Här är lite mer info om Hearts of Iron. Det är långt, men intressant.
I thought it might be a good idea to collect everything that Johan and co. has said about the game and put it into one thread. Maybe this way we can get a feel for how this game is developing...
If you find anything not listed here, please append. (That goes for future posts, too.)
Johan:
On combat resolution:
"It's a realtime game... No such thing as something resolved first..)
Personally when I test the game-mechanics I prefer to coordinate my tactical bombings to start a few hours before I smash in with the panzer"
On very small minors:
"Well, Vatican and Liechtenstein will not be in the game."
On overall design:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clemens August
I want the big picture, faithfully representing naval and land warfare which is already more than difficult on its own. It should be World in Flames without a good deal of the details. Days of Decision should be the model for the diplomatic part. If that realism can be married to an accessible system, then this will be a real winner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good description of the vision I have for the game."
On the game engine:
"Lot of parts of the engine have been completely removed, like colonisation, religion, trade, etc..
The core was kept, (ie the system/architecture), and the core of the province and country management, as well as the AI and Eventsystem.
Units, Combat and Diplomacy have been rewritten so much that not much of the original is still around.
Technology Research, Production & Convoys, Alignment for example, have been rewritten completely from scratch.
Yes, its a game based on the EU2 engine, as its realtime and uses provinces and you play a nation.
Yes, its a LOT of changes, and your EU2 knowledge on how things work in the game may not be relevant to HoI."
On historicity:
"If you want alternative history make your own scenario.
If you want plausible alternative history, where Poland caves in to German demands and gives up Danzig, and there might not be a molotov/ribbentrop, or where England and France don't allow a split of Czech Republic.. Then start in 1936.
If you want to play a WW2 that's historical, start in 1939, but don't bet your life savings that everything will always turn out the same way as it happened in RL.
Of course there should be no absurtities, as Canada declaring war on USA or Germany allying with France."
On gamespeeds:
"Well, thats the slowest gamespeed.. Last time I checked our engine supported changing gamespeeds."
On gamestart date:
"Because 1936 is really the date when Germany becomes active."
Doomdark:
On events and Eurocentricity (don't ask, go find the thread):
"It is kind of disappointing to read comments like this. The EU games were supposed to be Eurocentric (especially EU I); hence the name Europa Universalis. They depict the age when Europe rose to become the dominant region of the planet.
Hearts of Iron might as well be set in another world. WW2 was a global struggle between ideologies, with a whole new set of players (well, except for England perhaps).
I don't understand all this talk about Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada etc being major powers in 1936. They weren't. In Europe, Spain, Sweden and Turkey were indeed potentially capable of a certain military clout, but that is not the reason they were important; they had importance simply due to their geographical locations, and in the case of Sweden, natural resources. This is not to say that all minors will be uninteresting to play - some of them can field a few good divisions - but they are destined to play secondary roles in the war, and can accomplish nothing on their own."
On an end date extension option:
"Sounds fine to me, but I can't promise anything at this point."
On hindsight and balance:
"Hindsight is a terribly vexing problem indeed. In reality, the Axis had a very slim chance of winning the war even against the original allies. If you factor in Allied hindsight that chance becomes effectively 0, no matter that the Axis are also given hindsight.
There are several possible partial solutions:
1) Force mainly the Allies to make stupid decisions through events.
2) Simulate the intrinsic love of peace and consumer products in democracies, as well as their frequent change of leaders.
3) Accept that every performance by the Axis that surpasses real history is an Axis victory.
4) Compensate by making the Axis too strong and the Allies too weak.
5) Start the game much earlier than 1939 (say in 1919) and let alternate history take its course.
Now, IMO:
1) is far too artificial... a real stinker.
2) is good. Work with that.
3) rings hollow and makes playing the Axis more of a chore than fun.
4) is probably unavoidable to some degree. Attempt to keep to a minimum though.
5) is interesting, but is not a solution as much as avoiding the problem. Could make a cool scenario or add-on though.
Based on this you should know about what to expect from the game."
On supply:
"The game will have a supply system somewhat reminiscent of the one in World in Flames. I.e. you will have to draw supply lines through occupied areas, with your HQ units acting like forward distribution points."
On planned end date:
"December 31, 1947 is the planned end-date. That should leave time for most eventualities, excepting an Axis invasion of America."
On Czechoslovakia:
"Sure Czechoslovakia will be playable. They will be in a tough position though. =)"
On the Maginot Line:
"The Maginot Line is in, of course."
On timespan of the game:
"Actually it will be 1936-1947."
Greven:
On tech and doctrine:
"Sure Doctrine is seperated from Technology Research... The timeframe for the Uralbomber to Strategic Bombardment seems to follow my design."
"There are different research strategies within each tech category...There are many many roads to take but you can't pick them all...There are always trade offs...Speed for maneuverablilty, range for bombload etc. You want that top-of the-line fighter? Sure... tripples the building cost."
On atomic weapons:
"Yes, but the cost to 'try' to development is very high..."
On game engine enhancement (planned or not):
"The answer is Yes."
On tech and "superweapons":
"All the "Secret Weapon Projects" are designed to be included in HoI research system plus some real post-45 techs. However, having the SWP in your game is optional so you can toggle it off at game start if you don't like it."
Regarding gamespeed:
"Well the timescale is adjustable...At some point you would want to take it very slow to orchestrate forces to attack at one single point at the same time, but at other times you will just want to 'roll on' at a faster speed.
What was said above is only a fact if you intend to play the game at slowest possible speed."
On questionable items:
"There will not be any gulags or deathcamps to build. Hearts of Iron is a Grand Strategic Politico-Military Game that concentrates on....War and Diplomacy and...well governing you country...
Following the tradition of other fine and loved (but obsolete) games as 3R and WiF this game does not simulate these horrible events.
You might call it a moral issue..."
Patric:
On information and announcements:
"We will post more info as we feel ready to do so. You won't see any screens before E3 for example.
We will answer questions where the answers we can provide are set in stone and are not subject to change."
On the box cover:
"It is not the final cover."
On the new map question:
"Yes, brand new map."
On the viability of a WW2 game with the EU engine:
"If we didn't think we could make a great WWII game based on the EU engine we wouldn't even try We are making HoI on the core of the EU engine and we are adding loads of new features to it. We will tell you more in due time "
Oj, jag börjar visst låta lite som Hitler, får nog sluta spela EU. 
