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

[SophieX]

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.

Ok, I understand what you mean; thanks for your detailed answer.

But even after your explanation I have a different view on decision. May be I'm a little bit influenced by the fact, that decision makes modding quiet easier.
But in general I like decisions.

 

[Zeprion]

Ok, I understand what you mean; thanks for your detailed answer.

But even after your explanation I have a different view on decision. May be I'm a little bit influenced by the fact, that decision makes modding quiet easier.
But in general I like decisions.

You're welcome.

At the end of the day it's a matter of taste and that is subjective. There is no objectively right or wrong opinion when it comes to preference.

 

[SophieX]

At the end of the day it's a matter of taste and that is subjective. There is no objectively right or wrong opinion when it comes to preference.

I totally agree

 

[Col.Klink]

I can't agree at all with any of this. Like, you start out essentially describing how much you enjoyed that there was next to no creativity in battle (everyone using EXACTLY THE SAME 20w or 40w divisions, and therefore probably exactly the same doctrine, superior firepower...) Then you go on to complain that "micromanagement not tactics in the actual ware determines the outcome." Well you essentially said that already! If everyone is fighting each other with mirror armies, with mirror doctrines the edge goes down to micromanaging now doesn't it?

We live in a world of games getting slowly dumber and dumber and your complaint that this game is bucking the trend?! Why? Why do you want a game that is dumber? What possible reason could you want FEWEER OPTIONS for!? If that's the way you like it, just turn off the game and play age of empires! Oh wait, there are multiple strategy options available in that game too! Oh no!

I have played every single HOI game since the original, I remember the original with joy in fact. What was so refreshing about HOI4 was that they didn't decide to dumb things down for once, they added a HUGE volume of complexity. In past games the game would tell you that "a division of this type costs 4 IC, would you like a brigade with that? " Then you dedicated some IC to generate "military supplies" that served to both support and replenish the losses of every division type, even tanks!

When I got HOI4 I discovered a much more in depth world where you had to scrounge and find the gear your armies would use. If you didn't plan appropriately you easily could run out of tanks, and some equipment just wasn't in the cards due to resource limitations (a real factor in the war.) This even opens up new tactics. You focus on expensive heavy tanks, I make motorized anti tank and cause so many heavy armor casualties that you can't keep it up anymore! It's amazing having OPTIONS because in past HOI titles I could never dream of removing all your tanks from the field!

Each DLC has added more layers to what was already a delight. Puppeting became honestly one of the ideal methods of power as it was historically. Focus trees were added making even backwaters like Manchukuo interesting to play. The naval expansion is like a whole new game in itself because of the sheer number of options it brings to the table. Navies now can be custom tailored to the country's mission. That's a good thing.

Your complaint about not having a money stat is another contradictions. Do you want complexity or don't you? Of course the money stat ultimately is meaningless. In HOI 3 you'd assign factories to consumer goods, generate money and use that money to buy off the international market. Now you use factories to produce consumer goods for export to buy off the international market, it's the same thing! Realistically your money is only worth a damn if your making something in your country that other people want and can get with said currency. So this is the most honest and straightforward implimentation. Because HOI4 eliminated resource stockpiles outside of fuel they removed the stockpile of currency to prevent a sophist's workaround of a lack of stockpiles. The lack of stockpiles is supposed to mean you stop getting the resources you want as soon as you stop shipping something out in return, but having money to stockpile means you could continue to import even after stopping exports. So money had to go.

Why were resource stockpiles removed? I'm not sure, maybe they really aren't all that realistic. It's hard to believe one could stockpile enough steel and coal to make a years worth of American tanks and have this big pile of material in kansas or something ready to use.But I may be wrong on that one.

Anyway, I digress there. It seems to me that this is just you hating that things have changed. The complaining that more options are being added to a game about having options is so freaking irrational that I cannot believe that is the root of your complaint.

added: I did realize a reason for them to eliminate stockpiles and consequently remove currency. In the current game system you can trade your natural resources on the global market for IC, something that is actually useful. In the past all you could get was money, which basically was only good for buying resources not IC which is often what you really needed.

 

[Caeric]

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.

You are nearly always free to simply invade and annex whoever you want (with restrictions based on ideology of course) but the foci imo serve more as a guideline about what the priorities of your current goverment is what the gameplan should be. You are of course free to step off the beaten path and improvise to a degree as well

Edit: Forgot to add, I do agree that certain focus trees feel a bit too railroady for example, whilst some can feel a bit too all over the place and unstructured by comparison I suppose on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Zeprion]

You are nearly always free to simply invade and annex whoever you want (with restrictions based on ideology of course) but the foci imo serve more as a guideline about what the priorities of your current goverment is what the gameplan should be. You are of course free to step off the beaten path and improvise to a degree as well

Edit: Forgot to add, I do agree that certain focus trees feel a bit too railroady for example, whilst some can feel a bit too all over the place and unstructured by comparison I suppose on the other end of the spectrum.

I agree that you are still free to do whatever you want, anytime. But because you have those guidelines, you are inclined to follow them, and if you don't follow them, you will be at a disadvantage towards other nations who follow them.

This is why they don't directly make the game less sandboxy, but they indirectly make it less sandboxy. The same logic goes with micromanagement and complicated features, you can choose to ignore them, but the other players and the AI will not ignore them, forcing you to play at a disadvantage.

Of course, none of these is inherently better or worse, it's just a matter of different tastes. Some people prefer it more sandboxy and with less game mechanics while others prefer it less sandboxy and with as many game mechanics as possible.

 

[Col.Klink]

I agree that you are still free to do whatever you want, anytime. But because you have those guidelines, you are inclined to follow them, and if you don't follow them, you will be at a disadvantage towards other nations who follow them.

This is why they don't directly make the game less sandboxy, but they indirectly make it less sandboxy. The same logic goes with micromanagement and complicated features, you can choose to ignore them, but the other players and the AI will not ignore them, forcing you to play at a disadvantage.

Of course, none of these is inherently better or worse, it's just a matter of different tastes. Some people prefer it more sandboxy and with less game mechanics while others prefer it less sandboxy and with as many game mechanics as possible.

I really sat and thought about the focus trees and I think the complaints are way overblown... most of the stuff in the trees aren't "attack this country." Its stuff like "gain 10 stability" or "gain 4 military factories and open up the underground workshop decision."

The railroading, where it is sets you up usually for historic events such as the invasion of Poland with UK and France joining the war, or a war with china. This teensy bit of "railroading" I don't dislike because this game's draw is playing through the actual war and twisting its events. The game simply does not work if there is no grand cataclysm.

Much has been made about how "bad" the japanese focus tree is but consider. The italian focus tree boils down to siding with germany or full independence of action. Russia gets next to no real choices. Have a civil war or not, some choice.... yet japan gets to choose between communism, democracy, fascist war on China or imperial war on Russia and the appropriate societal shifts behind those choices. No other country has such a wide array of options and its still not considered enough!?

And as i said before with all those countries most of the focus stuff isn't a railroad into a path like the ones mentioned its just part of the focus trees that do that. Most of it are things that you just plain want. A new research slot? Yes please.

 

[Simon_9732495]

I like the direction HOI4 is heading.

Some examples:

• Fuel

Very well done new mechanic. Realistic but still easy to handle. A LOT better than needing Oil to produce Tanks and Planes.​

• New resistance/compliance system with offmap garrisons

You don't have to have 400 2 width horse divisions anymore! You don't just select the harshest law and get the most out of the country. Treating the occupied territories well gets rewarded by compliance. Resistance is not 0 only because you have 10 horse division in that province.​

It's more realistic, easier, gives new challenges... (Yes it's not that easy anymore after you captured the USA as Canada in 1936. But that's maybe a good thing.)​

• AI Naval Invasions

The AI naval invasions have become much better. AI DDay is a thing now. It could still be better, but the direction is correct. Was a blatant AI weakness and got adressed.​

• @podcat s Roadmap

The five year plan
[...]

• 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 (Germany, Italy, USA, United Kingdom, Soviet, France, Japan, 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.
• Improve weather mechanics
• Strategic and tactical AI improvements

​

I think the DEVs have a somewhat simliar understanding what the game needs as I have. Therefore I'm quite optimistic.

 

[ThePHD]

The only thing I don't like is the espionage. I just think it's tedious. I haven't minded anything else they've done.

 

[Riekopo]

The only thing I don't like is the espionage. I just think it's tedious. I haven't minded anything else they've done.

It's really underwhelming in my opinion. The skeleton is there but there's no meat on the bones. Only 4 historical Operations. Should be like 100.

The one thing that bothers me about the direction of HOI4 is the focus on alt-history. They're trying to create two games in one basically. Trying to work on two games at once. I think it's a bad idea.

 

[lonewolf371]

Overall the game is much better than at launch. Fuel, resistance, etc. have all been done pretty well, and there are a number of nice QoL updates.

But there has also been a bit of feature creep in the game like the OP said. A lot of them have to do with decisions - basically I think when the dev team has an idea that doesn't fit neatly into the current design, rather than alter the design to properly incorporate the idea, they just stuff it into the decision panel. In this manner the decision panel largely just enables a bunch of bad design choices and bloats more and more with half-baked ideas.

The naval mechanics could also use a bit more overhaul. I and many others like the ship designer, but the UI is unnecessarily complicated. The UI should do a better job at guiding less-involved players to cookie-cutter designs while still enabling dedicated players to work with variants. Naval experience shouldn't really be a factor - IC should be the only thing in building a ship, judging from the technology of the time period. It would be better to focus naval experience (and perhaps the naval tech tree in general) on damage control practices, hit chance, and damage.

 

[seymouruk]

The naval mechanics could also use a bit more overhaul. I and many others like the ship designer, but the UI is unnecessarily complicated.

What does the auto button do in the designer? Does it upgrade the current equipped slots to their newest versions? If not, then perhaps that is an option for less involved players, they can just press an auto button to keep their ship designs up to date with the latest tech they've researched.

Also to minimise the micro, could ships that are being repaired go in for any available refits at the same time? To have that as a check box option for less involved players that don't want the hassle of splitting ships off to be refitted when they could leave it to the game to do automatically when said ships are being repaired.

 

[GSP Jr]

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.

That is your problem right there, in less than a sentence.
This HOI IV thing was never, ever intended to be a "World War II simulator".
From release day one, PDX wanted a sandbox game, with some names and images from history, to draw in casual gamers that don't know the history.

 

[Jays298]

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.

The production and unit building has been as you've described. Mostly a user decided idea of "I need this many tanks and more infantry everywhere, and a ton of air wherever the armies go." And yes as you've said it's very much tied to production and quantities.

I generally like the national focus and have a strategy, and it's well implemented. Research is different because you have so many slots. I just wish it would let me queue techs to research then I'd never have to pause and think about it. Because to me it's a micro thing In a macro game, in terms of finding a tech that is not too far ahead but somewhat useful after all the must haves are done. IIRC HOI3 let you just continue on a research path automatically. That was a better system IMO. Not as graphically pretty but more user friendly as far as having different auto research choices.

And that's what I find annoying since the

I would like intelligence at the macro level. Not really about what's going on in a given tile or a given battle. But more about what an AI controlled minister or advisor thinks about the macro level.

They really missed an opportunity to make advisors meaningful. Not as simply a stat bonus but as a strategic direction taken or not taken.

In HOI3 it would tell you the operational needs of every theater and basically say "if we want to keep Manilla we need to build 4 destroyers, 4 inf divisions, air needs, etc. " And whether you used it or not was up to you. But it would certainly let you know on a macro level how well prepared you were, or how likely is that a given area or theater was simply a lost cause.

The current system is just flying blindly probably because the AI is terrible at fighting wars (no micro adjustments, very vulnerable to aggressive human micro controls) so the only strategy element is to figure out how many tanks to build and where to send them, or what technique to use against it. But again that seems like the wrong level, like the player is the armaments minister, not the supreme allied commander or the head of state.

The 39 scenario makes everything clearer militarily but obviously is more limited diplomatically.

In some ways it might be cool to control the national focus tree and delegate everything else to an AI set of advisors.