Hearts of Iron IV

 PC
User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 968 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 688 out of 968
  2. Mixed: 149 out of 968
  3. Negative: 131 out of 968

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. dave12
    Jun 7, 2016
    4
    Everything that made HOI3 the truly great game it is was abandoned in HOI4. Why?? It looks better, sure, but that's about it. For HOI-veterans it's just too simplified, for the average newcomer it's still too demanding and unstructured. The simple truth is: You can't turn a game like HoI into a game that suits the needs of the average casual player. HOI 3 was demanding, true, but it wasEverything that made HOI3 the truly great game it is was abandoned in HOI4. Why?? It looks better, sure, but that's about it. For HOI-veterans it's just too simplified, for the average newcomer it's still too demanding and unstructured. The simple truth is: You can't turn a game like HoI into a game that suits the needs of the average casual player. HOI 3 was demanding, true, but it was rewarding as well, once you found your way through the complexity. HOI4 however offers no such degree of complexity. Building your army, for instance, is nothing but assigning divisions to a commander. That's it. You command them by drawing lines on a map, a so called battle plan. Once you activate your plan, you have to wait till it's completed (or failed). Before that you cant do anything to react to changing situations. The game plays as boring as this review reads.

    Air combat, which was ok in HOI3, is now degraded to assigning randomly put together squadrons (size doesn't matter) to a region (like for instance "Northern France", thats how big these regions are!) and wait for your enemies to be shot down. Nice idea, actually, but you don't get any feedback at all without clicking through three screens. And you can't demand air support for a specific part of the front where battle is at a critical point. Your bombers just fly over said region and bombard all enemy units in combat at the same rate.

    IN HOI4 you just don't get the level of immersion and presence which HOI3 offered. Everything feels detached and not really important. Your armies march according to pre-drawn lines, while your commanders make nonsensical decisions which you cannot undo before it's too late. Tech trees are apallingly linear and boring. The only good bit is the "national achievement" thing where you can unlock some bonuses for your country. But even they become boring after having it played twice.

    HOI4 should have been a milestone. Unfortunately, it's just a very expensive version of a free-to-play browser game.    … Expand
  2. Anerkas
    Jun 15, 2016
    0
    I really don't understand how people can rate this game positively, first of all i want to say this is the first Heart of Iron i have played but not the only paradox strategy title, i spent over 150 hours on crusader kings 2 and the reason i liked it so much is because it always felt fresh, every playthrough seemed different from the others even with the same character there was alwaysI really don't understand how people can rate this game positively, first of all i want to say this is the first Heart of Iron i have played but not the only paradox strategy title, i spent over 150 hours on crusader kings 2 and the reason i liked it so much is because it always felt fresh, every playthrough seemed different from the others even with the same character there was always something interesting that would happend.

    This unfortunately is the total opposite, every game feels the same even with different nation, there is nothing to do while in peace, with democratic or communist ideology you just sit there and wait for fascist to declare wars, with the latter you just invade a couple of small countries and it's World War time.

    The game lacks a lot of important informations about how to play, the tutorial doens't explain half of what you need to know and the first ours (assuming you aren't a veteran of the series) will be spent looking online how to do this? and how does that work? Yet when you understand these things the game become simple... far too much.

    -Diplomacy is ridicolously lacking.
    -Trade is just a couple of checkbox to tick and that's it, don't even know why they bother adding it.
    -Production is just: spam factories, spam weapons and spam troops.
    -Technology tree is underdeveloped, there aren't very many choices and most of them are useless anyway.
    -National focus same as technology tree.

    But this game is about combat right? Well you'll wonder how it is implemented? The answer is poorly, you have very little control over your forces as a whole, you send navy and airforce to patrol areas which are far too big, ex. France is divided in just 2 zones for planes and between Spain and USA there are 3 sea zones, you send your planes/ships on mission and thats it never worry about them again, they even come back to autorepair themselves.

    For ground combat there isn't much to say, except that the AI is outright broken and cannot perform it correctly (i hope this isn't working as intended) expecially against the player, playing as Italy i had my troops in Jugoslavia and conquered Bulgaria which independence was guaranteed by the allies so France and UK declares war on me, i had literally no one on the western fronts (alps) while France had a whole army they could have taken the entire northern Italy just by walking over there before i could have the chance to stop them and strike back yet they didn't lift a finger, while UK just kept sending small stack forces (1-2 divisions) with naval invasions to suicide without a chance of success.

    The AI is very easily exploited by players, you can always encircle enemies from the flanks and create pockets who quickly runs out of supplies and you then can attack easily thus decimating hostile armies, or you can send a motorized/light tanks division behind enemy lines and rush their capital or make a snake through their victory points with it making the enemy nation capitulate instantly, or even stage a coup which erupt in civil war in any country far too easily, even turn USA communist of Soviet Union fascist in a year of game time, even if you can conquer the world with a few divisions you need a giant army of MP to garrison the area you conquer and ensure them from resistance, it took me
    more MPS to secure France than soldiers to conquer it.

    As far as tactics go all it's very disappointing, you don't really need to modify the standard divisions maybe just add some artillery and you're good the rest you can make without it, to create an army just merge your divisions assign them a commander and you're done, assign them a front and give them an offensive plan, it may sound interesting but it really only means point an arrow in the direction you want them to go then click execute battle plan and that's it, now sit back and enjoy making the game run on speed five watching floating numbers painting the map of your color.

    Once you've done it with all major nations you might just aswell uninstall the game because as i said it is very repetitive, every country feel the same and it gets boring real fast, unless you might want to wait for the multitude of DLCs that will no doubt come, i won't for sure buy them.

    Overall this title feels like a browser based free to play game, except it costs 40€ and it's not worth the price it asks, it isn't the WWII strategy game that i was looking forward to, for now i'll stick to Company of Heroes 2 for the WWII part and maybe to civilization for the diplomacy/trade part.

    On a final note the game is incapable of providing a good challenge and unable to mantaining itself interesting for more than a few hours, it ages very fast, not suited for hardcore nor casual players, if it wasn't still clear it's to absolutely avoid, at least at the price it is proposed.    … Expand
  3. Tytos
    Jun 7, 2016
    2
    The good:

    - Better graphics then other paradox games, The bad: - Performance (it's unplayable past 1943-44 thanks to the engine only using 1 CPU core) - No partisan activity, no revolts - Diplomacy dumbed down for 4 year olds - Peace-conferences after the war are plain broken (pick Luxemburg, dont do anything in the war, get half of Germany after it in the peace conference) -    The good:

    - Better graphics then other paradox games,

    The bad:

    - Performance (it's unplayable past 1943-44 thanks to the engine only using 1 CPU core)
    - No partisan activity, no revolts
    - Diplomacy dumbed down for 4 year olds
    - Peace-conferences after the war are plain broken (pick Luxemburg, dont do anything in the war, get half of Germany after it in the peace conference)
    - Soundtrack is very mediocre
    - AI can't handle the scope of the game, braindead retarded AI
    - Interface overcomplicated with too many important buttons hidden
    - trade??? wtf is this?
    - Price, this is not worth 40€, wait for a 90% sale and 2 years of patchfixing the game before getting it    … Expand
  4. MightyPleb
    Jun 12, 2016
    4
    At the current moment it is not a good game. I don't know what all the development time went in to. Here are the pros and cons

    PROS- -Good graphics -Easy to use UI -Excellent naval battles -National focus trees -Excellent 2D and 3D art NEUTRAL- -Less micromanagement -No order of battle -Equal nations (Bhutan gets nukes when Germany does) CONS- -Air Zones are WAY too    At the current moment it is not a good game. I don't know what all the development time went in to. Here are the pros and cons

    PROS-
    -Good graphics
    -Easy to use UI
    -Excellent naval battles
    -National focus trees
    -Excellent 2D and 3D art

    NEUTRAL-
    -Less micromanagement
    -No order of battle
    -Equal nations (Bhutan gets nukes when Germany does)

    CONS-
    -Air Zones are WAY too large
    -Lack of division types
    -Watered down tech tree
    -Fascist is the only good ideology
    -Lack of achievements even though there was an amazing achievement idea forum thread
    -No Ship 2D Art
    -No jet 2D or 3D art
    -Nothing to do once war ends
    -Terrible Trade system
    -No fuel system for tanks or ships
    -Absolutely braindead AI
    -You can win a war by making tentacles to victory points
    -Focus trees run out way too fast
    -Peace system is broken

    Overall the game is a let down. It is not a terrible do-not-buy game but it definitely does not live up to the hype. It is way too casual. In 2 years it will be good but only due to DLC. Try playing EU4 without DLC, it's the paradox formula to flood us with DLC. So it will be good if you're willing to shell out $200. But no game should make you do that.
    -    … Expand
  5. Fudgeyman
    Jun 7, 2016
    2
    After playing this game for a solid 20 hours I began to feel an urge to play Hearts of Iron 3 again. So I did and it was so much more fun, so much more interesting, so much more playable. That's all i can really say. To me It just wasn't up to the standard and quality of the previous titles making it pretty crappy.
  6. Teleman
    Jun 7, 2016
    4
    AI is written by a 10 yr old who has just learned how to write "if" in visual basic. You have fronts where the opponent either completely abandons or puts everything it has got. Units move on their own after they execute your commands which results in either no bonuses for attack or defense OR bonuses but very annoying control behaviour. Focus system and diplomacy are a joke. Research isAI is written by a 10 yr old who has just learned how to write "if" in visual basic. You have fronts where the opponent either completely abandons or puts everything it has got. Units move on their own after they execute your commands which results in either no bonuses for attack or defense OR bonuses but very annoying control behaviour. Focus system and diplomacy are a joke. Research is dumbed down for idiots. Gameplay is virtually non existent. I need to be paid to "play" this game just like that guy on the paradox stream...

    P.S. I am a HOI2 fan.    … Expand
  7. Maugly
    Jun 7, 2016
    4
    The new Hearts of Iron 4 is awful. Hearts of Iron: The Casual, I call it.

    The army organization structure was simplified, compared to HoI3 and HoI2. Now you can just take few random division, assign commander to it, and call it an 'Army'. It does not matter what's the distance between those divisions, even if one of them is in Siberia, and the other is fighting in southern Spain. You    The new Hearts of Iron 4 is awful. Hearts of Iron: The Casual, I call it.

    The army organization structure was simplified, compared to HoI3 and HoI2. Now you can just take few random division, assign commander to it, and call it an 'Army'. It does not matter what's the distance between those divisions, even if one of them is in Siberia, and the other is fighting in southern Spain.
    You can now draw the fronts and battle plans. A good idea poorly implemented. AI will move army division around the front so much, they will never be 'ready' for an offensive action. I guess the remedy is to use separate armies for a defence and offence, but what's the point then? Eventually, you'll end up doing good old microcontrol.
    I am not sure if it's a battle system, or just AI is so bad, but every, and I mean - every - nationalists failure in Spanish Civil war ended up with their division being pocketed - by an infantry - and destroyed.
    The combat is unnaturally long, a light tank division fought with infantry on plains for 40 days. It won, eventually.

    The political map was changed. Instead of painting maps with certain color, only borders are now colored. This looks cute, but it is absolutely useless, especially with large countries such as USSR.
    Division markers are very tiny, you can not really see what units are standing there.

    The research was dumbed down just as military structure was. Now you just research 'the next infantry division', 'the next fighter', 'the next tank', etc. The research time is always the same, there are no research teams like in HoI2, or country proficiency like in HoI3. It can be halved by national focus, though.

    National focus is pretty much old-fascioned national decisions - it takes some time and 'political points' to get some research time reduced, or add factories, or ... get political points. Many of these focuses are just that - get political points. Other than attaining focuses, political points are used to change ministers or national policies. And initially, no ministers are hired.
    Only basic events are implemented, like in HoI3, I guess. For example, when Spanish Civil War breaks out, there is no event for USSR to help Republicans. You can, of cause, send volunteers and materiel to the country manually; but you won't get any rewards if Republicans win, like you did in HoI2.

    Production was improved, though. The annoying system of HoI2 and HoI3 where you distributed your production points between different needs were abandoned. Now you directly assign your factories to build military equipment, ships, or more factories.
    Apparently, you armies does not require upkeep/supplies anymore, or they are just masterfully hidden from player's sight. A big loss, I'd say. Supplies was a big deal in HoI2, and a huge headache in HoI3.

    All in all, the game looks super casual. If you're looking for some in-depth strategy game, you should probably sit this out. If you're looking for a casual strategy game, you should probably look up something on facebook, I guess there are 3 or 4 lying around.    … Expand
  8. brodude
    Jun 6, 2016
    0
    Looking for a new Hearts of Iron game? Stick to Darkest Hour because I have no clue what this game is trying to be other than EU4 with a WW2 theme.

    They took a wargaming franchise and turned it into something really confusing. Without things like counters or a well organized battle interface, the game strongly discourages you from playing without its built in strategic planning system.    Looking for a new Hearts of Iron game? Stick to Darkest Hour because I have no clue what this game is trying to be other than EU4 with a WW2 theme.

    They took a wargaming franchise and turned it into something really confusing. Without things like counters or a well organized battle interface, the game strongly discourages you from playing without its built in strategic planning system. There's no loner any level of organization other than a vague "army", which is incredibly unwieldy to play with unless you like the AI to play the entire game for you.

    The key difference between EU4 and HOI4 is that EU4 successfully modernized and streamlined gameplay without losing the essence of what Europa Universalis was. HOI4 is literally just EU4 without any consideration of the kind of game Hearts of Iron is.    … Expand
  9. Triggrd
    Jun 6, 2016
    0
    The literally removed all the things that made it a great simulation of a hard time for humanity.
    Why paradox? You used to be the one that put its players before some ideologically poisoned Zeitgeist and now this?!
    It's ironic that you removed parts of an era-simulation that was drowning in blood due to ideological wars out of another destructive ideology that is literally castrating    The literally removed all the things that made it a great simulation of a hard time for humanity.
    Why paradox? You used to be the one that put its players before some ideologically poisoned Zeitgeist and now this?!

    It's ironic that you removed parts of an era-simulation that was drowning in blood due to ideological wars out of another destructive ideology that is literally castrating all aspects of art these days.

    What a disgrace    … Expand
  10. vzugjhhj
    Sep 15, 2021
    0
    you're buying only 10% of the content with the base game as paradox is a greedy **** company.
    even now in 2021 ive encountered so many bugs that destroycomplete playthroughs;ie my frontline suddenly deciding to abandon half of it; units being trapped on enemy ground etc. if you want many hours of precious time this is the game for you
  11. kastch
    May 27, 2020
    0
    I've played both HOI3 and HOI4 and this game is a total failure even after all these years and DLCs - it's still feels like an oversimplified game. With all the new mechanics it's still unplayable, has poor army structure, poor army control, poor diplomacy, poor unit construction mechanics. Even with one of the most awaited features - alternative history, after all these years it still hasI've played both HOI3 and HOI4 and this game is a total failure even after all these years and DLCs - it's still feels like an oversimplified game. With all the new mechanics it's still unplayable, has poor army structure, poor army control, poor diplomacy, poor unit construction mechanics. Even with one of the most awaited features - alternative history, after all these years it still has stupid issues with leaders when changing ideologies for countries on puppeting (Hey Paradox, guys you're thinking everyone does not give a sh**t to history at all?).
    I don't even mention ships, and air mechanics that are using HUGE territories in it (anyway, Paradox, why not to give a single continent a single region for air? It would've been even more simplified, or as Critics tend to say Streamlined)
    Balance for units remains broken - rockets, air units (it is fixed for naval units after man the guns).
    Supplies mechanics is the only ray of light in this swamp of darkness...
    So to summarize things - it is Not a good strategy game in any way and I would Not recommend to buy it. Even after all these years in developments and fixes.    … Expand
  12. NAYKEN
    Jun 28, 2021
    3
    The most disgraceful strategy game ever, don't spend your money on a game without geological, tactical intervention and gameplay mechanics, especially if you are a user who loves strategy games.
  13. petertel123
    Jun 23, 2018
    4
    This game has a lot of potential, but at the moment it's a bit of a mess.
    The most fun part is the period leading up to the war. This is the time in which you can decide the side you will fight on and you have time to find allies and build up your country. once the war starts the game just becomes a mess though. Countries join weird alliances, countries declare war when they're already    This game has a lot of potential, but at the moment it's a bit of a mess.
    The most fun part is the period leading up to the war. This is the time in which you can decide the side you will fight on and you have time to find allies and build up your country. once the war starts the game just becomes a mess though. Countries join weird alliances, countries declare war when they're already losing etc. If you actually manage to ignore this and get to the peace conference you're in for a treat, because you've never seen a map that looks more ridiculous. Add to this some dumb shenanigans related to the focus tree (for example; America declaring war on communist Germany to "destroy the fascist threat") and what you get is a bad experience every single time.
    The game has so much potential that you keep coming back after every patch, hoping it's good now, but it continues to be a mess to this day. I've never played a game of HoI 4 that I actually enjoyed in hindsight.
    The great tragedy is that paradox will inevitable create so much DLC that by the time this game is any good it will cost more than a 100 dollars to get a full experience, by which time it's too expensive to recommend.    … Expand
  14. I_love_ps4
    Apr 9, 2020
    4
    my god...... paradox what are you doing. the worst, easy and boring game of this studio. In eu 4 you can play 5 years (real time) because all countries are interesting. Here only 2 - 5 party...
  15. Artok1488
    Jul 18, 2020
    0
    Игра классная , но если купили игру нужны длс 100% (можно спиратить проблем нету).
    Так же если игра вам наскучили есть кучу модов, хотите играйте в мире майлител пони, можете воевать в нашем времени или сделать весь мир Люксенбургом)
    Так же комьюнити игры очень не плохое и доброе. Вообщем советую всем.    Игра классная , но если купили игру нужны длс 100% (можно спиратить проблем нету).
    Так же если игра вам наскучили есть кучу модов, хотите играйте в мире майлител пони, можете воевать в нашем времени или сделать весь мир Люксенбургом)
    Так же комьюнити игры очень не плохое и доброе.
    Вообщем советую всем.
  16. Hitler_Nevinova
    Jul 26, 2020
    0
    В bf стрельба лудше!!!!! ы
  17. dikii_hohol
    Jun 6, 2021
    0
    дота 2 крекер дота 2 крекер дота 2 крекер дота 2 крекер дота 2 крекер дота 2 крекер
  18. Valitherambler
    Dec 4, 2021
    2
    The good:

    - Better graphics then other paradox games, The bad: - Performance (it's unplayable past 1943-44 thanks to the engine only using 1 CPU core) - No partisan activity, no revolts - Diplomacy dumbed down for 4 year olds - Peace-conferences after the war are plain broken (pick Luxemburg, dont do anything in the war, get half of Germany after it in the peace conference) -    The good:

    - Better graphics then other paradox games,

    The bad:

    - Performance (it's unplayable past 1943-44 thanks to the engine only using 1 CPU core)
    - No partisan activity, no revolts
    - Diplomacy dumbed down for 4 year olds
    - Peace-conferences after the war are plain broken (pick Luxemburg, dont do anything in the war, get half of Germany after it in the peace conference)
    - Soundtrack is very mediocre
    - AI can't handle the scope of the game, braindead retarded AI
    - Interface overcomplicated with too many important buttons hidden
    - trade??? wtf is this?
    - Price, this is not worth 40€, wait for a 90% sale and 2 years of patchfixing the game before getting it    … Expand
  19. Stellen
    Jun 20, 2016
    2
    Compared to HoI2 and HoI3, the game has had a lot of its complexity and appeal removed. While there has been some improvement in unit production, every other aspect of the game has been streamlined and automated to death, to the point where the game is designed to be played by the AI on your behalf. When you attempt the take control back, you'll find only the most basic options from theCompared to HoI2 and HoI3, the game has had a lot of its complexity and appeal removed. While there has been some improvement in unit production, every other aspect of the game has been streamlined and automated to death, to the point where the game is designed to be played by the AI on your behalf. When you attempt the take control back, you'll find only the most basic options from the previous games are left.

    At the moment there are so many other issues. The AI is so terrible that it has no idea how to fight a war. It constantly gifts you victories by not defending vital provinces and allowing units to be cut off and destroyed without any attempt to rescue them. The simplified air combat and logistics, the reduced choice of using either AI control or direct control, the research options which take away a lot of the choices from HoI3 and which mean you can end up with nothing left to research by the early 1942. The completely unrealistic coups and civil wars which you can spark in other countries to distract them. That every major country in the world has the exact same research capacity, and the minor countries have almost as much.

    In previous HoI games, there were some rough patches at launch, but the core mechanics were there and it was immediately obvious that there was a good game underneath, despite the issues. I'm not seeing it yet for HoI4.    … Expand
  20. Babinski
    Jun 25, 2016
    4
    Paradox has been recently traveling one-way road. Don't shoot your own feet Paradox. If you mess Victoria III like you did with these 2 last releases your fanbase is not going to forgive you.
  21. Auldsoldier
    Jun 27, 2016
    2
    Released as a WW2 App - Super Mario does Barbarossa. Played the tutorial - gave up. Poor graphics, cluttered screen, no NATO counters, brain dead AI - the list goes on. Should have dome what I did with EU4 - wait 4 years and get from the bargain bucket.
  22. JakaNastran
    Aug 8, 2016
    1
    Shameful release...this game is not even in beta phase, it can be barely called alpha. Numerous flaws, AI is braindead, some design decisions ruined the game (lack of supply, NF), minors are waaaay OP (italy can field 300+ divisions and conquer the whole world easily...as can Luxembourg), completely unrealistic - even with histrorical focus turned on you won't get a single ww2 game whenShameful release...this game is not even in beta phase, it can be barely called alpha. Numerous flaws, AI is braindead, some design decisions ruined the game (lack of supply, NF), minors are waaaay OP (italy can field 300+ divisions and conquer the whole world easily...as can Luxembourg), completely unrealistic - even with histrorical focus turned on you won't get a single ww2 game when the outcome will be close to reailty. Instead you will end up building up your prewar economy as USA and preparing for war only to discover that in 1941 Germany didn't even conquer Denmark yet and is getting overrun by Belgium, that SU doesn't guard their borders at all (so German divisions are slowly moving toward Moscow, while Berlin is occupied by 4 Belgium divisions and that Japan just sits on their island after conquering China in 6 months.

    Unistalled    … Expand
  23. berylekmotylek
    Jul 28, 2016
    0
    To be honest, maybe I am a devoted fan of the series and a bit of a hardcore player, but I am profoundly disappointed by this part of the series not only because of the game mechanics reasons.

    Although it really pissed me off that you cannot really control your troops manually without grouping them into many really small armies and assigning them really limited orders (which was stupid    To be honest, maybe I am a devoted fan of the series and a bit of a hardcore player, but I am profoundly disappointed by this part of the series not only because of the game mechanics reasons.

    Although it really pissed me off that you cannot really control your troops manually without grouping them into many really small armies and assigning them really limited orders (which was stupid to me) or without losing massive planning bonuses, or that when you go and try to position your divisions on your own, the moment they reach their destination, AI will move them wherever it thinks it suits its plan best, but I was thoroughly shocked how many details were omitted, and to be honest, if you are not huge a fan of multiplayer, those were the things that kept you playing and enjoying the game for long weeks.

    I could write about many things that have stricken me at various moments during my gameplay, but I'm too tired of being upset while playing to go into these details once again. I'm going to restrict myself only to mention the very thing that made me stop playing this game. It was provinces, from naming to layout.

    I mean how come that although you have tons of tiny provinces on the map, the only thing that really matters are larger regions? And how come when you click at the biggest cities in your country, you cannot even see a picture of them and some brief description, rather than a vague terrain type name plus some combat modifiers' descriptions? Did Paradox really think it would be enjoyable to conquer some unidentified, unnamed swaths of land? What for? The same stuff with the divisions. It is possible to assign an army leader, but what was wrong with the corps leaders? In HoI3 or (my favorite) HoI2 you had a chance to really get attached even to your single corps (German mechanized and panzer ones were my favorites), led by one of your favorite generals. Now? In such a big and historically rich country as III Reich or Japan you have merely 20 - 30 commanders to chose from, and I don't even want to bring up such nonsenses as Erwin Rommel being able to command 24 divisions in the beginning of war... I'm sorry Paradox but you really **** this one up bad guys. You had ALL THE DAMN DATABASES with the names, photos and such, you could have made it easier, I don't care, but why making something so rich so shallow and dull?

    This game has really lost the feeling of reality and richness which ever EU4 or CK2 have (even though there is far less history in them). After what I have experienced with HoI4 I am really hoping someone someday will just make a remake of HoI2 with better graphics and maybe some modifications and not throw all the legacy straight to the trash can.

    I still think this game is playable, and comparing to other parodies of real games you can find on the market it is decent and somewhat enjoyable product, but I feel so disappointed that I can't force myself to rate HoI4 higher than 0, or in a word description: a huge misunderstanding. If I could wish for something right now, I would hope that somebody from Paradox sees this short lament and thinks about at least some of the things I've mentioned here.    … Expand
  24. 91killer
    Jul 17, 2016
    2
    This game pales in comparison to HOI3. Everything is changed, and it is worse. I have been a fan since the first HOI and I am not sure how Paradox messed HOI4 up so badly. They took everything that was great and replaced it with a watered down version or just removed it all together. Long story short, if you like grand strategy games or any of the previous HOI games, then don't buy this one.
  25. Calders
    Jun 7, 2016
    1
    This game has to be compared to it predecessors and as such it fails to deliver. They have improved it in some areas but also over simplified it in others, the result is a game that is no better than HOI3 and one that feels like it has less potential.
    This game is EU4 converted to WW2 rather than building on what they already had with HOI3. A lot of effort has clearly been made on the    This game has to be compared to it predecessors and as such it fails to deliver. They have improved it in some areas but also over simplified it in others, the result is a game that is no better than HOI3 and one that feels like it has less potential.
    This game is EU4 converted to WW2 rather than building on what they already had with HOI3. A lot of effort has clearly been made on the graphics and it does look a lot better but it's hard not to conclude that a lot of this is wasted effort especially when you see useless features such as the epilepsy inducing day / night cycle (that fortunately can be turned off ). This simply is not the type of game you play to see great graphics and when the game ships with a very weak AI you have to wonder who decided the priorities.
    In short this game is entertaining for the casual player who only wants to play it a couple of times but its not an in depth war game. The hot tip is to play as a smaller nation and try to conquer the world as playing as a large nation is simply too easy.    … Expand
  26. S-GERAT
    Jun 9, 2016
    2
    Probably it could be a fun strategy game when they fix the absurd Ai, but it not deserve to be called Hearts Of Iron anymore..

    Instead of improve the things that make HOI 3 a great game, they removed a lot of things of the past games in order to make it simpler.
  27. Inductionist
    Jun 10, 2016
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Total letdown and dumb-down of what used to be a great WW2 simulation. Now its on par with a browser strategy game. Refunded my purchase after 2 hours.… Expand
  28. Crimson
    Jul 11, 2017
    0
    Even a year after release this is an abysmal game. The patches that were released fixed almost none of the bugs or issues. UI is still a horrendously obtuse mess, the AI still utterly retarded. What's even more impressive is that each system that you learn, as you learn more about the game, is just as buggy and poorly designed as the last. I could write pages on every little bug andEven a year after release this is an abysmal game. The patches that were released fixed almost none of the bugs or issues. UI is still a horrendously obtuse mess, the AI still utterly retarded. What's even more impressive is that each system that you learn, as you learn more about the game, is just as buggy and poorly designed as the last. I could write pages on every little bug and problem, but at this point I don't think anyone cares... I'm just amazed at how bad this game is, and yet how many good reviews it has. I cannot think of a single redeeming quality to this game, not one single system was done well. Everything, from the engine, to the graphics, to the absolutely terribly designed gameplay, this game fails on every level.
    Is not your money you need to save, its your sanity.    … Expand
  29. deathmachinept
    Aug 2, 2017
    4
    A very hit and miss game some steps forward but many backwards, been a fan of HoI series since HoI 2 got everything from there, contrary to HoI III that had a very strong foundation design wise allowing for great DLC and mods, in tank terms HoI III is a Panzer IV Chassis while HoI IV is a PZ III Chassis.

    The worst offender is national focus/event trees this makes the game extremely    A very hit and miss game some steps forward but many backwards, been a fan of HoI series since HoI 2 got everything from there, contrary to HoI III that had a very strong foundation design wise allowing for great DLC and mods, in tank terms HoI III is a Panzer IV Chassis while HoI IV is a PZ III Chassis.

    The worst offender is national focus/event trees this makes the game extremely arcade, dumb, detach from reality, bland and makes it harder to play historical because each of this "events" requires researching for 70 days ?? xD
    The HoI 3 Events especially on BlackIce mod were refreshing, taught history and immerse you in WW2

    Pros
    - Easier to plan paradrops, invasions for your own AI to execute and enemy AI is more capable as well.
    - Production of equipment offers a cool feature although it should had more depth
    - More manageable and impactful air war especially on ground support.
    - Generals can finally be generated and gain traits and experiences according to battles
    - 2D Art is great in most parts of the game but some icons are a miss like rocket engine and night equipment.
    - Naval and carrier Combat seems improved

    Cons
    - No way to know where there are battle going on or if the enemy nearly surrounded your units or if you lost a battle. ( The battle list on the top right screen has been completely removed)
    - Trade (or lack of anything)
    - Economy
    - Removal of resources and their stockpile, a big design mistake making the game very arcade
    - Airplanes can't attack ground units if these are not in a ground battle
    - no Faction cooperation like sharing technologies and blueprints
    - UI interface is not a evolution of HoI 3 so you will have to relearn how to interact with the game
    - No detail information or data , you can't know how much equipment you loose per battle or the enemy is losing, how many convoys did you destroy or how planes or tank are performing against the enemy
    - No air Supply
    - You can't no longer quickly understand the values of attack and defense of your units in battles
    - No way to see weather data and plan to avoid it.. it also seems not to affect the game.
    ...

    Point is what was lacking on HoI was a more a immersive game with more meaningful events, seeing the impact of battles, conquer territories maybe even listen to radio segments or have a way to see or command units like in Total War, HoI III was going towards and ideal HoI just need some more polish and redesign of some of it's features this is more of a reinterpretation of a Hearts of Iron game.    … Expand
  30. gstruckman
    Jun 11, 2016
    4
    I have been playing HOI games since 2003 and was eagerly awaiting HOI 4.Very disappointed with the initial release.Almost unplayable despite the "simplification".Horrid ai,horrid map,horrid sprite/counter combo,confusing air force combat,non-stop naval invasions,confusing battle plans.....

    Really I think the only positive I can think of is the new production system,I love that aspect.
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

47
#47 Best PC Game of 2016
22
#22 Most Discussed PC Game of 2016
66
#66 Most Shared PC Game of 2016

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 37
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 37
  3. Negative: 0 out of 37
  1. Cubed3
    Mar 20, 2018
    50
    The complexity and slow speed of how things evolve take the fun down notches lower than it otherwise would deserve. Endless clicking through menus, and a glacial speed, ruin what could have been a pretty slick overall experience.
    Read full review
  2. Pelit (Finland)
    Sep 28, 2016
    85
    Hearts of Iron 4 successfully streamlines a complex strategy game while still retaining the feel of total industrial warfare. AI difficulties persist, however, and some revamped mechanics still need a bit of polishing. [Aug 2016]
  3. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Sep 14, 2016
    80
    Excellent revival of a rusty brand with improved accessibility to a wider audience. Paradox studio has rocked in recent years and proof of this is the best episode of the series Hearts of Iron. [Issue#266]
See all critic reviews »