I guess the remedy is to use separate armies for a defence and offence, but what's the point then? Eventually, you'll end up doing good old microcontrol. AI will move army division around the front so much, they will never be 'ready' for an offensive action. You can now draw the fronts and battle plans. It does not matter what's the distance between those divisions, even if one of them is in Siberia, and the other is fighting in southern Spain. Now you can just take few random division, assign commander to it, and call it an 'Army'. The army organization structure was simplified, compared to HoI3 and HoI2. The good: - Better graphics then other paradox games, The bad: - Performance (it's unplayable past 1943-44 thanks to the engine only using 1 CPU core) - No partisan activity, no revolts - Diplomacy dumbed down for 4 year olds - Peace-conferences after the war are plain broken (pick Luxemburg, dont do anything in the war, get half of Germany after it in the peace conference) - Soundtrack is very mediocre - AI can't handle the scope of the game, braindead retarded AI - Interface overcomplicated with too many important buttons hidden - trade? wtf is this? - Price, this is not worth 40в‚¬, wait for a 90% sale and 2 years of patchfixing the game before getting it вЂ¦ Expand Peace-conferences after the war are plain broken (pick Luxemburg, dont do anything in the war, get half of Germany after it in the peace conference) Performance (it's unplayable past 1943-44 thanks to the engine only using 1 CPU core) The good: - Better graphics then other paradox games, Unfortunately, it's just a very expensive version of a free-to-play browser game. But even they become boring after having it played twice. The only good bit is the 'national achievement' thing where you can unlock some bonuses for your country. Tech trees are apallingly linear and boring. Your armies march according to pre-drawn lines, while your commanders make nonsensical decisions which you cannot undo before it's too late. Everything feels detached and not really important. IN HOI4 you just don't get the level of immersion and presence which HOI3 offered. Your bombers just fly over said region and bombard all enemy units in combat at the same rate. And you can't demand air support for a specific part of the front where battle is at a critical point. Nice idea, actually, but you don't get any feedback at all without clicking through three screens. Air combat, which was ok in HOI3, is now degraded to assigning randomly put together squadrons (size doesn't matter) to a region (like for instance 'Northern France', thats how big these regions are!) and wait for your enemies to be shot down. The game plays as boring as this review reads. Before that you cant do anything to react to changing situations. Once you activate your plan, you have to wait till it's completed (or failed).

You command them by drawing lines on a map, a so called battle plan. Building your army, for instance, is nothing but assigning divisions to a commander. HOI4 however offers no such degree of complexity. HOI 3 was demanding, true, but it was rewarding as well, once you found your way through the complexity. The simple truth is: You can't turn a game like HoI into a game that suits the needs of the average casual player. For HOI-veterans it's just too simplified, for the average newcomer it's still too demanding and unstructured.

Why? It looks better, sure, but that's about it. HOI 3 was demanding, true, but it was Everything that made HOI3 the truly great game it is was abandoned in HOI4. Everything that made HOI3 the truly great game it is was abandoned in HOI4.

Hearts of iron 4 playable nations