Opinions by older HOI2 players.

[jamy30]

i'm really enjoying HOI4 over all. I've played every HOI since the original. Darkest Hour for HOI2 was my favourite along with KaiserReich.

HOI4 positives

• I love the artwork for all the generals and leaders, as well as the names and designs for the tanks and planes for the majors.
• It feels more like a game again, HOI3 felt like an actual simulation of the war as opposed to being fun, i think HOI4 has got the balance right
• I like the front line system and the battleplans. I liked the battleplans in hoi3 but they were just for design but here they've been combined in to the actual gameplay.
• Minors are playable. It's easy enough to join any faction thanks to the focus tree (the focus tree being a another good point in itself). I like the different names and flags for when nations go communist or fascist. And I remember in HOI2 some nations were never accepted in to the Axis or Commitern.
• The production system is good as well.
• Research is simpler than in HOI3, but i think that's a good thing... For me it's about finding that balance between 'fun game' and actual ww2 simulation

HOI4 negatives

• When i assign divisions to armies which have set battleplans and front lines, the new divisions don't automatically go to those front lines or take part in the offensive. So i i have to cancel all the orders for the army and set everything again. It's a small point but maybe i've got it wrong.
• Naval combat is pretty, but it doesnt feel particularly effective.
• nations with mutual enemies shouldnt allow each others troops to pass through their territory without asking. The allies and commitern were at war with Japan and all of europe just moved through the soviet union and vice-versa, was a bit gross.
• The intelligence system isnt thorough which is good, but it could be expanded a bit.

 

[pommiebastard]

I've been playing these games since HoI (the first one), but I skipped 3 completely - it was such an utter clusterf**k at launch that I was put off completely and never came back to it even later. Because I had, in the meantime, gotten hooked very badly on AoD....

I'm liking 4 at this point.

Sure, it needs balancing and polishing:
- The Focus system is a little bit too easy and too magic-feeling at times, but tweaking the relative times and requirements for some items could really help this
- There's been a bit too much reduction of notifications - cutting down the potential blizzard by default is good, but I already opened a thread in Suggestions with some ideas for bringing it a bit closer to EU4 in terms of customising what notifications you get and how
- The Air War tends to go "invisible" at times, and needs some kind of regular feedback to the player
- The auto-pause/unpause thing can be frustrating
- The fact that units joining an army don't join formation and orders with that army automatically is a pain

None of these changes that it's in a solid state mechanically (when was the last PDX game that didn't get a hotfix patch within a few days of launch for some critical issues?) and, as numerous people have pointed out, a very solid platform to build from - both for PDX and the mod community.

In both cases, I look forward to seeing what people can come up with (if anything as good as CORE makes it out into the world, I will be one seriously happy bunny...)

 

[SchwarzKatze]

• When i assign divisions to armies which have set battleplans and front lines, the new divisions don't automatically go to those front lines or take part in the offensive. So i i have to cancel all the orders for the army and set everything again. It's a small point but maybe i've got it wrong.

Select the division, and instead of right clicking on the target Army, Ctrl+LMB on the arrow or the frontline instead, this way it's added to a plan and the army at the same time.

 

[Hanekem]

Well, I've been playing since HOI2.
I am of as mixed mind about HOI4, it is more streamlined but some areas are far too streamlined for my tastes, the game also has an immersion problem (government screen is a joke)
it is the more stable HOI release ever, but keep this in mind, this is the second Clausewitz engine HOI game, so the programmers have an idea of what the engine can and cannot do, and how.

I really Like production, I like variants (but not 100% sure on making them based solely on combat experience) but the UI here needs a fix. I need to be able to see the different models (particularly the starting variants) concurrently and at a glance, like it was in HOI3

I like the details in the resources but... no stockpiles: now don't get me wrong, HOI stockpiles were a joke, to the point you could stockpile till the war started and the have enough surplus till doomsday. But removing the thing wholesale is, I think, a mistake. Logistics for industry have turned into a JIT system. I personally would have kept a limited stockpile, not unlike PDX has done in Stellaris, either limited by tech or by structures (that might be vulnerable to air attacks, particularly the flammable stuff)

Trade is too simplistic for my tastes, I really don't like the lack of negotiation involved. Can't pay in cash, can't pay in spice (be it gear, obsolete or otherwise, or other resources)

Suppplies: instead of feeding our divisions supplies and fuel, we now feed them equipment, thing is there is no constant need for them in peacetime. keeping troops should have some additional cost, industrial wise, even in peace time. But I could live without a very detailed supply system. I can't however, accept that there is no fuel consumption for active units. Yes there is an oil cost during production... but it is not nearly enough. Fuel is critical to modern warfare and shaped the decisions of practically all major participants (without it, no pearl harbor, probably no drive to the Caucasus, no raids on Ploiesti) the removal of this resource is baffling to me. it hurts the strategy aspect by removing options, after all you don't need to attack an army on the teeth, if you can kill the tail...

Research: I am not a fan of this system, the research slots are arbitrary and unrelated to anything in game (not a good design choice in my opinion) and the tree is, by itsellf too shallow. Let me explain, it barely has roots, to the point that the British BB and BC starting ships are variants of the same class, that by itself is no deal breaker, but the issue with short roots is the minors, it makes them far more formidable than what they should have been. specially in doctrine: those screens need a common root as well, to have the minors, as applicable, less doctrine capable than the mayors. Look I am from Argentina and our army during WWII was doctrinally closer to a WWI army. I think this issue (coupled with the narrow difference in slots between minors and mayors) what is allowing minors to have unrealistically performances. Additionallly, the UK tree has at least one error: it considers the Matilda tank a light tank (and states it as fast, light in armor basically the opposite of the Matilda) This can be modded, so it is not a big deal, but it does show problems in the dev team unless they wanted to make minors far more relevant, which is a weird idea but...

National Focus: I like it in principle, not so hot with the execution, it is too railroady for my tastes, while it should have a stable core, I think it would be cool to have variable branches that depend on how the world changes. personally I think it is an interesting step, but needs time in the oven

Message settings, log, Ledger and Minimap: this one here is absolutely baffling. they were existent in all previous Paradox games, in all previous Clausewitz games (save Stellaris) and are a tool that the player might or might not use to make his or her play-though more comfortable, to make the gamer's life something easier. I though their absence in stellaris was bad, but here? I can't even begin to explain.

Yes, the game has potential, but it is not quite there yet, and the lack of maintenance resources for all my units is... well.. not something I'd expect to see in Grand strategy coupled with the immersion issues I have with the game, I think we need to wait what PDX plan is going to be like, at least that is what I am going to do

 

[G_Morgan]

though some key differences like lack of OOB's (again, which I never cared about) are legitimate.

I'm not sure that pandering to a desire to return to a strategic trap feature is useful. The truth is OOBs were completely strategically inert. You could get it wrong but there was nearly always one correct way to get it right. Strategically empty bureaucracy should not exist in a GSG.

 

[jamy30]

Select the division, and instead of right clicking on the target Army, Ctrl+LMB on the arrow or the frontline instead, this way it's added to a plan and the army at the same time.

thank you! I knew i must have missed something...

 

[SchwarzKatze]

I'm not sure that pandering to a desire to return to a strategic trap feature is useful. The truth is OOBs were completely strategically inert. You could get it wrong but there was nearly always one correct way to get it right. Strategically empty bureaucracy should not exist in a GSG.

Well the game assigns different troops to different arrows of advance, why not put an intermediary for easier assignment to each arrows?

 

[HannibalBarca]

I joined the forums when Hearts of Iron 2 originally released. I didn't really enjoy Hearts of Iron 3, and HoI4 in its current state seems to have doubled down on the things I didn't like about about the game. I don't really care about spending gold stars to upgun Panzer IIIs. I don't like the division designer idea, as ultimately there's just gonna be a few min-maxed designs that you use no matter what anyway. And I really don't like the design philosophy that pushes battle plans and automization down our throats. I'd rather have the detailed and time-intensive parts of the game be the actual fighting. I don't like the idea of drawing some lines on the map and letting the (abysmal) AI do the heavy lifting when I invade Russia. There are parts of HoI4 that I think can eventually be good (the focus trees, which are currently desperately in need of rebalancing, for example), but in its current state, it's an unplayble mess that just makes me want to play Darkest Hour.

 

[hyno111]

I must say I love the new production system, and overall UI changes. The Army AI is really useful, and the learning curve is way better.

However, I thought this would be a "historical simulating WWII strategy game", I got a "WWII strategy game" instead. Also the Asia front seems rushed ( for example China uses generic national focus and tech tree). And I think National Focus can not completely replace Event Decesion system. Hope PDS does not use paid nation DLC to fill the game.

 

[LordOfBlood]

I entered the series with HoI2.

I hated HoI3, it was too complicated for me.

I waited for HoI4. It is good, but not the game i expected. Too simplified, there is no immersion. No events except for some general things. National focuses is a good idea, although they are just some boxes to be finished. Also the map is not good too. I liked ministers, leaders, army commanders because it made like i really rule a nation.

I will play it from time to time, however I will back to Darkest Hour to play a good HoI game.

I love stellaris, but HoI4 is shallow unfortunately i didnt like it.

 

[Art1985]

I entered the series with HoI2.

I hated HoI3, it was too complicated for me.

I waited for HoI4. It is good, but not the game i expected. Too simplified, there is no immersion. No events except for some general things. National focuses is a good idea, although they are just some boxes to be finished. Also the map is not good too. I liked ministers, leaders, army commanders because it made like i really rule a nation.

I will play it from time to time, however I will back to Darkest Hour to play a good HoI game.

I love stellaris, but HoI4 is shallow unfortunately i didnt like it.

I really don't understand what is so hard in hoi3? It was simplest game to understand in my opinion, i have more troubles with vic2.

PS only OOB I did't liked there... to tedious to keep truck off all this stuff.

 

[Tanesis]

I played WAAAY too much HOI2. I think it is the best game of the series so far as I didn't like HOI3 much but can see potential in hoi4.

The production is interesting and the National Foci are excellent (Italy's in particular is glorious). I can see how, once I get the hang of the them, the battleplans could be really great for micromanaging in less important Theaters.

There are a number of issues however which are pretty much summed up already in this thread.

Ultimately HoI4 is a more streamlined and less immersive experience than HoI2 though in six months, maybe a year, it should be a good game in its own right.

 

[Alech]

Disable 3D models in the settings.

Oh thank god! I didn't know how I missed that! Thanks!

 

[G_Morgan]

I don't like the idea of drawing some lines on the map and letting the (abysmal) AI do the heavy lifting when I invade Russia.

You realise you don't have to let the AI do anything? Units retain the planning bonus even if you manually order the advance.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

The positives:

Loads. Genuinely. There is a lot to love about this game.

The negatives:

"Hey, let's make the first Paradox game without a minimap, ledger or message settings!"
"Err... okay, but can I ask why?"
"Why not?"
"Well, you're the boss, Dan."
"That's right, I am. See you in Berlin."

/end

 

[Hanekem]

The positives:

Loads. Genuinely. There is a lot to love about this game.

The negatives:

"Hey, let's make the first Paradox game without a minimap, ledger or message settings!"
"Err... okay, but can I ask why?"
"Why not?"
"Well, you're the boss, Dan."
"That's right, I am. See you in Berlin."

/end

A nitpick, this is the second game without those. the first was STellaris

 

[unillogical]

In short: It's a pre-release game in my opinion. The engine improvements are fantastic, the visuals are fantastic, what's there is good but is either it is too shallow or needs significant work. National Focus trees in some cases are too inflexible (most of the UK's tree is unusable if you switch communist or fascist for example), some stuff is downright lazy, a quick google search or 5 minutes over a coffee and they could have come up with something better than a meme name like "Empire of the Platypus" for a fascist Australia. I really enjoy the flavour, for example when fabricating claims but again there is not enough of it. The AI needs a ton of work.

I'm having fun with it, it has potential but I find myself disappointed again, both CK2 and EU4 were far more replayable on release than either of Stellaris or HOI4, the former due to essential content being cut from the midgame.

 

[Betawerewolf]

EDIT: I forgot to mention that as I was playing Finland the Soviets declared war on me and never invaded. The AI needs some serious work but it's a much better game than Stellaris turned out.

I started playing probably around a decade ago about when Doomsday came out. HoI II was my jam for a long time (same goes for EU II) but I could never get into any other PDX game. Then HoI III came and I didn't like the direction they were taking with the game. They wanted to make the game more complex but implemented the mechanics poorly and the map was awful until TFH. I stuck with Darkest Hour and the Kaiserreich mod as I felt that PDX didn't do a good enough job with their games. After playing CK II and EU IV, I had high hopes for Stellaris and HoI IV as I felt that PDX had strayed away from making flops or hell never finishing games.

HoI IV definetly lived up to the expectations I had for the game but there are some design decisions that just don't make sense.

1. Research Teams from HoI II would help prevent DDRJake from conquering the world as Bhutan. Compromising with HoI III is not enough and we now see why tech teams from HoI II would keep some nations in check.
2. Events are much more streamlined. This is definitely the kicker for me. For some reason I feel that the game is very empty in events beyond "Germany has secured Leningrad", etc. etc.. There are examples of events that make sense like France signs an armistice and then others where Mustafa Kemal Ataturk never dies if you start from 1936. I know that some of these events are minor but they add up to making the game feel shallow.
3. There should be more political parties similar to HoI III and Victoria II. This is somewhat self explanatory, I found no problem with having factions based on Democracy and thought having an expanded political system would make things more interesting for a Democratic ruler (trying to balance war with dissent of your own people).

Mostly my issues with HoI IV are aesthetic issues that cause the game to feel hollow besides the music which is the best music I've heard in a long time. I'm having a blast with the game as I prefer BP's to OOB's as I can micromanage without having to worry too much about other areas. I don't think the AI should win the war for you entirely but a reduction in micromanagement makes sense for a grand strategy game.

Overall it's a good game but lacks a lot of events and story which is why I'll probably play Kaiserreich HoI IV the moment it arrives.

 

[agus92]

cant find it, link?

I know I'm suuuuper late, but here it goes:

(sorry, I had misspelled Bridger before, that's probably why you couldn't find it)

 

[von_Manstein11]

Hoi4 has got me and a few old HOI buddies to start playing Hoi2 mp again, I don't yet know if it's because Hoi2 is such a classic or if Hoi4 is not up to par.