Yes, and those same companies thought HoI3 was brilliant at launch.
User reviews are what really count.
Indeed, for games like this a LOT of the reviewers likely put in fewer hours than the fans will in the first week. It's not like a story game where you can play through the main quest and a few side quests and have a 95% accurate idea of the game.
EA are not some special case here
Actually they kind of are. EA tends to buy good companies and kill them, or at the very least preside over their demise. There's plenty of crappy gaming companies, but few have been involved in as many prominent deaths as EA.
I'm surprised Italy is #2 most played. Perhaps this is a combination of it being the tutorial nation and the most popular nation's sidekick.
I'm almost positive it's because of being the tutorial nation.
It also looks like France and UK are underplayed. This jives with my own experience in multiplayer. I hope Paradox can intelligently balance them. This 'War Economy'ASAP needs fixing.
I have no interest in playing the UK simply because I don't want to have to scroll around the entire world constantly trying to keep track of my islands in the pacific, holdings in Africa and the actual main war. That's not something that can be balanced really.
why is UK so Low? it is like my favourite faction in hoi3
Focus on naval power, which is better than in 3 but still not as interesting as land power.
Large holdings requiring lots of attention all over the globe instead of concentrating on 1/2 fronts.
On the other hand, I find that 99% of the trashing is coming from the crowd who wanted HOI 3.5,
Which doesn't mean it's invalid, just that you disagree with it.
Not trying to nitpick here, but half of Latin America, South Africa and Luxembourg all don't even have specialized portraits for their special historical leaders (and what means ahistorical, SA doesn't even have a generic portrait for their commie leader) and although it's good having extra specialized portraits and the fact that at least British Raj has a special portrait, I honestly think there's something wrong with prioritizing here...
The game is really about WW2, South America didn't have a whole lot to do with WW2. Their priority should be the countries that were heavily involved first, then those that were somewhat involved, then finally the countries that had little to nothing to do with the war.
My personal opinion is they should go in chronological order, Spain, the Chinas, Czechs, Finland, Denmark and Norway, Netherlands and Belgium, Romania and Hungary, then split off to others that could have been powerful additions like Turkey, Sweden and the like.
Great game, I just wish moving/assigning missions to air units was less tedious!
I'd love to see automated rebasing myself. Especially on offensives.
Can you add more national focus trees for the minor nations, like maybe in future dlc? Sweden needs to have its own tree man come on
I have no doubt this will happen. The only question is if it's gonna be paid or free. There's too many minors who have the options for excellent trees.
There's slightly more pressing issues with the ai.
Artists don't do AI work, or maybe they did and that's why it is the way it is
The people doing the portraits aren't the people working on the AI.
Happened in both of my first campaigns. Not sure why though. Switzerland wasn't really worth it historically. Would've been a nightmare to conquer and am even bigger nightmare to occupy. Not practical as a route into France either.
Too many resources would have been tied down.
Well that's why he didn't do it earlier. Thing is that the Swiss were a competently militarized nation right in his belly. Add in a healthy dose of Hitler's paranoia and you can see why he wouldn't like them there. It would have been long and difficult, but if Barbarossa went the way he wanted her would have probably been able to take them.
.png){kind=avatar}
