Hello. I'm TornadoWatch.
I've played Hearts of Iron for about 1,528 hours as of writing this post; I have a pretty varied background in the game, and in other Grand Strategy titles. I play Multiplayer, I play singleplayer, and I also contribute to Kaiserreich--A mod I'm sure at least one person reading this enjoys. I'm writing this post because I've played Waking the Tiger as a passionate fan of Paradox Games, and I am deeply concerned with many of the design decisions, especially those regarding balance, that the studio seem to have taken.
In this post, I would like to try to logically and constructively explain to you, the reader, and the community as a whole how the changes to industry, soft attack, doctrines, and several other elements in Waking the Tiger have had a profoundly negative impact on the game.
I'm not going to speak down to you, I'm not here to attack anybody. I want this to be a post that boils down the facts and realities this new expansion has brought us, and prove it using numbers and real examples that you can try in the game as it stands yourself.
We're going to cover a few things here, one by one. I'll number them per-section so you can easily keep track. I'll try to hit on the short and sweet here to share my views while not making this impossibly long. Crucial text has been highlighted in gold if you want to skim.
In most games, there is also an expected element of fairness. Players (Or teams) are expected to start on a relatively even field, with both sides having a rough expectation of victory, at least in a competitive setting. Otherwise, the game is no longer a representation of skill, cunning, and excellence, and the results have little meaning. In Paradox Games, sides are never perfectly balanced--However, it is good to attempt to achieve something resembling balance, as few people enjoy a one-sided stomp. The balance of the game is important for this reason; we expect fairness, to some degree.
We can thusly say, with confidence, that there are going to be competing strategies to achieve victory, and a certain subset of these strategies will be successful while others will be unsuccessful.
With this in mind, even though Waking the Tiger is in its infancy as a product in the public, we are able to analyze it and come to some logical conclusions based on what we understand about the game already, how the game works, and what the current "ideal strategies" are.
The answer is simple: Differing skill levels. The AI, as everyone knows, fails to play competently and is inherently limited. It cannot adapt like a human can. This means that playing against the AI becomes mostly a game of cheesing it as opposed to attempting to truly master the game's mechanics; I'd be willing to bet nearly everyone has snaked an AI before and laughed. Trucks into Moscow, anyone?
In a similar way, players in a multiplayer environment can be expected to have differing levels of skill, playstyles, and expectations.
This is not a problem. This is a game. We're all here to have fun. However, a critical problem occurs when development and balance decisions are being made from a position of misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge and practical, hands-on experience. In other words, balancing for non-ideal conditions creates an inherently unbalanced game; in other words, let's ask ourselves what happens when players of equal skill level are pitted against each-other in a given setup and see what happens.
At Jan 1, 1936, Germany is in the driver's seat within the game. The Soviet Union will be forced to purge to stop a deadly Civil War from occurring. It is one of two Fascist nations within Europe to begin with. Its usual rivals, the UK and France, start off in a comparative position of weakness, having fewer mils, less stability, less war support, and weaker mobilization laws. The timing of when they are allowed to shift out of these laws is primarily determined by Germany; in a theoretical situation where the other Fascist nations are players, they can coordinate their efforts to deny them the ability to move out of these laws as soon as possible, prolonging the Axis advantage.
In other words, Germany is simultaneously the party that benefits from delaying the war and the main person capable of delaying the war.
In a test game where I was playing in single-player and merely tried to build up my country as much as possible as GER until 1939, I came to the following results:
1936
What about the supposed "cost" of MEFO Bills, the Political Power? In short: It's nothing. I'm Germany; my leader gives me +25% PP daily. I have access to two advisors that give +15% each. I've been running MEFO bills for years now, but a brief tag-switch to the UK reveals that I am making marginally less PP then they are and have more companies and ministers hired.
What about punishing me for doing this? Well, the Soviet Union would have to go through Poland, and I'd be able to deny them through my focus tree if I saw it coming, and even if they conquered Poland I'd be able to simply kill them, as my industry, as we can see here, is massive. France is weak doctrinally and can't stand up to my tanks; the UK is in a similar position. Worst case scenario, I can stall out a war, even an early war, and win thanks to my massive civilian count.
What we can conclude from this is that Germany is hilariously, ludicrously overpowered. Assuming things go even relatively historically from this point on, I will have over 300 civilian factories and well over two-hundred mils; the only restraining factor is going to be oil and rubber, which I'm able to build, due to the axis's abundance of other resources within Europe. The USA, Soviet Union, and the rest of the allies combined aren't even a threat; I outproduce them to such a ludicrous extent, and will continue to do so throughout the entire game assuming I have even a few historical allies (Italy alone would be enough to lock this out)
However, this has not been accompanied with any nerfs to tanks, planes, and most importantly: Close Air support.
Soft Attack is used to kill infantry divisions, units with low hardness; without the disincentive of being Soft Attacked to death, there is nothing to stop me from going Mass Mobilization, spamming 500 10-width divisions, putting a line on infantry equipment, and spamming Fighters and Close Air Support to destroy my opponents. While using tanks in addition to this is more effective, the point is that this strategy is entirely braindead and incredibly easy to pull off.
In effect, by nerfing soft attack, Paradox is enabling an extremely irritating style of play that no longer has a feasible, realistic counter within the game. While the 10 width divisions are absolutely terrible, the reinforce rate of Mass Mobilization allows them to continually fill the front-line of a battle, using organization to keep combat going so CAS can drop bombs.
This means that, once again, the game becomes fundamentally about the air war above all else.
To start with: Grand Battleplan was not overpowered. It took over a month to build planning bonus; it was slow, vulnerable to attack, and made for very bad tanks. Due to the nerfs to planning bonus, Grand Battleplan is now functionally worthless.
In addition to this, the nerfs to planning has made attacking less feasible. This is because the opposite of planning, or perhaps the co-stat, is Entrenchment. Entrenchment, from what I can tell, has not been changed--What this means is that the defender now has an advantage in Hearts of Iron, dis-incentivizing the attacker. I cannot comprehend why this change was viewed as accurate to WW2 or interesting.
Superior Firepower, in a similar way, did not need nerfs. Soft Attack stacking is not effective against well-designed, robust tank divisions. However, as previously discussed, this isn't properly taken into account.
Mass Assault being buffed in conjunction with the above two being nerfed means that, as previously mentioned, there's almost nothing to stop mass infantry spam in conjunction with an air advantage... Let alone tanks.
As a modder, I am overjoyed with the mechanics that Waking the Tiger has brought, like Decisions, Crisis, and Variables. As a gamer, I am beyond disappointed with the apparent lack of foresight and understanding the developers seem to possess about their own product.
I appreciate you reading this post. I will answer any questions gladly and elaborate more if it is requested, but I've posted enough.
In summary/tl;dr: The game is focused too much around the air war to the point of drowning out other elements. A well-balanced and fair, reasonable game with sensible mechanics should be a priority for everyone, casual and hardcore players alike, whether you focus on single-player or multiplayer. Hearts of Iron IV is currently suffering from an abundance of poor design choices and nonsense mechanics that are hidden by poor AI.
I've played Hearts of Iron for about 1,528 hours as of writing this post; I have a pretty varied background in the game, and in other Grand Strategy titles. I play Multiplayer, I play singleplayer, and I also contribute to Kaiserreich--A mod I'm sure at least one person reading this enjoys. I'm writing this post because I've played Waking the Tiger as a passionate fan of Paradox Games, and I am deeply concerned with many of the design decisions, especially those regarding balance, that the studio seem to have taken.
In this post, I would like to try to logically and constructively explain to you, the reader, and the community as a whole how the changes to industry, soft attack, doctrines, and several other elements in Waking the Tiger have had a profoundly negative impact on the game.
I'm not going to speak down to you, I'm not here to attack anybody. I want this to be a post that boils down the facts and realities this new expansion has brought us, and prove it using numbers and real examples that you can try in the game as it stands yourself.
We're going to cover a few things here, one by one. I'll number them per-section so you can easily keep track. I'll try to hit on the short and sweet here to share my views while not making this impossibly long. Crucial text has been highlighted in gold if you want to skim.
- HOI4 as a Game and the Importance of Balance
- The State of the Meta
- Ideal VS Non-ideal Conditions
- The Status of Germany
- Soft Attack Nerfs and Their Implications
- Doctrine Changes and Their Implications
- Conclusions
1. HOI4 as a Game and the Importance of Balance
The first thing to understand is that Hearts of Iron IV is a game; this statement has a bit more to it than originally appears. Humans have played games alone and with each-other for millenia. A game can be defined by an activity, usually for play, that we do for enjoyment, or perhaps learning. It comes with a pre-defined set of rules that we agree to before we engage in the game, consciously or not. It can be assumed, then, that a certain number of options are possible within the construct of the game. Furthermore, in most games, there can only be a certain number of winners--Not everyone is going to win WW2.
In most games, there is also an expected element of fairness. Players (Or teams) are expected to start on a relatively even field, with both sides having a rough expectation of victory, at least in a competitive setting. Otherwise, the game is no longer a representation of skill, cunning, and excellence, and the results have little meaning. In Paradox Games, sides are never perfectly balanced--However, it is good to attempt to achieve something resembling balance, as few people enjoy a one-sided stomp. The balance of the game is important for this reason; we expect fairness, to some degree.
We can thusly say, with confidence, that there are going to be competing strategies to achieve victory, and a certain subset of these strategies will be successful while others will be unsuccessful.
With this in mind, even though Waking the Tiger is in its infancy as a product in the public, we are able to analyze it and come to some logical conclusions based on what we understand about the game already, how the game works, and what the current "ideal strategies" are.
2. The State of the Meta
We can conclude the following about the Hearts of Iron IV meta, or the "Ideal strategy" of our game, based on the way the game's mechanics work.
- In most cases, 40-width units are the most ideal type to utilize on the battlefield. This is because units with higher stats, such as Defense, Soft Attack, and Breakthrough, will take fewer casualties in men and equipment while dealing more, creating an advantage. The one exception is strategies relying on close air support, which exploits organization to lock units in an eternal battle where they will be continually hit by CAS.
- Air Superiority is a crucial element of success. This is because not having air superiority debuffs your units by a level up to -50% in terms of movement, defense rating, and breakthrough, with anti-air in units being a minor countermeasure to this that doesn't compensate enough for it. This necessitates a continual arms race in the 'air war' to avoid being the subject of this penalty.
- In a similar way, Close Air Support is vital. This is because Close Air Support will bomb units in combat, dealing organization damage directly along with impacting unit strength. A 40 width tank can lose the entirety of its standing strength from being bombed by Close Air Support, even if it is in battle with something as trivial as unequipped, ten width infantry, depending on its HP rating
- Just as in real life, the application of motorized forces and armor in concentration are generally required to achieve a decisive victory through encirclement to minimize losses on your part, usually in conjunction with the previous two mentioned elements.
- Speaking in terms of industry, civilian factories have a strong tendency to create a snowball, especially when built early on in the game. Civilian factories become increasingly valuable as construction techs are researched, and when access to better forms of mobilization laws are unlocked. In addition, building military factories early on is not an ideal strategy because of producing outdated equipment that is easily destroyed by newer models (Compare: Medium Tank I to Medium II, or Heavy I to Heavy II). This suggests a strategy focused on building civilian factories early game before transitioning later on to military industry, assuming competent opponents.
3. Ideal VS Non-Ideal Conditions
What can be proven true by logic and an observation of the mechanics, however, does not always turn out to be true in practice by what we see--Why?
The answer is simple: Differing skill levels. The AI, as everyone knows, fails to play competently and is inherently limited. It cannot adapt like a human can. This means that playing against the AI becomes mostly a game of cheesing it as opposed to attempting to truly master the game's mechanics; I'd be willing to bet nearly everyone has snaked an AI before and laughed. Trucks into Moscow, anyone?
In a similar way, players in a multiplayer environment can be expected to have differing levels of skill, playstyles, and expectations.
This is not a problem. This is a game. We're all here to have fun. However, a critical problem occurs when development and balance decisions are being made from a position of misunderstanding and a lack of knowledge and practical, hands-on experience. In other words, balancing for non-ideal conditions creates an inherently unbalanced game; in other words, let's ask ourselves what happens when players of equal skill level are pitted against each-other in a given setup and see what happens.
4. The State of Germany
Let's take a look at Germany; more specifically, the MEFO Bills mechanic. For those not in the know, this mechanic gives Germany -20% consumer goods from Jan 1, 1936. It must be continually 'renewed' every 90 days, and gives an increasing political power penalty each time this is done. It goes away when war breaks out.
At Jan 1, 1936, Germany is in the driver's seat within the game. The Soviet Union will be forced to purge to stop a deadly Civil War from occurring. It is one of two Fascist nations within Europe to begin with. Its usual rivals, the UK and France, start off in a comparative position of weakness, having fewer mils, less stability, less war support, and weaker mobilization laws. The timing of when they are allowed to shift out of these laws is primarily determined by Germany; in a theoretical situation where the other Fascist nations are players, they can coordinate their efforts to deny them the ability to move out of these laws as soon as possible, prolonging the Axis advantage.
In other words, Germany is simultaneously the party that benefits from delaying the war and the main person capable of delaying the war.
In a test game where I was playing in single-player and merely tried to build up my country as much as possible as GER until 1939, I came to the following results:
1936
- After trading for resources, I have 26 civilian factories.
- After focusing on civilian factory focuses and some infrastructure, I now have 47 civilian factories. This is an increase of 80.77% from last year, 1936.
- The year is now 1938. I have 92 civilian factories after annexing the Sudetenland and Austria. This is an increase of 95% from last year, and an increase of 253.8% from 1936.
- I have 152 Civilian Factories after annexing Czechoslovakia. This is an increase of 65% from last year, and an increase of 484.6% from 1936.
- I have 162 civilian factories. I haven't even conquered anything in Europe.
- I researched Concentrated Industry III about a year ahead of time. I am completely out of building slots anyway.
- I am 20 civilian factories behind the United States. I also have 60 more mils.
What about the supposed "cost" of MEFO Bills, the Political Power? In short: It's nothing. I'm Germany; my leader gives me +25% PP daily. I have access to two advisors that give +15% each. I've been running MEFO bills for years now, but a brief tag-switch to the UK reveals that I am making marginally less PP then they are and have more companies and ministers hired.
What about punishing me for doing this? Well, the Soviet Union would have to go through Poland, and I'd be able to deny them through my focus tree if I saw it coming, and even if they conquered Poland I'd be able to simply kill them, as my industry, as we can see here, is massive. France is weak doctrinally and can't stand up to my tanks; the UK is in a similar position. Worst case scenario, I can stall out a war, even an early war, and win thanks to my massive civilian count.
What we can conclude from this is that Germany is hilariously, ludicrously overpowered. Assuming things go even relatively historically from this point on, I will have over 300 civilian factories and well over two-hundred mils; the only restraining factor is going to be oil and rubber, which I'm able to build, due to the axis's abundance of other resources within Europe. The USA, Soviet Union, and the rest of the allies combined aren't even a threat; I outproduce them to such a ludicrous extent, and will continue to do so throughout the entire game assuming I have even a few historical allies (Italy alone would be enough to lock this out)
5. Soft Attack Nerfs and their Implications
As has been shown by the patch notes and can be seen in-game, soft attack has been drastically decreased across the board. The reasoning is to prevent multiplicative stacking of soft attack, resulting in absurd divisions that have thousands of soft attack.
However, this has not been accompanied with any nerfs to tanks, planes, and most importantly: Close Air support.
Soft Attack is used to kill infantry divisions, units with low hardness; without the disincentive of being Soft Attacked to death, there is nothing to stop me from going Mass Mobilization, spamming 500 10-width divisions, putting a line on infantry equipment, and spamming Fighters and Close Air Support to destroy my opponents. While using tanks in addition to this is more effective, the point is that this strategy is entirely braindead and incredibly easy to pull off.
In effect, by nerfing soft attack, Paradox is enabling an extremely irritating style of play that no longer has a feasible, realistic counter within the game. While the 10 width divisions are absolutely terrible, the reinforce rate of Mass Mobilization allows them to continually fill the front-line of a battle, using organization to keep combat going so CAS can drop bombs.
This means that, once again, the game becomes fundamentally about the air war above all else.
6. Doctrine Changes and Their Implications
Generally speaking, Superior Firepower has received nerfs, Grand Battleplan has received nerfs, Mass Assault has been buffed, and Mobile Warfare has remained the same. Planning, as a whole, has been nerfed.
To start with: Grand Battleplan was not overpowered. It took over a month to build planning bonus; it was slow, vulnerable to attack, and made for very bad tanks. Due to the nerfs to planning bonus, Grand Battleplan is now functionally worthless.
In addition to this, the nerfs to planning has made attacking less feasible. This is because the opposite of planning, or perhaps the co-stat, is Entrenchment. Entrenchment, from what I can tell, has not been changed--What this means is that the defender now has an advantage in Hearts of Iron, dis-incentivizing the attacker. I cannot comprehend why this change was viewed as accurate to WW2 or interesting.
Superior Firepower, in a similar way, did not need nerfs. Soft Attack stacking is not effective against well-designed, robust tank divisions. However, as previously discussed, this isn't properly taken into account.
Mass Assault being buffed in conjunction with the above two being nerfed means that, as previously mentioned, there's almost nothing to stop mass infantry spam in conjunction with an air advantage... Let alone tanks.
7. Conclusion
As we can see by reviewing the mechanics of the game and a case study, we can see that Hearts of Iron IV is currently horribly unbalanced. What needs to change?
- The developers need to get more skilled players on their team who genuinely understand the game's mechanics on a deep level and can help make more informed decisions on balance.
- Germany's MEFO Bills need to be nerfed into the ground.
- The USA should be more potent and threatening.
- The allies need more options to punish and threaten Germany early game in a realistic way that doesn't grind the game to a halt in a way that's unfair to Germany.
As a modder, I am overjoyed with the mechanics that Waking the Tiger has brought, like Decisions, Crisis, and Variables. As a gamer, I am beyond disappointed with the apparent lack of foresight and understanding the developers seem to possess about their own product.
I appreciate you reading this post. I will answer any questions gladly and elaborate more if it is requested, but I've posted enough.
In summary/tl;dr: The game is focused too much around the air war to the point of drowning out other elements. A well-balanced and fair, reasonable game with sensible mechanics should be a priority for everyone, casual and hardcore players alike, whether you focus on single-player or multiplayer. Hearts of Iron IV is currently suffering from an abundance of poor design choices and nonsense mechanics that are hidden by poor AI.
