Hearts of Iron 2 Player

[jbetexas]

I am a long time Hearts of Iron 2 player that ordered World at War today. I am excited about getting started next weekend.

Has anyone played both? How similiar or different are the games?

Thank You!

[MarcelJV]

I have both and they are night and day different, in a good way. I like both games. Hearts Of Iron II (HOIII) is much more detailed, World At War is more true Strategic. I would say HOIII is strategic in thinking but operational in execution of combat. World At War is definetly strategic. Most game concepts are easily picked up. In stead of moving divisions you are moving Corps units or air fleets or naval groups. There are no leaders and no goverment choices. The only political rules deal with declaring war and unfreezing frozen areas. The game mechanics are easy to work out, well except for invasions. The games real fun starts when you move from basic supply to advanced supply.

Read the notes for beginners as they will help you get going. Also read the manual it is good.

The one major thing I think is better about World At War is the PBEM. I have a slow connection to the internet and playing HOIII is just not possible so I am stuck with single player mode, which is only fun for a little while.

Practice up when you get the game then lets us know when you need to get thrashed, we will be happy to comply.[:D]

[nukkxx5058]

I would say the main difference is: Real time (HOI) and turn based (WAW).

Other explainations in the previous message are also correct.

[Gargoyle]

HOI2 is much more detailed but suffers from internal inconsistencies and very weak AI. I know because I played (and did enjoy) dominating the game as the Germans in a '36 campaign. I applaud Paradox for their effort, but the bar is just set to high.

GGWAW satisifies all my requirements for a great game:

Logistics
Units with variable attritibutes improvable by Tech advances
Resourse and time requirements for production
Fog of war
Reasonable Combat results
Co-ordination of assets

Right now I think what Paradox is shooting for is current beyond their reach. But I do hope they keep trying. GGWAW is close to perfect for what was set for its goal.

[jchastain]

I have both games also. And while I have enjoyed both to some degree, I must confess that I have yet to find a WWII Grand Strategy game that I enjoy as much as the ancient Clash of Steel. It's design just captured the feel of WWII better than any of the new games and even today it is just fun to play (for those who can get it working - it's a 16-bit DOS title!) I'd love to see a modern game based on the system behind CoS, but so far no one has done it.

[Ron Belcher]

HoI2 is what all have said, no doubt. The Valkyrienet connection for TCP/IP isn't too bad. I found
most of the players though, are located in Europe. Not a bad thing, just keep in mind the time
differences. Also, take note is that if you want a solid online gameplay.. everyone u have playing
in "your" game (using "your" as Host), has to agree with one way of gaming.. and when to start.
Some like to play with 1939 ... and claim if they start in 1936, there is a long game element.
Well? no kidding! heh
And there are those who believe that they're gonna get stomped upon... will eventualy QUIT and
blame the internet connection as the reason. Yet, they won't go back in the game (even if you
SAVED it). It's annoying.

Just my personal thoughts on it. It became so annoying I quickly gave it away for FREE !!!

Now, with the other.. GG: WaW. Having an absolute time with it. Once I managed to figure out
how to use resources and supplies, the game is smooth. Looking forward to TCP/IP patch as well.

For those who want more... please turn your attention to War in the Pacific. It has its' share of
probs... Matrix is diligent to fix them all! No worries here. A slight to steep learning curve. But,
with PBeM games, I have found a fellow grognard who is willing to help root out problematic
areas. And, is willing to work with me. Even though, currently .. I admit .. I am getting stomped
upon. hehe I'll bounce back ! [;)]

[Ket]

OMG Clash of Steel...

I remember that one well, First 360 Pacific came out with I believe it was Strategic Command, and then 3rd Reich came out and Clash of Steel was better than the 2 of them put together.....

CoS represented 3rd Reich better than 3rd Reich did, that was sad...But yes, I would kill to see it redone... Modern or wwII

[von_Schmidt]

360 did High Command (also known as SuperStack Pacman - gather your air and armour in a big stack each and chomp ...chomp...chomp).

COS is an alltime classic; I still play COS-FE in Dosbox now and again.

Have you tried COS-Future edition? Basically the same game with some bugs removed (and others introduced
Can be found at the underdogs.

- von Schmidt

[toddtreadway]

Hey Matrix, would there be any way to get the rights to Clash of Steel so you could re-do it? That was by far my favorite computer wargame ever. Abstract enough to be playable, fun, and a pretty good simulation.

[Forwarn45]

I agree with the last few posts. Clash of Steel was a great game. Easy to play with great game mechanics and complexity below the surface. A perfect "Beer and Pretzels" game. It could use a modern update!

[jchastain]

I found a write-up years ago about Clash of Steel that analyzed what made it so much fun. I book marked it and it is still out there. HERE IS THE LINK. I am not the author - it is far better than any analysis I could produce. But I think it makes excellent reading for anyone interested in WWII Grand Strategy.

As many of you, I actually keep a copy of CoS around. In my case, I built a CD-ROM that boots to DOS 6.22 and loads the game so that I can play it. I hear Dosbox does a great job with it too. I can't wait for the day that I can throw that disk away. But so far, a dozen years later, it is still the most fun product in this genre for me.

[Franky513]

ORIGINAL: nukkxx
I would say the main difference is: Real time (HOI) and turn based (WAW).

Yes, I also played HOI for some minutes. [8D] It's much to "stressful", since it's very complex and real-time. WAW ist one of the best strategic games I played so far.

Ciao Frank

[Kung Karl]

ORIGINAL: Frank Klein

ORIGINAL: nukkxx
I would say the main difference is: Real time (HOI) and turn based (WAW).

Yes, I also played HOI for some minutes. [8D] It's much to "stressful", since it's very complex and real-time. WAW ist one of the best strategic games I played so far.

Ciao Frank

Just put the tie down to slow in HoI2 and the you have all the time in the world. If that doesn't do it, just pause and give your orders.

[Damien Thorn]

I liked Clash of Steel too but found it's naval aspects lacking. It really was a land-warfare game. Still fun though.

[von_Schmidt]

Actually, I think the naval aspect in COS was very well done. Abstracted yet giving a good feel for the limits and challenges faced by the combattants.
Better done than it's nearest modern equivalent Strategic Command (Battlefront).

If anything, the air component was out of whack: vastly too strong in Bomber interception, yet pretty ineffectual in land combat. Air temporarily lowers the defender's morale level (by a set 25% IIRC) at the cost of expense air Strenght Points - and air strength or morale/efficiency does not improve this. Only useful for crucial combats (taking Leningrad or Alexandria) or to take down a supersize unit (Army Group) a few pegs.
Air to air was either unphantomable or simply broken - I've never managed to figure it out. An interception did not seem to stop the attacking air unit, nor lessen the impact of the attack.

Land combat is brilliant though; taking into account terrain, strength, morale (miss a check and the unit retreats or even evaporates), several possible (based on chance) tactical influening factors (German Kampfgruppe / Russian Infiltration traits, paratroopers) and repeat attacks if movement points and weather allows.
The system really emphasises breakthroughs, supply lines and using the right unit for the job.

I can heartily recommend COSFE to anyone interested in WW2 ETO games; it's the best out there (with Strategic Command a close second due to better AI, better interface, WinXP. SC2 is in development; SC1 is dirt cheap - well worth $25).

There are a few very useful docs at the mentioned Grognard's site.


- von Schmidt