Does Hearts of Iron II: Doomsday contain Hearts of Iron II?

I have read a bunch of reviews, and while many hint at it, none will just come right out and say it.

Does Hearts of Iron II: Doomsday contain all of the Hearts of Iron II content plus the post war stuff?



Very cool. I was wondering the same thing myself. Now I have little reason not to check it out.

I picked it up last night and have spent a bit of time exploring the changes. They really seem to have cleaned up the annoyances (balancing your resource budget for one) and the new intelligence function is quite well done. I can’t imagine playing HOI2 now.

I grabbed it, but I still can’t get into HoI2. I don’t know what it does wrong. I’m a huge WW2 buff and I loved the EU games but every time I’ve tried HoI I just wonder what I can’t get some enjoyment out of it.

It’s the war that’s the problem for me really. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do to win battles or fleet engagements. I just can’t seem to internalise the game mechanics.

I’m just mighty happy that my, “Don’t buy a Paradox game until the third version that you have to pay for comes out” policy has worked.

I learned my lesson from EU.

The goals of HoI 2 change depending on what country you play. The point, however, is not to win battles or fleet engagments, the goal is to accumulate victory points as indicated in the victory point map overlay. Points are divided up by Axis, Allies and Comnitern, so at the end, you want your side to have the most. If you don’t start out with a particular side, pick the side you think will win and work towards getting into that alliance.

If winning battles or fleet engagements gets you the victory points, that’s great. The trick is to come up with a plan that works and get those VPs, however you can.

…and in a game didicated to WW2 and it’s aftermath, how does one go about gaining VP’s without actually committing to battle?

The point is that I don’t find the fighting enjoyable because I don’t have a grip on what will give me an edge, or what will make me slip up. I don’t understand what makes it work because all the math just has me scratching my head.

A generic example. If my enemy has tech X and builds unit Y, how will my unit Z fare against it in battle? And what if I bring in units J, K, and L in support? And what if I research doctrine D before I launch an assault?

I need to know how to work the system before I can enjoy the system, and the HoI games just keep me guessing all the time.

The most important doctrines are those that give you organization bonuses. More organization is always better.

It actually doesn’t matter too much if you understand all the math. It works best if you just treat it like a real WW2 game. Air power will lower enemy organization, use speed to encircle your enemy and hem him in, amphibious assaults can be disastrous if you attack with too few men.

All this stuff about X/Y/Z is fine if you want certainty or take your wargames very seriously. But there is really no need to.

For the record, though, the HoI series is my least favorite of the EU-like games.


You don’t need to work the system. It’s all very logical… don’t so things that sound risky, like attacking over rivers without engineers… don’t land on beaches without marines… don’t start major offensives through swamps or muddy ground… you have all the situational information available to you through all the map overlays, use it in a logical manner and you will have success. Also, if you really need to know the nitty gritty of the fight, simply click on the battle in the ‘ongoing battle’ list, and mouse over the units to see what’s being added as a bonus and what’s being taken as a penalty.

Also, of course you have to commit to battle… the battles are simply not the ultimate goal of the game which was how you implied you thought it needed to be played.

Pretend your the President or Dictator for life and just go with it.


other things to consider (I like the wargame aspect):

-pick a few core doctrines and units and stick with them in R&D because its better to be good in a few than crappy in many. No nation has the resources to research and build everything (some obvioulsy have more than others). In a game as the Nationalist Chinese, I totally ignored armor and motorized inf, instead building lots of leg inf supported by lots of arty. I also ignored strategic bombers, and built only Tac bombers and fighters
-always escort your bombers (str, nav, tac, whatever) with fighters, preferably in a 1:1 ratio
-He who has the most-est and best-est CVs wins at sea
-simply attacking land units makes them retreat. You can fight a war of attrition for years like that. Instead, look for places where you can surround or cut off the enemy…then the units die. Using armor and motorized inf makes this process much faster.
-When doing amphib landings, any more than 3 attacking units causes problems. For tough landings, you’ve gotten to soften the target up with airpower, then send in 3 tough hombres (marines with arty?)

And if you’re playing as the Japanese, it helps HUGELY to take the doctrine upgrade that equips all your ninjas with demon fox summoning scrolls.

Wait, what? Wrong game?

Not actually necessary. It’s better to clear the way with a few stacks of 4 fighters ahead of the bombing run than it is to soften your bombing power by having fighters in the stack.

Though, if you do strategic bombing runs, you can fit escort fighter brigades, which is new in Doomsday and don’t cause stacking limit problems.

Try it both ways (I have in HOI2, but not Doomsday). Fighter stacks getting an intercept are somewhat random, especially if you do not have good radar nearby, so you might not even get an intercept. But the biggest thing is a fighters in your bomber group gives you protection against the target’s AA (and protection if there happens to be an airfield with a fighter on it in the target hex) and results in a greater time-over-target and less attrition to your bombers, so in the long run 2 stacks of (2 escort + 2 bomber) will do better than 1 stack of 4 escorts + 1 stack of 4 bomber. As I understand it, AA shoots equally at everything attacking. Bombers are easier targets than fighters, while fighers are hardly bothered (depending on the relative tech levels, of course). The net result is the bombers only face 50% of the AA, and the fighters are not really harmed.

Sounds sorta gamey, but closely escorted bombers was common historically regardless of any in-game reason.

I have not played with the new figter brigades, so i do not know if they offer the same protection.

Damn you people. You’re making me want to install the game again.

Why would you uninstall it? YOU ARE MAKING NO SENSE SIR.

Your method is certainly valid, it’s just not what I’ve personally found most effective for supporting speedy offensives. In order to dissolve enemy stacks, you have to maximize the amount of units that lose organization, and having 2 bombers just doesn’t cut it against stacks of more than about 8 ground units (in my experience). Also, time over target is only really important when you’re trying to score strategic damage to provinces, as AA is only taken into account in those situations. CAS and TAC avoid AA once the battle begins.

Strat bombing was never my thing, and I almost always ignore it, just because it’s not really good at getting you provinces.

Good points! I’ll have to experiment with your methods some.

Not that I encounter 8+ stacks too often that I cannot bypass and cutoff. Maybe I need to fight the Soviets and face 150+ divisions?