How does HoI compare to Total War?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You can't really compare TW and HOI on even terms. TW is a tactical battle engine with just enough strategic level design to set up the tactical battles. HOI is a strategic game which uses a simplistic tactical screen to resolve encounters. In TW, you move blocks of something like 30-120 men, with each man represented as a unique element to deliver and suffer damage. In HOI, you move blocks of something like 3000 to 15000 men, with the brigades (larger than most of the armies in TW) that form it represented with individual stats for dealing and receiving damage. HOI is far more focused on the economic, logistic, and diplomatic aspects of warfare than TW. TW shines as a "battle generator" for pushing small groups of digital "warriors" around the field of battle. HOI, and HOI3 in particular, is a lot harder to learn, but will teach you a lot more about history and what wins and loses wars, not battles.
 
TW= total WAR, its pretty one sided, but its quite good at what it does (R2;EE not withstanding as it still needs some work) and much more focused on a short-ish period of history

HoI = more spread out feature-wise, harsher RNG on battles, as all paradox games tend to be.

TW also has more unit variance, quasi-historical units scaled relative to each other (after a fashion) . HoI and EU for that matter, use a red team blue team stat list flavour names etc

both are "good" if you like that sort of thing, but they are not in the same category so a comparison is pointless. one is a grand strategy game the other is a souped up combat game.


people raging on TW need to grow up a bit or detach somewhat, as its kinda sad to watch someone get that angry over something.
 
Total War allows the tactical battles, which HoI doesn't have

Honestly speaking, I don't get this TW hate. Their last game (Rome II) was a train wreck, but the one before it (Shogun II) was a heavily polished masterpiece, and had a nice AI. The one before it (Napoleon) was also good enough.

Their first two games were masterpieces I'd say, both had great AI too, the only weakness was the campaign and diplomacy. Then they damaged the games with Rome Total War especially in AI and historical accuracy, but the game became awesome with patches and mods. Medieval II was the high point. And then they came crashing down with Empire once they switched to this horrible engine. They managed to somehow make Shogun II great and Napoleon decent, but that's it.

Overall, when I want to play real time tactical battles and see thousands of soldiers up close in a battle, I'd play Total War. When I want a campaign, I play PDS games. HoI3 doesn't have good AI or diplomacy either, once you join one of the three power groups you are forcefully stuck with it. What diplomacy remained comprised mostly of trading war material, units and other war-related things.
It is not about hate.
It is about preference and achievement.
TW can do one thing:
Tactical battles.
Everything else is mostly set up for that.
Diplomacy is basic at best and very unreliable and economy is easily learned and mastered.

HoI (or Vicky or EU) goes a completly different path.
They completly lack tactical combat.
But they more than make up for it with the strategy part.
Depending on title Diplomacy is decent to subpar (i am looking at you HOI) ressources are very important (in EU less than in Vicky or HoI) industry is the sine non qua.
 
I've pretty much banned myself from buying any more CA TW games. I've waited for years for them to give 1/100th of the thought that Paradox puts into the strategy aspect of their games. But each TW release, you get nothing but moar grafix and other trivial crap like new historical settings. The strategy part of the game hasn't changed significantly for many, many releases, and is just a boring glorified battle generator. Their strategy AI makes Paradox's AI look like Hal 9000; it's that insultingly bad, release after release. Infuriatingly predictable and boring... brain dead excuse for diplomacy, I can't badmouth the strategy aspect of the TW games enough!

This! I got so mad at myself when I fell into the trap with R2:TW again. No more, CA!!

As for comparing TW to the HOI series, I'm having trouble making meaningful comparisons. They are very, very different. HOI specializes in what TW makes a pathetic, half hearted attempt at. HOI doesn't even attempt what TW focuses on. So they're almost apples/oranges.

This, also. Not only is the focus of the game totally different, Paradox regularly nail it with their games. TW games are not only a shameful display on the strategic level, more often than not the tactical battles are a disgrace too (at least at release).
 
Tactical vs Strategic aside, TW seems to work best when it is focused on a particular region and period in history (S2, Napoleon) Whenever it tries to have a huge map the gameplay suffers. (Empire, R2) TW can't match HOI for scale and it shouldn't try.

As disappointing R2 has been, its improved a lot. and I cant really bash TW seeing as without it I would have never been introduced to Paradox games. Also HOI3 has its share of problems I hope 4 will fix.
 
The games by either company only really overlap in historical content but certainly not in game play. In fact, I would say Gary Grisby's War in the East or other similar strategic styled board games are closer to Paradox Titles on the Clausewitz Engine than any Total War Game to date. I can't wait for a geo-globe (think original X-COM) on future Paradox games so that we have super accurate land masses. :)

That being said, Total War is actually one notch down the strategic ladder as the draw is managing your own tactical battles on a strategic playing field. How you get your army and composition is entirely based on in-game strategy work but you can largely out-micro the AI in tactical battles even with a poorer deck. In latter difficulties it's actually mandatory that you can out-micro the AI especially when they fart out stacks of Samurai units when you can only afford such small amount of troops. On Legendary, I've "Aggro" the AI to run into my wall of Yari Ashigaru spears to such an effect I had a minimum of 10 of these units in a deck backed by Samurai archers. Shogun 2 was a great game over all even with all of its faults.
 
It's partially apples and oranges. But I would say that Paradox is getting better at making apple juice while Creative Assembly seems to be having troubles with it squeezing machinery. The early TW games were simpler, but what was there was masterfully crafted.
 
Another big difference is that Paradox games in general try to model things semi accurately in terms of the world situation and such, whereas TW games are very abstracted.
 
They're not comparable, my friend. I find Total War to oddly be more like Civilization than Hearts of Iron. There was never even a TW in WW2.

I think you've just gone and thrown a banana in with our apples and oranges we were discussing :).
 
So it seem if I wanted to get into the Total War series Medieval 2 would be the best one to buy (I already own Shogun 2 but I never got into it.)

HoI3 or HoI4? My reservation with HoI4 is that EU4 was heavily streamlined at launch and is just now starting to become good. I'm afraid Paradox might do the same with HoI4. On the other hand, HoI3 + all DLC is only $12 on Steam when it's on sale (which it happens to be right now.)
 
Last edited:
So it seem if I wanted to get into the Total War series Medieval 2 would be the best one to buy (I already own Shogun 2 but I never got into it.)

On different topic, HoI3 or HoI4? My reservation with HoI4 is that EU4 was heavily streamlined at launch and is only now starting to get good and I'm afraid Paradox might do the same with HoI4. On the other hand, HoI3 is only $12 on Steam with all the DLC (at least when it's on sale, which it happens to be right now.)

medieval 2 with the stainless steel mod was the best total war ever offered to me. Dont forget the mod. It is vital.

Regarding hoi 3 buy it for 12 dollars. It is more than worth that price with all the dcls
 
I really do not understand why Shogun 2 is held in much more esteem than other TW games, excluding Rome 2, which was very buggy. The battles bore about as much resemblance to actual Japanese warfare as EU4 does to early modern history - that is, almost none, except cosmetically. Formations were almost non-existent, levy ashigaru politely waited in line to duel samurai rather than just poking them away with a hedge of spears, and some units were outright fictional - the black pyjama ninja squads on the battlefield being the most obvious. The battles were also over far too quickly, casualty rates were too high (mainly because of the lack of discipline), and rock paper scissors mechanics made silly things like cavalry winning a prolonged, stationary fight with massed infantry regularly possible. The Fall of the Samurai expansion was just as bad, where absolutely nobody, even the white marines, had any idea how to fix bayonets.

In Medieval 2 Kingdoms, multiple troops could attack enemies at once, and there was far more support for modding, allowing for mods like Broken Crescent and Stainless Steel (though these still had their problems). The series has been in decline ever since, and Shogun 2 is part of that decline, though it did culminate in the Rome 2 fiasco.
 
So it seem if I wanted to get into the Total War series Medieval 2 would be the best one to buy (I already own Shogun 2 but I never got into it.)
Absolutely. Follow No idea's suggestion, the mod does wonders :)

On different topic, HoI3 or HoI4? My reservation with HoI4 is that EU4 was heavily streamlined at launch and is only now starting to get good and I'm afraid Paradox might do the same with HoI4. On the other hand, HoI3 is only $12 on Steam with all the DLC (at least when it's on sale like it happens to be right now.)
HoI 4 is likely at least 4 - 5 months away (they say first quarter of next year, but even if they make that, i expect it to be late in the quarter, IE, March).

HoI 3 with all the DLC should keep you entertained for a very long time, if you like that type of game of course :)

And everything for 12 dollars is close to robbery, hehe
 
Apart from the remarks of all the esteemed colleagues above there are two differences for me that immediately spring to mind:

Instant vs. delayed gratification: in any TW game, after an extremely small waiting period all can access the candy (battles, however questionably functioning in R2) and by waiting period I mean minutes, while in all HoI incarnations (and depending on the faction) there is a long road until any action is joined. I do not dispute that preparation is also gratifying but it is surely a different type of gratification.

After sales support: Paradox is much more responsive to complaints/comments/ needs of users than CA is. Period.
 
well i played TW series since rome total war came out many years ago (i dont know how many exactly... 10? 12?) but i just played HOI3 for some hours before i gave it up! but from what i saw there is one huge difference between the two kinds of game... TW series are tactic/strategic wargame played on small battles one at a time, fairly amusing but easy to work out. in other hand paradox games, specially HOI, is about managment/production/warfare which is not easy as u cannot fight the battles one at a time, but in huge scale and simultaneous. so u cant just plan the war as u go, u "must" plan the war before it even happens and there are many factors involved.

edit: as a footnote, unlike in TW series, no amount of brilliant leadership will save u from a crushing defeat in an unplanned war! (this one actually is from my experinece on all of PDX games that i have played!)
 
Total Disappointment? (After you find out that the latest release is just a re-skinning of the last release in a different setting.)

What I really don't understand is why zombies keep buying the damn things. STOP buying that crap and demand some real innovation from those morons. I got myself unhooked from that repetitive ripoff series a release or two ago--went far, far too long hoping that some real improvements would show up each time.

Shogun TW was my favourite game for a while, then Medieval TW came out & that was my favourite.

Then Rome came out and it was rubbish.
Medieval II was rubbish.
Then I bought Empire. Doesn't run properly so I gave-up on the series.

I'd still play Shogun & Medieval if I could find a PC with a low enough spec (that's REALLY annoying. Modern machines can't play the original titles) but then again, I'd play DOOM if I could!

I bought Napoleon TW last week because it was sooooo cheap (on a 3 for 2 offer in GAME) I thought I'd give it a try. Haven't opened it yet as I find it more important to spend time in the HoI IV forum.

Apart from the different level of play, which as has been dealt with by others already, for me, THAT'S the difference between HoI & TW right there. I'd rather chat about HoI over installing TW.
 
Apart from the different level of play, which as has been dealt with by others already, for me, THAT'S the difference between HoI & TW right there. I'd rather chat about HoI over installing TW.

Haha, so for the sake of your Napoleon:TW, let's hope they don't get another dev diary out anytime soon ;). That said, Napoleon is one of the best 'recent' TW games. I enjoyed Shogun 2, but I thought the mechanics of TW worked better in the Napoleonic environment. I'd also prefer talking HoI4 than playing Nap, though ;).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.