Why Hearts of Iron 4 is still full of bugs and lacks historical accuracy after 5 years?

[AlextheSwift]

Out of all Paradox games, Hearts of Iron 4 is the most beta-like, it has the most bugs per square meter out of all Paradox games, I've seen games in alpha more polished than Hearts of Iron 4. Many of Hearts of Iron 4's bugs would only take a single line of code to change with no side effects. There are some bugs simply from the setup of the game rather than weird unlikely interactions between different game mechanics. And with every new DLC, the iceberg of bugs only gets bigger and bigger. There's an overwhelming amount of bugs in Hearts of Iron 4 that are easy to fix but simply not a priority. Eventually, the bugs become "features".

I'm not saying the game should be flawless, spotless, but I think you should be able to have at least 4-5 games without experiencing a bug or at least experiecing minor ones, heck, I might as well say you should be able to have at least 4-5 games without experiencing gamebreaking bugs, at this point I'm that desperate, when you have more bugs than features you have a problem. When the player has to plan ahead to actively avoid bugs, you have a problem.

Out of all Paradox games, Hearts of Iron 4 is the least historically accurate to its timeline, despite taking place into one of the most well-doccumented times of history, you would expect some historical inaccuracy from Crusader Kings 3 due to relatively few sources in the midde ages, where compromises have to be made as we don't really know what happened everwhere, but Hearts of Iron 4 makes historical mistakes even a elementary school student wouldn't make, even a 5 minutes Google search wouldn't make.

I'm not saying adding individual rifle names and uniforms for every nation in World War II, but the things you do add into the game at least make them accurate, some things are just plain wrong, nothing wrong with alt-history, I love alt-history myself, but when the historical path is actually alt-history you have a problem. When the focus trees have elements that contradict themselves or make them not work with the rest of the focus tree that is supposed to work or when the 1936 timestamp isn't like the real life 1936 timestamp at least as far as the elements added in the game are concerned, you have a problem.

Why is that?

Because it just works.

There has been no point in Hearts of Iron 4's history when the game just worked. There have been catastrophic major game breaking bugs that has been present since the game's original release and just haven't been fixed. Each update often adds to this phenomenally unacceptable level of error and there's a clear gaping problem in Hearts of Iron 4's QA testing method, if they employ any sort of QA testing at all. DLCs released with bugs that aren't fixed by the time of their release, with the afterwards updates merely mitigating the damage and many of the origina bugs remaining despite huge amounts of community outcry.

In any other game this would be a huge deal but it happens so frequently with Hearts of Iron 4 that isn't surprising anymore and the game suddenly becomes broken and Paradox don't address the situation, opting instead to add a new Franco-Spanish Empire focus tree path for the next DLC. Paradox doesn't care about Hearts of Iron 4, they care about it insofar as it has the ability to make them lots and lots of money but that money is clearly not being invested back into the health of the game.

That's not to say that there's no one on the team that's passionate about Hearts of Iron 4 but those individuals appear to be few and far between, or the executives are just directing them to work on things that aren't as important, because they'll make more money. There are little things, single lines of code that could be changed that improve the game massively but Paradox just don't get around to it and they never will.

I don't think we'll ever see an update that actually improves things in this regard and doesn't just take a giant leap backwards. The game is consistently in a worse and worse state, it's more and more popular but yet somehow worse and worse bug and feature-wise, it's a real shame. If Paradox were to sell the title to a team that actually cared for its quality rather than its quantity of content, then it really could be something even more special.

Sadly, however, it's too much of a cash cow for this to ever be likely. We're stuck with these guys who make obvious update after update that health isn't a priority. The big bucks, DLCs and new focus trees are, it's working for them too, the playerbase grows, its popularity grows and they have no reason to care about making things better. Why would they? here I am at the end of a Hearts of Iron 4 playthrough with the new content, content that rewards this carefree quality lacking development structure and pushes new people into buying the game and getting invested in it.

Why would they bother fixing the blatant problems inherent in the game when they could just not? just leave it out, as they have done for years and will continue to do for years. The closest thing they have to a competitor, are 4x mobile games. I hope a competitor game would appear make the dev team at least sweat a little but ultimately Hearts of Iron 4 will go on with mediocre health and a lack of care for quality and player experience.

Yeah, Hearts of Iron 4 is working exactly as intended. It just was never intended to work properly.

Is it too much to ask to have a fully released 5 years old game relatively bug-free?
It is too much to ask to have a World War II game true to World War II?

Apparently, yes, because that's not the priority, that's not what brings in the money.

 

[FindFloppies]

So, you have all the facts, it seems. Show us how it's done. Please. Then you can make the money, not Paradox.

 

[Jays298]

When you say bugs per square inch...

But HOI uses the metric system.

Previous version worked just fine. NSB will work fine once everything is ironed out and historical mode is checked.

Prefer HOI bugs to real bugs. German cockroach invasion... Not a good thing.

 

[long_fella]

In my last "historical" Soviet game:-

* Germany had conquered Poland, the Low Countries, France, Denmark and Norway by the end of '39.
* Yugoslavia didn't get invaded.
* The US puppeted Japan in mid '43.
* Japan then invaded Italy.

Which, sadly, seems par for the course .

 

[Eltener]

I think part of the issue is just that the dev team is so small that even running full throttle and peak efficiency there's only so much they can get done. Like iirc there's only a handful of content designers and they have to do all of the focus trees in the game among a tonne of other stuff with significantly less manpower than some of the larger modding teams.

 

[Duke_Dave]

The problem is that the game needs to be balanced, but what does balancing actually mean? For most players is that conventionally no units are too strong, that different tactics can work etc. For the multiplayer community it's about something else, the historical community wants that things somewhat follow the route of ww2. These differing interests can not all be pleased. For example it makes no sense for Germany to wait to invade the west till 1940, the sooner you hit the better, withcurrent game mechanics, War in the pacific is crazy complicated to balance to achieve historical outcomes, since there is a lot fo chance involved. for example one could stop the us from going directly for japan and make them liberate other areas first, but how many? They didn't Liberate all of them historically. Also making the AI basically go for an ineffective route is also not really desirable . So the AI will capitulate japan in 43 at times at others Japan will conquer the entire pacific. If we had all the information and all the mechanics to simulate Ww2 and we would let it run 100 times, I doubt we ever get the exact outcome we got in real life. Small different outcomes develop into bigger changes. Torpedo missing the Bismarck it returning to port continues to harass convoys, weakening the UK , less land lease for the Soviets, leading to a german soviet peace in 1942. Plane spotting the Japanese fleet near pearl harbor the US carriers attack them and sink them the pacific war ends in 1943.

 

[xtfoster]

Many of Hearts of Iron 4's bugs would only take a single line of code to change with no side effects.

Written by someone who OBVIOUSLY has never seen the code.

There's an overwhelming amount of bugs in Hearts of Iron 4 that are easy to fix but simply not a priority.

Again, someone who has never seen the code and has no clue what they are talking about

Out of all Paradox games, Hearts of Iron 4 is the least historically accurate to its timeline, despite taking place into one of the most well-doccumented times of history, you would expect some historical inaccuracy from Crusader Kings 3 due to relatively few sources in the midde ages, where compromises have to be made as we don't really know what happened everwhere, but Hearts of Iron 4 makes historical mistakes even a elementary school student wouldn't make, even a 5 minutes Google search wouldn't make.

This is not a WWII recreation simulator, it is a sandbox Grand Strategy Game set in the time period of WW2. If they were to go the route of a 100% accurate recreation, they player wouldn't be allowed any choices and would basically be watching an animated film of the time period.

I'm not saying adding individual rifle names and uniforms for every nation in World War II

This is why I would have preferred they left off all the 'flavor' names and allowed the player to name them what they want. The second the player makes a choice in the game, it by definition becomes alt-history. For example, a lot of people complain that it is impossible to research and build the Bismarck-class Battleships (using the 1940s techs) because they ascribe some kind of super-ahead of time research to Germany. All I do is upgrade the Scharnhorst-class and call it the Bismarck Class

There has been no point in Hearts of Iron 4's history when the game just worked.

Weird. You would think that if the game doesn't work, I would have way less than the 4400 hours I have logged on this game.

There have been catastrophic major game breaking bugs that has been present since the game's original release and just haven't been fixed.

Not even going to go into why what you (and others) consider a "major game breaking bug" isn't necessarily something that others, and more importantly the developers, consider a "major game breaking bug"

despite huge amounts of community outcry.

1) The number of people who post on these forums are a minority of the player-base, and 2) the number of people who raise that "community outcry" are a minority of the denizens of these forums.

There are little things, single lines of code that could be changed that improve the game massively but Paradox just don't get around to it and they never will.

Pretty definitive statement from someone who hasn't seen a single line of the code.

 

[Áurum]

So, you have all the facts, it seems. Show us how it's done. Please. Then you can make the money, not Paradox.

I'm a programmer, I wish Paradox hired me to fix bugs and improve current content. You would be surprised at how much things can be done when you actually try.

The "if you don't like it, do it yourself" just serves as an excuse for Paradox not fixing bugs.

When you say bugs per square inch...

But HOI uses the metric system.

Previous version worked just fine. NSB will work fine once everything is ironed out and historical mode is checked.

Prefer HOI bugs to real bugs. German cockroach invasion... Not a good thing.

Remember that, in the previous version, the states required to form the Ottoman Empire using the decisions added in that same version were broken because they targeted the wrong states. And that Bulgaria could steal states from Axis Greece, ruining many runs. That, in general, Paradox doesn't know what it's doing with states and that they keep missing new ones for formable nations and making nonsense borders. My favourite one is when they changed Polish internal borders to be able to create the modern Polish border... although it's actually impossible to do that in historical games. And that they had to fix Romanian Carol coup focus two times because they couldn't get it right, and that it's still wrong.

 

[FindFloppies]

I'm a programmer, I wish Paradox hired me to fix bugs

Sure, show us the way. Make a game, make it better, make it commercially successful. Then I'll pay more attention to you.

Till then, I can say I'm a programmer just as easily as you, and I can rant as easily as the OP, with the same amount of actual influence. (i.e. peeing into the wind)

 

[Kosaki MacTavish]

Oh God, this thread again.

Well, since i'm kind of person who back my words with actual proof, i actually wrote lines and created mods based on my two suggestions. You all can look to my signature and found my two mods there: Suggestions for Formable Nations Rework (yes, using the thread's name is just easier) and Southeast Asia Quickfix.

I just wish the devs can look into it and actually implement it, but apparently internal bureaucracy sucks so much that every little changes needs to be thoroughly examined first before it gets implemented.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

This is not a WWII recreation simulator, it is a sandbox Grand Strategy Game set in the time period of WW2. If they were to go the route of a 100% accurate recreation, they player wouldn't be allowed any choices and would basically be watching an animated film of the time period.

Holy bleeping strawman, batman.

This is why I would have preferred they left off all the 'flavor' names and allowed the player to name them what they want. The second the player makes a choice in the game, it by definition becomes alt-history. For example, a lot of people complain that it is impossible to research and build the Bismarck-class Battleships (using the 1940s techs) because they ascribe some kind of super-ahead of time research to Germany. All I do is upgrade the Scharnhorst-class and call it the Bismarck Class
Weird. You would think that if the game doesn't work, I would have way less than the 4400 hours I have logged on this game.

By this definition, anything that did not actually happen is alt history. Bolshevists aliens did not come to earth vaporize Nazi Germany, do it's alt history. That is not history. Nor is Monarchist USA, Communist Japan, Neo-Greco Empire, or any of this goofball junk. And that is what it is, goofball junk.

Alt history is more properly defined as scenarios that could have or arguably could have happened if the historical actors made different choices. Some of those scenarios are less plausible than others, but at a certain point, things cease to be alt history or even at home in a world war 2 strategy game.

As for what the people want, I have stated this before. The only way to know this for sure would be to present two more products on the market, a traditional hoi game on end and what this is on the other.

Of course, Noem Chomsky and other thinkers have articulated how for most people, individual agency is a chimera. Most people like the music that is popular in their time, follow the religion they were born into, speak the language they were born. Even if one were to presupposes this is what people want, I submit that if Paradox or another game developer showed proper leadership by developing and marketing a better ww2 game, people would follow the lead accordingly.

The build it your line should be dismissed out of hand. Some things require an economy of scale a mere individual is not capable of. A single person can not build the Brooklyn Bridge. That does not mean that individual criticisms are somehow without merit.

Finally, remember that there are many people like me who bought this game and the DLCs in spite of not because of this crap.

 

[Jays298]

I'm a programmer, I wish Paradox hired me to fix bugs and improve current content. You would be surprised at how much things can be done when you actually try.

The "if you don't like it, do it yourself" just serves as an excuse for Paradox not fixing bugs.


Remember that, in the previous version, the states required to form the Ottoman Empire using the decisions added in that same version were broken because they targeted the wrong states. And that Bulgaria could steal states from Axis Greece, ruining many runs. That, in general, Paradox doesn't know what it's doing with states and that they keep missing new ones for formable nations and making nonsense borders. My favourite one is when they changed Polish internal borders to be able to create the modern Polish border... although it's actually impossible to do that in historical games. And that they had to fix Romanian Carol coup focus two times because they couldn't get it right, and that it's still wrong.

I would agree with this. My theory is that they subdivide or divide by teams however you want to call it so that all the individual parts "new thematic content" are well worked on and looks nice, but they don't seem to have people that make sure it all threads to together well.

And it gets worked out eventually.

It sort of makes sense. It is a paradox that the consumer knows the product better than the creator because the consumer has infinite time and attention. Big promises, some flaws in execution.

 

[Captured Joe]

At least it ain't EU4...

But yeah quite a few frustrating issues with both old and new content.

 

[AlextheSwift]

Written by someone who OBVIOUSLY has never seen the code.

Except I have seen the code.

Again, someone who has never seen the code and has no clue what they are talking about

Again, I have seen the code.

This is not a WWII recreation simulator, it is a sandbox Grand Strategy Game set in the time period of WW2. If they were to go the route of a 100% accurate recreation, they player wouldn't be allowed any choices and would basically be watching an animated film of the time period.

Crusader Kings 3/Europa Universalis 4 are also sandbox Grand Strategy Games, yet they managed to be more more historically accurate to their time.
Hearts of Iron 4 is not a WWII recreation simulator it's just a strawman, it's a World War II game, outside of player intervention, it's supposed to behave like World War II. It's specifically because I expected this strawman that I said - I love alt-history myself, but when the historical path is actually alt-history you have a problem.

This is why I would have preferred they left off all the 'flavor' names and allowed the player to name them what they want. The second the player makes a choice in the game, it by definition becomes alt-history. For example, a lot of people complain that it is impossible to research and build the Bismarck-class Battleships (using the 1940s techs) because they ascribe some kind of super-ahead of time research to Germany. All I do is upgrade the Scharnhorst-class and call it the Bismarck Class

The AI reacting to the player's decisions would be smart (but doesn't happen, it only has a few scripted alternative paths, yes I have seen the code), but that's another discussion, before AI smart reaction we should have a proper WW2 in the first place. If the player plays Greece and decides to invade Bulgaria, Germany and USSR's goals would still be the same. You are right in the sense that it becomes alt-history, but wrong in the sense that alt-history means turning everything upside down and now everything should be random and make no sense because it's alt-history.

Weird. You would think that if the game doesn't work, I would have way less than the 4400 hours I have logged on this game.

And how many bugs you experienced in these 4400 hours compared to Crusader Kings 2 for example?

Not even going to go into why what you (and others) consider a "major game breaking bug" isn't necessarily something that others, and more importantly the developers, consider a "major game breaking bug"

Being able to core other countries such as Hungary and Transylvania as Yugoslavia for example? Having a nation that is both in your faction and at war with you at the same time? That's exactly the point of the original post, the developers don't consider these a "major game breaking bug" because it sells without them being fixed.

1) The number of people who post on these forums are a minority of the player-base, and 2) the number of people who raise that "community outcry" are a minority of the denizens of these forums.

Hearts of Iron 4 and bugs has become a meme already, all over the internet.

Pretty definitive statement from someone who hasn't seen a single line of the code.

Just because I could have done a better job than you have had, it doesn't mean I haven't seen a single line of the code.
Coding is not that complicated, but it requires good logic, when your argument is piles of strawman and ad hominem I can see why you find so difficult doing something better than this.
Your logical fallacies aside, the game is filled with bugs that would literally take 5 minutes to fix, not even an exaggeration, but hey, what do I know, I haven't seen a single line of code in my life.

 

[LordWahu]

...the game is filled with bugs that would literally take 5 minutes to fix

Why not make a bugfix mod yourself then?

It's happened before where they've taken a mod of bugfixes and added them into the vanilla experience. And it wouldn't take too long on your end after all

 

[sdplissken]

Why not make a bugfix mod yourself then?

It's happened before where they've taken a mod of bugfixes and added them into the vanilla experience. And it wouldn't take too long on your end after all

This is the proper solution. Make a bug fix mod and then show it off.

 

[Duke_Dave]

Compared to the version 1.0 this game is much more historically accurate, more refined and the AI is way more sophisticated. Yes there are a lot of bugs, but nothing that stops me from playing (no game breaking bugs), the problem is that Game is quite complex at this state and keeping all things in mind that might break through an update is almost impossible Resulting in every big update smashing some stuff.
That doesn't mean PDX shouldn't Improve its patch policy, I think 3 big updates after each DLC rather than two should become the norm.

Overall there is one thing that really annoys me about HoI4 and that is PDX making things country specific that should be game mechanics (threats of war to get things, sanctions, buying weapons). AI isn't great but does its job sufficiently , don't know any game that has a better AI. The game has bugs but well that is software, even my grandmas pc solitaire game has those.

 

[grommile]

but apparently internal bureaucracy sucks so much that every little changes needs to be thoroughly examined first before it gets implemented.

Er, yes.

Remember, once they adopt your code, Paradox have to be able to maintain it themselves in case you have a religious epiphany the next day and move to a small off-grid community in Montana with no electrical devices more complex than the spark system of an internal combustion engine.

Hence, they need to understand it.

 

[FLUX2226]

Why not make a bugfix mod yourself then?

This is the proper solution. Make a bug fix mod and then show it off.

All of these bugs are already documented in the bug report forum. If the devs don't have the time/money/people to address these bugs, I have little hope that even a popular bugfix mod will change this, it won't magically remove the reason why these bugs haven't been fixed yet.

This doesn't help with the general mood in the forums either (this thread being an example), it's an open secret that "less important" issues are neglected. We only get annual updates with 2-3 hotfixes each that contain a few fixes, but many issues remain.

It's not entitled to expect a certain amount of quality and maintenance of a product that you paid for, but I've yet to find a game that can match HoI4's number of bugs, oversights and balance issues, many of which don't require a deep understanding of the game or the code to fix.
And I'm not trying to hate on the devs here, from what I've seen on the forums they are genuinely trying their best, but there's a limit to what a single person can do.

It's happened before where they've taken a mod of bugfixes and added them into the vanilla experience. And it wouldn't take too long on your end after all

Regarding this, when did that happen the last time? I haven't heard of it yet, but I've only started playing HoI4 between WtT and MtG. And while fixing a single bug will be quick, finding and fixing all of the small bugs will be quite a task for a single person that isn't getting paid for it.

Also, when it comes to balance issues or badly designed mechanics, it's a subjective matter what would be the best fix. E.g. changing the Netherlands' trade influence mini-game to actually work in historical games, or making their non-aligned path work in non-historical games, would that be a bugfix or a mod? Or the AI failing to build a proper fleet due to wonky ship building priorities, there's not a clear balance solution. We would need an official fix for this.

 

[LordWahu]

Regarding this, when did that happen the last time? I haven't heard of it yet, but I've only started playing HoI4 between WtT and MtG. And while fixing a single bug will be quick, finding and fixing all of the small bugs will be quite a task for a single person that isn't getting paid for it.

One of the head coders of Equestria at War, Yard 21 I believe the name was, launched a vanilla bugfix mod some time after La Resistance. A couple patches later, there was an announcement by the Paradox devs that the mod had been rolled in with the vanilla game. It was a move that greatly enhanced performance, and has ever since gotten people hoping their favorite mod can be rolled in as well. (It's also the reason EaW will often run better than vanilla)