It's time for some critics.

[Smash]

Originally Posted by sector24

The only think KB and HoMM have in common is turn based combat, and King's Bounty has far superior turn based combat. If you're into castle building and resource management, then HoMM may be the better choice but if you compare the things they have in common, KB is the better game.

Care to explain? How it is superior turn based combat when system is nearly same?

[Amamake]

Originally Posted by Zhuangzi

Don't bother with HOMM V? I was just investigating the possibility of buying that game. It turns out that Ubisoft are about to release all HOMM V and the 2 expansions in one budget disk (That's Hot range) which will be like $20 for me! So why shouldn't I play HOMM V?

I think I saw a HOMM 3 + 4 complete DVD a while back...

HOMM V is good and expansions improved it a lot. You will probably find this game not as addictive and somewhat lacking in clarity compared to KB:TL, but still it's very intelligent and interesting game. Same applies to HOMM 3.

[wolfing]

Originally Posted by Amamake

HOMM V is good and expansions improved it a lot. You will probably find this game not as addictive and somewhat lacking in clarity compared to KB:TL, but still it's very intelligent and interesting game. Same applies to HOMM 3.

I agree. HOMM V is really good. As good as KB in many aspects, yet different so I do recommend both games entirely (HOMM V I believe is more difficult than KB and much more replayable)

[Gatts]

Originally Posted by Smash

Care to explain? How it is superior turn based combat when system is nearly same?

Well, I believe as well that KB has much better combat system...

Plus:
You may fight combined neutral armies - where the stack number can be above your double stack number (above 10 enemy stack units - much more fun)

You can fight the guardians (gremlins) - HUGE Fun

You can collect treasures (great minigame to catpure the damn treasure sooner than your enemy and still not take disadvantage from it - need of fast tanks in your army)

Rage box (something similar was in WOG as hanchman, but rage box is real real fun)

living obstacles (healer pillar, lightning pillar, volcano, undead casket... )

Visuals - like real eye candies (even HOMM V has beutifull 3-d combat camera, but KB somehow feels more magical/beutifull... a lot more, HOMM V animation is somehow sterile)

Minus:
Not the best of the best AI (still above average) - which is solved in MOD (and probably in patch)

[sector24]

Originally Posted by Smash

Care to explain? How it is superior turn based combat when system is nearly same?

Hmm, I'm not sure I can adequately explain this. I've been playing TBS games for almost 25 years now, and you get a "gut feeling" of whether a game is well designed or not but you can't always say why.

One thing I really like is the way they implemented the "wait" command. Sounds silly I know, but in most games, if you wait and then your opponent waits, you still have to go first. In KB, the advantage goes towards the unit with higher initiative, so that if you wait your slower opponents can wait but they'll still have to move before you. It's a small thing, but it adds a lot of strategy.

Also, I really like the randomly generated battlefields with obstacles, and sometimes with goodies like treasure chests. My favorite are the coffins with skeletons inside, but the whole thing is just a good concept taken one step farther than the games that came before it.

Another thing I like about the combat is that luck exists, but plays such a small role that strategy is still the defining factor in who wins. This is not a direct comparison to any of the HoMM games, just a general observation. Sometimes random damage ranges and critical chance make a game too unpredictable, but KB not only gives you those values up front, but when you mouse over your opponent you can see the damage range and how many opponents you will kill. A very nice little feature.

I think the power levels and leadership costs of the units are well balanced. What unbalances the game are a select few items and a select few spells. For instance, Magic Spring is a game destabilizing spell. I relied on it heavily to bend the AI to my will. Without it the game would be much harder. Sacrifice and Resurrection are similar but I actually like those spells. Possibly the game would be more challenging not if they were removed, but just toned down so that intelligence didn't add as much to the spell's power.

The items that unbalance the game are Anga's Ruby, Isshara's Whip, etc. They're definitely fun, but they massively increase the damage potential of female and low leadership units. Of course, lake fairies, sprites and dryads are low leadership female units, so you see why they're so powerful. Even the dragonslayer sword to a degree unbalances what should be seriously difficult fights.

But the thing is that the game is not balanced for hardcore players, it's balanced for regular gamers. I think the game's balance is good even though once you learn the sneaky tricks you can beat it on any difficulty level. But the combat really is top notch despite the fact that there are ways to exploit it.

Strategic (the most important)
Small amount of randomness that doesn't overshadow strategy
Tons of options for diverse and successful armies and playstyles
Neat obstacles and objects on the battlefield
Well thought out combat rules that add to the strategy

The things that drag the combat down are not actually part of the combat. They are spells and items that can be exploited to upset the game's natural balance. Hope that helps to explain my point of view.

[Smash]

Originally Posted by sector24

Hmm, I'm not sure I can adequately explain this. I've been playing TBS games for almost 25 years now, and you get a "gut feeling" of whether a game is well designed or not but you can't always say why.

One thing I really like is the way they implemented the "wait" command. Sounds silly I know, but in most games, if you wait and then your opponent waits, you still have to go first. In KB, the advantage goes towards the unit with higher initiative, so that if you wait your slower opponents can wait but they'll still have to move before you. It's a small thing, but it adds a lot of strategy.

It is same like in homm3, Archangels are the fastest unit for example if you press wait they will act last no matter if your opponent use wait too.No new things here.

Also, I really like the randomly generated battlefields with obstacles, and sometimes with goodies like treasure chests. My favorite are the coffins with skeletons inside, but the whole thing is just a good concept taken one step farther than the games that came before it.

Battlefields are nearly same, in homm3 obstacles are randomize too. There is no goodies on battlefield but treasures make no sense why you cannot pick them after fight? Logic fail. I would really prefer destructible obstacles, few levels not one level battlefield (it is 3d FFS) and maybe during fight random third party encounter to spice battle.

Another thing I like about the combat is that luck exists, but plays such a small role that strategy is still the defining factor in who wins. This is not a direct comparison to any of the HoMM games, just a general observation. Sometimes random damage ranges and critical chance make a game too unpredictable, but KB not only gives you those values up front, but when you mouse over your opponent you can see the damage range and how many opponents you will kill. A very nice little feature.

Well it is same like in homm3 apart that you need count yourself how much you kill (in homm5 this you have already implemented). Luck factor is in both games homm and kb, you just need to take it in calculation.

I think the power levels and leadership costs of the units are well balanced. What unbalances the game are a select few items and a select few spells. For instance, Magic Spring is a game destabilizing spell. I relied on it heavily to bend the AI to my will. Without it the game would be much harder. Sacrifice and Resurrection are similar but I actually like those spells. Possibly the game would be more challenging not if they were removed, but just toned down so that intelligence didn't add as much to the spell's power.

Well homm3 is far from balance too. KB:L would be much harder if ai wasn't so dump.

The items that unbalance the game are Anga's Ruby, Isshara's Whip, etc. They're definitely fun, but they massively increase the damage potential of female and low leadership units. Of course, lake fairies, sprites and dryads are low leadership female units, so you see why they're so powerful. Even the dragonslayer sword to a degree unbalances what should be seriously difficult fights.

There should be powerful items but not guarantee one. This is problem.

You didn't really answer my question sadly, for someone who played a lot homm3 this game do not offer anything new or interesting and because of small content it is get boring very fast.

[Amamake]

Originally Posted by Smash

You didn't really answer my question sadly, for someone who played a lot homm3 this game do not offer anything new or interesting and because of small content it is get boring very fast.

Eh, no, he did provide an excellent answer to your question. You are just being a douchebag.

[monkeydog]

This game is an excellent game. As about all of us would agree or we wouldn't be posting all of these great comments and as the reviews have shown as well. The original HOMM was very good too. I played 2 through 5 and 3 was the best and had the best AI. I hate to admit it, but I played HOMM3 for about a year solid. Anyway, just for the record, I wanted to add that I think this game wasn't rushed in the slightest. It has a lot of depth and lots of details. I actually think a lot of time went into looking at the HOMM series finding, what worked and didn't and incorporated that into the design of this game. There are many new things too that are wonderful and make the game a joy to play. I guess I can't see why someone who loved the original HOMM series (specifically 3), wouldn't love this game. Clearly the developers did as can be seen by playing this game. The only things I can see that HOMM3 had that was nice and this game doesn't would be multiplayer, better AI, 7 troop stacks with larger battleground (although I prefer the new battlegrounds of this game - this would just add to it), enemy artifacts when defeating them, and multiple maps/worlds for more replayability. The only glaring thing that stands out to me are the spell exploits with the rez/sac. I mean if someone can win on impossible with no losses, then obviously this aspect needs to be re-worked. The game is very well balanced overall. Kudos guys on a job very well done overall!

[sector24]

Originally Posted by Amamake

Eh, no, he did provide an excellent answer to your question. You are just being a douchebag.

I have to admit I laughed when I read this, but then I felt a little bad for laughing. A little.

Anyway, it's been quite awhile since I played HoMM 3 and obviously my memory is a little hazy. I honestly don't remember them implementing recursive waiting but it could very well be true. So I'm just going to have to go back to my "gut feeling". I remember HoMM 3 battles being largely about attrition and not very much about strategy. Basically every time you were in a battle with a non-trivial opponent, you were going to lose some of your army no matter how good you were at the game. You might lose a little more or a little less, but you were always going to lose some units just because your opponent had an army of a certain size.

This makes sense in the scope of HoMM because you can buy new units every week and the game is primarily about resource management, not tactical combat. But that's not the focus of KB at all. I like that if you really take the time to think things out, you can pull an Alexander the Great or Sun Tzu type of overwhelming victory. It's the same concept that makes the Total War games great. You don't get that in HoMM at all.

The other thing that bothered me in HoMM (and this has no comparison to KB) is that the enemy heroes could just run around willy nilly and sometimes you couldn't catch them. I remember being in a protracted battle with an AI the same size as me across a huge wide open continent. His heroes were just a tiny bit faster than mine, so I could never catch them. He'd always just run around stealing my weekly resources, or putting himself in a position where he could attack 1 of 2 castles, and I had to choose which one to defend. Then he'd always take the other one, and I'd take it back and crush him, but lose about a week's worth of units doing it. He'd buy his hero back from the inn and we'd do it again.

The whole thing was frustrating and pointless and due to the fact that no matter how skilled I was, I was going to lose half my army taking back my castle, I could never get out of that stupid cycle. I eventually just quit. That is the sour taste that sticks with me from HoMM and why I stopped playing. It's not a game about strategic combat like KB is.

[Zhuangzi]

To echo some of what sector said, I had a think about it and there are a couple of key reasons why I think this is about the best TBS in only 15 years of strategy gaming:

The leadership system. This is genius. Instead of there being weak and strong units like in most games, the leadership systems means that pretty much any unit is viable throughout the game. Wonderful. Black Dragons are probably the 'best' unit overall but are you going to use them with their 2500 leadership? Or do you want to go for Lake Fairies? Or Evil Beholders?

Level design (at the strategic, not battle level) This is especially true in Darion, which is just put together in such a way as to draw you into the game. While this game doesn't have an interesting story, it does lure you with the quest design. I also love the way that enemies move on the strategic view, unlike in Disciples II.

Thirdly, the battle system. I'm with sector on this. I can't remember a more enjoyable and rewarding battle system in a game. The grid is very small (usually) but this makes it like chess. This is a real STRATEGY game.

Oh, and why does everything have to be compared to HOMM 3 anyway? If I loved that game, and then someone made a successful homage to it many years later, I would be ecstatic. I'm still waiting for a real spiritual successor to XCOM, and Master of Orion 2 (i.e. not MOO3, or Galciv 1/2), and Jagged Alliance 2.