I don't like the direction Hearts of Iron 4 is heading, am I the only one?

[Zeprion]

This is not a rant as there's no point in it or a list of suggestions as it's too late for that, I'm just curious whether there's anyone who shares similar views. Yeah, I know the sarcastic answer "obivously, you're the only one in the world who thought about that", but I wonder how many people are on the forum who share similar views, as I'm fairly certain that the majority doesn't share this view.

When I got Hearts of Iron 4 only the 1st DLC Together for Victory was out, it was patch 1.3. The idea of a World War II tabletop game hooked me immediately, I enjoy the way units worked, that it was not that complicated, all you had to do was make 20 width units: 7-2 for attack and 10 for defense. Or if you can afford manpower 40 width units: 14-4 for attack and 20 for defense. If you wanted speed you got vehicles, if you wanted power/damage you got tanks and for suppression in occupied territores that are still at war you got cavalry. You also had mountainers and marines that were more expensive but better than the average unit in mountains and beaches. And there was armor/piercing, if piercing is higher than armor then a unit takes normal damage, if armor is higher than piercing then a unit takes only 50% damage.

Apart from that you had factory building, fort building, trade with other nations, a somewhat limited option of diplomacy, unit recruitment and equipment stockpile. All quite easy to learn, but the star was the focus tree. The focus tree was like the general direction of your nation, it told you what you were about to do next. Before decisions came out, the focus tree was the big deal. I didn't like the fact that the research path was kind of limited, mostly by years, and you couldn't queue up reasearch so you won't have to open that section of the game again and again and again when every single research is completed. But I figured that these are things that will be solved with a patch.

I also enjoyed the immersion, the news, and spotted a few historical inaccuracies in the game, but again, I thought they will be solved within a few patches.

The the 2nd DLC Death or Dishonor came out and I was again very happy to see that. There were 4 new DLCs, some things were a bit off like Hungary being the one that restores Austria-Hungary and not Austria, but overall it was a good DLC, I liked the theme and the new addition with military attache.

Then the 3rd DLC Waking the Tiger came out and then the game started moving in a different direction, or the game always moved in that direction and I didn't notice. Instead of flavor and more options for each nation, the game started focusing on more and more game mechanics. Personally, I enjoy games like Crusader Kings 2 or Civilizations 6 because they are complex but not that complex. Hearts of Iron 4 used to be right there before the 3rd DLC but then it started moving more and more intro the extra micromanagement land.

It added a chain of command, not that it was unrealistic but it was an unecessary complication. One could have simply kept it the way it was, with Field Marshals having an unlimited number of units while gaining XP slower and general having a maximum of 24 while gaining XP faster. And no skill points called traits using command power, which is an unrealistic as the skill points you gain in an RPG game. Gaining traits as you gain experience in the field made sense, but gaining traits by spending command power in your skill tree not so much. It made an enjoyable mechanic unnecessary complicated and less enjoyable, while not making it more realistic overall.

It split the National Spirit in Stability and War Support. Again, an unnecessary split, making the game more complicated, not complex, while not making it more enjoyable. The difference is that a complex mechanism doesn't have many parts but those parts have many ways of intreacting with each other that is not easy to predict, like chess or poker, while a complicated mechanism has a lot of parts, like Twilight Imperium or Scythe (board games). Complex = many interdependencies, complicated = many inputs.

And the border wars, another failure in my opinion. It is such an artificial implementation of a minor war. Rather than actually adding game mechanics to make minor wars possible, the kind of wars between at maximum 6 nations and where if you win or lose then you don't get to completly annex or be completly annexed, they made this decision events of border wars that can be easily abused with artillery, proving that micromanagement became more important than tactics and strategy.

But the worst addition in my opinion were the decisions. The developers wanted something between events and focus trees so they created decisions. I again, think that this only further complicated the game. The focus trees created a delicate balance between sandbox and non-sandbox, Hearts of Iron 4 is at its core a sandbox game full of choices, the focus trees don't necessarly limit those choices but they give you suggestions and 9/10 times the players will take those suggestions. Maybe they will annex a nation or two at the start of the game, and then play based on a specific focus tree path. It was still room for flexibility. But the decisions made this process even more rigid and the game less sandboxy.

At this point, Hearts of Iron 4 was not as fun as it used to be, it simply became much more micromanagement than battles. By this I mean that tactics and strategy became less important than knowing what to micro and when. When 2 players know the proper micromanagement of the game then the battle will ultimately be decided by tactics and strategy, but the simple fact that now you have to know a lot of micromanagement about the game to understand how to play it properly in order to make tactics and strategy count, and the fact that now you have to keep a lot more things in check than you used to have to and as a consequence focus less on the battle itself, makes Hearts of Iron 4 less enjoyable than it used to be.

The special forces were limited in an artificial way. You simply have a limit cap. It was indeed unrealistic to have an army of 100% special forces but their limitation could have been made in a more organic way. Simply make them significantly more expensive and only better at mountain & beaches so that they won't be worth it otherwise. You still have a choice, but it's a bad choice, maybe there is some risky tactic that nobody thought of and could work with them in certain scenarios with certain countries, but as far as common sense is concerned, if they are worse than the normal unit in the cost/efficency ratio outside mountain or beach then the average player won't spam special forces in his army.

The only thing I enjoyed about the Waking the Tiger DLCs was Germany's Oppose Hitler path. Japan's focus tree was changed from bad to worse. Japan used to have the worst focus tree out of all major nations, and after the 3rd DLC, it still has worst focus tree out of all major nations. Because it's very inflexible, you have 4 choices: Democratic, communist, fascist and imperial. That's it. Every focus tree had more or less these 4 choices, but there was a degree of flexibility in them, there were many other focuses and alternative paths that you could have taken even if you went democratic, fascist, etc.

For example: As fascist Germany, you can either make the pact with USSR or not, you can make the Berlin-Moscow Axis or not, you can instead annex the Balkans. As democratic or imperial Germany you also have multiple choices and the industrial focus is completly separate. But with Japan, if you go fascist you will attack the democratic countries and China. If you go imperial you will attack USSR and instead sign a non-aggression pact with China. It's so narrow it might as well have been a scripted event. You don't have as much freedom to choose as Japan, you just have 4 scenarios and you have to pick one.

Then the 4th DLC came out Man the Guns. Again, making the naval battles more complicated, adding fuel which while realistic again makes the game more complicated. I enjoyed the new focus trees, but overall I feel like nothing has chanced and the favor of micromanagement and more game mechanics over flavor and more options for each nation only became more apparent.

One thing I disliked about the Man the Guns DLC is adding the Congress for USA. It's, like before, an unnecessary complcation. It can be easily exploited if you learn how from the internet and overall doesn't make the Hearts of Iron 4 experience more enjoyable. Maybe most people here do enjoy that kind of stuff, otherwise I can't explain how so many people like it whenever new mechanics are added, but personally I don't like to have to go back to that thing again just to keep that thing in check, when I could be focusing on battles or building a better economy.

The then 5th DLC came out, I don't have this last one but the free update is enough to make it dislike it. The ressistance mechanic was changed to be less realistic. Instead of actually having to train units and have those units on the map, now you make divisions outside of the map and automatically assign them to the occupied region. Now, when a region is already yours after a peace negociation, you still have to keep divisions there to make the region compliant, leading to even more micromanagement. I never looked over spy mechanics but now you can't see at what point a foreign nation's focus tree is towards completion anymore unless you have even more decryption, again making it more complicated.

I heard that when playing Hearts of Iron 3 as USSR, you had to pause for about 30 minutes to micromanage your whole nation, I can't tell whether that was true or not, but I think this is the direction that Hearts of Iron 4 is heading towards.

How I imagined Hearts of Iron 4 would develop? Before the 3rd DLC Walking the Tiger I imagined that the next DLCs will bring things like:
- More historical accuracy: The war with Iraq, Iran, the Ango-Soviet occupation, a proper Winter War and Continuation War with Finland.
- Better Peace Treaties: Peace treaties for minor wars were you only lose 1 or 2 territories depending on size, the ability to make peace before you have completly capitulated while losing territory but losing less.
- Actual trade with money: Yes, the governments could print more money and make war bonds as far as the internal economy is concerned, but as far as foreign nations are concerned that only made their currency less valueable.
- More alternative paths in the focus tree: Italy fighting Germany (being both fascists =/= being friends), Italy turning democratic, etc. This one the DLCs did pretty well.
- More historical accuracy as far as the details are concerned: Japan not being able to attack USSR if USA doesn't care about the Pacific War due to the non-aggresion pact in the focus, have deserts in Turkey, Hungary having cores on Transylvania and Ukraine in Southern Bessarabia, using of outdated 1930 population censuses instead of the 1935 population censuses.
- More flavor such as: unique infantry, vehicle units and voices for each new DLC nation, unique portraits for every nation, more generals for every nation, more news. I like the fact that the developers added allies, axis radios and will add famous speeches.
- Increase the size of tanks and vehicles compared to infantry on the map and make the colored bottons available from the options.

Is anyone else feeling like the game has lost it's enjoyment by adding more and more game mechanics rather than focusing on and improving the ones it already had?
Do you enjoy when new things such as a chain of command are added? Do you feel like such additions simply make the game more strategically challenging and more real-life like?

Personally, I don't find it more strategically challenging and more real-life like. It just changes the game from one where you need better tactics to one where you need more knowledge. You can easily learn how to best set up your chain of command, your factories, your research, your divisions, your navy, your airplanes from the internet, every strategy game has that, it's called build order, and after the build order was done in the early stages of the game, came the fighting where you actually had to have good strategy to win. But Hearts of Iron 4 has reached such a point where 90% of the game is only the build order, in other words, 90% of the game is knowledge about the game and there's little room left for skill.

It has become the norm in Hearts of Iron 4 to win the game because you can out-micromanage your opponents, rather than out-flank them or out-smart them in any other way. In multiplayer games, it seems that the player who can micromanage the best is usually the winner, and because it has ended up having so many game mechanics, if you know the build order in some game detail that the other player doesn't know about and simply ignores, you won simply by the virtue of having better knowledge about the game. Every game has an amount of required knowledge and micromanagement to play on a competent level, and from then on your on thinking makes the difference, but in Hearts of Iron 4 there are so many game mechanics and micromanagement that it makes up most of the game.

There is one thing to have tactical knowledge such as "it's better to farm the forest then the lane then back the forest" in a moba or "a rook is better on an open line" in chess, that you can figure out yourself if you think about it and from then on your own thinking can make the difference, than stats knowledge "this unit needs that template, that general, need to be placed in that position, that general needs that upgrade at that time, I only need to use this much fuel and for that, and I also need that research for it with that kind of plane support for maximum efficency" in Hearts of Iron 4. If one player doesn't know all the details of the build order, and with Hearts of Iron 4 there are many details, he already starts with a disadvantage, only if both player know all this huge amount of knowledge, because Hearts of Iron 4 has so many inputs, therefore complicated, they can play on equal grounds.

Of course, Hearts of Iron 4 doesn't have to be a competitive game, it was never made with esports in mind like Starcraft where there are a huge amount of tactics, but what I'm saying is that this extra micromanagement and new game mechanics which each DLC don't make it more strategically challenging and more like real-life, instead, you simply need to have more knowledge about the game, a better build order, to win the game. You need more knowledge to win rather than better tactics. It's useless to out-flank them or out-smart your enemies if their units have way better stats simply because they knew something about the game that you didn't know, and this, in my opinion, doesn't make it a realistic World War II simulator, but simply a game where you need to learn a lot in order to win.

Sorry for the long post, looking back, I understand if it's too long to read.

 

[Dlin369]

I like a lot of the new additions like decisions, chain of command, and splitting war support and stability.

While some additions do see like needless micro generally we get more choices and options to play with each run, which I appreciate a lot. Hoi4 is somewhat complicated compared to where it was but it’s manageable - especially on easier difficulties where mistakes aren’t as damaging

 

[bitmode]

You added enough aspects to your text that probably very few people will fully agree with the entirety of it and it's not really clear what your underlying point is. I'll just respond to a few statements that stood out to me:

not that it was unrealistic but it was an unecessary complication

Not to sound cynical, but hoi4 has taught me how many good design decisions other games make that you'll never really think about. They mostly revolve around steering the players expectations and what NOT to do. For example in a non-open-world shooter you might encounter a shoddy little road block that your character would easily be able to get over or around. But there's a shared understanding between the player and the designer, communicated through different methods, saying this barrier is insurmountable; the game leads elsewhere. Now you could make an argument that a super soldier ought to be able to cross that obstacle; this other path would be tactically superior; it's immersion breaking and whatnot. But due to the understanding this is not commonly done.
The same thing applies to unit limits in strategy games. Or in a sandbox game like minecraft there is an understanding that not much is going to happen in terms of story unless you write that story as a player yourself.

For me at least, a lot of the initial excitement about hoi4 was about how it does away with these unspoken understandings, i.e. the "grand" part in GSG. What if there is no roadblock? What if there is no unit limit? What if there is a rich story but you can also change it? What if it covers all the strategic layers you might hope for in a WW2 game? Cool! There is hardly any X losely related to WW2 where people didn't ask "shouldn't X be in hoi4?" whether it be chain of command or anything else. The scope from the player community's perspective is almost unlimited.

But doing things this way comes with hefty design trade-offs which players are maybe not used to from other games and it takes time to fully realize them:

then the game started moving in a different direction, or the game always moved in that direction and I didn't notice

... players join in with quite different expectations of what the game is or where it is headed and it can take literally hundreds of hours to realize it is not what you expected. Maybe the next DLC will add the thing you expected, or maybe the one after?

I also enjoyed the immersion, the news, and spotted a few historical inaccuracies in the game, but again, I thought they will be solved within a few patches.

How I imagined Hearts of Iron 4 would develop? Before the 3rd DLC Walking the Tiger I imagined that the next DLCs will bring things like:

Maybe in the next DLC?

Is anyone else feeling like the game has lost it's enjoyment by adding more and more game mechanics rather than focusing on and improving the ones it already had?

Yes, with some qualifications. I'm not playing any of the older patches still; I don't find them more enjoyable in direct comparison. But other avenues of design and improvement seemed possible then which seem closed now.

 

[MobiusTwo]

I would agree with the OP that the naval mechanics and the spy mechanics are way too complicated and frankly unnecessary for their own good, and I would totally rework both. The US Congress mechanic is also worthless - the amount of "I am the Senate" memes related to this mechanic you see on the internet demonstrate that it can be totally ignored with no ill effects. Needless to say, this mechanic does not represent American politics at all either.
Border wars are another bad mechanic that heavily rely on RNG and aren't well-explained in-game. Nationalist and Communist China can ignore this mechanic entirely - and indeed, have much better options.

I also agree that Japan's focus tree is pretty bad. The communist branch should not be there at all, and the democratic path should only be an option if Japan has lost WWII. Historically, Japan began to accept democracy when its people felt that the autocratic military regime had failed them.

Not sure if I agree with everything in the rest of your post, but we are on the same page as far as a number of issues are concerned.

 

[seattle]

Just like the expansions, I agree with half of the points and disagree with the other half.

HoI4 applied all lessons learned from the micro mess called HoI3 and streamlined HoI4 very nicely.

The expansions partially improved on that even further:
- anti-partisan is now just creating one template and forget about the rest (if you want to)
- naval management is now so much easier

But for each QoL improvement they thought: now we can add more complexity.
And we got ship designers, the aweful agency (please give us a queue!!!) etc.

 

[Mousetick]

This is not a rant as there's no point in it or a list of suggestions as it's too late for that, I'm just curious whether there's anyone who shares similar views.

How does it matter if you're the only one to have the views you exposed to us, or if they're shared by a large proportion of this forum community? Are you looking for validation of your views, or are you hoping to sway the direction HOI 4 is heading, or are you seeking some other outcome?

These are not rhetorical questions - I'm genuinely interested.

In matters of personal tastes, preferences, skills and expectations vs. enjoyment in games, your opinion is as good and valid as anyone else's. I read your post in its entirety and thought it was interesting to see how your views differ, or not, from mine. I may agree with them or not, it doesn't change what the game is today nor what it will become tomorrow.

Yeah, I know the sarcastic answer "obivously, you're the only one in the world who thought about that"

I hope my response is not interpreted as such, as it is definitely not my intent.

Is anyone else feeling like the game has lost it's enjoyment by adding more and more game mechanics rather than focusing on and improving the ones it already had?

I like the distinction you make between complex vs. complicated and your analysis of how it applies to HOI 4.

When it comes to overall quality, the game at its initial release had already a large number of defects (bugs) and UI deficiencies. The later additions complications have compounded them. The same can be said of the automation features (e.g. battle planner) and the AI-controlled countries. The poor overall quality is detrimental to my enjoyment of the game, regardless of other aspects.

The game designers and developers have their own opinion of what makes HOI 4 enjoyable. I believe their opinion is first and foremost what defines the direction of the game, and I respect that.

I'm also aware that Paradox has become a big business, and that the developers probably have to take into account sales and revenue goals for their next version and DLC, with these goals being guided by market dynamics and player demographics, of which this forum community is I believe not representative at large.

I haven't bought any HOI 4 DLC, whether expansion or flavor content, and don't intend to buy any future one. I vote with my wallet, so to speak. That's IMHO the only meaningful and impactful way of expressing my opinion of the game.

 

[pdstanbridge]

Have to admit I was concerned when they added the spy abstraction layer to the game, but I think it works, just.

it appears to me they are trying to add value to the early game by making it more interesting (read complicated). A lot of the time you would speed up the game to get to 1939. There wasn’t that much to do bottom line.

I actually miss the insane micro management of HOI 3.

 

[sekelsenmat]

I have the opposite impression that the OP has.

When HoI 4 arrived it was lacking severely, the naval side was terrible, it wasn't enjoyable. I don't remember the exact details but that was my impression.

Right now I think it is finally excellent. There are relatively very few things I'd change (like historical division widths should be viable) in comparison with the total amount of stuff the game has.

 

[Mousetick]

Not to sound cynical, but hoi4 has taught me how many good design decisions other games make that you'll never really think about.
...snip...
For me at least, a lot of the initial excitement about hoi4 was about how it does away with these unspoken understandings, i.e. the "grand" part in GSG.
...snip...
But doing things this way comes with hefty design trade-offs which players are maybe not used to from other games and it takes time to fully realize them:

I'm not quite understanding your points or following your train of thought.

This is how I'm interpreting what you said:

You were initially enthusiastic about the promise of open-ended goals and the various strategic means to achieve those goals and to shape your own story. But then you realized that HOI 4, with its sprawling features and mechanics, trades depth for breadth, and it takes a very, very long time to come to that realization. Compared to other games which have a tighter focus and a more limited framework of rules. With these other games, it's easier and quicker to decide whether you like them or not, without having to wait for years after years of DLC releases.

Is this accurate? If not, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify.

 

[cladboy2]

Honestly I was not a major fan of HOI4 after my initial 50 or so hours of the game and I went back to HOI3. I am liking the direction of the game to add complexity in the right places and it is only getting better with every DLC so far in my opinion.

 

[SophieX]

It's useless to out-flank them or out-smart your enemies if their units have way better stats simply because they knew something about the game that you didn't know, and this, in my opinion, doesn't make it a realistic World War II simulator, but simply a game where you need to learn a lot in order to win.

Let me "rewrite" that in a "historical" sense:
1940:
Allies: The Germans can't outflank our armies with their thin-armored-tanks, because our tanks have a better armor and stronger guns.

Personally, I don't find it more strategically challenging and more real-life like. It just changes the game from one where you need better tactics to one where you need more knowledge

German: Hmmm...they still use their tanks mostly as "Infantry-support" and not as "independent" divisions/army-corps.
Let us try, how they will react, when we focus on speed.
--------------------------------------------------

My intention is to point out, that strategic thoughts and tactical thoughts are always based on knowledge ( about tanks in the example above ), and the consideration how to use this to get the biggest advantage.
Whether in reality or ingame:
- new "features" means: learn them!
- "verify" whether your consideration how to use "things" is still sufficient and all "new aspects" a covered well.

In short: new conditions -> check your tactics

Just my 2 cts.

 

[ecpgieicg]

Then the 3rd DLC Waking the Tiger came out and then the game started moving in a different direction, or the game always moved in that direction and I didn't notice. Instead of flavor and more options for each nation, the game started focusing on more and more game mechanics. Personally, I enjoy games like Crusader Kings 2 or Civilizations 6 because they are complex but not that complex. Hearts of Iron 4 used to be right there before the 3rd DLC but then it started moving more and more intro the extra micromanagement land.

It added a chain of command, not that it was unrealistic but it was an unecessary complication. One could have simply kept it the way it was, with Field Marshals having an unlimited number of units while gaining XP slower and general having a maximum of 24 while gaining XP faster.

With all due respect, this first point in your complaint is where your complaint starts to be discredited.

WTT changes to the command structure was one of the things that made command structure smooth. Per your complaint of realism, having to give up general traits (ie. bonuses) in order to command additional units also makes no realistic sense -- a point you probably neglected. Meanwhile, the old mechanics focuses command onto a few individuals, reducing the flavor of the mechanics around generals, and make AI management of fronts difficult. (AI management of fronts still isn't smooth when the front is not a singular and continuous one. But 24 div is better than 48 and the like. And it can probably do with less)

The complaint on skill point is also questionable. The player agency of choosing (a limited number of from a larger number available) skills makes the mechanics more engaging. From a game balance point of view, it limits the superman effect of individual generals. Per your complaint of realism, neither is realistic. They are abstractions of reality. (That much should be obvious?)

Instead of flavor and more options for each nation, the game started focusing on more and more game mechanics.

Is anyone else feeling like the game has lost it's enjoyment by adding more and more game mechanics rather than focusing on and improving the ones it already had?

Well no.

The problem starts with your notion that game mechanics should not be focused on. The complex strategic and military history of WWII is reflected in the game mechanics. WWII is not a text adventure of choices.

There are actual problems with la Resistance -- the most recent DLC -- and the direction it implies that you missed in your phrasing: namely, la Resistance adds mechanics that demands player attention without giving the corresponding amount of reward or attaching the corresponding the importance to the core aspect of the game.

Let's say the problem is in your phrasing. Your phrasing makes it sound like a rejection to anything more than simple game mechanics. A naive view that I honestly don't wish to spend time arguing against. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Hoi Neuling]

You all will have a complex Hoi again. What about the normal Players? Thougt about them? I think not and that makes me very very angry.

If you don´t like the Direction Hoi 4 goes, play the older Versions or something else. For the normal People (like me) it is very good playable and all neccessary and missing things get in which don´t complex the Game, but give more possibilitys. That´s all that Matters.

 

[Zeprion]

How does it matter if you're the only one to have the views you exposed to us, or if they're shared by a large proportion of this forum community? Are you looking for validation of your views, or are you hoping to sway the direction HOI 4 is heading, or are you seeking some other outcome?

These are not rhetorical questions - I'm genuinely interested.

If I was the only one, it meant that I must have missed something, if my view is shared by a minority, it means the main player base has different expectations than I and the rest of the minority does. On the contrary, I'm looking for different opinions to double-check if my view is accurate.In the end it comes down to taste and that's subjective, but the reasoning why someone likes or dislikes a certain aspects of the game can be good or flawed.

I have no hopes of swaying Hearts of Iron 4's direction, the majority of players don't agree with me and that would mean to undo the last 3 DLCs. Even if I could have, best to respect the wish of the majority as I'm not the only one playing this game.

When it comes to overall quality, the game at its initial release had already a large number of defects (bugs) and UI deficiencies. The later additions complications have compounded them. The same can be said of the automation features (e.g. battle planner) and the AI-controlled countries. The poor overall quality is detrimental to my enjoyment of the game, regardless of other aspects.

The game designers and developers have their own opinion of what makes HOI 4 enjoyable. I believe their opinion is first and foremost what defines the direction of the game, and I respect that.

I'm also aware that Paradox has become a big business, and that the developers probably have to take into account sales and revenue goals for their next version and DLC, with these goals being guided by market dynamics and player demographics, of which this forum community is I believe not representative at large.

I haven't bought any HOI 4 DLC, whether expansion or flavor content, and don't intend to buy any future one. I vote with my wallet, so to speak. That's IMHO the only meaningful and impactful way of expressing my opinion of the game.

I don't view fixing bugs or improving the AI as complications because it doesn't add new game mechanics but fixes and improves on the ones it already has. That's an interesting thought, the forum may not be representative of the community as a whole.

Let me "rewrite" that in a "historical" sense:
1940:
Allies: The Germans can't outflank our armies with their thin-armored-tanks, because our tanks have a better armor and stronger guns.

Well, yes. Unless the other player is completely new to the game and won't place troops on the border, you still have to engage enemy troops for an encryclement, it usually comes down to attacking the weakest enemy spots with your best units. What happens when the weakest enemy spot is stronger than your best unit because he knows a lot more about Hearts of Iron 4 micromanagement than you do?

German: Hmmm...they still use their tanks mostly as "Infantry-support" and not as "independent" divisions/army-corps.
Let us try, how they will react, when we focus on speed.

German: Rommel just won the battle of France, but the German Staff cannot afford to improve his skills as we currently lack command power. When they get the required command power, there's a debate whether Rommel should gain the Panzer Expert or Combined Arms Expert trait.

My intention is to point out, that strategic thoughts and tactical thoughts are always based on knowledge ( about tanks in the example above ), and the consideration how to use this to get the biggest advantage.
Whether in reality or ingame:
- new "features" means: learn them!
- "verify" whether your consideration how to use "things" is still sufficient and all "new aspects" a covered well.
In short: new conditions -> check your tactics
Just my 2 cts.

If one aims to be a World War II simulator, then the required knowledge should be as close to real-life as possible, where as Hearts of Iron 4 has dozens of game mechanics that don't work like their real life counterparts. The accuracy of the new game mechanics was not my chief concern as much as it was their number. Having more and more game mechanics you start focusing more and more on micromanagement and less and less on the battle themselves. There is so much knowledge needed to understand how Hearts of Iron 4 works at this point that knowledge makes 90% of the game, at the cost of tactics, the one who can out-micromanage the opponent or knows something that the opponent doesn't know about or simply ignores is usually the winner, not by virtue of skill but knowledge.

WTT changes to the command structure was one of the things that made command structure smooth. Per your complaint of realism, having to give up general traits (ie. bonuses) in order to command additional units also makes no realistic sense -- a point you probably neglected. Meanwhile, the old mechanics focuses command onto a few individuals, reducing the flavor of the mechanics around generals, and make AI management of fronts difficult. (AI management of fronts still isn't smooth when the front is not a singular and continuous one. But 24 div is better than 48 and the like. And it can probably do with less)

The complaint on skill point is also questionable. The player agency of choosing (a limited number of from a larger number available) skills makes the mechanics more engaging. From a game balance point of view, it limits the superman effect of individual generals. Per your complaint of realism, neither is realistic. They are abstractions of reality. (That much should be obvious?)

How does having more generals to manage make it more smooth? If anything, I'd argue the opposite. If the logic is consistent, then adding generals for every single division will also make it more smooth, which I don't think is the case. If anything, it makes it more unnecessary complicated adding an extra layer of micromanagement.

I'm not sure I follow, how would the old mechanics make the AI frontline management difficult? if anything, it was an AI coding rather than limiting game mechanics problem since simpler game mechanics would make it easier to create an efficient AI.

Why do you think it makes it more engaging? Does that also make it less complicated? and how does that cancel what I previously said? Formula 1 2020 and Need For Speed are both abstractions of reality as well, but most people would argue that the former is more realistic regardless of personal taste.

The problem starts with your notion that game mechanics should not be focused on. The complex strategic and military history of WWII is reflected in the game mechanics. WWII is not a text adventure of choices.

There are actual problems with la Resistance -- the most recent DLC -- and the direction it implies that you missed in your phrasing: namely, la Resistance adds mechanics that demands player attention without giving the corresponding amount of reward or attaching the corresponding the importance to the core aspect of the game.

Let's say the problem is in your phrasing. Your phrasing makes it sound like a rejection to anything more than simple game mechanics. A naive view that I honestly don't wish to spend time arguing against. I'll just leave it at that.

I never said that, look up when I talked about the difference between complex and complicated. I agree with your statement that "complex strategic and military history..." but I don't think this is the point you wanted to make.

Your problem is the attention - reward ratio, my problem is the whole huge process of micromanaging itself, when it could have been a lot simpler yet still complex and because of that more strategically demanding.

 

[bitmode]

I'm not quite understanding your points or following your train of thought.

This is how I'm interpreting what you said:

You were initially enthusiastic about the promise of open-ended goals and the various strategic means to achieve those goals and to shape your own story. But then you realized that HOI 4, with its sprawling features and mechanics, trades depth for breadth, and it takes a very, very long time to come to that realization. Compared to other games which have a tighter focus and a more limited framework of rules. With these other games, it's easier and quicker to decide whether you like them or not, without having to wait for years after years of DLC releases.

Is this accurate?

Yes

 

[qer]

Well I didn't like the direction of the game before the release, and MTG and LaR where IMHO very disappointing

 

[DukofDeth]

At least we're not having to assign generals to each and every division.

 

[SophieX]

The accuracy of the new game mechanics was not my chief concern as much as it was their number. Having more and more game mechanics you start focusing more and more on micromanagement

Agree, but I don't have anything against micro ( assumed that it not decreases the game fun in a great manor )

There is so much knowledge needed to understand how Hearts of Iron 4 works at this point that knowledge makes 90% of the game, at the cost of tactics,

That's what I wanted to point out ( posting No. #11 ):

"at the cost of tactics":
tactics aren't static things; yes there are some basics all tactics have to include. Good tactics haven't rules which are strict like laws; the have some "guide-lines"; the rest is creativity!

I like new challenges and to be forced in "developing" new ideas

knows something that the opponent doesn't know about or simply ignores is usually the winner

I cannot imagine a term that hits reality more than this.


Don't get me wrong please. You do not like the increase of new rules, features. mechanics etc because the game becomes worth with new "stuff" like this.
That fully OK. I have no problem with that opinion.

My intention is to show you, that the "game" can become better with new "stuff" like this.
And I tried to explain why.

 

[Harin]

I don't view fixing bugs or improving the AI as complications because it doesn't add new game mechanics but fixes and improves on the ones it already has. That's an interesting thought, the forum may not be representative of the community as a whole.

I too, doubt this forum represents the community as a whole and it is possible the developers feel the same way. The developers have shared a few of the statistical measurements they use to plan the direction of the game. Adding non-historical or even non-plausible but "fun" stories to the game seems to be a winner for them, economically.

Since you were brave enough to share so much of your opinion with us, I will try to show a little courage myself.

I loved the HOI series because it tried to build something I have always wanted to play, that being a grand strategy WW2 game. I have played just about every game that has tried to do this in the past. Personally, I believe what hooked me with HOI was the build up phase and how it allowed me to improve a country's position before the war started.

Now that I have played the game way more than I should have, I realize that I want everything in the game. I want excellent focus trees for whatever country I choose to play tonight. I want units in combat to fight as a cohesive whole and do away with the combat width/META division system. I want a naval system that at the least recognizes that carriers existed in the war. The list goes on and on of course.

I think my list of things that need to be fixed grows as I learn more about the game. I went in thinking the game will reward WW2 common sense, such as building a division that has artillery, recon, AT and AA units, only to find out that the game mechanics cannot handle realistic divisions, fleets, air wings, etc... The deeper I go, the more I realize the game cannot handle WW2 as we know it from history.

The game dresses up for WW2, uses terms, place names, and people from the war, but in the end, it is not WW2. It is a game that is balanced not to reality, but to produce fun and replayability first. I understand this, as watching Germany loss every game would not be fun. In that wide space between a realistic game that simulates WW2 and the sandbox game that allows me to play Brazil and go nuclear, I have found myself, happy, angry, disappointed, and wanting more.

For example, recently I had a truly great game ruined by the AI sending all of its divisions to a major invasion I had launched. It sent so many divisions I had to pull my armies out and finally quit the game. The next night I played Ethiopia with all countries on random and colonization turned off. The point is, I did not quit the game itself. I played a different scenario. I suppose that is the greatest strength (and most likely causing much of its WW2 weaknesses) of HOI4. It promises so much, gets so close, that I cannot help but start another game...and complain about something else that needs to be fixed.

After all my time playing and my recent time on these forums, my biggest complaint by far is that the HOI4 team is nowhere near large enough to do everything we want done, nor cover all the promise of a WW2 themed sandbox game.

 

[SophieX]

Now that I have played the game way more than I should have, I realize that I want everything in the game

Oh yes.... I know that feeling when expectations grows in a way the game-reality cannot follow.

Come on...let's go " back to earth"