I'm curious what you guys regard as the strengths and weaknesses of DH (v. 1.03) compared to HOI3 TFH (v. 1.02). Trying to decide how much effort to redirect toward DH. Any advice on idiosyncracies to watch out for in DH?
-
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.
Definitely TFH. Better balance, better AI, fewer stupid things like France storming the Siegfried Line, fewer AI cheats and finally one of the best mods to all HoI games - Black ICE.
DH without any doubt. HOI3 is just like an idiot-proof version of HOI2 series, with less mods avaliable and less replayabilty value. Oh, and needs a NASA computer if you really want to play it until the end and makes you pay for any nice stuff you want (expansions, skins, icons...).
Processor: Intel® Core™ i3 2gen 2310M 2,1 GHz
RAM: 3 GB, DDR3
Graphic card: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520
And TFH runs like Usain Bolt.
RAM: 3 GB, DDR3
Graphic card: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520
And TFH runs like Usain Bolt.
I would say DH but it's almost even.
The naval aspect of HoI3 is much better than DH's, which makes naval powers much more fun to play. To be fair naval battles in DH is pretty boring.
HoI3 have in my opinion too many provinces and too many units so organizing the army is extremely time consuming. It feels like 80% of the game is spent organizing instead of actually playing. And putting the AI in charge or organizing the army is simply not an option for me.
I really love DH's manpower system, it gives you a feeling of emergency when playing nations like Germany because you know that you have to finish the war before running out. The manpower system of HoI2 and HoI3 doesn't give that same feeling because you get loads of manpower constantly, it's still possible to run out but you'll get it back much quicker than in DH.
The naval aspect of HoI3 is much better than DH's, which makes naval powers much more fun to play. To be fair naval battles in DH is pretty boring.
HoI3 have in my opinion too many provinces and too many units so organizing the army is extremely time consuming. It feels like 80% of the game is spent organizing instead of actually playing. And putting the AI in charge or organizing the army is simply not an option for me.
I really love DH's manpower system, it gives you a feeling of emergency when playing nations like Germany because you know that you have to finish the war before running out. The manpower system of HoI2 and HoI3 doesn't give that same feeling because you get loads of manpower constantly, it's still possible to run out but you'll get it back much quicker than in DH.
DH. I own TFH and appreciate some of the changes it made (combined arms and the new tank armour vs gun penetration stuff is pretty cool) but Hearts of Iron 3 has always had four pretty big deal-breakers for me, and none of the expansions fixed them:
1. There are simply too many provinces in the map for a fun game. I feel Darkest Hour strikes a better balance between being able to pull off maneuvers and not getting bored of the game. Being able to assign AI leaders to your armies to play the game for you is a bit of an ugly fix to this problem.
2. Having to mess around with command structures and a million pointless HQ counters is just a chore rather than fun gameplay. I'm quite happy for some aspects of my wargaming to be assumed, and this is one.
3. Arranging existing forces is a huge chore. It takes a monstrous number of clicks to (for example) convert a military full of 3-brigade divisions into a military full of 4-brigade divisions.
4. My game crashes a lot. This may just be me though.
There are other lesser niggles (I think that everyone effectively possessing every military doctrine at once is a bit flavourless compared to Darkest Hour, for instance) but those are the big ones preventing me recommending it.
1. There are simply too many provinces in the map for a fun game. I feel Darkest Hour strikes a better balance between being able to pull off maneuvers and not getting bored of the game. Being able to assign AI leaders to your armies to play the game for you is a bit of an ugly fix to this problem.
2. Having to mess around with command structures and a million pointless HQ counters is just a chore rather than fun gameplay. I'm quite happy for some aspects of my wargaming to be assumed, and this is one.
3. Arranging existing forces is a huge chore. It takes a monstrous number of clicks to (for example) convert a military full of 3-brigade divisions into a military full of 4-brigade divisions.
4. My game crashes a lot. This may just be me though.
There are other lesser niggles (I think that everyone effectively possessing every military doctrine at once is a bit flavourless compared to Darkest Hour, for instance) but those are the big ones preventing me recommending it.
DH for decisions & claims, also the simple hoi2-tech system is just more streamlined than the knowledge system of Hoi3
I like TFH but the gamebreaker is the ai !!! you can easily win with Germany even in the 1944 scenario every hands off game Germany pushes USA back into the sea and in Italy always the same the allied forces are pushed back out of italy
Try that with DH and you come home from a cold shower no DH's ai is far more superior!!! If you like to win yeah you should play TFH but if you like a real challenge play DH. (Edit) or AOD
and if you say otherwise it is clear to me you haven't play DH or AOD
Try that with DH and you come home from a cold shower no DH's ai is far more superior!!! If you like to win yeah you should play TFH but if you like a real challenge play DH. (Edit) or AOD
and if you say otherwise it is clear to me you haven't play DH or AOD
Last edited:
I personally prefer DH, mostly because I like the simpler tech system, less overwhelming map, and lack of the confusing OOB system.
Also Kaiserreich.
Also Kaiserreich.
GAGA Extrem said:When in doubt:
AOD
WTF - Hell yeah of course! avoided it because it wasnt mentioned
HOI 3 didn´t do everything wrong compared to HOI 2 derivatives hehe. IMO:
1- Good changes: naval system, above all CAG as independent unit (through it is borked to an extent because the system doesn´t represent well the evolution in carrier airplane complement and carrier deck optimization)
2- Mixed changes: practical system (on paper excellent, until you realize you can spam light tanks to get it then suddenly BLAM, spam heavy tanks. No gearing malus for doing it). Research (combat experience should have a bigger impact and IMO the best system would combine tech teams, funding with cash AND practical). Armor/ piercing system (qualitative, should be quantitative)
3- Bad changes: OOB (AI simply can´t handle it and leaves Zhukov commanding a 3 INF division, for example, not to mention massive micro involved in designing a good OOB) and province number (too many, and gameplay wise worse than having too few).
1- Good changes: naval system, above all CAG as independent unit (through it is borked to an extent because the system doesn´t represent well the evolution in carrier airplane complement and carrier deck optimization)
2- Mixed changes: practical system (on paper excellent, until you realize you can spam light tanks to get it then suddenly BLAM, spam heavy tanks. No gearing malus for doing it). Research (combat experience should have a bigger impact and IMO the best system would combine tech teams, funding with cash AND practical). Armor/ piercing system (qualitative, should be quantitative)
3- Bad changes: OOB (AI simply can´t handle it and leaves Zhukov commanding a 3 INF division, for example, not to mention massive micro involved in designing a good OOB) and province number (too many, and gameplay wise worse than having too few).
I would say HOI3 is a total crap considering a HOI game based on old Europa Engine still have many fans.