DISCUSSIONS
HEARTS OF IRON III vs. MAKING HISTORY II
First. I would like to show you some pictures of HOI3:
The western front in 1939.
The United States. As you see, the game has thousands of provinces. The little Bulgaria has more than 30 provinces.
Poland in 1939. If you want to conquer Poland as Germany, you have to play 30 minutes. The game time is very slow. In June 2010, the expasion of the game: HOI3: Semper Fi will be released. If you buy the game, there are many add-ons to buy if you want. (such as unit models and music). I hope MH 2 will include all in it.
What do you think? I hope MH 2 will show HOI3 what is the best WW2 strategy game! Actualy I liked HOI3, but i don't like the bonus add-ons witch you have to buy if you want.
Dum spiro spero.
For me HoI3 was a disappointment. Too much micro-management. I really prefer how things can be done in MH.
MODS: Deadlock: making-history.com/asset/1317 ; TCBTS: making-history.com/asset/384091 ; Zombie Apocalypse: making-history.com/asset/368403 ; Onslaught: making-history.com/asset/418213
I played with my country - Bulgaria. It was 1944 and Thrace and Macenonia were occupied by me. I put an military government on the occupied countries and declarated war on Turkey. The germans occupied a few provinces of the European part of Turkey for me and I finished the rest. Turkey signed peace and I annexed all of the territories witch Germany and I occupied from Turkey. Germany didn't earned nothing. But the USA runed a bomberment over me. In fact Bulgaria were bombed by the USA in 1943 and 1944. My grand-father remembers the bomberment. He were a little child and he saw everything.
Dum spiro spero.
i played mostly with minor countries as some sort of sandbox mode in hearts of iron III because it's a game which struggles on all fronts with it's own size. there's even an ai system to support the player for all military actions, therefor in principle you could even play on 'full automatic' as a nation... not my cup of tea but play a superstate and you'll be lucky it's there if you don't like endless micro management.
there are at least 5 different AI's for each country which can and often will conflict with each other and every ai system to create a 'random' system. looks like halfway during development they suddenly decided it would have to be mainly a 'historical' game anyway, however the only thing left trying to force 'history' are some hard coded decisions but unfortunately they are not written flexible enough with alternative outcomes in mind so a player like me who has some fun experimenting can play against the odds until ... things get really messed up because of one of these 'issues' ... like my yugoslavian 'africa corpse' which was out of supply, therefore immobile and starving at a port on the other side of africa while my merchant ships were passing right in front of them on their traderoute for america for example ... or mussolini who decided to attack greece because of the historical date while i was also an axis member at the time :p
anyway these programmers seem to have a commitment like i've never seen before in a game to out-perform themselves (by itself it's a great piece of programming) and to please the player base but since those can be divided in different camps (historical vs unhistorical, single player vs multi player, ... ) that's probably also one of the reasons why trying to complete this bohemoth of a game like intended is like reaching for a nearly impossible goal while the game has already been released (they're famous for their 'we'll patch it up later' games, however they actually do that decently most of the time so i am told).
i've volunteered to beta test some of the many patches after release where every time whole basics got changed again and again. it made me curious. when i took an in depth look at the modules i noticed the programmers went initially for the skies: there are endless cycles of decision input, thousands of units (play a major and you'll have them in one country!), more than 10 000 'provinces', a fully fledged dynamic weather system, dozens of different ai's who have no knowledge of the other ai's actions ... even if it's theoretically possible then no 'normal' processor is capable to really handle all that data well lol. on the other hand i am pretty impressed by the military ai there ... screw ups happen but few games have an ai which can handle full overseas invasions on their own while they have to pick up every single troop first on some japanese island for example ... impressive ... if only they were able to manage to build an ai which can also take the supply system afterward into account it would be a great game. like many others i'm not convinced an efficient ai can not be build for a game with such an enormous scope on so many levels under normal circumstance. however luckily hearts of iron 3 can count on a terrific modding community to try to mend or bypass some things.
- menasure
- location: Unknown
- joined: May 24, 2010
- posts: 2
I think menasure's post clearly shows that comparing MHII to HOI 3 is really comparing apples and oranges. The Paradox team made design choices to create a particular kind of gameplay experience and we made different choices to create a very different gameplay experience. Some may prefer one over the other but I'll bet a lot of grand strategy players who are HOI fans will really enjoy MHII.
Chris--
Product Manager
Odanan said
For me HoI3 was a disappointment. Too much micro-management. I really prefer how things can be done in MH.
I felt the same way.
Also, the game is pretty laggy, even on good systems. The overall game mechanics, which include all that micro-managment junk, just kills the gameplay.
That's why I like MH so much, it's simple, and easy to learn. There's pretty much no micro-managment, and it's just fun overall.
MHII's map beats HoI's map... I think that's one area where we can fairly compare the two.
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
In Hearts Of Iron there is so much to do you seem at a lost where to start and what to concentrate on where with Making History you know exactly and you don't get overwhelmed by what to do
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
Odanan said
For me HoI3 was a disappointment. Too much micro-management. I really prefer how things can be done in MH.
BUT you had the option to let the AI run several area of your nation so you could focus on those parts you did enjoy. Like you could let the AI do the Political and Espionage while you focused on just Military Operations, Research, and Production. There was as much micromanagement as you chose to deal with.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
Chris said
I think menasure's post clearly shows that comparing MHII to HOI 3 is really comparing apples and oranges. The Paradox team made design choices to create a particular kind of gameplay experience and we made different choices to create a very different gameplay experience. Some may prefer one over the other but I'll bet a lot of grand strategy players who are HOI fans will really enjoy MHII.
Chris--
I think the essential difference is the scale of the game. Like trying to compare Risk to Axis & Allies, or Chess to Checkers. They're all different games that happen to have similar elements. Which is "better" depends on which features you enjoy.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
Personally I find HoI to be ... the 'grognards' choice, so to speak - detail for its own sake. You have some several hundred different officers you can put in charge of your armies (or a platoon on latrine duty, if you want to be thorough). The detailed maps, the research tree - with 5-6 different research values to each project which match - or don't match - one of your X research teams, and so on... it's just too much detail. Why would I have to worry about stuff like that... and that was in HOI2; I hear HoI3 makes HoI2 seem simplistic!
That's why I like MH1 & 2 - you can play it as a game instead of it becoming a lifestyle choice. No, it's not shallow, you have the same things you can do, basically, but it's at a sane level of abstraction... at least for me.
That's not to say I wouldn't mind a bit more detail in MH2 at times - chief among which would be a slight differentiation between national armies or even research trees, to accentuate the 'flavor' of each nation, but I would not like a rise in complexity.
- Falaris
- location: Unknown
- joined: May 21, 2010
- posts: 124
Falaris said
Personally I find HoI to be ... the 'grognards' choice, so to speak - detail for its own sake. You have some several hundred different officers you can put in charge of your armies (or a platoon on latrine duty, if you want to be thorough). The detailed maps, the research tree - with 5-6 different research values to each project which match - or don't match - one of your X research teams, and so on... it's just too much detail. Why would I have to worry about stuff like that... and that was in HOI2; I hear HoI3 makes HoI2 seem simplistic!
HOI3 definitely is a grognards choice and is complexity for complexities sake. But HOI2 is similar to MH1. I actually love HOI2 Ive played the scenarios and a campaign being the UK and was having great fun until I found Making History. I actually like MH better than HOI2. The scale is similar and most of the other things are slightly more detailed in HOI2 than MH but MH is quick to play and nicer to look at. I hope MH2 will be even better when its bugs are sorted. Having said that Ive only been playing MH for a week and HOI2 Ive played for months so its a bit early to say yet that MH is definitely better than HOI2. Also I have several graphical mods applied in HOI2 that make it far better than the basic game which makes a difference as well, the basic HOI2 game is pretty lame.
- nats
- location: United Kingdom
- joined: Jun 24, 2010
- posts: 45
- Banned
TehBoss said
Odanan said
For me HoI3 was a disappointment. Too much micro-management. I really prefer how things can be done in MH.
I felt the same way.
Also, the game is pretty laggy, even on good systems. The overall game mechanics, which include all that micro-managment junk, just kills the gameplay.
That's why I like MH so much, it's simple, and easy to learn. There's pretty much no micro-managment, and it's just fun overall.
I agree, MH is actually fun and I want to play it, in fact it's one of those games where 4 hrs flys by before you even know it. HOI3 was more of a chore then a game, too much micro-management, not fun really.
We have spilt an ocean of blood for brotherhood and unity of our peoples and we shall not allow anyone to touch or destroy it from within.
Zoki said
TehBoss said
Odanan said
For me HoI3 was a disappointment. Too much micro-management. I really prefer how things can be done in MH.
I felt the same way.
Also, the game is pretty laggy, even on good systems. The overall game mechanics, which include all that micro-managment junk, just kills the gameplay.
That's why I like MH so much, it's simple, and easy to learn. There's pretty much no micro-managment, and it's just fun overall.
I agree, MH is actually fun and I want to play it, in fact it's one of those games where 4 hrs flys by before you even know it. HOI3 was more of a chore then a game, too much micro-management, not fun really.
You usually end up realising you have been on making history too long only when your arm aches from the sheer amount of clicking xD. Especially at the beginning gearing up for war you acquire a higher muscle mass then before for your right arm without realising it :P
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
