Current state of HoI IV

[SpeedKatMcNasty]

Are you kidding me?

Deciding whether to try and annex a puppet, or just move them at integrated puppet, and how to achieve these ends is radically different than when the game was released.

Being Britain is much more complicated now. Sure, annexing Malaya seems like a no-brainer, but its going to cost you 300 PP. Where you get that PP from is an important strategic decision. And is India worth 300 PP plus the PP and time and building and lend-lease required to get India to Integrated puppet? Or is it better to leave her at Integrated puppet and use the manpower.

And if I am using puppet manpower, do I spend army XP on templates for my puppets? How much? Would overusing puppet troops cause them to become more autonomous?

What about the Philippines? Manchukou? Is China better as a puppet or annexed? What about the Dominions? Is it worth beating them down to puppet status so the empire has more resources and IC and manpower to fight the Axis?

If you play Japan, Britain, the United States, or anyone who is short manpower and has the option to wipe out other countries, puppet management is a big deal.

Maybe in singleplayer it is an easy way to exploit more manpower from the game, but i play 99% multiplayer, and just about every server has rules against releasing puppets. It had just about no impact on the Mp scene, which is where most of the people still playing this game are hiding out. Regardless, puppet management is as easy as clicking one of two buttons. Increase autonomy or decrease autonomy. You use decrease if you have a puppet you want to integrate, or increase if you are a puppet and want to be free. After a while you get the result you want and pay the PP cost. Not really much to it.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Maybe in singleplayer it is an easy way to exploit more manpower from the game, but i play 99% multiplayer, and just about every server has rules against releasing puppets. It had just about no impact on the Mp scene, which is where most of the people still playing this game are hiding out. Regardless, puppet management is as easy as clicking one of two buttons. Increase autonomy or decrease autonomy. You use decrease if you have a puppet you want to integrate, or increase if you are a puppet and want to be free. After a while you get the result you want and pay the PP cost. Not really much to it.

Is that feature in the expansion? I can't find a way to change autonomy, but then I don't have Victory DLC.

 

[SpeedKatMcNasty]

Is that feature in the expansion? I can't find a way to change autonomy, but then I don't have Victory DLC.

Yeah i believe its DLC only. Its a continuous focus.

 

[Warhammer]

Is that feature in the expansion? I can't find a way to change autonomy, but then I don't have Victory DLC.

Its expansion only, TFV focused on the commonwealth countries and the British Empire which will be doing most of the puppet management.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Yeah i believe its DLC only. Its a continuous focus.

Its expansion only, TFV focused on the commonwealth countries and the British Empire which will be doing most of the puppet management.

Thanks. Makes sense.

 

[Patgarret77]

I will stick to this game as I don't see any real alternative on the market: HOI3 never really worked for me and I cannot understand how the AI there could be better (please explain, I'm really curious), and War in the East/West represent WWII in a way I don't really relate to.

 

[lihp]

I still play HOI3 though, I feel that it is a much better game than HOI4 in almost every regard, and there are lots of very good mods. HOI4 got some nice features, but not well executed at the moment. And even mods can't fix it. Perhaps one day it will.

But if you feel HOI4 is not good enough, yet, as I do, dig out HOI3, in my opinion, by far, the best game Paradox has made

I have the patience to wait a couple of years. No problem. I just hope HOI4 will one day become a decent game. As of now it seems they have aimed themselves at people not knowing anything (or caring much about) history or WW2. It's more about "fun" and "sillyness" than WW2. I still hope they can turn it around, or at least fix mechanics so that mods eventually can make a good game.

There are a lot of things HOI IV does right even compared to HOI3. Also keep in mind the postings upon release of HOI3, alot wrote similar stuff about HOI3 and HOI2.

Then again... cant we just take HOI3, give it the HOI4 battle planer, drop in HOI4 naval mechanics with updated logic, keeping HOI3 air warfare and land combat and overall HOI4 UI and... call it HOI5 ??

I mean, Id buy it immediatly....

 

[lihp]

I will stick to this game as I don't see any real alternative on the market: HOI3 never really worked for me and I cannot understand how the AI there could be better (please explain, I'm really curious), and War in the East/West represent WWII in a way I don't really relate to.

Install BlackICE mod, start HOI3, fire up single player (at max difficulty if you are masochistic) and make your campaign as Germany.

Compare the AI in HOI3 vs HOI4 afterwards. Then we talk.

 

[ASPGolan]

If someone waited this much to buy the game, I really don't see the harm in waiting for more expansions to come out and add more gameplay options. The decision today is not that much different to the decision you had to make at release, to be frank. The game didn't change sufficiently since release for someone to be able to say: look at this list of things that are changed/fixed/added which make everything different. No, we're not there yet. There were a lot of things in the release notes, but they don't impact your actual gameplay all that much - at least it doesn't feel like that for me. The one thing that got me excited was the battle log which was included with the free updates. It's lacking in many ways. Anyway, on topic: suffice it to say that if you would have liked the game at release, you'd like where it is now and the reverse is just as true.

But the real thing is that the next expansions might tackle some of the things that are missing. Let's say more in-depth supply system, air and naval combat (in no particular order - they haven't provided specifics just yet, if I'm not mistaken). My opinion is that most people would want all of these components in the game from day 1, even if one can enjoy it just as it is.

As it is now, the land combat is just awesome and I find it sufficient for the historical period of the game. This is why I'm playing the Great War mod currently because I can focus on what works best and not care about those components being too generic.

 

[Theodorian]

My hypothesis is that Paradox are aware that Hearts of Iron 4 was not as successful as they intended it to be and has the single largest drop off of players than any of their previous or current titles. Given that any effort put here will effect the least amount of players, the least amount of resources are being assigned to improve this game.

 

[Sourlol]

@SpeedKatMcNasty

I don't think we will be waiting that long. I would imagine late May or even June 6. Although, to be honest, I am not sure if Oak is coming concurrent with the Axis DLC or if Oak is a (free) patch and there will be a DLC/Patch combo down the road (the Axis DLC).




From what I have understood, HoI4 is doing very well sales wise, 500,000 units for a game like this in <a year has to be good?

I wouldn't doubt PDX may be stretched thin, Four Active titles. But development isn't a plug and play type of job. There is a lot of lag time between beginning work on an existing project and understanding it enough to be an asset. This exact reason is why putting a bunch of people on AI can do more harm than good. Without an intricate knowledge of the product as a whole you are bound to make unintended catastrophic bugs.

I think the big difference between CK2/EU4 and HoI4 is the following: HoI4 is bound by the volume of data we have about this time period; EU4/CK2 are liberated in their design implementation by the lack of granular detail.

I expect we will see years of development on HoI4. As all of us, I enjoy the game immensely (why else would I bother to post here), I see the same issues as everyone else...I just believe you get more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

[rjohansen]

My hypothesis is that Paradox are aware that Hearts of Iron 4 was not as successful as they intended it to be and has the single largest drop off of players than any of their previous or current titles. Given that any effort put here will effect the least amount of players, the least amount of resources are being assigned to improve this game.

It might be. If they instead had improved upon HOI3 and used some of the mechanics from HOI4, I bet the game would be a whole lot more successful. I know a couple of persons that feels that way at least. Well. One of them prefers HOI2... But still play HOI3. HOI4 he doesn't touch anymore.

 

[Dalwin]

Enlighten me on what you meant by: "handicap yourself" besides playing on veteran difficulty without cheesy moves (without eg. the Dutchonesia opening move).

How do you handicap yourself then that is so much fun for you? Besides above points?

I use a very simple guideline in that regard. If you try something and it feels too easy, as in a broken mechanic, then avoid it in the future if possible. This will vary from person to person.

For example, I find that conquering Britain before Russia is far too easy and that the AI does not put up any serious resistance. Therefor I always go for Russia before Britain.

I know others who feel that subs are too effective vs the AI since it does little to counter them. As a result they do not use subs in SP games. I, myself, do not refrain from using subs.

If one feels that the death rate for CAS is far too low even when they have no friendly fighter cover, an appropriate step might be to force yourself to build at least as many fighters as CAS. Such a list would end up being far too long to go into extensive detail. One might even impose different limitations from one play through to the next. For example, I once played a game using nothing but battle plans, not even allowing myself to manually move individual units into defensive positions such as ports. I ended up winning anyway and while it was an interesting challenge, it was more hassle than it was worth so I don't continue to play that way.

If one finds the tactic of putting one heavy tank battalion into every infantry division makes their units basically untouchable, I would advise not doing so. It is not a tactic based on history and it is not one which the AI is able to counter effectively.

The main point is to not follow the same things that give you obvious advantage over an over. I am not suggesting, however, any of the items that you put in your list of handicaps, though you might find one or more of those to be a suitable challenge.

 

[WarDog]

When I play as Germany in SP, IMHO the game can be great fun. There are some challenges for the devs, but the game is absolutely playable. Just remember to:
- Don't have any allies.
- Don't use the battleplanner. Micro your troops.

 

[Dalwin]

So far, I have tested HOI4 quite a lot, some 250 hours, and at least one run after each patch. Still. Extremely easy, implausible, unrealistic and the game has absolutely nothing to do with WW2, filled with fantasy and silly stuff. Mods still can't work around it in my opinion, that might change after a while.

Although it has gotten somewhat better than on release, the AI is still a disaster. The game is, in my opinion, still unplayable. I don't care about multiplayer either, I have watched a few streams and it seems it's about "fast clicking" like a RTS game. Not for me. It might work for multiplayer-people, and for people who don't care (or know anything) about history for instance, but it is not a WW2 experience.

Perhaps in a few DLC's down the road and perhaps with better mods later on. But at the moment.

Fast multiplayer is only one style of play. There are groups out there that play slow MP such that it takes several weekly sessions to finish one game. Obviously the hard part is finding a group with a suitable schedule. While this method is not for everyone, it is the only way I will play the game and I greatly enjoy playing it in that format.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

@SpeedKatMcNasty

I don't think we will be waiting that long. I would imagine late May or even June 6. Although, to be honest, I am not sure if Oak is coming concurrent with the Axis DLC or if Oak is a (free) patch and there will be a DLC/Patch combo down the road (the Axis DLC).




From what I have understood, HoI4 is doing very well sales wise, 500,000 units for a game like this in <a year has to be good?

I wouldn't doubt PDX may be stretched thin, Four Active titles. But development isn't a plug and play type of job. There is a lot of lag time between beginning work on an existing project and understanding it enough to be an asset. This exact reason is why putting a bunch of people on AI can do more harm than good. Without an intricate knowledge of the product as a whole you are bound to make unintended catastrophic bugs.

I think the big difference between CK2/EU4 and HoI4 is the following: HoI4 is bound by the volume of data we have about this time period; EU4/CK2 are liberated in their design implementation by the lack of granular detail.

I expect we will see years of development on HoI4. As all of us, I enjoy the game immensely (why else would I bother to post here), I see the same issues as everyone else...I just believe you get more flies with honey than vinegar.

Good points regarding the hiring of new developers and effective work done. It's similar to assigning new factories, they take time to develop efficiency.

Still, I think a lot of the complaints around here are about the apparent lack of communication/interest from the developers.

If you sell 500k copies of a game you shouldn't go a month without dev diaries, especially if you were making them weekly before release. It makes it look like you cashed out and then left.

With 500k sold copies, if there is that many, you hire a guy to dance for the community and keep them entertained while you build the team you need to fix the game.

I personally like HOI4, but the lack of dev diaries is disheartening.

 

[Broletariat90]

Good points regarding the hiring of new developers and effective work done. It's similar to assigning new factories, they take time to develop efficiency.

Still, I think a lot of the complaints around here are about the apparent lack of communication/interest from the developers.

If you sell 500k copies of a game you shouldn't go a month without dev diaries, especially if you were making them weekly before release. It makes it look like you cashed out and then left.

With 500k sold copies, if there is that many, you hire a guy to dance for the community and keep them entertained while you build the team you need to fix the game.

I personally like HOI4, but the lack of dev diaries is disheartening.

The logic in not doing diaries for about a month and a half was that they didn't really have anything to show at that point. So instead of doing one and making it extremely short and vague which would most likely get people upset, they decided to take a break and concentrate on the new patch and dlc. So when they finally do produce another diary, its full of content and shows a lot of what they have been working on. Apparently, this solution of quality over quantity still got people super upset. So hopefully whatever we see next week includes an announcement for new DLC and a release date. But knowing how the team has a history of under-delivering on promises, it could very well just be pictures from Podcat's twitter. I'm honestly expecting it to be a total flop. Don't get your hopes up.

 

[Sourlol]

Apparently, this solution of quality over quantity still got people super upset.

No matter what anyone does someone will get offended, pissed off and worked up. Regardless of who they tick off during development by being too much or not open enough, so long as they are doing what they think will ship the best product in the end, I'm up for it.

If the end product sucks, I just won't buy it, same way others have expressed their discontent by not purchasing TFV in certain circumstances.

I am happy for any and all news of development; I've played a decent amount of DICE and older Blizzard games, both of whom are/were miles worse at communicating what they are working on than PDX (and in DICE's case, I'm not convinced they don't just leave games to rot). Despite all that, this is my first foray into PDX titles, I'm sure if I had been around since EU3 and Hoi2 I may have different expectation. But as someone who has more or less "come from a different developer", PDX does well by me.

 

[lihp]

I use a very simple guideline in that regard. If you try something and it feels too easy, as in a broken mechanic, then avoid it in the future if possible. This will vary from person to person.

For example, I find that conquering Britain before Russia is far too easy and that the AI does not put up any serious resistance. Therefor I always go for Russia before Britain.

I know others who feel that subs are too effective vs the AI since it does little to counter them. As a result they do not use subs in SP games. I, myself, do not refrain from using subs.

If one feels that the death rate for CAS is far too low even when they have no friendly fighter cover, an appropriate step might be to force yourself to build at least as many fighters as CAS. Such a list would end up being far too long to go into extensive detail. One might even impose different limitations from one play through to the next. For example, I once played a game using nothing but battle plans, not even allowing myself to manually move individual units into defensive positions such as ports. I ended up winning anyway and while it was an interesting challenge, it was more hassle than it was worth so I don't continue to play that way.

If one finds the tactic of putting one heavy tank battalion into every infantry division makes their units basically untouchable, I would advise not doing so. It is not a tactic based on history and it is not one which the AI is able to counter effectively.

The main point is to not follow the same things that give you obvious advantage over an over. I am not suggesting, however, any of the items that you put in your list of handicaps, though you might find one or more of those to be a suitable challenge.

Yet the magic of HOI1-3 was the feeling of diving into WW2 history - even deeper with some mods. Also being able to do things differently.

• Maybe someone recalls the AAR entry for the competition, where one tried to fully comply to Dönitz's subwar plans? Even with far ahead of time tech, the Dönitz plan turned out to be unrealistic.
• Doing sealion even early as Germany - almost impossible.
• Conquering the world as New Zealand.. don't get me started - impossible.
• ...

HOI4 simply doesnt fit into this scheme. As a matter of fact it is not even a "real" HOI (real as in cosim - grand strategy simulation), but an arcade game. So of course anyone who expected a "better HOI" based on HOI1-3 must be disappointed. And imho rightfully is.

@Dalwin - yes, I hear ya, closing ones eyes, going historically and avoiding the loopholes. Coupled with a vivid fantasy it works for some time in HOI4 (not ironic, I did the same, when I still played HOI4). But then comes... the SU (for almost any non-comintern country you chose) and suddenly you are the Tzar... The US is simply the icing on the cake, no matter if you grab it in the 40's or 50's. Its just too easy - simple as that for me. Even when I handicap myself.

 

[Theodorian]

Here's $5 that says the April 12 Development Diary will be: "We have a new trade interface and also we're planning some great stuff guys ok!"