Struggling here...

[snafu86]

So I truly would like an honest opinion from you guys.

I'm trying to decide if I should buy HOI IV. Here's a little background:

- I play a lot of wargames. This includes the very detailed such as "Gary Grigsby's War in the East", "Gary Grigsby's War in the West" and The Operational Art of War III. I enjoy these types of games because they are historical and complex. I'm a beta tester for these types of games. I have played war games since I was a teenager, I'm 30 now.

-I also like games such as Panzer Corps which are more "beer and pretzels" but still have decent combat systems and fun campaigns. I would consider the HOI series more "beer and pretzels".

-I've played most Paradox titles such as EUIII, Victoria I and II, HOI II and III, and my favorite is CK2. I'm no stranger to what this game is. I heavily disliked HOI III, not because it was complex, but because it was bugged at launch and was extraordinarily ahistorical.

From watching the videos of HOI IV, I'm a bit concerned Paradox went for accessibility too much and I won't enjoy the lack of combat strategy and strategic management depth. Simply drawing battle plans and letting the AI handle things is a bit too hands off for me. Also, I didn't see any NATO counters anywhere. However I would like to support the franchise as HOI II was great. I'm also concerned that even with the historical focus turned on, we will still see things like America going communist, or Japan invading Africa or Brazil landing in Italy, etc.

I feel like the game should be historically plausible. Plausible as in, Germany could've won the war in the east, but war was inevitable. Sealion was just not plausible, imo.

Any help here?

 

[Maizel]

I think it is safe to say that if you didn;t like HoI III, HoI IV will probably not be a world beater for you.

They;re pretty much cut from the same cloth.

 

[Viktor_Vertex]

NATO counters ARE ingame and with historical focus on USA won't be fascist. You will be disappointed with the air combat.
You will probably like multiplayer better, since combat AI seems to be more competent so there won't be a "i didnt look for a second and now Washington fell to Tannu Tuva" or some such.
You will probably like production more than in previous HOI games. Strategy is definitely present but more in a 'Grand' sense than micromanagment you seem to like.

 

[Backstab]

I'd actually disagree with the post above, as I think it's really different than HOI 3. Many of the mechanics are redesigned and the added accessibility doesn't mean that game is easy or without depth. You can also draw battleplans, but there is no need to execute them, you can simply controll each division yourself. That being said, If you are on fence just don't preorder and try it once it's released, there is alway refund on steam. Also the game has NATO counters.

 

[JerkyJerry]

The one decisive factor may very well be the fairly rock solid (would that be a fair statement guys?) multiplayer option. Playing against a computer is fine and all but IMHO human vs. human is where this game is going to shine.

 

[PlacidDragon]

As Maizel said, if you "heavily disliked HoI 3", then i doubt that HoI 4 will be significantly different. It is less complex and more accessible, which in your case i dont think is a good thing, hehe (i also play Gary Grigsby games).

Yes, HoI 3 was very buggy. This will probably not be the case with HoI 4 (since CK 2, their Q&A department got ramped up significantly... or maybe they didn't have one before then, hehe). One should always expect bugs with new releases, but i doubt we'll be seeing anything of what used to rear its head in older Paradox titles.

As for historical accuracy, if you want that, Matrix Games is probably your friend HoI is a sandbox, and while there is a "historical" option you can check, that does not exclude ahistorical things from happening, it just makes them much less likely to happen (if i've understood it correctly).

 

[GhengisKhan]

There's more than enough gameplay footage and dev diaries to make up your mind about purchasing or not. Not sure asking a bunch of people who don't really know you is going to help with indecisiveness at all. Wouldn't say that HoI 4's "accessibility" is any indication of a lack of depth. I also play those games you listed and they aren't bad but i've always like HoI better, just my preference.

 

[panzerzombie]

I didn´t like vanilla HOI3 much ( who did at start ? ) but with BlackICE it was IMO excellent ( from a historical standpoint and playability ).

I do hope if Modders in IV do something similar and if so it may be my dream game.

 

[warith1000]

So I truly would like an honest opinion from you guys.

I'm trying to decide if I should buy HOI IV. Here's a little background:

- I play a lot of wargames. This includes the very detailed such as "Gary Grigsby's War in the East", "Gary Grigsby's War in the West" and The Operational Art of War III. I enjoy these types of games because they are historical and complex. I'm a beta tester for these types of games. I have played war games since I was a teenager, I'm 30 now.

-I also like games such as Panzer Corps which are more "beer and pretzels" but still have decent combat systems and fun campaigns. I would consider the HOI series more "beer and pretzels".

-I've played most Paradox titles such as EUIII, Victoria I and II, HOI II and III, and my favorite is CK2. I'm no stranger to what this game is. I heavily disliked HOI III, not because it was complex, but because it was bugged at launch and was extraordinarily ahistorical.

From watching the videos of HOI IV, I'm a bit concerned Paradox went for accessibility too much and I won't enjoy the lack of combat strategy and strategic management depth. Simply drawing battle plans and letting the AI handle things is a bit too hands off for me. Also, I didn't see any NATO counters anywhere. However I would like to support the franchise as HOI II was great. I'm also concerned that even with the historical focus turned on, we will still see things like America going communist, or Japan invading Africa or Brazil landing in Italy, etc.

I feel like the game should be historically plausible. Plausible as in, Germany could've won the war in the east, but war was inevitable. Sealion was just not plausible, imo.

Any help here?

Honestly, you may of been right to come to the forums and ask but I would of strongly recommended you do your own research first. Like watching gameplay, reading developer diaries, and/or lurking on the forums first/more.

 

[Nitan17]

NATO counters, and an option to hide unit sprites are in the game.

AI will attempt to play historically, and if player does as well, it's very unlikely that anything very ahistorical will happen.

About the battle plans and AI control - there has been a lot of discussion on this matter. It is still not certain if playing without delegating any control over units to AI will be viable in the vanilla game, but if it won't be, I have no doubt that on the very first days after release plenty of mods will be made to rectify that.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

@Nitan17

I would be very surprised if anything to do with the mechanics behind battle plans and the way the AI is used in them can be modified by the player. The way the game engine actually operates battle plans will surely be hard-coded.

 

[snafu86]

Interesting, thanks for the replies. I think I'm gonna wait until after release and see what happens. Cautiously optimistic.

 

[SirGalbe]

Historical focus - just correcting -brazil fought on italy with the united states.
The game cant be a exact portrait of what hapened, but must be plausible i think th e game is good historically from the gameplays ie watched.

 

[snafu86]

Oh I know the brazilians were involved, but I mean unilaterally.

 

[Nitan17]

@Nitan17

I would be very surprised if anything to do with the mechanics behind battle plans and the way the AI is used in them can be modified by the player. The way the game engine actually operates battle plans will surely be hard-coded.

I agree. But instead of modifying the mechanics, we can change their effect. One solution that springs to my mind is changing base planning bonus to zero (the base value will definitely be moddable), along with removing bonuses to it from technologies and other modifiers. That would make no country being able to get the planning bonus effect.

Since the game is made in a way that expects countries to use the planning bonus, only removing it may unbalance the game (offensives could become too difficult and costly). I think I would also add a small overall unit attack modifier (say, 10%) to all countries, active at all times. This would balance things out.