Heroes of Might & Magic 7

[adddeed]

Been a while since I played it, but from I recall it was just a slightly inferior version of Masters of Magic. They're different enough games(HoMM and MoM/AoW) that I don't really consider one better or worse.

Actually AoW 1 is not that different from HoMM. I just consider it superior for numerous reasons. I've still spent many hours on HoMM2 and 3 though, until i found AoW.

 

[Great Deceiver]

AoW is significantly different from HoMM. No unit stacking, global spells, spell research, less focus on city production & less features on the map, hero as an actual unit on the battlefield, significantly different combat dynamics... they're both turn-based strategy game series with a fantasy theme, but beyond that I don't really see many similarities.

 

[adddeed]

True, and the its better because of the reasons you listed. However there are many many similarties, hence why im comparing them.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

True, and the its better because of the reasons you listed. However there are many many similarties, hence why im comparing them.

Actually HoMM is better because it's not a snorefest. It concentrates on action instead of apathetically roaming around a mapturn after turn waiting for a single building to get build to give you some half-decent units to use.

 

[adddeed]

If by action you mean fighting trash mobs guarding every single thing shown on the map. Or clicking on a thousand resouces and dwellings littered across each map.

 

[Pope Amole II]

Actually HoMM is better because it's not a snorefest. It concentrates on action instead of apathetically roaming around a mapturn after turn waiting for a single building to get build to give you some half-decent units to use.

To quote a famous game designer, you're playing it wrong. No, trolling aside, AoW's playstile is much closer to the HoMM IV's one (or, since AoW was the first here, vice versa). There's a much bigger emphasis on your heroes and so you barely wait for anything - you gather whatever mobile forces you can muster and go roaming & killing stuff from the very beginning. Especially in the AoW I with its half-broken vampiric counterattack. If you roam around and can't do much without an army that means you've built your hero wrongly - I went through the entire vanilla campaign of AoW 2 mostly with roaming heroes.

Though, considering the huge, huge amount of fantasy turn-based strategies in existence, I see little reason for this "which is better & why" bullshit.

 

[adddeed]

Just comparing some games, nothing wrong with that. HoMM and AoW are close enough for comparison i think.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

If by action you mean fighting trash mobs guarding every single thing shown on the map. Or clicking on a thousand resouces and dwellings littered across each map.

You go from figting trashmobs to attacking enemy much faster in HoMM than in AoW.

 

[visions]

Which AoW do you mean? It can't be the first one.

I don't quite see how AoW 1 has less action, given that in AoW 1 I have plenty of shit to do in the early game, being already busy conquering cities in the first turns, whereas in Heroes 3 my first turns consist of taking sawmills from 50 gremlins and it isn't uncommon to not have conquered any cities in the first two weeks since there are usually like 10-15 or less cities per map, there's a decent chance that I haven't even encountered another city yet.

Coupled with the fact that I need heroes to lead my troops in Heroes and can typically afford to give decent troops to only 1-3 of them (with rest of them running around with 1 troop to scout/collect resources or acting as couriers for my main heroes), I have a very limited number of entities that do anything interesting on the map. Whereas in Aow, although the main muscles in AoW are my leader and heroe(s)/handful of elite troops, I can still typically project my force in more places at once, since I don't neccessarily need a big ass army somewhere to make a difference (often thanks to the stupidity of the AI, granted) and in case I do have bigger stacks of elite troops in once place, I can split them up as I see fit, not needing another hero in the vicinity.

The biggest drawback AoW has compared to Heroes 3 is that while in Heroes, the AI is nothing special, its retardation isn't as painfully obvious as it is in AoW. Once you have a decent understanding of the game, it is too easy to exploit things like terrain, flyers and walls against the AI in AoW, also the AI is infuriatingly passive.

 

[adddeed]

If by action you mean fighting trash mobs guarding every single thing shown on the map. Or clicking on a thousand resouces and dwellings littered across each map.

You go from figting trashmobs to attacking enemy much faster in HoMM than in AoW.

There are no trashmobs in AoW1. None. All units are other players, or independents roaming around the map. There are no skeletons guarding sawmills and resources. Which constitutes the majority of the fights in HoMM, at least at the first half.

Which AoW do you mean? It can't be the first one.

I don't quite see how AoW 1 has less action, given that in AoW 1 I have plenty of shit to do in the early game, being already busy conquering cities in the first turns, whereas in Heroes 3 my first turns consist of taking sawmills from 50 gremlins and it isn't uncommon to not have conquered any cities in the first two weeks since there are usually like 10-15 or less cities per map, there's a decent chance that I haven't even encountered another city yet.

Coupled with the fact that I need heroes to lead my troops in Heroes and can typically afford to give decent troops to only 1-3 of them (with rest of them running around with 1 troop to scout/collect resources or acting as couriers for my main heroes), I have a very limited number of entities that do anything interesting on the map. Whereas in Aow, although the main muscles in AoW are my leader and heroe(s)/handful of elite troops, I can still typically project my force in more places at once, since I don't neccessarily need a big ass army somewhere to make a difference (often thanks to the stupidity of the AI, granted) and in case I do have bigger stacks of elite troops in once place, I can split them up as I see fit, not needing another hero in the vicinity.

The biggest drawback AoW has compared to Heroes 3 is that while in Heroes, the AI is nothing special, its retardation isn't as painfully obvious as it is in AoW. Once you have a decent understanding of the game, it is too easy to exploit things like terrain, flyers and walls against the AI in AoW, also the AI is infuriatingly passive.

Well said.

 

[octavius]

HoMM has better AI.
AoW has better tactical combat.
I love them both.

 

[Great Deceiver]

I think a fundamental difference between the two games is the actual overland gameboard; there just seems to be a lot more to do in a HoMM map in general compared to AoW.

 

[octavius]

I think a fundamental difference between the two games is the actual overland gameboard; there just seems to be a lot more to do in a HoMM map in general compared to AoW.

That not nec'ly a good thing. I don't particularly like "havesting" various sites once a week, for example.

It's probably been mentioned, but another fundamental difference in AoW's favour is the use of global spells.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Trashmobs are trashmobs because they don't belong to a faction.
And "independents!!1" are totally different than the Heroes guards.

 

[adddeed]

Trashmobs are trashmobs because they don't belong to a faction.
And "independents!!1" are totally different than the Heroes guards.

Trashmobs are trashmobs. You spend your time fightning trashmobs to harvest resources littered everywhere.
Independents in AoW are exactly that, independent units who roam around, capture points of interest, keep you viglant, and are less tiresome than the trashmobs. They do not guard stuff, because AoW isnt bloated with stuff to harvest and collect, instead you focus on your plan to conquer the enemy.

 

[mhm32167]

https://mmh7.ubi.com/en/blog/post/view/end-of-the-deliberations

Spoiler

So, the time allotted to the vote is now coming to an end. The response was overwhelming, and it quickly became pretty clear that within our Shadow Council a majority believes the Elves of Irollanwould make adequate allies for Ivan.

So be it then.

I’ll talk with Ivan soon, and advise him to send a missive to High-King Alaron of the Elves. Who knows, maybe this will be the beginning of a strong alliance between the forest kingdom and the house of Griffin. Time will tell.

In any case, I’m curious about the identity of the ambassador Alaron will send to Ivan’s court. I’ll share my discoveries with the Shadow Council as soon as I know more.


…Mmm? My own vote? Is it important?

…Very well. I actually voted for the Dwarves. But the Shadow Council is all about making a collective decision, and I intend to respect this. I don’t believe there are “good” or “bad” choices, only… opportunities.

The Shadow Council is adjourned. We shall meet again soon.

Sylvan wins, unsurprisingly. The next vote will probably be between dungeon and inferno.

https://mmh7.ubi.com/en/blog/post/view/vote-for-the-sylvan-line-up
Now voting for the creatures. Choices between defensive, balanced, and offensive lineups.

All three get:
- hunter

Spoiler

ranged damage dealer with double attack

- druid

Spoiler

saboteur and ranged damage dealer with entangling abilities

- green dragon

Spoiler

tough damage dealer with average move range and area of effect damage

#1 and #2 get root snake (core)

Spoiler

super-fast saboteur with poison damage and entangling ability

#1 and #3 get dryad (core)

Spoiler

supporting creature working in synergy with the Treant to heal it

#2 and #3 get pixie (core)

Spoiler

small damage dealer negating enemy retaliation

#1 gets unicorn (elite)

Spoiler

antimagic support unit

#1 and #2 get emerald warrior (elite)

Spoiler

strike and retribution damage dealer

#3 gets blade dancer (elite)

Spoiler

multiple targeting damage dealer

#3 gets moon doe (elite)

Spoiler

fast damage dealer with supporting abilities

#1 and #3 gets treant as champion with "dryad protection ability", #2 gets treant as elite

Spoiler

tough and resistant creature with entangling abilities

#2 gets phoneix (champion)

Spoiler

flying and hard-to-kill creature with self-resurrection ability and supporting abilities

I'll probably vote for the second lineup (phoenixes )

 

[Grunker]

no dwarves no sell

 

[Bubbles]

no dwarves no sell

Your transformation into Volourn is finally complete.

 

[Grunker]

 

[bloodlover]

Between dungeon and inferno, I am assuming dungeon will win.

That not nec'ly a good thing. I don't particularly like "havesting" various sites once a week, for example.

You can just leave a hero without troops near the mill, tent him and use him once/week. That's what I usually do anyway.

 

[Zeriel]

I think dungeon is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more interesting than Inferno (it can't be a HOMM game without black dragons after all) but two elven towns would be pretty silly, plus Inferno is a unique thematic point that is entirely unlike the other towns, and it'd be a shame for there to be nothing like that.

This is gonna be a hard vote. I like sylvan more than dwarves, but I wish the dwarves had won this past vote just so we could have some balance in the races. Dungeon + Dwarves would have been perfect.

 

[mhm32167]

Quotes from Marzhin (Julien Pirou) from the heroescommunity forums:
"AFAIK Emerald Knight is not a rider" "I think at some point we ruled out any sort of feline rider in Sylvan because it would be too much like WarCraft."

"The H7 Green Dragon will definitely be a walker." So there won't be two flyers in any of the sylvan champion lineups. The balanced lineup will be the only one with a champion flyer.

He also said the phoenix is likely to be a moonix, I would guess in reference to the style of phoenix in heroes 6 (http://mightandmagic.wikia.com/wiki/Phoenix_(H6)).

 

[Darth Roxor]

The very fact that fucking Dungeon has to be put up to a vote shows how rotten is the base of this game.

 

[Suicidal]

You know what would be cool? Instead of teasing with 3 potential factions and then implementing only one of them, why not let the player choose a subfaction in game? Or better yet, have more than 3 creatures in each tier and let the player choose any 3 of them per town (kinda like they did with champion tiers, but for all the other tiers as well). Probably budget constraints, I know, but it would have made the game much better potentially.

 

[bloodlover]

I bet those budget restrains will magically vanish as soon as the inevitable DLCs will be announced.