• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hi everyone! Today we will be following up with some info on what is going on with the 1.7 Hydra update as well as some cool new stuff some of you might have found hints of if you tested out the Open Beta.


The Axis Armor Pack
A lot of you have asked for us to make 3d model packs for units, so we have! We wanted it to be big so we decided to focus on a pack that would fill out all the Axis majors with vehicles. Over 60 in total, for Germany, Italy and Japan. As a free bonus, the pack includes 8 German tanks that were previously only available in the Colonel Edition (we couldn't very well make an Axis Armor Pack without the King Tiger). Here is a couple of sample renders for each nation:

tanks.png



We also have 2d art, so you will also see changes when doing production etc:

Screenshot_4.jpg

Screenshot_5.jpg


The total breakdown is as such:
  • 18 Tanks
  • 18 Tank destroyers
  • 15 Self-propelled Artillery
  • 8 Self-propelled Anti-Air
  • 2 Mechanized/Halftracks

Radio Pack
Another thing people have asked for is a chance to get access to some of the old preorder music content, as well as more music, so to make this a reality we have revamped the music player and organized old and new tracks into “Radio Stations”. The idea here is to make it easier to control what kind of music you want to listen to as it allows you to toggle on or off whole stations. Each station also has the possibility of having a custom graphical look (my old winamp modder soul is ecstatic!). When release we have a big pack we simply call “The Radio Pack” which has 3 radio stations: Communist, Fascist and Allied, each with unique art and tracks. In total the pack comes with 28 new tracks, and includes the old preorder content for a total of 35 songs. Here is some picture of how it will look:

Screenshot_12.jpg


Screenshot_2.jpg


For the axis radio we tried to match the look of the iconic German radios of the time:
Screenshot_1.jpg



As a bonus we have also made a new free station called “Hearts of Iron Classics” which has 35(!) of our favorite tunes from HOI2 and HOI3:

Screenshot_3.jpg


Last week modders asked me how to do music mods now and have them fit into the structure. its pretty simple and flexible, so click the spoiler below for a simple guide:
First up you need to edit your music track list txt file and include what radio station you want them to be in:
So for your "my_mod" mod you would have a my_mod_songs.txt file as before:
Code:
music_station = "my_mod" # include this, songs after are assigned to this station
music = {
    song = "cooltrack"
}

You will want to include a localization file to get a proper name for your station as well. Write it like this:
Code:
my_mod_TITLE:0 "My music mod"

If you also want to give it a cover image and change how the player looks you will need to do some UI modding.
Make a .gui file for your mod. Its probably best to copy one of the ones we have already once they are out and work from there. The important part is the naming of elements.
upload_2019-5-29_16-1-46.png

If you don't set up the gui files it will simply use the default look etc.

1.7 ‘Hydra’
1.7 is currently in open beta and seems to be pretty stable at the moment, so if you want to try it out you can find out how here. Since last dev diary we have been doing more fixes and balance work. The actual release date is not yet decided, and with Sweden being a socialist paradise, we only have a 3 day week this week (and another one next week). I’ll let you know when I know, but it shouldn't be that far off.

Convoy Raiding Balance
Sub convoy raiding was a bit too binary. An escort would either show up in time, and discourage raiders, or raiders would get too much free reign over convoys they have found. We made convoy raiding with subs a bit more flexible, giving them more opportunity to attack convoys that are escorted sufficiently. This comes with the added risk of losing too many subs in a war of attrition. The attrition game should favor the player with a tech and doctrine advantage.

Naval Balance
Naval battles were too decisive and too many ships, particularly screens, were dying. We tried to make changes that would increase the chance that ships survive combat. There is less focus fire in combat now, screens retreat faster, and damage has been overall lowered. Combat are longer which means a closer to statistical representative of opposing stats and a bit less feel of random results.

The speed reduction setup on ship modules didn’t really incentivise historical builds. Most ship modules have had speed impacts lowered and some others have had speed debuffs added. This should help in designing ships that are light and fast, and a bit more historical. In general ships should be faster and thus a bit more survivable. Other modules have had some updates to address community and internal balance concerns.

Land Commander Balance
Since land commander traits were introduced, they have done a bit too much to diminish the importance of ground combat tech. To soften some of the land combat min-maxing, as well as put more weight onto research, a lot of the most beneficial commander traits were nerfed and offense and defense stats on commanders had their benefit halved. This, combined with improving some of the generally less desirable traits, should provide more viable options for building commanders, and make commander grinding less impactful overall. These commander changes probably need more testing though and likely wont make it for 1.7.

Next week & 3 Day War
Next week is the 3 year anniversary (!!!) of Hearts of Iron IV, so among other things, we will be hosting a 3 day war stream together with influencers.


Me, Daniel and maybe some more people will be taking a trip down memory lane and talk about the development of HOI4 and how the game has changed. I will see if I can dig up an old pre-release version as well from the archives, and the dev diary will also be focused on the anniversary. See you then!
 
Last edited:
There is something I forgot to mention about turretless vehicles in my previous post:

Assault guns and TDs could possibly be balanced by having them keep the same armor values as a tank - but you get some half stat penalty the moment you get flanked.

AA tanks are needed for those who want to use "historical" templates.

That's a lovely thought and I can respect that.... but in my opinion there is no reason to have AA tanks in the game from a mechanical standpoint. I don't necessarily like that is how the game has always been. Regular tanks, SPG, and TD all have a purpose even if you don't like using them.

The only thing that might make AA tanks interesting is if you traded low piercing values for the ability to absolutely shred organization without really killing much (perhaps simulating how HMGs work in a game like company of heroes). The only problem there is that you kinda already have this with the SPG but it actually kills infantry (like crazy) and lowers org.

So the only way I can think of making AA tanks have a purpose might be that if you have AA units in a zone they lower the frontage the enemy can support with CAS planes. But if you think about someone spamming a few 24 divisions that include AA that might get insanely OP very quick.
 
Assault guns and TDs could possibly be balanced by having them keep the same armor values as a tank - but you get some half stat penalty the moment you get flanked.
What you are suggesting is a tactical consideration, not a strategic one. Getting flanked in the game already has appropriate strategic effects, no need to add in modifiers to specific vehicles that have more place in a tactical game, if at all.
That's a lovely thought and I can respect that.... but in my opinion there is no reason to have AA tanks in the game from a mechanical standpoint. I don't necessarily like that is how the game has always been. Regular tanks, SPG, and TD all have a purpose even if you don't like using them.
There absolutely is a niche for SPAAGs. Aside from the obvious AA defence (Medium SPAAGs surpassing towed AA by the way), they have the added advantage of not reducing your armour values as much as towed AA and have superior breakthrough and hardness, crucial for offensive units. They can also have their AA guns upgraded with army XP, which surpasses the boosts towed AA gets from research.
Towed AA is a defensive weapon, SPAAGs are offensive weapons.
 
@podcat - any idea when the Radio Stations will be available, I updated my music mod to be a Station, works file, but only get the default channel and my new channel.
 
The packs are cool, and I really love more 2d art (for gods sake add the Ju52 and No1 MkIII Enfield soon) but what is the utility for the 3 d sprites? Don’t we really only see one of the tank sprites at a time? When would someone actually see the SP tank sprite?

It seems to me we really need more basic infantry sprite evolve as new equipment supplies them. Now that would be cool.
You do realize that you can tell the game to use a sprite besides the default one right? Just click on the sprite in the division designer and a list of alternatives are given.
 
Why not put actual historical songs in the game?
Just off the top of my head...most of the songs from the era are still under copyright protection...even if they words/score aren't the actual production/performance is.
 
I know I'm going to get nailed for saying this, but I just don't care for the direction the series has taken.

Less focus on cosmetic uselessness and more on the function of the game is all I ask. Never wanted little toys on my maps anyway. And as nice as the music is, I almost always turn on my own music or just switch it off.

Having to pay for either of these things is laughable at this point (especially for having shelled out for the field marshal edition and having broken components three years later) and if you guys are regularly having only three work days a week, you only have yourselves to blame for the results.

I guess HoI4 has reached the "nickle and dime" phase of development. That's fine. Paradox has had success with this model and I'm in no position to tell them how they should sell their products, but it keeps me from playing (or picking up most of their new titles) because I don't like having an incomplete product. It's part of the reason I haven't really played HoI4 or Cities Skylines since 2017 because they keep dribbling out content that isn't worth the price (in my eyes) anymore.

I actually went back to HoI3 and AoD just to play a game I know was finished. And HoI3 was a completed product in roughly two years.

As I said, I know this is a controversial opinion and will likely be assailed by all those who prefer this development cycle and it's goals, but I just wanted to include my thoughts.

A humble, long-time Paradox supporter.
 
Having to pay for either of these things is laughable at this point (especially for having shelled out for the field marshal edition and having broken components three years later)

Not having a go here - you're entitled to your view - but just pointing out that some of your comments seem a little narrow in scope. For example, you don't actually have to pay for any of these things - as best I understood this DD, this is a cosmetic pack, so people that don't want the cosmetic things don't have to pay for it (unlike the 'everything bundled in' approach of the DLC so far, where one price covered mechanics, content and music/art). In some ways, this step seems to cater more for what you say you prefer.

Less focus on cosmetic uselessness and more on the function of the game is all I ask.

The latest expansion and patch, Man the Guns, went pretty whole-hog on adjusting mechanics, adding new features and whatnot. It's not as if the development team have said "OK, we're now moving to doing cosmetic expansions and there'll be no more mechanical overhauls" (indeed, in this very DD we hear comment of tweaks to some of the naval mechanics to this end).

And HoI3 was a completed product in roughly two years.

It's not entirely clear what you mean here. If you mean HoI3 had finished up development after two years, then TfH released a little over three years (based on Steam release dates, my memory's all sorts of hazy as to exact timing that far back) after it launched. If you mean it was "feature complete with everything one could ever want in a WW2 grand strategy game" and everything worked well, then (and I say this as someone who enjoyed HoI3 a lot, and played a stack of it) this is very ambitious.

HoI4 was always going to have a longer development cycle, given the new Paradox approach (which, imo, gives us better, more polished, less buggy games), so I'm not sure that a longer development cycle is a bad thing (noting that we're only about to approach the 'TfH mark - so at this point HoI4 hasn't had a longer dev cycle than HoI3 - but I'm pretty confident, and hope, it will have). On the other hand, the nature of WW2 is so complex that I'm not sure any game other than one built for an individual's personal tastes could ever be 'feature complete'. My perfect HoI would obviously have a naval focus deeper than would ever be sensible in the vanilla game (hence my modding goals). Someone else's perfect HoI might focus on air warfare, another on the economics, and so on.

However, there's no question that mechanically HoI4 is at least as deep as HoI3 at the same stage of development, in terms of 'things the player can do and has control over', and is generally better when it comes to AI (although there's also no question that the 'constant development' approach has left players with some messy AI issues as well - but then in HoI3 more than a few AI issues were never resolved). So if 'complete' means 'a complex, interesting game', then both are 'complete', even if HoI4 is (hopefully) likely to get plenty more content.

because I don't like having an incomplete product.

A response to this depends a lot on what you mean by 'incomplete'. However, keep in mind that development is people x time, by and large, so the alternative to paying for HoI4 in dribs and drabs is Podcat and the crew being locked away in an office for 6-7 years and we have to pay a price for the 'finished' game at release that's large enough to cover that (and instead of pickinng and choosing what we like, we have to pay for everything, and all at once).
 
For example, you don't actually have to pay for any of these things - as best I understood this DD, this is a cosmetic pack, so people that don't want the cosmetic things don't have to pay for it (unlike the 'everything bundled in' approach of the DLC so far, where one price covered mechanics, content and music/art). In some ways, this step seems to cater more for what you say you prefer.

It's just not my hopes for where this grand strategy game needs attention.

The latest expansion and patch, Man the Guns, went pretty whole-hog on adjusting mechanics, adding new features and whatnot. It's not as if the development team have said "OK, we're now moving to doing cosmetic expansions and there'll be no more mechanical overhauls" (indeed, in this very DD we hear comment of tweaks to some of the naval mechanics to this end).

Isn't that a kinda recap of the prior diary? I thought they talked about convoys and front-line errors, etc. Personally I think the game is taking a wild turn into the land of minutia (having an impact on overreaching tech and long term game focus) with the last DLC, and this is coming from someone who micro's 1500 brigades in HoI3 for fun.

It's not entirely clear what you mean here. If you mean HoI3 had finished up development after two years, then TfH released a little over three years (based on Steam release dates, my memory's all sorts of hazy as to exact timing that far back) after it launched. If you mean it was "feature complete with everything one could ever want in a WW2 grand strategy game" and everything worked well, then (and I say this as someone who enjoyed HoI3 a lot, and played a stack of it) this is very ambitious.

You are correct, I made an error in stating 2 years. It was 3. But considering the much more serious mess I found 3 upon release, they cleaned it up and made it an excellent ww2 strategy game. Flawed in it's ways as any strategy game. However, I keep going back to that one. I'd love to see the day when there is such a thing as a game "with everything one could ever want in a WW2" anything, but I doubt I will.

HoI4 was always going to have a longer development cycle, given the new Paradox approach (which, imo, gives us better, more polished, less buggy games), so I'm not sure that a longer development cycle is a bad thing (noting that we're only about to approach the 'TfH mark - so at this point HoI4 hasn't had a longer dev cycle than HoI3 - but I'm pretty confident, and hope, it will have). On the other hand, the nature of WW2 is so complex that I'm not sure any game other than one built for an individual's personal tastes could ever be 'feature complete'. My perfect HoI would obviously have a naval focus deeper than would ever be sensible in the vanilla game (hence my modding goals). Someone else's perfect HoI might focus on air warfare, another on the economics, and so on.

I respect your opinion as well. I'm not looking for the game being tailored for me. I just feel that this incarnation is going away from what made me go from first to second to third.

...and is generally better when it comes to AI (although there's also no question that the 'constant development' approach has left players with some messy AI issues as well - but then in HoI3 more than a few AI issues were never resolved).

I have not seen anything in my experience to lead me to believe there has been any real improvement in the AI to justify things I've seen it do.

So if 'complete' means 'a complex, interesting game', then both are 'complete', even if HoI4 is (hopefully) likely to get plenty more content.

Time will tell. Sooner or later...time will tell.

Oh. Yeah. It will get tons more content. This is only the beginning.

A response to this depends a lot on what you mean by 'incomplete'. However, keep in mind that development is people x time, by and large, so the alternative to paying for HoI4 in dribs and drabs is Podcat and the crew being locked away in an office for 6-7 years and we have to pay a price for the 'finished' game at release that's large enough to cover that (and instead of pickinng and choosing what we like, we have to pay for everything, and all at once).

I'd rather not debate over the semantics of what's 'fair' to expect from the developers. Needless to say, I don't feel satisfied with the product as it stands three years after its release.
 
It's just not my hopes for where this grand strategy game needs attention.

I just feel that this incarnation is going away from what made me go from first to second to third.

And both of these statements are useful pieces of feedback for the devs (I presume - but if I was a dev, I'm sure this is the kind of thing I'd like to know), and are perfectly appropriate opinions :).

I found 3 upon release, they cleaned it up and made it an excellent ww2 strategy game. Flawed in it's ways as any strategy game. However, I keep going back to that one. I'd love to see the day when there is such a thing as a game "with everything one could ever want in a WW2" anything, but I doubt I will.

I liked HoI3 a lot, but playing as Australia I regularly found the Allied AI incapable of doing much, and single-handedly had to defeat Japan, and then invade Europe and defeat a Germany that had defeated the Soviet Union (I'm an Aussie, so each HoI always gets a good few runs as Australia, although I tend to play a whole bunch of nations) - and this was generally without Australia 'chipping away' at minors first. In HoI4, this is pretty much impossible (I think in my latest UK game, Germany had defeated the USSR (not unusual at the moment!), and I was unable, at all, to land on the continent, and had to concede a draw with the AI - HoI3's AI never made me do that. So, in my experience, HoI4 provides both a more historically plausible balance (and I know it's not perfect by any stretch, but while Australia is tops, I don't think we could really single-handedly lead the battle against the Axis!) and greater challenge (again, while having room to improve).

Either way, fingers crossed there are more interesting mechanical/AI developments in store for both of us (I also prefer mechanical/gameplay content to art, although I do like art as well) :).
 
You do realize that you can tell the game to use a sprite besides the default one right? Just click on the sprite in the division designer and a list of alternatives are given.

Yes I know that, obviously I wasn't referring to that.

I just didn't think there were people out there who build armored divisions and decide to use SPAA sprites to signify them. Maybe you build entire SPAA divisions, I don't know. I know I don't build entire SPAA divisions; and neither did the Germans.

I was honestly trying to figure out when and where these are realistically used, I don't want to miss the boat.
 
Will this update include fixes for the Dominions when Britain takes the "Decolonization" path? Right now, they keep the Union Jack if the break off for ideological reasons, and the "Guided by Britain" modifier if they become independent before the final focus... and India is still a mess.

On a different note, HECK YES, I'M SO EXCITED!!!
 
I think Paradox should make a new focustree for italy like Germany and the Scandinavian countries should get one, but I'll buy it anyway :)
When Italy's time comes, I want an option for Italo Balbo to overthrow Mussolini, with the later possibility of dethroning Victor Emmanuel III and establishing a republic. He was the only one in power with enough brains to see it was going to end badly, enough guts to say it out loud, and enough popularity and influence to actually pull it off.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Could you please increase soft attack of tanks. I play single player and AI never uses tanks in packs (i mean 4 tank divisions piercing a front line in one province) so maybe 4 times? Pretty please!