New Paradox game: Hearts of Iron IV!

[sunrise089]

Considering buying this. What edition do I want?

[Dp101]

It really depends. The more expensive versions only really give more varied graphics + audio between the factions. If you don't care about that then just get the cheapest version.

[picklepikkl]

Definitely Cadet if you just want to try it out. The other packages offer no gameplay changes, just additional cosmetics for the really dedicated fans (plus the Paradox equivalent of an expansion "season pass" in the top-tier one, which again is more of a committed fan option).

[AdrienIer]

Considering buying this. What edition do I want?

The cheapest one is probably best unless you trust Paradox so much that you're ready to buy a DLC in advance through the most expensive edition

[Athmos]

Now this IS a good game.

[NobleHelium]

I dunno man. The negative user reviews on Steam are pretty scathing. I played HoI 3 some and those reviews would really put me off on this one if I were considering a purchase.

[AdrienIer]

Anything in particular that you're worried about ?

[rho21]

I think the series has a lot of fans of the older versions. Rightly or wrongly, they regard the latest instalment to be dumbed down for a wider audience, and lacking in depth. Sound familiar?

Anyway, given the legendary complexity of HoI 3 (e.g. in order to play optimally, I believe you should assign leaders to all units down to the brigade level, a task that would take hours before your initial unpause if playing, say, the USSR), I suspect that this is a step in the right direction for most people, even members of this board.

[AdrienIer]

I agree. There's also the fact that for the people who have gone through the trouble of learning how to play HOI 3 the complexity has become a pro not a con. Which is the essence of what I've read in the negative reviews on steam. But for all the people who, like me, were a bit put off by it and were waiting for HOI 4 before trying it out this game is pretty much what we wanted.

[TheHumanHydra]

Anyway, given the legendary complexity of HoI 3 (e.g. in order to play optimally, I believe you should assign leaders to all units down to the brigade level, a task that would take hours before your initial unpause if playing, say, the USSR), I suspect that this is a step in the right direction for most people, even members of this board.

Thankfully just divisional level, unless for some reason you detach some of your brigades (something you should probably only do in corner cases). So, for those who don't know, you are assigning theatre (only a couple), army group (a handful), army (several), corps (many), and divisional (many, many) commanders. However, the game will auto-assign leaders, in a vaguely historical manner for scenario starts, and in descending order of skill and suitability for new units. You're right that it could be a major task, but it's not entirely necessary and, compared to the total time you're probably planning to invest in such a playthrough, it may be reasonable.

You're probably right, though, that HoI III is for WWII or military strategy diehards, and HoI IV is intended to appeal to a broader audience. Both are of course entirely legitimate - the former as well as the latter - and needful, insofar as a game can be needful.

The only thing that would bother me about a military strategy game further toward the gameplay rather than the simulation end of the spectrum would be unnecessary historical inaccuracy. I don't mean in terms of 'railroading' the course of the war - I think one of the great things about these games is that you can try different approaches, or confront different scenarios, and experience different outcomes from reality - I mean in terms of relatively simple historical concepts that shouldn't need to be misrepresented. An example is something I read in that Reddit gameplay guide - apparently a solid basic infantry division in HoI IV is seven infantry battalions and two artillery regiments. This would be a rather odd and unwieldy division in real life: real (modern) military unit architecture is generally constructed in multiples of twos and threes, so a historical German infantry division had (in generalities) three infantry regiments each of three battalions, while a British one had three brigades of three battalions. HoI III very elegantly reflected this in that one of the optimal 'widths' for a division in that game was three, and infantry brigades took up one unit of width, so an optimal infantry division featured three brigades plus supporting arms (which had zero width). Likewise I believe a game should attempt to balance the capabilities of various arms vaguely accurately, not to mention those of various nationalities' troops, so as not to develop misunderstandings of history, such as the utter supremacy of the tank or of German troops, probably the easiest ones for a WWII game, in its audience. (Note this last isn't a criticism of HoI IV, as I don't know how it performs in these areas.) However, all of this is the history person in me talking, and I probably feel more strongly about it than most people.

I'd be interested to try the game, if only it would run on my computer! As it is, I'm not nearly done with HoI III, which I discovered late, so I'll content myself with it for now. I'd be interested to read any reports or anecdotes from games anyone feels like typing, however! I hope everyone has fun with it!