|
|
| Page 8 of 10 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2016 14:28 Post subject: |
|
|
Nope, I have nothing from MSI so wouldn't know what software they have. It was just something I found when googling: hoi 4 startup crash. Well that and the famous: "random driver caused it". 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2016 14:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Few things are starting to bother me. Graphics are poorly done. Thanks to stuff appearing only in certain zoom, you are forced to play battles that way, which is tedious. Icons are bad. I reverted to using nato symbols now, and even they have drawbacks. Hills/mountains/plains all look the same, and when you draw a battleplan over a river, you can hardly see the river anymore. Just perfect for planing. And I hate production interface. I've lost plenty of production efficiency on missclicks when just renaming units.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2016 16:00 Post subject: |
|
|
I hate this engine and I have no idea why people love these Paradox games.
I suspect it's more the idea of the games - as the concepts are cool.
But actually playing them feels like I'm watching small numbers go up and down - and nothing more.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mtj
Posts: 2315
Location: Austria / Finland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2016 16:12 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm trying to figure out the actual value of airplanes; I can't assess what impact they have? Even with 300 bombers doing CAS duty the armies of enemies don't seem to suffer.
I'm also questioning the use of carriers and researching carrier type planes.
I'd rather conquer a new airfield, and move regular fighters/bombers there. If the fight moves out of range. I disband the wings and assemble them again in a new airfield closer to the ongoing battle.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2016 16:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| EternalBlueScreen wrote: | I'm trying to figure out the actual value of airplanes; I can't assess what impact they have? Even with 300 bombers doing CAS duty the armies of enemies don't seem to suffer.
I'm also questioning the use of carriers and researching carrier type planes.
I'd rather conquer a new airfield, and move regular fighters/bombers there. If the fight moves out of range. I disband the wings and assemble them again in a new airfield closer to the ongoing battle. |
Air superiority gives a nice bonus against the enemy, air support (there's a chance close air support might pop up in that 1 battle) then gives another bonus, lastly tactical bombing diminishes enemy divisions' strength if not intercepted and it didn't miss. With good air support, I've notice my division advancing a lot faster as the enemy seem to have trouble keeping themselves organized having losing battle after battle. I think it has to do with me winning battles on the front line quickly, then follow up faster than they can regain organization after falling back. Which in order to win fast, any bonuses help. One thing that is very obvious for having the air support bonuses is that I lose a lot less soldiers than the enemy, that again means I can advance quickly without needing much time for reinforcements.
Carriers are powerful in naval battle as they have massive attack range and coverage in patrols and search and destroy. They also can actually do a lot damage than just having land based naval bombers doing bombing runs, those seem to just damage them, not totally destroy them. But if you're not fighting in the pacific, carriers might not be worth the investment. The pacific is simply too big to just use land based aircrafts, they don't have the range to cover efficiently. Even in the Solomon islands they have trouble covering their own airbase, let alone Midway and Hawaii. If you are fighting there, I think its a must, nothing beats carriers with screens in this game from what I can tell.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2016 16:48 Post subject: |
|
|
Well there is quite a few things that I'm disliking at the moment (mind you I can still get some enjoyment out of it though).
- Why couldn't they make the Fleets and Air wings have somewhat the same system as divisions it's plain silly and tedious the way we manage them now. It just feels like they aren't as involved. Planes being the worst of them. Feels so barebones that I'm guessing it's a DLC in the making.
- The zooming is just too restrictive. To see 3d units you need to zoom in so far that you lose most of the front. There's some big borders outside Europe, it seems they forgot. Zoom out to see half of the continent and most stats are gone.
- Air and fleet battles... the information is not as accessible Too many clicks to get to the juicy parts which again makes those branches less involved.
- Shitty performance and the crappy AI that we are used of. I actually thought there would be more improvement on this.
- Clunky battleplan controls. Far too easy screwing things up especially when the engine becomes bogged down and unresponsive.
- Less of a grand strategy with a lot of options being stripped away. While it's nice they made the game more accessible for some... I think they overdid it. I feel too limited as a minor nation. Used to be more fun to play them.
It suffers more in the 'have to wait for patches/DLC' department than before (for gameplay/content that is). Then again CK II was a good warning for that.
The bad A.I. does have a benefit though. It made my 3 games a bit more entertaining, there is really crazy shit happening in every one of them. Doesn't even matter if historical is on or not.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2016 22:07 Post subject: |
|
|
| Morphineus wrote: | Well there is quite a few things that I'm disliking at the moment (mind you I can still get some enjoyment out of it though).
- Why couldn't they make the Fleets and Air wings have somewhat the same system as divisions it's plain silly and tedious the way we manage them now. It just feels like they aren't as involved. Planes being the worst of them. Feels so barebones that I'm guessing it's a DLC in the making.
- The zooming is just too restrictive. To see 3d units you need to zoom in so far that you lose most of the front. There's some big borders outside Europe, it seems they forgot. Zoom out to see half of the continent and most stats are gone.
- Air and fleet battles... the information is not as accessible Too many clicks to get to the juicy parts which again makes those branches less involved.
- Shitty performance and the crappy AI that we are used of. I actually thought there would be more improvement on this.
- Clunky battleplan controls. Far too easy screwing things up especially when the engine becomes bogged down and unresponsive.
- Less of a grand strategy with a lot of options being stripped away. While it's nice they made the game more accessible for some... I think they overdid it. I feel too limited as a minor nation. Used to be more fun to play them.
It suffers more in the 'have to wait for patches/DLC' department than before (for gameplay/content that is). Then again CK II was a good warning for that.
The bad A.I. does have a benefit though. It made my 3 games a bit more entertaining, there is really crazy shit happening in every one of them. Doesn't even matter if historical is on or not. |
I agree for the most part. The Battle planner just needs a lot more work.
-No easy way to order the entire army to take multiple fronts together.
-Offensive line tool cannot handle pincer maneuvers at all.
-Paratroopers would each create their own fronts despite landing right beside each other.
-Sometimes divisions fail to auto use transports and get stuck.
- Paratroopers can't coordinate and time their launch when they all sortie from the same airbase.
-No merging fronts when the same army connects with each other on different flanks.
As for the air complains, I kind of don't agree. I like that it is simplified a lot in 4. 3 was a pain to manage on a large scale. The biggest problem in terms of depth is that graphically they are barely noticeable. I do think they play a massive role in all the calculations, I don't think the game shows that well at all, both in terms of UI design, and map itself. I want to see my enemies being bomb to shit for losing air superiority, not just "In this zone, you've bombed 345.32 enemies".
The grand strategy is still there, but I do feel this is definitely less of a simulation than 3. Its very gamey now. Still lots of strategies to be made and long term planning required. But the details of 3 is just completely lost. States is a great idea to help manage all the provinces in the game. Building infrastructure was extremely tedious in 3. Nice that they are state-wide now.
Art style is too out of place, 3 was VERY 1940 feel. I loved the air mission panel with timer dial to set mission timer.
Being able to order my fleet to directly attack a port, not just sending them into an area. That level of attentiveness you can give to your nation is nice, even if it was just a novelty.
All the different map mode in 3 were more effective than 4's limited options. VP and terrain map mode is missing, Air map is garbage (can't see borders, replaced with air states...way to confuse people).
Lastly, the fucking transportation system. Why can't I just order my troops overseas by clicking on the final destination? Is it so hard for the AI to figure out the best ports to use for me? I have to order them to a port first, WAIT for them to get there across the ocean, then order them to move again, YOU CAN'T EVEN SHIFT QUEUE because logic. Then there's transport plane. You can't tell how much each plane can hold, so you don't know how many you need to air drop, THEN when you order a paratrooper order, THEY USE ALL THE PLANES regardless of number of men (or weight). WTF, be consistent, your invasion order auto selects and deploy the right amount of convoys, but you can't do that with transport planes?! And no air drop supply missions? Having Paratroopers but no air supply makes them even less attractive of a strategy than they already is in 4.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Jun 2016 01:28 Post subject: |
|
|
Another dumb thing. Russia attack Poland, me as SFRY decide to help, and somehow manage to do a lot of work, but since Ruskies die like crazy doing the invasion, my War Participation is miserable because theirs is boosted by all the casualties they took!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Jun 2016 08:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| fawe4 wrote: | | Another dumb thing. Russia attack Poland, me as SFRY decide to help, and somehow manage to do a lot of work, but since Ruskies die like crazy doing the invasion, my War Participation is miserable because theirs is boosted by all the casualties they took! |
I had like 2k casualties in China and still had 12% participation. Italy had 12% as well with 30-40k (I had a higher score and was able to pick first though) and Japan had 76% with 500k+ and that's with me arriving very late to the war...
Won a naval battle vs Great Britain (24 vs 24 ships including carrier, battleships, heavy carriers) went to port to repair, G. Britain send the zerg in the amount of 1,000 naval bombers and sank my entire fleet, yet they were just fine chilling in the English Channel before that.
Is close air support just against armor? Because I already have armor superiority and it seems to be fucking useless. Air superiority seems better.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Jun 2016 09:07 Post subject: |
|
|
| fawe4 wrote: | | Another dumb thing. Russia attack Poland, me as SFRY decide to help, and somehow manage to do a lot of work, but since Ruskies die like crazy doing the invasion, my War Participation is miserable because theirs is boosted by all the casualties they took! |
Cassualties have little to nothing to do with war participation, its a combination of different factors from numbers of divisions you have, how much air superiority you have, how many provinces you take and control, naval wins, and a lot of other small things, I think even sending troops and equipment to other people helps.
| Frolsa84 wrote: |
Is close air support just against armor? Because I already have armor superiority and it seems to be fucking useless. Air superiority seems better. |
I'm pretty sure you need air superiority anyway for close air support to be effective, either way there is no reason not to use it if you have bombers available, it will help regardless and its not like it costs you anything.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Jun 2016 11:17 Post subject: |
|
|
What's the point of synthetic oil refineries level 2, 3 and 4? Can't find anything about that.
Edit: allows you to build more refineries in a state. Fucking useless.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Jun 2016 13:55 Post subject: |
|
|
it's not that useless, I've almost ran out of space at one point as Germany 
| Lutzifer wrote: | | and yes, mine is only average |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Jun 2016 16:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Mjeh at the victory points... In theory its a nice idea to up the worth of some regions. But shit you get shafted a lot by it when fighting in civil wars or helping out others. 
Guess in the future I just have to make sure I station some troops there since the defending AI doesn't take it into account.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Jun 2016 16:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Yea. They're vital for axis and commies. Both can grab oil fairly easily, but that rubber is different story.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 10th Jun 2016 18:03 Post subject: |
|
|
I need help again, I have no idea why my ships aren't bombarding. I place them in the tile next to the battle on land, they're on Hold. Still, they aren't firing, and when I click the combat calculation they don't show up. What am I doing wrong? Thanks for help, this is annoying me because its probably a simple thing im forgetting
EDIT: now it worked, wtf.. ok
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 00:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Aye it's one of the great things about it... I really hope they don't see that kind of unpredictability as a bad thing. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 01:25 Post subject: |
|
|
So far the funniest moment for me is when Canada launched a successful invasion ( I don't even know how they got the range to do that. They landed in an English port first?) into Rome and then proceed to force Italy to capitulate. Then, I presume using their new found resources, took out Nationalist Spain while holding Germany coming from the eastern France. UK ground forces were already force out of central Europe, French defeated and US haven't join the Allies yet.
Meanwhile Poland somehow held back Germany, allowing me as Japan to invade USSR without anyone else in the way.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 11th Jun 2016 07:14 Post subject: |
|
|
UK invaded Italy, and took some northern provinces... Italians destroyed them, but they won't retake them for some reason...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 12th Jun 2016 01:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| Lithy wrote: | Guys what I am doing wrong as I cant not launch invasion? As I receiving "not a valid province for the invasion"
|
Do you have other naval invasions planned at the same time ? cause there is a limit of divisions you can have at the same time and its not restricted to just one invasion but globally you can only have I think 10 divisions invading at the start and you can upgrade it to 40 or something I think and then 50+
And it gives you that message if you have too many divisions, witch is pretty poor design feedback wise but its just one of the many issues the game has.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 12th Jun 2016 04:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| friketje wrote: |
I do hope the ai will be improved a bit to make historical mode a bit more like ww2 though.
At the moment the axis are way to weak and for some reason the German advance is stopped by denmark in most games. I've seen ze germans siege copenhagen for 2 years. |
The Axis have taken most if not all of Europe/Asia/Africa in most of my games by 43-44, it just depends. Now granted, I was allied with them in 2 of those, but even when I wasn't they did well more often then not, you just got unlucky I guess or your sample size is too small.
The game feels a bit too easy though, I pretty much only start with small nations and I always end up being top 3 most powerful nations, and thats with even playing democratic nations witch is a lot more challenging as a small nation then going fascist or even communist. Kind of like with most other paradox games, once you figure out the "correct" way to play its pretty much a free win.
Most recent play through as Argentina I pretty much went for pure power hungry conqueror as soon as possible and took most of south america even with the US guaranteeing everyone's independence, sure they told me to stop and declared war on me when I said no, they tried to invade me and failed, sent reinforcements to those i attacked and failed... pretty pathetic from one of the major powers really.
The game kind of feels samey because there isn't that much variety in how to play if you want to do well, there's also not enough diplomatic options and the huge slowdown toward the end of the game when you get big and have a lot of territory and units means that you can't even finish a game as you want, cause its just a chore at that point and you never get the satisfaction of taking over the US or whatever.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 12th Jun 2016 11:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| Kezmark wrote: | | friketje wrote: |
I do hope the ai will be improved a bit to make historical mode a bit more like ww2 though.
At the moment the axis are way to weak and for some reason the German advance is stopped by denmark in most games. I've seen ze germans siege copenhagen for 2 years. |
The Axis have taken most if not all of Europe/Asia/Africa in most of my games by 43-44, it just depends. Now granted, I was allied with them in 2 of those, but even when I wasn't they did well more often then not, you just got unlucky I guess or your sample size is too small.
The game feels a bit too easy though, I pretty much only start with small nations and I always end up being top 3 most powerful nations, and thats with even playing democratic nations witch is a lot more challenging as a small nation then going fascist or even communist. Kind of like with most other paradox games, once you figure out the "correct" way to play its pretty much a free win.
Most recent play through as Argentina I pretty much went for pure power hungry conqueror as soon as possible and took most of south america even with the US guaranteeing everyone's independence, sure they told me to stop and declared war on me when I said no, they tried to invade me and failed, sent reinforcements to those i attacked and failed... pretty pathetic from one of the major powers really.
The game kind of feels samey because there isn't that much variety in how to play if you want to do well, there's also not enough diplomatic options and the huge slowdown toward the end of the game when you get big and have a lot of territory and units means that you can't even finish a game as you want, cause its just a chore at that point and you never get the satisfaction of taking over the US or whatever. |
Minors being overpowered is the biggest problem. Also running argentina, it's a no brainer to conquer south america. Might be a bug though cause the us doensn't defend nations it is guaranteeing. And scandinavia is a powerhouse when run by AI, troubling the germans.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 12th Jun 2016 11:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| friketje wrote: |
Minors being overpowered is the biggest problem. Also running argentina, it's a no brainer to conquer south america. Might be a bug though cause the us doensn't defend nations it is guaranteeing. And scandinavia is a powerhouse when run by AI, troubling the germans. |
Minors aren't overpowered, the game is just very formulaic so once you know how to play one nation you know how to play all of them.
The fascist focus is massively better then the communist or democrat one, but even with democrat or communist once you know what to prioritize research and production wise at the start its just easy, and there isn't much they can do about it without making it unfun to play as anything but the major nations. Really I figure the only good way to get a good challenge is in multiplayer.
Nope, US definitely defended the nations in my case, but like I said I just shit on them, they invaded from several angle on me and they reinforced the countries I was attacking with massive amounts of troops. I mean, I can conquer South America with any one of the nations, there's nothing special about Argentina, they have few troops with backward technology to start with and only 2 research queues.
Scandinavia is not really a powerhouse lol, everyone can do well it depends on different factors really, in my games most times scandinavia gets eaten up by the soviets fairly early in to the war.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bronson
Posts: 1384
Location: Asteroid B-612
|
| Posted: Sun, 12th Jun 2016 14:40 Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly I gave it another go yesterday and the game is just really easy. It feels more like EU4 in XX century than a HOI title. i enjoyed paradox's games since ~2005 and for the first time i feel mildly dissapointed. Maybe I'm a bit biased, because I was a huge HOI 3 fan, but I see similar opinions by others.
CK2 and EU4 felt like an upgrade in some areas, especially CK2. HOI4 feels like a rushed product.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 8 of 10 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
