Give me some hope.....

[Carrierguy]

I don't mean this to be a troll post, look me up I don't do that, but I need some hope. I really want to like HOI IV, but I am very worried about its future. What do you think?

Specifically, we have submarines/convoy system that don't work. We have a new air system that may or may not work. We have divisions that don't look ANYTHING like what was used in WWII. And now they are coming out with DLC for Romania. I mean, these are not small issues.

So is there hope?

 

[Broletariat90]

Only time will tell. I have a love/hate relationship with this game saying I'm done with it yet I keep on coming back because there really is no other option. Your not the only one who is worried...

 

[Axe99]

There's plenty of hope, particularly if you look at the overall curve of development from HoI1 to HoI4 (and even more if one's looking for a game rather than interested in historical plausibility, but I'm sure @Carrierguy is coming from a plausibility perspective).

There are definitely commerce warfare and other issues, but the HoI series is an ongoing march towards a better WW2 game, rather than each entry being a solid WW2 game out of the box (or, indeed, a solid WW2 game (still fun games, but with myriad issues when looking at historical plausibility) at any point, highlighting the challenges faced by the devs. It's a big, complex job though, and it'll take the devs time to move HoI4 further along the curve of what is effectively a decades-long project of creating a quality WW2/1930s and 1940s warfare and diplomacy game.

HoI4's made great strides forward from earlier games in a number of areas (and can be a lot of fun to play as a game right now, as well as have some very impressive plausibility moments), but for mine the best 'source of hope' for HoI4 is its approach to development, where the team are working on it basically full-time for years after launch. It's comfortably the best development approach given the insane degree of difficulty of making a historically plausible WW2/1930s and 1940s GSG with the scope and player freedom of the HoI series. However, if you're a plausibility person, you'll need patience, because it's a huge job, and there's no way any team, of any size, is likely to get it all done quickly.

 

[REDDQ]

Well, future is 50% HoI4 is gonna be a great game and 50% it will stay as it is now ie at okish level with some improvements. Hope is smth Bioware fans need, hope to see a decent story ever again.

 

[Carrierguy]

Thank you all for your post. I enjoy HOI IV and agree that compared to HOI I, yep I go that far back, it has improved amazingly.

 

[Daelyn75]

Well, future is 50% HoI4 is gonna be a great game and 50% it will stay as it is now ie at okish level with some improvements. Hope is smth Bioware fans need, hope to see a decent story ever again.

I'm afraid it's all downhill for Bioware. I didn't mind Dragon Age II, but the ending to Mass Effect 3 really is disapointing if their next game doesn't deal with the trilogy at all. And then their next game is a big bug fest with an average story. Great, Bioware, just great. Between Paradox and Bioware games, that's probably about 50% or more of my game time.

I'm not worried about Paradox or HOI IV at all. I think they are doing what they can for the AI of the game, but at least it is getting a lot of work, unlike previous HOI games. This next patch for the AI sounds promising. With the air war getting redone, those are my 2 biggest complaints about the game. There are other things like the naval warfare (SUBS) that need work, but I am confident that this game will turn out to be pretty damn good. It just needs time.

 

[Broletariat90]

I'm afraid it's all downhill for Bioware. I didn't mind Dragon Age II, but the ending to Mass Effect 3 really is disapointing if their next game doesn't deal with the trilogy at all. And then their next game is a big bug fest with an average story. Great, Bioware, just great. Between Paradox and Bioware games, that's probably about 50% or more of my game time.

I'm not worried about Paradox or HOI IV at all. I think they are doing what they can for the AI of the game, but at least it is getting a lot of work, unlike previous HOI games. This next patch for the AI sounds promising. With the air war getting redone, those are my 2 biggest complaints about the game. There are other things like the naval warfare (SUBS) that need work, but I am confident that this game will turn out to be pretty damn good. It just needs time.

While I'm torn with this game and its future, Bioware is definitely screwed. Rofl

 

[Dalwin]

I think the sub/convoy situation improved drastically in 1.3.3. The change from fixing the bug which had higher tiers subs being easier to detect rather than harder had a large impact. I think subs are more or less where they need to be now. The remaining problems are with naval mechanics in general, specifically in how almost everything in a sea zone piles into one large engagement. I don't expect much further improvement until 1.5, but I think that by next Christmas we will be happy with that aspect.

I honestly feel that they are making significant strides with the shuffle problem with the unit controller. I am optimistic here as well.

The areas where I am less optimistic include anything to do with research, production and template design. Unless they reconsider their current plan of not implementing customized scripted tendencies for these things for each of the majors, I think the AI will continue to perform very badly because of its horrible production.

I also think that we will not soon be seeing great strides in the AI's high level strategic choices such as assigning units between multiple fronts. Once again I blame this on trying to have one set of routines deciding all this for every nation instead of preloading preferences. The game already pays some lip service to these tendencies when weighting the value that Germany places on Asia vs Africa vs Europe and so on, but I don't think this code is really accomplishing what it is meant to.

 

[Khevenhuller]

I cannot help thinking that being a fan of HOI is like being in an abusive relationship. PDX and their supporters tell us: 'But baby, it will be better next time, things will improve, I promise' but the Africa issue, the terrible logistics, naval combat...all were dreadful in HOI1 and they are still dreadful a decade later. In some cases HOI4 is considered a retrograde step from HOI3 by some players, which is a bit concerning even given people's inherent conservatism.

the other half is a game designer and thinks I am totally barmy to keep persisting with this game. I am still clinging onto the promises that we live on from update to update. But, one day, will I have to go to the shelter after all?

K

 

[adam_grif]

While I'm torn with this game and its future, Bioware is definitely screwed. Rofl

Yes and no. While I can't stand Dragon Age Inquisition it sold and reviewed well for some inexplicable reason. They're launching a new service game IP to compete with Destiny soon, which might sell quite well. The Bioware that gave us Baldur's Gate II has been dead for a long time though.

 

[Broletariat90]

Yes and no. While I can't stand Dragon Age Inquisition it sold and reviewed well for some inexplicable reason. They're launching a new service game IP to compete with Destiny soon, which might sell quite well. The Bioware that gave us Baldur's Gate II has been dead for a long time though.

Yeah the Bioware I grew up with as a kid that made Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire is loooong gone.

 

[Axe99]

I think the sub/convoy situation improved drastically in 1.3.3. The change from fixing the bug which had higher tiers subs being easier to detect rather than harder had a large impact. I think subs are more or less where they need to be now.

I'd argue that there are huge issues in terms of how submarines perform from a historical plausibility perspective, and substantial gameplay/UI/UX issues from a 'game' perspective, but I don't want to go derailing the thread . But the way subs interact with convoys, fleets and aircraft is all off if we're looking for historical plausibility. Not suggesting this is and end in itself, but at the moment there's no way, at all, of having anything approaching a 'Battle of the Atlantic' (or starving of Japan) in that sense, let alone have subs pick of carriers (Ark Royal, Shinano, Courageous, Wasp) and battleships (Barham) in the general course of play, or aircraft have a role forcing subs to submerge and leave convoys alone. That unescorted convoys are completely obliterated by as little as one sub if they're found is something else that is way off from a plausibility perspective, and I'd argue not great for gameplay.

Sorry, I'd better stop before I get started . Not having a go, and I know we don't see completely eye-to-eye here, but I've been doing more reading on the Battle of the Atlantic, and the more I read, the more it's clear that the current commerce warfare model isn't much chop. And I haven't even mentioned convoy pathing . Not having a go at the devs here - HoI4 is a hugely complex game, and they quite rightly are sorting land an air warfare first, as these are both more visible and appreciated by a wider audience - but at some point I hope commerce warfare gets the attention it deserves.

 

[Dalwin]

I'd argue that there are huge issues in terms of how submarines perform from a historical plausibility perspective, and substantial gameplay/UI/UX issues from a 'game' perspective, but I don't want to go derailing the thread . But the way subs interact with convoys, fleets and aircraft is all off if we're looking for historical plausibility. Not suggesting this is and end in itself, but at the moment there's no way, at all, of having anything approaching a 'Battle of the Atlantic' (or starving of Japan) in that sense, let alone have subs pick of carriers (Ark Royal, Shinano, Courageous, Wasp) and battleships (Barham) in the general course of play, or aircraft have a role forcing subs to submerge and leave convoys alone. That unescorted convoys are completely obliterated by as little as one sub if they're found is something else that is way off from a plausibility perspective, and I'd argue not great for gameplay.

Sorry, I'd better stop before I get started . Not having a go, and I know we don't see completely eye-to-eye here, but I've been doing more reading on the Battle of the Atlantic, and the more I read, the more it's clear that the current commerce warfare model isn't much chop. And I haven't even mentioned convoy pathing . Not having a go at the devs here - HoI4 is a hugely complex game, and they quite rightly are sorting land an air warfare first, as these are both more visible and appreciated by a wider audience - but at some point I hope commerce warfare gets the attention it deserves.

I am not saying that submarine warfare is where it needs to be but rather that the subs themselves are. The remaining flaws are those inherent in the entire naval system. The effects on subs are no worse than the problems with countering invasions or cutting supplies to selected ports or with the mechanics of how naval units interact with land based aircraft. The problems abound but I do not think it necessary to single out the subs as being especially problematic.

But in this case I also find it necessary to directly disagree with some of those things. I do get subs to pick off carriers, I do manage a meaningful Battle of the Atlantic, but only in SP games. These things are almost unheard of in MP. Then again, 88% of HOI players apparently only play SP. Also, in todays MP session, the Japanese player sank (with subs) something like 150 convoys that had been lent to the Chinese.

 

[Bolshevik-]

Considering the fact that you can conquer the world as Luxembourg or defeat Germany as Austria in single-player and the fact that the average multiplayer games end in 1939 or 1940 I feel that paradox is really working on all the wrong stuff. Who cares about focus trees for New Zealand and Czechoslovakia. Nobody even plays those countries.

Chances are that HoI4 will continue to be a 5/10 game for me.

 

[Axe99]

I am not saying that submarine warfare is where it needs to be but rather that the subs themselves are. The remaining flaws are those inherent in the entire naval system. The effects on subs are no worse than the problems with countering invasions or cutting supplies to selected ports or with the mechanics of how naval units interact with land based aircraft. The problems abound but I do not think it necessary to single out the subs as being especially problematic.

But in this case I also find it necessary to directly disagree with some of those things. I do get subs to pick off carriers, I do manage a meaningful Battle of the Atlantic, but only in SP games. These things are almost unheard of in MP. Then again, 88% of HOI players apparently only play SP. Also, in todays MP session, the Japanese player sank (with subs) something like 150 convoys that had been lent to the Chinese.

For the record, I think you're very bright (and a good deal brighter than me ). That said, I'm not sure how much we can detach 'how submarines behave in the gameplay mechanics' from 'how subs are'. I'd argue they're one and the same thing, at the end of the day. For example, destroyers detect submarines far too easily. It could be argued this is a flaw with submarine warfare rather than submarines themselves (I'm waiting until I've got a few more things modded before wading into the defines and testing to try and improve it), but it could well be a factor of the submarine's in-game characteristics as well as a factor of whatever algorithm(s) is(are) used.

I definitely agree that the issue with subs is how they work in the gameplay mechanics, but I'd also argue that almost every submarine interaction with the gameplay mechanics at the moment is wonky, and that this reflects both the in-engine submarine 'object' as well as the mechanics that the object interacts with. It's also worth noting that the OP said "the submarine/convoy" system didn't work, rather than "submarines don't work" - I'm definitely pushing the 'plausible, holistic model of strategic naval operations' rather than 'I want the naval firepower of my Type VIICs to reflect the capabilities of the 88mm SK C/35' .

I'm also not in any way trying to rank the issues (ie, is commerce warfare worse/better than un-interceptable invasions, or the sometimes they do, sometimes they don't approach land-based aircraft take to multiple go-rounds with naval combat).

 

[FOARP]

Considering the fact that you can conquer the world as Luxembourg or defeat Germany as Austria in single-player and the fact that the average multiplayer games end in 1939 or 1940 I feel that paradox is really working on all the wrong stuff. Who cares about focus trees for New Zealand and Czechoslovakia. Nobody even plays those countries.

Chances are that HoI4 will continue to be a 5/10 game for me.

A 5/10 game for me is one you don't waste any time commenting on.

 

[Bolshevik-]

A 5/10 game for me is one you don't waste any time commenting on.

Very true. I mainly play Hoi4 (and not very much anymore) because it is by far the most in depth WWII grand strategy game out there which for me makes up for the lack in quality. Hopefully it will improve one day.

 

[Dalwin]

For the record, I think you're very bright (and a good deal brighter than me ). That said, I'm not sure how much we can detach 'how submarines behave in the gameplay mechanics' from 'how subs are'. I'd argue they're one and the same thing, at the end of the day. For example, destroyers detect submarines far too easily. It could be argued this is a flaw with submarine warfare rather than submarines themselves (I'm waiting until I've got a few more things modded before wading into the defines and testing to try and improve it), but it could well be a factor of the submarine's in-game characteristics as well as a factor of whatever algorithm(s) is(are) used.

I definitely agree that the issue with subs is how they work in the gameplay mechanics, but I'd also argue that almost every submarine interaction with the gameplay mechanics at the moment is wonky, and that this reflects both the in-engine submarine 'object' as well as the mechanics that the object interacts with. It's also worth noting that the OP said "the submarine/convoy" system didn't work, rather than "submarines don't work" - I'm definitely pushing the 'plausible, holistic model of strategic naval operations' rather than 'I want the naval firepower of my Type VIICs to reflect the capabilities of the 88mm SK C/35' .

I'm also not in any way trying to rank the issues (ie, is commerce warfare worse/better than un-interceptable invasions, or the sometimes they do, sometimes they don't approach land-based aircraft take to multiple go-rounds with naval combat).

I guess I should try to restate my position another way since I am not managing to communicate very clearly today.

The problems affecting subs are with the overall naval mechanics themselves, IMO. Engagements are too large and last too long. These are things that influence all types of naval engagements and not only subs. I do not think that much can be done to improve the Battle of the Atlantic without some fundamental changes to overall mechanics. I do not see the needed changes as being specifically pertaining to subs.

 

[Meglok]

I am hoping that with 5 - 6 patches, around 4 dlcs, and about $120 or so dollars HOI4 will live up to it's potential. That is about the norm for a PDS game. The next patch should tell the tale. If it makes strides in fixing the issues listed in the last DD then the game is on track. If it is still in it's current shape......, yikes.

 

[Axe99]

I guess I should try to restate my position another way since I am not managing to communicate very clearly today.

The problems affecting subs are with the overall naval mechanics themselves, IMO. Engagements are too large and last too long. These are things that influence all types of naval engagements and not only subs. I do not think that much can be done to improve the Battle of the Atlantic without some fundamental changes to overall mechanics. I do not see the needed changes as being specifically pertaining to subs.

Aye, I'd agree with that . I just think that subs are still part of that subset - but either way, I have no doubt we both want a better naval game (although, as per earlier comments, I think it's appropriate the devs are focussing on land and air first - although I'm hoping the air rework might help ship/sub and aircraft interactions some as well). I also don't think the devs have done a bad job of the vanilla naval mechanics on a 'game' level, which I do think are better than past HoIs. Sorry if I was a bit thick, am all sorts of foggy-headed at this end.