Is HoI4 the neglected child of Paradox Interactive?

[adam_grif]

I hear this type of excuse given to excuse when software developers for gaming companies neglect an aspect of their product and I reject it. True, the content team has no control over what game mechanics team does and visa versa. However, the team leader does have a say as to how those resources are allocated. When a game is as broken as HoI4 is, more resources need to be allocated to fixing the game versus adding in new content.

That's exactly what did happen. The team is broadly split into artists, designers, and programmers. There is one staff member dedicated to AI programming and one or two programmers who can be a bit more flexible. New mechanics require designer time, and also programmer time to implement. Death or Dishonor was shrunk below it's original design goals, because programmer time was allocated to bug fixing, AI improvements, and system-side changes to the air war. This is not a theory, they explicitly told us this is why Death or Dishonor was such a small DLC, because they wanted to allocate more resources to improvements and fixes that would be part of the update. It showed results, not in every area, but they did make good strides.

The team leader decides how many people work on certain aspects of product development. Un paid modders have developed more 'extra' content for this game than the people who are actually getting paid to improve the content! Look at Kaiserreich or BICE and you will get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Unless you're expecting the team leader to lay off employees to make room for more programmers that's not a practical solution. Instead, what they did was increase the total team size to bring on a few more technical people. This is part of the reason why 1.5 is looking to be such a massive update.

The KR team's volume of work is impressive. The team is also large. It's larger than the entire HoI4 development team, and nearly all of the KR team are content developers - the Paradox team is about 40% technical staff. The art in KR is also not up to the standard as the original game, which is fine, because they're modders, but it lets them get things done faster.

And your defense completely glosses over the fact that this game has removed features from prior tittles in the series that you will now have to pay EXTRA money for!

As of 1.4.2 there are no features that you paid for in HoI4 that were in HoI3, unless you count superficially similar things that are implemented in different ways in the 4th game, like tech sharing vs practical sharing in 3. Hearts of Iron 4 has a very large number of features included in the base version that were locked behind expansion packs in previous games, that's just how sequels go.

I've been playing wargames either on the computer or on the table top for over thirty years. I have never seen a title from a major software developer with so many basic bugs for so long. Hell, they had to finally break down and implement a community developed solution to the Sahara desert AI debacle and it took them around a YEAR to do it! We aren't talking about something obscure here that can only be replicated in an usual circumstances, these are basic game mechanic failures. STEAM is a blessing and a curse for computer games. Now developers can push half finished products to market with the vague promise that future patches can be automatically downloaded via STEAM.

Did you play Hearts of Iron 3 at launch? Lmao. That game never got fully fixed, you had to buy multiple expansion packs to get it to where it got eventually. Bug fixes and basic features locked behind expansion packs

Your argument defending the content team would have value to a small degree if this game had any significant new content to speak of. Sure WtT, looks to be a significant content increase. And after more than 18 months it SHOULD be! As far as having content team sitting idle what have they been doing???? Where is all this mythical new content? A handful of new NF trees? Significant new content for any country other than Germany? I'm sorry. I wouldn't be defending either the content side OR the game mechanic side of this team. I know that the team is passionate about this project and that they want it to be a fun game. But thus far, it's been a lackluster title at best. And because of how bad it was on it's initial release it needs far more improvements than most of Paradox's other products.

The content and design people are split between focus trees, events, and mechanics. There's approximately 4-5 people, total. The whole team, expanded with new personnel is like 12 people, including the team leader. This is not some kind of AAA production, in fact the development team is a small fraction of the size of a Total War or Civilization game. The focus trees they do produce are larger and better than the vast majority of workshop content and get to integrate with the new mechanics of the DLC/patch they launch alongside, which is quite nice.

Underwhelming? A little, but not dramatically so. I think you're blowing it quite out of proportion. The lack of meaty, fun mechanics is more of an issue than the lack of focus trees is, but that's what's so exciting about 1.5, it's looking absolutely phenomenal and far more impressive than everything that has come before.

What this team should have done is set aside all the fantasy what if stuff into it's one dlc. Add in the NF trees that allow for Hitler to be removed in 1936 or for Hungary to recreate the Austro Hungarian Empire, ect. The content team should have been adding events to spice up the game by working on things that actually happened first or were even remotely possible. The game mechanics team either needs more people assigned, or better people assigned, or a larger percentage of the overall resource pie allocated to them. Johan said that this was the only title that had a single AI guy assigned to it and the others had one guy for multiple projects. Great. But that doesn't mean that the product thus far is acceptable. Maybe 2 guys need to be assigned. I don't know what the answer is. I know this, the AI is bad. Too many game mechanics work poorly or not at all. Releasing shiny new dlc's aren't going to change that. Fixing the core mechanics of the game will make the shiny new content dlc's that much more awesome.

They have increased, as I said above. There are now more programming resources compared to earlier, and the HoI4 team is now on par with the biggest working on all of it's currently released games (there's probably a bigger team working on something unannounced, but the HoI4 team is bigger than EU4 and CK2 for sure, and on par or bigger than Stellaris which is a more financially successful game). You have got your wish, but they don't have a time machine to beef up the staff 2 years ago. They can only do more work going forward, which is, again, exactly what 1.5 represents, the largest change to the game since launch and an extremely meaty free update, adding exciting new features. I'm very keen to see what kind of AI improvements and balance changes they've made, but we won't know the full details until next year unfortunately.

For whatever reason this is the only major Paradox title that has had this issue for this long. I reject the, 'well, this is a complex' game argument. So is CK 2 or EU 4. And yet they haven't had near the problems this title has had. When you factor in that large portions of the AI seem to have been ported from HoI 2 and 3 it makes it even more confusing. How can you have the same consistent AI problems over the course of 15 years?! Many of the AI problems HoI 1, 2, and 3 have still exist in HoI 4. How is that even possible??? I mean if the content was earth shattering that would be something. But the content is meh and the AI is just insanely bad.

Which AI problems were ported over directly?

The CK2 and EU4 AI is extremely ahistorical. Nobody cares if Austria never becomes a notable country in CK2, or if France explodes in EU4, but Germany not always strictly operating according to the defined parameters of what you're expecting based on history in HoI4 is a huge deal. HoI3 forced historical outcomes with tightly scripted AI that could not adapt properly to changes and blanket buffs to countries. German units magically became 20% more powerful so it can crush France. Germany gets magically better for Barbarossa, for 6 months, then the magic wears off, then Russia gets magical buffs to push back. HoI4 has problems but at least it's attempting to resolve this using systems that can in theory adapt to changing conditions and ahistorical versions of World War II, rather than hard coding it all.

Yes it's got big problems. Yes we all want the problems to be fixed. That doesn't mean we have to get mad about the existence of a new German NF tree. You and I may not care for it, but statistically many people do, and the reaction on the forums has been very positive to the overhaul. It's not your business and it's not my business to tell other people what to want. 1.5 will not be a perfect release, 1.6.2 in August 2018 still won't have fixed literally every problem the game has, but it's improving steadily, and they now have more resources than ever to keep improving it. Holistically. With a steady stream of bug fixes, AI improvements, new mechanics, and new content.

 

[coffeelingfine]

I don't get the argument that HOI IV is unplayable in SP. I've put 700 hours into the SP and while the AI does dumb things at times, I never felt it was unplayable.

I think people just like to exaggerate. I don't think any strategy game like this has truly good AI anyway.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

I don't get the argument that HOI IV is unplayable in SP. I've put 700 hours into the SP and while the AI does dumb things at times, I never felt it was unplayable.

I think people just like to exaggerate. I don't think any strategy game like this has truly good AI anyway.

As I have stated several times before, AI UK does not defend British shores, does not defend Suez. I can only imagine what else happens post end of 1940 with Uk and other countries. This IS gamebreaking in my opinion and the opinion of many others. Mind you, I am not saying Sealion is too easy. I am saying no infantry divisions defend the british shores at all except one tile.

AI continues to attack even when units are ground to nothing. Someone did a test as France, extended maginot line up to Calais. Germany had something like 5 million casualties attacking those level 10 forts.

And as written before, naval warfare is so far gone it may never be fixed, and certainly won't be fixed TWO MONTHS from now when this will come out.

Why do apologists continue to defend the indefensible? These things are not just happening two months or even six months after release. It is 18 months plus after release.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Did you play Hearts of Iron 3 at launch? Lmao. That game never got fully fixed, you had to buy multiple expansion packs to get it to where it got eventually. Bug fixes and basic features locked behind expansion packs

This is the kind of bad-acting that Paradox has become notorious for. As far as I know, no Paradox game has been suitable until at least a year after release. I should have known better, I waited eight months or so. Fool me once, shame you, fool me thrice... And it enhances my fears that hey will not just get it fixed this Spring (call the DLC Springtiem for Hitler) but ever. All of this bolsters our position, not those of the apologists.

Yes it's got big problems. Yes we all want the problems to be fixed. That doesn't mean we have to get mad about the existence of a new German NF tree. You and I may not care for it, but statistically many people do, and the reaction on the forums has been very positive to the overhaul. It's not your business and it's not my business to tell other people what to want. 1.5 will not be a perfect release, 1.6.2 in August 2018 still won't have fixed literally every problem the game has, but it's improving steadily, and they now have more resources than ever to keep improving it. Holistically. With a steady stream of bug fixes, AI improvements, new mechanics, and new content. (emphasis added).

How do you know how many people like these goofy althistory getups? Do you have access to to focus groups or market research that Paradox or someone else has done? I am equally and indeed more confident that most do not. As a minor nitpick, I would suggest the most suitable for such a figurehead would have been Ludwig Beck.
The rest of your comment pretty much certifies that we will not have a baseline until much more than TWO YEARS after the game's initial release. Why are more people not upset about this? Perhaps we are all addicts after all, and we take what we can get. It is disappointing and, given both he time and money players invest in this, it is just not right.

 

[FOARP]

There are lots of myths in this thread.

The HoI4 team before release was at its core a really large team, and also augmented with members from other projects for a long time.

Saying, "it had just one AI programmer" is a bit weird in comparison to other projects, as its the only project with a 100% dedicated AI developer.

When Wiz was doing AI on HoI4, he was also at the same time the AI programmer for Eu4, CK2 & Stellaris, rotating between all projects.

HoI4 is not a neglected game at Paradox. It was so important for us, that in early 2015 I left the Management Team of Paradox, to spend 100% of my time to lead the project to an alpha-state a year later.

Yeah, I doubted that Paradox would really starve its flagship product like that.

My only comment here is that addressing the big issues with HOI4 may require the kind of brave decision-making that we saw in Stellaris, where they got rid of asymmetric FTL (a major game-feature) because of all the problems it caused in-game. The battle planner especially has failed to live up to its initial promise and it may well be a smart call to cut it down or change it radically (e.g., to become a tool-box for issuing orders rather than an AI interface).

 

[grandad1982]

How do you know how many people like these goofy althistory getups?

@podcat shared some data a while back that showed loads of people played with historical focus off. If I recall correctly it was nearly half the active player base.

 

[GermanDave]

I don't get the argument that HOI IV is unplayable in SP. I've put 700 hours into the SP and while the AI does dumb things at times, I never felt it was unplayable.

I think people just like to exaggerate. I don't think any strategy game like this has truly good AI anyway.

It's the difference between enjoying the game vs enjoyment of the meta.

A new player might like the game but as you come to notice that there is a meta and various cheeses the game becomes unenjoyable. The meta for me is pretty unplayable atm. It ruins the overall experience of the game. When the multiplaayer players have to use self-imposed rules to limit the exploitation potential, it means that the gameplay in itself is broken. Inherently bad game mechanics make for a bad experience, especially as gameplay hours start to increase.

You're also wrong about the AI. Have you ever played against a Sorian AI in Supreme Commander? It really makes PDX look bad. They really have to put their money where their ambition is or HoIIV will remain WW2 Arcade simulator 1.3.2.

As PDX has recently hired a new AI developer, it seems that they want to avoid that scenerio. I remain highly doubtful about their success. (Although with the caveat of admittedly being a bit burned out on the current state of the industry (EA Star Wars shenanigens, Bethesda's hostility towards reviewers, HL3 not being released, Rockstar hating modders))

 

[Kadanz]

I hear this type of excuse given to excuse when software developers for gaming companies neglect an aspect of their product and I reject it. True, the content team has no control over what game mechanics team does and visa versa. However, the team leader does have a say as to how those resources are allocated. When a game is as broken as HoI4 is, more resources need to be allocated to fixing the game versus adding in new content. The team leader decides how many people work on certain aspects of product development. Un paid modders have developed more 'extra' content for this game than the people who are actually getting paid to improve the content! Look at Kaiserreich or BICE and you will get an idea of what I'm talking about. And your defense completely glosses over the fact that this game has removed features from prior tittles in the series that you will now have to pay EXTRA money for!

This is why there is no room for a constructive argument. I wish people would be more open to opinions and disagreements. I see this argument a lot from people critisizing the game. But they always fail to include other factors. The hearts of iron team has to work within the confines of a budget and a time limit. Whereas modders do not. Let's not forget the fact that the reason we have quality mods like black ice and KR is because the HoI 4 team spend time and resources on making the game incredibly moddable.

Honestly, I find the 'cutting features from previous games' is a patently false argument. The game is not an expansion of the previous games. It's an entirely new game build from the ground up. Build with a different design philosophy in mind. Wether you argree with said philosophy is of course entirely subjective.

A game, at the end of the day needs to be profitable. Dedicating the entire team towards fixing bugs and improving existing mechanics through free patches isn't feasible financially. Thus they need to make at least some new content in order to finance future improvements.

I've been playing wargames either on the computer or on the table top for over thirty years. I have never seen a title from a major software developer with so many basic bugs for so long. Hell, they had to finally break down and implement a community developed solution to the Sahara desert AI debacle and it took them around a YEAR to do it! We aren't talking about something obscure here that can only be replicated in an usual circumstances, these are basic game mechanic failures. STEAM is a blessing and a curse for computer games. Now developers can push half finished products to market with the vague promise that future patches can be automatically downloaded via STEAM.

I can name a dozen games out of the top of my head that thriumphs your worst imaginations. At its core the sahara desert debacle is still just a bandaid fix. One paradox was very reluctant to implement, even stated so quite a few times on numerous occasions. As a matter of fact, it's the perfect example of paradox giving in to the more toxic minority of the forums. Setting a bad a precedent that if you yell loud and hard enough you 'll get what you want. Sorry this is just my unpopular and cynical opinion. I didn't have my coffee yet

Your argument defending the content team would have value to a small degree if this game had any significant new content to speak of. Sure WtT, looks to be a significant content increase. And after more than 18 months it SHOULD be! As far as having content team sitting idle what have they been doing???? Where is all this mythical new content? A handful of new NF trees? Significant new content for any country other than Germany? I'm sorry. I wouldn't be defending either the content side OR the game mechanic side of this team. I know that the team is passionate about this project and that they want it to be a fun game. But thus far, it's been a lackluster title at best. And because of how bad it was on it's initial release it needs far more improvements than most of Paradox's other products.

His argument comes from the fact that he's been through all this before with previous titles. Paradox won't publicly state it but certain comments made by paradox staff hinted at the fact that the HoI 4 team didn't have the resources it needed for a long while. I have read johans post, but anyone who paid close attention to the games developement can make that conlcusion. It's sad to hear and it probably caused the game to take a dive in quality. I wouldn't go as far that this game is horribly broken, like some people like to claim.

What this team should have done is set aside all the fantasy what if stuff into it's one dlc. Add in the NF trees that allow for Hitler to be removed in 1936 or for Hungary to recreate the Austro Hungarian Empire, ect. The content team should have been adding events to spice up the game by working on things that actually happened first or were even remotely possible. The game mechanics team either needs more people assigned, or better people assigned, or a larger percentage of the overall resource pie allocated to them. Johan said that this was the only title that had a single AI guy assigned to it and the others had one guy for multiple projects. Great. But that doesn't mean that the product thus far is acceptable. Maybe 2 guys need to be assigned. I don't know what the answer is. I know this, the AI is bad. Too many game mechanics work poorly or not at all. Releasing shiny new dlc's aren't going to change that. Fixing the core mechanics of the game will make the shiny new content dlc's that much more awesome.

This is just a difference in what you expect out of a game like this. I won't argue taste. And in order to keep getting game mechanics improvements, the AI team needs to keep making content DLC in order to fund said improvements.

For whatever reason this is the only major Paradox title that has had this issue for this long. I reject the, 'well, this is a complex' game argument. So is CK 2 or EU 4. And yet they haven't had near the problems this title has had. When you factor in that large portions of the AI seem to have been ported from HoI 2 and 3 it makes it even more confusing. How can you have the same consistent AI problems over the course of 15 years?! Many of the AI problems HoI 1, 2, and 3 have still exist in HoI 4. How is that even possible??? I mean if the content was earth shattering that would be something. But the content is meh and the AI is just insanely bad.

I know for a fact that if you took a peek under the hood (the areas that aren't accesible for the costumers) it would blow your mind from here to saturn. When they said the AI in this game is 20 times more complex than the AI in their other games I'm inclined to believe them. This is both a blessing and a curse since it requires more time to develop and improve and is the cause of our eternal frustrations and angry forum post rants.

The AI of CK2 and EU4 doesn't have to deal with the same amount of interconnected systems like the Hoi 4 has to.

 

[Ksyr]

I used to wish for a better AI, but at the same time worry that it would slow down the game too much. After 1000+ hours I now only wish for a better AI. I have faith that it will get there.

You're also wrong about the AI. Have you ever played against a Sorian AI in Supreme Commander? It really makes PDX look bad. They really have to put their money where their ambition is or HoIIV will remain WW2 Arcade simulator 1.3.2.

Supreme Commander is an excellent game, but to be fair it is also a lot simpler than what HOI4 is (and aspires to be).

 

[GermanDave]

Supreme Commander is an excellent game, but to be fair it is also a lot simpler than what HOI4 is (and aspires to be).

Amen to that brother. Paradox is like the European Union. Gigantic ambition and the best of intentions but reality always threatens to kill both in a babylon style disaster.
"Let's simulate the entire early modern period of WORLD HISTORY in a SINGLE game." is the most exotic rock to die on in the games industry by far. The aspirations of the average game dev normally shatter on the rock of corporate politics and the game becomes 'legacy' after two years. It is an interesting time to be alive, remembering what it used to be like to install a game from six floppy disks.

I would pre-order a fusion of HoiIV and SupCom in a heart beat. We need a macro RTS answer to Star Craft.

 

[aono]

It seems to me that where as EU4 and to an extent Stellaris and even CK2 make great leaps forward, HoI4 has faced enormous difficulties which at least to me seem to stem from a lack of sufficient allocation of development resources.

CK2 is near 6-year old gale.
EU4 is 4-year old game.
HoI4 is just 1.5 year old, it's younger that Stellaris (Stellaris was released in May 2016, and HoI4 in June).

In first 1.5 years we got for CK2 patch 2.0. It's SoI, LoR, SI, TR and TOG. First groundbreaker was released in two years - with Rajas (if you don't include SI, of course), and god it was awful on release. First DLC that really take approach to government problems was Charlemane, with institution of Vassal Limit and Centralization laws.
People speaks about Art of War as groundbreaking EU4 DLC, and it was in a year after release, but for me it's nothing so groundbreaking. Real groundbreaking, in my opinion was Common Sense, with Development mechanic, and it's near 2 years after release.

So no, can't say I think HoI4 is neglected child of Paradox Interactive.

 

[OHgamer]

If only Victoria was as "neglected" as some feel HoI4 currently is......

Hopefully the advances that PI has had with HoI4 and EU4 over the past year will encorage the company to contemplate a Victoria 3 in the next couple years.

 

[Olle8]

yep for us who remembers hoi 2 we know hoi iv is nowhere near as prioritized when it comes to patches and such.

 

[aono]

Yeah. In 4 years there were less patches for HoI II that there is for HoI IV in 1.5 year.

 

[FOARP]

@podcat shared some data a while back that showed loads of people played with historical focus off. If I recall correctly it was nearly half the active player base.

And this with it on as default. If they switched it so it was off by default it would be many, many more.

They also see the metrics on people playing DLC countries and know that alt-hist is very popular.

 

[Olle8]

Yeah. In 4 years there were less patches for HoI II that there is for HoI IV in 1.5 year.

No... Hoi2 was very often patched, especially during the doomsday era,

 

[aono]

No... Hoi2 was very often patched, especially during the doomsday era,

And yet it's lesser patches. We just had another distribution model that days.
https://hoi2.paradoxwikis.com/Patches - that's patches for HoI 2 for four years. 4 patches for Doomsday. And 1.3A was the last official version. 11 patches total.
For compassion, HoI4 list: https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Patches.

 

[FOARP]

No... Hoi2 was very often patched, especially during the doomsday era,

Number of patches itself isn’t much of measure, especially if patches patch problems caused by previous patches or fail to solve the problem (IIRC world-touring navies took more than one patch to solve, and was eventually cured by simply scripting the AI not to send it’s naval forces into specified zones whatever happened).

HOI2 only received two major expansions. Doomsday introduced an interesting Soviet Union v. US/UK scenario but without anything really in the way of events or scripting. Armageddon introduced an implausible alt-history scenario without any events or scripting, meaning it was only any good for MP (and probably not then either). The tech-tree extensions that both offered were simply “more of the same”. Neither offered the kind of value we get nowadays from DLC.

If they were going to do Doomsday for HOI4 I would expect to see much more than just a 1945 start-date and a minor tech-tree extension. There would have to be at least one new mechanism as well, and events/focuses for the USSR v Western Allies conflict. I doubt they would want to do Armageddon because it basically wasn’t a good idea.

 

[aono]

Number of patches itself isn’t much of measure, especially if patches patch problems caused by previous patches or fail to solve the problem

I'm remembering how trying to install patch for normal version on expansion one just killed your install, requiring to reinstall game wholly. Ah good old times.

(fixed typo)

 

[Nuklearius]

My main issue is also with the AI.

But there are plenty of other bugs and design flaws with the game. Just to list a few:

- Performance late game is horrible and make the game frustrating
- only 3 models per equipment type is very lazy from Paradox. It also creates a research lag - Early to midgame you start falling behind on tech, and after 1943-1944 you start catching up very quickly
- lack of historical events, claims and cores. This is super easy to fix, but nobody made an effort. There is still no event for Hatay state for Turkey
- National Focus system is bad. The Dev Team can claim what they want but it is a super poor way of modelling historical events. It is also super-imbalanced and sometimes even boring especially the Soviet one. It's good that they aim to support it with a decision system but I'd rather see it gone altogether
- The map is very confusing at times, we still have no counters, mini map is locked behind DLC and there is no message system present
- Combat is boring due to AI inefficiency but also because it "feels" off. It is so linear and boring.
- The tech system with research slots is horrible and does not in any way model research capabilites. The Soviet Union has less research than Italy... and the last slot cannot be reached before 1942 if you play historical (Leadership > Techslots)
- Great Britain guaranteeing every country was a horrible decision. Because there is no chance of them backing down, even if you have good relations with them... It basically means you have to attack everyone and cant even get a peace treaty, which brings me to my next point...
- Resistance not being there when areas are annexed is nonsense, That resistance damages factories which clog your construction list is annoying
- Political Power... Mana in a WW2 game ----> immersion killer. Maybe it would work better if the countries wouldn't start out "empty".

- Production and Construction is oversimplified and works too much with absolute numbers and that ressource priority simply goes down the list is just p***poor design. When you play a small nation assigning factories can be fun, If you play Germany or the Soviets the micromanagement is much worse than it was in Hearts of Iron 3. You got your own factories, damaged factories, factories not yet constructed and so on and somehow have to manage your production. Adding to this there is ALWAYS a lack of ressources. The system immediately falls apart after you overrun and occupy a major or after you start to build lots of military factories. This could be fixed easily by letting players assign percentages of their production.
The combination of Production and Reasearch issues lead to another issue, that is Anti-Tank and Anti- Air never hitting the field. It's to much micromanagement. You need to research them first, then start a new production line, then open a new trade route, wait for production efficiency, wait for stockpiling and then you can finally recruit your units. And if you change your templates during war time expect a lack of equipment that will never get fixed until the war is over.


There are so many more issues with Game Design that I simply gave up on the game. I just hope Paradox doesn't try to simplify Victoria 3 (well since HOI4 sold well this is sadly very likely). What Paradox games truly needed where proper Tutorials and interface that explain whats going on, not oversimplification that creates more issues than it fixes)