Interesting. I'll never be interested in another spielberg movie or videogame about Americans fighting the Natsy's, after everything America got for that. But other perspectives would be interesting.
I was expecting arguments that go beyond your comment. After that, I can also go further than this fallacy and look at other little-known turn-based games focused on World War II and more specifically on Operation Barbarossa. You compare a big real-time strategy game that covers big aspects like industry, politics (simplified by Paradox) or alternative history, over a period of ~ 9 years and on a global scale with mainstream ambitions, with a turn-based game centered on the management of theaters of operations and offensive lines during Operation Barbarossa and the months following its initiation and has the bias to talk about war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the invasion of the USSR. Obviously I provoke with my comparison with Medal of Honor, I could very well have compared with Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, for which at a pinch the statement "It's a poor man's DC: Barbarossa" can be heard because they are wargames centered on Operation Barbarossa, DC wanting to be complex and CoW wanting to be simple and more accessible, not to mention the difference in resources between developers. Here, there I put a beginning of argumentation. Just play something other than HoI4 and go test some wargames (from Matrix Games, Slitherine, etc ...) at least to see what it looks like and avoid making silly comparisons between different genre games. If I had to transpose your comment, it's as if you said "Pillars of Eternity / Tyranny is the poor man's Skyrim". Games that have in common to be in fantasy universes and to focus on fights and discussions, but with very different gameplays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD8U1hFgL_g
I'll never be interested in another spielberg movie or videogame about Americans fighting the Natsy's, after everything America got for that.
But other perspectives would be interesting.
After that, I can also go further than this fallacy and look at other little-known turn-based games focused on World War II and more specifically on Operation Barbarossa.
You compare a big real-time strategy game that covers big aspects like industry, politics (simplified by Paradox) or alternative history, over a period of ~ 9 years and on a global scale with mainstream ambitions, with a turn-based game centered on the management of theaters of operations and offensive lines during Operation Barbarossa and the months following its initiation and has the bias to talk about war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the invasion of the USSR.
Obviously I provoke with my comparison with Medal of Honor, I could very well have compared with Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, for which at a pinch the statement "It's a poor man's DC: Barbarossa" can be heard because they are wargames centered on Operation Barbarossa, DC wanting to be complex and CoW wanting to be simple and more accessible, not to mention the difference in resources between developers.
Here, there I put a beginning of argumentation.
Just play something other than HoI4 and go test some wargames (from Matrix Games, Slitherine, etc ...) at least to see what it looks like and avoid making silly comparisons between different genre games.
If I had to transpose your comment, it's as if you said "Pillars of Eternity / Tyranny is the poor man's Skyrim". Games that have in common to be in fantasy universes and to focus on fights and discussions, but with very different gameplays.