Hearts of Iron 4 announced

What does the Raj give as the reason for not transferring?

Well, I’ll be, the Raj said yes! Problem solved. :)

That’s great. If you take control of the front line states, you hopefully don’t have to request transfer going forward.

Yep, that worked just as you say: my blue blob is growing! Although now I also see the benefits of letting the Raj swallow everything: they get garrison duty, and with their massive manpower, they crank out tons of units. I’m still growing my blue blob, though. I really appreciate that tip. Makes the game a lot more fun.

I am still playing that USA playthrough, but I’ve also been trying Australia on the “nonhistorical” path option. (I’ve now bought all the DLC, so I get the Oz focus tree.) Great fun! Britain went Fascist, and I and the other members of the Commonwealth all declared independence. Now Britain is “The Allies” with Italy, while Germany is starting to swallow up its neighbors as “The Axis.” The US is neutral. Japan is locked in a civil war, so there has been no China war or war in the Pacific at all as of early 1940.

Britain is mad at me and its other former underlings, and they’ve justified a war against me – as have the Axis. So I think someone will declare war on me. I’m busy making destroyers with minelaying capability to try to protect my ports. The big challenge for Oz is manpower, but there are focuses and laws that ameliorate it somewhat.

So … any of the DLC considered need to have? On sale at humblebundle right now, so thinking of jumping in.

I’ve been having a great time with just the base game. I know I’ve complained plenty about the game and the occasional AI stupidity, but it keeps pulling me back in with it’s theming and alt-world building.

One site’s take.

I have all the DLC. My favorite DLC is Man the Guns, but I’m a naval-war buff.

Man the Guns is the best one so far, IMO. Waking the Tiger is a must-have if you want to play in Asia. Hmm, which expansion added the Autonomy system? I really like that mechanic.

This post was probably less than helpful.

I think the autonomy is part of the Together for Victory or whatever it is called that focuses on the Commonwealth stuff.

Tempted. But I have like three HoI titles in my steam library and i bounced off of them hard.

I don’t want to be the dude that sways you into getting it, but I found HOI4 the most engaging of the lot. I was able to get into HOI3 and enjoy it, but just getting a game started was a slog. Not so in HOI4, it’s more amenable to jumping in and pushing buttons (even if it might be with disastrous results until you know what you’re doing :)).

Just one guy’s opinion, though!

I tried either HOI 1 or 2, I forget which. Played a fair amount of HOI 3, and also rage quit and equal number of games. I agree completely with Kevin. HOI 3 is just way more accessible than the other version, in everything from the innovative battle line system. Where you draw a frontline and arrows to attack an objective. To a still deep research system, but not ridiculously complicated research system like HOI 3,

There are lot of quality of life improvements, including not being forced to spend 3 hours every game reorganizing the OOB for the major countries, and taking a second job as Head of Army personal that was required for HOI 3.

HOI IV has some beautiful executed sub-system like a production system, which is probably the best production system ever done for any game ever.

The latest development Diary is out

There will be patch 1.7 to fix Germany steamrolling over Russia. I must say the amount of post support work they are doing to improve this game is impressive.


So the game is nearing 1.0 status then?

I liked that dev diary.

However, while I understand the reason why the design goal is to Germany always beat the USSR on its own by 1945, the history nerf in me cringes a little at the ahistorical modeling.

I should get back into this, but I’m wondering if I should wait for the next expansion first (won’t be able to play continually, so with Paradox games I do yearly or biannual sampling’s for a week or two before letting them change till the next round).

I can’t tell if this is a joke or not.

Personally, I find it a bit of a moot discussion. As much as there’s probable and proven contributing factors to any event, the underlying truth is that history happened they way it did, because it did. The further up the chain you go the wider the net of contributing factors you need to draw from, the more it becomes little more than guess work in my eyes.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to offer a scenario where, if Germany was literally fighting no-one but the Soviets, that they stood a decent chance a winning. Perhaps offering such a scenario does downplay the inherent strength of the Soviet state, but in a game that’s about three separate factions, there’s also zero point in offering a scenario that completely invalidates one of those factions (the allies).

They were there, they were fighting, so it’s difficult to out-right dismiss them as being entirely irrelevant to the Eastern Front. And besides, if you don’t buff Germany as being able to take on one faction on its own, you then make them completely irrelevant to the game instead.


And yeah, Paradox knows the history but if the German AI loses consistently to the USSR than the game basically doesn’t happen. I guess you could wait for the USSR to roll over Europe and then the Allies become the aggressor but that’s a Cold War game, not a WW2 game. The USSR won 9 out of 10 times early on and it was abortive to the campaign when it happened.

It was a similar problem with the Japanese AI. Back when they would routinely get completely bogged down in China, the Pacific theater would never materialize at all.

I think this strikes a good gameplay balance. The Allies gameplay is to build up to be able to launch and invasion to relieve the Soviets. If they wait too long, Germany might be too powerful to stop. Of course, Germany isn’t always going to win, so there’s still unpredictability.