So I want to examine two of my favorite games of all time (and possibly my favorite Strategy series). I have played the shit out of both Heroes 2 and 3 so much I can't honestly decide which one I like better (or which one I've played more). Both games have their merits. Heroes 2 has an awesome look and feel, with a killer soundtrack. All the towns (while unbalance as shit) feel unique and have their own unique style of play that goes along with them. And most importantly each one is fun to play with.
With Knights and Barbarians, you want to play aggressively and pick off your opponents before they build up. Wizard and Warlock, you want to sit back and snatch up resources so you can get your tier 6 units (You've basically won the game once you get a stack of about 15 black dragon, unless of course someone else has dragons), and the sorceress is all about having a quick strike force of shooters and fliers backed up by dwarfs and unicorns. The Necromancer's units are unremarkable save for two of them: Skeletons and Vampire lords. While Skeletons have no special abilities stat-wise they are are the best level one units and due to the necromancy skill you get a fuckload of them. Vampire lords are able to drain the life off of an enemy stack and replenish themselves.
In Heroes 3 the towns are lot more consistent in power at the cost of the uniqueness of the towns . The general strategy for each town feels very much the same. Each town didn't lend itself to any particular style of play due to the fact that towns were given access . Every non-neutral unit has an upgraded version of itself. The upgraded units definitely balance out the game creature-wise and resource-wise, but at the same time the upgrades feel very arbitrary. On the other hand, the upgrades in Heroes 2 were more logical, but alsomore flavorful. How do you upgrade a wolf or a dumbass peasant? Upgrading an ogre with better gear or giving elves better bows makes more sense. Ima end this here since I don't remember what else I was gonna say.