For those who loved HOI 3 and bought HOI4

[bobarossa]

What say you about 4?  I've seen plenty of people in the other thread talk about not 'getting' HOI3 but loving HOI4.  I want to know what people think who loved 3 in spite of/because of its complexity.  I've spent at least 2 or 3 years of my life playing HOI3 and its mods and loving them but it's getting old.  Will HOI4 be fun for me?

[Jarhead0331]

You might want to check out our 40 page thread on HOI 4. I'm guessing you'll find a lot of info. in there about what to expect with the new title. Its like 3 threads below this one. 

[bobarossa]

You might want to check out our 40 page thread on HOI 4. I'm guessing you'll find a lot of info. in there about what to expect with the new title. Its like 3 threads below this one. 

Yes, I mentioned that other thread in my second sentence.  But many of the people on there are comparing to HOI3 from the standpoint of not liking 3.  I want the other people's opinion as I loved 3.

[Jarhead0331]

OK, then...well, I liked HOI 3. I also like HOI 4. I've found 4 easier to learn than 3. However, I have more or less shelved 4 due to the "military access bug".

Quite frankly, I find it difficult to believe that anyone who liked 3 would not ultimately find enjoyment in 4, as well. From a broad perspective, it really does not seem THAT different to me.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I really like III but I'm not really a fan of the changes they made in IV.  IV feels very thin to me right now.  Much of that is due to the fact that it's new and hasn't benefitted from all the DLC. That I'm sure will be forthcoming.  My main issues with IV are:

1.  It's taken too much control away from the player.  I personally enjoyed direct control of my air and sea units.  I liked being able to set up interception vectors, max ranges, operations lengths, etc.  That's missing from the air/sea aspects in IV.  Micro managing your ground forces is possible but the game discourages it.  You get a planning bonus to your attacks if you utilize their battle planning tool and let the computer run the operation for you.  The end result is that I feel like I'm spectating rather than playing.

2.  It feels too generic.  Much of the historical detail found in III is missing in IV.  Little things like proper equipment names are missing.  Their are some but the tech/development tree has far fewer steps to it in IV so there are big gaps in the development system.  That's another thing I don't like. There's far less depth to research now so you don't have the depth of choice when trying to steer your research focus.  I thought the tech trees in III were amazingly detailed and allowed for great latitude in shaping your forces.  The simplified trees in IV just don't measure up.  Going from level 3 to 4 in medium tank armament felt like a natural progression and you'd see something incremental like a switch from 57mm guns to 75mm.  In IV, there are fewer steps and the tech leaps seem far more jarring (and paying for them far more painful).

The actions of the nation-states in IV feel far less bound by reality than in III so you tend to see a lot more large deviations from history.  Some people like the sandbox "what if" nature. I find it goes off the rails a little too much for my liking.

3.  Not enough feedback.  For all its streamlining, IV does a poor job of conveying critical information to the player. There aren't enough pop ups (they don't tell you when you've been attacked and lost a province for example).  Other information is available but you usually have to drill down a few pages to find it.

4. Speed.  I find d that the game moves too quickly even on slow settings.  Battles in rough terrain don't seem to last long enough.  I do t get that sense of horrible meat grinder attrition that I'd get in III. 

Trying to account for weather at the speed the game moves at is an exercise in frustration.  First, it's hard to see the weather at certain map zoom levels.  Second, there's no simple way to see overall weather in a sector.  This is bad for air especially as weather is plotted province by province but air missions are automatically spread through a multi-province sector.

5.  Division designer.  You need experience points to use the unit designer.  It's frustrating that you can't build new divisions when you research the tech because you don't have the XP.

6.  The AI.  As usual, it needs work.  Doesn't field the right kind of units and kind of sucks at combat.

[Jarhead0331]

^In all fairness, there are mods that address some of the issues you raise.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I've no doubt of it.  I'm optimistic that future mods and DLC will address many of the issues I have with the game as it currently stands.  However, comparing the two as they are now, I find III to be the better of the two for me.

[Grim.Reaper]

I am not as hardcore as most other people, so my comparison is quite simple.....I have played HOI 4 more than HOI 3 and it has only been out a little while.  Although I have more learning to do, I am able to understand this version much better than any previous version and don't feel overwhelmed.  Just wish I had more time to play it....

[jomni]

I have HOI 3 but never touched it.  I like HOI 4 because it's more accessible.  Hoping for more tweaks.

[sandman2575]

My own viewpoint -- I honestly believe each new iteration of HOI has improved on what came before it. HOI4 > 3 > 2 > original.

I am thrilled with HOI4, despite its shortcomings. I loved HOI3, especially the superb BlackICE mod. But I'll never go back to it now that 4 is out. I agree with several of SDR's criticisms and yet still prefer 4 over 3 by a country mile. I think the dev team achieved what they set out to accomplish: to streamline HOI without sacrificing depth. I think 4 is as complex as 3 and don't at all buy the claim that 4 is somehow 'dumbed down.' The challenges have shifted, and in my view, in the right ways.

Right now, the AI is indeed pretty raw. It's going to take time (and probably mods) for it to improve. But I haven't put HOI4 down since it launched. Haven't even played another game. It's flawed and rough, but it's brilliant.

[Boggit]

I have HOI 3 but never touched it.  I like HOI 4 because it's more accessible.  Hoping for more tweaks.

I have HOI3 too but find it hard to get into as well. I probably need to spend more time with it, but ...  so many games, not enough time to play them all... :-[

[MetalDog]

My own viewpoint -- I honestly believe each new iteration of HOI has improved on what came before it. HOI4 > 3 > 2 > original.

I am thrilled with HOI4, despite its shortcomings. I loved HOI3, especially the superb BlackICE mod. But I'll never go back to it now that 4 is out. I agree with several of SDR's criticisms and yet still prefer 4 over 3 by a country mile. I think the dev team achieved what they set out to accomplish: to streamline HOI without sacrificing depth. I think 4 is as complex as 3 and don't at all buy the claim that 4 is somehow 'dumbed down.' The challenges have shifted, and in my view, in the right ways.

Right now, the AI is indeed pretty raw. It's going to take time (and probably mods) for it to improve. But I haven't put HOI4 down since it launched. Haven't even played another game. It's flawed and rough, but it's brilliant.

Haven't put my two cents in on either thread, but, that review right there is pushing me closer to what I want to do naturally.  Please stop.

[SirAndrewD]

I loved HoI3, but yeah, it really didn't fully come into its own till Semper Fi.  It was decently playable after the first few hot and heavy patches and best with mods. 

So, no, don't like HoI4.  I made that known.   I refunded it.  But here's my detailed opinion on pros and cons.

Pros:

- Production/Training concept is GREAT.

- Abstraction of Espionage is very much improved and diplomacy, once you learn how it works is much better.

- I like the air abstraction.  It's less detailed but it works in a more functional manner.  It's really the best solution if it just had some more transparency on info of what happened where.

- Submarine Warfare is vastly better, and I like the general concept and structure of Naval Warfare.  Again, the only problem is lack of info. 

- Love the National Focus concept and Tech Trees.

- Construction interface is really well done.  The concept of Civilian and Military production is handled great.

- Trade is good, just being able to ask for what you need and not worry about the mess is an improvement.

- Logistics are MUCH better than HoI3, which, even in its very heavily modded and patched final versions was sometimes incomprehensible.

- Great freedom of the division designer and good concept of Experience = Better Divisions/equipment.  This of course needs tweaking, but working as designed, it's ok.

-I like the Exercise option, where you can increase division and overall XP by just having an army "exercise".   I have actually made direct training armies to early deploy and just exercise until they achieve rank 2.

Cons:

- The AI, especially Axis, is abysmal.  Yeah, release HoI1/2/3 AI was also bad.  This one is just as bad in its own ways.  Germany has issues beating France, and sometimes Poland.  Japan can succeed in China, but not often.  Italy usually breaks out as the most successful Axis power.  The AI can't hold its fronts and goes completely schizophrenic at the slightest prompt.  I saw as the UK, AI France transfer 150 (!!!) Divisions in 1940 to Indochina, abandoning the Maginot Line.

- No real UI feedback.  The other games suffered from too many popups, this one has too few.  You can lose an entire fleet and not know it.  No info on losing or winning battles or provinces.  As Germany, one game I played the UK had retaken most of northern France without me knowing it because I was concentrating on North Africa.

-To whit, the Axis AI is over aggressive.  It declares war on EVERYONE.  Switzerland, Sweeden, Hungary, Turkey.  Even on Historical focus the German AI will justify and declare as often and as much as possible, probably to get resources.  In one game as the US the Axis declared war on me in 1939 on a justified claim for Puerto Rico. 

- The planner is awful.  Drawing front lines is frustrating, sometimes not intuitive and many times inexplicably blocked.  Assigning offensives is either easy or hard for reasons I sometimes can't understand, there are times I can draw an offensive line, times I can't depending on if I have the front line drawn "right".  I figured out how to do it after a while, but then when I would execute offensives the AI couldn't handle it.  The AI is TERRIBLE at using the planner.  It continually uses strategic redeployment to move units, even right along the line, which kills their ORG.  It routinely ignores breakthroughs and openings.  It is usually absurdly passive and typically refuses to exploit wide open or weakly defended objectives or even empty provinces.  Even the most weakly adequate human player can obliterate the weaknesses of the AI if they refuse to use the planner and do HoI1 style manual control.

- The UI is tremendously weak and gives very little feedback on what you're putting where.  You can make new front lines, new theaters, new command groups, but what combo of shift/control/left click/right click in order of select this, then that, and deselect this first, and then use a combo of multiple keystrokes plus right or left click to assign and place is absolutely absurd. 

- The UI Political map colors can at times be incomprehensible.  In multi nation offensives I can't tell whose territory is whose. 

- Manpower is not a great limiter of the ability of nations to raise armies.  In a game I played as Germany, my 335 divisions were wildly outstripped my Italian allies who raised more than 900 Divisions.  The British routinely raise more than 200 Divisions alone.  I was able to raise 200 divisions as France.  I watched, in my Historical Focus UK Game, Belgium take Berlin in 1941 with close to 150 Divisions. 

- The sheer number of divisions can choke logistics to absurd levels.  In a German game I sent 50 Divisions into Yuglslavia, only to be matched by an Italian invasion of over 200 divisions, which did not actually attack, they just came in and took up supply.  When I invited in Romania they sent in 52 divisions along their own lines (I know because they offered me their army as an expeditionary force).  If I'd accepted the offer of expedition it'd have choked supply even more.  No one, on either side was in supply.  There were stacks of 30 plus Greek/Yugo divisions that were choking the Allies too.

- The Air War can get obscene.  The UK can field, under AI or human control, fleets of 2000 plus fighters by mid '39.  Air war casualties spiral madly and quickly and the allies, almost always end up dominant wherever they desire a few weeks into the war.  The human CAN counter this by putting almost all Axis productions towards fighters. 

- The Air War is, as above, too decisive.  Building fighters and CAS from day one, can and will win the war, alone. 

- The AI can not manage the experience system for designing units.  The idea of needing XP to design tank divisions with medium, or infantry with sufficient artillery support, or making new fighters is really lost on the AI.  It will, even if it researches medium or heavy tanks, keep the default templates and use light tanks.  It either can't or won't use the XP system which is VITAL.

- I do dislike the lack of OOB's but that can be slightly mitigated by just assigning your own OOB's by doling large click and drags on unit groups.  It manages to be less clunky than HoI3 but just getting rid of it feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

- The AI is massively prone to naval invasions, even thought they've been made harder by the system.  Even with historical focus selected, expect Venezuelans in France, Brits landing in Rome, Belgians fighting in China ect..

-  The expeditionary force/volunteer system is broken.  Expect massive forces of US volunteers to be fighting for the Allies well before the US enters WW2.  Expect many, many offers for expeditionary forces from allies, which, if you accept, will leave their borders badly undefended.  The AI can't manage the Expeditionary force system, and will accept offers from itself and do mass transfers of expedition units from one front to the other.  The British will become insanely overpowered by the system, being able to field insane armies of 300 divisions or more from the British Raj, Belgium, Canada and Australia. 

Summary:  I'm drawing this to a close, too much to really write here.  I like the innovations the game made on the nation management side of things.  I like the abstractions on navy and air.  I deeply dislike how the division designer works, it's awful and the fact that the AI makes use of it leads to most of the problems in the game, it simply can't manage a front offensively or defensively and makes the game go schizophrenicly from easy to hard depending on how much you want to micromanage things. You can, in a nutshell, let the AI handle everything and just sit back and watch TV, occasionally intervening, and that will lead to abject chaotic madness, where units are randomly strategically redeploying, doing dueling encirclement, refusing to reinforce itself, or refusing to attack provinces with one defender when it has potentially 20 or more attackers.  You can of course go old school, and do HoI1/2 style click drag stack of doom fighting, and that IS the most effective way to play, and if you choose to do that, especially if you design your own divisions and reequip them ideally, the AI can't do anything to stop you. 

Doing some direct micro, I took Berlin as France by June of 41.  It wasn't even hard.  It's actually even easier as the UK.  It's not even fair, not in the least part to play the USSR.

Can this game be great?  Yep!  It probably will be.  Most of the worst problems are AI and how it can't manage the very very poorly implemented division planner, which is so borked I can't even go into all its issues here.  The game needs to get the AI's priorities under control, get the Axis actually performing sane operations, some how limit the insane division spam that has the UK putting 2 million men n the field by mid '40, and there must be a lot of UI quality of life tweaks. 

The game is every bit as bad AI wise as HoI3 on release, in some ways worse.  I know that for a fact.  HoI 3 had absurd problems with production, but not as much with holding a front or creating offensives, or fighting in a coherent fashion.  HoI4 can not coherently implement offense or attack, weather or not you give the AI designer control or if it's just enemy AI control.  Watching the AI fight is like watching two 90 year old blind people whack at each other.

Anyway, that was the most detailed layout of my experiences.  You mileage may vary. 

[Jarhead0331]

Wow. Refunded? So you played for less than 2 hours?

[Ian C]

My own viewpoint -- I honestly believe each new iteration of HOI has improved on what came before it. HOI4 > 3 > 2 > original.

I am thrilled with HOI4, despite its shortcomings. I loved HOI3, especially the superb BlackICE mod. But I'll never go back to it now that 4 is out. I agree with several of SDR's criticisms and yet still prefer 4 over 3 by a country mile. I think the dev team achieved what they set out to accomplish: to streamline HOI without sacrificing depth. I think 4 is as complex as 3 and don't at all buy the claim that 4 is somehow 'dumbed down.' The challenges have shifted, and in my view, in the right ways.

Right now, the AI is indeed pretty raw. It's going to take time (and probably mods) for it to improve. But I haven't put HOI4 down since it launched. Haven't even played another game. It's flawed and rough, but it's brilliant.

+1 on all points. I'm also looking forward to more DLC and any robust & qualitative mods.