for a pretty interesting campaign. In HoMM IV the mood and setting are a letdown I think, together with much worse monotonous music. However the units look better and their abilities are even better used in HoMM 4, however it doesn't suffice to make it up to HoMM III for me.

[Pex]

Yes, I was the one that voted for HoM&M5, but I didn't want to write my reasons before someone else posts. I wanted to keep the actually 'poll' post clean of my personal opinion, while at the same time I didn't want to double post ;)

To start with, I never played HoM&M1. I know it's on the site and available, but I never got around to play it.

HoM&M2 was one of the first games on CD that I've ever bought and I enjoyed it very much. One of the faults about the game would be only two campaigns and what was interesting, I found the evil brother's campaign (Alaric?) quite easier that Roland's. The other fault in the game was a certain misbalance in the units available for different cities. If I remember correctly, once you got a few dozen Vampire Lords, all you needed to do was attack weak creatures and keep getting more and more VLs until no one could hurt you anymore. Also, Barbarian cities would get quite average Cyclopes comparing to Wizard Titans as their highest tier creature.

HoM&M3 was simply magnificent. It offered diversity with two different heroes that you could train in each type of the cities, more campaigns that were actually connected one way or another, possibility for your heroes to progress from one campaign to the next and a feeling of a quite an epic story going on. Faults? Well, there were quite a few missions where all you needed to do was win one main battle, where you crush the bulk of the enemy forces, and after that it was just a matter of time until your heroes reach the objectives and conquer them. Another fault was that in spite the fact that you could move some of your heroes to the next mission of the campaign, sometimes there was simply not enough experience within the mission for them to reach the top level. That often meant that you had to wait and hope that 'a year of this or that creature' would arrive and bring some more enemies for you to kill. Also, I remember often waiting in front of the last city I need to conquer (with enough forces to conquer it) while every one of my heroes goes and visit every shrine or arena or tower or whatever is it that increases abilities. Makes the end bit of the mission a bit boring. Although there were many various skills to learn, some of them were quite useless imo (like Eagle's Eye) and pretty much all my heroes were eventually learn pathfinding and logistics, one or two spell schools and the rest would've been random or more often those they were starting with anyway.

HoM&M4 was something different. It's not uncommon for companies to try and 'spice up' the series a bit in order to bring something new and not just expansion pack with better graphics and a few more options. In this case they decided to make your heroes able to participate directly in the battles, which again made it possible for you to make an army that will have heroes only in it. To be honest, I liked this option. It gave certain RPG element to the series. I also like the way the battles looked, especially sieges. But I have to admit that I felt that the idea of the HoM&M was somehow 'violated' (in the lack of better word) with that decision. That was even more pronounced by allowing common units to travel around without a hero - something that really bothered me. Another thing I didn't like was misbalance. In the first mission in the campaign, your success often depended only on luck (as in whether or not you'll encounter an enemy hero before you're strong enough). Then after a few missions and heaps of experience for your main heroes, they would turn into almost unstoppable killing machines that could defeat anyone. Yet, you could still lose one in the fight against a dozen genies for example, when they cast a spell on you, so you would just avoid that fight. I also didn't like the fact that you had to choose between two units to build for higher tiers in each city. That meant that you had to have at least two cities in order to build a versatile army, but then again, there were some units that I would never choose anyway, because the other one was always better. Like in the previous part, there were again missions with not enough experience to max up all of your heroes. They also tried to add more variety to your heroes, so depending on the skills you choose they would evolve into a new class, but again due to the fact that some of the skills were very useful while the others were useless, you would never get some classes for your heroes (unless you do it on purpose and with a desire for self punishment :p )

But there were good things about the game as well. Campaigns were interesting and there were many side quests that you sometimes had to do to progress in the campaign, but at other times you could choose not to do them (though pass up on some treasure that way). But the option I liked the most was 'caravan' building which you could use to faster move troops from one city to another or recruit from 'creature building' on the map without visiting them.

HoM&M5 discarded most of the novelties that the previous part brought. Again you needed a hero to lead your armies and again you couldn't have more than one in a single army. Although they could choose direct attack instead of casting spells during the combat, it couldn't compare with the complete involvement in the combat like it the HoM&M4. Your heroes (or enemy ones for that matter) couldn't be targeted in the combat, for example. Someone said that this was the same game as HoM&M3, only with better graphics, but imo it's much more. The flaws I mentioned for number 3 still exist to a certain level, but are not as bad. Campaigns are very good, with nice variety between the missions - one may be classic 'build your city and then crush the enemy' but the next one is a race against time, then another one asks of you just to reach the other end of the map without conquering a single city or fighting a single enemy hero. There is again a lot of side quests, and some you can decide to solve one way or another. Every creature that you can recruit in a city has its upgraded version that often has very different abilities to the previous one and not just better stats. Sometimes, with the upgrade you lose something the original creature had (for example, once you upgrade your peasants to conscripts, you don't get 1gp per peasant per turn anymore). Selection of creatures and their abilities was done very well and is also well balanced, so neither city type has an obvious advantage.

Skills are also improved with many useless ones eliminated. Each class now has skills typical for that class only. Depending on your preferences you can choose different path for some high level skills. I have to admit here, though, that there are still skills that I prefer much to the other.

The only fault in this part comparing to the previous two is that again (like in part 2) you can have only one type of hero per city. I guess it's just makes it a bit less versatile.

And because of everything I've said above, I choose HoM&M5.

[Scatty]

The other fault in the game was a certain misbalance in the units available for different cities. If I remember correctly, once you got a few dozen Vampire Lords, all you needed to do was attack weak creatures and keep getting more and more VLs until no one could hurt you anymore.
That was the case with the Ghosts who gained one unit for every killed single number in one unit. But there was no way to normally get those ghosts into your army also as far as I know, aside of putting them into your army via the level editor.
The Vampire Lords get resurrected up to their unit number they had prior to the battle when they slay enemy units, but they don't get more than their original unit amount for killing enemies. Still pretty powerful units.

[Tomekk]

That was the case with the Ghosts who gained one unit for every killed single number in one unit. But there was no way to normally get those ghosts into your army also as far as I know, aside of putting them into your army via the level editor.
The Vampire Lords get resurrected up to their unit number they had prior to the battle when they slay enemy units, but they don't get more than their original unit amount for killing enemies. Still pretty powerful units.

If what you said is true, then most likely I used the level editor. I don't remember though, it was a LOOOONG time ago.

[The Fifth Horseman]

The Price of Loyalty expansion added a new map dwelling type - "Barrows" - from which you could recruit Ghosts.

[Panthro]

I prefer HOMAM2.

Just found it easy to jump in and play a scenario, and the graphics are still easy on the eye (sprites > 3D!). It has quite good balance between the different types of cities, so you never feel gimped if you start with the "wrong" one.

[TheChosen]

I always liked the second one. Its fun in multiplayer too and it has some great music.

4th isnt bad either. It introduces lot of interesting aspects.

[Pex]

That was the case with the Ghosts who gained one unit for every killed single number in one unit. But there was no way to normally get those ghosts into your army also as far as I know, aside of putting them into your army via the level editor.
The Vampire Lords get resurrected up to their unit number they had prior to the battle when they slay enemy units, but they don't get more than their original unit amount for killing enemies. Still pretty powerful units.

Yup, you're right. It's been ages since I played that game. But I still remember that once you got a good number of Vampire Lords they vere almost indestructable. Often an enemy unit would attack them and they'll resurrect all their troops back just from retaliating.

[_r.u.s.s.]

Yup, you're right. It's been ages since I played that game. But I still remember that once you got a good number of Vampire Lords they vere almost indestructable. Often an enemy unit would attack them and they'll resurrect all their troops back just from retaliating.

proper spells can take care of them :p

[Tomekk]

I always liked the second one. Its fun in multiplayer too and it has some great music.


When will we try that out?:)

[Eagle of Fire]

The third one, easily.

Little is left to say about it, really. Everybody already did a very good job describing the different games. I can however add that HoMM4 wasn't a HoMM game at all... And this is why I hate companies who simply create a new game similar to the previous ones and tag it with the logo only to boost sales...

I been so letdown by HoMM4 that I never bothered to even look at HoMM5... And I know that I would be disappointed if I did anyways.

[bobson]

I started playing with III and completed nearly all extensions even with Chronicles (not every chronicle to the end, but each one started).
Later I checked the second game in the series - quite entertaining, but I haven't finished even one campaign... One day I'll get back to it, as it was fun to play.
First one wasn't interesting for me at all, I do not remember exact reason.
Fourth instalment was different, as many of You noticed already - I really gave that game a chance, but the changes, especially on tactical map kept me away. I do not recommend that one.
Many of you argue about the fifth one being best ... I do not agree. Putting 3d to this game took some "magic" IMO. and I still do not understand why there are squares on the tactical map instead of hexes??

My Personal Summary:
I - haven't played
II - good one
III - best one
IV - bad one
V - good one

[Pex]

I been so letdown by HoMM4 that I never bothered to even look at HoMM5... And I know that I would be disappointed if I did anyways.
Since you chose HoM&M3 as your favorite, I don't think HoM&M5 could disappoint you. Even if it doesn't blow you away as it did with me, you should at least be glad that all the changes from the part 4 are gone ;)

I highly recommend it to everyone.

Many of you argue about the fifth one being best ... I do not agree. Putting 3d to this game took some "magic" IMO. and I still do not understand why there are squares on the tactical map instead of hexes??

Putting 3d was necessary considering the date the game was published. They had to take the new generation of gamers into consideration, especially with HoM&M4 disappointing many of the 'old timers'. I actually liked the change, but I understand that it would bother some players.

As for squares instead of hexes, funny thing, but I never noticed that change until you mentioned it now. I guess it's been a while since I played part 3. Since the unit in a square can attack any other square it's in the contact with (including those diagonally), it works pretty much the same as hexes. In fact, now a single square unit could be in contact with 8 others, comparing to 6 with hexes. But my guess they moved to squares because of the big units that now occupy 4 squares. To put them on 4 hexes they would've had to be possitioned somehow under an angle to the battlefield.

[Eagle of Fire]

Putting 3d was necessary considering the date the game was published.
Except that, for strategy games, visuals<gameplay.

So, that you like it or not, it cannot be anything else than a fail...

[Scatty]

Except that, for strategy games, visuals<gameplay.

So, that you like it or not, it cannot be anything else than a fail...
Was my thinking exactly when it was about to come out. Don't think I'll ever try it out, too. Why, if there's HoMM II and III?

[bobson]

Putting 3d was necessary considering the date the game was published. They had to take the new generation of gamers into consideration, especially with HoM&M4 disappointing many of the 'old timers'.

I clearly understand why it happened, but I do not the like the fact that I have to move the map around. It is something unnecessary in my opinion, same as Worms 3D. I tried it, and I do not like to be bothered by that element. If the graphics would be 3D and I could move up/down, left/right only without the need to make circles (to look for resources or dangers) it would be a nice 3D.

[Pex]

Fair enough. It never bothered me, though I noticed that after I scroll and rotate the map to have a peek at areas, I usually scroll it back again to keep it facing North - some habits never go ;)

[supa_mario]

I liked V's 3D camera but I preferred III. Something just doesn't feel right about the pace of V.

[Panthro]

The point about the 3D camera is a big one for me.

I've recently been playing Titan Quest, which was apparently made so that you would never need to rotate the camera unless you wanted to. The default camera is all I've used, and have had no issues with not being able to see enemies or items.

Too many games that switched to a 3D view in sequels require too much camera work, or change the view entirely (modern RPGs are particularly at fault in my eyes for ditching top-down types of viewpoints for chase cameras).

Anyway, that's enough thread derailment, carry on!

[BranjoHello]

Some posts from "Best RPG Universe" should be transfered here. :3:

[tag8833]

HOMM 2 is the best because of the greater unit differentiation. Each race had advantages and disadvantage. Most of that went away in HOMM 3 because there were simply too many units. Also the 2 hero types per race was a let down.

None of the other games compare.

[Sarin]

I'm torn between II and III. IV and V lost the original feel with new graphics, so no matter how good they might be, they just aren't HoMaM anymore for me.

[ysorian]

I'm going for II. not simply because its the one i still have the originals for but because i loaded it up for my 8 year old son and he got it straight away and loved it!... and after watching him play for an hour or so as soon as he was picked up i jumped straight on! lol

An oldie but a goodie.

[Scatty]

and after watching him play for an hour or so as soon as he was picked up i jumped straight on! lol

An oldie but a goodie.
I'm on it right now too, going through Price of Loyalty addon. I have to agree, HoMM II is a golden classic and can stay it's own on par with HoMM III, especially with the addon.

[kad3t]

For me it would've have to be HOMM II with expansion. Not only because it's the first installment in the franchise I've spent more than 5 minutes playing (Yeah, sadly I never really gotten into HOMM I) but also thanks to the huge map making community and an awesome Gyros Too map that me and my mate played throughout one entire summer in our early youth. One map, enough said. ^__^