Hearts of Iron 2 or SC2 Blitzkrieg

[Gérard Le Poer Trench]

I have waited 2 years for SC2 and the result was a bit dissapointing. I got tired of it within a week. However there is a new game Hearts of Iron 2 which was real fun to play really because the AI is much better, more historical events, the whole world, choose a general for an army and say what kind of divisions and brigade atachements should be in that army, promotion of generals, oil, the scale. All the things I had hoped for with SC2 and I didn't get.

[CharonJr]

Well, HoI2 is the better single player game IMO, too, but I don't even want to start to think about what a nightmare a MP HoI2 game has to be

So each game has its niche IMO.

CharonJr

[ May 06, 2006, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: CharonJr ]

[Panzerkeil]

I checked into that game on recommendation of a friend. It looks huge, but that wasn't really a deterrent. I just wasn't impressed by the military model with its provincial conquest.

[Retributar]

Both are good in their own way's...but, as for SC2...it will take a little time...but, eventually, we will have more Player made 'MODS' available to keep us 'Riveted' & 'Interested' in SC2!.

I wished we had a place where player's could/'would' post their ' Script's ' [Edwin P. could post quite a few!!!] with instructions as how to emplace them into our game, so that we may then benefit from their insight's!.

Granted!, SC2 is Not HOI2!...but, that's good!...who would want two very similar games?.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

You can't really compare a brand new game to one

which has been out for (what?) a year now. Plus I

am anxious to see what both modders and Hubert have

in store for us...

P.s. I dislike area movement in my WWII strategy

games...

[TaoJah]

Provinces as the lowest geograpical unit to conquer is a big turn-off for me.

It was 15 years ago with "Rome" and it still is today !

[Retributar]

Well TaoJah!, ...there is something to what you say!,...granted, i like the game, but, eventually i would like more 'meat' in it!.

I for one would like a global map [For a 'True World War'] as well as larger maps of different fronts [Eastern Front, Western Front, Mediterranean Area [Possibly could be inter-linked somehow (Map Size Restrictions)]...and so forth!...in order to have 'Maps' in greater detail to explore WW2 in greater depth!.

[Exel]

It's a matter of taste, but I dislike the enormous micro-management of HoI, especially when playing majors. I also don't like the province system, too restrictive and artificial.

[Bill101]

For multi-player I think that SC2 has amazing potential, and for re-creating WWII it's much better and more realistic than HOI or SC1. That's before we start modding. Great one Hubert!

[Dulak]

I got HOI 2 when it first came out ... I played it for a few days then kind of stopped.

There is so much in that game that you kind of get lost at times; and it was kind of tough too.

I tried just playing as hungrey I think just so I could play using a smaller army and provinces/ germany there is so many armies and provinces that turns took forever.

Maybe I'll load it up thou; I am in the same boat ie SC2 bored me also after only a week or so (ie I wanted to play mostly single player and it isnt that fun).

Rome total war was real fun for me; and the barbarian invasion. Simialr to HoI but when you go into combat you control the troops.

You will need a decent computer to run RTW thou; well depends on what settings you have.

RTW can get old also so every game has there ups and downs

[guinty1]

hoi2 is a headache ,stick with sc2 for the win

[Gérard Le Poer Trench]

Well what I like about strategic command is the take your time thing in it but in HOI 2 it is just more realistic then SC2 I mean if there is an attack you must react immediatly and pour in more troops. Also the supply system is more realistic (tanks getting out of fuel depots airfields. The tech tree in SC2 is just to simple for a war game and the diplomatics in SC is just so little. To few country's no possibility of setting up puppets. It is just to easy to play that's why you get bored of it. Composing your armies and giving brigade atachments,

Generals and Promoting experience all those little things make HOI a better game I think.

[Liam]

I think more so than most of you playing here I've experience with Paradox Titles, having Mastered EU and also Done very well in Victoria. I have tried HOI1 and sampled the Demo of HOI2 and this is what you must come to understand.

What lacks in HOI is that it is modelled very much after it's predeccessors. It's weak in that you lack the feel of a Grand Strategic Wargame, you definitely have the feel of a neat tactical wargame, but you get lost in all the gory details. It does not run smooth in that you would never play a MultiPlayer unless those involved were Highly Patient and Very Devoted, and that I've never found in the HOI community, any sort of Devotion, guys in EU2 we'd sit there for 3 hours a night trying to iron out the bugs ourselves, hell we'd even create our own patches and mess with the programming along with the Programmer to get things to run smoother. The Cooperation and level of Play in the EU series was above and beyond the call of Duty, much like SC1 however with HOI it was like a brainchild that was dumped soon after it's completion. Much like Victoria. Very few talk of HOI in the boards on Paradox, few really have the same Hunger for it.

There is just something missing from the game engine, and from the creation from Johann and I think that he know's this it however has sold likely more copies than SC1 and 2 combined due to nice glamy cover...it just doesn't appeal to me at all and I think that most share my sentiment

One thing to be said, it's semi-interesting. It's a neat feel to play out a wargame of the era in something as detailed if you are really up to sacrificing a good 500 hours... To do it right and to understand every concept, get an Encyclopedia because Vicky or EU2 are not as detailed well Vicky might be... But you'll definitely need to study every aspect to ever get into the groove, I never bothered, I played Bulgaria and created a Balkan Empire, what I really wanted was a Grand Strategy game, maybe from 1900 to 1950.. or 1850-1945 would've made Hoi worth it, a combination of HOI and Vicky with not so much gory detail......because believe me SC2 is a cakewalk I already understand 80% of it's mechanics after 5 months with Vicky, I understood enough to make Transval as Large as the United States and as Powerful as say Austria Hungary but it felt more interested than HOI

[Moon]

Well what I like about strategic command is the take your time thing in it but in HOI 2 it is just more realistic then SC2 I mean if there is an attack you must react immediatly and pour in more troops.

Heh... real-time on a strategic scale is a joke. It's the main reason why I stopped playing HOI after about an hour. "Germany invades Poland, you have 20 seconds to pour in more troops!" LOL!

Mind you, I am not saying it's a bad game (well, HOI1 was...) - HOI2 is a much better and more streamlined game then the first title which was a big micromanagement mess without any real game in it, but it's certainly not more realistic.

Also the supply system is more realistic (tanks getting out of fuel depots airfields.

More abstract does not equal less realistic, nor does "more micromanagement" equal more realism. It's all about the underlying game design.

The tech tree in SC2 is just to simple for a war game and the diplomatics in SC is just so little.

SC2 is much more "military" in its approach, while HOI is more of a political/economical game. If you'd compare SC2 to chess, then HOI would be like Monopoly. There is way too little military tactics in HOI for my taste.

To few country's no possibility of setting up puppets. It is just to easy to play that's why you get bored of it.

The forthcoming patch is going to beef up AI quite a lot, maybe you'll change your mind.

Composing your armies and giving brigade atachments,

Generals and Promoting experience all those little things make HOI a better game I think.

If you like micromanagement, that is.

Martin

[Exel]

Originally posted by Moon:

SC2 is much more "military" in its approach, while HOI is more of a political/economical game. If you'd compare SC2 to chess, then HOI would be like Monopoly. There is way too little military tactics in HOI for my taste.

Martin

I think this sums it up pretty well. Though I liked the original HoI even so much as to get myself into the beta team, I like SC1 better for its more tactical approach. HoI concentrated more on simulating production and economics while its battles were really abstract.

[Gérard Le Poer Trench]

SC 2 is very good in it's way and HOI is too.

[Timskorn]

I enjoyed HoI for awhile because of the massively grand scale, which I had been looking for since Command HQ (hah!). I wasn't excited for HoI2 though and never bought it. SC2 just "feel's" more like I'm participating in WW2, and has a much better combat system imo. In HoI I'd basically just look at the numbers for both sides in a fight and if they were dropping faster than my enemy, I'd pull back.

Nothing against Paradox, in fact I really enjoyed their mess of a game "Victoria" due to its massive scope, and their EU series is probably their most popular franchise. I simply get more entertainment out of SC.

[LampCord]

As a programmer, I was very impressed with HOI2 in terms of complexity and the interface. It literally does model the geopolitics of the whole world which is very impressive.

OTOH, I just didn't find it that fun to play. And I dissagree about the AI. I was able to dominate the Pacific theater with Australia for God's sake. In fact, I found the game extremely easy once you got the hang of it.

I also don't like the province based combat. I don't think a game that scale works well in real time.

I think a simul move system like in 'Birth In America' works much better. You have all the time in the world to think about your move but then it plays out in real time like the CC games.

I also agree that its inconceivable to me that I would ever consider a MP game of HOI2. Sounds like a clickfest nightmare from hell to me.

SC2 OTOH has that addictive 'one more turn' quality that is so rare in a strategy game. At least for me. I just didn't get that from HOI2.

I think SC2 is a great game system that will only get better with time, mods and patches.

[jon_j_rambo]

HOI sucks.

HOI-2 sucks.

That sums it up.

If you bought those game, you made a nice donation to somebody's coffer.

[Gérard Le Poer Trench]

I thought this was a more serious chat mr Rambo.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Mr. French --- It is, I just prefer to tailor my response to the lowest denomination & save the readers the time. Why review the question, when I have the answer?

[Scrogdog]

Personally, I thought EU2 was the pinnicle for Paradox.

Yeah, it had more micromanagement than SC, but I liked having to worry about social factors... and those social factors affecting various methods (as in - we need to take these guys out QUICK ). It is difficult to be a psycho warlord. Doable, but more difficult.

One of the best things about SC2 is the new political rules which serve to suggest that the allies ought to at least ACT like the good guys.

The HOI system had its moments, but in the final analyis... all they did was glom up the EU engine and the transition did not go well IMO.

Between Hubert and the modders... you give this game a year... and I'll put the resulting single player game up against anything similar out there.

In fact... did I just detect some good reviews on a recently released allied AI mod? Why... yes I did! I'm off to try it now, in fact.

Cheers!

[Liam]

Yes, as far as many in the EU Community we consider Paradox to be a 1 hit wonder. There is a promise of EU3. Basically HOI is modelled as Victoria after an enhanced version of EU which makes the game pretty much dull if you're use to EU and expected something unique.

The combat system I found in HOI is something mentioned again and again. I didn't find it fun I found it dull. You moved units into a province and there were tons of factors, not all with RTS you can make a good judgement call on, you can however contrary to what Moon said slow it down to UberSlow speed make it almost turnbased

fact is air was odd, Subs sat off Belgium in open waters and didn't really do anything. You built up a bunch of units but you never felt much of a feel of accomplishment, the map was crowded so was the political engine...not so bad... but not realistic, the outcomes were a bit too, hmmmmm, likely more Ahistorical than SC2

The Tech engine was a nightmare, Christ it was ubercomplicated if you wanted to play a Minor. You need a bloody 20 page manual to study the techs and that was the shortroute. Not to say I couldn't have mastered the game I just got bored trying. EU2 is far more actionpacked, simplified, it's like 1/20th as complicated perhaps even 1/30th and the fact it is RTS doesn't irritate you as bad once you know what to look for it's sort of a relief. Turnbased WW2 Strategy firmly sits in SC's hands. WAW is a flop and World In Flames is it? That's still underdesign indefinitely as a board game. A&A2 sucked

HOI2 looked like an improvement I only tried the Demo but seriously, any game using the Ole EU Map and Interface doesn't complete me

Originally posted by Scrogdog:

Personally, I thought EU2 was the pinnicle for Paradox.

Yeah, it had more micromanagement than SC, but I liked having to worry about social factors... and those social factors affecting various methods (as in - we need to take these guys out QUICK ). It is difficult to be a psycho warlord. Doable, but more difficult.

One of the best things about SC2 is the new political rules which serve to suggest that the allies ought to at least ACT like the good guys.

The HOI system had its moments, but in the final analyis... all they did was glom up the EU engine and the transition did not go well IMO.

Between Hubert and the modders... you give this game a year... and I'll put the resulting single player game up against anything similar out there.

In fact... did I just detect some good reviews on a recently released allied AI mod? Why... yes I did! I'm off to try it now, in fact.

Cheers!

[Iriemon]

The two games are not competitive, except in the broad sense. HOI focuses more on being a realistic simulation and SC2 focuses more on playability. They are both worthy of consideration, we are lucky to have the option of both games.

Personally, I don't have the inclination or the time to get down to the level of detail HOI presents, and find the playability and scope of SC much more to my interest and time constraints. But if you are more interested in the best detailed simulation of WWII, HOI provides a much more comprehensive system. SC does a good job of simulating the strategic considerations of the war as well as tactical game play -- an excellent balance of realism and playability between a game like Axis and Allies that is highly abstract and HOI which is highly detailed.

I agree with the comment on human competition as well, an area SC really outshines HOI. I would even like to see an "official" tournament scenario for those of us that don't have 14 hours to spend playing. Something like a mid '42- mid'44 campaign (a la 3rd reich) where the winner is determined by objectives that could be played in an evening would be a nice bonus and make tournament competition open to more people.

[Gérard Le Poer Trench]

Sc2 is over to fast and when you are at your peak you can beat every enemy without being the best strategist.