User Score
7.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 195 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 42 out of 195

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
  1. Apr 7, 2011
    0
    This game is one of the best examples of why you shouldn't fix what isn't broken. Hearts of iron 2 was a great combination of simplicity and fun, this game makes everything extremely difficult to understand by compaison with no seeming good reason, for example the tech tree in Hoi2 was pretty standard and straight foward (select team, department of research, tech,go) while in this game, the whole system is horribly convoluted and diffcult to understand as it's so radically different to Hoi2 for no good reason.

    The battle system is the same as Hoi2 on the whole however even that has been made more complicated than point and click, for example when attacking, other units in the surrounding provinces can be told to "support attack", in Hoi2 it was as simple as (right click, support attack, go) in this it's CTRL right click, not only does the game never tell you this but neither is there a good reason for changing it. The Map has also been made much more complex by adding a ton of new provinces that were not in Hoi2, making the lines that defined provinces much smaller and not having their names displayed on them until you are right up close. The new provinces slow down the game and help to make the game really unfamilar to Hoi2 veterans. The provinces are different colours and are a similar shade to the text making then hard to see. Having the names hard to see means that only when you see the name of the province, you've zoomed in too far to see the entire front while in Hoi2 the names could be see from any distance.

    The 3d effects are terrible and completely unneeded. Hoi2 was effectivly a text based game with the lack of visuals it had and that was still better to look at than this. The 3d models often get in the way of the province name and don't represent the size of the force e.g. The amount of troops you have in one province isn't represented by the 3d effect. The performance of this game is dreadful, mainly in part due to the horrible 3d models and perspective. This game really shouldn't have Framrate issues with any computer made before 2004 yet I get a better framerate on Crysis.

    I would go on about "national unity" and how the game thinks that there's a difference between Politics and diplomacy seeing as Hoi2 had then under the same partition but writing down everything that's wrong with this game would take as long as actually understanding this game.

    This game should have never been made, or atleast've been a remake of Hoi2 with 3d graphics. But no they had to release a game that bears almost no relation of Hoi2 apart from the sound effects which are identical. The bottom line is DO NOT BUY THIS GAME(especially for £15), buy Hoi2 it's much cheaper and much much better.
    Expand
  2. Jul 8, 2011
    3
    Ever bought a game and thought you were going to love it but the game actually ended up laggy and barely playable? Yeah, thats this game. I loved HOI2 and I still play it today, and I was very excited when I picked this game up, with all the new features promised, I nearly wet my bed in anticipation (I didnt actually btw). Well, their are many new features to this game, thats for sure, the developers really spent their time on this game, but they failed in the most important aspect...fun factor. This game isn't fun more than a hassle, firstly, the game is slow....and by slow I mean it. Secondly, it's too complex, it's easy to take over a simple country like say Belgium, but go against the Soviet Union and you'll have carpel tunnel trying to order your units around. Overall, this game won't interest you, unless your a hardcore HOI fan, stay away! Expand
  3. Dec 30, 2011
    0
    I love grand strategy games. I love games that require so much detail and tedium that most people find boring and cannot stand. So this game and its reviews about how there is a lot of micromanagement did not faze me. Then I read about people crashing and not being able to load the games, but that it was 2011 and that these problems have been fixed in 2 years worth of patches. Let me tell you: THEY ARE NOT. The game crashes on load EVERY TIME. Want tech support right away? Too bad, Paradox has you register on their forums, register your game codes on their forums, and then go to their 16 step program on how to *maybe* fix the game. Now normally this wouldn't be so bad, but their site loads so slowly that I tabbed to watch a youtube video while I waited for each page to load. This is unacceptable given that they have acknowledged so many problems AFTER 2 YEARS OF RELEASE. This game looked like it was just for me and seemed promising, but after an evening trying to do all of their fixes, I give up. And no, I am not challenged with computers. However, if I was, I could only imagine the frustration that I would be having on top of my current frustration and waste of money. Expand
  4. Feb 28, 2011
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In one word "disappointment". I am an avid and long time strategy game player. Back when Europa Universalis came out in 2001, it was a huge improvement over strategy games so far. Having bought Hearts of Iron 3 I noticed the game play was still very similar to that of Europa Universalis 1. Then it was a fun game, now it is boring. Worse, to balance the game, odds are very much in favour of the AI. For instance, when my dug-in and well supplied fortified troops (13 brigades) were attacked by France in the Ruhr Area by 2 brigades (note: why the AI attacks at all against such a stronger force is beyond my comprehension), there were equal losses on both sides (approx. 10?? Yes, that many!) and I still lost the battle and was in retreat. On other occasions my attacking force overwhelmed French troops inflicting 1700 casualties against maybe 100 on my side and I still lost the battle? Considering I spent 8 hours preparing my forces in terms of supply, technology and training and my country through bunkers, AA and infra, such illogical battle losses quickly "killed" my interest in the game! No fun and unrealistic. Then I am also taking for granted that Churchill does not come to power, transport ships can sail forever, that it rains for 2 years in some areas etc and that the game requires a heavy computer to deal with performance. Don't buy it, even when it is at bargain prices!! Expand
  5. May 27, 2011
    3
    After the excellent Hearts of Iron 2, I was expecting much from this game. Regrettably, I was sorely disappointed. After purchasing, with version 1.00, the first thing I noticed was the horrendously slow game play. Now my system wasn't particularly good, but this was awful. It took several patches to bring things to a reasonable speed.

    Micromanagement was heavy, detailing down to the
    brigade level and I never really got far in either the politics or diplomacy settings due to dire game speeds.

    The only good thing to say about the game is the technology tree which looks good.

    Paradox then went and released Semper Fi, an insult to injury - Effectively you have to pay for further patches to the game.
    Expand
  6. Aug 1, 2012
    2
    This game would maybe would be better if it was faster, but it is soooooo slooooooowwwww. It takes forever. If you play the US, you will be bored and quit before you even get into the war.
  7. Nov 14, 2012
    3
    This follow up to a great game is extremely disappointing. Many bugs on release, ran extremely poorly and the game just wasn't all that fun.

    More or less acknowledged that you need to buy all the expansions pack, which cost nearly $60-80 combined to be worth it. Do not waste your time.
  8. Dec 15, 2013
    0
    Just like the User score says game is crap. No fow global removal tools has to be the worst. I like to watch what is happening and I can't. I could in other games. This one is the worst
  9. Aug 18, 2013
    2
    The usual mindnumbing yawnfest from Paradox complete with enough statistical and numerical micromanagement to be the stuff of wet dreams for accountants. Sure these games are clever and try to think of everything but that is the problem so that you get taken along as a flailing passenger. What these games seem to forget is that the leaders in history had a raft of advisors (some good some bad) who actually sat down with you and tried to make sense of all the numbers and help you make an informed decision on a course of action. Working in a vacuum with more numbers than an aircraft carrier full of accountants would know what to do with is not a game it is just an exercise in egotistical masochism! Expand
  10. Jun 5, 2014
    4
    A game I'd love to really dig myself into but It's so embarassingly complex and downright annoying to play, I'd have a hard time believing anyone who didn't play HoI 2 extensively would ever touch this.
  11. Sep 12, 2014
    2
    Pros: The World War II scenarios are fun at first; the graphics look much better than Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon when the game isn't stuttering into a low frame-rate oblivion.

    Cons: Worse music than Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon; the AI for the game is quite dumb, very much worse than it was in Hearts of Iron II; game has a much reduced scope from Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon;
    idiotic "neutrality system"; super-long loading screens; a huge amount of problems with realism and history in the game; the huge amount of tiny provinces destroys the performance and fun of the game; the good graphics destroy the framerate and make the game seem to go by ten times slower than Hearts of Iron II; feels like a huge unnecessary waste of resources to have a 3D graphics engine for what is essentially a 2D board game; game is so so bloated that it cannot run on older computers which could run Hearts of Iron II very well.

    Score Breakdown: Graphics 7/10, Sound Effects and Music 3/10, Realism 2/10, Game Stability 1/10, Gameplay 1/10, Loading Screens and Frame Rate 1/10, Replay Value 0/10, Total Score 2.1/10

    Conclusion: Overall a huge step backwards from its prequel Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon. Instead of playing Hearts of Iron III or any of the Hearts of Iron III expansions, buy Hearts of Iron II: Doomsday with the Armageddon expansion and perhaps try the game Darkest Hour.
    Expand
Metascore
77

Generally favorable reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 23
  2. Negative: 0 out of 23
  1. Hearts of Iron 3 is by far the most complicated and in-depth strategy game I’ve ever played. My big issue with it is that I didn’t have much fun with the game after delving through hours of menus: it wasn’t until I actually experienced some combat that the game stopped feeling stale.
  2. 70
    Everything is in place for an absolutely great game that's unfortunately bogged down in a mess of bad design decisions, bugs, and some odd gameplay changes.
  3. Reduced micromanagement and streamlined automation make Hearts of Iron III an absorbing game of grand strategy.