Wargamer Home - Forum Home
Welcome Guest, please Login or Register!
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register or login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Topic: Here we go again: HOI - what do you think?

    Page 1

All Forums : [GAMES] : Computer Gaming > Here we go again: HOI - what do you think?
3 MAY 2003 at 6:17am

max vonloben

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 64
Joined: 2 APR 2007
Location: 0

Status : Offline
I don't own Hearts of Iron, but I plan to someday. I thought the thread on the former forums was pretty interesting. You had the people that bought it and weren't happy with it, you had the people that bought it and were happy with it, and you had the people that never bought it or played it, but just "knew" it was a piece of trash. Like I said, I want to own this game eventually. I think the idea is pretty cool. I'm sure it could have been better. I'm sure it could have been more "historical". But it seems to me that a lot of people are playing it and enjoying it. Maybe some of these folks are just learning about computer strategy games. Maybe they'll find Third Reich on the Underdogs and down load it. Maybe they'll buy Stragic Command because it's similar to HOI. And then maybe they'll start buying Matrix or HPS computer wargames. Wouldn't that be a good thing. Now I know some people are going to say that because HOI is so flawed it might turn somebody off completely from buying computer war or strategy games. I don't think so. From what I can tell from reading the posts (because, like I said, I have never played HOI) a lot of people are having fun playing HOI and the ones that aren't see that the potental was there for a great game, but it's lacking something for them. Just my two cents. I'm sure that there's some flaws in my theory, and I'm getting tired of typing. I just didn't want to see a good thread die.


Profile Search


3 MAY 2003 at 2:16pm

Les the Sarge 9-1e

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002

Status : Online
Call it a duty hehe
no I am leaving off my usual rant though. Strategic Command has much in common with the older and still viable Third Reich PC. And as I am a veteran Advanced Third Reich player (actually I began with Third Reich back when it was just Third Reich), I can say, if you like TR, you will have little beef with getting Strategic Command. But there is nothing whatsoever in common between SC and HoI (Hearts of Iron). HoI is not turn based by any stretch of the imagination. HoI is micromanagement gone astray, while SC is most certainly not. HoI is questionable politics and the ability to play any nation regardless of historical logic and global. SC is a grand strategy design only, it does not go lower than army/army corps level command, and you are only going to be playing the major powers, and it is strictly the European war. And as a product, HoI has a lot of baggage, costs full cost of routine software. SC has no known software baggage comparable, and is a paltry 25 bucks. SC also has a first rate demo. I am unsure if HoI has a demo, but I doubt it would matter as the game is only playable if patched to latest patch if it is playable at all. So in that respect, SC and HoI have nothing in common.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.

Profile Search
3 MAY 2003 at 4:15pm

max vonloben

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 64
Joined: 2 APR 2007
Location: 0

Status : Offline
Les, I think I'm going to regret this
, but I'm going to try to answer your post and defend HOI. First you write: But there is nothing whatsoever in common between SC and HoI (Hearts of Iron). but then your correct yourself and write: So in that respect, SC and HoI have nothing in common. I am glad you modified your position. You see the two games do have something in common.   They are both computer games that allow you to conquer the world or part of it. You have to make decisons about technology in each game, too. Now I admit, as you pointed out, the process to do this is different in each game. And it seems to me there are pros and cons for each process. But what I am trying to say is that it seems many people are enjoying HOI, and some of them my try other computer games because of that. Others my try other computer games because they liked the concept of HOI, but they didn't like the way the game played. That's all I'm trying to say. PS. Have you ever played Hearts of Iron

Profile Search
3 MAY 2003 at 5:13pm

Les the Sarge 9-1e

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002

Status : Online
If I listed all the games I have NOT tried, the list would take all day
. But hmm to say that the two games have being a computer game as a commonality, isn't that stretching the need for commonality a bit far
I mean I could then say Steel Panthers is the same, both are about war. And Army Men is the same, as both have people that like them. Arguements of whether a sane person should get HoI aside, it is not possible to say SC and HoI will interest the same type of gamer. Some will say negatives about SC too I suppose. But whether the game is good or not has nothing to do with the two being the same sort of game in the end.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.

Profile Search
4 MAY 2003 at 12:17am

Bushbee

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 74
Joined: 2 MAY 2003

Status : Online
I don't think HOI and SC have enough in common to even be in the same room, much less share closet space. HOI is good because it has drawn in "attention" to the semi-casual, global scope player. Yes, much of the attention is negative, but sometimes that's ok too. I.E. "Remember that piece of trash wargame strat first employed a few years ago. What was that called?" Some attention is constructive, (like myself) I've been dieing for a play any country, micro-manage global scope game. I'll buy it, even though it doesn't work, and suffer through until it does. (I did it with Superpower, I can do it with HOI). It doesn't mean I actually like the game, and a good review isn't even in the cards, but I love these "type" of games, and they are few and far between.     Strat Command, on the other hand, is a borderline "wargame". It is only a few notches away from being considered a entry level hardcore in my book. HOI is strategy. It doesn't have enough dependable, hard, warfare to be considered a wargame. This is ok, but not comparable.     A good comparison to me would be Superpower and HOI, or Strat command and Axis and Allies.

Profile Search
4 MAY 2003 at 1:10pm

Bismarck

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin

Status : Offline
Bushbee, Thank you. You articulated very well the reasons I get brainlock when I compare SC and HoI. I enjoy both games byt they are two very different animals. I would go so far as to say that HoI is at it's weakest in the 1941 scenario when it's closest to being a pure wargame.

Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
6 MAY 2003 at 2:01am

Canuck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 812
Joined: 28 APR 2001

Status : Offline
Dear God, do we have to go through with this again? I thought maybe we had changed forums just to get rid of that thread. I think that asking about HoI should qualify as trolling


Profile Search
6 MAY 2003 at 2:08am

Bismarck

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin

Status : Offline
This discussion has been intelligent so far. If you don;t want to read about HoI, don't open the thread.

Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
6 MAY 2003 at 2:42am

Wolftrap4

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 202
Joined: 4 MAY 2003

Status : Online
I think that the biggest problem that a lot of people have with HOI is not the fact that you need a zillion patches to get it running half way decent. Or, that the fact that you would get a better game from a 5 year old than the AI in this game. Or even the concept of being able to play [B]ANY[/B] nation is anything but laughable. The problem with it is that it is an RTS game.

Profile Search
6 MAY 2003 at 11:50am

Les the Sarge 9-1e

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002

Status : Online
Wolf gets the sniper award for stating the single biggest reason I don't own the game.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.

Profile Search
6 MAY 2003 at 10:07pm

Canuck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 812
Joined: 28 APR 2001

Status : Offline
[i]Originally posted by Wolftrap4 [/i] [B]I think that the biggest problem that a lot of people have with HOI is not the fact that you need a zillion patches to get it running half way decent. Or, that the fact that you would get a better game from a 5 year old than the AI in this game. Or even the concept of being able to play [B]ANY[/B] nation is anything but laughable. The problem with it is that it is an RTS game. [/B]
1) I'm not condoning it, but almost any game that comes out these days needs a couple patches to play. It's one of the unfortunate side effects of the internet. 2) I'm not sure what the AI is like as I have not played the game yet 3) If you don't want to play [b]ANY[/b] nation then you don't have to. Stick to the majors. Problem solved. 4) Just because it is an RTS, it is not necessarily bad. That's like saying that turn-based games suck because hardly anyone plays them (compared to RTS).


Profile Search


7 MAY 2003 at 12:10am

Bismarck

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin

Status : Offline
Canuck, well said.

Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
7 MAY 2003 at 12:32am

Les the Sarge 9-1e

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002

Status : Online
Considering RTS sells well, and selling well makes for happy software companies, no one is going to buy that there is no money in RTS. But RTS was about the dumbest choice for HoI which as a design would have been immenselly capable as a turn using design. Micromanagement is not always the end of the world, some enjoy it. Sim City 4 and The Sims is a great example of micromanagement taken to the furthest level I think. But RTS as a concept will not fly in every game out there. And I have talked with so many RTS type gamers. They are into playing a game intensely and then moving on. Most wargamers are not transient gamers. HoI could have been a game you might have played for years. As it currently stands, I don't expect anyone to care if it was good or bad this time in 2 years. Meanwhile, I am still enjoying playing Steel Panthers, a game that has not stopped attracting new players 8 years after it began as a game. I think HoI will inventually get usurped by the next game that actually simulates with a more logical approach to the simulation. Either it will employ turns, or it will not expect you to micromanage in real time.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.

Profile Search
7 MAY 2003 at 1:03am

Bismarck

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin

Status : Offline
Had you ever played HoI, your opinion would matter. Bringing up a tactical game continually in terms of of a strategic game makes me wonder how long your other brain cell will hold out.

Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
7 MAY 2003 at 1:10am

Les the Sarge 9-1e

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002

Status : Online
Fairly long Bismarck heheh I am able to use both in turns hehehe
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.

Profile Search
7 MAY 2003 at 3:06am

Bushbee

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 74
Joined: 2 MAY 2003

Status : Online
Turn basing HOI would be a huge, definite improvement. Just playing Shogun or Medieval Total War proves that. Yes, there are many other shortcomings, the AI being at the top of the list. I won't play the major countries, because I like the uniqueness and challenge of taking "the little guy" and becoming "the" world power!     I do love a challenge, but not always. If you have played this game any amount of times, it "does" get sickeningly easy. But how much fun am I having as I'm kicking butt? LOTS! Why? Well, I'm not quite sure. Do I ever need to find out? NO! Do I have challenging games that I play and love also? YES! Am I answering my own questions? YES! Am I worried about my mental state at this time? YES!

Profile Search
7 MAY 2003 at 3:09am

Wolftrap4

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 202
Joined: 4 MAY 2003

Status : Online
[B]Canuck[/B] 1) I'm not condoning it, but almost any game that comes out these days needs a couple patches to play. It's one of the unfortunate side effects of the internet. No this is the side effects of sloppy programming and rushing a product out before it's ready to go. patch 1.04 - 7.93 meg patch 1.03b - 7.07 meg patch 1.03 - 5.06 meg patch 1,02 - 4.23 meg patch 1.01 - .56 meg Which is equal to one patch of 24.85 meg. This is not a small patch fixing minor details, this is making major changes in the program. With maybe more to come? Now they may get this program to run very well one day, the question is why couldn't they have done this to begin with. 2) I'm not sure what the AI is like as I have not played the game yet I haven't played it yet either, however, if you check the archives there are enough people who have played it and says that the AI very weak. Even some of HOI supporters admit that the AI is weak. 3) If you don't want to play ANY nation then you don't have to. Stick to the majors. Problem solved. This in itself would not be a problem if it weren't for #1 and 2 above. Instead of using vital resources researching and programming countries that nobody will play, they could have used these resources to strengthen the AI or fix some of the other problems associated with this title. 4) Just because it is an RTS, it is not necessarily bad. That's like saying that turn-based games suck because hardly anyone plays them (compared to RTS). I have nothing against RTS as such, however, RTS is not the be all and end all of games. I just don't feel that RTS was a good choice in this instance. With all of the micromanagement involved I think that RTS was a poor choice, TBS would have been better. What some of us are saying is that TBS is not better than RTS or visa-versa, they are just different and in some games one would be more useful than the other.

Profile Search
7 MAY 2003 at 4:06am

Canuck

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 812
Joined: 28 APR 2001

Status : Offline
[i]Originally posted by Wolftrap4 [/i] [B][B]Canuck[/B] 1) No this is the side effects of sloppy programming and rushing a product out before it's ready to go. patch 1.04 - 7.93 meg patch 1.03b - 7.07 meg patch 1.03 - 5.06 meg patch 1,02 - 4.23 meg patch 1.01 - .56 meg Which is equal to one patch of 24.85 meg. This is not a small patch fixing minor details, this is making major changes in the program. With maybe more to come? Now they may get this program to run very well one day, the question is why couldn't they have done this to begin with. [/B]
I don't think you have to download every single patch do you? Usually the latest one is sufficient to update a game fully.


Profile Search
7 MAY 2003 at 4:54am

Wolftrap4

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 202
Joined: 4 MAY 2003

Status : Online
You may be correct Canuck, however, from reading the Readme files and the language that is used I would have to say that eack patch is fixing different things and all patches must be installed. Patch 1.04 seems to be patching 1.01. I am not trying to talk you out of buying this game Canuck, if you want to buy it that's fine with me. As for me I'm taking a pass on this game and will save up for UV and or VITP from Matrix.

Profile Search
7 MAY 2003 at 11:14am

Bismarck

Colonel
Colonel



Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin

Status : Offline
Patches are accumalitive; you only need the latest. Games that need consequitive patches say so and keep the old ones on the site. e.g. Schwerpunkt's RGW.

Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University

 

The Old Guard


Profile Search
7 MAY 2003 at 2:04pm

Les the Sarge 9-1e

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002

Status : Online
It's probably that no one game will serve as a good definitive statement on this matter of sums of patches. I have a Watchtower patch a Desert Fox Patch and 3 Lost Vicotories patches. So that could be called 5 Steel Panthers patches in some methods of thinking. If you only downloaded the Steel Panthers 7.1 full game file, you won't need any of the MC patches, if you are not playing any of the MCs of course. As I understand it, if you are playing Strategic Command, the only patch you might want, is the current one. Everything else becomes old news. I have seen sites that advertise numerous patches for some games, but some games are known to exist in numerous forms. The Operational Art of War will not always be the last release known as Century of Warfare to a user, so you have to locate the appropriate patch, and disregard the ones not relevant. Patches are only annoying, when what is being patched, could have been avoided with even modest effort in the first place.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.

Profile Search


7 MAY 2003 at 4:56pm

Wolftrap4

Centurion
Centurion



Posts : 202
Joined: 4 MAY 2003

Status : Online
You guys are right then, just been to Paradox and they only have patch 1.04, so total would be 7.93 meg. My mistake was that I was looking at the Strategy First website which does have all five (5) patches up. I stand corrected.

Profile Search
All Forums : [GAMES] : Computer Gaming > Here we go again: HOI - what do you think?

    Page 1

Jump to:
0 Members Subscribed To This Topic