Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 48207 Bug Reports 17231 After Action Reports (AAR)
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

HOI4 Dev Diary - Future and Cornflakes

Hi everyone, this week I'm going to take some time and talk future plans with you all.

Right now
With the "Oak" 1.4.2 patch out the door and the team back from vacation its time to start looking at the future. This week we started work on the next DLC which is going to be a full-sized expansion. A lot of people have been asking for more mechanics and larger changes, and this will be it. As normal the expansion will arrive together with a free update we've dubbed 1.5 "Cornflakes".

As for exactly what these will contain you will need to bear with us a bit. As I said with us getting started on it now we need some time to actually make and test stuff before we start showing it off to you. This will mean that the next two diaries (if all goes according to plan) are going to be covering other stuff while we get ready. My plan there is to get some guest writing in from people who can talk about the business and process side of the company and team.

The five year plan
Not actually a five year plan, but I want to share with you some form of roadmap on what to expect in the future. Some of you may have seen me talk about some of this in my PdxCon talk earlier this year.

Just to be super clear, this is not any form of exhaustive or final list and unless we have already done it we can't promise anythings. Priorities change etc. The point of this is to give you an idea of things we would like to do. The order of things is also not in any kind of priority order, or order we would do them.

  • Improve flavor and immersion with naming of things in the game. No more Infantry Division Type 1 etc.
  • More player control over naval warfare and fleet battle behaviour
  • A Chain of Command system allowing field marshals to command generals
  • A logistics system with more actual player involvement (now you only care once stuff has gone very badly)
  • Improved naval combat interfaces with good transparency to underlying mechanics (give it the 1.4 air treatment)
  • Improve balance, feedback and mechanics for submarine warfare
  • Long term goals and strategies to guide ai rather than random vs historical focus lists, visible to players
  • Every starting nation has a custom portrait for historical leaders
  • A way for players to take dynamic decisions, quickly. Something that fits between events and national focuses.
  • Spies and espionage
  • Changing National Unity to something that matters during most of the game rather than when you are losing only
  • Improving peace conferences
  • Update core national focus trees with alt-history paths and more options (Germany, Italy, USA, United Kingdom, Soviet, France, Japan)
  • Wunderwaffen projects
  • Properly represent fuel in some way in the game
  • Add the ability to clean up your equipment stockpile from old stuff
  • Rework how wars work with respect to merging etc as its a big source of problems
  • More differences between sub-ideologies and government forms
  • More National Focus trees. (Among most interesting: China, South America, Scandinavia, Spain, Turkey, Iran, Greece)
  • An occupation system that isnt tied only to wars and where core vs non-core isn't so binary for access to things.
  • Make defensive warfare more fun
  • Adding mechanics to limit the size of your standing army, particularly post-war etc
  • Allow greater access to resources through improving infrastructure
  • Have doctrines more strongly affect division designing to get away from cookie cutter solutions and too ahistorical gamey setups

You'll notice that some of these are small and some of them are huge. I can't really talk too much details about this stuff though. That is stuff we will do once/if it makes it to dev diaries with feature highlights and has been implemented. Oh yeah, and before someone goes "why isn't improving AI on this list" the answer is that its not really something you can ever check off as done. We'll keep working on that in parallel with other stuff as we have since release.

There is no World War Wednesday stream today since the channel is all streaming from Gamescom today, but you can now check out last weeks episode on youtube to see me run the dev team as generals in a massive co-op.
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
I have to disagree with limiting standing armies post-war. If anything it would completely be based on ideology. I could see Democratic nations not having a large standing army, but as a fascist nation I'm planning the next war right after finish one so I would expand my military, not down size.
 
Last thing from me and then I'll go back to lurking and hoping.

Most likes and net-likes on a non-dev post in this thread? 44 and 41 (right now) for the message settings post on the first page. Strikes me as a lot for a non-dev post in a dev diary thread. People may not want the whole thing back, but a lot of people want something better than what exists right now.
 
Mikeboy said:
Could you please add individual equipment upgrade names. So for instance you could have a list for the Soviet medium armour 2 that goes:
T-34 mod 1940
T-34 mod 1941
T-34 mod 1942
T-34 mod 1943
T-34-57
T-34-85 mod 1943
T-34-85 mod 1944
T-34-85 mod 1945

Also could it start with the first upgrade name, at the moment for example all of the British Hurricane Mk.Is are actually the second mark that gets produced, as unaltered don't get a mark number.
Click to expand...
You an already name the variants anything you want. If you want such detailed variant names (which I do not), just edit the name yourself as you create the variant.
 
With regard to National Focuses, how about new ones, or new branches, that would more accurately reflect the priorities of a post-war government? I've always thought it stupid that Japan and Germany, and Russia to a lesser degree, after getting stomped and having their governments forcibly changed, were still using a NF tree that really only made sense when they had their pre-war governments. There should be options to improve relations with the new world order, reconstruction - more than what is offered through continuous focuses - as well as options to show that the recently conquered bogeymen, whomever they might have once been, are now making an effort at putting on a friendly face. Some of it could tie in with the conquering powers, as in a Marshal Plan, which could work like the Tech exchange focus, giving bonuses above and beyond that presented by the available continuous focuses.
 
Maybe I`m too sceptic but I feel that list is way too ambitious.

Also I found two issues lacking in the list. Sub warfare and partizans. Both very bad implemented and mostly ignored by just about everyone right now. Partizans is chore and not a game mechanic.

Personally I feel both systems should be abstracted but either way they are very bad right now.

Sure I would like chain of command, fuel and everything. But something inside me says that list is way over the top and we are bound to be disapointed. I really really doubt it that spies would ever be implemented in any meaninful way. How many times how we heard this? It never works.

I wish time would be devoted to making the current systems better.
 
Kayapo said:
Also I found two issues lacking in the list. Sub warfare and partizans. Both very bad implemented and mostly ignored by just about everyone right now. Partizans is chore and not a game mechanic.

Personally I feel both systems should be abstracted but either way they are very bad right now.
Click to expand...

Sub warfare is on the list...

podcat said:
  • Improve balance, feedback and mechanics for submarine warfare
Click to expand...
 
podcat said:
  • Update core national focus trees with alt-history paths and more options (Germany, Italy, USA, United Kingdom, Soviet, France, Japan).
Click to expand...
Yes please. The major's focus trees are really boring and they need some work. Also, is there a chance we could have a complete ahistorical mode where everything has an equal chance of happening? Right now ahistorical mode just has the polish faction emerge and France go communist. Just an absolute chaos mode where you can have the Russian civil war and France go fascist with Great Britain declaring war on all the European minors and America declaring war on the Soviet Union. That would be awesome!
Some people wouldn't like that, but it could just be an option.
Also, if you are updating the focus trees, you need to have a monarchist tree for both Germany and Italy, as Hitler was almost killed by people trying to restore the empire, and Mussolini was overthrown by monarchists and arrested by the King. For the United States as well, Pearl Harbor never happens, so it would be nice to fix that.
Another thing that needs fixing is the generic focus tree, as the fascist one is the only option for minors because they need the extra manpower. Also, I'm pretty sure you don't get dockyards from the generic tree, so it would be nice to fix that
 
I suppose the ones voting disagree didn't read the post all the way through and went on to rant about how the devs aren't working on something instead of AI or something :p .

Only thing I'm sceptical about here is the addition of spies and espionage, other than that this is looking great.
 
Alliances should be more fluid. Independent nations should not be locked into an alliance just because it is troubling to try programming for shifting alliances [and I do get that it would be a pain to try to allow for]. History is full of examples of national governments that bounced from one side to another depending on the flow of the wars around them, and who was massing on or near their borders. A more vigorous effort by the Allies could bring in smaller allies who feel threatened, but have not been attacked [yet]. A "Sitzkreig" should cause more countries to, when invaded, put up token resistance and then fold, regardless of whether enough "VP" have been lost. This could also model how so many nations, toward the end of the war, all jumped in at the last minute, confident that they had nothing to lose and only prestige to gain from being on the "winning side". And, getting the US on the Allied side [as a democratic country, mind you] should compel the other allied to forego any territorial ambitions of their own, and look no further than to restoring certain historical boundaries [withing practical limits] as well as to freeing any people who were previously puppeted by the defeated enemy. Finally, defeated enemies should get no demands in a peace conference - their war participation should be moot. Its stupid that the UK gets to grab portions of Poland that were turned over to Russia, but not regained by them, or that a conquered Germany gets to retain the Sudetenland, or a conquered Japan gets to keep Manchuria or Korea as a puppet. I've had games where, after defeating the Axis, the Allies turned on the Comintern [or vice-versa], and after nuking the AI Soviets into submission, they got to retain all of Germany as their puppet! WTF?! The overall position of the defeated power needs to be taken to account - an overwhelmed enemy has little grounds for making demands, beyond being allowed to stay alive [GRRR!].
 
podcat said:
Long term goals and strategies to guide ai rather than random vs historical focus lists, visible to players
Click to expand...

That would definitely be the biggest advance of the game but i guess it's the most difficult to develop a strategic AI that works well.

Maybe first should add nation-specific victory conditions so the AI has something to pursue. I think about something like Germany decisive victory when annexes/puppets three majors, major victory when do with two, minor victory if do with one. UK decisive victory if they can convert three non-democratic majors to democratic, major if can do with two, minor if can do with one.

But in the meantime while this is still fantasy it would be nice to fine-tune warbringing focuses so most silly outcomes could be avoided. E.g. Germany should never take Around Maginot while at war with the USSR but not with the UK. I'd tell the same about Demand Slovenia as well since it can lead to war with the Allies. Italy should never do the War With Greece focus while they are at war with the USSR but not with the UK for the same reason. The USSR should not Demand Eastern Poland when they are losing Barbarossa from occupied Romania already. The UK should not attack Norway on the eve of Seelöwe. Etc.
 
Last edited:
aMetzgermeister said:
I have to disagree with limiting standing armies post-war. If anything it would completely be based on ideology. I could see Democratic nations not having a large standing army, but as a fascist nation I'm planning the next war right after finish one so I would expand my military, not down size.
Click to expand...

I'm unsure about it. I think after fascism becomes the status-quo they should demobilize. From that point on fascist power elites are more benefited by increased civilian production and trade. Just like from some point the old colonial powers (England, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, etc.) ceased to fight each other because all of the imperialist elites were better off trading. WW1 was caused by emergent powers wanted to change this status-quo and WW2 is basically just continuation of WW1.
 
Tarnoyan Warrior said:
Also, is there a chance we could have a complete ahistorical mode where everything has an equal chance of happening? Right now ahistorical mode just has the polish faction emerge and France go communist. Just an absolute chaos mode where you can have the Russian civil war and France go fascist with Great Britain declaring war on all the European minors and America declaring war on the Soviet Union. That would be awesome!
Some people wouldn't like that, but it could just be an option.
Click to expand...

That would be indeed awesome but would need an incredible amount of extra events and focus routes. Seems more like a mod thing.

Although my last ahistorical SP game was very ahistorical with communist France, Italian faction, Australian-American faction and Soviet civil war. Was really interesting.
 
DukofDeth said:
Alliances should be more fluid. Independent nations should not be locked into an alliance just because it is troubling to try programming for shifting alliances [and I do get that it would be a pain to try to allow for]. History is full of examples of national governments that bounced from one side to another depending on the flow of the wars around them, and who was massing on or near their borders. A more vigorous effort by the Allies could bring in smaller allies who feel threatened, but have not been attacked [yet]. A "Sitzkreig" should cause more countries to, when invaded, put up token resistance and then fold, regardless of whether enough "VP" have been lost. This could also model how so many nations, toward the end of the war, all jumped in at the last minute, confident that they had nothing to lose and only prestige to gain from being on the "winning side". And, getting the US on the Allied side [as a democratic country, mind you] should compel the other allied to forego any territorial ambitions of their own, and look no further than to restoring certain historical boundaries [withing practical limits] as well as to freeing any people who were previously puppeted by the defeated enemy. Finally, defeated enemies should get no demands in a peace conference - their war participation should be moot. Its stupid that the UK gets to grab portions of Poland that were turned over to Russia, but not regained by them, or that a conquered Germany gets to retain the Sudetenland, or a conquered Japan gets to keep Manchuria or Korea as a puppet. I've had games where, after defeating the Axis, the Allies turned on the Comintern [or vice-versa], and after nuking the AI Soviets into submission, they got to retain all of Germany as their puppet! WTF?! The overall position of the defeated power needs to be taken to account - an overwhelmed enemy has little grounds for making demands, beyond being allowed to stay alive [GRRR!].
Click to expand...
This. One of the things I really liked in EU was being up against an overwhelming alliance for then to eliminate enemy countries one by one by any means possible -- bribing them with large sums of gold, killing their troops, occupying their territory, what have you, until I gained the upper hand and won the war.

As you say, WWII was full of countries "defecting" to the other side, particularly when the Soviets really started to overwhelm Germany on the eastern front.

Perhaps there could be a "National unity for alliances" that affected how easily you could convince individual nations to leave the war or even "defect" to you?
 
  • Have doctrines more strongly affect division designing to get away from cookie cutter solutions and too ahistorical gamey setups

    I look forward to this one, I want more intensive to make more interesting divisions like in WW2 where every division was not required to have the same combat width. It also means more personality for divisions which is important me. I wanna the opportunity to fell like I am commingling SS Das Reich or Cold-stream Guards.

    One you have not mentioned that I would like that and that I think would be easy (with no dev experience lol) is to determine the variant and type of plane in a wing. I want to send the Gloucester Gladiators to Malaysia without them being replaced with stockpiled hurricanes I am saving of Britain. I would also like to be able to have, say one fighter wing be a Eastern Front variant with long range while my Western Front fighters can have more firepower and agility.

    Anyway looking forward to the next update, thanks guys.
 
aMetzgermeister said:
I have to disagree with limiting standing armies post-war. If anything it would completely be based on ideology. I could see Democratic nations not having a large standing army, but as a fascist nation I'm planning the next war right after finish one so I would expand my military, not down size.
Click to expand...

I disagree because most of the fascist nations never fully mobilized until late into the war; others, such as Spain, were in no position to conduct any kind of offensive combat operations after their civil war. In fact, Spain's retention of so much manpower and formations has got to be one of the most obviously egregious problems in HoI4 right now.
 
Too many posts to read. But the thing about FUEL. Please do not do that. This game is already tough enough and wears my brain out. No need for more micro managing..., stuff...

Personal request, can you post the wording of the Focus trees on this forum so we can ask questions and comment on changes before you put them in the game. Man, they never make sense and you have to SAVE before pressing them because some of them can wreck you. If we could use 'groupthink' on the narrative before you place them in the game, that would be great!!

PS - HOI 4 is probably the best game of all time. And Kaiserreich is the best mod of any game of all time.
 
Can you introduce a PATHING thing for SUBS when you send them out on missions and for them to follow when they return? As you know SUBS suck? If at least they could go around the English channel,, could help. Maybe...,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back