Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Hearts of Iron IV - The Ultimate WWII Strategy Game

Renegen

Arcane
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
4,062
As I'm mostly looking to play the sea based powers, I really don't like the reduction in aircraft, I was looking at the tech tree and saw none of the US carrier aircraft that are now so famous. There were big differences between carrier and land based aircraft, the Zero had triple the range of a Me 109 and running any type of aircraft in my fleet that didn't do so historically is a huge immershun breaker. Just everything about the way aircraft will be developed sounds terrible, apparently you will be forced to have a bunch of your Me 109s on your carrier decks drop in the water to somehow develop the carrier specifications? Or maybe bombing the Polish will develop that carrier specification, I just don't see how it will make any sense.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
Yeah, the Midway B-17 bombing of the JIN carrier task force was an act of desperation and the Yanks knew it from tests before the war - level bombing of ships is a waste of time and bombs on the open sea.

darkpatriot answered the question fully but I'll still add my 2cents.

You can create carrier versions of all 3 types of light airframes. It's unknown how this will affect their stats, if at all. It's also not known whether the carrier version will have to be built separately or whether - and this is what I suspect they will do - it's merely a toggle and once you have researched it, all versions of that model can now operate from carriers.

So all "classes" of planes have been scrubbed, not just transports and CAGs and we have the three types of chassis, each of which can function as the base for any number of different versions. The different versions are designed through the use of combat experience. Carriers will function as airfields. Which means that you can switch the capabilities of the "cag" on board any carrier depending on what you want the CTF to do - CAS or CAP or naval strikes. I bet that it'll become common to have one carrier with just fighters, another with dive bombers and a third with torpedo bombers.

I just wish that seaplanes/floatplanes were possible but perhaps modders can add further "toggles". Light seaplanes would be like the scout planes carried by battleships and medium seaplanes would be PBY-1 Catalina or BV 138 or Heinkel He-115 and so on.

However, lumping bombers and transports together is still utterly retarded.

Vaarna, MR planes were actually useful in HoI3 - they were the only useful planes in many places in Africa and Asia thanks to range and you could combine them with CAS to minimize damages if enemy interceptors caught you. I used 3xCAS+1xMR groups as Germany - and pure MR groups for air superiority on the Eastern Front, saving INT groups for Britain.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,693
Why would they want to reduce level of complexity? It's a game about WWII, it should be insane. Handling forces on all fronts was quite hard task and there is no reason to ignore some elements only because of "reduction in complexity".
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
Shit, made the mistake of visiting HoI4 forums over at Pdox and browsing some threads. Just pissed me off.

"accessibility!"
"fun!"
"sandbox!"
"who gives a shit about historical accuracy!"
"starcraft is the pinnacle of strategy gaming!"
"i am glad they removed hq's and might remove oob's, they are so unintuitive!"

:rage:
 

Space Satan

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,241
Location
Space Hell
From the stream it look like they made a decent job in eliminating one ofthe most annoying HoI falws - endless clicks. That shit killed my motivation and interest in the game. Now by dragging system game become more strategic and less micromanagement hell.
I do hope HoIIV will lay a great foundation for Victoria III as both HoI and Vic suffered from clickfest horribly.
Also, great to know that belligerance mechanic is gone for good.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
703
Wasteland 2
They're making these games for 13 years already and every single one of them is still horribly broken piece of shit.

For example HoI 3:

Why bother having reinforcements cost at all if it's 1% of the IC cost to build ( 5% of the unit IC/month build cost and it takes a single month to reinforce from close to 0, while average unit takes 5 months to build ).
Units regenerate their hardware for virtually free, so there is no point in building any other units then the most IC heavy ones ( Soviets are exception with their event, that artficially flood them with manpower ).
If you abuse IC heavy units and popamole reinforcements properly, you can paint the whole Europe map with a minor/medium power like Poland, or Italy all by yourself - ridiculous.
You can't fix reinforcements "regen" by editing text files because the game uses the same mechanics for mobilization and realistic cost would make it impossible to mobilize.
One of the patches hardcoded mobilization/reinforcement cost multiplier to draft politics making it further not feasible to mess with reinforcements cost.

Depending on the draft politics units can cost a tiny fraction of IC to build and regenerate to full strenght for free upon mobilization - WTF !?
Peacetime unit supply cost is a *percentage* of your total IC, so the ammount of units you can supply during peacetime is independent from your industry size - WTF !?
Etc. etc. The list of the retarded broken shit in all aspects of the ruleset is endless...

AI is non existant, it'll just wander randomly in the general direction of the enemy. It's not aware of the combat rules, terrain, wheather, etc. army composition for each country is statically scripted by year.
Who is enemy is determined by threat mechanics, which in turn is heavily influenced by scripted events, unless players interference turns situation ahistorical enough, to break scripted events chains.

I've wasted tons of time trying to fix the worst offenders by modding, but way too little stuff is externalised into editable files and you always stumble upon some hardcoded roadblock.
It's impossible to fix the core of a paradox game by modding, at best you can seriously rebalance it.

Either their designers are retards, or they don't shy away from mutilliating the design, when testers can't cope with some mechanic.
If you read their forums it's clear that their audience doesn't understand the rules, but the games can play decently by themselves and retards are overjoyed they can larp Stalin, or whatever.
From HoI4 dev diaries, for every issue from HoI3 fixed, I see signs of equally retarded brokeness in some other area. I have no doubts it will be as shit as any other of their games to date.

What was exciting about their concept, was having a platform for exploring plausible alternate histories, by which I mean histories that unfold in a plausible way, not repeating our history.
They fail at delivering that and if I treat it as pure abstract games with a historical paintover, than I see no point, since the classic 4x games are way more interesting and fun to play than Paradox stuff.

I've kept throwing money at them to support the idea which I loved, hoping that the next time they'll get it.
I've wasted 200 euros over these years and tons of hours and never had any fun with their shit. I feel cheated now and hate Paradox this much.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
6,657
Location
Rape
They're making these games for 13 years already and every single one of them is still horribly broken piece of shit.

For example HoI 3:

Why bother having reinforcments cost at all if it's 1% of the IC cost to build ( 5% of the unit IC/month cost to reinforce from close to 0, while average unit takes 5 months to build ).

Because autism.
AI is non existant, it'll just wander randomly in the general direction of the enemy. It's not aware of the combat rules, terrain, wheather, etc. army composition for each country is statically scripted by year.
Who is enemy is determined by threat mechanics, which in turn is heavily influenced by scripted events, unless players interference turns situation ahistorical enough, to break scripted events chains.
Ain't no one got the time to code all dat.

I've wasted 200 euros over these years and tons of hours and never had any fun with their shit. I fell cheated now and hate Paradox this much.
Sounds like every single RPG and RTS I have ever played. And still am.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
Well, better than the naval system in any previous HoI game. Apparently armour and penetration have now been extended from tanks to ships as well, which should also improve naval combat.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
Hmmmm, seems like I'll be building Destroyers again this time (I never built Destroyers in HoI3 because they just seemed to self-destruct in combat, and Light Cruisers did all their jobs better). Big question will probably be whether Carriers will be essential but less of an "I win" element like in HoI3, or Death Stars of the sea a'la HoI2.
 

Renegen

Arcane
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
4,062
Yeah I never build Destroyers either because not only did they have small range in the great pacific but they died at the first sight of the enemy. They should have fleet casualties mirror their real world statistics, I doubt that 90% of all ships that were destroyed were screens like it was in HOI3. A better supply system will do a lot too for not making it very tedious to supply a constant new stream of fresh Destroyers.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
It's not the supply system that made the destroyers annoying to reinforce, but the fact you just had to keep doing it all the time.
 

Krash

Arcane
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
3,057
Location
gengivitis
Actually destroyers are very fast in HOI3, which raises your average fleet speed in combat, which in turn makes it possible to close with BCs and BB to punch the shit out of those carriers. Pretty useful if used right.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
So Podcat just nailed the last nail on this coffin with the latest DevDiary.

HoI4 will force you to use 3D sprites for units. Because it uses a fully contoured 3D map and the artists have worked very hard to create realistic looking soldiers and tanks. Oh and there is no simplified terrain map mode and the detailed terrain map and the political map and the weather map have been merged and the day/night cycle will show on the main map, not on the minimap. Cities will light up during the night (which is kinda silly in WW2 context but hey looks PRETTY) and there will be blizzards and sand storms and rain right there on the map.

You CAN have counters but only when zoomed out enough so that the terrain map "seamlessly" changes into political map. Podcat also assured that no amount of begging will change this because there are only 3 programmers working on HoI4 and creating a 2D-map mode is a waste of time and resources. He will not allow counters to be used when zoomed-in because they would clip with the mountains and hills.

So there you have it, straight from the horses mouth. Paradox went full retard just like Creative Assembly did with Total War. Because - and he actually wrote this out - having a pretty map is critical for selling a game and he "wants to keep making games instead of starving on the street". I cannot even fathom how stupid he has to be make such an statement. Has someone ever went: "oh, I really want to play a grand strategy game but this just looks so ugly, I'll pass"? No, because Pdox games have always already been the prettiest whores on the street to begin with.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
I don't quite understand WHY they wouldn't have a simplified terrain filter on the map filter list (given how they always have completely useless ones as well), or why the day/night cycle wouldn't show up on the mini-map as well so you can have a third way of checking it and a way of estimating its effects longterm.



(To be honest, I only used the counters in the earlier games because of the information factor in HoI2 and the fact they improved performance noticiably in HoI3)
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,244
Location
Ingrija
You CAN have counters but only when zoomed out enough so that the terrain map "seamlessly" changes into political map. Podcat also assured that no amount of begging will change this because there are only 3 programmers working on HoI4 and creating a 2D-map mode is a waste of time and resources. He will not allow counters to be used when zoomed-in because they would clip with the mountains and hills.

How many PDX programmers are needed to make the zoom value at which counters and political map kick in adjustable? Way too many, it appears. :smug:

Because - and he actually wrote this out - having a pretty map is critical for selling a game and he "wants to keep making games instead of starving on the street". I cannot even fathom how stupid he has to be make such an statement. Has someone ever went: "oh, I really want to play a grand strategy game but this just looks so ugly, I'll pass"?

Nah, he is pretty correct there. People who don't care about pretty map are still playing Darkest Hour and couldn't care less about HoI4 and the 500 following DLC to make the game complete and playable again. I assure you CK2 would not sell the million it did sell were it still looking like CK1.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
I would think that WW2 strategy game fans don't care about graphics that much but I'm afraid you're correct. HoI2 sold more than HoI1 and had both a bigger and prettier map and HoI3 sold more than HoI2 IIRC and same thing. Well, you can argue about the prettiness but it was definitely much bigger.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,267
Floating a sprite a short distance above the heightmap, too much work :notsureifserious:

I can't imagine many people interested in grand strategy finding 2D maps such as used in Victoria 2 or HoI3 distasteful. Their UIs and lack of feedback, sure (Paradox has definitely improved upon this in more recent games). But the only ones caring about 3D maps are retarded jourlolists who play the game for 5 mins then write up a review that can be summarized as "I have no fucking idea what I'm doing but it looks prettier than the old one, buy it if you like strategy games".
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,693
I like 3D models. Simplistic counters are quite useless. If you miss some information, you can ask developers to add some bars, and numbers to the 3D model area. It's not like you are drawing stuff by hand and need a simplistic 2D counter.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,267
I can't understand why, if Paradox is so in love with 3D, they don't make a globe rather than a flat map with over-exaggerated mountains protruding outward. I could actually get behind a proper globe representation of the world, especially for a WW2 simulation.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
Not happy about this counter thing. Traditional counters are gone. You don't even get them when you zoom out. It is just the 3d model goes away and you are left with the quasi-counter that is at the base of the 3d models.
You can replace the home-brewn counters with symbols on them by NATO counters, that was Podcat's big concession to grognards.

I like 3D models. Simplistic counters are quite useless.

But they weren't simplistic. They told you the size of a unit, the type of a unit and it's relative attack and defence values - and either the commander or the name, depending which option you went with. The colours told you which country it belonged to, while the little flag told the country of origin for expeditionary units.

So I could immediately tell the difference between a breakthrough Panzer division and an exploitation Panzer division without having to click either unit.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom