Why all this aversion when it comes to Hearts of Iron (HOI)?

[c.topfer]

I am more of a lurker at this forum, though I enjoy reading it very often. I am one of the guys thinking that Gary Grigsby is GOD [:)] (Oh, how I´ve enjoyed his games, WIR in particular), bur frankly am not too excited about WAW (looks too "lite" for my taste), but I will give it a fair chance (demo would be nice). I tend to agree with those guys saying that WAW looks like it´s being developed for the mass market, and I wish it all the success, so GG can make a "real" game, especially WiR II (drooool).

One thing however has me puzzled - why are so many people here THAT negative when it comes to HOI?

Granted - it was a fiasco when it first came out, but with patch 1.06c it is a very good game, that has considerable realism. I am not saying it´s perfect (no chance), but some of the flak it has gotten here is really unfounded and unfair. Maybe I was lucky only to get into it when it was already patched to 1.04, versions in which Yugoslavia conquered the world have thankfully not been played by me. Now HOI 2 will be out in a couple of weeks and it looks VERY promising, and I have the impression that some people here are on an agenda against that game while not even caring whether their assumptions about that particular game are true. Some, I have the impression, see it as a concurrence to GGWAW, while even the FAQ states that both games rather complement each other (and that´s the way I like to see it, too).

I think we should be happy to have three dedicated companies in our niche (strategy gaming) with Matrix, Battlefront and Paradox, and I hope all of them are doing well and keep providing us with good games.

[ladner]

Paradox is a company that is aptly named, for their games have been exactly that to me. Europa Universailis II and Victoria are two games that I enjoy immensely. HOI...well as my mother always says, "If you cannot say anything nice, do not say anything at all."

HOI II, I will have to take a wait and see approach, I do not see myself pre-ordering or buying the game right on release day. I do concurr with your sentiment regarding GGWaW, but I could be mistaken.

[sol_invictus]

I agree, WaW does look a bit lite to me; though I will consider buying it after realease and I get some more info.

I absolutely loved EU and EU2, but was burned by Two Thrones and Victoria. I swore I would never buy a Paradox game until after it had been out for a few months and been thoroughly patched. I did not buy HoI nor do I plan on buying HoI2. I will not buy CK either. I am really afraid that Paradox is a one trick pony. Hope I'm wrong.

[EricGuitarJames]

Apart from the patching fiasco (which wasn't quite so bad over here where it had already reached 1.03 when released), I think the problem is that it's not a wargame. The levels of abstraction that EU and EU2 went to are quite acceptable because we have distance from it ('the past is another country') but for a lot of people, wargamers especially, it isn't for a WW2 game. Shake that off, which isn't easy I'll admit, and HoI can be fun.

[Fred98]

I too agree with the sentiments re: GG's WaW.

I looks too lite. Its probably heavy under the hood but the looks are a killer for me. It is not possible to become immersed. I made that point months ago on the forum.

[Hexed Gamer]

When I edit out all my comments vis a vis anything to do with the game beyond that it is real time and grand strategy, I am still left wondering, not nutjob would want to play grand strategy in real time in the first place?

Civilization (version 3 with two expansions now) is a great game of grand strategy. It can be made to do real world settings, or total flights of fantasy.
But it uses turns for a reason. In this area of strategic gaming, turns are more logical.

But HoI exists for the same reason lost of bad idea products exist. Companies occasionally either don't know better or could care less if they did.

And, as they can always say, well you didn't have to buy it, after the sale is made, they presume they are free of guilt for producing either shabby quality, or shabby thinking in a product.

But I put up a thread at my own forum locating the link to the HoI2 demo. It's not like I won't give it equal time.
But it will be a cold day in hell before I spend money on it, over a real wargame.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Hexed Gamer

... nutjob would want to play grand strategy in real time in the first place?

Exactly. Because while you can potentially argue the benfits of real-time vs turn-based at other scales or even for other time periods, WWII grand strategy is literally by definition the one time and scale wherein turns far more accurately simulate the reality of the time and are actually less of an abstraction than its real-time counterpart.

The game design started backwards from the way it should have been. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean its a good idea. But the goal wasn't one that wargamers really respect. The goal of selling as many copies as possible. Which they probably did achieve. Perhaps they just thought such a goofy idea might result in a game that is a blast to play. While I value the "fun-factor" more than many may, in so many ways HOI takes these "less traditional wargamers values" to an extreme. And that is the why its get the reaction it does from that group.

The problem basically is, from a wargamers perspective, it makes a mockery of what a wargame is/should be much in the same way that the latest Axis & Allies RTS does.

But I, for one, really do think the game has value to wargamers. At least in that it may be a stepping stone for new wargamers. Its in stores, that can't be bad. Likely some will here about places like Matrix/Battleground/etc. and in some way wonder, given that they like HOI alot, how much they might like a "true wargame".

But that still doesn't mean I have to play the game myself.

Although I am downloading the demo for HOI2 right now. It's only fair. [:D]

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: Veldor
WWII grand strategy is literally by definition the one time and scale wherein turns far more accurately simulate the reality of the time and are actually less of an abstraction than its real-time counterpart.

What definition? Why is turn-based more appropriate for WWII but real time fine for other periods? What has scale got to do with real time vs turns? Confused.[&:]

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: Veldor
WWII grand strategy is literally by definition the one time and scale wherein turns far more accurately simulate the reality of the time and are actually less of an abstraction than its real-time counterpart.

What definition? Why is turn-based more appropriate for WWII but real time fine for other periods? What has scale got to do with real time vs turns? Confused.[&:]

Because when you are playing a WWII Strategic Level game the person whose "seat" you are filling did not get updates in Real Time but instead on a Daily Basis or thereabouts. Basically an abstractable slice of time that generally fits well with turn-based concepts. In that regard the combination of Strategic Level and WWII is the exception to the rule. It would not apply to Modern Day Strategic nor necessarily to WWII Tactical or Operational Scaled Games.

Make Sense?

[Bodhi]

OK, I think I see what you're saying now. However, I don't think I'd agree with your analysis about the exceptional nature of WWII Grand Strategy games. Pesonally I think "Real Time Strategy" is an oxymoron.

[Pippin]

I believe a lot of people suspect Paradox is just another Hasbro in disguise. I for one do not wish to go through another Iron Blitz disaster. I been burned a few times in the past. Maybe I am a slow learner but I think I finaly have come to mature.

[c.topfer]

I don´t really think that HOI is real time. I see it more as a turnbased game (1 hour = 1 turn), as you can easily pause every hour and adjust your orders. Turnbased grand strategy games like GGWAW or "Battle for Karelia" have the problem that huge provinces are changing ownership every time your opponent gets to take his turn. There I find the concept of HOI superior, where orders are issued simultaneously and carried out at the appropriate turn (time). I´d still love to see a grand strategy game with hexes though...

HOI certainly does not belong into a comparison with Axis and Allies, it is much more realistic (version 1.06c). What is the "huge unrealism" so many of you are talking about?

[Charles2222]

On a somewhat related note, I'm thinking more and more that I won't buy any more GG products. BTR didn't work out for me and now WITP's spawning not being an option makes me very pensive irrespective of the subject matter. With things like spawning in games of some alleged historical context, then it's only appropriate that he is resorting to WaW where it has a true home; though it's having seasonal turns keeps that miles away from me too.

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: c.topfer

I don´t really think that HOI is real time. I see it more as a turnbased game (1 hour = 1 turn), as you can easily pause every hour and adjust your orders. Turnbased grand strategy games like GGWAW or "Battle for Karelia" have the problem that huge provinces are changing ownership every time your opponent gets to take his turn. There I find the concept of HOI superior, where orders are issued simultaneously and carried out at the appropriate turn (time). I´d still love to see a grand strategy game with hexes though...

HOI certainly does not belong into a comparison with Axis and Allies, it is much more realistic (version 1.06c). What is the "huge unrealism" so many of you are talking about?

Let's call it 'Pausable Continuous Time' (it's what the HTTR people like to call it). I don't entirely agree that 'Turn-based' is more appropriate for WW2 Grand Strategy than PCT although a WEGO system would work equally as well. I could go further but I don't want to wander off topic.

The 'huge unrealism' in HoI is, in my experience, in the combat modelling. This is where the abstraction that I referred to earlier cripples the game in terms of having any relation to reality. It doesn't make it a bad game per se, but it's not a particularly accurate WW2 Grand Strategy game.

[Hexed Gamer]

"I believe a lot of people suspect Paradox is just another Hasbro"

Where's the connection?

Paradox makes predominantly lousy product that fails to even run in a lot of cases.

Hasbro is a massive giant that absorbs everything it touches like the Borg.

Or do you think Axis and Allies the game is even fractionally infinitisimally representative of Hasbro?

Paradox = small company with lame track record.

Hasbro = behemoth that owns every board game I can think of,
Avalon Hill name, TSR name, Wizards of the Coast name, software names to many to remember.
Such illustrious titles like Aadvanced Squad Leader.
More rolegaming products than I can recall.

So it was the people that sold Axis and Allies.
I would not be surprised if you had trouble finding an exec that had even heard of the game.

[ancient doctor]

Since i have atleast 2 games of Paradox i think i can talk about what is wrong with them.

They have some great ideas but they are really bad in putting them to work.
Lets start from Victoria.Well this game was supposed to be a representation of Victorian age and put the players in the spirit and ways of that time.Before comming out it was looking very promosing.BUT after it was published most of gamers realised only 1 thing.It had nothing to do with the timeframe it was about to happen.Now after 3 patches(officials)and some beta ones it it stable and you can play it but you certainly cant feel it like what was supposed to be.From where to start.The very bad tech sustem(in 1890s and i still can only build manowar and wooden frigates simply because some stupid tech ivents wont fire).Very badly designed naval aspect(AGAIN from PARADOX)in which subs are of no use,there is no way to force naval blockade and stop the enemy trading(no try plauying the WW1 senario Victoria has as GB or Germany).Ships can move on untill the end of our time since they have no range(because the AI whould be to stupid to understand tha ships have to return to ports or maybe wooden ships of Vicky era have nuclear reactors to propeler them) plus many many more things which are simply redicoulous like the financial system with not even a close relation to the what things were by the time,the still half working economy and that you cant be a buyer in the world market unless you are 1 of the super powers back then.Otherwise just forget been a modest civilised country and buy steel/paper/sulphur/iron/coal and other goods.Actually Imperialism 1 is still much more interesting that Victoria(and guess what:the old SSI game is a decade old).

As about HoI1 i can say that.Those who made it put 90% of thier time to make ground combat and the rest for naval and air aspect.As a result you will see lots of ground based AAR(Germany/SOV but none finished about Japan)becaus esimply air and naval aspect of game sucks big time.Even more 1.06c patch which you said made things better actually brought problems of its own.Weather is stil ruined since release of game(i once had storms and snow above Sahara desert for months or 1 whole year of raining above Canton and since weather matters for combat guess what happened).There are bugs that simply noone fixes(like the commando or the -20% supply bug).Not to mention that some bugs(like the AI not having air comabt night penalty)are called "FEATURES" once someone discovers them simply because Paradox dont give a s....t to fix them.You want more?Well the AI can simply crash your airforce because the human player only suffers from a tremendous penalty for stacking more than 3 or 4 units.On the other hand AI can stack as much as he likes and nobody cares to fix that instead.Also if you have no fortune and pass your TF from an area that convoy moves you might find your CV or BB sunk by some UNESCORTED convoys.Even worst now with the last patch a half dead surface unit can sink in few days something like 200 convoy and escort points without scratching(really "BRILLIANT" way to fix the problem mentioned above by making a new one as bad as the previous).
Do you really need more?All Paradox games have been more or less like that.Good ideas left out half made and unfinished(not to say buggy).
And i am asking you,they have again a "promising"title to sell?Fine after a couple of months since its release and with several patches out plus in half of its original price i might buy it if i had a good day simply because i tend to respect the money that may work pays me and i dont like giving them to somone who likes doing half job because if i do that my boss will tell my where the exit door is.

[elmo3]

Don't get me started on Paradox, EU, and HOI, ... [:'(]

I bought EU. Absolutely horrible manual. Buggy as hell. Then about 6 months later they want you to pony up for EU2, the game EU should have been in the first place.

But, I didn't learn my lesson the first time.

Fast forward to HOI. Absolutely horrible manual. Even more buggy than EU out of the box. Now they want me to pony up for HOI2?! No way. Try playing the Soviets in HOI. Every unit in the game starts with an idiot in charge of it. It is a micomanagement nightmare to change every General manually. I also agree with the spirit of the comments above that the naval aspect was an afterthought and very poorly implemented. They've dressed up the graphics and added CORE but that still won't get me to buy it.

Even if GGWaW turns out to be "lite" compared to HOI, I'll buy it rather than HOI2 without a doubt.

Edited for spelling.

[Colonel Warden]

A demo version of Heart of Iron 2 has just been released. You can now try before you buy ...

Andrew

[pzgndr]

FWIW, I downloaded the HOI2 demo and tried it a couple of times. Like HOI, I cannot stand it. Period. It is now uninstalled. Paradox, good bye and good riddance. [:@]

Matrix, I am looking forward to turn-based WWII grand strategy gaming. GGWAW, MWiF, and AWAW. Bring 'em on. [:)]

[Hexed Gamer]

Is it just me, or does it seem like Colonel Warden never read the thread through

I think we all know about the demo hehe