Hearts of Iron IV - The Ultimate WWII Strategy Game

[Trash]

With project codenames like Nero and Armstrong I really was hoping for both a space grand strategy and a sequel to Rome. This is just, well, a letdown.

 

[Raghar]

It's harder to think of how they can have fewer political leaders than HoI3. We're talking about a game where Germany will still have Hitler in power as a Comintern/Allied puppet, simply because there is no other political leader for the other parties. The only way to have less than 1 is to have 0. Is Hitler not going to be appearing in a WW2 game?

I think they simply reduced number of active important leaders. Basically Russia had Molotov, and Stalin. After reduction Molotov was found redundant, and it had Stalin only.

+-1/20 bonuses are bit lacking. In real world leaders had more abilities to do costly mistakes, that just flat -1/20 number.

 

[Calapine]

Dear esteemed Codexers (Codexeers?),

seeing this is an "early 2015" release...

HoI 2: Arsenal of Democracy

or

HoI 3: Their Finest Hour?

Any recommendation would be very appreciated.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Depends whether you like micro or not. If not, HoI2 is probably best bet. If yes, then HoI:TFH. You can use the AI so it runs the whole game for you, in HoI3, but that's no fun.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Depends whether you like micro or not. If not, HoI2 is probably best bet. If yes, then HoI:TFH. You can use the AI so it runs the whole game for you, in HoI3, but that's no fun.

I only tend to use the AI to handle "rattenkriegs". It's just not worth the annoyance to manually smash rebels in vast Chinese/Russian conquests. Though in my recent Allied Japan (still working on the Allies part, but at least they're not doing jack to the empire as long as Europe is better known as Grossdeutschland), I let the AI also handle my co-belligerent attack on the Soviets when Barbarossa was clear to win (I'd previously used the distraction to make all of Toyohara part of the empire), and it actually did really well (I was getting fed up with the shitty supply juggling needed in the area).

Dear esteemed Codexers (Codexeers?),

seeing this is an "early 2015" release...

HoI 2: Arsenal of Democracy

or

HoI 3: Their Finest Hour?

Any recommendation would be very appreciated.

Don't you mean Darkest Hour for HoI2? Arsenal of Democracy is fun and all, but DH is the one all the mods use due to the engine updates it has (on their own AoD would indeed be superior, but mods tip the scales).

 

[Calapine]

Don't you mean Darkest Hour for HoI2? Arsenal of Democracy is fun and all, but DH is the one all the mods use due to the engine updates it has (on their own AoD would indeed be superior, but mods tip the scales).

No, I did mean AoD. I wasn't aware of Darkest Hour, but will take a look at it now. Thank you.

My problem (besides drinking too much...) is I over-played HoI2 when it it was new and sparkling. Now the 'let's change history!' urge is back, but HoI No. III is just so hard to like. And I am trying.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

HoI3 has considerably better mechanics for almost all aspects than HoI2 (even some really basic ones, like decoupling research and IC). It's also a LOT more autism intensive in terms of the level of detail it goes into (even if you can turn off infrastructure-based supply lines).

 

[Malakal]

HoI3 has considerably better mechanics for almost all aspects than HoI2 (even some really basic ones, like decoupling research and IC). It's also a LOT more autism intensive in terms of the level of detail it goes into (even if you can turn off infrastructure-based supply lines).

I guess that no one can argue that HoI3 isnt the better war game but is it a better game than HoI2? The lack of insane micro, less detailed techs, faster gameplay made HoI2 very enjoyable for me but I couldnt get into HoI3.

Guess Im just not hardcore enough.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

HoI3 has considerably better mechanics for almost all aspects than HoI2 (even some really basic ones, like decoupling research and IC). It's also a LOT more autism intensive in terms of the level of detail it goes into (even if you can turn off infrastructure-based supply lines).

I guess that no one can argue that HoI3 isnt the better war game but is it a better game than HoI2? The lack of insane micro, less detailed techs, faster gameplay made HoI2 very enjoyable for me but I couldnt get into HoI3.

Guess Im just not hardcore enough.

That's probably the best way to judge it. The mechanics are almost universally better, but the whole is probably somewhat less than the sum of its parts in this scenario. HoI3 doesn't really have the playability or the charm of HoI2, which makes it a tougher sell. I think going back and stripping it down a bit is probably a wise move on Pdox's part.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I guess I'm an autistic fucktard, then :D

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Besides just the obvious improvement of replacing Teach Teams with Leadership (HoI2 was way more Germany-centric than HoI3 because of this) and separating leadership from IC, HoI3 also had several improvements in unit progression balance (no huge jumps each tech; with the exception of a handful of one-shot improvement techs like Night Vision Equipment) and most importantly it had Front Width and impassable terrain, AKA force multipliers are awesome. Front Width and impassable terrain/lo infrastructure penalties to supplies were probably the biggest improvement in the advantage of minors, as it simply does not allow for superpowers to just pile troops ad infinitum so a Field Marshal with an HQ attached can crush opposition. Heck with fixed Leadership (this was around the third patch, before they nerfed all non-major Leadership to the ground) Finland could not only hold off but actually beat back the Red Army if the player makes excellent use of the limited infrastructure, hard terrain, and the numerous choke points along the entire border. The higher number of moddable elements in the game (not to mention a much improved format in the txt files) also add into this.

There's also no Close Air Support death rays in HoI3 (seriously, Ground Attack is so prepostrously overpowered in HoI2 it isn't even funny).

EDIT: Now, some real problems with HoI3: The world market for resources is a joke, none of the minor countries seem to possess natural resource surplus (particularly hilarious with Finland, considering how important Finnish nickel was for German war production). Usually I tend to try and fix this by having a reverse bonus to Resources to match the penalty to IC from civilian governments. It's not even an issue since the Allies have the capability to just keep blasting German resource convoys to Huehueland (though I wouldn't mind improved blockade and embargo mechanics).

Another issue is the limited number of ministers and generals around, which is more of an issue than in HoI2 because even minors can field fairly large armies (I think in just about every Finland campaign of mine building Land Units stops solely because there's just no more generals to be found). With ministers it's a similar problem, with many countries having to wait five years for replacements that have actually useful bonuses, or they just never get any replacements.

And then there's all the fucking around with Leadership distribution, though this can be fixed with a minute of textpad (the hard minimum needed for a viable country is around 10-12 Leadership in my experience).

Additionally, the Licensed Units needs expanding. At the present it's merely lunacy for a smaller country to buy licensed units because of the massive IC demands. It should also be possible to buy licensed units that the seller also manufactures (or ships out pre-existing brigades, minus manpower), so you can and tend to end up with StuG IIIs and Messerschmitts in Finland as an example.

 

[Calapine]

Besides just the obvious improvement of replacing Teach Teams with Leadership.

I sort of disagree with this. The HoI 2 techtree could have been more detailed, but HoI 3 overshot the mark. Instead of distinct techs that follow a progression there is a cluster of 13 (!) tech screens each with dozens of minor research areas. And those have different levels again.

HoI2: Panzer III > Panzer IV > Panther
HoI3: Heavy Tank Reliability 1 of 12: +0.90 Toughness (Wooo!)

To use the Air tree as example, I don't think that splitting the Naval Aviation tactics tech into: NAV Pilot Training (12 lvl), NAV Ground Crew Training(12 lvl), NAV Tactics(12 lvl), Naval Strike Tactics(12 lvl), Naval Air Tactics(12 lvl) and Port Strike Tactics(12 lvl) really enhances gameplay. Complexity for complexity sakes doesn't make a better game. See: MoO 2 > MoO 3.

Secondly, I don't feel qualified to judge whether research by Techteams or the current leadership points is more realistic, but from an immersion point the tech teams were the more engaging solution. Often there were many techs needed at the same time, but only one ideal research team. Postpone the new Me 109 model until Messerschmitt is free, or put Junkers on it right now but research at an inefficient rate? Decisions, Decisions.

HoI3: Need a new tech researched right now? Move one of your 30+ leadership points out of Diplomacy, Intelligence or Officer training and you are good to go.

 

[GarfunkeL]

The theoretical values of each field, that raise when you research stuff in that field, somewhat do the same thing without restricting you to the designers idea of what strengths a country had - aside from the starting values. Focus on a field, and soon you'll nation will have significant time bonuses in that field. Same with practicals and industrial production.

As for the tech tree, it allows a greater level of customization. Of course, if you just plow through all 4 tank techs every two years, it'll seem silly, but consider that, for example, you can ignore in light tanks all the techs but engine, after unlocking medium tank brigade. This means that you can take a calculated risk of creating super-fast exploitation divisions, that will not have much staying power, but once your heavy hitters have created a breakthrough, you can use them to overrun enemy divisions easily. If playing China/Japan, you can do the same with cavalry. This also saves LS for other things. This goes with almost all the techs - even the doctrinal ones. You might not want Close Air Support at all, if your enemy is almost only wielding soft units, you might want to skip some of the doctrines that are not relevant to your armed forces or their primary missions, and so on.

Thus, we go back to the same micro vs macro argument - HoI3 does truly have more customization thanks to all these things, but it does require quite a bit more time and patience to get to understand the system and to use it "properly".

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

The theoretical values of each field, that raise when you research stuff in that field, somewhat do the same thing without restricting you to the designers idea of what strengths a country had - aside from the starting values. Focus on a field, and soon you'll nation will have significant time bonuses in that field. Same with practicals and industrial production.

As for the tech tree, it allows a greater level of customization. Of course, if you just plow through all 4 tank techs every two years, it'll seem silly, but consider that, for example, you can ignore in light tanks all the techs but engine, after unlocking medium tank brigade. This means that you can take a calculated risk of creating super-fast exploitation divisions, that will not have much staying power, but once your heavy hitters have created a breakthrough, you can use them to overrun enemy divisions easily. If playing China/Japan, you can do the same with cavalry. This also saves LS for other things. This goes with almost all the techs - even the doctrinal ones. You might not want Close Air Support at all, if your enemy is almost only wielding soft units, you might want to skip some of the doctrines that are not relevant to your armed forces or their primary missions, and so on.

Thus, we go back to the same micro vs macro argument - HoI3 does truly have more customization thanks to all these things, but it does require quite a bit more time and patience to get to understand the system and to use it "properly".

I agree that it's a superior system. I think nearly every system in HoI3 is superior to 2 (although I really liked tech teams, but that leads to the next point). In my opinion it isn't the systems that holds HoI3 back for the majority of players - it's that the mesh in a very unintuitive way. To learn how to play HoI3 I watched probably 15 hours of LP videos to learn the mechanics and how they fit together. On top of that it took a few dry runs until I felt confident in doing my first full game. I didn't mind the time investment, but it doesn't make for a great "pick up and play" experience, and this is from a guy that buys Pdox games on launch.

 

[Raghar]

HoI3 has the problem with neutrality, and basically only one way to move on war not war scale. Look for example on China. Can you fight as Mao other Chinese provinces? Neutrality cripples it.

Additionally these tech teams are important. I for example can make difference in theoretical/computer science output of a whole country. Braun, or Pauli were quite important and with theirs own quirks. Reducing them to +- leadership point would make them just less important, and the game less crispy. Germany was often, and correctly, criticized to have too much DECENTRALIZED research. Is it simulated by HoI3? HoI3 has similar weakness as GalCiv 2, a lot of these things are just bonuses, or iterations of previous technology.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

... Except HoI3 allows ACTUAL variation and specialization on a unit tech level as Garfunkel explained, and most advanced unit techs come with a bonus/penalty mechanism where the total will increase if you research all the techs but you are given the option to specialize and thus reduce some aspects in favour of others along with improving overall research (as not even Germany has enough LS to research everything fully) due to skipping one or more techs. As a basic example, there's tanks and cavalry as GarfunkeL pointed out. Then there's air units, where you can eschew armor and more powerful engines in favour of range, or reduce range in favour of superior durability in combat.

In HoI2 there is NOTHING but bonuses, huge instant bonuses at that, and they are bonuses where the power curve gets steeper and steeper.

Overstating the value of tech teams as a point of realism is also nothing short of a dangerous level of hero worship. More important than von Braun for the German rocket science was the fact Germany was investing into von Braun's research with extensive facilities. By contrast, the reason Americans had the atomic bomb before anyone else had a lot to do with the fact they were willing to put all that money and resources down for Manhattan Project. It's a collective effort, not the work of a single man. And Leadership is much better at reflecting that and avoiding predestination of tech teams that HoI2 had.


Also neutrality isn't that different from how Interventionism/Isolationism slider used to work (as in HoI2 you still first needed maximum interventionism and spy actions as a democracy to start a war), but I think it was a dumb change to remove the Lower Neutrality action from Spies.

 

[Average Manatee]

Frankly tech team micro in HoI2 annoyed me far more than microing anything in HoI3. Once you get the full number you'll need to pause and manually check which team is best for which tech once every few weeks. For HoI3 you just add stuff to the queue. The idea of being "better" in certain areas in HoI3 is handled through theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge, which start at different levels for each nation but can be changed by actions. The only problem I have with it is that theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge should have a lot more effect, as it is they cap at like +30% research rate very quickly and stay there the whole game.

The main thing lost tech-wise in HoI3 is the blueprints from HoI2. They worked perfectly fine and made sense. Minors in HoI3 would be perfectly fine leadership-wise if they could get most of their tech at half off through a nearby major, and you could tone down some of the insane leadership values that the GPs have and force them to rely on allies rather than easily researching everything alone while going on a world conquest.

Doctrines were a nice idea in HoI2 but always boiled down to mobility (IIRC) being the best, which is just a camouflaged way of giving Germany a bonus and punishing a player who doesn't read game guides before playing. And I doubt they will be better in HoI4 (if they are nation-specific then paradox can go to hell).

Also neutrality isn't that different from how Interventionism/Isolationism slider used to work (as in HoI2 you still first needed maximum interventionism and spy actions as a democracy to start a war), but I think it was a dumb change to remove the Lower Neutrality action from Spies.

Lower Neutrality was just stupid. It didn't make sense logically and was gamebreaking in the hands of the USA, both historically speaking and balance-wise. For everyone else Raise Threat makes much more sense and works in pretty much the same way, while also giving the enemy nation a chance to defend against the attempt.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Agreed, the new tech assistence you can give to allies is worthless since it takes one whopping point of LS to share one of your speciality ratings to an ally.

Also neutrality isn't that different from how Interventionism/Isolationism slider used to work (as in HoI2 you still first needed maximum interventionism and spy actions as a democracy to start a war), but I think it was a dumb change to remove the Lower Neutrality action from Spies.

Lower Neutrality was just stupid. It didn't make sense logically and was gamebreaking in the hands of the USA, both historically speaking and balance-wise. For everyone else Raise Threat makes much more sense and works in pretty much the same way, while also giving the enemy nation a chance to defend against the attempt.

I do agree, raise threat just doesn't seem to work as well as one would expect. Then again, it works well enough for the countries that are actually hankering for a fight, like Italy.

 

[GarfunkeL]

In my opinion it isn't the systems that holds HoI3 back for the majority of players - it's that the mesh in a very unintuitive way. To learn how to play HoI3 I watched probably 15 hours of LP videos to learn the mechanics and how they fit together. On top of that it took a few dry runs until I felt confident in doing my first full game. I didn't mind the time investment, but it doesn't make for a great "pick up and play" experience, and this is from a guy that buys Pdox games on launch.

Yeah, I completely agree.

It helps quite a bit if you've played older, "grognard", games, but only so far. The theoretical/practical-values, for example, didn't crystallize in my mind until I had read the theorycrafting that some folks did over at Pdox forums - and by that point, I had played at least a dozen games in vanilla and Semper Fi.

Or that CAS is mostly only useful against hard targets, so if your enemy is mostly using soft divisions, you're better off with focusing on TAC. I still build some CAS if I'm Germany, but now they are reserved for pounding enemy armour divisions exclusive, when they appear.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Still, I don't miss the death ray CAS from HoI2 that could destroy entire retreating stacks to the last man.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Absolutely. Now, at least, you have to tech up to '46 or even later tech, so that your 4xTAC group will kill retreating divisions.

Also, a nugget that not many people realize - ships and units in a province contribute to that province's AA rating against bombers doing any type of a mission on it. Previously, it was thought that AAA-brigades were only useful when the planes were doing "ground attack" or "interdiction". Not so. Some of Pdox HoI3-experts ran a bunch of tests and concluded, with 100% certainty, that not only AAA-brigades, but ships as well, damage bombers no matter what their mission. So it IS actually entirely viable to create Flak-Divisions for Germany, and park them in high IC/resources provinces, if Luftwaffe is being stretched thin, and - as was historically the case - using capital ships as AAA-platforms in port towns.

 

[tyrannosaurus rex]

Never played Hearth of Iron, but if it's somewhat realistic, what's preventing a savy player from raping Germany with an early strike, in 1936-38?
IIRC, this is how the whole WW2 would have been prevented, if France and England, or even France alone, had just marched into Germany before it really got the edge in military strength.

Wouldn't that be too easy?

I assume politics are here to hinder you from really taking the armament race seriously before 1939 ?

 

[Average Manatee]

The game heavily tilts the numerical balance in favour of the Axis, France will never field an army remotely similar to what they did historically. On the flip side France historically was an uncoordinated mess while in HoI you have the exact same pinpoint control of units that you have as Germany, and you have forknowledge of when and where things will happen. Yes, you can make a quick strike against Germany and win.

Normally the Neutrality mechanic prevents you from declaring war on whatever you like at the start of the game, but Spies set to Raise Threat in Germany or Italy lower your neutrality against them and would let the English or French declare war around '37. Neutrality is mostly a mechanic to nerf the USA early on because having low neutrality and/or being at war allow you to enact war laws that give you massively more manpower and make your economy 3-4x as strong. Axis countries of course are on war laws from the start of the game and so get a strong head start on most Democracies

 

[Malakal]

Never played Hearth of Iron, but if it's somewhat realistic, what's preventing a savy player from raping Germany with an early strike, in 1936-38?
IIRC, this is how the whole WW2 would have been prevented, if France and England, or even France alone, had just marched into Germany before it really got the edge in military strength.

Wouldn't that be too easy?

I assume politics are here to hinder you from really taking the armament race seriously before 1939 ?

It was a classic strategy of mine to declare war on Germany in 1936 when playing as Poland, easy rape since Poland starts with a huge army that losses its strength with time. Democracies were and are limited by neutrality for this exact reason.

 

[Sranchammer]

There was a lot of shit going on in the interwar years that would have made any such pre-emptive war unthinkable, let alone the fact that everyone in the Entente had enough killing for a while.