Installed it one day, started a new game, looked at all the tables and data and run away screaming. When I got myself together I uninstalled it, leaving it for fanatics:)
I'm to old for this kind of stuff...way to impatient.
I greatly enjoy Europa Universalis IV and Crusader Kings II, but I confess I've yet to successfully finish a single game. I'm not very good at them yet, but they are quite addicting.
I'm to old for this kind of stuff...way to impatient.
Hmm... it's usually the young un's that lack the patience to get into a complex game like... oh I dunno, Baldur's Gate. :P
Anyways I've played Hearts of Iron 2 quite a lot in the past. Tried it with Soviet Union, Great Britain, Germany, Nationalist China and Communist China.
I loved the complexity and detail, and 'effort' at realism. Sure it's not perfect, but it is refreshing to find a game that actually tries to capture the strategic factors that determine real wars, rather than "build units... kill enemy units... success!".
I mean it is the only game where battles are not won or lost by killing your enemy, but rather when they lose morale and organisation to the extent that they lose fighting effectiveness and are forced to retreat.
The military doctrines (and civilian policies) also perfectly capture the strategic strengths and weaknesses of the major factions. The German armies are easily the most organised and virtually unstoppable in a single battle if they launch a focused offensive to break through a point in the line, but the Soviet Union has almost unlimited manpower and can actually resist with 'defence in depth' and grind down a German advance as it loses organisation and cohesion, and suffers attrition through endless battles. Soviet divisions are also capable of fighting effectively despite horrific casualties.
I loved how faithful the game is to the initial pre-war capabilities of the major powers. There is no attempt to 'balance' the game for the sake of it. WW2 was not a 'fair' war, and so it's nice that they didn't try to make it one.
For example playing as Nationalist China, and doing a lot better than historically, I was able to wipe out the Communists and other warlord factions in China and repel the Japanese invasion and even liberate Korea. However, the moment I tried to take the fight to Japan, my fledgling navy got soundly thrashed by the Japanese. Even though I had invested huge amounts of resources into a naval capability, but although I had a respectable quantity and quality of hardware, China simply did not have the expertise (naval doctrine) to complete with a major maritime power like Japan. That's not a gap that you can (realstically) close in the 10-year time frame of the game.
The major complaints I had about the game were:
Once you know the metagame well enough, there are some cheesy things you can do. I can't remember what they were now, but it led to unrealistic and unbalanced armies that were way too effective. The game doesn't capture insurgency very well at all.
When I played as Communist China, I realised that I had virtually no chance of replicating what happened in history because unlike in the real Chinese Civil War and Second Sino-Japanese War, I had no means of controlling and organising partisans and insurgents in enemy-held territories, no means of coordinating actions between my regular armies are irregular forces. Forced to rely on division-level frontal engagements, of course the Communists were no match for the Nationalists and the Japanese. The game was very much designed to replicate traditional large scale warfare, not the asymmetric warfare of the Communists.
And this is partly why I never tried HoI3. It looks at an era (Cold War) where asymmetric warfare is even more prominent, and yet retains a grand strategy gaming system. There is even more complexity (in terms of building your divisions from battalions), but that just creates opportunities for even more metagaming and cheesy tactics. In general I think HoI3 was not as well rated as HoI2.
Yea I'm playing republic spain. Hehe...I decided to join up with the allies early. In retrospect I should have waited. The Germans just STEAMROLLED through me haha
As the biggest fan of the civilization series, it breaks my heart that I've never been able to get invested in the europa universalis series or any of the other paradox games.
I've played Civ since the original game, every iteration, I-V, yet found myself quite out of my depth in EU IV. Having said that, exposure to true grand strategy prevents me from ever going back. This thread has inspired me to go once more unto the breach - by my troth, Scotland shall rule the "British" Isles, nay…the World!
I just had a ridiculous event pop in my EU4 game - I had a Royal Marriage with Austria when their liege died without an heir, forming a Personal Union and giving me full inheritance to their lands. The trick? Austria's King was the Holy Roman Emperor. Which means Scotland now rules the HRE. Needless to say, England is furious, and has declared war on me. My first official act as Emperor was to get the Pope to excommunicate Henry. Half of Europe has promised to come to my aid, but the Royal Navy stands between them and me… It's getting pretty interesting.
Yea I wasn't able to get into EU4. Maybe it just needs to be fleshed out more with a few expansions. I'm not sure what about it has prevented me from being interested.
I'll admit it's a bit buggy at times, but it's gotten better. Honestly, I get into moods with PI's games, then burn out on them after a bit. One thing I do miss is the personal traits and dynasty facets of CK2, but each of their games seems to not only target a different time period, but a different gameplay focus as well. I should give HoI another go.
I tried going back to Civ V - I can't get more than 10-15 minutes into it before I get bored and quit. But once upon a time, I understood the appeal. So I certainly understand the impulse.
Ohhh, I love Crusader kings 2 and Europa Universalis 3/4 Two of my top 5 games ever. I havent tried HoI - I am not that interested in WW2 I guess. I hope they will make another Rome/ancient world game soon.
I am someone who played many many hours of HoI 1 and HoI 2 and when I came to HoI 3 it absolutely slaughtered me. I lost as Germany to Poland. Poland!
It's cos there is so much to get your head around when playing this game, its so very easy to do something catastrophically wrong and not even know what you did wrong.
Well, I just picked up Victoria II. My addiction is worsening, it seems. I've decided to hold off on Hearts of Iron until the new one is released in 2015. By then, I might have Vicky 2 figured out. Maybe.
@Cahir I think Polish soldiers were hard-asses, I think there were other reasons Poland was overrun, kindda like how France was overrun in the 2nd world war. Resources and poor leadership. Both nations have an undeserved bad rep.
I think Polish soldiers were hard-asses, I think there were other reasons Poland was overrun, kindda like how France was overrun in the 2nd world war. Resources and poor leadership. Both nations have an undeserved bad rep.
And both continued fighting for the rest of the war by way of underground resistance forces.
Check two songs from Swedish metal band Sabaton called 40:1 and Uprising, both showing Polish bravery during WW2. Despite their pace these are rather sad songs...make me proud, though.
Comments
I'm to old for this kind of stuff...way to impatient.
Anyways I've played Hearts of Iron 2 quite a lot in the past. Tried it with Soviet Union, Great Britain, Germany, Nationalist China and Communist China.
I loved the complexity and detail, and 'effort' at realism. Sure it's not perfect, but it is refreshing to find a game that actually tries to capture the strategic factors that determine real wars, rather than "build units... kill enemy units... success!".
I mean it is the only game where battles are not won or lost by killing your enemy, but rather when they lose morale and organisation to the extent that they lose fighting effectiveness and are forced to retreat.
The military doctrines (and civilian policies) also perfectly capture the strategic strengths and weaknesses of the major factions. The German armies are easily the most organised and virtually unstoppable in a single battle if they launch a focused offensive to break through a point in the line, but the Soviet Union has almost unlimited manpower and can actually resist with 'defence in depth' and grind down a German advance as it loses organisation and cohesion, and suffers attrition through endless battles. Soviet divisions are also capable of fighting effectively despite horrific casualties.
I loved how faithful the game is to the initial pre-war capabilities of the major powers. There is no attempt to 'balance' the game for the sake of it. WW2 was not a 'fair' war, and so it's nice that they didn't try to make it one.
For example playing as Nationalist China, and doing a lot better than historically, I was able to wipe out the Communists and other warlord factions in China and repel the Japanese invasion and even liberate Korea. However, the moment I tried to take the fight to Japan, my fledgling navy got soundly thrashed by the Japanese. Even though I had invested huge amounts of resources into a naval capability, but although I had a respectable quantity and quality of hardware, China simply did not have the expertise (naval doctrine) to complete with a major maritime power like Japan. That's not a gap that you can (realstically) close in the 10-year time frame of the game.
The major complaints I had about the game were:
Once you know the metagame well enough, there are some cheesy things you can do. I can't remember what they were now, but it led to unrealistic and unbalanced armies that were way too effective. The game doesn't capture insurgency very well at all.
When I played as Communist China, I realised that I had virtually no chance of replicating what happened in history because unlike in the real Chinese Civil War and Second Sino-Japanese War, I had no means of controlling and organising partisans and insurgents in enemy-held territories, no means of coordinating actions between my regular armies are irregular forces. Forced to rely on division-level frontal engagements, of course the Communists were no match for the Nationalists and the Japanese. The game was very much designed to replicate traditional large scale warfare, not the asymmetric warfare of the Communists.
And this is partly why I never tried HoI3. It looks at an era (Cold War) where asymmetric warfare is even more prominent, and yet retains a grand strategy gaming system. There is even more complexity (in terms of building your divisions from battalions), but that just creates opportunities for even more metagaming and cheesy tactics. In general I think HoI3 was not as well rated as HoI2.
This thread has inspired me to go once more unto the breach - by my troth, Scotland shall rule the "British" Isles, nay…the World!
I still have the flashbacks of those cold days trying to play Majesty 2.
*lies down*
*tries not to cry*
*cries a lot*
My first official act as Emperor was to get the Pope to excommunicate Henry. Half of Europe has promised to come to my aid, but the Royal Navy stands between them and me…
It's getting pretty interesting.
Honestly, I get into moods with PI's games, then burn out on them after a bit.
One thing I do miss is the personal traits and dynasty facets of CK2, but each of their games seems to not only target a different time period, but a different gameplay focus as well. I should give HoI another go.
I am someone who played many many hours of HoI 1 and HoI 2 and when I came to HoI 3 it absolutely slaughtered me. I lost as Germany to Poland. Poland!
It's cos there is so much to get your head around when playing this game, its so very easy to do something catastrophically wrong and not even know what you did wrong.
But CK and EU are never not on my PC.