Opinions by older HOI2 players.

[Corner79]

From someone that shares an almost exactly identical history with Paradox games than you: HoI 4 feels like an successor to the spirit of HoI 2, unlike HoI 3.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly! HOI 3 did not feel like a proper successor to HOI 2 and took a year to be able to play properly. That being said, after a year from release I still played a ton of HOI 3, got passed the learning curve and REALLY ENJOYED playing HOI 3 but it felt like a different direction than HOI 2. I put around 800 hours in HOI 3, so it is a fun game, just not a HOI 2 successor.

HOI 4 is the successor to HOI 2 and I really think they hit this one out of the park. In other words, HOI 4 is a masterpiece game. With small updates over time and of course DLCs as they come out, It will be a landmark for PC ww2 strategy gaming

 

[Mountain Man]

Apparently, the game suffers from oversimplification, due to the fact that Paradox, from what i can fathom, would rather oversimplify a game and make it for everyone, than make it deeper and make it for a small yet truly dedicated group of players.

Why are people always mistaking complexity for depth? It's like I could make a tic-tac-toe game with a needlessly complex and inscrutable interface, and people would heap praise on it for having so much "depth".

 

[Corner79]

i didnt like the 10.000+ provinces in hoi3.

I loved HOI 2 as well, but the small provinces really left very little tactical options. The bigger provinces from HOI 3 and now again in HOI 4 give you lot of tactical plans that can be used and implemented. It took time to get comfortable with because it was so huge and intimidating but the challenge was superb! The only thing missing is provinces names and I am sure that a mod soon will incorporate that and that Paradox has a design reason behind it

 

[mabus81]

I played a lot of HOI 2. Like really, really a lot. I've only played HOI4 for about 4 hours by now, but I already love it. Stuff which ought to be more simple has become more simple. Some stuff which was more realistic in HOI 2 now has become "unrealistic", but since the mechanics inside the game have become far more manageable and realistic, I think that I just need to play a few hours more and HOI 4 will even be more fun than HOI 2 to me. For example, I just love how supplies and the air force are managed in HOI 4. Both were a pain in the *** in HOI 2. Naval battles are also way more transparent and entertaining now. Havent found out yet why I should produce transport planes, though.

 

[Talar]

Started with HoI1, but 2 was the one I played most. Loved AoD and everything else that was made on the engine at the time. Played the CORE mod and others. HoI3 just never got the same playtime for various reasons, but I think the final version is a good game and enjoyed it as well.

HoI4, didn't buy it and probably won't for some time. Seems too simplified, especially in the tech focus. Seems to lack interesting strategic choices and be more of a select one of a few predefined versions of your nation. But I could very well be wrong on that - will check out some gameplay videos eventually.

 

[a.wenk]

I made this thread as a curiosity thing rather than one of results. I am not the one to start questioning who is right and who is wrong, but i would like to know what the older forumites think of the new HOI4 game.

Me, for example, i wouldnt consider myself a veteran or anything like that. I started my oddisey with Paradox when i bought the Anthology that came boxed with HOI2 DD and ARMA expansions, played the hell out of it, and then made the leap to Arsenal of Democracy, a step up from vanilla HOI2 in both CPU usage and skill required (it had supply routes!) and played it until the heat death of the universe. Iron Cross is definitely the most indepth adaptation of the HOI2 engine that i saw, with literally thousands of provinces and options to customize your forces with a simplified and clever usage of the tech tree (do you want a lot of units fast but with low org/morale, or fewer units that are great, but take a lot of build time and IC? Perhaps you would like a balance with that, or only make your armored divs be great while keeping your infantry as mediocre troops?), and finally came DH, which i believe became the almost definitive upgrade of the engine, and most importantly finding a true balance in gameplay that marred the original game for way too long.

From what ive read, and seen on Lets Play on youtube in regards to the game, the main points in favor are the customizable divisions (something that was implemented onto HOI3, but i didnt really like HOI3), Experience points that allow you to research different things (or the other way around, i havent fully grasped this one yet) and lots of hate based on the lack of messages.

Apparently, the game suffers from oversimplification, due to the fact that Paradox, from what i can fathom, would rather oversimplify a game and make it for everyone, than make it deeper and make it for a small yet truly dedicated group of players.

To put this into perspective, i apply my own little logic to sequels of games: would i have bought the game 8 years ago if it would have come out back then, with the corresponding reduction of graphics? As things stand, i probably would have bought it, played it for about an hour and then gotten bored of it as it was too simplistic, something that i dont want in a strategy game. Other companies went the way of simplification over fanbase and they got hell over it (rome 2, call of duty, battlefield games, to name a few), and even though they did manage to sell more games as a result, the net effect is that now the people who bought the game and the original fanboys will not buy anymore of your games. I borrowed and played HOI3 over a weekened and didnt truly like it, even though it was a good game in itself, different but still good, yet other people did buy it and still play it. I remember i bought Empire Total War because i thought that musket warfare was cool, but was horrified by the game and the crappiness it showed, so i havent bought a new CA game since.

What are the opinions of the forum vets/HOI2/HOI3 vets? This means at least a few years active on the forum and not the newcomers or with some decent number of posts under their belts.

my opinion is to take the best from Hoi 2 and Hoi 3 and combine them in Hoi 4 (this is the bomb)

 

[Art1985]

I made this thread as a curiosity thing rather than one of results. I am not the one to start questioning who is right and who is wrong, but i would like to know what the older forumites think of the new HOI4 game.

Me, for example, i wouldnt consider myself a veteran or anything like that. I started my oddisey with Paradox when i bought the Anthology that came boxed with HOI2 DD and ARMA expansions, played the hell out of it, and then made the leap to Arsenal of Democracy, a step up from vanilla HOI2 in both CPU usage and skill required (it had supply routes!) and played it until the heat death of the universe. Iron Cross is definitely the most indepth adaptation of the HOI2 engine that i saw, with literally thousands of provinces and options to customize your forces with a simplified and clever usage of the tech tree (do you want a lot of units fast but with low org/morale, or fewer units that are great, but take a lot of build time and IC? Perhaps you would like a balance with that, or only make your armored divs be great while keeping your infantry as mediocre troops?), and finally came DH, which i believe became the almost definitive upgrade of the engine, and most importantly finding a true balance in gameplay that marred the original game for way too long.

From what ive read, and seen on Lets Play on youtube in regards to the game, the main points in favor are the customizable divisions (something that was implemented onto HOI3, but i didnt really like HOI3), Experience points that allow you to research different things (or the other way around, i havent fully grasped this one yet) and lots of hate based on the lack of messages.

Apparently, the game suffers from oversimplification, due to the fact that Paradox, from what i can fathom, would rather oversimplify a game and make it for everyone, than make it deeper and make it for a small yet truly dedicated group of players.

To put this into perspective, i apply my own little logic to sequels of games: would i have bought the game 8 years ago if it would have come out back then, with the corresponding reduction of graphics? As things stand, i probably would have bought it, played it for about an hour and then gotten bored of it as it was too simplistic, something that i dont want in a strategy game. Other companies went the way of simplification over fanbase and they got hell over it (rome 2, call of duty, battlefield games, to name a few), and even though they did manage to sell more games as a result, the net effect is that now the people who bought the game and the original fanboys will not buy anymore of your games. I borrowed and played HOI3 over a weekened and didnt truly like it, even though it was a good game in itself, different but still good, yet other people did buy it and still play it. I remember i bought Empire Total War because i thought that musket warfare was cool, but was horrified by the game and the crappiness it showed, so i havent bought a new CA game since.

What are the opinions of the forum vets/HOI2/HOI3 vets? This means at least a few years active on the forum and not the newcomers or with some decent number of posts under their belts.

They make games for bigger audience losing old players. But I thinks they will lose new players also, if nothing will change new players won't play very long, many of them still will be thinking that this game is too hard (just because they prefer more simplistic games and don't want to spend any time understanding how game works). In the end devs can lose old players and not gain any new fanbase. For me this game can be last game in hoi title that I bought, I will be locking on how this game will be evolving over time and what DLCs will change. But I am afraid that devs chosen more casual approach and will not hear old fanbase who want more challenge and more depth and logic in game, if this is the case DLCs won't change anything much.

 

[Art1985]

1. Research system was best in hoi3, but hoi4 has big potential for it to become best if some kind of research facilities will be introduced, like with ships, choose technology and assign max 15 research facilities to it for max research speed. Players will be obligated to secure their research facilities just like factories from enemy air attacks. Game have this all for this system to work just like production system.
   
2. Production system best in hoi4... nothing too add here.
3. Air war hoi4 is easier to use it, no need to constantly monitor what happens and what my air force is doing. But this thing needs improvements and i feel like air to ground attack is too weak.
4. Immersion for me HOI3 is best (or AOD), HOI4 don't have any.. 3d soldiers, cartoon graphics, no hoi3 style counters (NATO counters option that we have now is't any good, I am talking about on map units that don't merge together , just like in hoi3). Huge soldiers don't add anything to this game.. and i hate them, especially when many divisions on the field it's just a mess.
5. Naval war hoi3 is best at this for me. Now I don't understand how to use it to counter large enemy fleets, in hoi3 we had option to manually intercept enemy fleets if we seen this possibility, now we need to assign fleet to whole regions and ... no control over this. Playing as Germany I even didn't noticed how i lost all my fleet.

PS And i really dont like this national focuses... they are strange for me, some kind magical stuff that adds nothing to this game, just gives free stuff for nothing and gives magical research slots. Players will be using standard stuff every game.

 

[Mountain Man]

I hope I can find a mod for the map and get rid of the toy soldiers though.

Disable 3D models in the settings.

 

[nightgerbil]

As a guy who has played 1300 hours of Hoi2/DH combined: I like it.

There are some definite oversights and areas that need improvement, but the infrastructure, supply (save oil), research/focus trees and production system are all more realistic, logical, simple in some cases and fun. I also like the new message system. I never liked the bombardment of messages in Hoi2 and Hoi3, and the new system has been tried and tested in EuIV, Ck2 and Stellaris. In all four cases the new message system is IMO superior.

I don't know how you conclude it's a simpler game than Hoi2, where you needed IC and manpower for divisions and that was it. The production is much more complicated for one thing. To me it seems a lot of the people who don't like Hoi4 compared to its predecessors are wearing nostalgia goggles, though some key differences like lack of OOB's (again, which I never cared about) are legitimate.

No nostalgia googles for me. HOI4 has gone the same way as hoi3 straight into uninstalled. I've gone back to hoi2 that I have been playing ever since its release when I said a sad good bye to hoi1. Hoi2 is defo a better game then hoi1, even though I greatly prefered hoi1 tech system and wish they could bring it back.

The only thing I'll give you about hoi4 is the national focus system is a really good idea and a better way to handle it then the scripted events of the older games.

 

[Vonnie]

Having played the series since Hearts of Iron 1, I'm quite pleased with this latest instalment. Have my jumbled thoughts as I stave off playing Hearts of Iron IV for a few moments:

-The supply system is easy enough to figure out while not being a massive and pointless resource hog like it was in HoI3. Performance in general has been stellar in my experience.
-The loss of the order of battle is a welcome relief to me. I don't get enjoyment out of literally spending hours setting up the map, seems to me what people who enjoy this are looking for is building model kits.
-Removal of the supply stockpiles that would never have fit inside Noah's ark, much less be depleted during the war years is a welcome fix.
-New systems for Navy and Airforce mean I don't give up on them if the land side is highly active. I mainly played on the eastern front but I tended to experience that the AI were mostly using their forces for nuisance raids, or at least after 600 popups telling me about two casulties it began to feel that way.

Lastly I'm glad that it's possible for the devs to show internal discord and shortcomings without a million '+1% dissent flavour events' since having to rearrange my production screen in previous games because a comet was sighted was mighty annoying. That being said I wish I had the ability to divide my civilian factories in HoI4 between repair and construction other than rearranging an ever-shifting queue manually.

One thing I hated about HOI2 and HOI3 (although I enjoyed the games overall) was those constant pop-up messages. Its disruptive as it is in all other Paradox Games. The significant drop of them in HOI4 is welcomed.

 

[Art1985]

One thing I hated about HOI2 and HOI3 (although I enjoyed the games overall) was those constant pop-up messages. Its disruptive as it is in all other Paradox Games. The significant drop of them in HOI4 is welcomed.

In all previous games you had an option to disable them.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

My own view is that after too many years wandering in the spreadsheet wilderness, Paradox is finally trying to make actual games. That means abstraction. Which not everyone will appreciate.

But I predict that for every HOI veteran who abandons HOI4 for its lack of detail, there will be many more new players who enjoy it for its accessibility. And the grumbling veterans likely will be back eventually anyway.

 

[nightgerbil]

Keep the trolling at last vaguely sensible. In HOI 1 you could have panthers and mechanised infantry before the war started.

Sure you can have 1941 infantry and panthers to invade poland with: you dont have a modern airforce though, or you didnt take the industry techs, or maybe you abandoned all efforts to research and build the kriegsmarine: OR your tech rushing ate into the ics you had spare and you have a far smaller army and airforce. Its more modern, but you better be able to handle it like the scalpel you made it be. The great thing about HOI1 is it gave you the choice! I don't think its unreasonable that if hitler had thrown everything at it he could have built panthers for 1940, or that 400 british jet fighters would be fighting the battle of britain if the brits had really gone "hey you know what we should go with this! yeah stop worrying about trying to use electric death rays to shoot down germans(the origin of rader lol) these jets let you go really really fast!

One thing I really dislike is the designers trend to prevent the players from being able to tech rush at all. They should be allowing you to do it while making it so doing it compromises you in other areas. Then you have to make a choice and way up the pros and cons. Interesting choices is the heart of emersive game play!

 

[PhroX]

I have to admit, it feels a lot closer to HoI2 than HoI3. Whether that's a good thing? Dunno. I like both of them, and so far, I'm enjoying 4.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

I've played them all. I loved the technology system in HOI2/DH, the immersion and realism of it was just outstanding. Why it was ever scrapped is beyond my understanding. Then we come to HOI3, hands down my favorite and mainly because of the OOB. Yes it was a pain in the micro-ass but once you had it set up perfectly just before a major operation, it was a thing of beauty and something to be proud of....and once you actually learned how to use it, it made big operations much more easy, immersive and enjoyable, aside from a few irritations (keeping in HQ range for example). The leadership system in 3 was really annoying to me at first, mainly because I missed the immersive technolgoy system from 2, but I eventually go used to it and thought it was pretty good, certainly not pefect but not terrible either. I never did warm to the technology of HOI3 where you had 4 different infantry techs, 4 different militia techs, 4 each for light tank, plane, ship techs and 4 more each for heavy, etc. and I never liked the doctrine system in 3 where you basically researched all of them. Luckily mods fixed that for the most part and it's good to see it is fixed in HOHI4 as well.

None of those earlier versions of the game went into enough detail about divisions (it was mostly abstracted) or how the different equipment was produced and utilized throughouth the conflict. These are areas where HOHI4 really took things to a new level and give hope for the title. I do find it ironic though that they increased organizational detail from the division down, but then pretty much did away with organizational detail altogether from Corps and up. I said it before and I'll say it again, if you took the best parts from all titles in this series you would have darn near the most perfect WWII game possible.

 

[Van Diemen]

I played HoI2, HoI3 and now HoI4 as well. Thus far HoI4 looks good and offers a graphical statisfaction not found in the previous HoI games. That said, it also has some issues and graphics are less important for grand strategy than gameplay and a proper challenge.

1) The new army system
Thus far the new battle system feels good. Especially if you let the AI handle everything, which more honest towards the AI opponents. I must admit that the AI does face problems with managing an ongoing fight. In a way the new system is more hands off, but at the same time also requires more intervention by the player to fix issues that appear once the AI has its way. As of yet, I'm not fully convinced, but I do think it is better than having 1/4 of your units being army HQs like in HoI3. It now sits somewhere between HoI2 and HoI3. HoI2's system was very manageable and a bit simplistic, you had just one big army situated in provinces that were almost the size of a state in HoI3 and HoI4. HoI3 was extremely detailed and caused some headaches to keep track of. A small front was still easy/manageable, but the Russian front was a nightmare.

2) The new naval and air system
I really really like that they did here. Maybe fleets are slightly less controllable than they were in HoI2/3, but the way in which we now control them via general directives (patrol this zone here, convoy raid this zone etc.) I find to represent also real WW2 way better. Submarine flottilas didn't operate as some sort of fleet as in HoI2/3, but were dispersed in a larger area. Once convoys were found they would sometimes join together (Wolfpack) as Germany did very successfully early in the war.
The same also holds true for the airforce. Maybe you have less direct control, but you also do not need to constantly check them, as the airbattle just continues without much intervention. Also I hated that you always needed to specify which provinces to bomb for ground support/attack. That at least is no longer necessary

3) Separated factories
I really like the separation for civil, military and shipyard production facilities. It feels way more realistic than going from 100% army production on day 1 to 100% naval production on day 2. There might be some balancing issues though in the amount of shipyards some nations like Germany have for instance. I will have to look into that a bit further to check whether different balancing would help there, as I found it quite difficult/impossible to reach historic surface ship numbers as Germany when starting in 1936. Maybe they would need some more shipyards and perhaps demand slightly less resources to build a battleship for instance.

4) AI quality/skill
Yes, this is the biggest issue yet. I must admit that it is incredibly difficult to cater everyone's needs. Some people want freedom, others want a more historical path. Me, I personally want a challenge. Germany getting knocked out of the war so easily ruins that atm. I hope that PDS will focus most of their efforts in the AI and balancing the game a bit better so that we can at least expect a proper challenge.

5) Equipment pools
The biggest winner for HoI4 compared to all it's predecessors. It it a big plus that we now finally have this. It might require some balancing here and there, as maybe some things require too many resources. Furthermore, I'm not fully sure how the AI copes with it. However, in general it is one of the best additions.

 

[Corner79]

Naval war hoi3 is best at this for me.

Comparing the HOI 3 naval battle screen to HOI 4: I kinda miss the HOI 3 naval pictures that would close distance. The range is in the HOI 4 naval battle screen but the ship pictures are small and nothing to brag about compared to HOI 3.

 

[Praetori]

Entirely putting aside the normal early issues with balancing etc. There are some things in HOI 4 that are, in my opinion, clearly superior to it's predecessors. The focus trees, production, units and variants, battleplans etc etc makes for a more strategically mature game. It's almost as good as BICE or even AoD in that regard and will probably be even better.
It however feels like the operational side of the game got left out (with the OOB being thrown out completely instead of reiterated into something helpful) and the GUI and map and icons could use some work.

The new map and icons was intended to make everything easier to see at a glance but the grouping and "jumping around" of icons doesn't always make sense and actually makes finding stuff harder (again in my opinion). This can probably be adjusted and fiddled with and additions and changes be made but currently I'm not all too easy with the default appearance.

For example. This is supposedly "better" than....

...This

PS: Tbh I kinda miss the old ways but everyone's different I guess.

DS: Yes minors feel a bit overpowered, and have the same ability to wield their power across the globe as the majors.

 

[Fulmen]

I've played HoI since mid-2006, starting with HoI2: Doomsday. Then moved on to Armageddon and then Arsenal of Democracy. Found AoD mechanically superior to Darkest Hour in every way so I barely even touched the latter. Although I must say DH had a far better looking map and a more active development cycle after BL-Logic started to develop East vs West. But to me these games are about mechanics and realism, not graphics. Besides, the DH map was based on the E3 map mod for Doomsday and that worked just fine with AoD.

HoI3 was garbage until Their Finest Hour in comparison to AoD and even Doomsday, and even post-TFH it lacks some of the great features of HoI2 and its spin-off. Eventually I did start playing it though, but mostly with the Black ICE mod and a bunch of other sub-mods for the ultimate WW2 grand strategy experience (especially as Germany).

I, like many other players like me who were here before HoI3, expected HoI4 to be dumbed down, and sadly we were right. I'm still enjoying the game though. About an hour ago I wrote a post about some of the negative aspects of the game, but instead of copy-pasting that here, I'll provide a link to whomever is interested in reading it:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-a-grand-strategy.942849/page-8#post-21368182