Stupid question but.... why is this game so popular?

[insanebe]

First off i played this game at launch years ago and drifted away to other games (stellaris/CK3) because after playing as all the axis allied powers there wasn't much else to do, in my mind at least.

I recently checked SteamDB just to see what people were playing and was suprised to see Hearts of Iron 4 consitantly growing its player base.

So i have to ask what did i miss that makes this game so popular right now?



I

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In general I like the UI and how easy it is to use the tabs, but the map style I could never get behind. I believe HOI3's simpler 2D map style just works better for a WWII game and in general I felt it easier to control the details of battles in that game. The quite substantial amount of neon and bright colours when battle plans are involved in 4 certainly doesn't help.

tabs are one of the few aspects of hoi 4 ui that work. civ 7 ui looks awful, but is objectively still better than hoi 4 until i see evidence that it lies repeatedly in multiple different ways that impact gameplay and actively hinders inputs.

if only the ui worked generally, perhaps it would be even more popular as a game. it dominates what is mostly non-existent competition in the niche right now.

 

[jtrainor]

Lack of choice in the genre plus being essentially the greatest electronic fidget spinner for WWII nerds with autism ever invented.

 

[Demonthese]

Genius game design, really? The ability to bring back Nicholas II's fourth great-great uncle to rule the Soviet Union after four clicks and three months have elapsed?

I don't actually mind it overall, but I can't be alone in thinking that some monumental ideological and political shifts are a bit too easy to enact.

Yes because you are connecting two totally unrelated things. The vast majority of the alt history in game is flat out impossible. This has nothing to do with focus trees though, nothing is stopping them from spreading things over multiple focuses, or burying the offending focus at the end of a path. But that would render most alt history almost literally unplayable. That is the actual tension in the game design, WW2 simulator vs historically themed sandbox with wacky alt history.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

i was a bit flippant earlier, but there is reason i still play sometimes and post here. the game offers something unique, a mix of the grand strategy buildup + decision making coupled with combat choices which are, by far, the most impactful of any pdox title i've played. unit control matters in other grand strategy games too, but this is the only one where it matters to such a great extent. this on top of how you first pick between which units you produce in the first placed given various constraints.

the ui/controls and focus design hold this game back a lot, but the core experience has a good degree of situational depth while covering a popular historical era. while the execution of participation score isn't perfect, it improved over the years and at least the concept makes sense. there's a lot to like with the core gameplay, and i am probably not alone in that preference. in eu 4, nearly all of a war is won before you declare it. in hoi 4, that is only partially true.

i will also echo that modding has helped a great deal. i do not think the kaiserreich design is good, but many disagree and play it. road to 56 is popular and receives updates regularly. pony and fallout mods are a master class in modding, surpassing vanilla dlcs and are among the best conversion mods i've played for any game (ftl: multiverse being another on that short list). my friends just told me about another for hoi 4 that's set more recently that is pretty good.

 

[Joshua Happytree]

1. IMHO the major reason is steep discounts in Steam code resellers. See below.
   1. 50 USD for EVERYTHING is a bargain for a game of such a depth comparing to a full Steam price of say 150 USD (depends on geo).
   2. Starter edition players who pay meagre 17 USD still count in into "popularity". For 17 USD such a game is a give-away IMHO
2. I bitch a lot but the game is really interesting and unique. One may like or dislike UI but there's zero competition of comparable depth.
3. PDX model is based on converting people who pay say 20% of the price -- base game plus all DLCs -- into those who pay 100%. Pretty sure people who flock to the game now have different spending pattern as those who were buying the game before. Will go get my popcorn ready to watch PDX next few years
4. I don't know internal PDX stats but having experience in the same objectuivesat tens of millions of customers yet in a different industry I'd say PDX need to concentrate on HOI4 basics. IMHO they might be burning through total addressable audience at the expense of steep discounts. Yet those people whom they attract will not have the same patience as old hard core HOIx fans. My guess is this new audience will probably have somewhat shorter temper for horrible UI or bugs or misleading tooltips. And even for what really makes HOI4 so strong and unique -- complexity. Read how much time one may spend in the game and still get an enjoyment from learning new things. IMHO once PDX burns through this audience they won't come back.
5. I'd say the fact that such a topic was created and being discussed is very telling. No one asks and argues a question why something is loved so much if one loves this to 200% percent. It'd have asked for no question or discussion.

Why People are Frustrated with HOI4 Development

Strategic bombers have been largely broken for many patches... When will they actually be fixed? they really should have been fixed when the new 1.15 was released... For those who don't know, many states are invulnerable to strategic bombing. At...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Rycestealer]

I think it boils down to a few points.

The first is that the game has a bit of depth but most of the motions of the game are fairly easy and are choices to make. What to research? What focus to pick? Gameplay is moving units on a map which is assisted by an automatic frontline tool that makes the game a lot easier. Naval and air are not fun and will continue to be unfun as the player has little agency over these aspects directly. Individual actions are simple but add up to a greater whole making the game appear to be deeper than it really is (though a tremendous amount of information can only be found in defines or the wiki).

The second reason is going to be agency or the appearance of it. Fundamentally the player knows how history is supposed to go and they are able to disrupt it quite easily using basic mechanics and focus trees generally give an illusion of changing gameplay by giving slightly different bonuses and changing the flag PNG and ideology color. Even these cosmetic changes will make the player feel empowered and that they are making progress for whatever goal they may have. Usually this comes in the form of making more divisions or influencing the pre-war situation.

This then translates into external factors such as modders and YouTube. The former add on additional value and playtime to the game at minimal cost to the developer and can quite garner like Kaiserreich or more ill conceived projects like Red Flood or TNO with the former effectively keeping the appearance of alternate history and focusing on being as whacky as possible, while TNO forgoes gameplay for the most part and enjoyability is determinant on the competency of the writing which can often be lacking. Regardless, this sort of alternate history, especially for a modern setting like WW2 garners views on YouTube. Since the game looks complex and appears to give the player much freedom in alternate history, plus it has many mods to extend replayability, people have discovered the game over the years though YouTube similar to how Minecraft became quite popular, though for a older demographic.

Ultimately, I don't understand why the game remains popular when air and naval remain in a broken state and world war 2 is not portrayed in a particularly historical manner when playing historical. A 10 year project like this is bound to have flaws and redundancies but when compared to Stellaris the tech debt or lack of care or whatever you want to call it is so blazingly apparent, that I cannot believe that I cannot use WASD to move the map without an external program or that nations who fought in WWII still don't have a focus tree and or that it's been almost 5 years since a major content addition like railways which so deeply impact gameplay.

 

[Cornutus]

To summarize, HOI4 is a low-key browser game that masks itself as a high-end "Grand Strategy game", and gives a lot of unhappy people a way to achieve something in life and enact their fantasies.

The reason why HOI4 more popular than other PDX grand strategies is the same as why porn is more popular than love dramas.

1. The vast majority of HOI4 players on MP servers were high school and university student-age, usually from second/third tier university programs (liberal arts, sometimes economics, few STEM or law/business/med school). Very rarely would you see someone in their 30-40s with a career, a family or even a girlfriend (quite common to say that "I abandoned HOI4 after I got a gf").

They play HOI4 in a lot of ways like a FPS: "Who clicks the fastest" and "who can grind" with no patience for long-term strategies.

2. The vast majority would try non-historic ways of playing their country as it gave a sense of "changing something in real life".

If you think about it, a lot of people play HOI4 because they are unhappy with the politics scene today, and want something different: that's why you see a lot of popularity in Monarchist paths.

There's a reason why Kaiserreich became so popular, as it allowed some of that stuff in a "fantasy world" that is close to ours, but has no publicity repercussions.

3. To others, it's just a way of "giving a false sense of achievement".

You could see people that would work at the post office, fast food joint, or some other unqualified job and want to feel like they can actually achieve something.

They play HOI4, dominate the world as Nicaragua in a few hours and get happy that "Oh I achieved something impossible, woo hoo".

It's a lot easier than other PDX games that take Real-life days to get anywhere.

4. History fans have long abandoned HOI4 to my knowledge.

Even on the forums you see the forum approach that "HOI4 is a game, critcizing it from a historical plausibility standpoint will not be tolerated".

The reason why they play HOI4 I would guess is because Gary Grigsby's games are too micro-intensive, Ageod games simply are not functional, other games are either too generalized for WW2 or are too military-centric of lower levels of command (corps-level, squad-level).

So you are stuck with HOI4 just like you were with HOI3 for years.



Overall I'm surprised it's this popular in the demographic it is. And I don't get why browser strategy games on WW2 aren't taking HOI4's market away.

And it seems the success lessons of HOI4 cannot get replicated: Imperator Rome in a lot of ways was HOI4 set in the Ancient World, and everything it got criticized for can be said about HOI4.

I guess once better graphics become widely available and there is more will to touch politically sensitive topics (with graphic content), HOI4 will stop being as popular as it is. But for now, it endures.

 

[Kayzer-i Anadolu]

HoI4 is the Kaaba of Wehraboo’s and cringe WW2 nerds (like me). Anything you made in this genre has a potential of lucky shot and HoI4 holds the title of being the only grand strategy game on the genre. Game is easy to play and understand. Gives the impression of wide as an ocean but in the end, shallow as a babypool on mechanic side which disguise the player like achieved something significant. Feeling of success brings fun. More or less like souls games. (You can compare their playerbase achievements on YouTube, for example: Only Artillery = Beating Slave Knight Gale with 1 level and fists only) They bury recourses to new role play content and advertise it with good marketing. (They make good trailers)

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I play this game for a little while every year and then I drop it for a year. The game has changed enough by then that it’s a new game to work out. I’m learning about the MIO (a new unit buff feature) game and the new research center gameplay right now, while trying to grab a few achievements.

The biggest downside of HOI4 for me is no touch screen feature. I’m getting old and too much mouse click action is bad on my wrist, which is why I can only play HOI4 and EU4 for a month or two per year.

I can, physically, only play CK3 all year because of the ability to select by touching the screen, saving my mouse hand for occasional right clicks. Yes I’m getting old. I need to preserve my mouse hand for the work computer now, which also has a helpful touch screen.

Tldr, no touch screen feature = bad

 

[Kosaki MacTavish]

4. History fans have long abandoned HOI4 to my knowledge.

Hah, you haven't experienced the HoI4's heyday when Drikus/Bratyn was still here. He designed the Dutch contents for MtG from what he learned on his graduate and master programmes on history.

Or even history buffs from other countries who has little representation in WW2 games making contents for their country in HoI4 like me (see East Indies Reworked mod, i made it) and that Portuguese professor who helped design Portuguese content for La Resistance.

Certainly while there is small overlap between modders and history buffs, i think we did great to provide well-researched contents, both historical and plausible alt-history ones nonetheless.

 

[SAS]

I like the economy side and alt history options. But the lack of a proper OOB and having to use the Frontline system for the planning bonus lowers it a few degrees for me. I still have over 1600 hours played though.

 

[Cornutus]

Hah, you haven't experienced the HoI4's heyday when Drikus/Bratyn was still here. He designed the Dutch contents for MtG from what he learned on his graduate and master programmes on history.

The problem is fundamentals, not so much details.

With regards to focus trees, I do believe that Japan could become communist or the US could have a Second Civil War in the 1930-1940s.

Focus trees are not really the problem.

The bigger problem are underlying game mechanics that apply to all countries. For example:
1. Artillery is inferior to tanks in every single way on a per width basis.
2. Infantry can move at a speed of 96 km/day, when in reality normal speed would be 35 km/day under ideal conditions.
3. Land cruisers are a viable unit.
4. A country can multiply its economy over a course of a couple of years (makes me think of Age of Empires/Cossacks series of games).

To compensate patchwork modifiers like "Ichi-Go" in China or "Unplanned Offensive" in Spain get invented, because otherwise the war will end too soon.

Bad design philosophy -> bad design choices -> stitches and patches to make the thing run in some way

Or even history buffs from other countries who has little representation in WW2 games making contents for their country in HoI4 like me (see East Indies Reworked mod, i made it) and that Portuguese professor who helped design Portuguese content for La Resistance.

I'll check your mod out, just to get a feel a what I don't know about that area. I can say in advance though, the data I collected shows Dutch East Indies were roughly economically equal to the metropolitan Netherlands. Would be interesting to compare that to what I see in your mod.

With regards to Portugal, I did hear some criticism about their focus tree.

Certainly while there is small overlap between modders and history buffs, i think we did great to provide well-researched contents, both historical and plausible alt-history ones nonetheless.

I kind of feel the tools available to represent small countries are very limited. HOI4 economies are condensed to military factories, civilian factories and industrial resources. If you compare this to Victoria 3, all agricultural and exotic goods are left out, distorting the picture.

For example, the Balkans were extremely important for Germany because of their tobacco industry. Bulgarian tobacco saved German smokers in WW1.

Vietnam, Mexico were major producers of opioids that were necessary for painkiller production at the time.

Minor countries have no real way of showing their true importance within the context of HOI4. You just don't have the tools.



If "plausible alt-history" is "what kind of crazy name can come to power" it's kind of hard to call that "Alt-history" as it doesn't really change much.

Ok, you put "The Non-Aligned guy" instead of the "Fascist guy" in charge: you get some wargoals (which shouldn't be tied to ideology in the first place) and maybe some overpowered modifiers that have no ground in reality. If you don't do that, you get pure cosmetics like portrait & flag changes.

You don't feel actual changes in internal politics depending on decisions you make, it's just "change a flag and get a claim on territory X". Not really meaningful.

 

[him_15]

Simply speaking, WWII has also been the most popular era, and there hans't really been many WWII grand strategy game around, leaving HOI the only choice for such fan base.

 

[withche.07]

I feel like mods are the number one reason at this point. HOI4 was my first-ever modding experience, and after I started modding it, I realized how easy it was. The Steam Workshop has mods with an insane amount of content, covering all kinds of fantasies-from different universes and lores to hardcore, realistic ones. Some mods change the game so drastically that it feels like an entirely new experience.

 

[goodcigar]

The setting, decent version at launch, mods, continued support.

 

[Imp0815]

A good question, and as much as people might hammer on about focus trees, balance, or history, the main reason why HoI IV never gets old is rather simple—and the reason games like Stellaris, EU IV, CK3, and Vic3 are not catching up:

The core gameplay loop is fun and engaging.​

In detail, the experience of setting up a large front to conduct warfare, combined with the ability to step in, exploit weaknesses in the frontline, and make small decisions that result in huge outcomes, is really satisfying. The ability to learn and understand the game by observing and acting on that knowledge is rewarded.

You can hate the numbers game on combat, units, focus trees, or economy—it just doesn't matter when you command your two Panzer divisions to cut off 20 Russian divisions from their supply, then proceed to encircle them and watch them disappear in a meat grinder. This feeling of seeing, acting, and being rewarded for tactical decisions, combined with a massive overhead of possibilities, is why HoI IV is so huge and keeps growing.

The fundamentals work, are fun, and can easily be conveyed as fun—even if the rest might be bloated or gimmiky, it’s not really important to the enjoyment of the game.

In stark contrast, Stellaris suffers from fundamental gameplay decisions being far too reliant on the overhead, and the result of that overhead is too impactful on my minute-to-minute gameplay—sucking the fun out of the game after only a short time of engaging with it IF you are capable to realize what the game tries to funnels you into.
It's only really offset by new bells and whistles, which overstay their welcome faster than they are produced.

 

[ConstantineTheGreat]

Imagine this level of moddability with a game in EA's lineup

Cries in the Command and Conquer series.

C&C Generals Zero Hour was such a moddable game

 

[billcorr]

• "Paradox's Grand Strategy Games are well researched and more historically accurate than other publications" is the first point of the following video.
  
  
  
  The creator of the video states that other games get history wrong and in some cases "are flat out inaccurate". I infer from that statement that on the other side of the coin, Paradox games are historically accurate.
  
  * The linked video suggests as its first point that the reason why HoI4 (and other Paradox games) are popular is because they are more historically accurate than other games.
  
  A different perspective about historical accuracy:
  
  

• 4. History fans have long abandoned HOI4 to my knowledge.
  
  Even on the forums you see the forum approach that "HOI4 is a game, critcizing it from a historical plausibility standpoint will not be tolerated".

 

[Xerberous]

To summarize, HOI4 is a low-key browser game that masks itself as a high-end "Grand Strategy game", and gives a lot of unhappy people a way to achieve something in life and enact their fantasies.

[...]

4. History fans have long abandoned HOI4 to my knowledge.

My remark regarding historical plausibility: As long as the political boundary conditions (Churchill and Stalin not white-peacing out and Roosevelt constantly supporting the allies) remain unchanged, the likelihood of an Axis victory is pretty much the same then the likelihood of Victoria recreating HRE: Zero.

So what's the point of the special "History fans"? you mentioned? Everybody playing this game is doing alt-history, and there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Cornutus]

• "Paradox's Grand Strategy Games are well researched and more historically accurate than other publications" is the first point of the following video.
  
  
  
  The creator of the video states that other games get history wrong and in some cases "are flat out inaccurate". I infer from that statement that on the other side of the coin, Paradox games are historically accurate.
  
  * The linked video suggests as its first point that the reason why HoI4 (and other Paradox games) are popular is because they are more historically accurate than other games.
  
  A different perspective about historical accuracy:
  
  

In that video, historical accuracy applies mostly to EUIV.

Luxembourg world conquest is kind of hard to say to be more accurate than even any stuff in any Civilization game.

My remark regarding historical plausibility: As long as the political boundary conditions (Churchill and Stalin not white-peacing out and Roosevelt constantly supporting the allies) remain unchanged, the likelihood of an Axis victory is pretty much the same then the likelihood of Victoria recreating HRE: Zero.

Let me get this straight: I am not a supporter of historical determination/the idea that "whatever happened is the only thing things can happen" and have stated that in my original post.

When we speak of victory, it seems to me you mean "Germany landing on Washington DC & London". Yes, it was near impossible for Germany to do that.

But let me ask you this: how did North Vietnam defeat the US? How did North Korea survive its war with the US? Did they need to take the White House?

In any sports game (baseball, soccer, basketball, football), you don't need to score every minute, you can just hold out until the game ends. Germany could have done the same.

All it needed to do was to bleed the US dry and white peace them out. That's it. Without US sponsorship of the USSR and UK, the war would have ended in an instant.

So what's the point of the special "History fans"? you mentioned? Everybody playing this game is doing alt-history, and there is nothing wrong with it.

The point is to create a plausible game environment.

Nothing is wrong with Japan going communist, France monarchist or UK fascist: after all, China somehow became communist in a matter of a HOI4 timeline.

Railroading is not the answer.

When you have landcruisers and multiturret tanks being the meta/most effective weapon of 1936-1945: you kind of have your immersion broken even if you are a history noob.