Heroes vs Warlords

[Unbeliever1973]

Seriously. Iâ´ve always felt that Heroes is a great series, but the AI never comes close to the one in the similar game Warlords.

In my mind, Warlords is for hardcore strategy gamers and Heroes is the easy mainstream game. Wouldnâ´t it be cool if Heroes V became a bit more strategic and with tougher AI?

[Unbeliever1973]

Seriously. Iâ´ve always felt that Heroes is a great series, but the AI never comes close to the one in the similar game Warlords.

In my mind, Warlords is for hardcore strategy gamers and Heroes is the easy mainstream game. Wouldnâ´t it be cool if Heroes V became a bit more strategic and with tougher AI?

[Muess-_-]

Personally I didn't like Warlords and I certainly don't want Heroes to become more like it. If you want another Warlords game go post on Warlords forums.

Heroes had plenty of strategy and difficulty depending on the map and difficulty settings you choose.

[Blackjack_77]

One way both Heroes and Warlords are similar is that III was really good but IV was a flop. I wouldn't say one is "harder core" than another, though Heroes has always appealed to a much broader spectrum while Warlords has more of a cult following.

One thing I liked about Warlords is that limited stack sizes forced you to develop several good heroes rather than simply rallying as large an army as possible behind your best hero. And it would have been necessary to divide your forces even if you could beacause it wasn't as easy to get around the map. A problem with multiplayer games in particular in Heroes how often the whole game is decided by the result of just one battle after hours of buildup. Warlords was usually much more chaotic and unpredictable, much more fighting back and forth. More like a real war, I guess you could say.