Heavy Critique of HoI4 [2016-2020] [As of 1.9.1]

[Mr_Dimento]

Hello all! at 1,700 hours and with LaR being out for awhile. I feel as If I can make a healthy and extremely complicated and indepth critique of HOI4.

EDIT: I also have just gotten every single achievement so whoo!

I have been playing HoI4 since release in 2016 and have been waking up like a child on Christmas every Wednesday morning since release eagerly reading the latest dev diaries for this game.

I will address praise, issues, concerns, and balance adjustment advice.

Thanks for reading in advance and this took me a hefty 7 hours to think and write out. So enjoy.

Synopsis
Overall, Hearts of Iron 4 is an excellent game.
It exceeded my expectations for the first 500 hours and created entertainment for nearly 2 THOUSAND hours. There is no single other media besides my professional mod work on Starcraft 2 arcade that has consumed me so.
This is a good thing and hence the game has been worth it in the long run.

Hearts of Iron 4 is a "WW2 themed sandbox" Not a "WW2 simulator".
Hearts of Iron 4 also has the extreme potential ($) to be drawn to early Cold War era.
It is quite clear that HoI4 is a sandbox game over a WW2 simulator due to the unlimited potential for each play-through and what AI can do [Especially clear on ahistorical]. In each play-through you can customize almost any aspect of the political structure, economical focus, and the three military branches of Air, Land, and Navy.
You, the player choose to spec what to invest into for your country.

Hearts of Iron 4, like any game, does have its faults both little and big.
I will attempt to address these later on, most of them are easy to fix.

I will now dive into different sections highlighting praise, balances, deep concerns, improvements, and the future of HoI4.

A general game of Hoi4 is usually split into 4 distinct phases.

1936-1938 - Early Build-Up Phase. (Self Explanatory)
1938-1940 - Late Build-Up Phase. (Shift due to technology, ie Light -> Medium tanks, Fighter 1's -> Fighter 2's, etc)
1939-1943 - Conquest/War Phase. (According to outdated single player statistics from PDX, most games end at 1941)
1943-1945+ - Lategame Phase. (The weakest and worst part of HoI4 by far as of 1.9.1 - More will be explained on how to fix this glaring issue later)


Verdant Praise
The Apex of HoI4 comes from its great replay-ability.
Delving back into the "WW2 themed Sandbox" idea, this is its greatest strength. You can play any one of 120+ countries no matter how big or small and guide it on a path of conquest, alliances, and customization. I cannot stress more the immense amount of praise I can give HoI4 for being this way.

HoI4 also needs to be praised for the early Build-Up phase of WW2.

Ahistorical
This is probably the most enjoyable section of the game, especially on ahistorical. There is a general feeling of "what kind of game" am I going to get? Will France go Communist? Will United Kingdom decolonize? What about the Balkan nations? Is Japan going Democratic? Whats going on in the USA? (Pro tip: usually nothing) How crazy is Spain right now?

Paired with the immense customization of economical, political and military as well as and various focus trees (more on this later) of whatever nation you are playing allows for intense variability with game play choices.

HoI4 really shines like a gem in these regards.

Historical
Historical is a "railroaded" and generally balanced experience. The world will generally unfold in ways that are similar to happen in real life. This does not mean the the exact same dates in which wars will be declared, or nations surrender on exact same dates that happened historically. This means that nations will generally do similar things that happened in real life.

Nations have somewhat realistic buildup phases.
Germany eventually declares war on Poland and the Allies.
Japan eventually declares war on USA and the Allies.
Germany eventually breaks the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Etc.

This is obviously extremely balanced, but leads for the same exact "railroaded" experience, with the only thing really changing with how YOU THE PLAYER affect the war and how you build up.

This kind of play-through leads to very heavily scripted matches in which the AI is scripted to do X, Y , and Z without thinking about some things tactically or strategically.
Example:
1. Germany (the player) disbanded their entire army to do a recently patched 1 division EXP exploit?
2. France AI doesn't care.
3. They'll let the Rhineland be re-militarized anyways even though the player has only 1 divisions.
JUST BECAUSE ITS ON HISTORICAL.
More of these type of issues in the critique part of this essay - but the overall issue is that these type of "railroaded script" become issues and cracks in the floor.

Historical imho is an experience you shoot for if you are a hardcore roleplayer or want a extremely balanced match.
Those are the strengths of Historical compared to ahistorical game play.

Conclusion
Hearts of Iron 4 has an EXTREMELY enjoyable build-up phase and dynamic game that changes everytime you play it, even on Historical to an extent.
This has been greatly expanded on upon the introduction of spying and intel.
Deciding what to focus on during the build-up phase depends on what kind of match I want, which is a double edged sword. This benefits both Historical and Ahistorical.
The War Phase is generally enjoyable and is acceptable how it is. It has not received many changes over time, but I do enjoy the new naval mechanics and strategies for ships that have been expanded on over the course of the last two years.
Starting a match of HoI4 involves you going into a match thinking "Okay, I'm going to do this, this and this" This is a strength and a weakness, but overall I say its mostly a strength in that it encourages strategic thinking... and this is a grand strategy game.

Clarifying Balance
I am a game developer, content creator, bug fixer, lore creator. Balance is a tricky subject as it can never be achieved no matter what. Players will always debate what is good and what is bad no matter what you do as a developer.
Quick montage of one of my games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeoFBZX8g9c

Balance will always be an issue, in the wise words of Ernest Adams:
“In the most general sense, a balanced game is fair to the player (or players), is neither too easy nor too hard, and makes the skill of the player the most important factor in determining his success.”
― Ernest Adams, Fundamentals of Game Design

With this quote, we can ask a important question.

Is HoI4 a balanced game?

The short answer? Yes.
The long answer? No.

Hearts of Iron 4 Balance

How do you balance a game like this?

You don't.

Well, its extremely hard.

Hearts of Iron 4 is a grand game about many changing and comparable variables, whether these are stats of military infantry, stats of tanks, stats of planes, stats of battleships, weather. These changing variables rapidly change over the course of the game as one nation tries to outperform another in one of these three things. This does not even include political and economical side of things.
There are times in the game when Hearts of Iron is extremely stupidly easy, of course this is subjective to many different player editable variables. AI paths. Game difficulty. Ironman and cheats. Strengthened majors.

The developers have made it clear that the PLAYER can adjust and choose the difficulty according, but even this has issues. Reduced research speed and factory output only slows the game down, not makes it harder. It artificially pushes backwards the War Phase and extends it further into the Lategame phase. Of course when you Strengthen AI nations, this is a different factor in that you can have France have increased defense on Core Territory and defend the mainland even harder.
This is a good thing.

The main issue with balance has to deal with these 5 things listed in importance.

1. Ahistorical mode.
2. AI Strategies.
3. Tech
4. National Focuses
5. Lategame

Previously, I praised HoI4 for its Ahistorical mode.
You may now now be wondering why it is the number one balance issue here?

I will now tie in problem 1,2, and 4 together.

Problem: 1,2,4 (Ahistorical mode AI Strategies, National Focuses)

I KNOW THIS IS LONG. PLEASE READ THIS IN-DEPTH.

The answer is this: Lack of adaptation - this ties into #2 AI Strategies.
On Ahistorical mode as of patch 1.9.1 the AI just does whatever according to factors. Each National Focus is scaled to a different factor that the AI can take. The higher the factor, the greater chance it can take that Focus. I will admit I do not know 100% how the hell this system works, but this has glaring issues.

For example: Currently the German Reich is scaled 10 for Rhineland and 1 for Oppose Hitler.
This is why we rarely see Oppose Hitler in ahistorical.

It does not seem like Hearts of Iron 4 AI on average in Ahistorical follows any strategic plan. And they usually don't. There are some smart AI Strategies for ahistorical that are known. AI France goes is pushed a little towards communist/fascist if Germany Opposes Hitler.

This is a good thing, and I wish there were more of this in the game + needs to be EXPANDED ON.
I cannot stress enough that these AI Strategies are the future for the game, and in fact I would argue that there needs to be more AI Strategies, for these things in general.

If I was a major developer for this game, I would implement more AI Strategies pronto, as it is the most glaring balance issue in HOI4 to date.

There are two main strategies to implement with AI Strategies and Historical Focuses.

Its to my knowledge this exists already in-game for certain events and focuses, but this should be rapidly expanded on.

1. Dynamic factor variables affecting AI National Focuses
This would involve changing the factor of an AI taking a certain focus depending on world events.
For example:
1. France does the focus "Invite Communist Ministers"
2. Oppose Hitler AI factor for Germany is now increased by 10.
3. Rhineland AI factor for Germany is now decreased by 8
4. Thus; Germany is more inclined to go ALT HISTORY while France is going Communist.
This isn't the only thing adjusted though, hence the concept of Dynamic factors comes more into affect.
5. Germany "Ally in the Shade" focus factor is increased if UK has not done "Appease Trade Unions"
6. Germany "Monarchy Compromise" factor is increased if UK has done "Appease Trade Unions"

With changes like this, the game can dynamically self balance itself within temporary reason and AI can give off the illusion of being much more smarter then just randomly taking focuses.

I will now list off more examples of dynamically affected factor variables for AI.
1. Hungary Is more tempted to Reform Austria-Hungary if Germany does the focus "Oppose Hitler"
2. Hungary is more tempted to go Communist if Germany is not Fascist.
3. Romania is more tempted to join the USSR if the USSR has generated more then 20% WT before 1938.
4. Italy will create their own faction if Germany has done Oppose Hitler.
5. France will do "Little Entente" if there is more then 10% WT in 1936.
6. Communist United Kingdom will not oppose capitalism if United States is attempting to go Fascist or Communist.
7. Spain will ???? (Always be complete chaos because this is Spain in 1936 we are talking about)
8. Czechoslovakia will always "Appease Germany" If Germany has done the focus "Befriend Czechoslovakia"

The AI factor system is a good system - however it needs rapid reworks and improvements for the future of this game.
We saw a lot of improvements within 1.9, and I hope the developers heed my words to allow for more interesting ahistorical game-play.

2. Ahistorical AI Scripting
I said there were two solutions to this ahistorical randomness mess.
Currently, in Historical Germany is scripted to do the Focus Tree in this order.
1. Rhineland
2. Four Year Plan
3. Westwall
4. Autarky
5. Anti-Comintern Pact
6. Hermann Göring-Werke
7. Army Innovations
8. Treaty with the USSR
Etc: ( https://www.reddit.com/r/hoi4/comments/cqqok0 )

There are two issues with this railroaded functionality of Historical, which is like I said before, a double edged blade.
1. Predictable
2. Inadaptive

However, I cannot argue against the good structure and balance of this scripting.

So I suggest the same be done for Ahistorical, for different nations, the Focus Tree AI Strategy would be decided upon game start.
If you look through the files, you can see that some countries are already somewhat like this.
What I am proposing is a lot more functional and scripted Focus Tree path for each nation with a Focus Tree that is randomly decided upon game start.

Perhaps this could be a new game start similar to Ahistorical and Historical Game Modes box ticking.
[Planned Ahistorical] maybe?
Just spitballing

Regardless, each nation will receive a large amount of these paths. This allows for more structure in a single ahistorical game.

For example, you can get a somewhat HISTORICAL GERMANY, focused on naval and air dominance in Ahistorical that follows this randomly selected scripted path.
1. Naval Rearmament
2. Four Year Plan
3. Naval Effort
4. Autarky
5. Plan Z
6. Hermann Göring-Werke
7. Air Innovations
8. Tactical Air Effort
9. Rhineland
10. Coal Liqudization
and so on.

This is merely ONE SCRIPTED PATH. where a FASCIST GERMANY focuses on HEAVY NAVAL DOMINANCE.

This would also dynamically alter the preferred research and industrial output of the AI, so the AI is now more tempted to create dockyards, research carriers and cruisers, etc etc. (Same can be said with the first solution to this problem)

Nothing would be more satisfying as the United Kingdom to see a Germany focus heavily on navy and being challenged heavily at seas.

Of course it takes some thinking and ideas for what kind of AI Strategies you want to create, but there can be 15-25 for Germany, that are changing each Planned Ahistorical/Ahistorical match you play.
Multiply this for each country with a Focus Tree, and yeah it is a lot of work. But it offers a solution to one of the biggest problems of HoI4.

Once done, its done.

Personally, I think either solutions would work.
The first one is much easier but less in depth and may require additional fixes and balances later on.
The second one is much more rewarding and interesting.

These are my two offered solutions for problems 1+2 with balance.

This is by far the most indepth and painful problem for HoI4.

Problem 3: Tech

Tech is the most easily balanced thing to address.
I categorize Techs for balance under 3 different descriptions
1. Underused
2. Overused
3. Required

I will only tackle the Underused sections in an attempt to make this section short and sweet.

Underused: Mechanized, Rockets, Amphibious, Special Forces, Super Heavy Tanks, Jets, All Naval Doctrines, Air Issues, Weapons

These techs are all underused in multiplayer and in singleplayer.
Of course the die hard fan uses these, but I am speaking from a simple balance perspective.

Mechanized:
Issue: Cost/Tech Timing does not justify the use + Not strong enough.
Fix: Reduce the cost SLIGHTLY of each tier of Mechanized and make the first tech timing 1938 instead of 1939.
Comment: There you will see more mixed early game mechanized/motorized strategies around this. Players will be able to research Mechanized earlier, and incorporate them into the main army sooner. Mechanized 2 and Mechanized 3 are good, but could scale off of better buffs. I recall this being buffed previously, but it still needs buffs.

Rocket Artillery/Motorized Rocket:
Issue: Tech Timing + Not Strong Enough
Fix: Rocket Artillery needs to be a year sooner, and receive a small buff.
Comment: Motorized Rocket Artillery is really good. I have found great success using it, but the playerbase on average does not seem to use it frequently enough. Perhaps a small hard attack/soft attack buff and unlocking it earlier would encourage more production.

Stationary Rockets:
Issue: Low Damage + Low Range
Fix: Buff Strategic Bombing Damage and Double the range of the first 2 Rockets.
Comment: These are fun to use. Launching rockets and seeing the flavor model of them firing where you target is cool and can also be improved on. I really like Rocket 3 as it functions as a ICBM and allows you to nuke anywhere with it.

Amphibious Tanks + Special Forces
Issue: Too Gimmiky/Not Powerful to Justify Specialization
Fix: Add more COMMANDO Expert/Geniuses to different nations to justify the use of powerful expert forces. Also buff the Special Forces bonuses for research tech. Its rare people spec into this.
Comment: Commandos are fun. Super Soldiers are fun. Currently there are only a few nations that can really make powerful commando units and this could easily be improved on.

Super Heavy Tanks
Issue: Jesus F*** 100 Production???
Fix: 100 Production Cost -> 85 Production Cost. Easy fix.
Comment: Super Heavy Tanks are beefy, badass behemoths that are so cool. Its a shame they aren't used commonly in Multiplayer and never at all in Singleplayer.

Jets
Issue: 1945 Jet is Outclassed by Fighter 3's
Fix: All around stat buff to 1945 Jet and 1950 Jet. Easy fix.
Add a Jet Designer Company for each major nation, or make Rocket Theorist give buffs to Jets.
Comment: Jet 1 is good but gets outclassed by fighter 3s. Jet 2 outclasses any other fighter in the game.

Here is a simple example that took me 10 minutes to change for better balance. Now jets have a true purpose in the game and people who get jets will significantly outperform others.

    # Basic Jet Fighter
    jet_fighter_equipment_1 = {
        year = 1945

        archetype = jet_fighter_equipment
        priority = 20
       
        air_range = 1500
        maximum_speed = 1050
        air_agility = 92
        air_attack = 40
        air_defence = 18
       
    }

    # Improved Jet Fighter
    jet_fighter_equipment_2 = {
        year = 1950

        archetype = jet_fighter_equipment
        parent = jet_fighter_equipment_1
        priority = 20
       
        air_range = 2400
        maximum_speed = 1200
        air_agility = 102
        air_attack = 52
        air_defence = 24

        build_cost_ic = 32
        resources = {
            aluminium = 3
            tungsten = 3
            rubber = 1
        }
    }

Naval Doctrines
Issue: 2/3rds of each of the 3 Naval Doctrines are copy paste of one another and offer same stat buffs as the other.
Fix: Make each Naval Doctrine more unique Ex: more enhancements like heavy/light cruiser buffs in Fleet in Being.
Comment: Right now they feel somewhat samey samey. You can notable tell the different between an enemy using Mobile Warfare and an enemy using Mass Assault as they are separated by lots of exclusive buffs and encourages different tactics. These set of doctrines have a massive amount of pure +Organization and the same +Detection bonuses.

Air Issues
Issues: CAS/NB Dominance, Operational Integrity being too weak, Battlefield Support being way too strong.
Fix: CAS and Naval Bombers need a nerf. I suggest a slight reduction to CAS Ground Attack capabilities and slight reduction to NB naval damage. Also a slight nerf to bonuses received in Battlefield Support and a buff to Tactical Bombers in Operational Integrity and a buff to Fighters/Heavy Fighters in Strategic Destruction
Comment: You can DECIMATE ENTIRE FLEETS way too easily with 300-500 NB. CAS utterly decimates ground forces that are not equipped with AA. AA is fantastic for countering CAS. Tactical bombers are underused.
I always go Battlefield Support as it is the best air doctrine by far.
Comment+: Jets should receive all bonuses related to their class.
Ex: Jet Fighters should get + Agility for an air doctrine that raises Fighter agility by 10%.
OR
Include an Advanced Jet Warfare Doctrine that expands on Jet Fighters + Strat/Tactical Bombers

Weapons
Issues: Lack of Distinctness between Weps 1,2,3.
Fix: Make each level of Weps have even higher stats then the last then they do now. Easy fix.
Comment: Perhaps adding even more Wep types or splitting up Support Weapons up a bit would allow more customization/specialization with Infantry, regardless there needs to be more distinction rather then Oh hO my infantry deal 5% ! MORE DMG NOW!!

Conclusion
Tech is probably the easiest balance issue to address. Its not that time consuming, results in some tweaking of numbers and variables, and keeps the meta fresh, exciting, and evolving. These changes have been thought about hardly and would encourage more tactics to be used.

Problem 5: The Endgame
Or lack thereof...

Since Hearts of Iron 4 Is a Grand Strategy war simulator in which you can decide how many people you want to send to their deaths or what horrible ways to kill people, by the final Phase of the game, the Endgame, (1943+) there is little to do.

The tech and Focus Trees created only offers so much and this is an glaring issue.

You run out of research to do, things to upgrade, Radar is maxed, Industrial output is maxed, theres nothing more to do.

Now you have to deal with the added bonus of dealing with conquered peoples and resistance/compliance which is cool.

This is the general course of a game like this, but something like a Post War/Cold War expansion could solve this issue, adding more peace treaty options such as Demilitarized Zones, Reduced Army/Navy/Airforce sanctions to limit a defeated country limited military capabilities. Resource Rights, of certain territories (similar to how UK+USA own Mexican Oil) Industrial rights of certain territories, for example France gaining control of the Rhineland area Industrial Factories. Stuff like this would be a very welcome addition to shaping the Endgame as well as improved peace conferences.

Expanding the Tech Tree in all aspects until 1950 is a very solid and achievable goal as well.
Having Focus Trees have more end-gamey kinda stuff is neat. For example, Germany gets a Focus called "Improved National Spirit" or something when they own both London and Paris that removes "Bitter Loser". Stuff like that would be nice to see all around the board, for every country. Japan definitely is in dire need of this.

EDIT:
Its dawned to me further with more thought that the endgame of Hoi4 is extremely dull. Once you fight the war there isn't much to do. Theres a lack of diplomatic options post-war. There is a lack of diplomatic options in general but Hoi4 excels in the fact that the buildup and actual war is very fun. Compared to Stellaris or Eu4 you have to think real big picture, this big picture is absent in Hoi4 as a campaign of Hoi4 can be completed in just a few hours on 4-5 speed by a professional. Compared to a campaign of Eu4 or Stellaris? This campaign lasts multiple nights. When you've reached 1943 and Germany is defeated there is not much left to do. The storytelling in the focus tree is all but finished, and the world is dull.

The Endgame section of hoi4 has extreme amounts of potential. Doomsday devices like atomic weaponry and other fun stuff could cause global issues that would affect everyone. When you have achieved the GREATER GERMAN REICH and your capital changes from Berlin to Germania, there is not much more to do afterwards. I think more stuff that encourages playing onwards is necessary for Hoi4's lifeblood. Stuff that makes the game interesting no matter how realistic or fantastical it would be would be great. Alien invasion perhaps? Cold war scenarios? Rapid development in technology or AI? Dealing with biological weapons? Interesting stuff as well as an expansion of post-war storytelling, ie, more focuses once the GREATER GERMAN REICH is established, or requires this would be great and welcomed into the game.

Misc Concerns, Issues, Problems

Hearts of Iron 4 is a game created by multiple developers and have been worked on by the hands of many different programmers and content designers with many different ideas about what the game should be about.
Because of this, there are some "Inconsistencies" with certain things. How event chains flow or different Focus Tree design philosophies are the two major issues.

Anyways. The biggest other issues I have with HoI4 are these:
1. Lack of Flavor
2. Performance

Lack of Flavor is stuff like, black 2D art for Jet Models, lack of 3D models for certain tanks, lack of 3D models for certain infantry and nations. Soviet Union turning from Red to Green/Blue if Democratic, changing its city names, etc.

I mentioned something about a year ago about 3D landmark models on Capitals/Major citiies that represent that city. For example in Berlin, the Brandenburg Gate would be visible on the tile of Berlin among all the other house and lights and buildings. Zooming into Paris you would see a 3D model of the Eiffel Tower. Zooming into London, you'd see 3D Big Ben, zooming into Tokyo, you'd see the emperors palace. Zooming into Helsinki you'd see the famous cathedral. Zooming into Washington D.C you can see a 3D model of the Whitehouse, and when the Pentagon is built, you can see the Pentagon. Stuff like this would add LOTS OF FLAVOR into the game every single time you played it.

Performance is an issue in its own self and depends on the player's device as well.
Complaining about lag while playing on a Laptop?


I only ever experience true lag when the game is transitioning from a war phase to a endgame phase or in multiplayer. But Multiplayer has added issues with people in Kansas with s*** wifi trying to connect to the internet and play with 30 other players so is that really a HoI4 issue?

The Generic Focus Tree is incredibly unbalanced and favors Fascism over Communism and Democratic playthroughs. How would anyone in their right mind give up 7% increased recruitable pop AS A MINOR NATION for political power and.... Fort bonuses? Trade bonuses? There is serious inconsistency and unbalanced aspect with how democratic/communist/fascist powers are treated. I believe this is an issue as well that belongs in Misc and should be addressed by devs.

Edit: Political power gained through the communist branch is great though. You get upwards of 700+ political power, but still as a minor nation you need recruit able population, not so much as political power.

Personally, a solution would be to make the Communist and Democratic branches more powerful. Maybe Communist commisars gives bonus organization more ? Democratic countries intervention focuses allow justifying on other countries if about 25% Wt? Democratic countries receive 15% attack/defense on core maybe? Some of these fixes would take merely only a few hours of ones time.~

WE NEED MORE MINISTERS!

Many of the expansions add tons of new ministers to nations that are being focused on, like Spain or Mexico, which are really cool.

I think an update should occur that grants many new ministers, specifically to the major nations which allows for additional ways to play. Something I found very interesting was the Tank Designer section, allowing your tanks to have more hardness ensures they can't be pierced easier, or you can decide to focus more on the tanks soft attack so they can deal more damage, but are more vulnerable to other tanks. Stuff like this, tradeoffs and different synergies are great to see and I hope that there are more introduced, some of the more unique ministers like Trotsky for Mexico is very entertaining and well made, I also like how Hjalmer Schlact leaves Germany after the Sudentenland Crisis, mirroring his real life historical quit. More stuff like this would be cool

The Future of Hearts of Iron 4!

I've been writing for about 5 hours straight now and I'm extremely tired.

@podcat has amazing promises for the future as for his 1.6.2 (Now outdated, but not yet Updated) roadmap https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hoi4-dev-diary-1-6-2-and-roadmap.1164580/

such as:

• Improvements to frontline stability
• A logistics system with more actual player involvement (now you only care once stuff has gone very badly)
• Long term goals and strategies to guide ai rather than random vs historical focus lists, visible to players
• Improving peace conferences
• Update core national focus trees with alt-history paths and more options (Italy, Soviet, Poland)
• Wunderwaffen projects
• More differences between sub-ideologies and government forms
• More National Focus trees. (Among most interesting: China, South America, Scandinavia, Spain, Turkey, Iran, Greece)
• Make defensive warfare more fun
• Adding mechanics to limit the size of your standing army, particularly post-war etc
• Have doctrines more strongly affect division designing to get away from cookie cutter solutions and too ahistorical gamey setups
• More usage of drag and drop and QoL like this. For example controlling template lists.
• Rebalance ministers and ideas to give more interesting choices.

These are all things that I would love to see implemented, which gives me a good idea that HoI4 is on a great path moving forwards under Dan Linds guidance.

There are at least 3 additional major DLC packs that I can see in the future, in this order most likely is what i'd release them in.

1. Soviet Union Themed
2. Italy Themed
3. Wonderwaffen Themed

Anyways, thanks for listening to my critique of HoI4.

Wall of Forgotten or Edited Things:
- Changed all blue colors to green colors because color blind people

- Something I forgot to mention was the Generic Focus tree and the lack of unique options for Democratic powers.

- Added more stuff to Endgame critique. Its extremely lacking and boring. I touched up on this.

- Added more stuff to Jet critique

- MORE MINISTERS! More ways to Synergize.

 

[RELee]

Go get a manicure. I've heard they will massage your hands.

 

[hkrommel]

I have one major critique of your critique: Don't use blue fonts or dark fonts (dark red especially) on a dark-ish blue background.

 

[Mr_Dimento]

I have one major critique of your critique: Don't use blue fonts or dark fonts (dark red especially) on a dark-ish blue background.

Fixed, thanks for reminding me color blind people exist.

 

[hkrommel]

Fixed, thanks for reminding me color blind people exist.

Much better, thanks!

 

[DocDesastro]

I just wanted to thank for a well-written post, Sir. I salute thee!

 

[Leinad965]

Super heavy tank costs 100 and you need 15 of them for batalion. Total cost 1500
Heavy tank costs 30 and you need 40 of them for batalion. Total cost 1200.

If you make super heavy tank costs 70, total cost will be 1050, so Super heavy tanks will be both cheaper and stronger than heavy tanks. I don't think your suggestion is good

 

[Mr_Dimento]

Super heavy tank costs 100 and you need 15 of them for batalion. Total cost 1500
Heavy tank costs 30 and you need 40 of them for batalion. Total cost 1200.

If you make super heavy tank costs 70, total cost will be 1050, so Super heavy tanks will be both cheaper and stronger than heavy tanks. I don't think your suggestion is good

Thanks for your math. I have edited it to 85.

 

[DocDesastro]

Are the resources needed the same for making heavy and super heavy tanks?

 

[hkrommel]

I'm not so sure SH tanks should be balanced. They should be a vanity project that's really expensive and inefficient.

 

[Mr_Dimento]

Are the resources needed the same for making heavy and super heavy tanks?

No. Super Heavy Tanks take more resources then Heavy tanks.

 

[Mr_Dimento]

I'm not so sure SH tanks should be balanced. They should be a vanity project that's really expensive and inefficient.

An expansion via wonderwaffen DLC then, perhaps?

 

[hkrommel]

An expansion via wonderwaffen DLC then, perhaps?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the game, I'm just saying they should be realistically inefficient, like lots of the wunderwaffe projects. So you can research and build them if you want to, but it's not easy and it's not efficient.

 

[Trier]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the game, I'm just saying they should be realistically inefficient, like lots of the wunderwaffe projects. So you can research and build them if you want to, but it's not easy and it's not efficient.

Kind of like some mega-structures in Stellaris

 

[Mr_Dimento]

Kind of like some mega-structures in Stellaris

So you think this should cost what? Civilian factories? Research slots?

 

[hkrommel]

So you think this should cost what? Civilian factories? Research slots?

Since he/she was responding to my comment I assume it was more the concept. In Stellaris, some megastructures aren't really efficient to build, as in those resources could be spent much better elsewhere. SH tanks are similar in that they should be incredibly expensive and you only build them if you want to build them for the hell of it. I don't think anyone wants to make them cost civilian factories or whatever, just keep them expensive in terms of military production.

As for wunderwaffe more generally, they should take extra research and then take a realistic number of factories, like building rockets and launching facilities, etc. Kind of how nukes are handled now.

 

[LastButterfly]

SH tanks are similar in that they should be incredibly expensive and you only build them if you want to build them for the hell of it.

What would be the use of a vanity item in a grand strategy game ? In another genra, sure. It's the kind of stuff players would try to get because it's shiny. But there ? If it truly has no use, I don't see what kind of pride can be derived from building a divisions that will be just a dot on the map never to be used.
Wouldn't it be better if they were efficient but extremly specific ? Like amphibious tanks. RIght now many people hate them because in 99% of the cases they're barely good enough to swallow your oil a dozen jerrycans at a time. But in the very specific 1% case where the enemy is heavily entrenched behind a large river or strait that your best regular 40w cannot cross fast enough to outrun reinforcment, they become useful and can break a defensive line in an unexpected point.

Couldn't super-heavy tanks be the same thing and be THE unit only for a very specific case that you would otherwise go around ? Like, I think they're good against forts, right. Why not make them dedicated fort busters or something. Or maybe an actual defensive armored unit ? I dunno, just tossing random ideas there, but you get my point.

 

[DocDesastro]

This is just like the Dora humongous artillery guns that blew up fortress Sewastopol. Never mass-produced.

 

[WastelandScout]

Really cool and exhaustive post and I agree with most of it.

Stationary Rockets:
Issue: Low Damage + Low Range
Fix: Buff Strategic Bombing Damage and Double the range of the first 2 Rockets.
Comment: These are fun to use. Launching rockets and seeing the flavor model of them firing where you target is cool and can also be improved on. I really like Rocket 3 as it functions as a ICBM and allows you to nuke anywhere with it.

Maybe make them mobile units? While stationary bases were the first idea in the end the missiles were fired from mobile units from just about anywhere often even right in the middle of some forest. Which would also give the option (at least for the early models) to counter them with fast pushes using tanks or through paratroopers.

Amphibious Tanks + Special Forces
Issue: Too Gimmiky/Not Powerful to Justify Specialization
Fix: Add more COMMANDO Expert/Geniuses to different nations to justify the use of powerful expert forces. Also buff the Special Forces bonuses for research tech. Its rare people spec into this.
Comment: Commandos are fun. Super Soldiers are fun. Currently there are only a few nations that can really make powerful commando units and this could easily be improved on.

Super Heavy Tanks
Issue: Jesus F*** 100 Production???
Fix: 100 Production Cost -> 85 Production Cost. Easy fix.
Comment: Super Heavy Tanks are beefy, badass behemoths that are so cool. Its a shame they aren't used commonly in Multiplayer and never at all in Singleplayer.

I doubt I would bother with them even then. Take for example mountaineers, they get good boosts in mountains and hills but you have to research them and the upgrades which means you are not researching something else which is helping you in more situations. Lets face it they are really only worth it if you absolutely have to break through a heavily defended mountain range. Paratroopers are mostly useful to trick the AI because the AI can't deal with them very well. Marines are very useful in the case you want to do Island hopping but that is really only something for Japan and USA. Also I don't think there were ever really whole divisions off special forces like it is modeled now. I think a big problem is the micromanagement of special divisions that are mostly useful in very special cases and are just standing around for a lot of the time. Which is also why stuff like Super Heavy tanks and Railway guns (added for example in the Total War mod are pretty useless to research. They were highly specialized and expensive assets that were assigned only when and where they were needed. Mass production just isn't worth it and creating a dozen specialized templates and swapping them in the field just is too much of a hassle to be worth it.

So maybe create a way to assign special assets to a plan, especially spearheads and Invasion plans. The way it would work is, you assign special equipment and assets to a plan and in return you get an appropriate combat boost when the plan is executed. This could simulate stuff like marines going in first to secure a beachhead for your troops while paratroopers land behind the lines to assault the coastal batteries from behind with maybe support from carrier fighters and dive bombers, mountaineers flanking defenders for a armored spearhead passing next to a mountain, heavy bombardment by tactical bombers (would give them a bit of a boost in the usefulness department) or Railway guns to break a fort and super heavy tanks assigned to spearhead this one crucial assault. This would reduce micromanagement, make the battle planer a bit more useful and give a more realistic depiction of how such highly specialist assets were used in reality. Also this might make the Grand Battleplan doctrine worth taking, as that doctrine would get a particular big boost from such highly complicated battleplans. The amount of special assets assignable to a plan should be limited anyway to prevent exploits from piling on too much bonuses and the Grand Battleplan would get a higher limit to simulate their focus on ridiculously extensively planed assaults.
Maybe also give special forces additional uses in the espionage system for e.g. commando raids on particular installations e.g. radar stations to gain a research boost if your enemy is further ahead. which would give non spy masters the option to get a bit more out of the system.

Jets
Issue: 1945 Jet is Outclassed by Fighter 3's
Fix: All around stat buff to 1945 Jet and 1950 Jet. Easy fix.
Add a Jet Designer Company for each major nation, or make Rocket Theorist give buffs to Jets.
Comment: Jet 1 is good but gets outclassed by fighter 3s. Jet 2 outclasses any other fighter in the game.

Where there ever specialized jet designers? At least for Germany their jet fighters were created by there fighter designer. As an immediate actions just add modifiers for jets to the fighter and tactical/heavy bomber designers respectivly, that wouldn't take more than 15 minutes to implement. Beyond that with a plane designer the whole thing would be solved pretty elegantly by just giving the option to mount jet engines on planes once researched and give a few researches for improved design e.g. swept wings, fuel tanks in wings etc...

Air Issues
Issues: CAS/NB Dominance, Operational Integrity being too weak, Battlefield Support being way too strong.
Fix: CAS and Naval Bombers need a nerf. I suggest a slight reduction to CAS Ground Attack capabilities and slight reduction to NB naval damage. Also a slight nerf to bonuses received in Battlefield Support and a buff to Tactical Bombers in Operational Integrity and a buff to Fighters/Heavy Fighters in Strategic Destruction
Comment: You can DECIMATE ENTIRE FLEETS way too easily with 300-500 NB. CAS utterly decimates ground forces that are not equipped with AA. AA is fantastic for countering CAS. Tactical bombers are underused.
I always go Battlefield Support as it is the best air doctrine by far.
Comment+: Jets should receive all bonuses related to their class.
Ex: Jet Fighters should get + Agility for an air doctrine that raises Fighter agility by 10%.
OR
Include an Advanced Jet Warfare Doctrine that expands on Jet Fighters + Strat/Tactical Bombers

I agree with your assessment. How about giving the AA of ships a big boost especially against naval bombers but give dive bombers the ability to partially disrupt it (which they did in real life by dropping anti personal bombs on the deck to hit the AA gun crews)? That way naval bombers remain devastating against ships with low AA (which is how it should be) but much less so if you invest in their protection. Also you would give carrier dive bombers a use as while pure naval bombers would be more effective against bad AA, against well defended ships a combination would be superior and especially result in lower losses.

 

[C-c-combo breaker]

in terms of jets and rocket arty:
those were really weak stuff, nations invested alot of time and effort (read research lines and time) to make them viable.
Yet it's strange that doctrines' fighters bonuses dont apply to jet fighters.
I dream of Soviet focus rework...Bring back monarchy and try to restore all monarchy houses or lead Trotsky on his global revolution and paint the world red.. geez sounds so good