That title sounds like Drakan: Order of the Flame
maybe next time, maybe...

I wonder what defines a HoMM-like game for other players. I watched plenty of Songs of Conquest videos, and as far as I can tell, this game has very small amount of similarities with HoMM games: the exploration mechanics that we know from HoMM is there since King's Bounty, and the combat is anything but HoMM (feels more like Battle Brothers or Urtuk The Desolation combat).

As for The Dragoness: I am not much concerned about a roguelite element if it doesn't makes the gameplay grindfull and tedious.

Also in the critic reviews I saw, one might actually consider it a positive, somehow: "You can modify loadouts, known as Revival Spells, using various structures such as the Oracle, which you choose every time you return to the capital after a quest. Whether you win or lose, you’ll always need to pick a new Revival Spell and you’ll always get randomised skills with it. These include skills like Reinforce that improves the defence of your units, but you can also set your own end-of-turn bonuses that trigger after each turn, whether in combat or exploration. These grant small buffs each turn such as extended movement range or boosts to resource gathering. It adds a rogue-lite element to proceedings, as you’ll never be sure exactly which skills and bonuses you’ll take into the next quest."

But the other I can agree with:
"Each time you choose an area of the map to enter a mission (sometimes there is only one place you can choose, other times maybe a couple), you have to choose which revival spell to use. This is one of the major elements I dislike about The Dragoness Command Of The Flame, it feels like you get reset every time you start a new mission and that is essentially what happens. You will complete one mission, having leveled up, gained spells etc, then you will start the next mission with no (or maybe one) spell and your other attributes basically back to zero. It makes it feel like a game of one step forward two steps back. The revival spell forces you to choose between two “load outs” basically you have some perks ie extra movement, more mana etc and you need to determine which is likely to be more useful in the given mission. Whilst in the mission some of these perks are presented as options for the end of turn, ie start the next turn with an armour boost to your troops, regain more health etc."

So much for character development, planning ahead, or even just, you know, playing as you enjoy or at least feel comfortable playing...

Thanks. That's how I interpeted it from the game card. Sounds crap. I was hopeful I was wrong and it was a "legacy" experience of a hand-crafted good world that changed organically over time through playthroughs and eventually, after generations, you could win. But, alas, sounds like crap. Crap I'll try, but probably crap crap.

Myself and many others had asked for the devs to ditch the "roguelite twist" concept from this game back when it was first announced.

What a shame that they didn't listen, and instead they doubled-down on that very bad idea.

I'd say so. I played the first campaign and decided it was good enough to wait for the game to be more properly done. A few people seem upset that some of the mechanics are quite different from HOMM, but that's kinda the point. If you just want HOMM there's plenty of that already.

I'm sure everybody wants a modern HOMM with modern graphics and which doesn't mess up nor change any of the mechanics.

Devs who don't make that because they think they can reinvent the wheel and do better, and so they change stuff just for sake of changing stuff, they aren't doing themselves any favors. All they are doing is making their games worse than they need to be, and ensuring that their games will never come anywhere close to matching the sales of HOMM.

They'd be better off, and so would gamers, if they copied HOMM exactly and did nothing to it other than updating the graphics and adding some QOL features like caravans that can move your armies to you without you having to pick them up in town (like is featured in the final HOMM 5 expansion pack).

It actually first appeared in Heroes IV and it was added to Heroes V in Hammers of Fate, not TotE.

One of the very few good ideas in Heroes IV.

As for the rest, the mechanics of Heroes, especially III, are far from perfect. And don't even start about balancing.

You are dead wrong. Everything else you said is pointless and worthless.

I would appreciate a faithful modern recreation of HoMM3 for sure. So Ancient-Red-Dragon isn't completely wrong.

And I would not.

The problem is, the 24 years old mechanics are simply too old for modern (new) players.

If you want to play new HoMM3, just install Horn of Abyss and you've got yourself a modern continuity.
As for modern graphics, many old(er) players would not touch it, since they are rooted in 2D visuals and any change would hurt their feelings.

So for HoMM3 enthusiast: play as much as you wish/can, there are tons of mods, so enjoy.

But waiting for a modern HoMM3? For whom? Ubisoft? Nah, they will not put any money in a niche area of the whole gaming ocean.

Be happy, that some devs, like the one of this game (The Dragoness: Command of the Flame) or Song of Conquest are at least trying to do something new.

I don't necessarily want an exact replica of HoMM, I'm more than ok with a game that does its own thing while taking inspiration from Heroes. It's how we got Disciples. It's just that I hate roguelike mechanincs with a passion.

This.

Anyway, don't forget to vote for Drakan.

When this talk of a modern HoMM comes up, I'm thinking to say that I'd like a continuation of the HoMM4 mechanics, with heroes and armies being independent and allowing for parties of heroes. But then I realize that AoW (best in AoW2, since in the first you didn't have a "central" caster and in SM heroes were nerfed and that awful auto-surrender mechanic was introduced) did that one better, allowing for armies for adjacent hexes to join the battle and giving more room for siege battles. So maybe more like that instead, without Triumph reinventing the wheel.
HoMM1-3 remain odd games for me, having played them so much but always to get frustrated and complain, and in case of 2 and 3 get absolutely nowhere, think I finished one campaign in 3 and that was it (believe I finished HoMM1 though), couldn't possible handle that gameplay style and would rant to anyone who'd listen (and many who wouldn't) that if it's called heroes of might and magic, it should be the heroes fighting, otherwise it's cowards-hiding-behind-their-armies of might and magic. So finally got what I wanted in 4, liked that one for it, enough to forgive any other flaws (but will agree that such a radical change should have probably been a spin-off, since it alienated the actual fans of the series and I sure hate when I'm in their position), and then played TotE from 5 and found it bearable, I guess thanks just to those caravans, despite being with the faction I'd normally hate, being all might.
But the guardians from Disciples, that bring some sense of... comfort in knowing that your capital is generally reasonably safe at least, do give that quite some appeal.
And, of course, the pure PvE, with a static environment you need to conquer and fixed armies to do it with, needing to care for them and be tactical instead of looking after the economy and playing resource-generator whack-a-mole, of King's Bounty suits me even better.

So, yeah, it's weird. I guess just because I started TBS with HoMM games and played them for so long despite the frustration, tend to still associate the genre with them, but give me a moment to realize what I actually liked from the genre and none of it is from that series (except that mechanic of 4, but I'm sure actual fans of the series would say that doesn't count).

TL;DR: More like AoW2 (maybe without such glaring AI fails) please.