Even after so many updates, HOI4 still has massive problems
- Thread starter Riekopo
- Start date
-
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
Mr. Gorbachev! Tear down this wall!
I only have a few gripes with the vanilla game. Nothing major. I am waiting on BICE to update though. Should make things more interesting.
If you're so unsatisfied with the game, wait awhile and do whatever it is you do. I'm sure Paradox will fix most of your problems with time and DLC. I didn't even buy HOI4 until a year later and they still have work to do. Its Hearts of Iron, expect it to have problems initially.
I only have a few gripes with the vanilla game. Nothing major. I am waiting on BICE to update though. Should make things more interesting.
If you're so unsatisfied with the game, wait awhile and do whatever it is you do. I'm sure Paradox will fix most of your problems with time and DLC. I didn't even buy HOI4 until a year later and they still have work to do. Its Hearts of Iron, expect it to have problems initially.
Kaiserreich wiped the floor with paradox on the political system. WAY better and more realistic. Felt like a different game.
I always thought a naval invasion fleet was escorted by a large escort fleet from point A to point E but it seems like it's not the case here in HOI4. You have to assign escort fleets in point A, B, C, D and E then let your naval invasion fleet run along the route like a dumb marathon runner while the escort fleets cheer on you on the way.
And I am surprised few people realized half of unique nation focuses are just there because the AI and political system of this game is non-existent. Some focused indeed bring unique bonus but the rest are just fill-in for the AI. If someone can show me how to switch side in middle of the war like Italy did in WWII then please tell me.
And units in this game is bullcrap. All units are the same, the only different is their look and their name. You know? The stuff like Zero fighter is more nimble but more fragile and can be outran by Allies airplane? Or how unreliable Tiger/Panther chassis are? Or Japanse ships are the only ships in the early war that can reload torpedo mid battle without having to return to the dock to reload? Or how unreliable the long lance torpedo is because they tend to explode randomly?
And I am surprised few people realized half of unique nation focuses are just there because the AI and political system of this game is non-existent. Some focused indeed bring unique bonus but the rest are just fill-in for the AI. If someone can show me how to switch side in middle of the war like Italy did in WWII then please tell me.
And units in this game is bullcrap. All units are the same, the only different is their look and their name. You know? The stuff like Zero fighter is more nimble but more fragile and can be outran by Allies airplane? Or how unreliable Tiger/Panther chassis are? Or Japanse ships are the only ships in the early war that can reload torpedo mid battle without having to return to the dock to reload? Or how unreliable the long lance torpedo is because they tend to explode randomly?
'Even after so many updates, HOI4 still has massive problems'
And the sun will rise in the East!
'Most of these things are easy enough to fix, and many modders already have.' If mods have fixed it why should Paradox? Just play the mods.
'honestly there is no excuse for any of the above' I don't know who this is directed to? The Dev Team? Sorry they, when they are at work, are doing what they can. Paradox? Yes, the ambition of HOI IV is much larger than the support the company has given the project.
And the sun will rise in the East!
'Most of these things are easy enough to fix, and many modders already have.' If mods have fixed it why should Paradox? Just play the mods.
'honestly there is no excuse for any of the above' I don't know who this is directed to? The Dev Team? Sorry they, when they are at work, are doing what they can. Paradox? Yes, the ambition of HOI IV is much larger than the support the company has given the project.
Hi 
No, in fact your planning bonus slowly fade away, so if you cancel a frontline with full planning bonus orders, and set a new one with new orders, you keep your bonuses full. Hope it's help
What the OP is saying is true, say if you are using a field marshal and you extend a battle line or redraw It, the divisions usually readjust the whole front line(units shift from one side of the line to the other and vis-versa) it's not all the units but a good majority lose a bit of their planning bonus while moving(the effects are worse depending on how much more you extend the line and how many units you have on said order)
This can be made really bad if you extend the line a lot and the AI decides to strategically redeploy then once in place play a shuffling game for a couple weeks.
This can be made really bad if you extend the line a lot and the AI decides to strategically redeploy then once in place play a shuffling game for a couple weeks.
I do wish I could draw a single frontline along multiple nation's boundaries, but I've learned how to manipulate the frontlines and assign divisions to multiple and leveled attack routes.
It's a bit annoying how the AI readjust the lines as territory is conquered, but, as mentioned above, bonuses are not affected by redrawing the lines, but by time.
And the AI does seem to be limited on its invasion range by its fleet presence between the base and the destination. Once I secured all European bases as the Axis, there were no further invasion attempts.
If you are launching naval invasions of Guadalcanal from San Francisco, you should find it hard without a massive naval presence along the route. Right?
There are so many nuances about this game (like my recent learning of certain aspects of the air war) that take so much trial and error and testing and tagging. It's got serious flaws with how the AI manages so much of it that it sometimes seems like it all goes beyond that.
However. The core mechanics are solid, they just need molding to the individual's liking. That's what mods are for. I would tear my hair out if it wasn't for the peace conference mods and certain aesthetic extras, but there are a bevy of other changes on tap and up for your enhanced amusement.
Sure. The vanilla needs lot's of work, but there are bandaids that can really help a lot of those issues or just a little better grasp of the mechanic's relationship.
It's a bit annoying how the AI readjust the lines as territory is conquered, but, as mentioned above, bonuses are not affected by redrawing the lines, but by time.
And the AI does seem to be limited on its invasion range by its fleet presence between the base and the destination. Once I secured all European bases as the Axis, there were no further invasion attempts.
If you are launching naval invasions of Guadalcanal from San Francisco, you should find it hard without a massive naval presence along the route. Right?
There are so many nuances about this game (like my recent learning of certain aspects of the air war) that take so much trial and error and testing and tagging. It's got serious flaws with how the AI manages so much of it that it sometimes seems like it all goes beyond that.
However. The core mechanics are solid, they just need molding to the individual's liking. That's what mods are for. I would tear my hair out if it wasn't for the peace conference mods and certain aesthetic extras, but there are a bevy of other changes on tap and up for your enhanced amusement.
Sure. The vanilla needs lot's of work, but there are bandaids that can really help a lot of those issues or just a little better grasp of the mechanic's relationship.
Whilst there is some aspects of Kaiserreich I dislike, I really do have to agree here. That part of the mod felt incredibly fun and dynamic, whilst Vanilla feels stale and static.
I mostly agree with the OP with pretty much everything except with the need of having agriculture into the game. Honestly I don't think it would add that much to the game. And wasn't the whole "colonizing the East to gain a self-sufficient agricultural economy for Germany" just Nazi propaganda/bulshit?
Last edited:
Without going into it much as it touches on banned topics. No the occupying the East for agriculture was not merely propaganda. The East (and West for that matter) were stripped clean to feed the German population.
Lack of a bonus isn't a penalty. In some cases, on smaller scale, it's even better to give orders manually as you won't be affected by penalty to a plan (risky plans).
Infantry equipment stands for food and clothing, among other things.
...except it was of no use for Germany during the war. What was used is fairly well represented by seizing industry, manpower and strategic resources from captured territories. There is little point in implementing agriculture in Hearts of Iron, given how long the game lasts. It would suit Victoria series much more as it's much more oriented on goods and population, and lasts 100 years.
Nukes themselves didn't really have that big of an impact. It was the Emperor who wanted a decisive end of the war after the loss of Okinawa (surrender is one such an option). The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only helped to speed up the surrender process, but in the end it was player-decided, rather than caused by drop of national unity below the level at which the country can't maintain the will to fight anymore.
I'd go as far to say that HoI4 is the worst WW2 grand strategy game.....
....except for every other WW2 grand strategy game yet produced. Or, in other words, it's the best WW2 strategy game that's been made to-date (and it has comfortably (post 1.4.1) the best AI of a WW2 GSG yet to be released).
The issues aren't with HoI4 as a game, but more with how HoI4 stands up to the complexities of the period, combined with differences between individual players desired levels of abstraction for a particular element (for example, the reference to clothing in the OP - a rather odd choice of thing to use as an argument that 'history doesn't matter'. Most (the vast, vast majority) of strategic, operational and tactical wargames don't include clothing (indeed, numerous first-person WW2 games don't include clothing as a gameplay element!) - it would be somewhat unusual to have it included, rather than a cardinal sin that it's not). There are, of course, areas where HoI4 could improve, but this isn't because HoI4 is a bad piece of work (quite the contrary), but because the job HoI4 is trying to do is huuuuuuuuge, and it's not going to be finished within the space of a normal development cycle, with a normal-sized strategy-game team. It's a case of growing with the game, or waiting longer if one doesn't want to be there for the journey.
The above quoted part is particularly odd. As Paradox made clear from before the DLC was announced, the DLC was kept on the smaller side to allow more resources to improve the base game, including the AI. The devs are already doing what the complainer is going on about. This seems to be an issue with the awareness of the person posting on reddit, rather than a problem with the game.
....except for every other WW2 grand strategy game yet produced
. Or, in other words, it's the best WW2 strategy game that's been made to-date (and it has comfortably (post 1.4.1) the best AI of a WW2 GSG yet to be released).The issues aren't with HoI4 as a game, but more with how HoI4 stands up to the complexities of the period, combined with differences between individual players desired levels of abstraction for a particular element (for example, the reference to clothing in the OP - a rather odd choice of thing to use as an argument that 'history doesn't matter'. Most (the vast, vast majority) of strategic, operational and tactical wargames don't include clothing (indeed, numerous first-person WW2 games don't include clothing as a gameplay element!) - it would be somewhat unusual to have it included, rather than a cardinal sin that it's not). There are, of course, areas where HoI4 could improve, but this isn't because HoI4 is a bad piece of work (quite the contrary), but because the job HoI4 is trying to do is huuuuuuuuge, and it's not going to be finished within the space of a normal development cycle, with a normal-sized strategy-game team. It's a case of growing with the game, or waiting longer if one doesn't want to be there for the journey.
The above quoted part is particularly odd. As Paradox made clear from before the DLC was announced, the DLC was kept on the smaller side to allow more resources to improve the base game, including the AI. The devs are already doing what the complainer is going on about. This seems to be an issue with the awareness of the person posting on reddit, rather than a problem with the game.
I would say HoI 3 TFH BICE is the best WW2 grand strategy game to date. HOI IV has the potential to be one day much better than HoI 3, but it is not there yet. Please remember I currently play both games, often in the same day, so it is not the cast rose colored glasses remembering the past.
Well, OP is right about many things.
The fact that so many consider it the best HOI yet (me included) tells you how the previous installments managed. And we loved them, anyway. Lets face it: the market does not justify investing the necessary manpower into the development of such a complex WW2 rts grand strategy game. Paradox punched well above their weight on this game. Just look at the other games of this genre - oh wait, there aren't any. At least not on a comparable scale.
Yes, its been a year, yes - much is still broken. But frankly, I don't give an eff. The game has never been so complex before and so much of it works and just makes so much more sense than in the previous HOIs. If they implement some A.I. long-term management skills and fix naval, which both should to my mind not be beyond the devs capabilities, I will even recommend this game to my friends. Something which never had come to my mind with HOI2, let alone HOI3. Install expert AI mod, buff your enemies with the sliders and you're good to go.
The game which features a challenging AI is yet to be programmed, anyway.
The fact that so many consider it the best HOI yet (me included) tells you how the previous installments managed. And we loved them, anyway. Lets face it: the market does not justify investing the necessary manpower into the development of such a complex WW2 rts grand strategy game. Paradox punched well above their weight on this game. Just look at the other games of this genre - oh wait, there aren't any. At least not on a comparable scale.
Yes, its been a year, yes - much is still broken. But frankly, I don't give an eff. The game has never been so complex before and so much of it works and just makes so much more sense than in the previous HOIs. If they implement some A.I. long-term management skills and fix naval, which both should to my mind not be beyond the devs capabilities, I will even recommend this game to my friends. Something which never had come to my mind with HOI2, let alone HOI3. Install expert AI mod, buff your enemies with the sliders and you're good to go.
The game which features a challenging AI is yet to be programmed, anyway.
I didn't get further then the first point before I stopped reading. The guy making these complaints ( assuming it's a guy based on the excessive amount of foul language ) apparently haven't played enough or observed the AI play enough to be in a position to be making the complaints and claims that he is.
For example the above is wrong on all 3 accounts.
For example the above is wrong on all 3 accounts.
- If the enemy isn't patrolling the oceans a single submarine can cover 3 massive seazones and allow launching an invasion, so it does not make long-distance invasions impossible at all.
- The same rules does apply to the AI, I have spent many hours observing the AI play vs the AI trying to figure out for example why Japan or USA does not launch naval invasions, and the main number one reason is that they don't have enough ships assigned to the seazones to gain enough naval supremacy to launch.
- Sending unprotected transports into enemy-infested waters does not get them all destroyed due to how long convoy raiding battles we have ( another issue ).
1. The frontline mechanic - yes, it is really bad. I don't understad why Paradox doesn't allow setting a front line anywhere, as OP says. At least set a front line on my own borders. If I'm playing Soviet Union, and Germany, Romania and Hungary/Slovakia are all in the Axis, why can't I set a single front line over the entire border? Instead, I have to set three separate ones.
2. Following history - I feel that the game is good enough in that regard. It is also debatable whether the nukes were the straw that broke the camels back, or was it Soviet decision to DOW Japan and their conquest of Manchuria. Japanese cities were already bombed out. Fire bombing of Tokyo destroyed more of the city and killed more people than two atomic bombs combined and Japan didn't surrender. Everyone in Japan understood that they were defeated, it was just a matter of what was the best way to get concessions (most importantly, retaining the Emperor). Hawks hoped that inflicting significant casualties would make the allies agree to some concessions, while doves thought that agreeing to allied terms would placate them enough allow Emperor to remain head of state and head of Shinto religion. Hawks wanted Soviets to mediate. With Soviet invasion of Manchuria and total destruction of Kwantung army in less than a month, that hope vanished.
In truth, Japan was sending overtures and looking for a way to surrender even before bombs were dropped and Soviets entered the war. In this case, kudos to Paradox that they actually did their research properly, and an advice for the author of the OP to learn a little himself before criticizing others.
3. Capitulations and peace conferences need a lot of work, I agree.
4. Events and national foci - I'm generally pleased with events (more the merrier, but nothing disastrous there), while the national foci could use work indeed. Germany's barely winning against France and Czechoslovakia in 1938? Hey, let's DOW Poland and Benelux countries. That would be fun. We have just a few units looking at 200 angry Soviet divisions across the border? Let's attack anyway. It can cut a game short.
5. The AI - no qualms with OP there. AI is that stupid. Waiting for weeks before moving into empty provinces. Placing 200 divisions in the Balkans and suffering attrition while leaving a bridgehead undefended. The worst example I saw was the Soviet AI. They were losing heavily in 1944, ending with a concave front following the line Crimea-Caucasus-Urals-Arkhangelsk. They decided to counter attack in the north with troops from THE SOUTH. I've noticed something weird happening, tag switched to Soviets and saw 30 division in Crimea having attack orders close to Murmansk. Red arrows through 200 hundred provinces. Even if there were no enemies in between it would take them a year or so without strat redeployment. Additionally, absolutely no sense of preservation of equipment. Soviet Union builds 600 division with no equipment, leading to even faster losses.
All in all, some good points. My verdict is that HOI IV has good basis on which to build on. AI is the biggest issue by far. If it reaches acceptable level, it's gonna be a great game.
2. Following history - I feel that the game is good enough in that regard. It is also debatable whether the nukes were the straw that broke the camels back, or was it Soviet decision to DOW Japan and their conquest of Manchuria. Japanese cities were already bombed out. Fire bombing of Tokyo destroyed more of the city and killed more people than two atomic bombs combined and Japan didn't surrender. Everyone in Japan understood that they were defeated, it was just a matter of what was the best way to get concessions (most importantly, retaining the Emperor). Hawks hoped that inflicting significant casualties would make the allies agree to some concessions, while doves thought that agreeing to allied terms would placate them enough allow Emperor to remain head of state and head of Shinto religion. Hawks wanted Soviets to mediate. With Soviet invasion of Manchuria and total destruction of Kwantung army in less than a month, that hope vanished.
In truth, Japan was sending overtures and looking for a way to surrender even before bombs were dropped and Soviets entered the war. In this case, kudos to Paradox that they actually did their research properly, and an advice for the author of the OP to learn a little himself before criticizing others.
3. Capitulations and peace conferences need a lot of work, I agree.
4. Events and national foci - I'm generally pleased with events (more the merrier, but nothing disastrous there), while the national foci could use work indeed. Germany's barely winning against France and Czechoslovakia in 1938? Hey, let's DOW Poland and Benelux countries. That would be fun. We have just a few units looking at 200 angry Soviet divisions across the border? Let's attack anyway. It can cut a game short.
5. The AI - no qualms with OP there. AI is that stupid. Waiting for weeks before moving into empty provinces. Placing 200 divisions in the Balkans and suffering attrition while leaving a bridgehead undefended. The worst example I saw was the Soviet AI. They were losing heavily in 1944, ending with a concave front following the line Crimea-Caucasus-Urals-Arkhangelsk. They decided to counter attack in the north with troops from THE SOUTH. I've noticed something weird happening, tag switched to Soviets and saw 30 division in Crimea having attack orders close to Murmansk. Red arrows through 200 hundred provinces. Even if there were no enemies in between it would take them a year or so without strat redeployment. Additionally, absolutely no sense of preservation of equipment. Soviet Union builds 600 division with no equipment, leading to even faster losses.
All in all, some good points. My verdict is that HOI IV has good basis on which to build on. AI is the biggest issue by far. If it reaches acceptable level, it's gonna be a great game.
- Status