I want to buy Hearts of Iron IV, but have seen Steel Division Normandy 44 and they look similar. What are the differences between these games? Thanks in advance!
Steel Division Normandy 44 vs Hearts of Iron IV
- Thread starter SaxonWarchief
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The games are completely different other than the WWII setting:
-Steel Division is real time, HOI4 is turn based <-No it's not, my brain does apparently not function correctly
-Matches in Steel Division cover a single engagement, matches in HOI4 cover several years
-Steel Division is only about combat, HOI4 has a focus on industry, infrastructure, research, etc. (combat exists, but it is very indirect and consists of "throw your army at the other army, the numbers decide the outcome")
-Steel Division is real time, HOI4 is turn based <-No it's not, my brain does apparently not function correctly
-Matches in Steel Division cover a single engagement, matches in HOI4 cover several years
-Steel Division is only about combat, HOI4 has a focus on industry, infrastructure, research, etc. (combat exists, but it is very indirect and consists of "throw your army at the other army, the numbers decide the outcome")
Last edited:
SD is a tactical unit microing game, it gets the mechanics of a real-strategy game whereas HoI4 is a total wargame with build and research options. SD is never a builder. They are two different games. Both are great imo but they shouldn't be compared.
Steel Division plays more like Warcraft 3 than HoI 4...
Steel Division plays more like Warcraft 3 than HoI 4...
HoI4 is real time. Combat is not numbers decide, and contains encirclement. In MP I've used Japanese light tanks in support of German player to cut off and annihilate superior soviet player forces.
Sorry, I brainfarted there for a second. I even own the game ^^
It just always feels like playing a turn based game, I guess...
About the numbers thing: I did not mean that it is decided only by "strength" or something, but ultimately you do not control the positioning or orders of individual units, so an engagement with the same armies in the same place will also always have the same result.
You absolutely do control individual divisions and can micro them as much or as little as you want.
unit!=division
My point is, in HOI4 you place your armies next to your opponents armies, and then the battle is decided automatically based on your army composition, the terrain, the adjacent areas, air support, etc. You cannot, for example, go up against a superior enemy army with even conditions and then win by "microing your tanks better" or something, because that layer of combat does not exist in this game.
An armor division is a discrete unit in hearts of iron like a tank is a discrete unit in steel division. It can be microed, placed in favorable and unfavorable terrain, used well or poorly.
Micro can and does decide battles in MP hearts of iron all the time. Build differences are a table stakes thing. If two players are both using meta builds in HoI4 then micro is what determines outcome. MP does not typically use AI control of divisions.
To be simple, scale is the main difference between these two games. SD takes place directly in the battlefield of Normandy, where your soldier is hidding in the bocage, supported by your shermans or panzers. At the opposite, HoI IV is a world-scaled game where you control dozens of army divisions and industry. Defenitly not the same games not experiences.
I'll try.. seems all are saying the same thing with a plethora of words.
SD is a tactical game
HoI is a strategy game.
Therefore each has a different feel and a scope. Both are fine in their own realm.
SD is a tactical game
HoI is a strategy game.
Therefore each has a different feel and a scope. Both are fine in their own realm.
Steel Division 1944 is an rts, HoI is a Grand Strategy game.
The skillset to play both is completely different as one relies more on tactical thinking while the other relies more on strategic aspects of the state.
Since you have EU4 try and compare EU4 to TW: Napoleon or TW: Empire. Albeit, HoI is a completely different beast compared to EU, being more detailed.
The skillset to play both is completely different as one relies more on tactical thinking while the other relies more on strategic aspects of the state.
Since you have EU4 try and compare EU4 to TW: Napoleon or TW: Empire. Albeit, HoI is a completely different beast compared to EU, being more detailed.
You know exactly what I'm trying to say, but okay, let's do it again with pictures:
In Steel Division, you control this:
In Steel Division, a division is the little more than an abstract concept. It describes only the foundation that you build your deck on. In the actual game, you control the units of a small battlegroup that is part of this division.
In HOI4, a division is the smallest thing you can actually control. Battalions exist, but only in the sense that they change the stats of your division.
Everything that happens in HOI4 is a layer above what Steel Division portrays.
Everything that happens in Steel Division exists in HOI4 only as numeric abstraction.
The gameplay has zero intersection.
In a very broad way, you can put it this way:
Every time someone attacks one division with another division in HOI4, if the game had an unlimited scope, a bunch of Steel Division 10v10 matches would have to be played to determine the winner.
a good SD player could easily become very good at HOI4
a good HOI4 player would take a long time to become very good at SD
assuming no prior experience of other games
a good HOI4 player would take a long time to become very good at SD
assuming no prior experience of other games
That's a pretty questionable statement. Both games require entirely independent skill sets...
well, sd has a much higher skill ceiling, and it is harder to play... therefore a good sd player will get good at hoi4
"Starcraft has a way higher skill ceiling than COD, so anyone who is good at Starcraft automatically plays COD better than everyone else".
Amazing logic. Apples and oranges...
That's not how it works.... You can go up in scope, not down..... Let me explain. A warthunder player controls one unit. Steel division is a battlegroup and hoi4 is army's and infrastructure.... You need to understand single unit to control division, and you need to understand division to control army. So a war thunder playerr will to beter in SD than a hoi4 player, and etc.
Dude.
You don't even own any Hearts of Iron title, or any other remotely similar Paradox title. You don't seem to have the slightest clue how that game even works. But that would have been fine, until your "War Thunder player up down example".
Now I'm just at a loss of words. I literally have no comeback to that. So by your logic, someone who plays Battlefield is better at Starcraft than someone who plays Supreme Commander? Because transferring your knowledge of "controlling one unit" to "controlling lots of units" is easier than from "controlling more units" to "controlling less units"?
Do you even read what you write before you post it?
This topic made my day. I can't stop laughing. Each game has its proper design and mechanics. Comparing two with different scale and gameplay is imho pointless.
Actually I've played Stellaris and civ 5 and my friend has hoi4 and hoi3