SC owners - who's playing Hearts of Iron?

[japinard]

Reason I askk is there is a well-written review of it at Gamespot http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,560933,00.html and it only got 70%...

What are your thoughts?

[pzgndr]

The Wargamer now has a microsite dedicated to HOI. A new AAR discusses Germany through 1940. War broke out in 1937 over Czechoslovakia; Germany succeeded in defeating France and then returning to deal with their bad Czech problem.

There are also some good writeups about managing economics, research, even assigning leaders. The amount of detail is mind-boggling.

As for playing HOI, I'll just have to wait and see what Santa puts in my stocking this year. It should compliment SC very well, providing all detail and complexity one may want. But for playing complete campaign games of WWII, I'll be coming home to SC.

[Kuniworth]

I play it, but unfortunately it got a lot of bugs. For me it chrashes to desktop all the time.

[Jestre]

I was very disappointed with the combat engine in Europa Universalis and thought the whole interface was kinda clunky. It's funny but the reviews on SC criticized SC for its old-fashioned graphics but I love them, course I grew up with SSI and SPI and AH boardgames and the graphics in SC are nostalgically reminiscent. Anyhows, unless HOI has drastically cleaned up the (real-time) combat mode from UE-I then I can't see it competing for space on my hard drive.

[JerseyJohn]

Like someone said in an earlier forum, at this stage of PC development, you always lose something as a game becomes more complex -- I think it was Bill M. It's as the old washing machine commercial (I think it was Maytag) used to proclaim, "Fewer parts mean fewer breakdowns!"

Universals didn't appeal to me either. I bought it, read the manual, liked most of the ideas, started a game, and it's still started from over a year ago. Other guys swear by it. I guess most of these reactions are personal preferences.

[ November 27, 2002, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Flashblade]

As soon as I can find a copy I will be playing it, I yearn for the extra detail.

Will still be playing my PBEM SC games though

[Kuniworth]

Well as expected SC won´t be challenged by HoI cause its two completly diffrent games.

I don´t like the realtime in HoI, makes the game lose the stratgic scope.

[Desert Dave]

Given the intense interest in WW2 -- not only for gamers, but Historians and film-makers as well (... after all, it is the ultimate Good vs Evil encounter, and the technology was just on the cusp of mutually assured destruction) then the only surprise is how long it took enterprising developers to get to this point.

Maybe it was programming and computer capabilities finally catching up to sincere and ancient interest (... many of us have played AH and SPI games for quite some time, but realistically, we do not make up a huge market), or the flood of WW2 movies and Big Media supported nostalgia for the older generation's "good war," but whatever it was, we are benefitting from it.

As Bill has said, it is rather daunting to consider a RTS in this GS genre, and I tend to prefer turn-based games since there is so very much that is happening all over the map. I was never fond of "click-fests," but some developers are now trying to combine the best of both worlds, and the jury is out.

Whether HoI can pull it off is questionable, but good to see them try. More choices are usually better than a few, which is what consumer capitalism is all about, yes? (... disregarding the debate about whether that is good or bad for the Earth ecology)

I too am yet partial to SC and the potential remains enormous. As is, SC is the one WW2 game that allows a combination of comprehensiveness, a pretty good historical framework and pure and simple game-playing FUN. From what I have seen, HoI has some ways to go to attain even that.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Well, When Hoi Comes out I will be playing it. I will be playing it day and night. However, i will continue to contribute to the SC community at the same level. The problem with the HoI comunity is its too large. Its impossible to start a productive thread on their forum because of the amount of people and other threads competing against it.

I also play EUII it is a great game. The Battle system isnt really a battle system.

Btw, my first AAR for HoI: Finland

CvM

[J P Wagner]

I'm hunting around for it today...hope to find it and give it a whirl....I won't turn my back on any Strategic WWII games; there are too few of them around for me too be picky!

[ November 27, 2002, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[John DiFool]

I'm personally bugged by the province (not hex)

movement: I mean for a little extra effort (look

at all those little provinces!) they could have

changed to hexes and probably have been better off

for it. As it is I wonder how they will handle

all those huge Eastern front encirclement battles,

among other things... Color me a traditionalist

if you will.

And if HoI tanks financially, all we will hear is

that "Grand Strategic games have no market!" while

I contend that the market is there, but THE

definitive game just hasn't been made [yet-fingers

crossed for SC2...]. I just fear that HoI will be

Micromanagement Hell personified, and a large

chunk of the gaming populace will be turned off

for that reason [me included], if nothing else

[this isn't at all the same kind of RTS that

C & C/Warcraft et al. are].

John DiFool

[Bruce70]

I have fears about HoI but my copy shipped today. As others have said: it won't replace SC but rather complement it (I hope).

[Rouge]

Is there a downloadable demo?

[J P Wagner]

Originally posted by Rouge:

Is there a downloadable demo?

Not at this time....if you played Europa Universalis, it uses the same game engine...

[HankWWIIOnline]

HoI seems a bit complex for my taste. I've been playing Medieval: Total War, and it's a perfect blend (Even though the micromanagement gets a little too much as your empire expands).

I love complexity, but I want to PLAY the game more than work with it. That, to me, is the beauty of SC. It gives you the 'grand scale' feel, and just enough complexity to make it different each time you play.

If someone were to create a new WW2 grand strategy game, I'd much rather them take from SC, Command HQ, etc than from Hearts of Iron.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Personaly i look forward to sifting through HoI's micromanagement hell. Choosing leaders, doctrines, diplomacy etc.

Itll be a game where you find something new to use every time you load the game.

CvM

[Titan]

As soon as chips and bits get it shipped to me,life will go on hold for awhile

[przy]

I got it on wednsday and so far I like it alot. As stated before it still needs a little tweeking with patches. But I just love all the options available as far as micromanagement goes, alot of variables in the game

[HumbleOne]

Well friends, HOI is a bit of a let down. I am afraid its an Axis and Allies with a bunch of features.

The economic aspects of this game are handled very poorly. Resources and there lack played a pivtoal role in how WW2 was executed. In HOI resources are available to all countries through a world spot market. Where biiter enemies at war with each other actually sell each other critical materials. Japan 1943 will be able to buy oil from the US on the world market. Clearly that did not happen WW2. The other thing that really ticks me off is how resource transport is handled. Its not handled, you buy it or trade and that resource shows up at your home regardless if Germany sends out 1000 uboats agaisnt. Its crazy how is Germany gonna strave Britian if this world market is not impacted by naval stregth of realative countries. That said its amusing little game but it is not stragetic warfare that is certain. Would I buy it again, sure. Would I buy 2 without a realistic economy no. If your used to games like War in Russia or Pacific war then its not gonna live up to expectations.

Damn you battlefront(and Canada customs) I live in Canada and I still waiting for SC.

[m45tion87]

To you Mannerheim:

Do you have some relations in Finland or something?

I just want to know, because I'm from Finland (that's why I usually have so much spelling errors).

[J P Wagner]

I think that, like EU2, this game will improve quite a bit with future patches....I know that's a poor excuse for the current state of the game, but I will be patient with it...I'm playing it now more as a learning experience, to get used to the system...hopefully it wont be too long before future patches improve upon it...it may be wise for some to hold off purchasing the game now and await the patches...I'm impatient so couldn't wait...

[HolzemFrumFloppen]

In HOI resources are available to all countries through a world spot market. Where biiter enemies at war with each other actually sell each other critical materials. [/QB]

Hehe....

There were LOTS of U.S. businesses that collaborated with fascism. What happened to them? Corporations you'll be familiar with today like DuPont, Ford, General Motors, ITT, owned factories in these enemy countries that produced fuel, tanks, and planes that wreaked havoc on Allied forces during World War II. After the war, instead of being prosecuted for treason (ha!), ITT collected $27 million from the U.S. government for war damages inflicted on its German plants by Allied bombings. General Motors collected $33 million.

In fact, Allied pilots were given specific instructions to AVOID certain factories/plants since they were -- quite obviously -- American-owned enterprises. Many Germans caught on to this at the height of the bombing raids and would flock to those factories to avoid being killed in a raid.

So, in this respect, I find HOI to be right on the money! (no irony intended).

Raise your antennae whenever you hear money being discussed as it relates to WWII (or any war, for that matter). And don't be too surprised to find many economic relationships that go against whatever images you conjure up about one's own country and it's fight against an "enemy" (such as fascism, communism, terrorism, etc.). Remember that American newspapers were, in many cases, positively praising Hitler and his efforts to "revitalize" Germany. This is no surprise since the West viewed Hitler's Germany as a potentially powerful bulwark against Communism.

It's no biggie, and I'm not trying to make a political criticism of the U.S. or the West in particular. I'm simply being realistic and, quite frankly, the idea that corporations (i.e., institutions that are CREATED to MAKE money) trade with an "enemy" doesn't blow my mind in any way like it does some people. Thus, I say it's no good (and no fun) being naive when it comes to these things. Money is it's own master, and ideology or war or patriotism or love-of-one's-country has very little to do with it.

[JerseyJohn]

HolzemFrumFloppen

Very glad you posted your thoughts on this -- whenever I do people accuse me of being a traitor or worse!

There were LOTS of U.S. businesses that collaborated with fascism. What happened to them? Corporations you'll be familiar with today like DuPont, Ford, General Motors, ITT, owned factories in these enemy countries that produced fuel, tanks, and planes that wreaked havoc on Allied forces during World War II. After the war, instead of being prosecuted for treason (ha!), ITT collected $27 million from the U.S. government for war damages inflicted on its German plants by Allied bombings. General Motors collected $33 million.

Absolutely -- a lot of this was in a book that came out thirty years ago, The Sovereign State of ITT

Also, all through the war representatives of Germany, Japan, the US, Britain and France met each morning in Switzerland to set the price of Gold! After the war the German, I'll have to find the name, was prosecuted at Nuremburg as a war criminal -- I'm surprised the others, who were his friends, allowed it to happen.

As to imports and exports, throughout the war Germany recieved Ford truck motors and other vitals through neutral Sweden, Switzerland and Spain.

[ November 29, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JP Wagner:

hopefully it wont be too long before future patches improve upon it...it may be wise for some to hold off purchasing the game now and await the patches...I'm impatient so couldn't wait...

It may be very, very wise indeed. No need to unnecesarily trash another developer, but in this instance they have pushed that game out FAR too prematurely. :eek:

There are more BUGS in that game than there are crooked movie-agents in Los Angeles, and trust me, there are a whole helluva over-flow of those!

This is an example of extended beta-testing being done by the game-buying public, and it is B**S***, plain and simple.

Sure, the patches will help (... maybe, just maybe by V 1.03), but many, if not a majority of game buyers DO NOT patronize forum sites, and so -- what are they supposed to do? When they expect to open the box and be able to play right away a REASONABLE re-creation of WW2? Retailers mostly won't refund if the game-box is open, and how many game companies will send a refund check?

At least, SC is playable right out of the box, and now that we have a chance to compare the debut of both games, it is surely fair to say that Fury and SC have done a much better job of providing quality assurance.

**BTW, the Wargamer site has recommended SC in it's Holiday gift shopping guide, so yet another positive statement by those who usually know -- the latest and greatest state of wargaming.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Jersey John:

Very glad you posted your thoughts on this -- whenever I do people accuse me of being a traitor or worse!

Those kinds of brain-stem-stunned accusers are like the very ones who condemned Socrates, so I wouldn't worry a jot over them.

No doubt the war-profiteers have benefited from EVERY WAR in human history (... as the oil cowboys are intending to do... NOW), but at some point, just enough people will wise up, and put a crow-bar in those Clown-waving-stupidly-on-Unicycle sorts of shenanigans, you bet! :cool: