Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Good Game, but not a grand strategy.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 45541 Bug Reports 15233 After Action Reports (AAR)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
The thing is all you have to do is look at previous Companies to know paradox most likely will end up forgetting their original fan base in favor of more money, Take for example bioware they sold out to EA and ruined themselves. I think EU4 will prob be their last true Grand strat....
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
Kinkness said:
Uhh.. what? Have you ever played HOI III? The depth every mechanic had in that game was grand, many different angles, and variables and things pushing and pulling on each other.

What you just described is a strategy game, and or arcade game like Sid Meiers, or Risk.

In Risk you don't have to dealw ith every tiny detail, same with Sid Meiers. You wouldn't argue Sid Meiers is a grand strategy game. It's a strategy game, not grand strategy. There's a difference.

Grand Strategy means every mechanic has alot of depth, and multiple other mechanics pushing and pulling on each other. Again HOI III compared ti HOI 4, nothing further needs to be said or explained.
Click to expand...
You're mistaking depth and complexity for obscure and tedious. HOI3 was the latter because all boiled down all you needed to do was advance along the front with attacks from multiple angles with numerical superiority. Air force didn't matter, navy didn't matter, weather didn't matter, terrain barely mattered, tech only mattered for inf techs, espionage only mattered if you wanted to do stupid stuff like turn America fascist, trade didn't matter because you could get whatever you needed from your faction leader and so on. However you only worked all this out by trial and error or asking around hence it was all obscured info. Please explain to me were all thus fabled depth came from.
 
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
This was exactly my thought as well. The fact you can have FIVE "focuses" done every single year is ridiculous. As has been said they need seriously nerfed and/or reworked. I feel they should be a large undertaking and really force you into very uncomfortable choices. Why not have them last for maybe 2 years and give a creeping incremental benefit over those 2 years to represent your nation rising to the challenge and gradually reshaping itself? Maybe there could be another big bonus come the end of the 2 years but that's a balancing issue. It's feels like it was decided that to make minors more interesting they just fired the huge buff gun a few times and called it a "focus" tree.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I do agreed, it felt like it dumped down from previous HoI Series or making it more simplified to play. I wasn't too happy with it, there are many things still need work to be done though. Best world war two games I like instead of these HoI Series are Supreme Ruler and War in the Pacific: Admiral Edition. Everyone have their own taste, what they like and don't like. So I am glad I didn't spent more than 39.99 on this one, just wasn't worth it.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Ksyr said:
You can't. After 70 days you have to make a new decision and it may not be the same as you had planned.
Click to expand...

The point was it doesn't matter because you can just go back and get all the buffs anyway just maybe in a slightly different order. A true strategic decision should be something that commits your nation to a path for a year at the minimum and leaves you sweating over whether you made the right choice. 70 days, who cares if I made the right "choice"
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
National Focus is a bit of a disappointment really. I've only played as the USA, but well over half of them were irrelevant to my goals in the game. By 1940 I had the important ones, the rest were just done because there wasn't anything to spend political power on either at that point.

If the other generic NF trees and other country specific trees are anything like the USA one, then there is no decision making involved, there are clearly good ones to take which you will always take and the rest are rubbish.

The other annoying thing about the USA NFs, the Pax American tree is full of +democratic shift stuff, so there isn't even a reason to go down that route if you shift to fascist or communist. Seven or so NFs completely useless to non-democratic USA.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I see everyone comparing HOI4 with HOI3, which makes sense considering HOi3 being the last game. But I do not consider HOI4 to be HOI3's "child", i rather consider it to be HOI2 and HOI3's love-child, a hybrid. The game has integrated good concepts from both games, and thus I believe it won't meet the criteria of either game's hardcore fans. I believe the game will become excellent within a few patches fixing the AI and removing the immersion-breaking easter eggs, as well as nerfing the focuses.

Note: I believe the response to HOI3's release was "This game does not compare well to HOI2, I'd like my money back, please" from a vocal minority who then either adapted to HOI3, or went back to HOI2 or AOD/DH. I think the same will happen to this title.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Pasta_Man said:
The point was it doesn't matter because you can just go back and get all the buffs anyway just maybe in a slightly different order. A true strategic decision should be something that commits your nation to a path for a year at the minimum and leaves you sweating over whether you made the right choice. 70 days, who cares if I made the right "choice"
Click to expand...
I care. You can't choose them all at any time. Most NFs require you to have done other NFs before them so you can go wrong a lot longer than 70 days. And it is a game and I prefer to be playing, not watching. Having to make choices more often means I get more invested in the game.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
szmik said:
which is all fine, I had great times playing Risk, but could we just stop pretending it's grand startegy?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about Risk? Please, this game is in no way on the same level of Risk. It has over 10000 provinces, for goodness sake! Leave the hyperbole at the door, please.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Ksyr said:
I care. You can't choose them all at any time. Most NFs require you to have done other NFs before them so you can go wrong a lot longer than 70 days. And it is a game and I prefer to be playing, not watching. Having to make choices more often means I get more invested in the game.
Click to expand...

Yes but you seem more concerned about the number of decisions you're making rather than the quality and impact of those decisions. Surely having to make a single decision that could make or break your country would invest you more than making a lot of relatively minor choices all the time.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Pasta_Man said:
Yes but you seem more concerned about the number of decisions you're making rather than the quality and impact of those decisions. Surely having to make a single decision that could make or break your country would invest you more than making a lot of relatively minor choices all the time.
Click to expand...
No, not really. I want to play a game, not watch it.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
People are truly nostalgic about previous hoi games. All that complexity and depth of Hoi3 does not matter a bit when I can conquer the British Isles, unopposed, with Yugoslavia. There was not any strategy involved anyway, but all that meddling with dysfunctional systems made people feel as if they were great strategists. Not saying hoi4 is without problems, but they will get fixed eventually, and we'll have a game with meaningful challenges and systems.
 
  • 6
  • 6
Reactions:
overthewall said:
People are truly nostalgic about previous hoi games. All that complexity and depth of Hoi3 does not matter a bit when I can conquer the British Isles, unopposed, with Yugoslavia. There was not any strategy involved anyway, but all that meddling with dysfunctional systems made people feel as if they were great strategists. Not saying hoi4 is without problems, but they will get fixed eventually, and we'll have a game with meaningful challenges and systems.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I do remember conquering UK with only ~120 000 German troops back in the FTM days. People should play HOI3 for a few hours and then come back and compare the games. They'll soon realize they now own two sweet Hearts of Iron games.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
+1


National Focus is a joke.


Paradox learn with HoI2/ Darkest Hour and Arsenal of Democracy. They are the best WW2 grand strategy games.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back