From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

Having gone to Heroes IV right when it arrived, I never realized that
the AI in Heroes III is very competent. Heroes IV basically had no AI
that I could discern. The missions were like ride down this coast
killing wolves until you get off the island - no interaction with the
enemy. Heroes III just kicked my ass again because the enemy came from
a direction I didn't expect.

What Heroes IV had going for it was that it was very pretty. They
brought back an AI in Heroes V but that is for another story.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 05:24:34 -0500, Altered Beast
<j63480576@gmail.com> wrote:

Having gone to Heroes IV right when it arrived, I never realized that
the AI in Heroes III is very competent. Heroes IV basically had no AI
that I could discern. The missions were like ride down this coast
killing wolves until you get off the island - no interaction with the
enemy. Heroes III just kicked my ass again because the enemy came from
a direction I didn't expect.

What Heroes IV had going for it was that it was very pretty. They
brought back an AI in Heroes V but that is for another story.

Past the first HOMM, I really don't differentiate the various
iterations. They're all a blur to me, merging one into the next. Maybe
slightly better graphics but I never really saw much difference in
gameplay or AI. I bought and played the games, but they never engaged
me like the first one because they lacked the freshness and novelty of
the original. The innumerable expansions in HOMM5 (and later Heroes
Chronicles) ultimately drove me away entirely. The games just weren't
offering enough new for me to keep buying (and buying and buying) the
newest iterations.

But I still fire up HOMM1 and 2 every now and again. They're still
surprisingly playable experiences, and despite their age still look
pretty good.

Which isn't to say I disagree with your assessment. I never played the
game intensely enough to really notice; I was more of a dabbler in the franchise than a die-hard fan. But -for me at least- the competency of
the AI was the least of the series' problems.




--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 05:24:34 -0500, Altered Beast
<j63480576@gmail.com> wrote:

Having gone to Heroes IV right when it arrived, I never realized that
the AI in Heroes III is very competent. Heroes IV basically had no AI
that I could discern. The missions were like ride down this coast
killing wolves until you get off the island - no interaction with the
enemy. Heroes III just kicked my ass again because the enemy came from
a direction I didn't expect.

What Heroes IV had going for it was that it was very pretty. They
brought back an AI in Heroes V but that is for another story.

Past the first HOMM, I really don't differentiate the various
iterations. They're all a blur to me, merging one into the next. Maybe slightly better graphics but I never really saw much difference in
gameplay or AI. I bought and played the games, but they never engaged
me like the first one because they lacked the freshness and novelty of
the original. The innumerable expansions in HOMM5 (and later Heroes Chronicles) ultimately drove me away entirely. The games just weren't offering enough new for me to keep buying (and buying and buying) the
newest iterations.

But I still fire up HOMM1 and 2 every now and again. They're still surprisingly playable experiences, and despite their age still look
pretty good.

Which isn't to say I disagree with your assessment. I never played the
game intensely enough to really notice; I was more of a dabbler in the franchise than a die-hard fan. But -for me at least- the competency of
the AI was the least of the series' problems.

It may not sound like a lot, but HOMM3:RoE has 6 campaigns. The secret
is that they definitely ramp up the difficulty as you progress through
them. If you decide to get the new remastered HOMM III, like someone
else said previously, get the GoG.com version because it includes two fantastic expansions. There was a campaign in the expansion where Gelu
the elf who can train archers and wood elves into sharpshooters has to
make it without cities and a final scenario in the last expansion where
one totally overruns the world with a zillion liches. Both a great deal
of fun.

The campaign in 1 didn't feel real to me, I think you fight a few then
fight a hero of identical class. HOMM 2 had two campaigns that were
pretty good. HOMM3 really blasts it out, like they had someone famous
and gifted create the campaigns. They are all different and once again
like in HoMM2, one plays both sides in the conquest, with a third side belonging to scavengers and peacekeepers.

The reason I notice the HOMM3 AI is because as far as I could tell, HOMM
IV shipped without one. It wasn't obvious - you had to slog through
some tedious scenarios as the only player on the map. However, over
time and before finishing it was a very lonely experience for me. To
say that there is no AI in there is slightly strong. The enemy hero
would trek from point A to point B to point A to point B, but there was
no feature on the map at point B. He had strong aspirations for
conquest then thought better of it, the whole time your power is growing.

I think it was the HOMM5: Tribes of the East where they sold out. It introduces a new faction, the orcs. The orcs are a derision against
certain players who like to maintain their positions. If you don't move
the orc troops they get a negative to their abilities. The thing is it
is a failure. You can even move them backwards. Just moving one space
is good enough. So you've got these guys fidgeting around and the
disdain for an effective strategy, albeit one that is often hated,
camping in one place to wait for the enemy to get there. I use it all
the time against the computer and probably in multiplayer too. I get
this new Tribes of the East and it's like Ubisoft told me, "Your
strategy sucks." HOMM6 was terrible and because of a Steam error I
can't play HOMM7. I think I navigated backward during the sale or
something and it's sitting in my library incapacitated.

I would play HOMM2 again if it were remastered. Very good story.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 05:24:34 -0500, Altered Beast
<j63480576@gmail.com> wrote:

Having gone to Heroes IV right when it arrived, I never realized that
the AI in Heroes III is very competent. Heroes IV basically had no AI
that I could discern. The missions were like ride down this coast
killing wolves until you get off the island - no interaction with the
enemy. Heroes III just kicked my ass again because the enemy came from
a direction I didn't expect.

What Heroes IV had going for it was that it was very pretty. They
brought back an AI in Heroes V but that is for another story.

Past the first HOMM, I really don't differentiate the various
iterations. They're all a blur to me, merging one into the next. Maybe slightly better graphics but I never really saw much difference in
gameplay or AI. I bought and played the games, but they never engaged
me like the first one because they lacked the freshness and novelty of
the original. The innumerable expansions in HOMM5 (and later Heroes Chronicles) ultimately drove me away entirely. The games just weren't offering enough new for me to keep buying (and buying and buying) the
newest iterations.

I must have started the campaign in HOMM5: Tribes of the East a million
times that I'm not interested in finishing it. Currently finishing
HOMM3: Rise of Erathia, 4 campaigns down 2 to go and HOMM5: Hammers of
Fate campaigns. One thing I don't like in Tribes of the East is that
you are forced to betray your master and I'm all about loyalty. HOMM3
wasn't as linear as that, where campaigns must be played in order.
Hammers of Fate seems solid and the campaigns challenge in new ways.

HOMM6 & 7 require UbiPlay. I'm sick of games like this requiring play
through service, I think all they are for is to take your money when you forget your password. Their password recovery is usually abysmal. They certainly don't do anything for me. From now on I will ask for a refund
if it is like this. My dollars are a vote and I won't vote for play
through service.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
despite their age still look

pretty good.

Which isn't to say I disagree with your assessment. I never played the
game intensely enough to really notice; I was more of a dabbler in the franchise than a die-hard fan. But -for me at least- the competency of
the AI was the least of the series' problems.

The need for an AI is the difference in trimming the bushes so to speak
and chasing the gardener with hedge clippers. I spent 10 hrs trimming
the bushes in HOMM 4 and then never played it again. I kept waiting for something intelligent to happen, but it never showed.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 20:49:06 -0600, Peter Steele
<snakesbloodpussycat@yahoo.com> wrote:

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
despite their age still look

pretty good.

Which isn't to say I disagree with your assessment. I never played the
game intensely enough to really notice; I was more of a dabbler in the
franchise than a die-hard fan. But -for me at least- the competency of
the AI was the least of the series' problems.

The need for an AI is the difference in trimming the bushes so to speak
and chasing the gardener with hedge clippers. I spent 10 hrs trimming
the bushes in HOMM 4 and then never played it again. I kept waiting for >something intelligent to happen, but it never showed.

I'm not necessarily disgreeing with that. As I said, I don't consider
myself enough of an afficinado of the series to judge the worthiness
of the AI from one game to the next.

I just think that the reason for the series decline amongst most
gamers has less to do with how good or bad the AI was than other
issues, such as how each game failed to stand out from its
predecessors, or how there was a glut of the games all released at
once (e.g., HOMM5), or how the games visuals were appearing
increasingly dated.

For the average gamer, I think these were far more important
considerations. Bad AI is rarely a game-killer. I mean, look at "Call
of Duty" ;-)


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114