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.

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

When will we try that out?:)

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.