Hearts of Iron IV

[Rayfer]

Is anybody keeping up with this? I've seen a lot of patch activity over the past several months, something about a war effort initiative. All the patches are named after operations. I've checked some of the patch notes and I see some new features, balancing, fixes, etc.

Paradox seems to be putting a lot of work into this title. Is it making it much better?

In short: yes. The game is still a challenge to control but I think the tweaks and DLC enhancements have improved the game.

However, to get the best out of the game I think you must have all the major non-sprite, non-music DLC installed.

For me, the best improvements via DLC have been the air war fixes (no more teleporting bomber raids from A to B - they can now be intercepted with losses), the fix for peace conferences with extra options (demilitarised zones, disarmament etc.) the addition of the tank and plane designers, the improved supply model and basically, well, all the other stuff. It's come a long way but it's still a huge game to control.

For me IC's intial point "...the game is still a challenge to control..." says it all, in fact, again just my experience, it became more and more difficult to control with each new dlc and update to the point where it is now a mess. I have 372 hours into the game and tried again yesterday to get back into it but couldn't.

[Pete Dero]

In short: yes. The game is still a challenge to control

Sometimes it is also a challenge for the AI.

However, to get the best out of the game I think you must have all the major non-sprite, non-music DLC installed.

I agree.

[Ian C]

Is anybody keeping up with this? I've seen a lot of patch activity over the past several months, something about a war effort initiative. All the patches are named after operations. I've checked some of the patch notes and I see some new features, balancing, fixes, etc.

Paradox seems to be putting a lot of work into this title. Is it making it much better?

In short: yes. The game is still a challenge to control but I think the tweaks and DLC enhancements have improved the game.

However, to get the best out of the game I think you must have all the major non-sprite, non-music DLC installed.

For me, the best improvements via DLC have been the air war fixes (no more teleporting bomber raids from A to B - they can now be intercepted with losses), the fix for peace conferences with extra options (demilitarised zones, disarmament etc.) the addition of the tank and plane designers, the improved supply model and basically, well, all the other stuff. It's come a long way but it's still a huge game to control.

For me IC's intial point "...the game is still a challenge to control..." says it all, in fact, again just my experience, it became more and more difficult to control with each new dlc and update to the point where it is now a mess. I have 372 hours into the game and tried again yesterday to get back into it but couldn't.

At first, I'd recommend a smaller nation and using the 'stop-start' method of play.

Real-time strategy is the issue plus the hundreds of unit options and possibilities of play. The game demands you focus attention in many different areas at once. It's impossible to do easily. You have to break the game time into your own 'phases'. Arguably, if it were turn-based, it would be more accessible.

The only way I can play is the 'stop-start' method: pause, evaluate, plan, execute, un-pause, advance time 1, 2 or 3 days, pause, repeat. While at war, don't run the game at any speed above 2, with Speed 3 being the fastest in slow periods. Check map. Wait a day or two or three. Pause every time an event happens. This makes for very long game. If you can get past this, it's quite rewarding. This is the only game with which I keep a log on my desk, to make notes in. It can get quite complicated.

Another very important consideration is that the nation you choose to play dictates the complexity of your game. Obviously, choosing the USSR or Germany would mainly be land and air ops and one theatre (also Russia and maybe North Africa for Germany). The UK and U.S. are a heavy challenge for any player as they have multiple theatres, air, land and sea ops and strong opponents.

For a lighter game and a chance to slowly get a feel but remain active, try France in 1939. You know you're going to get conquered, but as Free France you can fight on, on a smaller scale with lighter ops and get a real feel for the game, however, you will wait a lot but can observe the AI at work. Italy is also a good choice, a smaller nation with big ambitions, two close theatres and any mistakes you make will add to the historical feel. Also another bonus for playing Italy is that you only have to focus on one general area of the map - Southern Europe, North Africa and East Africa.

[Rayfer]

Great post IC....I like the idea of Russia because for me the naval piece is the most frustrating part of the game. I think I'll give it a try with your 'stop-start' suggestion.

[Ian C]

You're welcome.

A good tip for managing theatres or important areas where action is expected is to pin areas to the screen. Left click on the map, in the top right a label appears. Click on the black dot to pin the area to the screen. You can then right click on the label to instantly take you there on the map.

[FarAway Sooner]

I don't know that I've ever wanted to like a game franchise so much in my life, but I've just never been able to make it happen.  I never understand what's happening, or why, even after spending 10-15 hours browsing forums and watching YouTube videos.

I feel like this game is the beautiful, funny, smart girl that I dated for eight weeks in college before she broke up with me for no reason she could explain.  Since then, she's tried to get back together with me three times since but I always had other girlfriends.  I've tried to reconnect with her twice, but she had a boyfriend the first time and was going to Europe for a study-abroad trip the second time.

I still hope we'll find happiness together at some point, but I've largely given up on.

 

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Same.

I keep trying to get into it but I end up going back to HOI III.  I enjoy it so much more than IV.

[Jarhead0331]

Same.

I keep trying to get into it but I end up going back to HOI III.  I enjoy it so much more than IV.

Can you provide some details on why? 

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I feel like III dies a better job of allowing you to explore "what ifs" while still feeling like a believable simulation of WWII.  IV feels more like a generic sandbox with a WWII skin slapped on.

I like the granularity of III more than IV.  The tech trees are deeper and with finer graduations than you find in IV.  For example, if I'm playing the UK and I develop a Halifax heavy bomber, I can continue using it with minor, incremental improvements as I research various tech trees.  Better radar might get me an H2S ground scanning radar.  Better doctrine might see me switching from. 303 guns to .50 cal.  Better aeronautics removes the triangular tailfin assembly on the Mk I and replaces it with rectangular ones for better stability on the Mk III.

In HOI IV, the changes are too about and you don't get to see these fine details. You just go from something like a Halifax Mk II to Mk III and then straight to Lancasters.

I also like being able to manually plot flight paths for my bombers and fighters.  The way sir and naval combat is presented in IV is too abstract.

I like being able to design my divisions exactly how I want, which is easier to do in III than in IV and I don't need to accrue enough "points" in order yo be able to tinker, like IV requires.

I find it's easier to pull up data and get a vkear picture of how the war is progressing in III than in IV.  Maybe its because I'm more familiar with III's interface, but I find too much info is hidden from the player in IV.

[Ian C]

I find too much info is hidden from the player in IV.

It is. If HOI was presented in a way you could view reports of activity, it would be a real help.