Similarly, games thrive on choice and agency, people would be bored if the strict historical coding forced every move. You always lose in this game as Germany by 1945). However, history is filled with losers, and if the game follows history too closely it would not be fun to play as one of those doomed powers (i.e. I love the parts of history they cover, and I love playing them to experience that history in new ways. They are innately historical games, and much of the audience would not be interested in the same game without the historical basis. This, to me, has always been one of the most fascinating design problems for Paradox's grand stategy games. So color me excited for IV since, right from the beginning, Paradox have said they wanted to make this version much less a slave to history than the previous titles. Which might be an odd complaint given the subject matter of the game. I've always enjoyed HoI games, but was always slightly annoyed by how on-rails to history it was. You can even give a front multiple axes of advance and assign the mechanized divisions to the left flank and the marines to the river crossings. After you tell the general to execute the attack, you can take command of individual divisions if you feel the general needs to do some special thing RIGHT NOW. The front can also be given a fallback line.
#Hearts of iron 5 switch america to fasism series#
I'd think that Corps is a better term, although if you turn a general into a Marshal, he can command ALL the divisions and then "front" might be a better term.Įach of the fronts can be given a series of objective lines to take, and you can modify the main axis of the attack to take specific provinces more quickly. They needed a label and that's the one they used, but most generals can only command a few divisions.
I think you're reading too much into "fronts". Having to reach some abstract number representing sea power in order to launch a naval invasion, exactly the kind of thing I am not looking for. I need the feedback of divisions/battles 'unit x attack ', 'unit x has won/lost at ' etc. from what I gather military control happens at the level of fronts which just grind away at each other. I think this version may be too abstracted for me.
0 kommentar(er)
