Hearts of Iron III

[Meneldil]

Tried it, understood that the game was more of a "tank and airplanes era" game than a "WWII" game.

Gave up after Italy attacked France and the UK in 1938 for the 3rd time in 3 games. Paradox should have sticked to the old "let's play history" idea, rather than this whole "let's play something that looks like history but isn't really history" one they started with EU3.

[Subotan]

I prefer games which place plausibility over accuracy.

[naut]

I prefer games which place plausibility over accuracy.

Exactly. The player/AI shouldn't be rigidly stuck to history. But, should start out and progress with a moderate basis in reality and be allowed to alter the course of history, the stranger the alternation the harder it should be to do so.

I also feel the AI should follow a pretty steady/normalised path. While any alternatives to history should be up to the player.

[Beskar]

Tried it, understood that the game was more of a "tank and airplanes era" game than a "WWII" game.

Gave up after Italy attacked France and the UK in 1938 for the 3rd time in 3 games. Paradox should have sticked to the old "let's play history" idea, rather than this whole "let's play something that looks like history but isn't really history" one they started with EU3.

I prefer that alternative history system, who would want to play as the Axis, if you are destined to lose anyway, even though you won every battle, out resourced the allies etc. What about if convinced the Americans to work with the Axis Powers, or at least neutral?

However Hearts of Iron 3 gameplay was just horrible.

[Meneldil]

I can win as the Axis in HoI2. You can turn an italian minor in a superpower in EU2.

Problem with HoI3 is that it neither has accuracy nor plausability. Italy attacking France and the UK in 1938 ? Yeah right, Italy wasn't industrialized enough to be a threat to anyone in 1941, how could it remotely think about taking out France and Britain 3 years earlier by itself. The same goes for pretty much everycountry, as the AI always goes on some crazy unrealistic, unplausable rampage all the time.
Most games look like poor sci-fi what if scenarii. What if France attacked Germany for no reason and conquered all of Europe by 1942? What if USSR invaded China? What if Italy was the only active axis member?
This isn't fun or interesting. For all I know, they could have replaced France and UK by Elves, Italy by dwarves and Germany by orcs, that would probably have made a somewhat decent game.

I can see how HoI2 may have been annoying for some people, but it still was possible to do weird things: join the Axis with Belgium or Netherland, fight back Germany as France, prevent the US from entering the war (actually, I've never seen that happen, but I've been told it's possible, if anyone can deny/confirm)...all the while history was indeed being somewhat respected.

[gollum]

I agree with the general sentiment on the thread (after release). I gave up completely the pc WWII games for A world at war, a board strategy game that can be played via pbem. It has tones of rules, but also many strategic/tactical dimensions and its played against human players only, so its quite challenging.

[Samurai Waki]

Picked up Arsenal of Democracy, seems to be a little more intense than HoI 2. Still needs to be streamlined in some areas, but overall a pretty fun experience.

[naut]

Picked up Arsenal of Democracy, seems to be a little more intense than HoI 2. Still needs to be streamlined in some areas, but overall a pretty fun experience.

I need to get that. Looks like they've brought some of the hidden features into the open, (like rare-to-oil production).