Yeah, maybe I was a bit too harsh on AI. Seeing, how there is no other equivalent on the market it really can be argued to be good, all things considered, but, again, if we account for the fact, that it needs to be good in the context of WW2, setting sets too high of a standard.
Yeah "HOI4 with the same combat mechanics etc, but on a randomized map, where you can choose some starting nation with different focus trees etc" is close to what I had in mind.
Exactly what I'm talking about. Game doesn't need to be baseless, but choice of WW2 as a conflict to model seems to be too ambitious.
I think we have very different internal representations of what HOI4 is. For me, if you remove half of the countries from the game map, leave only one linear branch in the focus tree, leave only one ship and plane model, then it will be effectively the same game. And it will be the same for many other people, because it seems, that a lot of them play with house rules (even in SP), that essentially boil down to this set of constraints.
Again, for me, changing historical setting still doesn't change the essence of the game, but I don't know how to resolve such differences in internal representations for my argument to seem not absurd to you, sorry.
YES, you spelled it out perfectly: "strategy game set in the WW2 era", or as some people suggested, WW1 era. Setting should be used to emphasize strategy and tactics elements, and not take the spotlight. This is a game after all, not a historic reenactment (at least for me, I see, that a lot of people value the setting).
Meaning that without WW2 setting game will have a combinatoric structure, similar to chess, monopoly or risk? I don't understand this specific piece of criticism.
