Hearts of Iron Panned!

DarkCloud · February 9, 2003, 13:08

Computer Games Magazine recently gave Hearts of Iron only two stars, blaming the low rating on the games' strange AI, saying that it truly didn't imitate WWII because you could start the war early, etc...

Did any of you notice any of these problems? Are they worthy problems to result in a panning?

Just wondering...

Jon Shafer · February 9, 2003, 13:33

It's an alternate history WWII game. If the reviewer docked it for the ability to start war early, then he failed to see the intention of the game and shouldn't have been reviewing it.

In regards to the AI, he was probably playing 1.00 in his great wisdom, despite there have been 3 patches which have made the AI much better.

Take what he says with a grain of salt or two...

Grumbold · February 9, 2003, 16:42

You can start the war at the proper time with the proper tech and units if you play the 1939 scenario. Duh!

Reviewers with only half a brain and no eyes should stick to reviewing braille books for children.

St Leo · February 10, 2003, 10:45

the games' strange AI

Try 1.03 for a whole new ball game.

saying that it truly didn't imitate WWII because you could start the war early

Actually, I would have preferred a 1933 startdate.

Are they worthy problems to result in a panning?

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Comrade Tribune · February 11, 2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
the games' strange AI

Try 1.03 for a whole new ball game.

Nah; it doesn´t ctd any more, but the ai is still brain-dead. Fleets, anyone?

DarkCloud · February 11, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

In regards to the AI, he was probably playing 1.00 in his great wisdom, despite there have been 3 patches which have made the AI much better.

well, CGM only reviews finished games, not patched... the game that is released should be finished- not have to be finished by patching- not everyone has an internet connection...

But I am glad to know that the game is better than rated!

Jon Shafer · February 12, 2003, 01:19

If they let it be known that the game had 1 or more patches, then you would have more satisfied people.

Oerdin · February 12, 2003, 02:30

The AI doesn't do the smartest things and I have the sneaky suspesion that the AI hasn't been optimized to take advantage of all the new rules they made for 1.02 & 1.03.

General Ludd · February 12, 2003, 08:54

Well, the AI is strange. and it's only gotten stranger in 1.03 with sending it's ships around the world for cruises during peace time. Seems to me that the german AI is the only one that is actually capable of being a threat. I keep seeing Canada and Britain sending single infantry divisions to attack stacks of 40+ german divisions, and when they make a beach head, they just sit there with a single division and wait for germany to come kill them or run inland and leave their supply lines undefended. I've seen them land in france and make a mad dash for Paris to liberate france. Too bad they only sent a handful of divisions, because germany came back quick (they where occupied in russia) to take it all back, and this time france was annexed for good because they lost their SE asia provinces aswell. (which where liberated by new zealand... but they didn't go to france, New Zealand kept control of them)

I agree though, this isn't a WW2 simulation game - it is a strategy game set in the WW2 era.

DarkCloud · February 12, 2003, 23:55

Quote:

If they let it be known that the game had 1 or more patches, then you would have more satisfied people.

the sad thing is that they didnt... and they also said that the tutorial and manuals weren't enough- they said that the game was too confusing and that you had to go to the website to find out what to do.

General Ludd · February 13, 2003, 08:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud

the sad thing is that they didnt... and they also said that the tutorial and manuals weren't enough- they said that the game was too confusing and that you had to go to the website to find out what to do.

That is also partly true. I personally didn't have any trouble understanding the game, but if someone reads the manual in hopes of clearing confusion, they're going to be sorely disapointed. The manual is full of wrong information, and frequently talks about features that aren't in the game, or only half implemented. Worst manual I've ever seen. (maybe it will be useful one they finish patching...

)

DarkCloud · February 13, 2003, 23:36

Features not implemented... sounds like what they did to EU I... a good product, but rushed nonetheless

But that just means that HoI II is probably on the horizon!

Reinhard-Baer · March 28, 2003, 08:06

Well are you sure this reviewer have seen a game before?

I like this "What-If" type scens more than just following plain history. But I've to say that you can follow history, just take Germany and answer all the event historically and whoom you will have WWII at Sept 39. But on the other side it would be boring to do this every game. It's interesting to see what course history might take if for example argentina, Portugal or even Spain would have joined the Axis. And judging the dictatorial government in these countries this outcome may had happened.
So I give this game 8 stars of 6

Methril · March 28, 2003, 08:19

I have a subscription to this magazine. Who wrote it? Tom Chick?

Kropotkin · April 3, 2003, 06:28

Not that uncommon at all, read a review somewhere a while back that started pointing out everything you could do but whoevere reviewed it ended up by saying he didn't find it to be fun. ie, it was a bit to much for his RTS-brain.