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

[kettyo]

And that's assuming the eventual rework will make huge strides. Most reworks so far were two steps forward and one back in my opinion, which is not good enough when components are touched so rarely. You basically throw out half of the previous assumptions, roll it up with a ton of bug fixes and balance changes all at once and hope it will be a slam dunk.
I fully expect when the diplomacy/peace rework lands there'll be another wave of rude awakenings because rework does not mean everything is great now.

Pretty sure it is true

 

[ecpgieicg]

I just don't really understand giving such grandiose focus trees to minors. Like did Spain's really need to be that big, or Mexico's that indepth.

That's the only thing that sticks out to me at the moment. I've been overall happy with how the game has come along.

Related but not directly answering to your point.

I think they mentioned in a PDXcon that they get a lot of requests for alt history and data showed a lot of players use those features. They probably similarly discovered from data analytics that fleshed out focus trees are what people.

It's unsurprising to me tbh. People roleplay the countries they are interested in, such as their home country. That's only natural?

 

[FindFloppies]

Related but not directly answering to your point.

I think they mentioned in a PDXcon that they get a lot of requests for alt history and data showed a lot of players use those features. They probably similarly discovered from data analytics that fleshed out focus trees are what people.

It's unsurprising to me tbh. People roleplay the countries they are interested in, such as their home country. That's only natural?

I see two main ends of the spectrum in this kind of thing:

There are those who want only majors to be able to actually 'do' anything, and minors can't threaten them. (There's tons of 'historical' mods that nerf minors to uselessness, and the first thing they do with the majors is buff Germany and nerf Italy.) These people want to re-create history, and aren't seemingly interested in what might have happened. Anything outside what history said is 'fluff' and 'unnecessary' to them.

The other side are the people who want to play what-if, and have a nice sandbox to do it in. I'm one of these. I studied WWII history as a hobby for the last 40 years. Sure, I like to re-create some things, but I want to see what I can do if different choices were made.

Different people want different things. Only really Paradox has much clue how many want this, or that, or the other thing.

 

[ecpgieicg]

I see two main ends of the spectrum in this kind of thing:

There are those who want only majors to be able to actually 'do' anything, and minors can't threaten them. (There's tons of 'historical' mods that nerf minors to uselessness, and the first thing they do with the majors is buff Germany and nerf Italy.) These people want to re-create history, and aren't seemingly interested in what might have happened. Anything outside what history said is 'fluff' and 'unnecessary' to them.

The other side are the people who want to play what-if, and have a nice sandbox to do it in. I'm one of these. I studied WWII history as a hobby for the last 40 years. Sure, I like to re-create some things, but I want to see what I can do if different choices were made.

Different people want different things. Only really Paradox has much clue how many want this, or that, or the other thing.

In the same presentation, they also showed majority play with the least difficult difficulty setting (not sure what it's called). Majority play with MOD (and that was before BIackICE and the like). Most multiplayers session are 2 ppl (clearly friends IRL). Yep, people want what they want.

I don't see your spectrum though.

For example, I play 'minors' for the what-if of conquering the world. Not that I start off aiming at that. But once I start playing France, or Italy -- not really minors -- I do wonder what I can do with them. But I don't play very small countries for the limit they pose. I'd enjoy all the aspects the game afford. Like I don't even play China after first playthrough because China basically can't play a naval game. (Sure you can conquer Western Europe; by that point, the naval game doesn't matter. Not to mention you have to wait for ships to build after that.) So I don't belong on your spectrum at all.

 

[Jays298]

That sounds like it's due to the specific country you play. If you are truly running out and have to spend PP, it's usually intentional.


Free template is something to be considered. But as you probably understand already, land xp meant to simulate the doctrinal advancement in WWII armies. Researching a tech and using a tech are entirely two different things.

As is, the game gives better template to Germany as a part of a package to simulate the doctrinal and leadership advantage with German army at the time.

But ofc, the 80 + 40 per flank combat width plus the simplification of equipment can (indirectly) make the divisional template feel contrived.





You actually already can view equipment deficiencies per land Theatre. There is a document like icon on the top right corner for every Theatre. Click that, then click around the menu options and you will find it.

That's on top of the global equipment tab.

There is no air theatre. So not sure what you are pointing to. The air defense situation is a bit lacking. Namely, the attacker can switch the zones to attack (ie. to bomb) rapidly, and the defender has to respond. While there is zone establishment penalty, the resultant micro is still annoying. As is, players have to find ways to discourage AI from doing such a thing, and the fact that players have to find loopholes like that already shows the deficiency of the system.



AI to tell you what to research next??

I suppose sometimes people want computers to play themselves.

But at least, if you pay attention, AI does suggest the next National Focus for you. It has a flashing overlay. That makes more sense since every country in principle has a different focus tree. Some assistance for those who don't want to pay attention to country-specific national focus makes more sense.



That points to a core issue for sure. I wish they come up with some smart system for HOI5.

As is, terrain is not nearly emphasized enough. But if you emphasize terrain even more, you start to feel a need to micro troop movement based on terrain. Yet right now, the visual overlay for terrain is rather lacklustre. And needless to say, micro-ing should be considered an extremely scarce resource from player that game designers should only call upon for one or two aspect of the game with great constraint. So some terrain following automation will be required too.

At the moment, battleplans are only useful for the planning bonus. AI just makes no progress where the army strength should imply progress. Smaller armies do help. But why would anyone bother with microing battleplan when the same microing can be applied to troop movement directly.

I am not sure what the solution will be. I would not like a more abstract version of the battlefield. I do want to experience the encirclement, the effect of speed, etc in WWII. Already, the encirclement etc happened at a more local scales in real history -- instead of over the large territories we see in HOI4. If you abstract it even more, it'd start to be quite jarring.

It's not that I want the game to play itself but that I want to be able to automate unwanted aspects. Like I don't have a problem navigating the focus tree. But research itself becomes cumbersome after a certain point and I'd rather just have the AI randomly choose what techs to research because most of them are irrelevant or not worth pausing my game in the middle of a war.

I see that production will tell you how much equipment your existing armies need to be complete. But that doesn't help with a build up or when needing to scale up the size of the entire army or scale up the size of specific theatres.

Basically there should be an advisor (or several) telling me how theaters or army groups are likely to be insufficient or superior given potential enemy forces. Currently fronts give a little information but that's on an army level (20 units) not the theater level (geographic region).

I don't want the game to play itself. I want there to be generals and ministers that can handle the micro details and give advice or intelligence (relative strength and force levels) so I don't have to micro anything that isn't critical. Even if it's just a guess.

The air and navy areas seem pretty well thought out.

 

[ecpgieicg]

It's not that I want the game to play itself but that I want to be able to automate unwanted aspects. Like I don't have a problem navigating the focus tree. But research itself becomes cumbersome after a certain point and I'd rather just have the AI randomly choose what techs to research because most of them are irrelevant or not worth pausing my game in the middle of a war.

I see that production will tell you how much equipment your existing armies need to be complete. But that doesn't help with a build up or when needing to scale up the size of the entire army or scale up the size of specific theatres.

Basically there should be an advisor (or several) telling me how theaters or army groups are likely to be insufficient or superior given potential enemy forces. Currently fronts give a little information but that's on an army level (20 units) not the theater level (geographic region).

I don't want the game to play itself. I want there to be generals and ministers that can handle the micro details and give advice or intelligence (relative strength and force levels) so I don't have to micro anything that isn't critical. Even if it's just a guess.

The air and navy areas seem pretty well thought out.

I understand your desire. But I don't really see the relevance when it applies to research. Vanilla HOI4 research is linear as is. If you don't care about optimizing too deeply, you may as well leave your research be. You don't need to pause either. You can get up to 30 days saved per slot. The National Focus tree does get AI advice, as I mentioned. It is as random as you are thinking. But it likely follows what AI would do for themselves.

Have you navigated to the in-game UI I suggested?

Per your request on info to scale up your existing theatre, (single army is the same thing since you can create new threatres yourself,) why don't you keep the number of tanks and whatnot in mind, and proceed to produce them? What still stands in the way? In countries where motorization and mechanization are key, infantry and artillery are in constant surplus, so you only keep track of tanks and armor variants. Otherwise, there is no tank or armor to keep track of.

When you don't have the desire to optimize deeply, you can also have imprecise production as well. Correct?

As for enemy force level, intel is something to be gained in HOI4. You don't automatically get enemy force level.

However, I do think the game should do better with aggregating field strength. And it certainly should not maintain Insufficient Intel masks after combat encounter already discloses the same information. You probably don't know what I mean here. Don't worry. You will find out while you play.

 

[Zeprion]

You are seriously confused. In your direct quoting of my statement, I already said something that is entirely different from your shoehorned statement. What I said does not imply what you said in any way.

What are you even confused about?

You seem to be projecting. It's okay to be confused, but the way you try to justify it is funny. I already told you how that is implied in the exact comment you just quoted, whether the real problem is a lack of attention or understanding is irrelevant, for there is no point beating a dead horse.

Your confusion continues. And you are downplaying the severity of the prospect of AI controlled movement losing org. AI forcing your unit to lose org is frustrating and will diminish player's experience.

You are confused if you propose some sort of "limit" as the solution.

The guy who missed the point thinks I'm confused. The irony is strong in this one. Your reply only further proves you have no understanding of the thing you just replied to, but at this point it's useless, if you really wanted to have a discussion, you would have at least made an effort to understand the point. Assuming your statement was made genuinely.

So you first proclaim any answer will be meaningless and then proceed to provide an answer?

You must be confused, allow me to explain you. I proclaimed that the answer is common sense, it's obvious. I never said "meaningless", that is you missing the point again. But shockingly you didn't get that common sense answer. So I proceed to explain it to you. Does that make sense or am I still confused?

Assigning traits is trivial. For those who like the progression of persons in their game, they do it for their enjoyment. If you don't like it, you don't have to do it. Surely you are not saying every other game feature compels you to pay full attention to it? Knowing what aspect of the game to pay attention to seems rather basic to me.

The stats differential is also trivial. The whole point being you should not have a superman commanding your whole army, conferring you game-breaking bonuses and that ends the game. The micromanagement seems to be mere illusions in your mind. As the discussion progresses, it strikes me as you have no understanding of the game mechanics you complain about.

Think about -- for real -- think about the opposite of what you object to, are you proposing all generals should have the same stats? Should the game have no general then? Should the game have no customization? Were the leadership structures in WWII military not important? Is it not immersion to reflect them in HOI4? At the point of choosing to drop general as a feature, is it a matter of taste or a matter of optimized game design?

And still you are missing the point. You are latching onto the number of generals while complaining about army grouping.

I gave an outline of how the new army grouping works. You happen to have no clue of it. And you are now refusing to face it.

You are still missing the point. You can talk 20 hours about what is trivial and what is not, the rather simple point is that it's still micromanagement. Obviously this contradicts you so I must be confused.

And then look at your last paragraph: "Think about -- for real -- think about the opposite of what you object to, are you proposing all generals should have the same stats? Should the game have no general then? Should the game have no customization? Were the leadership structures in WWII military not important? Is it not immersion to reflect them in HOI4? At the point of choosing to drop general as a feature, is it a matter of taste or a matter of optimized game design?", not even marginally close to what I said in the original post or any other further posts. This shows how little you understand the point you just reply to. You are literally missing the point while acting like I'm the one confused.

How is it not obvious that command structure rids of micromanagement? Are you seriously arguing for the opposite?

And you are trying to pin a love of micromanagement onto me. That just about eradicates any credibility in you.

I've been arguing the same thing since the original post, you must be blind or missing the point not to see it. At least now we both have the same amount of credibility in each other.

So let me tell you the reason why it is not obvious to you: 1) you complained about something you don't understand and you failed to realize it; 2) you are losing an argument, which no one other than you cared as an argument of win and lose, and you refuse to recognize it.

3) you are projecting again.

And what is the consequence to AI controlled troop movement of assigning multiple fronts to one army?

Don't bother answering the above. You don't have the answer. That's the point.

I also said "if I have to". The point is you are missing the point.

Thank you! Truly thank you for offering yet another piece of evidence that you have no idea about the topic you reply to, yet at this point you reply because you don't want to lose the argument.

Here is the answer that I don't have: I never argued for that thing in the first place. You are either:

1) Missing the point because you can't understand it.

2) Making a strawman because you don't want to lose the argument.

Perhaps you should Google what micromanagement means and gain some humility. And stop putting words into my mouth, especially when you accuse me of "shoehorning" in the same discussion. I'm afraid I'm not immature enough to care about an unproductive internet argument in bad faith.

I think the only thing we can both agree on is that this conversation is pointless.

 

[ecpgieicg]

You seem to be projecting. It's okay to be confused, but the way you try to justify it is funny. I already told you how that is implied in the exact comment you just quoted, whether the real problem is a lack of attention or understand is irrelevant, for there is no point beating a dead horse.


The guy who missed the point thinks I'm confused. The irony is strong in this one. Your reply only further proves you have no understanding of the thing you just replied to, but at this point it's useless, if you really wanted to have a discussion, you would have at least made an effort to understand the point. Assuming your statement was made genuinely.


You must be confused, allow me to explain you. I proclaimed that an answer is meaningless because the answer is common sense, it's obvious. But shockingly you didn't get that common sense answer. So I proceed to explain it to you. Does that make sense or am I still confused?


You are still missing the point. You can talk 20 hours about what is trivial and what is not, the rather simple point is that it's still micromanagement. Obviously this contradicts you so I must be confused.

And then look at your last paragraph: "Think about -- for real -- think about the opposite of what you object to, are you proposing all generals should have the same stats? Should the game have no general then? Should the game have no customization? Were the leadership structures in WWII military not important? Is it not immersion to reflect them in HOI4? At the point of choosing to drop general as a feature, is it a matter of taste or a matter of optimized game design?", not even marginally close to what I said in the original post or any other further posts. This shows how little you understand the point you just reply to. You are literally missing the point while acting like I'm the one confused.


I've been arguing the same thing since the original post, you must be blind or missing the point not to see it. At least now we both have the same amount of credibility in each other.


3) you are projecting again.



Thank you! Truly thank you for offering yet another piece of evidence that you have no idea about the topic you reply to, yet at this point you reply because you don't want to lose the argument.

Here is the answer that I don't have: I never argued for that thing in the first place. You are either:

1) Missing the point because you can't understand it.

2) Making a strawman because you don't want to lose the argument.

Perhaps you should Google what micromanagement means and gain some humility. And stop putting words into my mouth, especially when you accuse me of "shoehorning" in the same discussion. I'm afraid I'm not immature enough to care about an unproductive internet argument in bad faith.

I think the only thing we can both agree on is that this conversation is pointless.

I am entertained. Continue.

 

[Zeprion]

I am entertained. Continue.

Good idea, let's switch to witty comebacks, at least that's a type of discussion you can understand.

 

[ecpgieicg]

Good idea, let's switch to witty comebacks, at least that's a type of discussion you can understand.

So you are playing "earnestly trying" now. Entertaining indeed.

 

[SophieX]

Come on guys, let's get back to a factual discussion.

 

[Zeprion]

Come on guys, let's get back to a factual discussion.

Although it was a bit tempting to keep nagging him and see how far he can go with it, you're right, it's not worth turning this into a pigsty.

 

[SophieX]

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.

Where is the difference between "Annex via focus" and "Annex via decision?

 

[Zeprion]

Where is the difference between "Annex via focus" and "Annex via decision?

If you mean in a "the players follow a predefined path anyway" sense, I meant that the player will try to annex a country or two without the use of focus tree or decisions, then play based on a specific focus tree path. Such as when you start as Yugoslavia or Romania and annex Bulgaria or Hungary. Annexing Netherlands as Germany or in older patches Yugoslavia as Italy early game.

If you mean in a they are the same thing sense, a focus takes time while a decision is instant. While having focuses alone offers the player a room of sandboxy flexibility, having both decisions and focuses offers so many predefined paths that the game becomes more rigid and less sandboxy.

 

[bitmode]

But at least, if you pay attention, AI does suggest the next National Focus for you. It has a flashing overlay.

The National Focus tree does get AI advice, as I mentioned. It is as random as you are thinking. But it likely follows what AI would do for themselves.

I'm pretty sure the available NFs are just flashing randomly.

 

[SophieX]

If you mean in a they are the same thing sense, a focus takes time while a decision is instant. While having focuses alone offers the player a room of sandboxy flexibility, having both decisions and focuses offers so many predefined paths that the game becomes more rigid and less sandboxy.

I think we are talking about two different things:

Example:
- You see a decision, which allows you to annex A. Still greyed out because you have to meet some precondition ( like manpower > x value or what ever). After fulfilling you can annex.
- You want to annex A, then you have fulfill 2 foci; usually in annex-cases you have meet some preconditions too. ( like be at war with X etc...

So I don't see that there is loss of "sandbox" or more "rigidity" due to decision.

Of course this is only my view.

 

[ecpgieicg]

Come on guys, let's get back to a factual discussion.

I engage in factual discussions with people who engage in factual discussions. This thread already shows it.

 

[ecpgieicg]

I'm pretty sure the available NFs are just flashing randomly.

Have you encountered examples where the flashed NF is a NF that AI is scripted to avoid?

 

[safe-keeper]

Good idea, let's switch to witty comebacks, at least that's a type of discussion you can understand.

When you're done being snarky and talking past each other, can we get back on topic, please?

 

[Zeprion]

I think we are talking about two different things:

Example:
- You see a decision, which allows you to annex A. Still greyed out because you have to meet some precondition ( like manpower > x value or what ever). After fulfilling you can annex.
- You want to annex A, then you have fulfill 2 foci; usually in annex-cases you have meet some preconditions too. ( like be at war with X etc...

So I don't see that there is loss of "sandbox" or more "rigidity" due to decision.

Of course this is only my view.

The difference is that focuses are predictable, you have a focus tree and you can tell exactly where each path will go. If Germany took the "Oppose Hitler" path you already know they cannot annex Czechoslovakia anymore. The decisions are not random but you can decide to go or not go for a decision at anytime, as they come in the from of a list where you simply select what you want.

While focus trees and decisions don't directly make the game less sandbox, no options have been removed by adding focus trees or decisions, they give you suggestions of what to do next and 9/10 times the players will take those suggestions. Instead of sandbox you get a predefined path. If out of ambition you decide to completely ignore the focus tree and decisions in a game, the AI and other players will not, so you will play at a disadvantage.

I'm not in favor of a completely sandbox game in Hearts of Iron 4 like we can see in Age of Empires 2 where you can attack anyone, as historical context matters, even in the event of alternative history. But I find it that focus trees offered a nice balance between sandboxy and not sandboxy, you still had plenty of flexibility outside the scripted event of a focus tree. The focus trees were necessary to give you direction towards the historical events so that USSR won't attack Iran while Germany annexes Belgium first.

But the decisions took even more flexibility by adding a list of scripted events you can choose from at any time. And added an extra player of micromanagement as far as your state choices go. Now you don't only need to pick the best focus tree, you have to keep an eye on making the best decisions at the right time.

What I mean in simple terms, is that when you're at the beach and instead of building your own castle you have a list of 5 predefined castles to pick, it's not sandboxy anymore. 9/10 will choose those castles simply because they are there. And you can't not choose the castles because the enemy will choose their castles and this have a clear advantage over you. This is the new meta of the game.