- Complexity and Detail: Gary Grigsby's games are well known for their historical detail and realistic complexity, appealing to hardcore wargamers who appreciate operational and logistical depth. In contrast, HOI4 provides a blend of grand strategy and real-time tactics with a focus on broader geopolitical maneuvering, making it accessible to any gamer yet deep enough for serious strategy fans.
- User Interface: HOI4 tends to have a more modern and visually appealing interface compared to the more utilitarian and data-intensive interface of Grigsby's games, which can overwhelm new players but is valued by grognards for the amount of control and information it offers.
- Scope and Scale: Both games cover World War II but from slightly different perspectives. HOI4 allows for a wider range of political and diplomatic actions, influencing the global conflict on multiple fronts, often changing the historical political outcome. Grigsby’s game is more focused on military strategies and battlefield tactics, with detailed control over units and supplies, making it a more historically balanced game.
- Accessibility: "Hearts of Iron 4" is generally considered easily more accommodating to newcomers to the genre, with a less extreme learning curve and more guidance for players. Grigsby's "World at War" requires a more significant time investment to master its complexities.
Gary Grigsby's World at War VS Hearts of Iron 4
Gary Grigsby's World at War VS Hearts of Iron 4
Over the last few weeks, I've gamed Gary Grigsby's "World at War" historical World War 2 game and "Heart's of Iron 4" (HOI4) World War 2 game. In comparing these two games, I discovered that each of these games truly offers a very distinct style and a fluctuating depth of gameplay which will probably suite different types of strategy game players.