History YMMV / HeartsOfIron

5th May '18 2:22:19 AM Janko_Walski
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** The art style of ''IV'' was labelled as "cartoony" by older segments of the fanbase and is ever since a butt of jokes and memes. Previous games were using historical photos to represent politicians and commanding officers. ''IV'' has semi-realistic drawings instead and only very limited amount of them, quickly reaching for generic portraits, like the infamous El Generico. It doesn't help the game is about moving poorly rendered 3D models over the map, rather than NATO counters or other tactical markers.
5th May '18 2:11:44 AM Janko_Walski
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Numerous elements striving for realism were added in ''III'', like advanced logistic system, radio range, thousands of land provinces to fight on, extensive command structure and complete rework on how units are made, followed by introduction of combined arms mechanics. Some found it great, adding tactical and strategical options, other found it boring and tedious. ''Then'' ''IV'' came out, streamlining most of the complex bits and suddenly making so far simple elements highly complicated (like production system or air combat), dividing the base even further.

to:

** Numerous elements striving for realism were added in ''III'', like advanced logistic system, radio range, thousands of land provinces to fight on, extensive command structure and complete rework on how units are made, followed by introduction of combined arms mechanics. Some found it great, adding tactical and strategical options, other found it boring and tedious. ''Then'' tedious due to the amount of non-combat elements necessary to manage. And then ''IV'' came out, streamlining most of the complex bits and suddenly game into arcade mode, while also making so far simple elements highly complicated (like production system or air combat), dividing the base even further.
5th May '18 2:09:32 AM Janko_Walski
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 [=HoI 3=], though some Paradox fans are fine with it.
** 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.
** The planning & battle line mechanic in IV. Early in the lifetime of the game the old experienced users [[ScrappyMechanic hated the system]] with a passion, preferring to [[LesserOfTwoEvils micromanage every division they created]]. New players didn't come in with any baggage and were more than happy to use the simple method of adding 24 (or infinite, for Field Marshals) divisions under a General and giving them a piece of the frontline to hold, with very simple "attack this way" lines.

to:

** Numerous elements striving for realism were added in ''III'', like advanced logistic system, radio range, thousands of land provinces to fight on, extensive command structure and complete rework on how units are made, followed by introduction of combined arms mechanics. Some found it great, adding tactical and strategical options, other found it boring and tedious. ''Then'' ''IV'' came out, streamlining most of the complex bits and suddenly making so far simple elements highly complicated (like production system or air combat), dividing the base even further.
** The announcement that IV ''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 [=HoI 3=], though some Paradox fans are fine with it.
** The exclusion of Manchukuo from Hearts ''Hearts of Iron IV 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.
** The planning & battle line mechanic in IV.''IV''. Early in the lifetime of the game the old experienced users [[ScrappyMechanic hated the system]] with a passion, preferring to [[LesserOfTwoEvils micromanage every division they created]]. New players didn't come in with any baggage and were more than happy to use the simple method of adding 24 (or infinite, for Field Marshals) divisions under a General and giving them a piece of the frontline to hold, with very simple "attack "[[HollywoodTactics attack this way" way]]" lines.
4th May '18 12:49:46 PM Janko_Walski
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Convoy hunting is entirely pointless. Convoys moving resources (fuelling production) are for whatever reason impossible to take down. And even if, it would only affected resources ''from import'', [[EasyLogistics since internal transport is handled without them, even overseas]]. So UK doesn't need convoys to move materials from, say, African colonies, but Germany needs convoys when buying oil from Venezuela... or Brits. Meaning the only convoys left are those carrying land-lease and replacement weapons for troops overseas. This renders the entire submarine warfare a moot point, yet ''there is an entire tech tree dedicated to it''.
3rd May '18 10:23:15 PM Janko_Walski
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** 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''. At least the 1.5 patch enforced a minimal command structure and prevented field marshals from solo-commanding entire armies--now, they simply allow generals to combine their forces into one large army group.
** 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 destroying Royal Navy, which uses powerful, but slow battleships and heavy cruisers (and most of them are outdated anyway, which makes them even slower)

to:

** 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''. At least the 1.5 patch enforced a minimal command structure and prevented field marshals from solo-commanding entire armies--now, they simply allow generals to combine their forces into one large army group.
group... but AI still can't use it properly, making it even more vulnerable against human players, as it tends to create dozens of army groups, consisting out of single army (out of five within the group's limit) and still having issues with adding commanders to those or turning all its generals into marshals the moment it has enough Command Points.
** 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 destroying Royal Navy, which uses powerful, but slow battleships and heavy cruisers (and most of them are outdated anyway, which makes them even slower)slower). While this was slowly patched over later releases, average speed of entire fleet and ship evasion are still by far the most important stat for combat resolution.
3rd May '18 6:29:16 PM RainehDaze
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** 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''.

to:

** 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''. At least the 1.5 patch enforced a minimal command structure and prevented field marshals from solo-commanding entire armies--now, they simply allow generals to combine their forces into one large army group.
3rd May '18 6:27:58 PM RainehDaze
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. [[EasyLogistics Local infrastructure, terrain, size of ports and alike have absolutely zero impact on anything]].

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]].The most complexity is in if it can find ''a'' path to a unit which can supply enough resources.
25th Apr '18 1:59:54 PM Janko_Walski
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Only for the 1.5 patch to break it again, as the new system where Field Marshals controlled up to 5 armies made up of 24 divisions each was poorly coded, often leading to situations where entire parts of the front would be ignored and where armies would just get ignored and left behind. And it doesn't help the UI for the planning tool is truly horrible, making even such simple thinks as pointing the directions of assault a painful experience to slog through. After which the assigned units will be randomly deployed, with such genius decisions like putting tanks in mountains, forcing to manually create dozens of tiny sections of frontline, essentially making the whole planning an overly complicated manual control of the entire frontline anyway, but with clunky UI attatched.

to:

*** Only for the 1.5 patch to break it again, as the new system where Field Marshals controlled up to 5 armies made up of 24 divisions each was poorly coded, often leading to situations where entire parts of the front would be ignored and where armies would just get ignored and left behind. And it doesn't help the UI for the planning tool is truly horrible, making even such simple thinks things as pointing the directions of assault a painful experience to slog through. After which the assigned units will be randomly deployed, with such genius decisions like putting tanks in mountains, forcing to manually create dozens of tiny sections of frontline, essentially making the whole planning an overly complicated manual control of the entire frontline anyway, but with clunky UI attatched.
25th Apr '18 1:59:29 PM Janko_Walski
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Only for the 1.5 patch to break it again, as the new system where Field Marshals controlled up to 5 armies made up of 24 divisions each was poorly coded, often leading to situations where entire parts of the front would be ignored and where armies would just get ignored and left behind. And it doesn't help the UI for the planning tool is truly horrible, making even such simple thinks as pointing the directions of assault a painful experience to slog through. After which the assigned units will be randomly deployed, with such genius decisions like putting tanks in mountains or manually creating dozens of tiny sections of frontline, essentially making the planning an overly complicated manual control of the whole frontline anyway, but with clunky UI attatched.

to:

*** Only for the 1.5 patch to break it again, as the new system where Field Marshals controlled up to 5 armies made up of 24 divisions each was poorly coded, often leading to situations where entire parts of the front would be ignored and where armies would just get ignored and left behind. And it doesn't help the UI for the planning tool is truly horrible, making even such simple thinks as pointing the directions of assault a painful experience to slog through. After which the assigned units will be randomly deployed, with such genius decisions like putting tanks in mountains or mountains, forcing to manually creating create dozens of tiny sections of frontline, essentially making the whole planning an overly complicated manual control of the whole entire frontline anyway, but with clunky UI attatched.
25th Apr '18 1:58:36 PM Janko_Walski
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The planning & battle line mechanic in IV. Early in the lifetime of the game the old experienced users [[ScrappyMechanic hated the system]] with a passion, preferring to [[LesserOfTwoEvils micromanage every division they created]]. New players didn't come in with any baggage and were more than happy to use the simple method of adding 24 (or infinite, for Field Marshals) divisions under a General and giving them a piece of the frontline to hold, with very simple "attack this way" lines. Eventually everyone just got used to it.
*** Only for the 1.5 patch to break it again, as the new system where Field Marshals controlled up to 5 armies made up of 24 divisions each was poorly coded, often leading to situations where entire parts of the front would be ignored and where armies would just get ignored and left behind.

to:

** The planning & battle line mechanic in IV. Early in the lifetime of the game the old experienced users [[ScrappyMechanic hated the system]] with a passion, preferring to [[LesserOfTwoEvils micromanage every division they created]]. New players didn't come in with any baggage and were more than happy to use the simple method of adding 24 (or infinite, for Field Marshals) divisions under a General and giving them a piece of the frontline to hold, with very simple "attack this way" lines. Eventually everyone just got used to it.
lines.
*** Only for the 1.5 patch to break it again, as the new system where Field Marshals controlled up to 5 armies made up of 24 divisions each was poorly coded, often leading to situations where entire parts of the front would be ignored and where armies would just get ignored and left behind. And it doesn't help the UI for the planning tool is truly horrible, making even such simple thinks as pointing the directions of assault a painful experience to slog through. After which the assigned units will be randomly deployed, with such genius decisions like putting tanks in mountains or manually creating dozens of tiny sections of frontline, essentially making the planning an overly complicated manual control of the whole frontline anyway, but with clunky UI attatched.
This list shows the last 10 events of 56. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.HeartsOfIron