What DLC's to buy and how is state of the game right now?

[BaronX]

Hi all,
I recently bought HoI 4 on ultra sale (bundle with Imperator). I was wondering whether to buy DLCs and start to play now or wait until the game is even more polished or postpone indefinitely. Some background on what I am looking for:
- I loved Darkest hour. It presented great challenged (played on very hard for Ger), yet not overcomplicated. What I particularly liked is that one victory does not meant won game. I like the feeling that even if I am (as Germany) at gates of Moscow, game is so well designed that it does not mean that I won already.
- I am looking for very challenging game playing majors in historic fashion, in particular Ger, Japan, USSR, UK. I don't care about alt history (and for that reason for minors) at all. If it's possible to conquer half of the the world as Czechoslovakia, it's not a game for me (for that matter, it should be nigh impossible for all with exception of Ger, USSR and US). My ideal game is that if I run hands-off simulation, game would go exactly as in history (initial Axis expansion, then Allied pushback).
- I like naval battles and air battles and this is one area where old games like Darkest hour were somewhat lacking. Hope it is handled better.
- Quality of AI is more important than number of features. I would particularly like if AI is capable of executing major naval invasion like D-day. that was never case in older games.

I absolutely hated micromanagement of HoI 3. It had one of two outcomes - either I micromanaged on division level and crushed AI, as it was not good enough on microlevel, or I let AI handle it and it botched any strategic design I had.

So how is the game right now? More like Darkest hour or Hoi 3? How is AI and does in veer towards realism or sandbox? Any of your insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

[derphalo]

Like all paradox games, if you want the best experiences, buy all the DLC. That being said, Man the Guns, and Waking the Tiger are your best bet with getting DLC. La Resistance is also required if you want to WC because of Resistance and the mechanics with it are locked behind the DLC.

If it's possible to conquer half of the world as Czechoslovakia, it's not a game for me (for that matter, it should be nigh impossible for all with exception to Ger, USSR and US)

The thing about that is, while it is difficult, it's possible. I wouldn't say the game is a huge challenge once you know what you're doing, however, in DLC they always alter something so it changes your strategies. (Though artillery is still godly even with the nerfs)

- I like naval battles and air battles and this is one area where old games like Darkest hour were somewhat lacking. Hope it is handled better.

The Naval battles were improved somewhat with MtG however they still feel lacking, at least to me. Air Combat is just bad in general, you put planes in an air zone, and they do their operations. You can't really control planes in HOI4 which sucks because I really wanted something like what the older HOI games did.

- Quality of AI is more important than number of features. I would particularly like if AI is capable of executing major naval invasion like D-day. that was never case in older games.

The AI does execute D-Day like landings, however they get bogged down most of the time, and can end in catastrophic failure. The AI in general isn't great, and it can make suicidal decisions from time to time. Like leaving the Maginot line completely undefended, or japan pulling all divisions away from china to put them on the Soviet border.

I absolutely hated micromanagement of HoI 3. It had one of two outcomes - either I micromanaged on division level and crushed AI, as it was not good enough on microlevel, or I let AI handle it and it botched any strategic design I had.

The Battleplanner was made to address your issue, and it works as intended. However, you might want to micro from time to time if you want to pull off large encirclement.

At this point you can decide if you like the game by actually playing the game, or talking to different't players. Those are just my two cents.

 

[Emren]

I would say that HOI4 is in its best state ever. It will never be perfect, and there will always be things that you wish were different. But that doesn't mean that it can't be a fun experience. The game will NOT be historical simulator, though, so if that's what you want, you can leave now.

 

[him_15]

I would recommend buying all of the DLCs.

 

[bitmode]

Hi all,
I recently bought HoI 4 on ultra sale (bundle with Imperator). I was wondering whether to buy DLCs and start to play now or wait until the game is even more polished or postpone indefinitely. Some background on what I am looking for:
- I loved Darkest hour. It presented great challenged (played on very hard for Ger), yet not overcomplicated. What I particularly liked is that one victory does not meant won game. I like the feeling that even if I am (as Germany) at gates of Moscow, game is so well designed that it does not mean that I won already.
- I am looking for very challenging game playing majors in historic fashion, in particular Ger, Japan, USSR, UK. I don't care about alt history (and for that reason for minors) at all. If it's possible to conquer half of the the world as Czechoslovakia, it's not a game for me (for that matter, it should be nigh impossible for all with exception of Ger, USSR and US). My ideal game is that if I run hands-off simulation, game would go exactly as in history (initial Axis expansion, then Allied pushback).
- I like naval battles and air battles and this is one area where old games like Darkest hour were somewhat lacking. Hope it is handled better.
- Quality of AI is more important than number of features. I would particularly like if AI is capable of executing major naval invasion like D-day. that was never case in older games.

I absolutely hated micromanagement of HoI 3. It had one of two outcomes - either I micromanaged on division level and crushed AI, as it was not good enough on microlevel, or I let AI handle it and it botched any strategic design I had.

So how is the game right now? More like Darkest hour or Hoi 3? How is AI and does in veer towards realism or sandbox? Any of your insight would be greatly appreciated.

If you are ever going to try the game, there is little reason to wait much longer.
I recommend against buying any DLC in your case because large chunks of them are alt-history and generally add more complications which are not needed on the grand strategic scale when you play historically and will slow you down while getting started.

Depending on your level of expectations, hoi4 could be said to fulfill all or none of your requirements.
I think if you try it thinking it will be everything you ever hoped for in a hoi game, you'll be sorely disappointed eventually.
But with your experience it should be rather easy to get into to see if it is for you or not.

If you feel unsatisfied after a few games just don't fall into the sunken cost fallacy that buying more DLC will fix it.

 

[Telenil]

Hi all,
I recently bought HoI 4 on ultra sale (bundle with Imperator). I was wondering whether to buy DLCs and start to play now or wait until the game is even more polished or postpone indefinitely. Some background on what I am looking for:
- I loved Darkest hour. It presented great challenged (played on very hard for Ger), yet not overcomplicated. What I particularly liked is that one victory does not meant won game. I like the feeling that even if I am (as Germany) at gates of Moscow, game is so well designed that it does not mean that I won already.
- I am looking for very challenging game playing majors in historic fashion, in particular Ger, Japan, USSR, UK. I don't care about alt history (and for that reason for minors) at all. If it's possible to conquer half of the the world as Czechoslovakia, it's not a game for me (for that matter, it should be nigh impossible for all with exception of Ger, USSR and US). My ideal game is that if I run hands-off simulation, game would go exactly as in history (initial Axis expansion, then Allied pushback).
- I like naval battles and air battles and this is one area where old games like Darkest hour were somewhat lacking. Hope it is handled better.
- Quality of AI is more important than number of features. I would particularly like if AI is capable of executing major naval invasion like D-day. that was never case in older games.

I absolutely hated micromanagement of HoI 3. It had one of two outcomes - either I micromanaged on division level and crushed AI, as it was not good enough on microlevel, or I let AI handle it and it botched any strategic design I had.

So how is the game right now? More like Darkest hour or Hoi 3? How is AI and does in veer towards realism or sandbox? Any of your insight would be greatly appreciated.

It depends how litterally you mean those. For example, the typical game has Germany roll over Western Europe and push into the Soviet Union, while the Allies make several attempts at doing landings in France and Italy (if North Africa ends up in Allied hands). Either they succeeded and Germany usually gets grinded to death after a long bloodbath, or they don't and Germany can usually overpower the Soviet after a few years. It sort of looks like history if you don't know the details, but it doesn't reproduce the exact balance of power or specific operations.

The naval aspect is certainly fleshed-out.

If you want "very challenging" games as a major, you will probably need a mod once you know what you are doing (which can take a while). Otherwise you are rarely at risk of actually losing as a major.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Just wanted to chime in. When people say "Naval battles were improved" or "fleshed-out", they are actually saying that the HoI 4 naval warfare has became a choice between submarines or bombers.

 

[Dlin369]

I personally enjoy HOI4 in its current state - it's far from perfect but I think it's an enjoyable game

 

[BaronX]

Thanks a lot for you all your replies, much appreciated. I think I'll give it a try, so far without DLC (I looked at their description more in depth and as bitmode mentioned, they are mostly for alt-history). One follow-up question on difficulty. Say that I am fairly experienced player of other PDX titles (did Basileus achievement on very hard in EU4 after numerous tries, able to hold my line and win against USSR in Darkest hour on very hard). If I get hold of HoI4 mechanics, playGermany as historical Elite Ironman and buff all major Allies, is this still going to be walkthrough or is it something that would give experience player a challenge (with reliance on battle planner and close to zero division micromanagement)?

 

[mursolini]

Just wanted to chime in. When people say "Naval battles were improved" or "fleshed-out", they are actually saying that the HoI 4 naval warfare has became a choice between submarines or bombers.

This was always the case in HOI franchise, fleets can`t operate under hostile air for long.

Thanks a lot for you all your replies, much appreciated. I think I'll give it a try, so far without DLC (I looked at their description more in depth and as bitmode mentioned, they are mostly for alt-history). One follow-up question on difficulty. Say that I am fairly experienced player of other PDX titles (did Basileus achievement on very hard in EU4 after numerous tries, able to hold my line and win against USSR in Darkest hour on very hard). If I get hold of HoI4 mechanics, playGermany as historical Elite Ironman and buff all major Allies, is this still going to be walkthrough or is it something that would give experience player a challenge (with reliance on battle planner and close to zero division micromanagement)?

If you also install Expert AI mod, it should be fairly fun and challenging.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

This was always the case in HOI franchise, fleets can`t operate under hostile air for long.

Right.

So what was the point of the Man the Gun DLC again?

 

[mursolini]

Right.

So what was the point of the Man the Gun DLC again?

You can build BBs that will be able to sponge NAV attacks for quite long(I think most I`ve managed to get out of SHBB fleet was about a month in english channel under NAV2-3), you can build anti-sub DDs, and cruisers, and you can you can have a fleet fight in Pacific or mid-Atlantic, assuming there will be a second fleet to fight, and your fleet can actually survive delivering landing parties on Pacific islands. Oh, and armored marines.

What do you find lacking, exactly?

 

[Admiral Fischer]

You can build BBs that will be able to sponge NAV attacks for quite long

Only if you bother to invest in shipyards and research slots just to start building the ship. And then wait for four years to actually field it.

you can build anti-sub DDs, and cruisers, and you can you can have a fleet fight in Pacific or mid-Atlantic, assuming there will be a second fleet to fight, and your fleet can actually survive delivering landing parties on Pacific islands.

For how long before 1940 submarine comes out?

Oh, and armored marines.

Who the heck even research those let alone building them.

 

[Emren]

This was always the case in HOI franchise, fleets can`t operate under hostile air for long.

Which sounds realistic to me.

So what was the point of the Man the Gun DLC again?

Well the point certainly wasn't to make fleets more ahistorical. More to flesh out the ship variant system, add Admiral traits plus a bunch of other stuff. Also, to keep the revenues flowing to pay for the other upgrades and bugfixing. I don't agree with some of the changes they did to naval combat in that patch, and no, I'm not defending the business model, just stating the facts.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Well the point certainly wasn't to make fleets more ahistorical.

How many people build carriers and how do they pack them nowadays?

More to flesh out the ship variant system, add Admiral traits plus a bunch of other stuff.

Have you seen that giant thread where people examined what's in their words "all things wrong with ships" and made some hundreds of constructive suggestions. Worth to invest some time to read that thread, unlike investing in in-game aircraft carriers maybe. For an expansion pack that was supposed to make fleets more historical, inaccuracy and inconsistency present in the DLC is rather, well, unfortunate.

Traits would have been good only if my admirals could ever earn them.

Also, to keep the revenues flowing to pay for the other upgrades and bugfixing. I don't agree with some of the changes they did to naval combat in that patch, and no, I'm not defending the business model, just stating the facts.

I don't hate Paradox and their business model isn't in my point.

 

[mursolini]

Only if you bother to invest in shipyards and research slots just to start building the ship. And then wait for four years to actually field it.

Or you can refit your old ones. Not sure what your complaint is, BBs were on the way out, and the last important big-guns battle was either Tsushima, or Jutland, depending on your opinion on impact Jutland had, or had not.

For how long before 1940 submarine comes out?

And then what?

Can you be more specific, are you complaining about SP, MP balance or something else?

Who the heck even research those let alone building them.

Marine Half-track is very good.

Which sounds realistic to me.

Which was the reality of WW2, where overwhelming majority of big ships sunk to either sub torpedo or aircraft attack. And most of Subs sank to air attacks as well, AFAIK.

 

[Emren]

How many people build carriers and how do they pack them nowadays?

I can't give you an accurate answer for that, I can only tell you what I do. If I play Japan, I'll build so that I have 8 carriers, incl. what I start with, then switch to light cruisers, destroyers and subs with different builds. I'll keep all BB's and CA's from the starting queue but not build more than that. As European nations I would rather rely on land-based air, so no carriers. All ships here need to be built with a solid AA component, and land based interceptors to protect them. As the US... I don't know, I don't play the US.

For an expansion pack that was supposed to make fleets more historical, inaccuracy and inconsistency present in the DLC is rather, well, unfortunate.

All bugs and inaccuracies are unfortunate, no doubt about that. But you seemed to question what the point was with MtG since naval bombers are so important in the game - but that is historically accurate - or do you disagree about that?