HOI4 Dev Diary - 1.9.2 Update | Page 5

Axe99 · Apr 17, 2020

Cheers for the DD Podcat, and best of luck squashing those pesky OOS bugs

. Best of luck with everything pandemic-related as well (I'm very glad to hear, but not surprised, that PDX is taking good care of you

) and very much looking forward to that next expansion

. That's a very cryptic teaser......

podcat said:
A bit early for that I will say that in some ways people will be surprised, and in some other ways they totally wont be

Man the Other Guns? Please make it be Man the Other Guns

OK, probably not (but don't let me stop you

), but the best excuse I can think of getting this pic in here

BrotherJonathan · Apr 17, 2020

Metz said:
They should let you fly from point A to do a mission in point B to land in point C.

Air zones should also be combined for missions like naval zones.

Precisely. This would also allow the simulation of things like the Doolittle Raid or the Allied "carousel bombing" of Romania.

lfernando · Apr 17, 2020

I guess it's time to rework the USSR and Italy.

But there are still other nations that would be a nice addition to the game:
Bulgaria (I really don't know why it was left behind of death or dishonor, I watched a video about them in the Knowledgia channel and they are cool, would be fun on both historical and alternative branches), Turkey, Brazil (since you can turn it into a monarchy again and unify with Portugal in the new DLC), Argentina, Finland (early in 39 they have a war with the USSR, if you rework the old mustachio you need to give some love to the finns, they play a interesting historical part in the war), Sweden and Thailand.

Also do you guys will implement any new mechanics? I think something about the Home Front, rationing and resources would be great, like food and some luxuries from you land, occupied territories or import from neutral and allied nations. It could bring a new depth to blockades, war support, stability, uprisings, combat morale and odds of Civil War and the use of civilian factories to consummer goods. These could offer a real change in the gameplay and shift some focus to Latin America and Africa.

There is also another thing I've been thinking about. During the war, the allies intervened and occupied Iraq and Iran. Why are there no events like these? Why not put them?

Mr.Grizzly · Apr 17, 2020

Simon_9732495 said:
Or as Germany:
- UK is bombing Western Germany -> Ok put 400 Fighters there
- UK is now bombing Northern Germany -> Ok put 400 Fighters there
- UK is now bombing Eastern Germany -> Ok put 400 Fighters there
- UK is now bombing Alpine Region -> No fighters left. -> Ok put 400 Fighters from Western Germany there
- UK is bombing Western Germany again -> Ok put 200 Fighters from Alpine Region there
- UK is still bombing Western Germany again -> Ok put another 100 Fighters from Alpine Region there
- UK is now bombing Alpine Region again -> Sigh...

Not only is that extremely tedious but why the hell is the AI sending bombers from London, or wherever in Southern England, all the way to regions like Eastern Germany or even the Alps, not like they were really far missions that were dangerous...

him_15 · Apr 17, 2020

Indyclone77 said:
Each portrait takes significant art time that has to be balanced against other needs of the project, while Italy could do with more generals do you want it to come at the cost of less portraits in an upcoming dlc and so on?

Totally disagree. The community has been asking for such changes since the base game was lunched. And I honestly don't believe that adding a couple of Italian commanders would hinder the process of other DLC at all. I just feel that the Dev want to wait until the Italian DLC before making such change, in order to sell well. Which is a really dumb though IMO. People would buy the DLC regardless.

Zeprion · Apr 17, 2020

podcat said:
telling AI germany to go for norway in this situation would be straight up suicide unless we hardcoded a lot of allied behaviour or a special teleporter to oslo. It would hurt the game too much. Germany needs to do Around Maginot to make sure it is ready to hit the low countries fast. Its quite close to disaster if allies start getting ready to support france. imo timing is how we intend it as its the way that will work best.

A small idea, on this topic: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...there-yet-a-satisfactory-pacific-war.1374838/

@pepeapa mentions a lack of interest for the Pacific War in multiplayer games, which is true, because there isn't much to gain from it.

As a solution, I proposed the following: Add a few more focuses to Japan to make it possible to invade USSR if they have firm control over the pacific. That should really motivate the US player to fight Japan in the pacific. This is historically accurate but it didn't happen since Japan lost, I'll explain in a bit.

The non-aligned and fascist paths are too rigid. With the fascist path you can only strike south, with the non-aligned path you can only strike north.

In the fascist path, after the non-aggression pact with USSR expires you should be able to declare war on them, via focus tree.
In the non-aligned path, after the non-aggression pact with China expires you should be able to declare war on them, via focus tree.

If you add those extra focuses, USA will not only have to win the Pacific, but actively attack Japan so that it becomes a terrible move for them to invade the Soviet Union.

As far as history is concerned, according to a Q&A about why didn't Japan invade USSR:

Japan and the Soviet Union shared a common border in Manchuria and the German invasion of the Soviet Union weakened the Soviets greatly. In view of the advantages to Japan in seeing the Soviet Union defeated (not to mention the resources available in Siberia) and the fact that Japan had large Kwantung Army stationed there essentially doing nothing, why didn't Japan attack?

Imperial Japan WOULD have declared war on USSR had it been successful at Midway, as it was successful at Pearl and in invading Philippines. The US essentially kicked in the door to Japan at Midway. US had agreed to a "Europe first" policy with its European allies upon declaring war against both Japan and Germany. The problem is that European theater was simply not ready to utilize American forces.

After Midway, Japan was no immediate threat to the US, and US could have delayed further action against Japan for a considerable time, had we still had an essentially isolationist sentiment, simply because Europe wasn't prepared for US the brunt of US effort. That brunt most immediately went to the Pacific War. Had it not, Japan could have and may well have moved against the USSR. This was particularly opportune when the manufacturing capacity of USSR was packed up and moved by Stalin east, away from Moscow, and re-assembled closer to the eastern front.

An attack by Japan in the fall of 1942 was quite possible, since the USSR essentially had no defenses deployed on its eastern front, and the destruction of its mfg capacity would have doomed the USSR to the residual Nazi attack, and would have cost Japan very little, assuming the US had not advanced in the Pacific after Midway. Because the US did advance with all its might, Japan simply could never have mounted an attack on the USSR, even had it weakened or diminished its efforts in Burma, the Malay Peninsula, etc.

It has become popular in the past 20-30 years to credit USSR with defeating the Nazis, but this disregards the effect of the US' offensive against Japan in keeping the Japanese from opening a front against the USSR.

Crecer13 · Apr 17, 2020

Zeprion said:
A small idea, on this topic: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...there-yet-a-satisfactory-pacific-war.1374838/

@pepeapa mentions a lack of interest for the Pacific War in multiplayer games, which is true, because there isn't much to gain from it.

As a solution, I proposed the following: Add a few more focuses to Japan to make it possible to invade USSR if they have firm control over the pacific. That should really motivate the US player to fight Japan in the pacific. This is historically accurate but it didn't happen since Japan lost, I'll explain in a bit.

The non-aligned and fascist paths are too rigid. With the fascist path you can only strike south, with the non-aligned path you can only strike north.

In the fascist path, after the non-aggression pact with USSR expires you should be able to declare war on them, via focus tree.
In the non-aligned path, after the non-aggression pact with China expires you should be able to declare war on them, via focus tree.

If you add those extra focuses, USA will not only have to win the Pacific, but actively attack Japan so that it becomes a terrible move for them to invade the Soviet Union.

As far as history is concerned, according to a Q&A about why didn't Japan invade USSR:

What are you talking about here? The USSR did not have forces in the Far East? The USSR kept throughout the war 30% of its troops on the border with Japan. By the middle of 1941, measures were taken in advance to strengthen the Far East. The Far East Front included dozens of well-trained divisions, tank, artillery, and aviation units. The total number of personnel reached 704 thousand people, slightly exceeding the strength of the Kwantung army, which included 700 thousand people. In 1945, it was already 1.7 million people. The USSR was fully aware of the threat posed by Japan. The two main reasons why Japan did not start a war against the USSR is:
- defeat at Khalkhin-Golay, because of which the offensive to the south was launched
- Defeat of Germany in Moscow

Field defense construction was completed by October 1, 1941. But even when in December 1941 Japan entered the war against the United States, even when in 1942 it became clear that the Japanese were seriously bogged down in this struggle, the defensive work in the Far East did not stop. In 1942-1943, military units worked on defensive lines six days a week, and only in 1944-1945 four days a month. It was not only the front line that was strengthened. By forces of the troops and the local population in Khabarovsk and other large cities of the Far East.

Zeprion · Apr 17, 2020

Crecer13 said:
What are you talking about here? The USSR did not have forces in the Far East? The USSR kept throughout the war 30% of its troops on the border with Japan. By the middle of 1941, measures were taken in advance to strengthen the Far East. The Far East Front included dozens of well-trained divisions, tank, artillery, and aviation units. The total number of personnel reached 704 thousand people, slightly exceeding the strength of the Kwantung army, which included 700 thousand people. In 1945, it was already 1.7 million people. The USSR was fully aware of the threat posed by Japan. The two main reasons why Japan did not start a war against the USSR is:
- defeat at Khalkhin-Golay, because of which the offensive to the south was launched
- Defeat of Germany in Moscow

Field defense construction was completed by October 1, 1941. But even when in December 1941 Japan entered the war against the United States, even when in 1942 it became clear that the Japanese were seriously bogged down in this struggle, the defensive work in the Far East did not stop. In 1942-1943, military units worked on defensive lines six days a week, and only in 1944-1945 four days a month. It was not only the front line that was strengthened. By forces of the troops and the local population in Khabarovsk and other large cities of the Far East.

You are using 1941 numbers to rebut my claim about the Soviet army in 1942. The official OOB in 1941 states that the Far East Front had 719.228 men, but between 1941 - 1942 a lot of Soviet troops were transfered on the western front against Germany, 580.194 according to the Soviet OOB. That leaves 139.034 Soviet units on the Far East Front in 1942.

But regardless of that you are still getting lost in details. The point is not the exact number of Soviet troops on the Far East Front, as in Hearts of Iron 4 that number may vary, the point is that Japan didn't attack the Soviet Union because they were already at war with China and USA, and USA kept advancing towards them in the Pacific. With the Soviet Union being at war with Germany on such a huge front, attacking them from the Far East was the logical thing to do and would have likely been an easy Axis victory in the far east, but Japan couldn't have done that because they also had problems of their own.

I suggested adding 2 extra focuses for Japan to allow them to invade USSR for the fascist path and China for the non-aligned path after the non-aggression pacts are gone, not only because that would have happened in real life if USA wouldn't have kept pushing Japan, but mainly because we need to make the Pacific War more interesting and with higher stakes as currently nobody cares about it in multiplayer games.

kimidf · Apr 17, 2020

[QUOTE = "Indyclone77, post: 26486601, member: 537129"] un próximo dlc y así sucesivamente? [/ CITA]

him_15 said:
Totally disagree. The community has been asking for such changes since the base game was lunched. And I honestly don't believe that adding a couple of Italian commanders would hinder the process of other DLC at all. I just feel that the Dev want to wait until the Italian DLC before making such change, in order to sell well. Which is a really dumb though IMO. People would buy the DLC regardless.

agree with you and inserting new portraits for generals or heads of state should not be too complicated a task
to do as we saw in the last patch and it is done normally it is more or less constant in the great mods that have a community with a quality that is sometimes better than the vanilla game itself and as I said once there should be a collaboration type in some modders and game developers in case they had a type of problem. What I do not understand is how the developers reacted when it came to inserting new generals in countries that already have historical generals, since most of these suffer from unexplained absences in these countries, not only in Italy but also in Germany or Japan, despite the fact that they reworked

Crecer13 · Apr 17, 2020

Zeprion said:
You are using 1941 numbers to rebut my claim about the Soviet army in 1942. The official OOB in 1941 states that the Far East Front had 719.228 men, but between 1941 - 1942 a lot of Soviet troops were transfered on the western front against Germany, 580.194 according to the Soviet OOB. That leaves 139.034 Soviet units on the Far East Front in 1942.

But regardless of that you are still getting lost in details. The point is not the exact number of Soviet troops on the Far East Front, as in Hearts of Iron 4 that number may vary, the point is that Japan didn't attack the Soviet Union because they were already at war with China and USA, and USA kept advancing towards them in the Pacific. With the Soviet Union being at war with Germany on such a huge front, attacking them from the Far East was the logical thing to do and would have likely been an easy Axis victory in the far east, but Japan couldn't have done that because they also had problems of their own.

I suggested adding 2 extra focuses for Japan to allow them to invade USSR for the fascist path and China for the non-aligned path after the non-aggression pacts are gone, not only because that would have happened in real life if USA wouldn't have kept pushing Japan, but mainly because we need to make the Pacific War more interesting and with higher stakes as currently nobody cares about it in multiplayer games.

According to official figures, the Far Eastern Front of the Soviet Army had 1,444,012 men on 01.07.1942 . It does not matter that troops were transferred from the Far East, in their place immediately created new troops in even greater numbers.

Zeprion · Apr 17, 2020

Crecer13 said:
According to official figures, the Far Eastern Front of the Soviet Army had 1,444,012 men on 01.07.1942 . It does not matter that troops were transferred from the Far East, in their place immediately created new troops in even greater numbers.

The source you are using is doubtful. Are we to believe that Josef Apanasenko managed to locally recruit 1.308.966 people in 13 months and send almost 45 divisions to the west at the same time? Even today, the Russian Far East is barely populated compared to the European areas. Even if Apanasenko's recuritment standards were as low as anyone able to carry a weapon gets drafted, are we to believe that Apanasenko managed to double his forces in such a short period of time in an area with almost no manpower while his army was used as reinforcement for the western front? I suspect your source must be part of some sort of play to make the Japanese forces believe that they are facing a large and fully-equipped force.

withche.07 · Apr 17, 2020

I wish it is time for Turkish and Greek focus tree and rework. There are lot to do starting with Hatay and Çanakkale straits AND fake deserts of Anatolia at Turkey as my thread includes, many things from advisors to commanders should be polished/fixed.
Also Greeks need it cause they were in war and they have claims around, just like Turkey.

Ffire · Apr 17, 2020

Zeprion said:
You are using 1941 numbers to rebut my claim about the Soviet army in 1942. The official OOB in 1941 states that the Far East Front had 719.228 men, but between 1941 - 1942 a lot of Soviet troops were transfered on the western front against Germany, 580.194 according to the Soviet OOB. That leaves 139.034 Soviet units on the Far East Front in 1942.

But regardless of that you are still getting lost in details. The point is not the exact number of Soviet troops on the Far East Front, as in Hearts of Iron 4 that number may vary, the point is that Japan didn't attack the Soviet Union because they were already at war with China and USA, and USA kept advancing towards them in the Pacific. With the Soviet Union being at war with Germany on such a huge front, attacking them from the Far East was the logical thing to do and would have likely been an easy Axis victory in the far east, but Japan couldn't have done that because they also had problems of their own.

I suggested adding 2 extra focuses for Japan to allow them to invade USSR for the fascist path and China for the non-aligned path after the non-aggression pacts are gone, not only because that would have happened in real life if USA wouldn't have kept pushing Japan, but mainly because we need to make the Pacific War more interesting and with higher stakes as currently nobody cares about it in multiplayer games.

When doing the fascist path, after China is conquered, you can still use the border incident decision to start war with Soviet Union.
Then with focus you can start war with the allies.

Japan and Germany were "allies" but they didn't coordinate at all their strategies. Hitler didn't event mind to warn the japanese about the molotov-ribbentropp treaty, and later warn them about Barbarossa just one hour before the start. The japanese were angry about that and didn't warn Hitler when they attack the US
Hitler thinked he would easily defeat SU, that's why he didn't want japanese involvment. Instead he was very happy to see them committing against the allies, thinking that would delay the US to act on European theater.

The japanese were really deterred about waging war against after the Khalkin Gol battle.
I think the game correctly depict that situation, with Japan and germany not being in the same faction.

Ostovar Hossein · Apr 17, 2020

Zeprion said:
The source you are using is doubtful. Are we to believe that Josef Apanasenko managed to locally recruit 1.308.966 people in 13 months and send almost 45 divisions to the west at the same time? Even today, the Russian Far East is barely populated compared to the European areas. Even if Apanasenko's recuritment standards were as low as anyone able to carry a weapon gets drafted, are we to believe that Apanasenko managed to double his forces in such a short period of time in an area with almost no manpower while his army was used as reinforcement for the western front? I suspect your source must be part of some sort of play to make the Japanese forces believe that they are facing a large and fully-equipped force.

Ye it sounds weird for Soviet to keep 1.5 million troops in far east, while Germans are at the gates of moscow when they have non-aggression pact with Japan.

Crecer13 · Apr 17, 2020

Zeprion said:
The source you are using is doubtful. Are we to believe that Josef Apanasenko managed to locally recruit 1.308.966 people in 13 months and send almost 45 divisions to the west at the same time? Even today, the Russian Far East is barely populated compared to the European areas. Even if Apanasenko's recuritment standards were as low as anyone able to carry a weapon gets drafted, are we to believe that Apanasenko managed to double his forces in such a short period of time in an area with almost no manpower while his army was used as reinforcement for the western front? I suspect your source must be part of some sort of play to make the Japanese forces believe that they are facing a large and fully-equipped force.

Official data:

Дата - Date, Личный состав - personnel, Орудия и минометы - guns and mortars, Танки и САУ - Tanks and self-propelled guns,
Боевые самолеты - Combat aircraft, Боевые корабли - Warships
~1 - Mortars shown excluding 50 mm
~2 - All tanks of light types; Self-propelled guns were 132 units only on May 9, 1945
~3 - Warships of the main classes

Crecer13 · Apr 17, 2020

Ostovar Hossein said:
Ye it sounds weird for Soviet to keep 1.5 million troops in far east, while Germans are at the gates of moscow when they have non-aggression pact with Japan.

Because the Kwantung Army + marionette troops totaled 1,000,000 soldiers since 1941 and 1,400,000 by 1945. No one guaranteed that all these troops would not start an offensive. Therefore, the USSR has always held troops in the Far East.

Ostovar Hossein · Apr 17, 2020

Crecer13 said:
Because the Kwantung Army + marionette troops totaled 1,000,000 soldiers since 1941 and 1,400,000 by 1945. No one guaranteed that all these troops would not start an offensive. Therefore, the USSR has always held troops in the Far East.

I figured they had non-aggression pact:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_Neutrality_Pact
The kwantung Army was holding on to a wide front against Chinese nationalists and communists on top of that Japan was fighting allied forces in south at Malaysia and dealing with their fleet. There is so much Japanese forces can do.
I suppose you have a source there but it seems like they did pull some soldiers from East to West during some years.

Crecer13 · Apr 17, 2020

Ostovar Hossein said:
I figured they had non-aggression pact:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_Neutrality_Pact
The kwantung Army was holding on to a wide front against Chinese nationalists and communists on top of that Japan was fighting allied forces in south at Malaysia and dealing with their fleet. There is so much Japanese forces can do.
I suppose you have a source there but it seems like they did pull some soldiers from East to West during some years.

the USSR and Germany also had a nonaggression pact. But we know how it all ended.

In total, the Battle of Moscow was attended by seven divisions, arrived from the Far East, and four infantry brigades, formed from sailors of the Pacific Fleet and the Amur Flotilla
All days of the war, starting from June 22, 1941, in the Far East, as in all other regions of the USSR, a call to the front went non-stop. The main burden fell on the youth. According to dry statistics, by mid-1942, 92% of young people aged 18–20 years were drafted from the Primorye and Amur regions.
Instead of the divisions that had left for the front, new ones were hastily formed on the banks of the Amur and Ussuri, where they were called up, both from the Far East and from other regions of the large country.

Ostovar Hossein · Apr 17, 2020

Crecer13 said:
the USSR and Germany also had a nonaggression pact. But we know how it all ended.

In total, the Battle of Moscow was attended by seven divisions, arrived from the Far East, and four infantry brigades, formed from sailors of the Pacific Fleet and the Amur Flotilla
All days of the war, starting from June 22, 1941, in the Far East, as in all other regions of the USSR, a call to the front went non-stop. The main burden fell on the youth. According to dry statistics, by mid-1942, 92% of young people aged 18–20 years were drafted from the Primorye and Amur regions.
Instead of the divisions that had left for the front, new ones were hastily formed on the banks of the Amur and Ussuri, where they were called up, both from the Far East and from other regions of the large country.

I see very helpful information thank you.

Indyclone77 · Apr 17, 2020

him_15 said:
Totally disagree. The community has been asking for such changes since the base game was lunched. And I honestly don't believe that adding a couple of Italian commanders would hinder the process of other DLC at all. I just feel that the Dev want to wait until the Italian DLC before making such change, in order to sell well. Which is a really dumb though IMO. People would buy the DLC regardless.

You are more than welcome to disagree with me but it won't change the reality

Ships for Victory

Petty King of Washington

Recruit

Lt. General

Field Marshal

Lt. General

Major

Lt. General

General

Major

Lt. General

Lt. General

Captain

Marzban

Major

Major

Marzban

Major

Marzban

Leading Rep on KX, HOI4 Modding Advocate