A couple of issues

[missingalink]

I know that I'm late to the party with this game having only started to play recently but a couple of things jump out at me. First is the ability to just keep cranking out units with no limits other than manpower, which makes a mockery of the sinews of war being endless money, as everyone apparently has an endless supply. This may make minor nations easier to play but immersion goes straight out the window.

Second is that naval warfare appears to have the Stellaris disease, doom stackitis. I mean seriously, just finished a game where one of the UK fleets had 68 destroyers, 45 cruisers and a crap ton of subs to keep the 29 battleships company. I'm sure there are larger ones out there but that's the largest I have seen thus far. In the same game I had 8 destroyers sink 32 subs in a single battle. The system is seriously fubar atm.

I know there are other issues that are being worked on but these two are ruining the game for me.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

To 1:
You did realise that you need equipment? Ofc you can produce/train lots of division with insufficient equipment, but these won't do much in combat... So minor nations might deploy tons of divisions, but there is no way they can actually equip them. That is, however, currently a general problem with the AI training more divisions than can be supplied. So it's just an AI problem, here. No need to introduce some abstract upkeep (money) besides the needed equipment, imho.
To 2:
Agree. Like armies the size of fleets should be dependent to the leading officer. Ships need some kind of "weight" (DD=1; BB=4 or something like that, don't quote me on that numbers, but you get the idea, I guess) and officers can handle a specific weight. Plus, ofc, a default size for leaderless fleets.
And please without the possibility to have leaders that can handle an infinite weight.

I wouldn't consider those things as game ruining, but yes, both points have to be worked at.

 

[missingalink]

In answer to 1: Played a game as Mexico, built up massive and fully equipped force on northern border ( able to move to extensive conscription by 1941 ), then steamrolled the US. By 1943 only Mexico & Brazil existed on the American continent and Brazil were next on the list. This is highly unrealistic and couldn't happen if the relevant wealth of the countries was taken into account.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Wealth is taken into account as industrial capability. Obviously you managed to be wealthy enough.
Or maybe I should say: The US AI managed to be unwealthy enough.

While I agree that, from an immersion point of view, money should be an issue, from the "fun" perspective I disagree. As far as I know (didn't play anything before DH) money is no resource in either HOI implementation for exact that reason. The game ist about war and war economics, not about balancing the state budget. Each nation (actively) involved in that war took on huge depts. So I can see the reasoning of simply omitting that part since the time when you actually had to repay that debts are out of the focus of that game (afaik some nations still repay their debts for WW II even today, and I'm not talking about Germany, which case is rather special in that regard).

For other PDX titles that is another story in regard of that. While there are long time wars (5, 10 years or even longer) in, for example, EU IV, the periods after that war still matter.
If the HOI series was to be a "Victoria for 15 years" I would agree to you. But it is not a simulator for socioeconomics, but simply for war. Playing a war game without the ability of waging war because you cannot afford it is not particular funny, methinks.

/edit: In theory the US economy ingame should be able to outproduce the Mexican no matter what. Even with that hefty maluses from the Great Depression and stuff. That the AI simply could not manage that is no flaw in the economic system as such.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I know that I'm late to the party with this game having only started to play recently but a couple of things jump out at me. First is the ability to just keep cranking out units with no limits other than manpower, which makes a mockery of the sinews of war being endless money, as everyone apparently has an endless supply. This may make minor nations easier to play but immersion goes straight out the window.

Why don't you think this is historical and immersive?

Historically even most minors had millions of rifles in storage and all that's needed to form very basic weak infantry formations is rifles + cheap civilian stuff.


You will not be able to make endless amounts of effective units supported by Artillery, AT, AA, Tanks and trucks though, especially not as a minor. And if you try to attack with basic infantry divisions without any expensive support you will quickly learn that manpower is enough of a blocker. Your divisions will fail to make progress and your manpower reserves will quickly vanish.


I think the HoI4 model for quickly recruiting infantry formations is the best of any HoI game to date, and the only one which allows the historical Soviet actions on the east front when hundreds of infantry divisions appeared seemingly from nowhere despite the huge amounts that had been surrounded and captured, and were able to halt the German advance in 1941 and 42.

Sure they couldn't make serious counterattacks until boosted up by Lend Lease and the urals industry starting to crank up, but with some help of General winter and German logistics issues they could defend well enough to survive until then.