• 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 - LaR UK AAR

Join me as I recount some of the highlights from my recent prerelease testing playthrough of LaR in this After Action Report (AAR) where played I as the UK.

Phase 1: The buildup

When playing the UK in singleplayer I don’t really like trying to hold France, as I feel doing so kinda ruins the pacing of a historical playthrough. So I spent all my time from game start only building civilian factories with about 85% of my mills making aircraft. I also began establishing my intel agency in late 1937. I focused on improving my intel generation and code-cracking ability first so I could give some force multiplication to my rather small army.

agency.png



Phase 2: Naval Dominance and Focused Defense

At the start of hostilities, I began cracking Germany’s encryption and used my airforce in the Mediterranean in conjunction with a large part of my navy. I figured it wasn’t worth sacrificing too much air strength against Germany in France at this point. I had just switched to building military factories from only building civilian factories, so I could not afford to use my more limited airforce recklessly. I also set up the majority of my operatives to set up intel networks in Germany.

I attempted to recruit mostly “seducer” trait operatives as they have a lower chance of being caught. In the process, I got some interesting seduction experts.

OperativeSeducerLAdy.png


Most of my rather small army was deployed in Egypt to hold the Suez. With air superiority and an intel advantage over the Italians, Holding Egypt was a great success. I was able to recruit the famous Nancy Wake and I decided to send her on a Roman holiday to help me get more intel on Italy since I would be fighting them in Africa for the foreseeable future.

Wake In Rome.png



Phase 3: Battle of Malta

After the Italian navy was largely defeated, I infiltrated the Italian airforce to help get a more clear idea of how close I was to breaking it. At this point, the Italian airforce started port striking my Mediterranean Fleet in Malta. After looking at their plane counts in the intel ledger, I built up some radar in Malta and deployed the airforce to intercept the Italians in the region. Baiting them to bomb my exposed, and no longer as useful, fleet worked as phase one of my plan to break the axis airforce.

Battle of Malta.png


Meanwhile, In Germany and occupied France, my intel networks had become rather strong and were providing good info on the state of the axis. I had at this point also infiltrated the German civilian govt’ and army to open up further options for operations and to get a more clear picture of their strengths.

By late 1940 I had broken both the German and Italian ciphers and had weakened both the German and Italian airforces by fighting in favorable conditions where I had a large radar advantage combined with my passive cracked crypto advantage. Having enemy ciphers broken increases interception efficiency as well as adds to air detection.

Phase 4: Battle of Greece


At the end of 1940, Greece was invaded by Italy and Germany. By this point, I had a significant intel advantage, was close to matching axis airpower, and had a large and equipped Free French volunteer force. I decided I would turtle southern Greece as long as I could and brutalize the axis in the air in the process. I scrambled a large part of my North African forces to Greece and deployed the majority of my airpower. At one point my defensive line was nearly broken. I was able to save it by activating my broken ciphers on Germany, giving myself a temporary 30day combat. Before the buff expired I was able to get some extra forces in and save Greece.

CrackTheCodes.png


By mid-1941 I had overtaken the axis in the air and southern Greece looked more and more secure. I decided it was time to start boosting resistance in France and laying the groundwork for eventual liberation. I also was well on my way to cracking the new Italian and German ciphers.

greece airwar won.png


Once the ciphers were cracked again and my tac bombers were no longer needed in Greece, I decided to start harassing the Germans with a strategic bombing campaign in their homeland. With my Intel levels, I was able to track how my bombing campaign was impacting Germany. I had also begun targetting resource-rich areas in France with targeted sabotage operations to further put stress on the German war machine.

StratBombingUnderway.png


Phase 5: Yugoslavian Uprising

Over the course of the next year, America and Vichy joined the war and a fight for North Africa broke out again. With Intel and Air advantage pushing Vichy France back was pretty easy. During the North Africa campaign, I noticed that Croatia was barely keeping occupied Yugoslavia under control. So I sent some of my Operatives to support the resistance there, pushing it over the edge and causing a full-scale uprising. Many of the Axis forces in northern Greece were then cut off and annihilated.

YugoRises.png


After a great victory in Yugoslavia, I dedicated my operatives to building a massive spy network across all of Germany. This resulted in several captured Operatives, as they are more likely to be discovered in large and powerful networks, but I decided it was worth it to keep my intel on Germany maxed and the mainland set up for my Arrival.

Phase 6: La Resistance and D-Day

By mid-1942 the French Resistance, due in no small part to my support, had become disruptive. It was not fully rising up in rebellion but was strong enough to disable strategic redeploy in northern France and was providing constant attrition to local Axis forces. This combined with local spy network buffs, general intel advantage, air superiority, and ongoing fighting on the eastern front made securing my beachhead in France very smooth.

ParisFallsAgain.png


After setting up a plan to drive the Germans out of France, I once again fully utilized my code-cracking for a 30day buff and battle planned the Germans back into their homeland. By late 42 The Axis was all but broken and crumbling on all fronts. The combined Allied air, land, and intelligence efforts proved to be too much and everyone was Home for Christmas of ‘42.

I hope you all enjoyed my war story! See you next time.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So You promise that in 1.9 AI uses fleets (no more strike force without Patrol, resulting in never seen enemy fleet) and does Torch and D-day. We Will see.
 
However, if the balancing is "proven" to be effective solely from 100k Ft viewing of Hands Off games, as indicated in a tweet from Podcat:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1191315684883652608
.

Testing the scenario many times and gathering the statistical outcomes is precisely the right methodology. I'm also unhappy about some stuff (bugs), but the negativity in this forum is overwhelming even when they working on the right things such as De going deep into Russia and coming back
 
Nice that it only took a year to make the most important feature in the last dlc work well. Looking forward to seeing espionage work as intended sometime in 2021 then.
 
So You promise that in 1.9 AI uses fleets (no more strike force without Patrol, resulting in never seen enemy fleet) and does Torch and D-day. We Will see.
Where did you see that promise? But yes that scenario happens a lot.

Another annoying scenario from the AI is as follows: it assigns a naval missions further away than the task force range (e.g. the USA assigning a force based in San Francisco to patrol around the Philippines). The task force never moves to its operating area because it can't go through the 'out of range' central pacific automatically. For that you need to move it manually, and the AI doesn't (always?) do that.
 
Some people have said that the AI does not use its navy and get in large engagements. Since the last big MtG patch, this hasn't been the case. I defeated a large Italian strikeforce in the med and watched America and Japan clash with large strikeforces.
Well this is only half or less of the complaints about navy that have been expressed in this thread; such complaints are recurrent here and on other HOI4 communities.
True, the AI engages in large naval battles, if rarely (anyone got the Ironside trait ever btw?). But the main complaint is more that the AI doesn't make any logical use of its navy. To the point that even if you want to use the naval mechanics, it's extremely difficult because there's barely any opposition.
(examples: missions positioned in idiotic locations. No synergy between mission choices. Terrible fleet compositions. Suiciding entire navies under naval bombers, in the same sea tile. Last time I played Germany, I left 1k bombers in one Mediterranean tile and within a couple months the US Navy was gone, I noticed too late to remove the bombers sadly. etc...)
 
The Mediterranean theater works-ish, as there's only a few regions for the Italian fleet to operate in and sooner or later they'll get into a tangle with with British fleet...
If the British Mediterranean fleet is there, which it isn't always.
The Pacific theater just plain is non-functional due to the large distances.
A few suggestions to improve things that aren't "make the AI better."
  • Loss of air superiority above a sea zone should make the AI withdraw patrol forces. It's silly to chew up American screens so easily.
  • Air and radar should matter much more to spotting than they currently do. Hopefully scout planes will help with this. This will drastically increase the likelihood that a fleet is spotted in a short timeframe.
  • AI should not move fleets with capital ships to L1-3 ports. Side note - I'd bring back the "home port" concept from before MtG.
  • Strike forces should have a maximum of (about) six assigned zones, and being out of range of one by more than (arbitrary number) of sea zones will make the AI disable that zone for that SF.
  • For the U.S. in particular, starting the game with an "Atlantic Fleet" and "Pacific Fleet" theater could possibly go a long way to alleviate their problem of shuffling fleets between oceans.
  • To alleviate death stacking, why not assign a simple number of ships commanded based on skill level? Nimitz or Yamamoto would be able to handle a large fleet of (say) fifty ships. Less skilled admirals less. Beyond that you're taking critical positioning and defense penalties. Railroad? Kinda. But seeing literally every ship in the USN and IJN clash in a battle in March 1942 in MP is rather silly.
Just my 2c as a regular Japan player.
 
Testing the scenario many times and gathering the statistical outcomes is precisely the right methodology. I'm also unhappy about some stuff (bugs), but the negativity in this forum is overwhelming even when they working on the right things such as De going deep into Russia and coming back
But balancing by nerfing axis production and leaving horrendous production issues with SOV and USA, is not balancing - when mods come down the road and completely fix all of their production issues, the mod leaves it even more unbalanced than before LR.

The point is, fundamental production fixes must be made before even trying to balance the game. I truly hope they did this, but I have my doubts. If they did it, they will have also needed to end up nerfing USA and SOV production. Have to wait and see.
 
But balancing by nerfing axis production and leaving horrendous production issues with SOV and USA, is not balancing - when mods come down the road and completely fix all of their production issues, the mod leaves it even more unbalanced than before LR.

The point is, fundamental production fixes must be made before even trying to balance the game. I truly hope they did this, but I have my doubts. If they did it, they will have also needed to end up nerfing USA and SOV production. Have to wait and see.

What production issues? Please be more specific. I only remember USA not having enough steel for all its mils.

Frankly industry growth should be much slower then currently is, maybe increasing per factory output to compensate
 
I feel a strong resistance to buying any more DLCs until the AI gets an overhaul.
I couldn't agree more. If they pull off another MTG where the AI doesn't even put together any ships beyond 1936, then WTF should we continue to buy their DLC? At the least, hire another AI programmer and get them focused on HOI4 for the next 6 months until it is working better.

We know getting an AI right is difficult, and never really that satisfying in strategy games, and much of the challenge comes from allowing the AI to cheat to get there, but why keep on adding more and more features when the AI cannot even work with existing features?

I refuse to believe that getting a competent AI is impossible. It's just that few people are willing to put in the time, effort, and money. If not from video game companies, then I don't know who will do it one day, but I am sure it will happen.
 
Last edited:
I still don't like main concept of this game design. When you are trying to make interesting to play as minors same as to play as majors this leads to weak majors as a whole. I would prefer if minors would be really weak and if player wants to play as minor and capture whole world then this could be done in some game setup options.
Second thing that I don't like is visual representation without ability to play without 3d soldiers with only counters like they have been implemented in hoi3. Yes we have counters in hoi4, but they are jumping all around the map and you can't really tell in which province your units are. Also they merge and unmerge as they wish... so in the end they are not informative. And I prefer to play using manual controls, but this is very tedious job in hoi4 because of visuals.
But biggest problem for me is AI .. incapable of giving any real challenge.

I would wish to see hoi3 game, but with hoi4 production system. Everything else was superior in hoi3.
I am now still considering if I will buy this DLC, because I play this game every time new expansion coming out, every time I have hopes for this game, but ...
Your..... far to many years late with that so.....?
 
I haven't read many of these dev diaries as i wanted to get a pleasant surprise for the 25th but i have to say this although may seem like a minor changing dlc seems like it changes quite a lot and will also change multiplayer potentially.
 
although may seem like a minor changing dlc seems like it changes quite a lot
It seems like a minor changing DLC to you?!?

It's being developed for just under a year and it costs 20 bucks, which is quite a lot for a PDX DLC...
 
LaR looks great on paper; however, it is almost a certainty that this DLC will merely give the player yet more ways to screw with the AI whilst not giving the AI the capacity to do the same back to you. The AI can't use the tools the game has now so I don't see how adding yet more things that it can't do helps the game move forward.
 
I couldn't agree more. If they pull off another MTG where the AI doesn't even put together any ships beyond 1936, then WTF should we continue to buy their DLC? At the least, hire another AI programmer and get them focused on HOI4 for the next 6 months until it is working better.

We know getting an AI right is difficult, and never really that satisfying in strategy games, and much of the challenge comes from allowing the AI to cheat to get there, but why keep on adding more and more features when the AI cannot even work with existing features?

I refuse to believe that getting a competent AI is impossible. It's just that few people are willing to put in the time, effort, and money. If not from video game companies, then I don't know who will do it one day, but I am sure it will happen.

To be honest, I have never seen a competent AI. Ever.

The HOI4 AI, is, at least in certain areas *non functional* though, which is an entirely different level fo problem.
 
This tbh.
Germany defeated France has fast as it did due to some severe mistakes on the allied part.
There is simply no way the player will do this same mistakes.

France and the U.K had the potential to beat Germany if they played their cards right, the balance of Power for was the allied side was even more favourable in WW2 than in WW1.
However, they got outplayed. Which the AI is simply never going to be able to do to the player in a game of this nature.

But sure, just because the Ai will will never be able to outsmart the player doesn't mean they shouldn't try improving it as much as they can.

Yeah, there is the "habsburg problem" again, where the historical path is not neccessarily the one that was most likely. There are ways of doing this by thumbing the scales of course, but it's not neccessarily a problem with the AI (it reminds me a bit about AOW: Planetfall were people were complaining about autoresolve, and the devs noted that since during autoresolve AI plays both sides, any improvement to the AI will just be symmetrical and not change the results of the actual battles much)
 
What production issues? Please be more specific. I only remember USA not having enough steel for all its mils.

Frankly industry growth should be much slower then currently is, maybe increasing per factory output to compensate

I think what Dan is talking about is the effects of the new occupation system on Germany's total IC. We already know that this is going to be a strong nerf to Germany.

What Dan is alluding to is the fact that, actually, Germany isn't overpowered at all. With the Expert AI mod which really only somewhat blunts the stupidity of the AI, Barbarossa always gets stopped cold. This is because Germany's production is easily matched by the Soviet Union on its own, and this issue isn't so apparent right now only because the German AI is better than the Soviet AI(which has a tendency to repeatedly suicide troops much more frequently than the Germans do).

If the balance of IC/production is such that the Soviets can already stop the Germans cold with ease, then how much easier will it be in 1.9 when the Germans receive a big nerf? That is the central issue here. Doing balance based on AI vs AI outcomes isn't necessarily ideal because it assumes that the stupidity of each AI will cancel the stupidity of the other out, and that therefore the result is indicative of industrial capacity, national spirits, and other factors of balance.

This isn't necessarily true. We know that the AI fails in different ways on different issues. For example, the AI's failure to use surface fleets is greater than its failure to use submarines well. As such, it would be a mistake to assume that submarines are necessarily overpowered when the AI can't even actually use its surface ships much at all in the first place. Similarly it is a mistake to assume that Germany's IC situation in 1.9 isn't unbalanced just because it performs decently against AI soviets.

The long short of it is that the Soviet Union already in 1.8 may be overpowered based on IC relative to Germany, but this issue will just become greater in 1.9. Even in the MP group I play with, our house mod adds some additional challenges for the Soviet Union including a very severe combat debuff for several weeks after Barbarossa begins. Unmodded the scales of balance are tipped against Germany, which is perhaps only compensated for by the still iffy balance around submarines.

LaR looks great on paper; however, it is almost a certainty that this DLC will merely give the player yet more ways to screw with the AI whilst not giving the AI the capacity to do the same back to you. The AI can't use the tools the game has now so I don't see how adding yet more things that it can't do helps the game move forward.

Pretty much, but at least it looks fun.

From everything we've seen there's no reason not to think that the best thing to do as the player is just go all out on using your spies offensively. Although in multiplayer, there's potentially a careful balance because your agents can be captured and leak a lot of intel without the enemy having had to venture for it at all. Against the AI, this doesn't factor in at all because the AI is probably mostly, or entirely, incapable of adjusting its plans and strategies in reaction to the player's production strategies, troop movements, fleet deployment, etc. It won't help the AI much, if at all, for it to have 100% knowledge of everything you do. On the other hand, the player DOES benefit from using spies to discern the AI's production, fleet deployments, and so on.
 
This was a well-written AAR, but unfortunately it reinforced my misgivings about this DLC. I fear this is going to be another half-baked addition to the game that subtracts from the game as a whole, and another addition that cannot be removed later on to polish the game as it was paid for separately. I'm going to give this DLC a pass, unless I read great things about it here.
 
When I saw her in the roster of potential operatives, she became an instant must-recruit
SMERSH should have sent Rosa Klebb instead of Tatiana Romanova from Russia with love to seduce Mr. Bond.
It might have given the Soviets access to that typewriter...

Who could resist her geriatric touch?
From-Russia-With-Love-Tatiana-Romanova-and-Rosa-Klebb.jpg