Heroes of Might and Magic

>Heroes 4 terrible
Opinion discarded

>Dad always played III and he'd let me watch, we'd make jokes together and have a good time
>Always fun to see him strategize and win
>Buy the series to relive memories and end up being really shit
How to get good?

>He didn't played V
>laughs in Skeleton archers

Best written campaigns.
>mfw elf dude campaign is a story of love but his girl gets brainwashed into sleeping with big bad

>WoW aesthetic

It's shit mate.

Practice.

V Tribes of the East is the ultimate Homam game ever made. The only reason why people say 3 is the best is the nostalgia.

>IV
>terrible

get the FUCK out. IV is the best in the series after III

fucking pure god game

Just leting someone from Eastern Europe make fames for Eastern European market would propably earn yhem money. Revenue isn't highe, but the costs are low, so why don't take free money?

I think my issues are trying to go for literally everything on the map, poor management of multiple heroes, and stock-piling too hard on units. How do I fix this?

Thanks, but I don't read NTR anymore.

Ubisoft doesn't give a shit about anything that doesn't make AssCreed-amounts of money. They basically abandoned everything else. Heroes never, Might & Magic never, Clash of Heroes sequel never, open-source UbiArt Framework never. Enjoy fucking Might & Magic Chess Royale.

HOMM POWER RANKINGS

1. III
2. IV
3. V
4. II
5. I
POWER GAP
over 9000. VI and VII

HOMM IV CAMPAIGN POWER RANKINGS

1. Nature
2. Death
3. Life
4. Order
5. Chaos
6. Might

Should I play HoMM3 or King's Bounty first? Only game like those I've played is Legends of Eisenwald

V with expansions is as good as III

Secondary heroes are a disposable supply chain until you can support a second decent army. Don't waste you main hero's movement collecting things behind stacks of your secondary hero is nearby. Mop up and flag resources/dwellings with someone with 1 gremlin or some shit. You can also scout with these disposable heroes.

In case you don't realize, big corporations don't want small scale products that make small scale money.
They want BIG PRODUCTS THAT MAKE ALL THE MONEY.
It's why EA, Ubisoft, Activison etc completely burried all their smaller stuff and focused purely on the copypaste AAA blockbuster shit that makes gorillions because normies can't stop themselves from regurgitating the same shit over and over.

The ultimate contrarian opinion. It's ugly, runs like shit without mods, tossed aside dungeon and fortress, and flanderized just about every other faction. It had some good ideas but it's nowhere near as good as 3.

This goes for most companies. Just look at CDProjekt going from relatively niche to just slapping a giant open world onto their game to sell to casuals
It's unfortunate for the vidya industry that companies need to always grow and increase profits

Heroes IV is the ugliest non-indie game is existence.
It looks like something created in 3d poser by a fat deviantart wannabe goth girl. Minus the sparks of creativity.

Attached: DRevDm_W0AA6Uc_.jpg (680x577, 84.86K)

I see, thanks for the advice user.

If you don't feel like playing 3 (you HAVE played it to death, haven't you?) then 5 is a really fun alternative with a few modern conveniences and cool gameplay concepts. 2 is also a great game of you want to go in the other direction.

Gelu did nothing wrong

It's only an issue if you're a publicly traded company because you need to keep showing growth to sustain the shareholders.
The second your company goes public on the stock market is the second you abandon any creativity and go for minimum effort AAA bucks, happened to everyone including CDPR.

A privately owned company doesn't need to worry about investors so it doesn't need to keep showing growth and can be perfectly fine just having sustained income that's neither growing nor declining, it's the most stable form of business but it doesn't make biggest money so naturally big corporations don't like it.

King's Bounty is completely different since there's no factions/towns. The only similarity is the combat system being hex-grid with armies.

>because you need to keep showing growth to sustain the shareholders.
Naw, always growing is like one of the central pillars of capitalism. It reduces risk if a part of your business fails

Sounds pretty fun, the only reason Eisenwald has towns was so you can conquer them and raise your recruit limit

>Naw, always growing is like one of the central pillars of capitalism. It reduces risk if a part of your business fails
You've naive if you think that's what it's about. Always growing has always been purely about making more and more money, it has never been about stabiltiy.
The entire concept of always growing in capitalism is all about "pump and dump".
You find a cashcow, you pump it to bloat it up to maximum and get maximum money from it, then you dump it and move on to the next cashcow.
The entire idea is BUILT around the idea that the cashcow WILL DIE, it's not about stability or risk reduction whatsoever. You just don't give a shit once that happens because you already pumped a ton of money out of it and can just start pumping the next cashcow.

King's Bounty is more of a RPG with Heroes-like combat/armies, you don't have the entire towns management/kingdom expansion thing.
You just have maps with quests and a story with dwelling and units on the map where you recruit/fight shit while completing the quests for the story.
It's fun but nowhere near as fun or complex as Heroes, at least to me.
And it makes sense since King's Bounty predates Heroes, HoMM was effectivelly a M&M spinoff that decided to rip off King's Bounty and expand it, while KB never grew and remained stagnant to this day with even the newest games being same shit with same gameplay loop I described above.