belgarathmth: For me, HoMM ended with HoMM4. (Some hardcore players would say it ended with HoMM3.) Five and probably Six just don't have the right game play. They try to be more role-playing than strategy, coming up especially short in resource management and territory control, which are non-existent for most of the scenarios.
klaymen: Actually, HoMM4 was very heavy RPG-ish, even the community made plenty of RPG maps for it.
HoMM5 is just copy&paste HoMM3 + few more ideas.
No it isn't.
We're not talking about game mechanics or town balance here, what specifically made Heroes V lack strategic depth was horrible map and quest design.
In almost every quest in Heroes III you start with a town or close enough to one to get it early. Then your goal is to develop to conquer more towns and beat your enemy, making the best use of what resources you have. That's strategy.
In Heroes V, without mentioning the horrible storyline, there are many quests when you just have a hero and a starting army, and only need to manage the fights you find in the linear path you're forced to follow well enough to keep going until the end.
To me, that's not strategy, that's tactics. It's also much closer to King's Bounty than to HoMM.
Know what? The problem with making a King's Bounty-like is that imo King's Bounty does the same thing better, so why should I buy a game that lacks most of what actually interested me in the HoMM series?