Reception & Thoughts | Patch 1.14.2 [Checksum fbf7]

[FindFloppies]

I understand that many people play without historical focuses, but it seems odd to me that the game which is and was a world war two simulator first now seems to be completely shifting to creating focus trees with the purpose of alt history instead of reworking the focus trees of the nations which are most relevant for the "ww2 simulator" that hoi4 claims to be

If HOI4 really was a WW2 simulator, and was limited to only historical outcomes, the game would have died years ago. Most of us can only play the historical settings game so many times before wanting to try something different.

Besides, HOI4 really isn't a historical simulator, per se. It's really a way to do the war, even on historic, in a 'If I had only known' manner. And, then the alt-history naturally comes out of that once you've done the historic settings.

If you want a game that sticks only to what actually happened, there's tons of games out there better for that, and with more logistical depth, etc.

 

[Amberle]

Mods would keep it alive regardless how good or bad it would do. And the amount of ww2 content you can dig through and implement is almost endless. Alas it's become more and more like eu4. But I understand because it sells well. I just wish we got that last expansion for hoi3, so people wanting a ww2 simulator would get something to play, well we do have mods.

 

[Telenil]

• Power creep is real, and we should have a balance reckoning sooner rather than later

Happy to read this! Power creep is a problem in many Paradox games, and corrections are always welcome.

 

[Herennius]

A very easy hanging fruit would be to give names to the generic intelligence agencies found around the game.

Equally low-hanging IMO would be increasing the division commander namelists for nearly all countries. Too much duplicate names float around when you start to promote generals - up to the point that it is not longer only only an immersion problem but also interfering with easily distinguishing different persons.

Historic Brazil is very disappointing, I expected much more, both in terms of the focus tree and in events, if compared to the DLC Colossus of the South from Victoria 3 it is very low in terms of quality.

Can you elaborate what makes focus treed and events for you "low quality"? And what Vic3 in particular does better?

 

[austrianemporer]

I think on a fundamental level, the problem boils down to the game's foundational design around focus trees. Not only are focus trees manpower intensive to create, but they also box the game and the player into a set of predetermined routes with no organic paths without actually immersing the player. Combined with a paucity of flavor outside of focus trees and mechanical staleness (in my opinion, the last major positive overhaul to HOI IV's mechanics was logistics which was quite a few years ago), DLC is less well-received now than before. I think a big part of the prominence of focus trees is the rigidity and simplicity of politics and production. Although they are not the first thing someone may think of when they think of World War II, they were no less crucial to the victory of the Allies over the Axis than simple military operations. Expanding one of these two elements in a DLC could give more latitude to the company in future DLC's by allowing them to do more than just make new focus trees.

 

[dididiipro]

I haven't gotten a chance to play enough of this DLC as much as I should like so unfortunately I can't offer as detailed/in-depth of feedback yet as I'd like; but going off a few playthroughs and some messing around these are my (very basic thoughts)

Overall I do like the focus trees and what they add and I'm overall happy with this DLC. I think it could stand to be improved in a few ways (I can try and get more specific later)

Pros:
- A lot of unit and national leaders for each major nation and even a few for Paraguay, Uruguay and shockingly: Bolivia

- I like the wide variety of paths and think that the geography of the nations involved makes for some very interesting combinations

- Overall it has done what I wanted it to do: make a previously dull region much more interesting of a sandbox to play in.

Mixed:
- Lack of a Fifth research slot. I actually appreciate this a bit more from further playthroughs as it seems that these nations have been made to be quite stronger in other ways and the lack of a fifth slot is intended to kneecap them just a smidge. BUT some paths still come away feeling underpowered (Monarchist Brazil) and others overpowered.

- Industrial trees: I appreciate the idea behind investments and development and think it has some cool effects. But I also feel like the industrial focus trees are shockingly weak for many of these nations which feels a bit fitting but also feels like it takes too long for too little payoff. Might want to add some more resource extraction decisions and shorten *some* of the industrial focus times.

Cons:
- Some paths and trees can feel a bit same-y or underwhelming. One that stood out to me was Monarchist Brazil which felt weirdly weak compared to it's Portuguese brother (cousin?). A lot of building up to change government and then not too much to show for it.

- Some focuses/spirits feel less useful than they should be if not outright worthless. Particularly spirits which are timed and give an increase in recruitable population or war support/stability; this only serves to come back to bite you later when it inevitably expires. A flat manpower bonus going alongside the other temporary effects would probably yield better results.

- There are quite a few paths that have a lot of "Hurry up and Wait" to them, I am not personally of the opinion that 70 focuses shouldn't exist, I think they have their place. But there is a delicate economy of time that I think these trees don't quite have a balance for. Why would I take a 70 focus to give me one civilian factor or three building slots when I can take two 35 day focus that gives me a mil and national spirit each? Simply put some of these 70 day focuses either need to offer more to make them more tantalizing OR they need to lead to something better. A lot of the industry trees get ignored by me because the buffs they offer aren't that good and they don't lead to any buffs that are significantly better later on. By contrast I almost always go down the naval tree whereas I'd usually ignore that because some of the later stuff is SO GOOD that I want in on it ASAP. And it makes for an interesting decision.

- This is a gripe, but I do love unique infantry equipment art and I'm sad to see it's less of a focus nowadays. I understand that many nations just used variants of Mauser's but it'd be nice to have some relatively unique art. Might I recommend the ability to, much like planes or tanks, be able to assign icons to infantry equipment so you could choose the art that would most fit. That way you wouldn't have to keep making new weapon art for every nation but every nation can have a bit of flavor in terms of how their equipment looks in their stockpile.

I would love to give a more detailed write-up or review after I've gotten a chance to play most of the paths. Overall I think (as is my usual opinion) that this DLC is good and I think people are often harsher and less helpful than is deserved (People are mean on the internet, who'd have guessed?). But I do understand some pushback on this DLC more-so than the pushback on some other DLC's and I think there's definitely some touching up that could improve the whole thing.

 

[EmmanuelVnzla]

• People love map changes more than I thought humanly possible.

Yes <3 remember the Venezuela map and the Essequibo, tqm (that mean "te quiero mucho" - "I love you" in English)

 

[Arheo]

I understand that many people play without historical focuses, but it seems odd to me that the game which is and was a world war two simulator first now seems to be completely shifting to creating focus trees with the purpose of alt history instead of reworking the focus trees of the nations which are most relevant for the "ww2 simulator" that hoi4 claims to be

I don't think we've said it is a ww2 simulator. HOI's defining internal mission statement is to be the "premier 20thC wargame". It lets you simulate ww2. Or other things if you want.

I think on a fundamental level, the problem boils down to the game's foundational design around focus trees. Not only are focus trees manpower intensive to create, but they also box the game and the player into a set of predetermined routes with no organic paths without actually immersing the player. Combined with a paucity of flavor outside of focus trees and mechanical staleness (in my opinion, the last major positive overhaul to HOI IV's mechanics was logistics which was quite a few years ago), DLC is less well-received now than before. I think a big part of the prominence of focus trees is the rigidity and simplicity of politics and production. Although they are not the first thing someone may think of when they think of World War II, they were no less crucial to the victory of the Allies over the Axis than simple military operations.

I'd disagree that they don't immerse the player, but I tend to concur that focus trees can be a design limitation. I am on record as calling them our "best, worst feature". They're actually great for providing an authored narrative, but poor for systems-driven game design and organic simulation. All of that is a moot point really, because that's not the kind of thing you change at this point in a game's lifecycle.

 

[Wagner Joy Division]

14,99€ Trials of Allegiance
59,99€ Baldur's Gate 3
39,99€ HELLDIVERS 2
59,99€ Elden Ring
44,99€ Frostpunk 2

Do you see the problem? Because if we are to list what DLC could offer...

 

[Kazanov]

I don't play HOI4 that much.

Said that, i really liked how you worked on our region and tried to give our nations some flavor, most of the content was well researched (a good change from how Paradox did things in the past) and the DD were interesting enough to make me read them despite me dont playing HOI4 enough.

The problem is the pricing.

Ok, it's 10k clp (not expensive, but also not cheap), if HOI4 was my main game I would not get in on release because it's only a focus-tree dlc. But I would get it on sale. The problem is that a big dlc costs 14k clp, then on my priority list, I would get the "big dlc" first and then this one.

 

[ilec04]

Huh, I don’t read reviews of DLC myself and I don’t think I was the target audience for this DLC in the sense that I might have preferred something different, but I knew what I was getting when I bought it and it delivered what it said it would so I can’t see getting down on it. To the contrary, I have enjoyed it far more than I expected. There’s been something immensely satisfying about liberating the Philippines using the marines of the Argentinian Republic.

 

[kolposas]

It's fair to say that this release is probably the weakest in terms of the quality of the focus trees and flavour/polishing in general. Having played most political trees (apart from democratic ones) for achievements I would probably rate the satisfaction around 3.5/10. The basis for the rating is AAT if it would cost 15$ (ignores added mechanics to the game):

To begin with, the copied military tree, as you admitted is really bad. While the tree itself is okay/good, it heavily restricts flavour that can be achieved for the different nations and the fun factor of replaying the same country with a different path + the other 2 (Arg/Bra/Chi), this alone is like -2 points of the score.

Economic trees seem to be over-focused on resource gain and infra/railways and lack locked advisors behind them. Brazil's is probably the best the goal is to get rid of your bad economy, but at the same time neglected states could have some flavour, just removing the bad bonus isn't sufficient, use of pp for infra or 1 civ at some point could be there (6/10). Argentines you can split in half, the left side is good (research bonuses, slot, quick factories, and good spirits) while the right side is going to be ignored until you are done with the political tree and military one (resource gain for 365 days while the focus is 70d? no thank you) (5/10). Chile has a similar problem, the top part is just bad for you to never take a look into it when the only reason to go down is insane military spirit, 4 mills, and research slot (3/10).

Political trees from good to bad:

French Chile (9.5/10): By far the best tree with a clear goal in mind. Gives enough flavour focuses after the civil (still could have 3-5 more), preparation for war is there and then war goals make sense (apart from Inca just yoinking your core states and not even asking about it?!). Enjoyable to play with some hurdles along the way.

Mapuche Chile (7/10): Quite similar to French Chile, but what happened to most after the war focuses relating to native life (apart from the army improving cav and 2 others). Even then, you decide I will be liberating everything and it just abruptly ends there + why is the US 1 big native nation known for its huge confederations??? The native nation idea is there but just not realized to its full extent.

Fascist Brazil and Commie Brazil (6/10): while they shouldn't be grouped together they are inherently the same, with commies having better wg's and fascists better flavour focuses. You addressed the commie core problem in a very bad way. Giving insta cores on land that you don't even own is bad to begin with: new cb, bonuses while at war, and the power spike due to factories is not balanced. Make compliance a requirement like 30% and a symbolical price for a whole nation (let's say 50 to govern the new administration). You already have an advisor giving increased compl + liberated workforce = ~180 days and you can click the decision.

Commie Argentina (4/10): Has some flavour after the civil war, but for some reason just disallows continuing improving parts of the country and conquering. 75pp per province? self explanatory I hope

Fascist Argentina (3/10): Generic bland tree: Increase fascism>some manpower>conquer neighbours wow. Not a sign of something you can find in Brazil's fascist tree that adds depth. pp problem with cores again...

Communist Chile (0/10): I have no idea how this focus tree is here. It has absolutely 0 flavour and REINTRODUCES African Union v2 which is inherently almost even worse, already regarded as possibly the worst/most frustrating route of expansion by the majority of the player base. Using pp to coup countries and spending the next 6 years building in them and saving 350pp for each one of them IS NOT FUN.

In conclusion, the DLC lacks flavour in most of the political trees and feels unpolished. There are no further focuses after conquering somebody apart from taking their land. Moreover, it is now really apparent that change to consumer goods was a bad decision, it is thrown around like it is nothing, the feeling of it being something very special that you almost rush to get is just no longer ever there. Okay, 10% is there, but will I be missing it if I don't get it and go for the military/political tree faster? No

 

[DarthSigma]

I don't think we've said it is a ww2 simulator. HOI's defining internal mission statement is to be the "premier 20thC wargame". It lets you simulate ww2. Or other things if you want.



I'd disagree that they don't immerse the player, but I tend to concur that focus trees can be a design limitation. I am on record as calling them our "best, worst feature". They're actually great for providing an authored narrative, but poor for systems-driven game design and organic simulation. All of that is a moot point really, because that's not the kind of thing you change at this point in a game's lifecycle.

I would disagree. The steam store page's description states "Victory is at your fingertips! Your ability to lead your nation is your supreme weapon, the strategy game Hearts of Iron IV lets you take command of any nation in World War II; the most engaging conflict in world history," clearly emphasizing that it is a strategy game revolving around World War Two. Additionally, the "about this game section" states "Hearts of Iron IV is a compelling simulation of modern war that rewards replay and strategic thinking," so combining the two we get a simulation of modern war focusing on World War Two. If that isn't a World War Two military simulator, I don't know what is.

I don't say this to argue or be rude, but I am simply pointing out that it is odd to me that the focus of the development teams has shifted to created focus trees for the purely a-history paths before refining the main contributors of WW2 and adding the rest of the nations that were involved in the conflict more directly than south america (ie Dutch East Indies, Siam, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Phillipines). I enjoy the alternate history paths and they add interesting flavor, but the game is mainly marketed as a ww2 game so its odd that before finishing a refined ww2 game (with alt-hist options for the nations involved) the developing team has shifted to purely alt-history additions.

 

[Arheo]

I would disagree. The steam store page's description states "Victory is at your fingertips! Your ability to lead your nation is your supreme weapon, the strategy game Hearts of Iron IV lets you take command of any nation in World War II; the most engaging conflict in world history," clearly emphasizing that it is a strategy game revolving around World War Two. Additionally, the "about this game section" states "Hearts of Iron IV is a compelling simulation of modern war that rewards replay and strategic thinking," so combining the two we get a simulation of modern war focusing on World War Two. If that isn't a World War Two military simulator, I don't know what is.

I guess what I'm saying is that I see it as a military simulator, not explicitly a historical-only one. But I understand your point, and that's a reasonable conclusion.

I don't say this to argue or be rude, but I am simply pointing out that it is odd to me that the focus of the development teams has shifted to created focus trees for the purely a-history paths before refining the main contributors of WW2 and adding the rest of the nations that were involved in the conflict more directly than south america (ie Dutch East Indies, Siam, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Phillipines). I enjoy the alternate history paths and they add interesting flavor, but the game is mainly marketed as a ww2 game so its odd that before finishing a refined ww2 game (with alt-hist options for the nations involved) the developing team has shifted to purely alt-history additions.

We don't sit down and decide what to focus on by order of ranking its importance to the progression of ww2, these days. That was certainly more of a factor earlier on (a south america expansion as our first DLC would have been a strange move), but at this point many countries already have content, and weighing up the remaining ones based on perceived impact to the war feels really arbitrary. I think it's also fair to say that our fans have been asking for South America far more than I've seen anyone ask for Dutch East Indies or Egypt, ie.

 

[CaptainBruh]

One thing that stood out to me was the fact that Chile's France trees doesn't have much to it. After taking France, we only get cores. What if we could offer amnesty and recruit some French characters (not just generals)? Obtaining starting French technology and ship, tank, and airplane designs could also be a huge bonus. There's also being able to use French MIOs.

Is adding extra content/rewards such as these something that could come in the future? Even in a war effort update. Most of these wouldn't be too difficult to add, just an event that fires after Chile caps France that grants the same tech and designs as France has in 1936

Also, i would like to ask something as a modder. Will we ever see an effect in the future that allows us to transfer designs (ships, tanks, planes, etc) to a country? It would also be very useful to add a trigger to see if a nation has a design for a particular tank/chassis. One persisting bug from NSB is receiving equipment from another nation via event or focus, but the chassis/hulls/airframes come empty of any modules as the root country has not yet designed anything off of that tech level. i'd like to be able to grant nations foreign equipment without needing to give the selling nation free designs just to ensure empty planes and tanks dont get delivered.

 

[ItThatAltersSanity]

Whcih I always thought as rather odd, because most of the people I knew who were saying that, still watched TV religiously every evening for hours. So, TV for hours, staring at the idiot box was fine, but playing a game was not? Never made sense to me.

Humans are cautious about change. "That minority are doing something different to us, it's not widespread culture, therefore it's suspicious" is wired into survival instincts. Civilisation advanced what human intellect has achieved but never overwrote the basic instincts that form the foundation of the mind. Re-directed those instincts, but never overwrote.

I'd disagree that they don't immerse the player, but I tend to concur that focus trees can be a design limitation. I am on record as calling them our "best, worst feature". They're actually great for providing an authored narrative, but poor for systems-driven game design and organic simulation. All of that is a moot point really, because that's not the kind of thing you change at this point in a game's lifecycle.

Unmodded HoI 4 historical mode is the one railroad that's been carefully balanced and maintained. A single nation's focus tree is one authored narrative to the backdrop of the orthodox setting. For good or bad, this railroad is what makes people think HoI 4 is primarily a WW2 simulator. And I get that it's commercially unrealistic to have whole dev teams dedicated to carefully maintaining alternate railroads to drive home the point "our game can simulate some other war than just the historic WW2".

 

[TheEisenPhedora]

My biggest problems were more with the patch, rather than the DLC. MIOs still feel like they're a terrific idea with heaps of potential implemented in a very clumsy way, especially when it comes to capital ships almost always being outdated because I either have to completely start again or refit the ship when it's done just to add a new trait I get. In general I think there needs to be an overhaul in ship production. Why would my shipyards have to scrap an entire battleship and start again if I want to add radar or some AA?

 

[ValmyLipbalm]

- This is a gripe, but I do love unique infantry equipment art and I'm sad to see it's less of a focus nowadays. I understand that many nations just used variants of Mauser's but it'd be nice to have some relatively unique art. Might I recommend the ability to, much like planes or tanks, be able to assign icons to infantry equipment so you could choose the art that would most fit. That way you wouldn't have to keep making new weapon art for every nation but every nation can have a bit of flavor in terms of how their equipment looks in their stockpile.

This. In my last playthrough as central America I was shopping for every unique gun the Euros could spare (and buying up every single Uko Pekko or whatever the Finns put up to the market the second they did) because I couldn't stand my vaguely Garand shaped Infantry Equipment I anymore after a while.

Also, more images for generic officers and politicians, pls. And more generic icons for planes (tanks also probably need them but I haven't focused much on producing armor. Central America, you see). For American minors you could probably even add European and Middle Eastern, and to a lesser degree African/Asian generals or politician art and it would actually be a great improvement (nations made up of immigrants, as you know). The kings of Iraq and Egypt even look like random Latin American politicians.

 

[seppafer]

regarding the lack of mechanics issue I think part of the problem was that it seems that they don't incorporate any mechanics at all. Personally I'm confused why there was no inclusion of a mechanic that was in previous expansions like the balance of power or even one of the politics decision systems we saw in BotB. in this regard the pack felt a little empty as the only features were the focus trees and by a stretch the spirit of the army/navy/air from the shared trees. I think this could have been a good type of DLC to reuse mechanics that are already in the game especially ones that to my understanding, were generally liked.

 

[Beserker]

I don't usually write reviews or anything of the sort, but this is a very important release for me (my profile picture sort of gives it away) which is why I'd like to also give some feedback, maybe touching on somethings others have mentioned.

Overall, I enjoyed this country pack, though I do have some gripes with it. The three major focus trees are good (can't say for the two minor ones as I haven't tested them), but they have some inconsistencies. For instance, I can core SA if I take it by force as Brazil, but NOT if they join me on their own. I saw some coring issues were being addressed, so maybe that's one of them.

Another issue I have with them, and I know this is contentious, is the lack of a fifth research slot. In the Chilean case, the Mapuche path only has access to three (and one of them comes in rather late). While they have many buffs to research speed, two slots for many years in game can be crippling, given that the starting tech is so bad.

Also, there are two "lesser" points: first, I find the shared military branch, as stated in the diary, to be very lacking in country-specific flavor. As this was mentioned, though, I won't delve on it. And second, I think there should have been something explicitly relating to the state of São Paulo in the Brazilian focus tree, or national spirit. It literally revolted against Vargas about 4 years before game start, and things definitely weren't completely settled by then.

Other than focus trees, I've already written a post about this, but I think some provinces should have been split. Huge provinces, such as the case in pretty much all of SA, makes the game less fun for me - it makes me want to avoid SA when playing a country in SA. It also makes the Brazilian state borders weird, which is an issue for me (see the profile picture), but probably not so much for most players.

Finally, I still find resource distribution in-game to be... weird (which probably also touches the balancing reviews which need to be done overall, as mentioned in the diary). Even with all the rubber and iron focuses in Brazil, it's weird to me that there's no way to get anywhere near the production output of a single south-east asian state. Maybe there could be some extraction decisions which could be taken after the relevant focuses, so as to not power-creep too much, but I feel something is still missing. Especially with steel - Minas Gerais and Pará produce quite a bit of iron, and even if these resources weren't all exploited at the time, I think the resource decisions are there exactly for this scenario.

Don't get me wrong: I'm having fun with the pack and the focuses therein. It's just that I can also admit that there was some missed potential in the above points, and I'm scared the region will just be left to dust afterward, since so many people overlook it. In any case, thank you for the good work, and sorry for the long post - I write this solely because this is an expansion about a region very dear to me, in a game I care a lot for.