• 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.

HOI4 Dev Diary - 3 Year Anniversary!

Hi everyone! On the 6th of June 3 years ago we released a little game called Hearts of Iron IV. Now obviously the 6th is tomorrow, but of course this is sweden’s national day, as well as being earmarked for recovery after the paradox summer party that’s happening tonight. So you get to enjoy my anniversary diary one day early :) But, before we get into all of that, first let’s talk about yesterday’s releases!

Yesterday we released the 1.7 ‘Hydra’ free update which brought the game to 64-bit as well as improvements to AI, front systems and convoys. See here for full patchlog. Together with this update we also release a Radio pack filled with new music as well as the Axis Armor Pack for your tanking pleasure :p We hope these prove popular because we have lots of ideas for future ones we would like to do if it goes well :)


Development
Most of the design was written during the summer of 2013 with me chilling out to documentaries and sipping beer in the sun. Back then we were a lot smaller and the whole original design doc is actually smaller than most expansion docs are now :D Actual development ramped up late 2013 and we actually showed off the game to journalists super early in Januari pdxcon 2014 for some initial feedback. At this point there was no ai, and 90% of mechanics did not do anything. My most vivid memory of it is explaining to Angry Joe how you could nuke the world as Hitler ;D That and Justin Bieber crashing a ferrari in the nearby neighborhood in miami…

I had a couple of goals with HOI4: I wanted a game that would be easier to get into for new players. I wanted a more high level experience focusing less on micromanagement of battle and more on the buildup and planning aspects of WW2 (it’s not very sexy, but in my mind WW2 was won by logistical planning and war production, not heroics). I wanted to dial back some of the complexity of HOI3 and bring back some of the lightness & freedom of HOI2 for players - to let them develop and personalize their countries more. I wanted to ramp up country specific flavor and bring back things like tech teams to a degree. I also wanted to make the best platform for modders we had ever done, because I always felt a bit sad that HOI3 never really had the modding community that HOI2 did.

A lot of these choices were based on experiences working on HOI3 and Vicky 2. Hearts of Iron III had focused very hard on the historical aspects, to a degree that it couldn't really handle small deviations and I wanted to make sure HOI4 could handle this as well as providing a historical experience.

Johan dug this up, which is my first pitch for roughly how I wanted to balance the focus on the new game:
upload_2019-6-5_13-48-58.png


Here was the first section guidelines for feature design I put down:
  • Accessibility. The game should not scare a new player. New target audience outside fans of previous games is people who enjoy CK2 and EU4, and are interested in WW2, it should not be harder to get into than those games necessarily.
  • If a feature doesn't show in an interface its not a feature
  • The effort spent on a feature should be proportional to the amount of player interaction it has. No interaction and its not a feature.
  • a feature should have a clear reinforcement loop in its feedback. eg: "see problem"->"do action to fix problem"->"see problem solved"
  • No AI control cop-outs. There shouldn't be any checkboxes saying "plz automate this". Then we would rather remove the feature.
  • Less complexity for complexity’s sake features while delivering the same or more flavor than before.
  • less micro, more macro decisions, but avoid very very long decisions such as stockpiling that player will always fail on the first time.
  • Prefer planning decisions rather than last-minute decisions. There are many things to keep track of in HOI and sometimes there is a lot of free time and sometimes there is a ton of stuff going on, so if we can make some of those decisions while its calm you get a much smoother workload for the player.

I feel like we mostly lived up to the initial goals in the end and the game launched to very good reviews and sales as well as a ton of new players joining us and the community growing over time.

We had 2 major struggles during development I would say and they together led to us having to delay the release quite a bit.

One was the battleplanner & AI. We went through quite a bunch of iterations on this one. The goal was always a system that assisted the player and would still need the player to go in and adjust things (no playing itself!), but finding the right balance between hand holding and automation was very hard. So were the exact controls. It was tough to find a solution where you could adjust stuff without pausing, and where orders wouldn't override the player too much. On the other hand the system was absolutely crucial for us to give the player the high level experience we wanted and the fantasy of drawing up plans for their units. We also did not think players would accept going back to HOI2 level province counts, which would have been required if it was all manual. It went through several iterations:
  1. A nation level planning tool where all armies were part of the same plan, and the player controller synchronization points (say the northern army group would come in at point X when the southern group had reached a certain point). This worked well… until we added an AI. At this point we realized that the plans needed to be able to adjust to changing circumstances a lot better. At this point plans were more like overlays also and did not follow units or change when enemies took provinces.
  2. We changed the system to adjust based on fronts and province changing. At this point you drew arrows rather than fronts, which felt great… but didnt work so well during unpaused play either, because you also needed to control the width of the fronts.
  3. The final iteration before launch was changing it so that you drew fronts rather than arrows. It felt a bit worse, but gave a lot better control.
The other tricky system was focus trees. We wanted a system to guide new players to what to do, and also use this system to steer the AI. it was also supposed to act partially like a tutorial for the first 2 years. We ended up with a system called “national goals” that kinda acted a bit like the current decisions, but with some more map interaction. The big problem was that it could only really show stuff one step ahead and it was really hard to get an idea for where you could take a nation. As a beginner it also wasn't exactly clear how anchlussing Austria would lead to wargoals on Poland in the end. We ripped this out and replaced it with what you now know as Focus Trees, and some ideas were later brought back with Decisions in Waking the Tiger.


The last 3 years
I suspect anyone reading this knows how Paradox works. We keep support our games over long time both with free updates and paid DLC where we try to strive for a 50/50 balance. This gives us the unique opportunity to rework and improve systems after release, and to adjust and grow the game based on feedback. Some of this feedback also comes from telemetry data which is invaluable because the HOI community is pretty much split right down the middle between historical gamers and ahistorical games, and of course also with a hardcore group of competitive MP players. So we gotto make sure we get the right picture and not just who is loudest :)

Let’s go through all the expansions up to now!

Together for Victory
TFV was our first expansion and we were still putting in a lot of work on bug fixing and balancing at this point so a lot of the free dev work went into that. The biggest feature it gave us was the new subject systems with autonomy levels, something we have been building on ever since. It fleshed out all the british subjects with focus trees, but didn’t go super deep into alt-history quite yet even though we were playing with it.

Death or Dishonor
For death and dishonor we focused on european minors, primarily on the axis side. This is when I think we really started to steer the game towards alt-history. We decided this DLC would be our test and we did pretty out-there stuff like reforming Austria-Hungary. Turns out people really liked these kind of focus trees and we decided from now on to focus on 50% history paths and 50% alt-history going forward. DoD also saw us do our first big revamp of a core mechanic as we changed up air warfare quite a bit.

Waking the Tiger
For Waking the Tiger we wanted to go big (perhaps too big :D). We wanted to flesh out armies and commanders so introduced more traits and the chain of command. We made new focus trees for most of asia and really focused on the China vs Japan conflict. It felt like a bit of a gamble at the time, because it’s simply less known here in the west than the rest of WW2.

Here we also started to revamp old core focus trees and doubled down on alt-history with paths for the Kaiser coming back to power in Germany (you guys loved this one!)

Man the Guns
For MTG the time had come for tackling naval warfare. We wanted this to be the first HOI game with actually decent sub warfare (a tough nut to crack!) as well as other engagements. It was a very ambitious project. Probably the toughest I have done, but I am proud and happy of what we accomplished. In hindsight we should have probably added a naval tutorial though. The original HOI4 never had one, so we didn’t really factor in making a fully new one, but naval warfare has now become just as important as the other two branches of war. On the nation side we revamped USA and UK and did a bit of an experiment with both Mexico and the Netherlands. Mexico because it didn’t really join, and Netherlands because it was defeated early, and was also quite small. I think the way we dealt with both worked out very well actually and shows that if a focus tree is good enough even a smaller power can be equally fun to play.

????
We are now starting development on the next expansion, which is still secret...

I asked on twitter if people had any questions on development, and (not) to my surprise most of it was asking about what is coming next (it’s still secret guys!). Here are a couple:

Q: What was the best tank (thank you mister @grekulf >_<)
It depends a bit on how you define the question. Technical capabilities? Do we factor in cost? Ease of production? I think the Panther is a really cool machine, but if you look at things from a strategic point of viewI think it's easy to say that the Soviet T-34 was the best tank. Technologically solid with sloped armor, mass producible and cost effective, and with a flexible chassi. Do feel free to argue with me in the comments though ;P

Q: Why are you facilitating HOI4 so much towards fast-paced alt-history competitive MP when the vast majority of your players play historical SP, like in previous HOI editions?
Actually, the majority do not play historically. Its fairly split along the middle and for several nations the alt-history paths are more popular than the historical. I think the great thing about HOI4’s design is that it can accommodate both playstyles, while say HOI3 only handled historical games.

As for MP, we do spend more effort on it than the player counts would warrant. There is a small percent of players that play at this level, but balance issues etc that they find are important both for single and multiplayer. Of course we can not always change things right away as the AI will need to also cope with the changes.

Q: Do you think officers should be represented like in HoI3? I know the game has buff/debuffs 'ideas' but I think it would better represent the realities for countries lacking in enough officers to effectively lead divisions. Even Germany struggled with org towards the end of WWII
Officers helped define nations a bit in HOI3. For those things we mostly have it covered with unique national spirits etc though. However, I do think they could exist in some form in HOI4 one day but it would definitely be another way. I was never really happy with how leadership worked in HOI3 and the tradeoffs you had to make were mostly no-brainers.

Q: Would it be possible that the historical events can be also listened through radio news in hoi4?
We have discussed the idea in the past actually. Its a cool idea. I feel like you might need to have alt-history ones as well to make sure it fits in as things change?

Q: When will you update the Soviet and France focus trees?
We’ve had a pretty steady pace to make sure we update the original trees over time. I think its a pretty safe bet to assume at least one gets updated in each major expansion. It has a lot to do with what other countries fit in with it and what the theme is rather than their importance at this point though.

Q: has there been thoughts about reserves and mobilization like there was in HOI3?
I am pretty happy with manpower laws for modelling this, so no current plans.

Q: I'd like a retrospective about Fuel and Command structure. Ppl rly wished for it b4 release, but got told would be better with Oil in production abstraction. Marketing-Lie, because no time for MtG Fuel System, or really convinced by it back then?
Not angry, just curious.

Definitely convinced to try them out. Both add a lot to the complexity of the game, but I think that its ok to move the boundaries a bit after the game has been out for a while and people have gotten comfortable. The way we solved the issues of fuel compared to HOI3, where it was kinda a solvable problem (so you just stockpile once and don't worry anymore), is worked around by having a limited stockpile you had to invest in to build up, and since its the only resource that behaves this way it does not totally change the need for constant resource access.

Q: What has been your favourite feature or expansion to work on?
Tough one. The last expansion always feel the best, so Man the Guns I guess with Death or Dishonor second ;D I am weird when it comes to features and usually have the most fun when I work on AI behind the scenes. If I gotto name one thing though it was probably Decisions from Waking the Tiger. I really felt like we lifted the concept up one more step compared to how we had done it in previous games. They are really cool and flexible now for doing all sorts of gameplay and reinforcement of focus trees.

Q: Will we ever see corps as an army unit in the game? Even just as a UI thing to keep army groups tidier?
You can collapse army groups if things get too much, but who knows, maybe? I don’t see us doing it for UI, but more for being able to place corp level assets on map or the like.

Q: when sweden unique focus tree .....
I’m not sure ya’ll are ready for how overpowered it would be >:-D

Q: What was the most difficult technical issue to overcome during HoI 4's development?
Definitely AI and battleplans. With performance as a second thing. The combination of realtime and such high complexity, and also being expected to be competitive 1-1 vs a player is a tough nut to crack. With most of the other Paradox games we balance vs the player by having AI gang up on them, but in HOI4 that's not really a thing because of the historical situation so we really need to focus on having the ai fight ok in a more fair situation. We probably spend about a month on tweaking AI balance on each expansion.

Q: Would you consider making next designers (air, tank) and what are your thoughts on naval designer, does it fitfull yours awaitings?
I think it ended up pretty cool! Some stuff ended up a little too complex compared to the initial intent though. I think doing it for Air makes a lot of sense as the plane type classifications we use feel a bit weird for modelling certain nations. Potentially for tanks also, although I think that it would need to be a bit simpler here.

Q: What do you think about the changing direction of Hoi. Originally it was a ww2 game but more and more it seems to focus on interwar diplomacy and politics (e.g the Mexican tree)
I went over some of this in the above 3 year development section. Basically I think its a natural progression if you want to support alt history and have nations who didn't join the war do so. HOi4 has always had two halves. Preparing and maneuvering for war and actually fighting the war.

Q: Did you ever consider going abit more in depth into the populations of the game? I feel like manpower and population are just a number when it should affect much more.
If you mean different cultures, no. It's a conscious choice. WW2 is pretty recent and can be a touchy subject without calling out specific population groups. If we are talking about other stuff then yeah probably eventually ;)

Q: Who in the team has got the most hours on the game, and how many is that?
Probably Daniel? He has something like 10,000h while I am just under 6000h.

Q: What was the most difficult game mechanic or system to rework since launch?
Naval warfare. It was in the least iterated state and the amount of balance and iteration was very heavy.

Q: Will you have a globe in Hoi5? Or is paradox really dedicated to that cylinder life?
The only game I could see benefit from a globe would be a cold war game honestly (for accurate missile distances). Globes have a lot of downsides, like not being able to see half the world etc. Maybe something like Imperator’s simulated half-globe camera though, I quite like that one after getting used to it.


What's next expansion about? :D
It’s a secret still!

Today we will also have an anniversary stream special with me and Daniel at 15:00 Stockholm time. I have managed to dig up an old pre-release version of the game for us, and we will be looking at that as well as talk about the last 3 years of development. Don’t miss it!

See you all next week!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's to three more years :)



I agree 100% with this.
This brings back memories. I learned some stuff, such as that the Sherman wasn't the albatross I thought it was. My view still is that a lot of the failures of the Panther, most notably the unreliable final drive, were the result of Germany's poor strategic situation. They (the Germans) had poor access to rare minerals and their industrial production was strained by the production of many different models. But the Panther was the tank that Germany strategically needed at the time, which was a powerful yet cheap answer to the T-34 and M-4. The Panther is analagous the the Me-262, ahead of it's time but not nearly good enough to win the war (which was a virtually impossible task).

T-34 best tank, can't argue with success. The M-4 was adequete.

Most overrated tank from a strategic POV, the horrifically expensive Tiger II. I don't care for the Tiger I either.
The T-34 had many, many, issues.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html
 
Sherman > T-34, even the Russians in the Shermans thought so. And that is on all fronts, from better armor, to ease of production, to survivability of the tank and, more importantly, the crew.

Though there is a lot to say for the T-34 and it's a given fact that the T-34 was a really good tank.

Anyhow, Both these tanks are far better than the Panzer IV, V, VI. Because no, you do not need 5 shermans for every tiger. It was just allied doctrine to use 5 shermans all the time (which is the main problem anyone should have with the movie Fury) and it had nothing to do with how good the tiger was or how bad the sherman was.
 
In hindsight we should have probably added a naval tutorial though.

Yes, definitely.

I still have no clue how the new naval system works, and don't even get me started on the ship builder. What is a battlecruiser? Why does this exist as a classification, but not as a shipclass?
What do all these values mean? I have zero clue and everytime I try to get into it, I just give up after a while because I get too overwhelmed with little to no help at all.

Before the rework, I used to spam battleships, because they were basically invincible.
After the rework, I just spam submarines and place mines everywhere. Gives naval supremacy for naval landings and that's the only thing a navy should do in my opinion. I just don't get invovled with any of the other stuff.
 
Sherman > T-34, even the Russians in the Shermans thought so. And that is on all fronts, from better armor, to ease of production, to survivability of the tank and, more importantly, the crew.

Though there is a lot to say for the T-34 and it's a given fact that the T-34 was a really good tank.

Anyhow, Both these tanks are far better than the Panzer IV, V, VI. Because no, you do not need 5 shermans for every tiger. It was just allied doctrine to use 5 shermans all the time (which is the main problem anyone should have with the movie Fury) and it had nothing to do with how good the tiger was or how bad the sherman was.
"Fury" was fantasy, especially the end "battle."
 
And now for a good war movie, The Longest Day will likely be on TV basically everywhere tomorrow (and Saving Private Ryan as well, probably).

They don't make war movies like they used to...
 
Here's to three more years :)



I agree 100% with this.
This brings back memories. I learned some stuff, such as that the Sherman wasn't the albatross I thought it was. My view still is that a lot of the failures of the Panther, most notably the unreliable final drive, were the result of Germany's poor strategic situation. They (the Germans) had poor access to rare minerals and their industrial production was strained by the production of many different models. But the Panther was the tank that Germany strategically needed at the time, which was a powerful yet cheap answer to the T-34 and M-4. The Panther is analagous the the Me-262, ahead of it's time but not nearly good enough to win the war (which was a virtually impossible task).

T-34 best tank, can't argue with success. The M-4 was adequete.

Most overrated tank from a strategic POV, the horrifically expensive Tiger II. I don't care for the Tiger I either.
Disagree, most overrated tank from a strategic POV that actually was put into service was the Sherman Jumbo. Around half the production of the Tiger II, less capable, less armor, less powerful gun, yet always brought up by Shermanophiles as the answer to tanks like the Panther...
 
What is a battlecruiser?
Sometimes words mean things, sometimes they don't.

This is an example of the latter.

Sometimes it's used for large light cruisers or capital ship sized scouts.

Sometimes it's used for post-dreadnought or semi-dreadnought armored cruisers.

I've even seen a sources describe 10,000 ton Heavy Cruisers as mini-battlecruisers, and it's common for any cruiser or cruiser killer bigger than that to get called a battlecruiser.

On the other hand, sometimes the word get reserved for fast ships battleship sized and up.

tl;dr:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
As for MP, we do spend more effort on it than the player counts would warrant. There is a small percent of players that play at this level, but balance issues etc that they find are important both for single and multiplayer. Of course we can not always change things right away as the AI will need to also cope with the changes.

Speaking for myself and I feel others that are in similar position, I will test out builds in single player before playing multiplayer; but ultimately, multiplayer is where the challenge is at. I have around 1300 and can easily beat AI with them on max sliders with any country. It’s really not exciting. There are so many fantastic MP individuals (e.g. you witnessed @PrussianPrince in the 3-day war) out there that are more of a challenge. He is but one of a group of ppl that are at his skill level (or better) that I have played with (I’m definitely not as good as them but the ppl you have playing against him in 3-day war barely even play competitive MP or not at all so it’s bafffling to me why they were even invited, it would’ve made more fun viewing and more competitive to have other Competitive MP community players in the 3-day war (just ask Prussian who you should invite)). Anyways, the point here is I believe the MP focus should be increased even tho the data shows that more ppl play single player. Here’s why I think this:

1. As I stated, a lot of ppl test builds on single player before MP games (thus inflating single player numbers higher than multiplayer numbers)

2. Getting into a MP community can be “cancer”. Most games (I play historical games) don’t even make it to 1939 war start because people being idiots which DISSUADES ppl from doing more MP games that otherwise will (I fall in this category). I would write a solution to this but not sure how to fix this as “you can’t fix stupid or immaturity”. The changes you’ve made to restrict this stupidity is welcome (e.g boosting etc). I’d like to see this going farther such as restricting players from going down alt history paths (vs forcing ppl to get mod).

3. Balance in competitive MP is out of wack in vanilla (specifically trait farming), which forces serious players to use mods which a lot of times go to far and change things too much dissuading ppl. Potential solution: explain what each define does more explicitly to allow modders to have better understanding of how changing the define up or down by 0.1 (or whatever ) will affect the intended deficiency.

In summary, the competitive MP focus is welcome and I would argue should be increased as I believe there is a market of ppl that would play more competitive MP if you attacked the factors that dissuade ppl from doing so (some of which I outlined above).

Thank you for creating my favorite game!
 
Last edited:
This is a good point. I too would favor drastically reducing the number of on-map units the game permits a player to field. But the odd thing is, this is a simple change to make, and the fact they have not done so indicates that somewhere a respectable group of players actually WANTS to have countless numbers of units to play with. I suspect a poll would reveal pretty divided sentiments about it.
I do believe it was said a long time ago that the AI is much better(harder to beat) when the number of units for all participants are higher.
 
Disagree, most overrated tank from a strategic POV that actually was put into service was the Sherman Jumbo. Around half the production of the Tiger II, less capable, less armor, less powerful gun, yet always brought up by Shermanophiles as the answer to tanks like the Panther...

I don't disagree with you. What made the Tiger II bad historically is the resources and attention it hogged. The Americans had much more production capacity and could afford to experiment with things like the Jumbo.
 
A huge congratulations on three sensational years Podcat :D (well, six sensational years for you and some in the team!) Also, a big thanks to all the hard work from all the team members, past and present - HoI4 is my favourite entry into my favourite gaming series, and even if you were to stop development now (but please don't :D) it'd go down as a Paradox classic :cool:.

but naval warfare has now become just as important as the other two branches of war.

This is a good start - hopefully in another three years naval will be about twice as important as the other two :D*

* No, I'm not being serious :).

What was the best tank (thank you mister @grekulf >_<)

Clearly, one of the criterion for 'best tank' should be whether it could traverse the sea, while another should be completely non-martial-sounding name. So I'd argue the Valentine DD :D.

676d8aea6f512ef751d5f256e73fb707.jpg


Globes have a lot of downsides, like not being able to see half the world etc.

Practically speaking, at the level of zooming out where the whole world can be seen, flat maps aren't terribly useful for 'whole of world pictures' either, beyond very broad-bush 'who controls what' (which is useful). The remaining feature that I'd really like to see in HoI4 is a better system of informing players of important events that happen outside their views - there's still a bit too much map-scrolling to check what's happening, which is a relatively inefficient and error-prone way to check on things.

Most countries in WW2 hardly ever need to see two hemispheres quickly

Nations that had simultaneous operations in a large enough part of the globe that they would be unable to see all their operations at once (including naval operations) effectively (it's less than half the world by some measure, as the angle of the sphere past a certain point relative to the viewpoint of a player will render information unclear or not render it at all) on a map include Britain, France, Germany, Australia, the USSR, the USA, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, India, South Africa and Italy.
 
It honestly feels longer than three years, but couldn't be more happier. Looking forward to how HOI can continue to grow. Congratz to the team. :)

Edit: Gotta love there's somebody respectfully disagreeing with a simple happy birthday post above. What a meanie. :D
Me too, I was just picturing everyone singing happy birthday to you and at the end someone in the crowd says something like "yeah, cool. But I respectfully disagree this is your birthday."
 
Anyone here know about fuel silos? :rolleyes:
The storage capacity for other resources was removed for HOI4 for a perfectly well known reason, which is that they made far too rich a treasure box when you captured a country's capital. I would be surprised to see them return anytime soon.


Indeed -- that's what I was indirectly referring to.
Yet storing resources before a war because of how resources are traded was an extremely important part of WWII / pre-WWII strategy and leaving it out smells more like future dlc bs than any legitimate reason.
 
Yet storing resources before a war because of how resources are traded was an extremely important part of WWII / pre-WWII strategy and leaving it out smells more like future dlc bs than any legitimate reason.

Yes, just like fuel was part of the Man the Guns. Oh, wait, it wasn't :p
 
The book that The Longest Day is based on is well worth a read of you haven't already.
All three of Cornelius Ryan's WW2 books are great (although a bit aging at this point, they are excellently written), yes.