Play stats say Hearts of Iron 4.

>>1788868
>Argumentum ad populum
I guess eating corn syrup and saturated fats every day is also the best diet too.

>>1788850
HoI2 Doomsday, unironically.>>1788850

>>1788876
shitting in the street is also very popular and a valid lifestyle compared to using indoor plumbing.

>>1788868
How many people play the steam versions of hoi2 or 3? In the former’s case, the steam version interferes with mods IIRC.

Hearts of Iron III.
It's when Paradox still followed a more simulationist approach to history. It also gives you so much. There are lots of turn-based WW2 strategy games and I think we should appreciate how well real-time is implemented. But other than these railroaded and linear turn-based games, it allows for sandbox play. You can actually build your own Divisions, ships and planes. You aren't limited to scenario troops. It has a functioning economy based on IC and IC-days getting put into production. It's the only game that will actually teach you anything. When I played it, I learned a lot. How a Division for example is usually the lowest functioning strategical unit on the battlefield. In the modern day apparently armies now are brigade-focused and then combine into a Division again, when it's necessary. I learned about Corps, Armies, Army Groups. It actually teaches you about the real scale of the war. You think in terms of Divisions, not just amount of men.

Hearts of Iron III is so much better than 4, when it comes to logistics. You can't just across low infra desert in the Sahara or mountains in Tibet. It's not possible. You won't get enough supplies and regaining Organization is extremely slow in low infra provinces. Also as a small nation, unless you go on an ahistorical conquering spree and declare war on minors around the world, you simply cannot compete. Your IC and manpower is simply too low to beat the enemy. Officers are also limited based on the country you play, you don't get randomly generated ones. And every single Division has an officer. That is instantly so much deeper than HoI4.

>>1789064
I would agree that HOI3 had better mechanics, but in terms of support it was utterly lacking. Paradox strangled it in its crib with extremely mediocre "expansions" or DLC or whatever you want to call it. Their Finest Hour in particular was a joke, and it was clear at that point they were already working on HOI4.

>>1789093
I only ever played HoI III with all of the expansions, I think ... but surely HOI4 came later. It took so much time for them to finally release it.

>>1789099
I played HoI3 vanilla and then with expansions as they were released. TFH was 2012, and HOI4 was 2016 - a four year gap, but I've always felt that HOI3's development cycle was cannibalized.

>>1788850
HoI4 is great and still has cool new stuff coming out regularly. I prefer vanilla with little mods but some people might say total conversion mods are even more enjoyable.

>>1788868
How exactly are your "stats" counting all these offline players? For HoI especially it is very hard to tell how popular they are at given time. Too many disc copy players and mighty pirates.

hoi2 was a strategy game and beating the game actually meant something
hoi4 is a line painting and area painting repetition game that is impossible to lose unless you lack the patioence to keep clicking lines and painting areas over and over again
This appeals to a much wider audience of complete fucking idiots who need the dopamine hit of """winning""" without any skill or thought
As long as you have the personality and love of repetitive movements of a meth addict you too can win hoi4

>>1789890
But how about HoI3

>>1788850
HoI III, HoI II has about as many tiles as your average RISK game

too bad that HoI III AI can't into naval invasions though ... but not like HoI IV is any better when it comes ot this

>>1788850
hearts of iron 2 darkest hour is frankly too dated to enjoy these days, it's a chore to play
hearts of iron 4 is simultaneously unbelievably bloated with awful focus trees and minigames (e.g. purge, congress) and meme-y alt-history, yet at the same time has extremely barebones core mechanics like its unlimited manpower, easy-mode combat, and pointless tacked-on espionage. it's both tedious and too easy. kind of reminds me of victoria 2 in that way
hearts of iron 3 is therefore the last man standing and the best of the series. it is not a perfect game but at least it attempts to be something akin to a world war 2 wargame (unlike 4) and is still playable (unlike 2). i personally really like the way they did the leadership / research / espionage / diplomacy / officers system, and the order of battle mechanics.
if paradox made hoi5 basically using 3 as the base design, with some of the improvements from 4 (specifically equipment production and being able to draw frontlines), and then actually figuring out how to have navy, supply, and air work in a way that is both fun and usable, it would be pretty much perfect.
>>1789093

>>1798559
victoria 3**

>>1793498
He’s another filtered one

File: IMG_5317.jpg (642 KB, 1680x1050)

642 KB JPG

>>1793671
>too bad that HoI III AI can't into naval invasions though ...

WTF IS A KILOMETER
>National anthem plays*
>bald eagle screech*
>distant 50 cal machine gun fire*
>explosion*
>V8 engine burnout noises*

>>1788876
Stats say Americans are 4% of people. So not very popular.

>>1798574
americans aren't people

>>1789064
all the things you mentioned also apply for HoI4

>>1798689
Then you’ve never played both lol that couldn’t be further from the truth

>>1798689
NTA but yes and no. People here do shit on HoI IV a lot to ridiculous degree so it's sometimes hard to tell if it's a bait shitpost anymore so while a lot of the things he mentioned are in HoI IV the game still feels rather hollow.
Personally I think the worst portions of HoI IV are Focus Trees and, especially in case of mods, decision spam. It's just so much pre-scripred bullshit and decisions are misused constantly.
The only positive thing that comes from Focuses is that they are pretty much the AI system for the game now that is easily understood and follows usually semi-logical paths, at the cost of focuses dumbing down actual player gameplay, making people stack modifiers and miraculously propel minor third world countries into superpower status in few years.
Country-specific minigames are fucking cancer too. They are forced, typically feel like a chore and add to the whimsical bullshit nature of focuses.
If they wanted to keep the game accessible to people they could have just made a goals system, where instead of pressing buttons to spawn factories you build them yourself to complete a goal. Depending on how railroady you feel those can give magical rewards like focuses (bad) or have events triggering, like population migration to industrialized provinces, though ideally it'd just be flavored versions of normal game mechanics.
Every minigame should just be a base game mechanic in some way. Instead of purge, give characters actual stats like loyalty or fear and have the "spy agencies" investigate them for treason so you can purge them yourself.
Instead of Sweden getting a magic bus headquarters unit actually put the chains of command on the map like HoI3 with mechanics for them too.
Instead of USA getting democracy and Senate tucked away in decisions every democratic country should have one.
Just imagine if you had HoI4 merged with HoI3 and Shadow Empire but not shit unlike all three of those games.

>>1788850
HoI IV simply because it actually runs right (after 8 years of fixes...) while HoI II and III somehow lag on faster speeds even on NASA computers.

I really wish HoI3 just had a drag and drop interface for rearranging the OOB; I found myself specifically avoiding large theatres or countries with huge land borders just to avoid the hassle of rearranging after every big push. I also find the pre-war years boring as all hell and get super frustrated when I get my construction/deployment timings wrong, and yet can't bring myself to play with the shitty default '39 prebuilts. I'd say it's autism but we are talking about HoI3 here.

>>1788850
Darkest hour (my pc doesn’t run newer games well)
Anyways does anyone have any idea for campaigns on this game

>>1798854
3 runs great on my I7 asus motherboard RTX4080 rig!

I’m sorry it doesn’t work on your machine. AMD?

>Research
I love the research teams from HoI2 i wish it was expanded upon in later pardox games. Hoi3 simplifies it some but theoretical and practical are great additions to the formula. Hoi4 simplifies it even more, which is trash in my opinion.
>Industry & Buildings
Pretty similar between Hoi2 and Hoi3. Hoi4 has more buildings and resource types which is good. The only real change to industry is factories which can be micro intensive depending on what youre making, i wish they could be automated or breakdown the vehicle modules so they are more modular somehow. Overall hoi4 is just better in this regard.
>Supply
I'm not really sure if there's a major difference in the games in terms of game impact, but Hoi4 lets you use railways to move units faster which is cool.
>Military
Hoi2 has larger tiles and historical units which is more fair and balanced, but is a tradeoff for military simulation. Hoi3 lets you build brigades for a division, still pretty balanced but not very historical, hoi3 tiles are even smaller and military simulation is at its peak with Hoi3. Hoi4 guts the chain of command, but in terms of gameplay doesn't change too much. The frontline ai is awful though so you will mostly be microing and battles. Divisions in hoi4 are very granular you can modify them pretty much however you want. Although the ai has trouble doing this or building counter divisions so you can very easily break the game. I think hoi4 is solid, but personally i prefer hoi3 for single player
>Navy
I believe the combat stats are all the same so the only real difference is the automation you can do. Hoi4 has the best automation.
>Air
Like navy air units difference is just more automation, but for whatever reason air is completely removed from land battles in Hoi4, it's basically just treated as an area of effect bonus. Air is still in naval battle and able to destroy buildings though. I prefer Hoi3 air even if it is a bit too strong.

>National focus and decisions
Hoi4 beats the others in terms of this in quantity and flavor but I feel like national focuses in hoi4 are flawed in that they usually just amount to bonuses you rush, sort of like a dual tech tree.
>Mods
Hoi2 has scenarios and additions like Darkest hour, it also has quite a few mods. Hoi3 has some good mods, but for whatever reason most mods will crash you can see that this game has the least major mods of all the hoi games. Hoi4 has a lot of neat mods, but generally you're only going to play one or two of them since a lot of them are similar. Hoi4 is better in terms of modding.

>>1788850
the one with the fastest uninstall.exe

>>1788850
DH, because it comes with
1933 Chinese start
and
FODD mod

>>1799064
>Research
If HoI2 teams could be upgraded (without having to first pre-write them in the game files and then unlock those by events and/or date), it would be perfect. Man can only dream.
HoI3 default research is trash, BUT with changes brought by HPP, it's great. All it took was switching the source of leadership.
>Industry & Buildings
In a perfect world, there is HoI3.5 that uses 4's gear production system and 3s logistical system. But if I have to pick between either of those, then I would take 3. It's upgrade system was a massive step UP from 2, where all you had to do was just research one tech and then enjoy the benefits all across the board. Said that, 2's simplistic system has massive mod potential, while 3 and 4 are a chore to mod because of this
>Supply
3, and it's not even a contest.
>Military
3, because it has that sweet, sweet spot when it comes to level of detail - you make sure every tiny province counts (especially due to how buildings are handled) without making them just random tiles, and the combat itself accounts for the most things (despite of how it looks, actual combat resolution in 4 is much, much simple). 2 gets a honorable mention and close call to the first spot, because it in turn allowed to properly represent the scale in the other direction, where you needed a huge stack of units to get shit done and in the same time keep it supplied and not overburdened by stacking penalties. I kind of miss 2's HQs
>Navy
2. Least obtuse ships, least obtuse research system. But really, if you are playing with navy, you are doing something terribly wrong.
>Air
3, not a contest, not even close. 2 absolutely lacked tactical level of bombarding due to the sheer fucking map scaling, and air combat in 4 is a joke.

>>1799069
>they usually just amount to bonuses you rush, sort of like a dual tech tree
You put it out perfectly! Are you me? I've been thinking the exact same out of the gate for years. I like and see the benefits of focus trees but way too often they stumble on this very basic issue of "I want this now give me that" type of approach which cannot be the best we could have. Something complimenting the other related plan and/or the outcome can be good but what we have now is pretty pipelined to looking for 1:1 bonuses x timed research which is predictable and turd fuck boring to be honest.

>>1798590
Then whatever you are is somehow even lower then non-human, brown turdworlder

>>1788850
Hearts of Iron III. It truly makes you feel like your behind the desk of one of the leaders. A simulation so dense and complex that any strategy you desire can be tried and simulated with perfect accuracy. I have pulled off Sealion, won at Stalingrad.a

The only one I can play is darkest hour, does anyone have any advice for it