Hearts of Iron, as it is relevant to Strategic Command

[BriantheWise]

Two new World War Two Games, Grand Strategic:

Shouldn't we be pleased and in heaven?

Again, this is just my opinion:

We should be, but we're not. We're whiny babies because we want the final thing. And neither games quite cut it.

Hearts of Iron: NO comment, I've commented on it.

Strategic Command: The game is awesome, as we all know, lest we not be typing here. But still Hubert is missing a few easy fixes. And I won't tell. But here is a concept to use, in perhaps SCII, or even in this one. When invading a one hex island, allow stacking, making the island a two hex square, one defending, the other attacking, defender gets the terrain bonus.

I'm thinking SCII, and considering island hopping in the pacific, but it would also work for Malta: Land units, share hex, combat, as if they were next to each other on hexes, even though it's a one island hex. Think about it....

Anyways, I meandered, but in summary, Hearts of Iron, as it is relevant to Stratic Command: You got no competition. This game is great, all of this criticism aside. You made a winner.

[Jestre]

From the posts I have read on HOI I wonder just how much it should be called a WWII strategy game. Sounds more like an extremely loose depiction thereof... Perhaps Europa Universalis set in the WWII era would be more accurate...

[J P Wagner]

Originally posted by Jestre:

From the posts I have read on HOI I wonder just how much it should be called a WWII strategy game. Sounds more like an extremely loose depiction thereof... Perhaps Europa Universalis set in the WWII era would be more accurate...

Your description is accurate but HOI is fun to play and I'm confident will get much better with patches. There is a fellow named "Bolt" on the HOI board that has already uncovered flaws in the AI logic script which if implemented (and they probably will be) will make for a much better game...bottom line, it was released way too soon!

[jmbunnelle]

I love the EU-esque flexibility in HOI and think the former game's engine works well in the WW2 environment. Yes, the manual bites but there are good FAQ's posted at various sites that cover the major areas left out (and there are a lot, believe me).

[arby]

Originally posted by Jestre:

From the posts I have read on HOI I wonder just how much it should be called a WWII strategy game. Sounds more like an extremely loose depiction thereof... Perhaps Europa Universalis set in the WWII era would be more accurate...

Pretty much. I think the basic problem was the game designers couldn't decide whether they wanted a grand strategic game, an operational level war game, or a Civ-type conquer the world game. So they tried all three. It works very well on the last level (the real fun, and challenge, in the game is taking a country like Venezuela or Rumania and trying to conquer the world, which actually is quite possible). It works somewhat on the second level; some of the battles are kind of neat, although air power is probably too strong. (Where have we heard that before?) But it really fails abysmally on the first level. And I really don't think that, given the game design decisions, it's ever going to work on that level.

RB

[BriantheWise]

I continued with Hearts of Iron yesterday. Italy took, of course, Ethiopia, right away. I move the armies over to Italy, and took Yugoslavia (no one got upset, but they have the best food in Europe, so I really expected the French to get upset, but they didn't).

It's still 1937.

To me, if feels worse than playing Risk, let along Axis and Allies, against, of all things, a Beagle.

So, to be succinct, as Italy, by 1942, at the latest, I feel I willl have kick butt against an oppontent, conquering the entire world, against a beagle.

sigh.

[J P Wagner]

I finally stopped playing to await the patches...sad rush job really.....

[jmbunnelle]

Originally posted by J P Wagner:

I finally stopped playing to await the patches...sad rush job really.....

Same here. I sort of sang its praises initially, and I still think it will be very good with a couple of patches. But the A.I. on the default level is literally non-existant. Actually it just made me long for the A.I. in SC. Poland put up more of a fight than France, which had about one infantry in every province, if that.

[Harold Jones]

Bought HOI installed it and played it for two days. The AI is incompetent and the documentation was terrible. It is essentially EU WW2. I uninstalled it on the third day. The AI complaints are usually met with "It's really designed for multiplayer" but what I wonder is where do you find 8 people who are willing to get together every night for a month to actually complete a game? So I guess if you liked EU/EU2 this game is worth getting otherwise save your money.

[Jev.Dk]

Think about giving it a second try. There is a guy at HOI who made a Mod and the AI is now more agressiv and plays much better.

Have a look at this thread(warning long read)

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=c947b972a3f113d5edc8aa172e3be047&threadid=59256&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

Jev

[aaa]

I have both games and play both.

SC has a decent AI opponent and is easy to play against another person.

HOI has no AI and is difficult to play aginst another person.

Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of HOI. Its just a long way from playable. SC was playable straight from the box and has only gotten better.

Perhaps Hubert can help Paradox out a little with their AI - for a fee of course!

[marklv]

The major problem with HoI is simply that it isn't what it seems. It's not a wargame, it's a pain in the ass! Look at my criticisms:

1) Real-time gameplay is unsuitable for strategy games. This is a fact. You need to use the pause button so often that it makes it pointless anyway!

There are too many decisions to make for this type of game to be effective as a RTS.

2) The game is not easy to play. And why the hell do they force you to get involved in the micromanagement of econmomic resources when all that most wargamers want to do is fight wars? And - worse - there is no option to delegate this to the computer AI!

[arby]

Originally posted by Jev.Dk:

Think about giving it a second try. There is a guy at HOI who made a Mod and the AI is now more agressiv and plays much better.

I tried it. Suffice it to say that "better" is a relative term. While before the AI was imbecilic, now it is simply bone-stupid.

I'm not optimistic about the game. I think certain design decisions -- RTS, the province systsem, and the combat engine, to name three -- will prevent it from ever being a realistic simulation of WWII. That doesn't mean it can't be fun and interesting, although I don't think it's either of those right now. I think the real test will be with the 1.03 patch. 1.02, which should be out before Christmas, will hopefully fix most of the bugs and beef up the AI a bit. 1.03 should be where they really address the realism issues, like "Italy [or Rumania, for God's sake] conquers the world." If that's still happening, then it's over. In fact, why they even made a game where the minor countries are playable is beyond me.

Actually, it's not. I think they decided that the market for a Civ-type conquer the world game was much larger than that for a simulation of WWII, so they decided to dump the former into the latter setting. And they may have been right. If you read the boards on Paradox, there are a lot of people perfectly happy with a game which allows Czechoslovakia to conquer Russia. My lord, yesterday there were a bunch of notes claiming how it was perfectly feasible to invade the US in 1937.

[Jestre]

I'm standing by my opinion that RTS is just an easy way out for programmers. With RTS there is no real strategy other than time-management. Look at AOE and all the knockoffs thereof; the central overriding concern is the speed in which one can build up one's infrastructure and armies. I challenge anyone to give me an example of an RTS game that has any kind of competent AI in a strategic/tactical sense.

[J P Wagner]

I have been saying all along on the Paradox board that HOI is not a WWII sim but EU set in the 20th century....HOI sychophants keep telling me that I'm wrong, that only 25% of the game is based on EU, and that it is indeed a WWII sim...yeah right, and I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you are interested....

[HolzemFrumFloppen]

Well I hate to sound like a sycophant, but I'm actually enjoying it. There's a few bugs and the A.I. isn't Sun Tzu or anything, but the earth shattering complaints that are being hurled at it are unjustified, in my opinion.

The only REAL problem with these types of games (SC included, too) is that its most vocal userbase is composed of very serious amateur historians with their own detailed views on anything and everything WWII. It's impossible to cater this oft-verbose crowd (myself included!) since there are so many conflicting opinions on what a grand strategy game of this period should be.

You also have to take into account that all these wargame forums go through a cycle of sorts when it comes to a new release.

1st Stage: everybody's screaming for the game's release and people go completely insane if the game is delayed by one day.

2nd Stage: the game is released. Tons of sycophantic "thank yous" are posted and the world seems happy for a few hours/days.

3rd Stage: bugs are discovered and the grogs start coming out of the woodwork. Claims of 'imbalanced', 'ahistorical', and of course, the requisite 'Finland isn't strong enough in this game!' are screamed out across forums worldwide.

4th Stage: The Crusade. Battle lines are drawn between the Critics and Sycophants. The Critics aren't satisfied with just returning the game with a refund and going on with their lives, and the sycophants aren't willing to listen to any of the critics. Flames abound at this stage.

5th Stage: The Critics begin to fade away, either because they've been purged or because they simply get bored and move on to another game to criticize. The Sycophants, of course, get smug.

6th Stage: relative calm. Developers respond to inquiries and bug reports. Patches are released. The world returns to some equilibrium.

If you think this is outlandish, believe me that it isn't. This happens to just about every single wargame that's released. It happened with CMBO, CMBB, SC, Uncommon Valor, G.I.Combat, Close Combat, etc., and now it's Hearts of Iron. Go back and review the posts for any of these games and you'll see that cycle repeated.

When SC was released, some Usenet forums were inundated with posts about it being 'ahistorical', 'simplistic', 'boring', and that the A.I. was 'weak', 'unplayable', et. al. But we who are left on these boards (as well as the unseen and lurking masses who play the game but never post here) know better. SC is a great game... on one condition: that you don't consider it to be the end-all answer to WWII Grand Strategy Games. Neither is HOI. Neither was Clash of Steel. NOTHING will ever be that since each and every wargame player has oft-diverging interests. It's the nature of the genre, I'm afraid.

You watch... HOI will reach this point of equilibrium in the near future. Just as it was reached right here in this forum as it relates to SC.

As in all things grog-related, my advice is to take it all with a grain of salt and don't get too involved with the crusade for any game. It is just a GAME, after all, and not the Second Coming or anything.

Wargamers' expectations often get the worst of them; I think that the fundamental problem lies in the fact that we who play the games are unconsciously haunted by the fact that we'll NEVER be able to experience the Second World War at all since we weren't alive at the time; and this fact makes us all want to get as close to a 'simulated' experience as possible. But a tactical/operational/strategic simulation is only one (or a few) man's vision of what the event should be; but it will NEVER (and I stress this) satisfy all of the WWII fanatics out there due to the million or so opinions on minutiae that most 'non-WWII' citizens don't give a hoot about.

C'est la guerre , I always say.

[J P Wagner]

Your position HFF does not make you a sychophant. I enjoy the game too, and will play it more once the next patch comes out, but I accept it for what I think it is. My objection, such as it is, is that HOI was billed as something that it is not, and people on the HOI boards keep trying to demonstrate that it is indeed a WWII sim...it's like using a hammer to make damn sure you get that round peg into the square hole...I always post a reply to people who complain, "how come Mexico can conquer the southern US?", or "how come Romania, Brazil, or Finland can do this and that?" with the response that,like EU, this game will allow you to play minor nations and make them stronger. Accept the game for what it is and enjoy... you have people who say it is a WWII sim, but then don't have a response to the above questions....you can't have it both ways....by the way, it will be interesting to see the size of the next patch for HOI, with all the fixes that are needed, it's probably going to be a biggun'..

[pzgndr]

Looking at the Bolted HOI mod, it appears that the individual country AI scripts can be editted for more historical results, or further customized for whatever other what-ifs a player may want to investigate. Despite the game's release with most countries using a default AI script that reportedly fails do come close in many cases, this feature of the game strikes me as being VERY useful and powerful. I suspect that the dedicated WWII historians and wargaming grognards clamoring for more accuracy will sooner or later see a combination of patches and mods that result in a pretty good simulation overall. I'm still wondering about the RTS and province-based aspects, but looking forward to trying something different.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

HFF,

Very well said. I concur with your above statement concerning the war of synchophants v. critics. I've seen it before, it is very much like you have described.

[Jestre]

I think HFF is confusing one's interest in WWII with ones interest in game mechanics. I am an avid WWII grognard who salivated when I found out about SC who has absolutely no interest whatsoever for HOI. The reason I have no interest in HOI has nothing to do with its depiction of WWII but entirely based on the EU game mechanics employed which I find simply awful. The province based areas and the so called real-time combat are unacceptable.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I have seen those "6 stages" in some manner in a few cases myself.

I myself try to give a comment or two based on my views on a game.

I hate shooters personally, but will offer a comment or two when I see one that is done well.

I hate RTS games, but I will discuss them as they appear on their own merits.

I am more or less a board gamer, that doesn't mind playing a few computer games.

I think SC has some design features I don't like, but the game as a game, where software is concerned, is so far ahead of HoI, which as software is garbage.

There is NO fun factor in a crummy game (unless a person is capable of fiddling with any game regardless of how good it might or might not be)

I was really interested in HoI until I began to research it. It fails on any method by which it can be measured. It has no good points, not one.

[ December 13, 2002, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

[HolzemFrumFloppen]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:

I think SC has some design features I don't like, but the game as a game, where software is concerned, is so far ahead of HoI, which as software is garbage.

I was really interested in HoI until I began to research it. It fails on any method by which it can be measured. It has no good points, not one.

Well, ahem... I think everyone's entitled to an opinion. However, I really do think it's difficult for anyone to make this sort of absolutist characterization (i.e., that HOI is "garbage", or that "it has no good points, not one.") without actually owning and/or playing the game. And that goes for any game, most especially when there's no demo version of it available.

I often follow your posts on the Matrix forums; I watched you go from exhilarated about HOI to utterly repulsed by it in the space of a post. Yet you haven't bought the game (at least as of Dec. 10th, when you posted to this forum that you would NOT be buying it). I don't know why you've formed such a strong opinion of it (both ways) without trying it out a bit.

BTW... if it's "stacking" you're looking for, you might want to look into John Tiller's Panzer Campaigns series... it's the stacker's dream. I play nearly all the games in the series and enjoy the engine quite a bit. It's a bit dated, to be sure, but it works very well. In essence, it's a grog's game; there are NO 'lightweight' players or Quake converts as far as PzC is concerned.

Anyway, I enjoyed HOI out of the box. I read all the negative stuff in the forums (as well as all the sycophantry); but I bought it because I wanted to try it for myself. It's the only way to form a true opinion of a product. After all, you wouldn't trust a game reviewer who never played the game, would you?

I'm like the man from Missouri. You see, the man from Texas says: "You've got to show me." The man from Missouri says: "You've got to put it in my hand."

[J Wagner]

The 1.02 patch details look promising...I'm looking forward to the day I can install it....

[HolzemFrumFloppen]

Originally posted by J Wagner:

The 1.02 patch details look promising...I'm looking forward to the day I can install it....

J:

Well... don't just sit there.... go get it! It's up for download (both Scandinavian and North American versions).

HOI v1.02 Upgrade

Here's the list of changes if anyone's interested. Quite copious.

HOI v1.02 Changes

Rock on.

[J P Wagner]

I wasn't planning to stop at HOI before packing it in for the night...thanks for the heads up....the patch is up and running!