History YMMV / HeartsOfIron

26th Nov '16 6:09:27 PM general_tiu
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The exclusion of Manchukuo from Hearts of Iron IV has divided many fans. One side claims that the Japanese in previous Hearts of Iron games have poorer chance against China, thus eliminating Manchukuo would be the best step in giving the Japanese more edge. The other side are either fans of playing the puppet state in the previous games or want to preserve as much as historical accuracy as possible.

to:

** The exclusion of Manchukuo from Hearts of Iron IV has divided many fans. One side claims that the Japanese in previous Hearts of Iron games have poorer chance against China, thus eliminating Manchukuo would be the best step in giving the Japanese more edge. The other side are either fans of playing the puppet state in the previous games or want to preserve as much as historical accuracy as possible. Due to this, Paradox Games added Manchukuo through a patch in IV.
15th Oct '16 7:37:02 AM Pysiewicz
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* RescuedFromTheScrappyHeap: Initial reaction to introduction of mana mechanics from [[VideoGame/EuropaUniversalis Europa Universalis IV]] was greeted with collective groan from the [=HoI=] community. Turns out experience is gained in organic and controllable way, while also playing relatively marginal role in the game.



** Removal of supplies is considered as a ''massive'' step-down within the community, especially after ''III'' and then its mods went into extreme lenght to at least try to model all the issues about logistics. ''IV'' instead applies arcade mode, where all the game calculates is how many weapons are are fielded versus the required number, doing extremely arbitrary decisions when and if there is even any loss of equipment. [[EasyLogistics Local infrastructure, terrain, size of ports and alike have absolutely zero impact on anything]].



** Removal of supplies is considered as a ''massive'' step-down within the community, especially after ''III'' and then its mods went into extreme lenght to at least try to model all the issues about logistics. ''IV'' instead applies arcade mode, where all the game calculates is how many weapons are are fielded versus the required number, doing extremely arbitrary decisions when and if there is even any loss of equipment. [[EasyLogistics Local infrastructure, terrain, size of ports and alike have absolutely zero impact on anything]].
15th Oct '16 7:22:40 AM Pysiewicz
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Garrison and militia batallions were completely removed from the game, forcing players to design their own rear guards from costly infantry or unsuitable cavalry. While it's not problematic by itself, it can quickly get simply ''annoying'' to manage - especially if it might end up costing precious army experience to even design such units in the first place.
15th Oct '16 7:14:39 AM Pysiewicz
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Removal of supplies is considered as a ''massive'' step-down within the community, especially after ''III'' and then its mods went into extreme lenght to at least try to model all the issues about logistics. ''IV'' instead applies arcade mode, where all the game calculates is how many weapons are are fielded versus the required number, doing extremely arbitrary decisions when and if there is even any loss of equipment.

to:

** Removal of supplies is considered as a ''massive'' step-down within the community, especially after ''III'' and then its mods went into extreme lenght to at least try to model all the issues about logistics. ''IV'' instead applies arcade mode, where all the game calculates is how many weapons are are fielded versus the required number, doing extremely arbitrary decisions when and if there is even any loss of equipment. [[EasyLogistics Local infrastructure, terrain, size of ports and alike have absolutely zero impact on anything]].
15th Oct '16 5:54:24 AM Pysiewicz
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Naval combat was considerably simplified from ''III'', returning to the infamous tactic of "fastest average speed wins". You see, it doesn't really matter how powerful your battleships are, how many naval bombers are on your carriers and how precise your radars are. Everything is decided by average speed of entire fleet, so sometimes a difference of 0.01 can decide entire battle. And it can be achieved by just spamming cheap, fast-to-build destroyers, which then can turn entire carrier battle group into shreds at no cost and almost no loses. This often cause unrealistic outcomes, like Kriegsmarine (scripted to focus on destroyers and submarines, both really quick) utterly destroy Royal Navy, which uses powerful, but slow battleships and heavy cruisers (and most of them are outdated anyway)

to:

** Naval combat was considerably simplified from ''III'', returning to the infamous tactic of "fastest average speed wins". You see, it doesn't really matter how powerful your battleships are, how many naval bombers are on your carriers and how precise your radars are. Everything is decided by average speed of entire fleet, so sometimes a difference of 0.01 can decide entire battle. And it can be achieved by just spamming cheap, fast-to-build destroyers, which then can turn entire carrier battle group into shreds at no cost and almost no loses. This often cause unrealistic outcomes, like Kriegsmarine (scripted to focus on destroyers and submarines, both really quick) utterly destroy destroying Royal Navy, which uses powerful, but slow battleships and heavy cruisers (and most of them are outdated anyway)anyway, which makes them even slower)
15th Oct '16 5:51:02 AM Pysiewicz
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* ScrappyMechanic: Planning, introduced in ''IV''. Instead of manually commanding all your army, you can provide your units with battle order and plans for the entire conflict, preparing in advance all the positions, how to guard them, where to retreat, where create pockets for encirclement and destruction and so on. In reality, the battle planner tool is so crude and just plain inefficient at creating plans, it can take more time and cause much more trouble and than manually giving orders to, say, entire German land forces for taking over Soviet Union up to Urals. Planning is suppose to provide combat bonus when units are executing the plan, but it's so small it has almost zero impact on the actual combat. Fortunatelly, planning can be completely ignored... [[ThisIsGonnaSuck unless you want to conduct amphibious assault]].
* TheyChangedItNowItSucks: Numerous elements of gameplay were completely retooled with 4th game, with really mixed reception, to say at least:
** Removal of supplies is considered as a ''massive'' step-down within the community, especially after ''III'' and then its mods went into extreme lenght to at least try to model all the issues about logistics. ''IV'' instead applies arcade mode, where all the game calculates is how many weapons are are fielded versus the required number, doing extremely arbitrary decisions when and if there is even any loss of equipment.
** The way how air combat is handled, managed and.... well, let's just say air combat in ''IV'' simply sucks. Instead of creating actual units and giving them missions, there is ill-applied counter that calculates nominal strenght of units over given area and the game resolve combat and missions based on it. Thus having vast technological superiority and having your airforce staffed to the brim with [[AcePilot aces]] can end up with complete and utter failure, even if enemy is still using biplanes, just because completely arbitrary number is applied.
*** It's especially painful, because on paper, all the elements building the new mechanics behind airforce and air combat should provide extremely fun and detailed simulation. Instead, numerical superiority, even if minor, seems to be the only real factor, disregarding everything else.
** Good god, amphibious assault. It takes massive planning, forcing player to use the otherwise ignored mechanics, takes entire weeks to prepare and all you have to do is give order for your units and ''just wait'', doing nothing. Also, it can be completely and utterly destroyed on open sea if you happen to encounter a single enemy ship.
** Complete removal of command structure and replacing it with Generals and Marshals. Any country having half-decent general can instantly promote him to Marshal and then proceed to use ''single commander'' for the entire armed forces. It can break the game to almost unfun level, while players are ''encouraged'' to do so. Also, due to changed command structure, AI is utterly helpless at commanding own forces and properly staffing all the fronts, since it tends to use the same guy to command units on three different ''war theatres''.
** Naval combat was considerably simplified from ''III'', returning to the infamous tactic of "fastest average speed wins". You see, it doesn't really matter how powerful your battleships are, how many naval bombers are on your carriers and how precise your radars are. Everything is decided by average speed of entire fleet, so sometimes a difference of 0.01 can decide entire battle. And it can be achieved by just spamming cheap, fast-to-build destroyers, which then can turn entire carrier battle group into shreds at no cost and almost no loses. This often cause unrealistic outcomes, like Kriegsmarine (scripted to focus on destroyers and submarines, both really quick) utterly destroy Royal Navy, which uses powerful, but slow battleships and heavy cruisers (and most of them are outdated anyway)
15th Oct '16 5:09:07 AM Pysiewicz
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The announcement that IV would only have about three political parties angered most of the community as it was seen as a major step backwards from the 10 parties you had in HOI3, though some Paradox fans are fine with it.

to:

** The announcement that IV would only have about three political parties angered most of the community as it was seen as a major step backwards from the 10 parties you had in HOI3, [=HoI 3=], though some Paradox fans are fine with it.



* GameBreaker:
** The United States is pretty much considered "easy mode", and for good reason, particularly in ''III''. They start off with the largest amount of IC in the game, the biggest knowledge pool, and a ''very'' powerful navy -- and it only gets bigger and meaner as the game progresses. The only weaknesses the US has is that, starting out, they have a weak army and air force and low technology, so using that knowledge pool is essential to catch up with the rest of the world. But by '45, the US will almost always be in a dominant position, as the only other economic powerhouse, the USSR, will have almost certainly spent a lot of resources and taken a lot of damage fighting Germany. All of this isn't just TruthInTelevision, it's actually ''toned down'' compared to how powerful the US economy was in UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, complete with the fact that, by the end, [[UsefulNotes/ColdWar the USSR was the only nation that could hope to compete with them]]. Later expansions make the US even more broken, with ''For The Motherland'' actually allowing the US to get a massive manpower boost once "The Day of Infamy" event triggers, which not only adds 400+ manpower instantly to their pool, but also revokes The New Deal (which imposed a manpower penalty on the USA) and gives a 25% bonus to manpower growth for a couple of years.
** Naval Bombers in II, to the point that players constructed Naval Bombers exclusively instead of naval fleets. Paradox tried to combat this problem in later patches by [[AcceptableBreaksFromReality (unrealistically)]] requiring other ships to detect enemy fleet before Naval Bombers could engage them. While not as useful as in II, even in III they are still very powerful units against enemy fleets, especially convoys.
** Strategic rockets, especially after developing V2 or stand-ins for it. Unlike strategic bombers, rockets are extremely cheap, and more importantly, fast to construct. So what if they are one-use-only, if singe rocket can achieve in ''one hour'' more than strategic bomber in ''a month''. By the end of the month, you will produce another two. It is entirely possible to produce enough rockets to absolutely '''crash''' entire nations, especially in ''II'' and ''III''. In fact, in ''II'' rockets are often banned in multiplayer, because with loss of IC, players also lose slots for their tech-teams, which alone can cripple a country without any way to regain lost time. If played right, a handful of rockets can turn England into rubble, while the infrastructure will be so damaged it will take at least few months to get the country up and going. And when the industry is down, no units are produced. At all.
*** In ''IV'', due to how repairs are reworked, it's entirely possible to cripple AI ''forever''. AI has a tendency to conver as much factories as possible into the war material ones. Repairs are done with use of civilian factories. And AI will keep only the minimal required amount, so in case of heavy bombardment, it might take years to rebuild, while also lacking resources to retool some factories into civilian ones.
** Convoy raiding and strategic bombardment of any type is this in certain versions of ''III'' (it was nerfed quickly with patches). The national unity can be decreased with extensive destruction of merchant marine and continous bombing. In fact, it's possible to bomb Britain hard enough for it to surrender, while not doing any invasion on the Islands.
*** If [[https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/are-submarines-worthless.264824/ done right]], convoy raiding can completely collapse AI's ability to conduct war. It was proven time and again a continous and extensive convoy raiding will render British Empire defenseless, as troops stationed in the colonies will be extremely undersupplied, making them easy pick for Japan and ''even Italy''. Meanwhile, a large stockpile of resources will wait in colonial ports, allowing conquerors to take them over and use for their own industry.
** In ''III'', using wars with minor countries to let you pass Total Economic Mobilization and Service By Requirement laws lets you swell your IC and manpower by a hilarious degree before World War II starts. Especially bad if you're a major power, and just ignore the "war" while you build up a huge number of divisions, planes, and ships. This got so bad that for the ''Their Finest Hour'' expansion, a special restriction was set where those laws could only be passed if the enemy you faced had a minimum of ''half'' your IC, otherwise you're stuck with just War Economy and Three-Year-Draft.
** Earlier editions of ''III'' turned your intelligence apparatus into one of these when used properly. The "Sabotage Production" mission, when coupled with "Counterintelligence" to eliminate enemy domestic spies, enabled allowed you to utterly cripple an enemy's industrial capacity, to the point that, for example, Germany would take months to conquer Poland and would get stonewalled in France, leaving them ripe for an American or Soviet attack. Later expansions removed the ability to sabotage production.
** With proper aiming and planning, paratroopers can shut down an entire offensive or defensive. Dropping them in the middle of enemy supply routes or on top of chokepoints can cut off supplies for weeks or months, and using them to hit "behind the lines" victory point provinces can trigger a total surrender with the right timing.
** Playing fascist is seen as this in Hearts of Iron 4. You can get yourself ready for war faster, can have a larger manpower pool, can invade other countries and puppet them easily, and can have numerous industry-boosting attributes. Democracies and Communism are seen as inferior, compared to it.

to:

* GameBreaker:
** The United States is pretty much considered "easy mode", and for good reason, particularly in ''III''. They start off
GameBreaker: Now with the largest amount of IC in the game, the biggest knowledge pool, and a ''very'' powerful navy -- and it only gets bigger and meaner as the game progresses. The only weaknesses the US has is that, starting out, they have a weak army and air force and low technology, so using that knowledge pool is essential to catch up with the rest of the world. But by '45, the US will almost always be in a dominant position, as the only other economic powerhouse, the USSR, will have almost certainly spent a lot of resources and taken a lot of damage fighting Germany. All of this isn't just TruthInTelevision, it's actually ''toned down'' compared to how powerful the US economy was in UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, complete with the fact that, by the end, [[UsefulNotes/ColdWar the USSR was the only nation that could hope to compete with them]]. Later expansions make the US even more broken, with ''For The Motherland'' actually allowing the US to get a massive manpower boost once "The Day of Infamy" event triggers, which not only adds 400+ manpower instantly to their pool, but also revokes The New Deal (which imposed a manpower penalty on the USA) and gives a 25% bonus to manpower growth for a couple of years.
** Naval Bombers in II, to the point that players constructed Naval Bombers exclusively instead of naval fleets. Paradox tried to combat this problem in later patches by [[AcceptableBreaksFromReality (unrealistically)]] requiring other ships to detect enemy fleet before Naval Bombers could engage them. While not as useful as in II, even in III they are still very powerful units against enemy fleets, especially convoys.
** Strategic rockets, especially after developing V2 or stand-ins for it. Unlike strategic bombers, rockets are extremely cheap, and more importantly, fast to construct. So what if they are one-use-only, if singe rocket can achieve in ''one hour'' more than strategic bomber in ''a month''. By the end of the month, you will produce another two. It is entirely possible to produce enough rockets to absolutely '''crash''' entire nations, especially in ''II'' and ''III''. In fact, in ''II'' rockets are often banned in multiplayer, because with loss of IC, players also lose slots for their tech-teams, which alone can cripple a country without any way to regain lost time. If played right, a handful of rockets can turn England into rubble, while the infrastructure will be so damaged it will take at least few months to get the country up and going. And when the industry is down, no units are produced. At all.
*** In ''IV'', due to how repairs are reworked, it's entirely possible to cripple AI ''forever''. AI has a tendency to conver as much factories as possible into the war material ones. Repairs are done with use of civilian factories. And AI will keep only the minimal required amount, so in case of heavy bombardment, it might take years to rebuild, while also lacking resources to retool some factories into civilian ones.
** Convoy raiding and strategic bombardment of any type is this in certain versions of ''III'' (it was nerfed quickly with patches). The national unity can be decreased with extensive destruction of merchant marine and continous bombing. In fact, it's possible to bomb Britain hard enough for it to surrender, while not doing any invasion on the Islands.
*** If [[https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/are-submarines-worthless.264824/ done right]], convoy raiding can completely collapse AI's ability to conduct war. It was proven time and again a continous and extensive convoy raiding will render British Empire defenseless, as troops stationed in the colonies will be extremely undersupplied, making them easy pick for Japan and ''even Italy''. Meanwhile, a large stockpile of resources will wait in colonial ports, allowing conquerors to take them over and use for
[[GameBreaker/HeartsOfIron their own industry.
** In ''III'', using wars with minor countries to let you pass Total Economic Mobilization and Service By Requirement laws lets you swell your IC and manpower by a hilarious degree before World War II starts. Especially bad if you're a major power, and just ignore the "war" while you build up a huge number of divisions, planes, and ships. This got so bad that for the ''Their Finest Hour'' expansion, a special restriction was set where those laws could only be passed if the enemy you faced had a minimum of ''half'' your IC, otherwise you're stuck with just War Economy and Three-Year-Draft.
** Earlier editions of ''III'' turned your intelligence apparatus into one of these when used properly. The "Sabotage Production" mission, when coupled with "Counterintelligence" to eliminate enemy domestic spies, enabled allowed you to utterly cripple an enemy's industrial capacity, to the point that, for example, Germany would take months to conquer Poland and would get stonewalled in France, leaving them ripe for an American or Soviet attack. Later expansions removed the ability to sabotage production.
** With proper aiming and planning, paratroopers can shut down an entire offensive or defensive. Dropping them in the middle of enemy supply routes or on top of chokepoints can cut off supplies for weeks or months, and using them to hit "behind the lines" victory point provinces can trigger a total surrender with the right timing.
** Playing fascist is seen as this in Hearts of Iron 4. You can get yourself ready for war faster, can have a larger manpower pool, can invade other countries and puppet them easily, and can have numerous industry-boosting attributes. Democracies and Communism are seen as inferior, compared to it.
page]]
14th Oct '16 6:47:30 PM Pysiewicz
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Strategic rockets, especially after developing V2 or stand-ins for it. Unlike strategic bombers, rockets are extremely cheap, and more importantly, fast to construct. So what if they are one-use-only, if singe rocket can achieve in ''one hour'' more than strategic bomber in ''a month''. By the end of the month, you will produce another two. It is entirely possible to produce enough rockets to absolutely '''crash''' entire nations, especially in ''II'' and ''III''. In fact, in ''II'' rockets are often banned in multiplayer, because with loss of IC, players also lose slots for their tech-teams, which alone can cripple a country without any way to regain lost time. If played right, a handful of rockets can turn England into rubble, while the infrastructure will be so damaged it will take at least few months to get the country up and going. And when the industry is down, no units are produced. At all.
*** In ''IV'', due to how repairs are reworked, it's entirely possible to cripple AI ''forever''. AI has a tendency to conver as much factories as possible into the war material ones. Repairs are done with use of civilian factories. And AI will keep only the minimal required amount, so in case of heavy bombardment, it might take years to rebuild, while also lacking resources to retool some factories into civilian ones.
** Convoy raiding and strategic bombardment of any type is this in certain versions of ''III'' (it was nerfed quickly with patches). The national unity can be decreased with extensive destruction of merchant marine and continous bombing. In fact, it's possible to bomb Britain hard enough for it to surrender, while not doing any invasion on the Islands.
*** If [[https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/are-submarines-worthless.264824/ done right]], convoy raiding can completely collapse AI's ability to conduct war. It was proven time and again a continous and extensive convoy raiding will render British Empire defenseless, as troops stationed in the colonies will be extremely undersupplied, making them easy pick for Japan and ''even Italy''. Meanwhile, a large stockpile of resources will wait in colonial ports, allowing conquerors to take them over and use for their own industry.
13th Oct '16 4:08:24 PM DukeofFinland
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Naval Bombers in II, to the point that players constructed Naval Bombers exclusively instead of naval fleets. Paradox tried to combat this problem in later patches by [[AcceptableBreaksFromReality (unrealistically)]] requiring other ships to detect enemy fleet before Naval Bombers could engage them. While not as useful as in II, even in III they are still very powerful units against enemy fleets, especially convoys.
22nd Aug '16 8:01:45 AM TheRedRedKroovy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The United States is pretty much considered "easy mode," and for good reason, particularly in III. They start off with the largest amount of IC in the game, the biggest knowledge pool, and a ''very'' powerful navy - and it only gets bigger and meaner as the game progresses. Ironically, this is ''toned back'' compared with how powerful the US economy was in UsefulNotes/WorldWarII. The only weaknesses the US has is that starting out, they have a weak army and air force and low technology, so using that knowledge pool is essential to catch up with the rest of the world. But by '45, the US will almost always be in a dominant position, as the only other economic powerhouse, the USSR, will have almost certainly spent a lot of resources and taken a lot of damage fighting Germany. Later expansions make them even more broken, with ''For The Motherland'' actually allowing the US to get a massive manpower boost once "The Day of Infamy" event triggers, which not only adds 400+ manpower instantly to their pool, but also revokes The New Deal (which imposed a manpower penalty on the USA) and gives a 25% bonus to manpower growth for a couple of years.

to:

** The United States is pretty much considered "easy mode," mode", and for good reason, particularly in III. ''III''. They start off with the largest amount of IC in the game, the biggest knowledge pool, and a ''very'' powerful navy - -- and it only gets bigger and meaner as the game progresses. Ironically, this is ''toned back'' compared with how powerful the US economy was in UsefulNotes/WorldWarII. The only weaknesses the US has is that that, starting out, they have a weak army and air force and low technology, so using that knowledge pool is essential to catch up with the rest of the world. But by '45, the US will almost always be in a dominant position, as the only other economic powerhouse, the USSR, will have almost certainly spent a lot of resources and taken a lot of damage fighting Germany. All of this isn't just TruthInTelevision, it's actually ''toned down'' compared to how powerful the US economy was in UsefulNotes/WorldWarII, complete with the fact that, by the end, [[UsefulNotes/ColdWar the USSR was the only nation that could hope to compete with them]]. Later expansions make them the US even more broken, with ''For The Motherland'' actually allowing the US to get a massive manpower boost once "The Day of Infamy" event triggers, which not only adds 400+ manpower instantly to their pool, but also revokes The New Deal (which imposed a manpower penalty on the USA) and gives a 25% bonus to manpower growth for a couple of years.



* MagikarpPower: Nationalist China starts out with abyssmal units, research teams and a non-existent Navy but has plenty of IC. If you play your cards right, you can turn it around and turn China into a formidable nation not to be messed with.

to:

* MagikarpPower: Nationalist China starts out with abyssmal units, abysmal units and research teams and a non-existent Navy navy, but has plenty of IC. If you play your cards right, you can turn it around and turn China into a formidable nation not to be messed with.
This list shows the last 10 events of 33. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.HeartsOfIron