Sign in to follow this  
Rob Zacny

Episode 309: Hearts of Iron IV Preview

Recommended Posts

It certainly SOUNDS unsatisfying - instead of putting you in the position of a real allied leader, who genuinely wants to avoid war, you are instead like a rabid dog straining on a leash, just waiting for it to snap so you can tear the Axis to pieces.

 

Basically we have Patton as head of government for all Ally faction :)

 

Sometimes we talk about historical accuracy, but I think what that ought to mean for a game is that it gives you a sense that you are confronting the same dilemmas that historical leaders did.

 

Supremely well put~

 

Good thing is 1939 scenario kinda puts this issue aside but great majority of Paradox fans (including meee) love the earliest start...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are ways to make the Allies want to stay at peace if you're willing to be a gamey game and have victory conditions that don't entirely tie to crushing your enemies.  This is the avenue explored by the hex and counter wargames.

 

Alas, you still end up having to have restrictive rules for the Allies when you try to accomodate earlier starts.  Totaler Krieg starts in 1937 but the Allies can't declare war on anyone(aside from a few X Challenges Germany cards in Limited War which are not guaranteed) until Total War begins.

 

Basically in that game all the allied countries have policies that place restrictions- German demands can't spark war, for example, until an allied major power gets out of Appeasement or Rapallo.  Once they do get to Guarantees or Entente, though, then ww2 can begin.  There's no way to really ahistorically build up, though- your unit additions and replacement steps are pre-determined from a few options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are ways to make the Allies want to stay at peace if you're willing to be a gamey game and have victory conditions that don't entirely tie to crushing your enemies.

 

'Victory Condition' (the one that nobody cares about in Paradox games :P ) actually doesn't require Allies to completely crush Axis.  In fact, in 1936 starting condition, if no major war happens in the game, Allies 'win' by default cause they already hold most of the victory point location.

 

Problem is also largely thematic I think.  It's pitched as WWII war-game.  People playing it then should and do want a WWII.  But it's also a Paradox game post EU4/CK2.  It's just this really awkward starting date (for European powers that is) that contrasts with its pitch.  On one hand is clear war-game pitch.  On another because its Paradox game post EU4/CK2, people also expect this grand long term game that transcends a single war in scope.  Then combine that with this weird starting date for major western powers.  1936 actually works out well for Japan, but for USA/UK, it's this weird mobilization game where your hands are tied behind your back.  Germany/Italy/USSR at least get to have a full swing at mobilizing their armies in that period.

 

That's why I think they should just increase the time frame and pitch the game as modern-grand-combined-arms-strategy game... but might be too late to change such core identity (confusing one to new comers no doubt) so ehhh IDK :(

 

 

 Does HOI factor casualties into their national morale?

 

You know what, my mistake, there is actually something close to it called national unity... but it rarely matters (if you can inflict say, 40 national unity hit, reaching 100 won't be that far off) so I kinda forgot about it ever existing lol

 

I mean it kinda matters for USSR because they gain about 30 through events from 1936 ~ 1939 but even then, it's possible to win with USSR with like no NU hit so it still hardly matters as long as it's not abysmally low, which it never is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About historicity - I also don't like that some incredible events are railroaded. Anschluse and Munchen Deal work automatically in HoI3 while in reality those were risky gambles and many poeple expected for all this Chezh business to trigger what attack on Poland triggered. But history is what player expects to happen so it's actually hard or impossible to fail at those incredible unlikely deeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About historicity - I also don't like that some incredible events are railroaded. Anschluse and Munchen Deal work automatically in HoI3 while in reality those were risky gambles and many poeple expected for all this Chezh business to trigger what attack on Poland triggered. But history is what player expects to happen so it's actually hard or impossible to fail at those incredible unlikely deeds.

 

I think the problem is one of having those years in a game about ww2.  It isn't interesting at all if Germany is invaded in 1936 and defeated quickly by the Allies, so you kind of have to force it.

 

 

That's why I think they should just increase the time frame and pitch the game as modern-grand-combined-arms-strategy game... but might be too late to change such core identity (confusing one to new comers no doubt) so ehhh IDK :(

 

You could make the game, but I don't think it would be well-suited to having the intricacy of combat in a ww2 wargame.  I could see it working if instead of playing a country, you played an ideology, starting with a country, but instead of just controlling one, you would control several, a coalition.  That would, for example, make a cold war a lot more interesting to play out, and it solves some of the problems of a ww2 game where you have to make it fun for a Romania player(those small countries were never going to have that much of an impact).

 

It was weird seeing people be so happy about East vs West when the #1 feature everyone knew about was customizing warships, which strikes me as exactly the wrong kind of focus(it was a hoi3 derivative, but hoi3 was not the right base for a cold war game unless you want it to be a ww3 wargame).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people think it's even *possible* to design a game that is simultaneously (1) interesting for all 20 players in a multiuplayer game and (2) an even slightly realistic simulation of WWII.

 

This was an era that if you werent a major superpower, you essentially lived and died by the whim of someone who was.

 

I think Paradox has set an impossible design goal.  Multiplayer should be restricted to major powers only (or at least, don't expect a fun game if you choose otherwise).  Or, if they choose to make *that* a decent game, don't expect it to be any fun to play as a WWII simulation.

 

Now, having said that, I haven't played HoI3.  Did that somehow actually manage these two almost opposite design goals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what, I kinda take lot of what I said back, I think the game's focus is fine as is.  Almost all the major complaints feel like people were expecting too much EU4 clone, UI issues, and that test games were done with 20 ppl multiplayer.  Out of those 3, only the UI needs fixing IMO.

 

I could see it working if instead of playing a country, you played an ideology, starting with a country, but instead of just controlling one, you would control several, a coalition.  That would, for example, make a cold war a lot more interesting to play out, and it solves some of the problems of a ww2 game where you have to make it fun for a Romania player(those small countries were never going to have that much of an impact).

 

That basically means... you are replacing countries with bigger ones?  How would that help 'problem' of playing a minor if the solution is to just remove the minor nations?  And on side note, Romania play is totally viable in HoI3, just not for the reasons most of us want :)

 

Now, having said that, I haven't played HoI3.  Did that somehow actually manage these two almost opposite design goals?

 

Kinda.  Obviously say, 1v1 game and one player picks Germany while other picks Brazil... yeah that's going to bomb, but minor nations in multiplayer sorta works in larger games where top tier players take the majors and are for the most part, evenly matched.  That let smaller nations to contribute as a tipping point.

 

Keep in mind that noone in HoI3 community really expected HoI3 to work as 'gather random 20 ppl and just play and have fun' kind of multiplayer game... if there were multiplayer sessions, it had to be planned out, you left major powers to the best so the game doesn't tank (nothing like newbie major power sinking their faction), etc.  It was a fickle thing, but with a game this complicated, I think it was a fair trade off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, in MP minor countries were played to give the majors some teammates rather than as players on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda.  Obviously say, 1v1 game and one player picks Germany while other picks Brazil... yeah that's going to bomb, but minor nations in multiplayer sorta works in larger games where top tier players take the majors and are for the most part, evenly matched.  That let smaller nations to contribute as a tipping point..

 

I'm thinking that if I play the Netherlands or Bulgaria or Greece, I'm basically playing until a major power kills me or puppets me.  If there's any sense of historicity, there's nothing I can do to save myself or alter the course of the war by anything but the most miniscule amount. 

 

If I'm playing single player HoI 3, how does the game make playing a minor power rewarding?  Doesn't it feel like playing a security officer on Star Trek?

 

"Congratulations, you played Belgium better than any player on Earth.  Because of your talent and skill, Belgium fell a full two weeks later than it did historically!  Well done!"  :-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking that if I play the Netherlands or Bulgaria or Greece, I'm basically playing until a major power kills me or puppets me.  If there's any sense of historicity, there's nothing I can do to save myself or alter the course of the war by anything but the most miniscule amount. 

 

If I'm playing single player HoI 3, how does the game make playing a minor power rewarding?  Doesn't it feel like playing a security officer on Star Trek?

 

"Congratulations, you played Belgium better than any player on Earth.  Because of your talent and skill, Belgium fell a full two weeks later than it did historically!  Well done!"  :-).

 

If you are minor and you border a hostile major, without friendly major directly supporting you yes you will die fast.  Eastern front is good showcase of contrast of this rule where Romania and Hungary don't just die to USSR because Germany is talking the bulk of the fighting, so you actually get to play as a small army group and it's kinda cool.

 

You will probably hate the answer to that second question... as a minor in 1936 starting date, it is possible to play the game almost like a EU4 game because AI can't handle non-German/USSR aggression well.  Famous and popular example of this is players basically going on rampage using Hungary without joining any faction...

 

Here is Estonian example of such.

 

 

Let the beauty and tragedy of that map soak in my friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the beauty and tragedy of that map soak in my friends.

 

Dear God.  That's both magnificent and horrible.

 

What I don't understand is that if you're going to do a modern EU4 (and I don't really mind the idea, although it probably wouldn't be my cup of tea), why on earth not simply do a modern EU4.  It seems kind of bait and switch to promise something as specific as WWII and then throw that particular history to the wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is specific to WWII... when the game works as intended :P

 

The above example is the game's inability to handle non Axis aggression, which is design mistake, nothing intentional IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if HoI is mostly marketed as a WW2 game, then it has to be a wargame, right?

 

The problem is, is Paradox actually good at making wargames? At least built on something like the EU4 engine and its degree of scale? I have never played HoI, but personally I never found warfare in EU or its sibling series very interesting in itself. Being at war was still the most interesting playing experience in EU4 of course, but it was more about conserving your economic resources and getting most out of the war without wasting them. In other words, considerations that were extraneous to the war itself. Plus, war was fun because it was often the culmination (or collapse) of the diplomatic game you were playing for the rest of the game.

 

As this thread has already concluded, HoI has to reduce the importance of all these aspects because it sets itself up as a WW2 game so there has to be WW2.

 

And I think it's going to fall flat because warfare isn't particularly well designed in Paradox grand strategy games. The panel touched on this when talking about how nobody understands how the war rules work. This is the case for every Paradox game to different extents, but when the game is ABOUT war then that's kind of a problem.

 

At the same time people like me who don't care about the military aspect of WW2, but are interested in the domestic politics and diplomacy of the era, are kind of left out. I think this is a problem because these people are usually also catered to by say EU, but HoI cannot do the same because the war has to happen no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t the same time people like me who don't care about the military aspect of WW2, but are interested in the domestic politics and diplomacy of the era, are kind of left out. I think this is a problem because these people are usually also catered to by say EU, but HoI cannot do the same because the war has to happen no matter what.

 

I think even in that case, the Paradox games and the general assumptions of them don't work very well.  I've been looking at a board game called Churchill, which is a game about the war conferences where Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt wrangled for resources and position while winning the war, but I don't know if Paradox can do a design that really captures anything about the era without being bloated.

 

For example(and this hurts HoI as a wargame), Paradox takes care to make almost every minor country playable, but this is not an era where they really mattered, or really could possibly end up mattering.  I think it's way more fun, for example, to play out a Cold War game like Twilight Struggle where the various post-colonial/small countries are battlegrounds between the superpowers than a Paradox style game in the period where Angola can conquer the world.

 

I kinda wish computer strategy game developers were willing to cut things out and be focused on something, to make it really work, rather than throwing in meaningless black boxes like Victoria 2 or Distant Worlds, among others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if HoI is mostly marketed as a WW2 game, then it has to be a wargame, right?

 

The problem is, is Paradox actually good at making wargames? At least built on something like the EU4 engine and its degree of scale? I have never played HoI, but personally I never found warfare in EU or its sibling series very interesting in itself.

 

HoI's fighting is good and is completely different from EU4's fighting.  I agree EU4's fighting is kinda blend... so I'll note two major differences and how those affect the overall fighting.

 

First, unlike EU4, your entire border should be filled up with units.

 

Second, every unit needs supply route or else receives huge combat penalty.

 

Combine those two and what you get is a game where you are trying to find weakpoints in enemy front, attack it with armor and aircraft to punch hole in enemy's front to encircle your enemies so you can cut their supply route.

 

Very basic concept but given how since both you and your enemy are trying to accomplish this, the front line can be quite dynamic and is IMO very very very engaging.

 

Again, the best bits (and where most of functional 'game' is at) of HoI series is actually lot closer to Unity of Command than EU4.

 

The problem is getting to this step that I'm describing.  Game is very dense and overloaded so lot of new players just get stuck long before they get a taste of this.  Sounds like Rob got stuck on just getting big enough army, and it wouldn't surprise me if almost all the guests in that meet up were too tangled up with complexity of the game (most of which is not needed at all) to get to this juicy mobile warfare that I'm describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this