Good Game, but not a grand strategy.

  • 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.

Kinkness

Banned
82 Badges
Mar 21, 2010
1.595
2.367
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • BATTLETECH
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
Seems to be the unfortunate running thing to expect from paradox now. Their last several games I cannot say with a straight face is a grand strategy, including HOI 4. Which is a shame, as it's the whole reason I love paradox.

Just because its a world stage does not make it a grand strategy. Everything has been watered down to such an extent I simply cannot call it that. It's a great WW II arcade game, but that's where it stops. It's not even a simulation of the era like CK II, Europa, Vic, etc. which this game used to neatly fit right after as a WWII deep grand strategy game.
-------------------------------

The focus tree's really are what makes this game full on arcade. I see what they tried to do, make the focuses something which helps the player slightly here and there, while pushing countries either in a historical or non historical path depending on the choices made. Good idea in theory, horribly executed.

Take Tibet for instance, nearly all of their focus tree's give you immediate infastructure, factories, and a monster load of -50 to even -100% time reduction in research at specific tree's multiple times over. by 1941 when the war usually kicks off, I'm sporting Nuclear factories, half way into nuclear weapons, and bumping around with infantry and just steps away from rockin Jet planes.... As Tibet I can go head to head with Germany without issue by 1941.

------------------------

This then brings me directly into why this game is arcade, and my point. Grand Strategy games are games with high depth to mechanics and problems that throws you multiple challenges, and difficulties to overcome depending on how and where you start. Paradox games used to do that, but like my point above, HOI 4 Focus tree's have essentially taken out nearly every challenge for starting out as anybody. Any of the set backs for starting as a specific country you can find quick and easy answers too in their focus tree's taking away any and all challenges playing as them. It wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal if it took longer than the game time to research them all, and focuses were actually that.. .focuses... By the end of 1945-46 you could still easily have half your focuses un researched. That would then tip it back into strategy as you're needing to pick and choose your focus, and decide where your little bit of benefits will come from. But alas instead you can steam roll through your focuses as any country and no shits given.

------------------------

I refuse to accept "well they made it more "Accessible". To that, I say screw you. That's a cop out excuse and a huge insult to casual players like myself. While I love paradox games, and I love strategy games, I'm still casual about it. Saying "Hey, well we know you're casual, so we dumbed down the mechanics and made it far far easier to understand so you can feel special too!" Is a huge insult to my intelligence.

Casual does not = stupid. It's time people figured this out, as it seems developers, and other gamers in general think that to make a game "more accessible" to casuals they need to dumb it down tremendously.

Anyone who argues a strategy game needs to be dumbed down watered down or made "more accessible" for casual strategy gamers fail to understand that the people that would help aren't real strategy fans to begin with...

----------------------

So as I said. It's a good game over all.. but its an arcade at best, and not close to a grand strategy.. or even a real strategy game at that... As most of the strategy involved is now taken out as well in having to overcome the difficulties of where you started, and the events inside and outside of your nation. All those answers can be found easily within your nations focus tree's that take away need of strategizing on a grand scale to overcome..

Which is the whole point of Grand Strategies..


---------------

Edit:

So thinking about it hard the last day, and reading through all the replies... I feel like I didn't argue my point nearly well enough, as some people's comments go along the lines of this:

- This is a "Grand" strategy
- Past HOI games were just a bunch of dysfuntional mechanics
- Past Tech Tree's had alot of useless techs, etc.

Here's something I've noticed in the discussion.. There's alot of people who love HOI 4, because they are strategy gamers, but they mis title themselves as "grand strategy" gamers or have a very unrealistic idea of what a "grand strategy" is.

Like the 3 examples above, if you think HOI 3 had alot of meddling with dysfunctional systems, and or the tech was over bearing with useless tech, you're not a grand strategy player. Which is fine.

People are very confused about the difference between "Grand Strategy" and "Strategy".

What upsets me the most about HOI 4, is everything they did right, and all the ways they stream lined the UI with better army management could of all been done at the depth of HOI 3. Instead we get a more free range politics system, better UI, and better army management with everything else taking a huge hit in depth and meaning.

The tech tree is nothing short of being the same simplified mechanic as Sid Meiers Civilization.

A Grand Strategy game is like HOI 3, where you had to control and balance deep mechanics across the game in every category. Tech tree wasn't simple. It was advanced, and had virtually limitless directions it could go and that you could focus on. Armies were broken up between HQ's, Battallions, Squads, etc. and each Theatre of war required balance, and focus. etc. HOI 4 is not this.

Another argument is that HOI 4 is more "accessible" The problem with this is that's not a "Grand Strategy". A grand strategy should take several games to fully get down, and figure out how everything works. To fine tune strategies, and learn the game. It should be overwhelming at first if its a true Grand Strategy. Anyone who doesn't like that, purely and simply don't like Grand Strategy games.

The Argument with the tech tree is also a non sensical argument. With it being that this new tech tree doesn't diminish the strategy of the game, but makes the tech tree more "Accessible".

If you wanted ships with heavier armor, and speed, you could focus Ship Armor, and Engines in the tech tree. Now you can't. You can't tech your strategy for battles of attrition, or Guerilla warfare anymore, the choices for that are extremely limited if they exist at all. Tech to dig in, defense, staying hidden, with encryption tech to hide my units better, and large urban tech to hole down in cities is all but non existant.

Instead of having a virtually unlimited amount of ability to research into hundreds of choices of tech, I get a simplified Sid Meiers style of tech tree where it gives me 1 base bonus and gg. Nothing else I can do about it.

This leads to an insanely simplified game which destroys limitless amounts of possiblities to happen. In HOI 3 how high is your encryption? fighting tactics? How well is your soldiers equipped to fight in the terrain you want to wage war in? How are their resources, and equipment? None of those choices, or plans of strategy need to be asked anymore, the most you need to worry about it is "Mountainers = mountains, and marines to wage a beach front, gg".

Don't worry about thinking ahead in terms of resources, stockpiles, and your war machines needs a year down the line. It doesn't matter. You can trade with anyone anytime regardless of the situation. Oil needs for your ships and tanks are non existant, as well as stockpiles for your infantry supplies. All of these are things real grand strategy players think about and know are not useless things making it harder. If you think that way, sorry you're not a grand strategy player.

---------------

Peoples arguments are quite honestly making me give up hope on the human race all over again when it comes to the arguments around this, and my original post here in general.

A lot of people in this thread are confusing tedious micro-management with actual depth and don't understand that macro =/= simple.
This was an argument against HOI 3 vs HOI 4, and why HOI 4 is better. Sorry that's not an argument. No bit of micro management in HOI 3 was useless. Tedious maybe, if you're not a grand strategy player.

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.
Again another argument in terms of HOI 3 vs HOI 4, and why 4 is better, and again not an argument. Hoi 4 has just as crappy if not worse AI than 3, so all this post is doing is saying literally "HOI 3 has as bad AI as HOI 4, therefore HOI 4 is better". Which is just stupid.

The last part is a cop out excuse by someone who doesn't think on the grand scale, saying the mechanics were dysfuntional.

yes there were problems, but again... HOI 4 has the same exact problems, and more.

-----------------------------

So this is where I come full circle. This is not a Grand Strategy game. It was not just made "more accessible" as it did not keep its depth. People who argue this game has just as much depth as HOI 3 barely scratched HOI 3's surface in terms of strategy and depth, and I'd argue are not grand strategy fans. it's just that simple.

---------------------------

In HOI 4:

- Do you need to plan for Winter Assaults? No
- Do you need to plan for resource shortages? No
- Do you need to plan for urban assaults? No
- Do you need to worry about tech getting behind? No (The tech tree is too simplified for that. I don't have to worry about my ships armor, or weapons getting behind. I just tech up to tne next ship, gg).
- Do you need to worry about supply routes, and Infastracture? No (The Infastructure was made insanely easy to deal with, no longer an issue).
- Do you need to worry about Oil upkeep for vehicles? No (It's non existant now).
- Do you need to worry about over producing vehicles, and or soldiers? No (Again, with non existant oil, and other resources, you can build a billion ships and run them all without issue at the same time).
- Do you need to worry about HQ's being over burdened? No
- Do you need to worry about balancing the resources? No
- Can you keep upping your encryption Tech much higher than other nations as a defense? No
- Can you focus on Guerilla warfare, and other tech to accompany that, while your enemy focuses heavily on a counter defense to that? No (those techs are nearly non existant except for tiny little base modifiers)
+ 100's of other things

In HOI 3 you had to do all that, and plan for attacks, depending on area's in the world. Outfit armies to fight those wars, decide how that war is going to be fought, and what your strategy is going to be, etc. No longer can do that, even if you wanted in HOI 4.

I don't know how I can make this any more simpler yet I know people are still going to derp on it. Needing to calculate things such as these, balance resources, armies, tech, is what a Grand Strategy is.

The Tech Tree in HOI 3 allowed for massive variations in tech. Even if two nations chose the exact same tech to upgrade, how they upgraded those and the end result could still be massively different.

In HOI 4 not the case. Everyone will have the same tech with minor differences here and there, that in the end result in no big change or difference in their armies in the end result.

Anyone who says those systems, mechanics, etc. were non important, or non accessible were not grand strategy players. Its....that..simple.

HOI 3 was a grand strategy, HOI 4 is a Strategy, not a grand strategy. Which is the whole damn point of this post...
 
Last edited:
  • 156
  • 122
  • 8
Reactions:
What crazy games did you play at arcades?

Seriously though, any focus tree problems are just a balance issue that would be relatively trivial to change.
 
  • 49
  • 9
Reactions:
Focuses are just broken at the moment. If they aren't fixed it'll be really worrying, but it's also not a massive concern since it's all just numbers. I'm more iffy on some of the more ingrained design decisions. But frankly I've put so much time into DH that I'd rather play a refreshing "not as good" game than yet another campaign of DH where I know every trick under the sun.
 
  • 10
  • 3
Reactions:
Arcade. Lol.

If even 3rd world countries like Tibet can go head to head with Germany with nuclear and jet air power by 1942, you've just taken away all grand strategy aspects in the game across the board, and turned it into a glorified Risk with more combat mechanics.

HOI 4 is a simple arcade strategy game at best. There's nothing grand or difficult about it, or any serious challenges to overcome by anyone for anyone.
 
  • 55
  • 26
Reactions:
So... What is your own, personal definition of Grand Strategy (give examples) and your own, personal definition of Arcade (give examples, I am not English so Arcade = Street Fighter for me but I couldn't find how to land combos as Italy last night!)
 
  • 19
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Seems to be the unfortunate running thing to expect from paradox now. Their last several games I cannot say with a straight face is a grand strategy, including HOI 4. Which is a shame, as it's the whole reason I love paradox.

Just because its a world stage does not make it a grand strategy. Everything has been watered down to such an extent I simply cannot call it that. It's a great WW II arcade game, but that's where it stops. It's not even a simulation of the era like CK II, Europa, Vic, etc. which this game used to neatly fit right after as a WWII deep grand strategy game.
-------------------------------

The focus tree's really are what makes this game full on arcade. I see what they tried to do, make the focuses something which helps the player slightly here and there, while pushing countries either in a historical or non historical path depending on the choices made. Good idea in theory, horribly executed.

Take Tibet for instance, nearly all of their focus tree's give you immediate infastructure, factories, and a monster load of -50 to even -100% time reduction in research at specific tree's multiple times over. by 1941 when the war usually kicks off, I'm sporting Nuclear factories, half way into nuclear weapons, and bumping around with infantry and just steps away from rockin Jet planes.... As Tibet I can go head to head with Germany without issue by 1941.

------------------------

This then brings me directly into why this game is arcade, and my point. Grand Strategy games are games with high depth to mechanics and problems that throws you multiple challenges, and difficulties to overcome depending on how and where you start. Paradox games used to do that, but like my point above, HOI 4 Focus tree's have essentially taken out nearly every challenge for starting out as anybody. Any of the set backs for starting as a specific country you can find quick and easy answers too in their focus tree's taking away any and all challenges playing as them. It wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal if it took longer than the game time to research them all, and focuses were actually that.. .focuses... By the end of 1945-46 you could still easily have half your focuses un researched. That would then tip it back into strategy as you're needing to pick and choose your focus, and decide where your little bit of benefits will come from. But alas instead you can steam roll through your focuses as any country and no shits given.

------------------------

I refuse to accept "well they made it more "Accessible". To that, I say screw you. That's a cop out excuse and a huge insult to casual players like myself. While I love paradox games, and I love strategy games, I'm still casual about it. Saying "Hey, well we know you're casual, so we dumbed down the mechanics and made it far far easier to understand so you can feel special too!" Is a huge insult to my intelligence.

Casual does not = stupid. It's time people figured this out, as it seems developers, and other gamers in general think that to make a game "more accessible" to casuals they need to dumb it down tremendously.

Anyone who argues a strategy game needs to be dumbed down watered down or made "more accessible" for casual strategy gamers fail to understand that the people that would help aren't real strategy fans to begin with...

----------------------

So as I said. It's a good game over all.. but its an arcade at best, and not close to a grand strategy.. or even a real strategy game at that... As most of the strategy involved is now taken out as well in having to overcome the difficulties of where you started, and the events inside and outside of your nation. All those answers can be found easily within your nations focus tree's that take away need of strategizing on a grand scale to overcome..

Which is the whole point of Grand Strategies..

Good post I agree, speaking about strategy games in general when you try to make everyone playable you tend to end up making everyone the same which results in almost no strategy whatsoever.


I cant comment about HOI IV as I suspected it was not the the game for me and from what I am reading its actually slightly worse then I thought, not sure what people are going to do next week for fun as it appears to be incredibly shallow.


Anyhow I signed in to give you an agree tick before your overwhelmed by all the Guderians.
 
  • 26
  • 7
Reactions:
Good post I agree, speaking about strategy games in general when you try to make everyone playable you tend to end up making everyone the same which results in almost no strategy whatsoever.


I cant comment about HOI IV as I suspected it was not the the game for me and from what I am reading its actually slightly worse then I thought, not sure what people are going to do next week for fun as it appears to be incredibly shallow.


Anyhow I signed in to give you an agree tick before your overwhelmed by all the Guderians.

... But would Guderian really be the leader you play in a Grand Strategy game? Wouldn't that be more Operational Warfare?
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
I understand your sentiment, I have played since HOI 2 and I see a "simplification" of politics, diplomacy, trade and research. But in my opinion after 2 whole hours (yes I know is not much) of playing it seems they have freed up the game for the actual war. Perhaps its arcady to give more focus to the strategy of warfare and less to the overall strategy of managing a nation. Perhaps the simplification will grate me more as I get more hours.
For me I always found the tactics of a given battle and how that fit into my overall strategy for winning a front or theater the most fun part so I am happy so far.
Not tried Supreme Ruler 1936, but I understand that gives more of what you want?
 
  • 10
  • 6
Reactions:
Yes the game is now diveded into tiers. It doesnt bother me that much but I wished for more different intantry was available (machine gunner, mortar, etc..) but I dont think thats the main issue. What causing minor nations rise up is The generic focus tree; which is really OP! You can get more research slots way faster than major nations. Along with the good amont of factory improvements. I think minor nation research limit should be 4! Maybe for some very few uniqe nations could get 5. Not to mention you can change your nations ideology&party very fast with that tree.

I guess in time If Paradox manages to do balanced Nation Focuses for other minor nations, this problems could go away.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
Saying the game is arcade like doesn't reinforce your point, it's exaggeration to the point of the ridiculous.

The focus trees are unbalanced, especially the generic. They will change it I'm sure.
 
  • 27
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
You do know every single country except the majors (including Tibet) has the same national focus right? Paradox is going to gradually add more and balance them, just like EU4's ideas.
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
You do know every single country except the majors (including Tibet) has the same national focus right? Paradox is going to gradually add more and balance them, just like EU4's ideas.

I should point out that is exactly what the OP does not want but could you please explain why Tibet should have its own focus tree and why it even remotely matters for such a short time period?


Tibet focuses on building more Temples 0.000123% to overall military Production, first Armoured Division should now be built by 2024.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
I couldnt agree more.

Good interface, nice sound, graphics engine great, nothing to do with WWII Grand Strategy.

You paint where you troops should go, and you have very little control from there on. It is just big heaps and piles of divisions that you have no connection to, as they are all the same, or easy direct control over. I tried to make 1 division garrison an island in the pacific, that was quite a task. You just end up pushing the piles around on the map instead of leading the formations.

You can produce things without having the ressources to do it ??

I cannot wrap my head around how the supply/logistics thing works, but perhaps with more time i'll get it.

This is an arcade game that are cutting a LOT of corners to make it accessible to people, and the modders are going to have quite a challenge making this better as a lot of the problems seems to be hardcoded mechanics.

The ScienceTree is, said politely, minimalistic and very strangely made.. sometimes the userinterface goes vertical sometimes horizontal.

I´ve been a strategy player for a long time and I have been a looongtime player of Paradox games, i was with them from the beginning with EU1 and HOI1, so i had to see if these new mechanics could grow on me, but so far it is unfortunately just as i had thought from all the discussions here at the forums.

They have made a Hasbro Game this time, with little to no appeal to a hardcore Strategy Gamer like myself, and it is a disappointment.

But I'm gonna give it a go for some days to see if i can put some of my statements to shame.
 
  • 36
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
I should point out that is exactly what the OP does not want but could you please explain why Tibet should have its own focus tree and why it even remotely matters for such a short time period?


Tibet focuses on building more Temples 0.000123% to overall military Production, first Armoured Division should now be built by 2024.

Why? Because there are going to be thousands of people playing Tibet, or some other random minor very few people know about, and those people will want a unique gameplay. It's for the same reason that insignificant nations like Dahomey have their own ideas in EU4.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
I tend to agree with you but I wouldnt go to call it arcady. I mean I recall there was a path in EU4 once upon a time where the world was westernized in a domino effect and they changed that. Im sure in the coming months HOI4 will be different than its vanilla release, as EU4 has morphed into something really different (and to the better) than its vanilla launch. True tibet shouldnt be as strong as Germany, but I doubt it would be the case for long.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.