Hearts of Iron 2?

Michael Emrys <emrys.TakeThisOut@olypen.com> writes:

>I haven't played it either. However, when it came out for Windows, a lot of
>guys on BBSs that I go to who had griped endlessly about the first version
>now seemed pretty pleased. I don't get the feeling that it is quite
>top-notch with most players, but they don't seem to regard it as a waste of
>time any more. Take that for what it's worth...

Well, the original was fantastic to start with, though people
who like tactical-level control would naturally be disappointed since
that just doesn't exist. But for getting some taste of what Eisenhower,
or Churchill, or Roosevelt must have felt on D-Day, I don't think that
it's possible to get a better game.

I've gotten to understand the interface pretty well, despite a
few frustrating quirks in the coordination of multiple attacks and the
mysteries of the supply chain. (I can't figure why in my most recent
game troops in Iceland simply will not maintain their organization level,
never mind not build it up.) Maybe that's the grand failing of the
Europa Universalis engine -- until you play the game out three or four
times it just doesn't make sense. Better tutorials, or a manual which
is published without being Babelfish-translated into German, then over
into Tamil, then into English, might help.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Hearts of Iron 2? 

> Well, the original was fantastic to start with, though people
> who like tactical-level control would naturally be disappointed since
> that just doesn't exist. But for getting some taste of what Eisenhower,
> or Churchill, or Roosevelt must have felt on D-Day, I don't think that
> it's possible to get a better game.

Well, here are my complaints with the original. I was hoping to see if
they had been addressed:

1) Seriously buggy. I've heard that this has been taken care of, but I
usually take claims like this with a grain of salt.
2) The game forced you to follow historical patterns. You know that
there's likely to be a winter war between Finland and the USSR. It's
just a question of when. You know Japan is likely to pressure Siam...
but not many of the other countries in the area. You know Rosevelt is
likely to die... but not Stalin. I don't mind the fact that you're
likely to be fighting a similr set of countries, but having all the
actual events, but no others, be offered as yes/no questions, is
irritating.
3) You can annex a country, and then have all your new pieces appear
there. Run this by me again?
3a) Once a country has been annexed, it can't be unannexed later.
4) The convoy setup was insanely stupid. This one I'll believe them
when they say they improved it, but I'ld like to know how much.
5) Ditto for the way you could instantly repair damaged units.
6) And for how naval and air combat worked.
7) And for a bit more logic in the technology development.
8) By the way, in the original, once you made an armored or air
division, they never upgraded to new technology, even if you almost
toally depleted the division. Did they fix this?
9) It would be nice to be able to improve all provinces. Or even to be
able to enter some of the remote ones in less than half a year, maybe
even not killing your troops in the process.

It's a testament to the original that it was fun to play, despite the
learning curve and the problems. However, you only got so much replay
out of it... and I need a game to replace Alpha Centauri as my "Play it
to death" game.
 >> Stay informed about: Hearts of Iron 2? 

bbottorff.TakeThisOut@nomail.com (Boyd Bottorff) writes:

>Well, here are my complaints with the original. I was hoping to see if
>they had been addressed:

>1) Seriously buggy. I've heard that this has been taken care of, but I
>usually take claims like this with a grain of salt.

I haven't run into bug problems ... the occasional crash, at
the worst possible times, but every game does that. There's some
small bug nagging things, like airplanes being stuck at sea when their
aircraft carrier leaves, but that's not quite critical.


>2) The game forced you to follow historical patterns. You know that
>there's likely to be a winter war between Finland and the USSR. It's
>just a question of when. You know Japan is likely to pressure Siam...
>but not many of the other countries in the area.

Well, there's a strong bias to things, although I'm not sure that
any historical events really *are* forced. In my most recent game, in
fact (although I've got to admit it's been abandoned now), Japan ended
up at war with the United Kingdom in 1940, completely foregoing the
Siam, Pearl Harbor, even the 'Kill Yamamoto?' events. I'm not sure if
the Winter War could be subverted, or Roosevelt's death avoided, but my
guess is most events can be.


>3) You can annex a country, and then have all your new pieces appear
>there. Run this by me again?
>3a) Once a country has been annexed, it can't be unannexed later.

That they've already fixed in bug-patches. New pieces can be
made to appear only in your 'home' territories ... that can be a bit of
a stretch (the US can have new pieces appear in Guam, but not in Iceland),
but it does avoid the perfectly ridiculous. Unannexing countries is in
the Diplomatic menu, if you're clicked on yourself when you go to
diplomacy.


>It's a testament to the original that it was fun to play, despite the
>learning curve and the problems. However, you only got so much replay
>out of it... and I need a game to replace Alpha Centauri as my "Play it
>to death" game.

This is in my "play it to death" column, though I'm being won over
to Victoria if I can get the hang of another country, just because that
puts so much more emphasis on the economic side. I can fight with some
competence all right, but my heart is more in profit and loss pages.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Hearts of Iron 2?