Unit positioning is key and performed by ‘painting’ battle plans. Unlike Paradox’s other grand strategies, victory in Hearts of Iron IV isn’t a matter of moving a huge stack of soldiers. Zoomed in, they separate out into each of their provinces. Zoomed out, you see your units stacked together based on the states they’ve occupied. Troop orders are also given from the map. That wasn’t possible when each skirmish was being fought in a more granular airspace. Air superiority is a telling example: more planes are being simulated, but they’re fighting over much larger zones to invoke a feeling of heroes in the skies turning the tide of battle. It’s a slick-looking system and a nice way to transition between high-level strategy and tactical options.Įvery returning element has been similarly re-evaluated for size and scope-increasing the detail in some places, while reducing it in others. As you zoom back in, the abstracted elements fade away and the specifics of the map emerge. At its widest level, you can see a political overview, letting you know who’s in control of each region. Paradox is keen to avoid excessive micromanagement. Instead, 90% of the action takes place on a single, scaling map screen that contains everything from political divisions to weather and terrain. For instance, players won’t be required to switch between multiple different map overlays. The primary interface is the main map and even compared to Paradox’s recent, more accessible grand strategies that interface has been further refined. Hearts of Iron IV is far simpler to understand. There’s an interesting strategy game there, but it’s always felt out of reach. What if Paradox took its World War II grand strategy series and tidied it up with a clean, easy to understand interface? My own attempts to play Hearts of Iron III have always ended in failure, thanks largely to the nested menus, mess of icons and dry, text-heavy tutorial. Then there’s the biggest ‘what if’ of all.
0 kommentar(er)
