• 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 - News from the Eastern Front

Hi everyone! It’s time to touch base and start talking about what we have been up to since we released 1.6.2. We have been both preparing to start on the next big expansion which will come together with the 1.8 “Husky” Update as well as working on various tasks for 1.7 ‘Hydra’ which is the next upcoming release. Let's jump in. Beware, it’s going to be pretty wordy!

1.7 ‘Hydra’
So first up, why 1.7? This is because we are now going 64-bit which will mean you can no longer run HOI4 on 32-bit, so we want to make it clear it is a different technical base. More on this next dev diary though.
We have also worked on some of the bugs that have popped up since then, most importantly front issues for Germany vs Soviets. This was something that was reported during 1.6.2 development, but as we dug into things it turned out to require a lot more work than we had planned. We made the decision to do it for 1.7, and instead of just fixing that particular issue we also reworked a bit of how fronts and the ai work. This is going to be what the diary will be about today!
Oh and because people will ask... we are not super far away from the 1.7 release. We plan to let you help test it in open beta soon (where soon means like “within a week” or thereabouts).


What’s new on the eastern front?
Operation Barbarossa, which is the German invasion of the Soviet Union, is one of the pivotal balance points in HOI4 (and in all the HOI games) together with the fall of the low countries, Poland and the Sino-Japanese war. After 1.6.2 we had Germany beating the Soviets a bit too easily, and in particular, players had too easy of a time doing it. This had a lot of different reasons. The primary one is that we spent a lot of time overhauling the German strategic and planning AI which has made it very consistent and strong. Additionally for the AI, being good at defending is a much harder job than being good at attacking. What wasn’t working properly was that when the Soviets finally fell, it was often due to an issue related to frontline stability. The Soviet AI would misprioritize this and move a large part of its front elsewhere, leaving a hole that the German AI would often exploit (which players also definitely did). It’s also not fun beating an AI when it makes such a critical mistake. This particular case was extremely random, but the front reaching Crimea was a common factor. At that point, a new front would open at the same time as the line became long enough to require multiple Army Groups to cover it, which was another weakness for the AI. A lot of those technical issues should now behave a lot better and we are consistently seeing much better performance from the Soviets. Although, they do still generally lose in the end, but this is mostly by design.

To explain why this is a good target, let’s look at our balance targets for Barbarossa:
  • The Axis pushes the Soviet line in slowly until the Soviets lose in 1945 unless the Allies secure a big landing and relieve the Soviets, at which point Germany should start losing with its forces split across the 2-3 fronts.
So why is this a good target?
  • As an Axis player, it means business as usual. You get to beat the Soviets, and the better we make the German AI (which does the heavy lifting), the more challenging we can make it for a player Germany and still retain the balance target.
  • As a Comintern player it means you need to defend, hold out, and push back Germany. Here, the stronger we can make the German AI, the more challenging it is for a Soviet player. So to keep our balance target we want to make the Soviet as tough as possible, but on their own, they need to break by ‘45.
  • As an Allied player, you have a bit of a race on your hands. A Germany that has beaten the Soviets will be a very difficult target, so you need to build up your strength and preferably strike when the German army is as extended, as it will get some solid landing points (ai is better at defending too now, so this is not always so easy). From a balance point, we need to make sure that the eastern front holds up long enough for you to get ready to do this. If the Soviets can push back the Germans on their own, there is no reason to play someone on the Allied side. If Germany beats the Soviet too fast, you will not have time to get involved (especially since the Allies are much more spread across the world and contains more minor nations we wanna make sure can make it to the party).
Hopefully, that clarifies how we think about stuff. At the moment the allies do ok in Africa, but pulling off consistent D-Day scale invasions is something we have as more of a long term goal we are working on. Invasion skill for the AI has improved a lot, but the AI has also gotten better at defending. We have thought out a long term plan to also tackle this, but it requires a lot more strategic planning on the side of the AI with respect to theaters, so it is something you will need to look forward to in the future :)

AI in Hearts of Iron is a very complex problem and something we will always be working on improving. It will never really be “done”. We are feeling a lot better about the eastern front now and shuffling issues there, but there is, of course, lots of work left to do everywhere. It won’t fix everything, but I hope it will feel a lot better when you get to try fighting the Soviets again in 1.7 :)

Tools
So while I am talking about AI, let's take a look at some of the tools we use to stay on top of the strategic situation and to help find relevant savegames, etc.

Every night we run several machines hands-off that record various data for us and lets us check whether we broke something, measure improvements, etc. Loading 30 savegames every morning and going over them is neither fun nor effective, so we have developed this awesome web tool that gives us a quick timeline and map to scan over:

Screenshot_1.jpg


Heat maps also make it easy to scan over time and see where the AI is distributing and focusing its units. This example below is highlighting the Japanese forces late 41:

Screenshot_9.jpg


Unit Controller for Players
So that was all about the AI, but we have also done underlying changes as well as UI that will affect you as a player.

A lot of players liked using primarily Army Group Orders for their armies so we have been doing various improvements there. For example, if you do not want to mess with individual army orders on a front you could already hit Shift-Click when setting up the frontline and it would simply keep all the units on the army group order. This is primarily how the AI handles big fronts now. If you do it this way as a player we have cut down a lot of the clutter you get by spreading multiple armies over the same area by having divisions without individual orders and part of an army group order to simply show and group on the map by using the Army Group color. As an example, this is an Army Group Frontline where each army is assigned a piece:

upload_2019-5-15_16-31-1.png

Now, if you are the kind of player who has a big front and wants to simplify things by giving it all over to the Army Group (Shift-Click to create the frontline) you will get this:
upload_2019-5-15_16-31-16.png


There are still 3 armies there, but because you didn’t care to assign a position we won't clutter things by showing that (this also work for garrisoning which is really nice for big areas). You can still select the individual armies as normal in the bottom bar and in the selection lists etc.

For players who prefer to keep control over where each army is assigned we have also made that easier in two important ways:
  • Each army front piece on an army group front must connect, so no holes are allowed. That among other things means that you only need to adjust one point (the connection point) if you want to adjust how much frontline each gets, rather than trying to adjust 2 points, sometimes while the front was moving and with the game unpaused :S
  • We have added controls to be able to change the order of the armies if you want to reshuffle that. The middle of each line when in Edit Mode will now show arrows which let you swap position for that piece of the frontline with its neighbors.
upload_2019-5-15_16-50-51.png


We have also increased saturation on all the rendering of plans on the map to make sure they are easier to see and to make sure they match their respective army colors better.

Next week we will be going over other bugfixes, balance and other changes so tune in then!
 
I liked what @podcat wrote. The game must be historical and playable at the same time. There must be what-ifs and preferably such that could have happened, if different historical choices had been made.

I had not time to read thru all 9 pages of previous messages, but I noticed that some don't like the possibility that Germany could defeat the Soviet Union. That follows the Soviet (and now Russian) official claim that they (nearly) alone won the Nazis and the end result was historically inevitable. Just as the Soviets during the Cold War said that Communism will inevitably win over Capitalism (that did not happen). There are really no certanties what would have happened "if" and also history can be interpreted differently.

Then some really possible what-ifs:
What if one of the many attempts on Hitler's life had succeeded? Would Germany had made just the same decisions under different government? Probably not.
If Hitler had died and was replaced by a democratic government, had all the Allies still wanted to fight till the end and not make a negotiated peace? We don't know. Or if the D-Day had failed, would the USA still had held "Germany first" attitude, or switched to "Japan first"? If someone claims that the USA never gives up, so how was it in Vietnam (large losses), Beirut (200 Marines) or Mogadishu (a Blackhawk down).

What if Stalin had been assassinated? Would the next leadership had made the same decisions? So many were murdered during the Stalin's purges that many had a motive. Were there any attempts? I don't know and if there were, the Soviets did not tell about it, just as Nazis did not reveal most attempts made on Hitler.
And historically, Stalin did not leave his bunker in Moscow late 1941. The Germans nearly reached the city. If the Germans had got Moscow (for example, the snow and frost had come later that year, or the Germans had prepared for the Winter), would Stalin had died in his bunker (like Hitler did) or escaped in the last moment? We don't know that, or the consequences.

Germany winning the Soviet Union 1945, if the Western Allies do not help, might not sound "historical", but I think it is a relatively good compromise. The Soviet/Russian story of them alone "historically inevitably" winning does not hold water. Historically, German victory in the East probably was more possible in the earlier years, but if the Western Allies really had done nothing, including no bombings at all any more, even 1944 Germany would have got engines running and might have achieved air superiority in the Eastern Front if no planes were needed in the West and just few in homeland defence. Would the Red Army had reached Berlin in 1945 under German air superiority? Very probably not.

So, I like history and I am not questioning what really happened. But I do question claims that someting was "historically invetable" to happen. And for me, it is fun to play and speculate with (relatively possible) what-ifs.
 
Last edited:
Not correct, sorry. The germans had 300 000 men in occupation duty till '44, after that they even had 400 000 mea stationed there.

So then, that is correct. Both of those numbers are greater than 100k.
 
I do see both sides of the issue here, particularly when the discussion is limited to landings and therefore land combat being the deciding factor for the AI. For balance reasons this makes sense, but for historical reasons I can see why there would be doubt.

Historically the biggest contributions of the Allies prior to Husky were:
1. Winning the Battle of the Atlantic (and destroying the large amounts of effort and resources the Germans put into that, which could be better spent elsewhere)
2. Lend-lease (small but crucial at first, ie 60% of the planes defending Moscow in 41 were Hurricanes, growing to integral to the Soviets being able to restart their industry post-evacuation and focus it on things they didn't want to import and enabling the large offensives of 43 and 44)
3. Strategic bombing (In addition to reducing production of various weapons systems, this was the primary reason the Germans faced such terrible fuel shortages as early as they did, as it slashed production of oil both at the Romanian fields and at synthetic facilities)
4. The air war must not be ignored. German air power was always disproportionately sent west. That's why well-researched and detailed wargames like War in the East reduce the amount of German air production to the East accordingly (something like 25% in 1941, 60% in 1942, back to 40% in 43 IIRC). Without the air war, the Luftwaffe remains dominant for much longer than historically.
5. North Africa was more important as a negative than a positive. While the North Africa front was still going, that's a much smaller "frontage" the Axis must cover and it allows the Italians to send substantial forces to the Eastern Front. Once Italy proper was threatened, a lot of manpower left the Axis forces in the East. Once the Allies landed, it took a lot more effort to fight them in Italy than in North Africa. Coincidentally this is the reason Rommel is often misunderstood by people who never present alternative strategies that would have prolonged the North Africa campaign in a similar manner to his actions.

However, there is one sticking point I would like to get some reaction on. If (as you see here), you calculate German and Soviet AFV production rates and loss rates, the result is as follows (quoted from the link):

In terms of AFVs, this ‘price’ was the loss of 96 500 fully tracked AFVs compared to 32 800 German fully tracked AFVs (on the East Front) during WWII (2.94 to 1).(24) The German losses include all SP guns, SP artillery, and several thousand vehicles captured when Germany surrendered.

One very significant point about these figures is that if we remove the 11 900 AFVs received by the Soviets via Lend Lease, and allocate all German WWII fully tracked AFV production to the Wehrmacht’s East Front forces (i.e. add those lost fighting the Western Allies), then the Germans would have only needed kill loss ratio of 2.45 to 1 in order to have destroyed all Soviet fully tracked AFVs that existed on 22nd June 1941 (23 300 AFVs) and all 99 150 fully tracked AFVs produced during the war (122 450 AFVs). This figure is well below the 2.94 to 1 kill-loss ratio historically achieved. These figures demolish another more recently fashionable myth relating to the East Front; specifically that the Soviets (largely due to the huge number of T-34s produced) could have won WWII without any input from the US or Commonwealth forces. This is before we even consider the effects of increased German production (of all weapon types) due to the absence of Allied strategic bombing, the direct effects of German air superiority on the East Front from 1943 onwards, the effects of the Red Army loosing over half its motorised transport, and the effects of 9-10 000 additional (and fully supplied) heavy 88mm flak guns on the East Front from 1941 onwards.

This addresses two points:
1. It strongly counters the argument that the Soviets could have won fully alone
2. It less strongly but still decently counters the argument that the contributions of the Allies in terms of land combat were not relevant. If the Allies were not engaging and destroying German AFVs, the data suggests the Soviets would not be able to do so, and would in fact lose all AFVs they produced.

Adding back lend-leased AFVs to get a total of 134,350 it's a closer call to be sure and we're enough into uncertain variables where no clear conclusions may be drawn, whereas removing Allied aid entirely would give a clear conclusion. However, there is still a significant point to be made about this data and the supposed "irrelevance" of Allied land contributions to the war that supports Podcat's balance target. I'm genuinely curious to hear contrary opinions on this one.
 
Last edited:
To explain why this is a good target, let’s look at our balance targets for Barbarossa:
  • The Axis pushes the Soviet line in slowly until the Soviets lose in 1945 unless the Allies secure a big landing and relieve the Soviets, at which point Germany should start losing with its forces split across the 2-3 fronts.
So why is this a good target?
  • As an Axis player, it means business as usual. You get to beat the Soviets, and the better we make the German AI (which does the heavy lifting), the more challenging we can make it for a player Germany and still retain the balance target.
  • As a Comintern player it means you need to defend, hold out, and push back Germany. Here, the stronger we can make the German AI, the more challenging it is for a Soviet player. So to keep our balance target we want to make the Soviet as tough as possible, but on their own, they need to break by ‘45.
  • As an Allied player, you have a bit of a race on your hands. A Germany that has beaten the Soviets will be a very difficult target, so you need to build up your strength and preferably strike when the German army is as extended, as it will get some solid landing points (ai is better at defending too now, so this is not always so easy). From a balance point, we need to make sure that the eastern front holds up long enough for you to get ready to do this. If the Soviets can push back the Germans on their own, there is no reason to play someone on the Allied side. If Germany beats the Soviet too fast, you will not have time to get involved (especially since the Allies are much more spread across the world and contains more minor nations we wanna make sure can make it to the party).
This entire reasoning (in my opinion) falls flat because it assumes that the outcome in a AI-only game is strongly related to games with one or even multiple human players. In the vast majority of games the player will be a major and their faction will win by default, the factions will not always match with the historical ones. The important balance is between the options the players have to make them interesting. Making one country stronger (in economic terms) relative to another is just nice to get more historical plausibility.
 
It seems to be reasonable to buff Germany beyond its historical strength and then to nerf the USSR as well as the US (it's also them which are to weak compared to Germany, so no reason to cry about any "hollywood bias").
In the end it's a game and as a game it should be balanced.
The reason why Germany defeated France and why Germany brought the Soviets close to defeat in 1941 (I disagree that they could have still defeated them in 1942, but with Uranus failing and without Allied support it could have ended in a stalemate) were mistakes on a high strategical level. That level that it is in the hand of the player. So with historical balance and competent players on both sides, the Allies would always easily win. That can not be the goal of the game...

Overbuffing the Axis is a simple solution. Too simple in my opinion.

What I would like to see are focus trees that interact which eachother. They should always lead to balanced situations. The diplomacy game needs to be much better. If Allies plus Soviets are too strong, why to fight both? If Germany wants to act historically then it should not be surprised by a historical outcome of the war. The Challenge for Allies and Soviets then is to reach Berlin first.

But what if a human german player decides not to go to war with the Allies, but only the Soviets? The allies could join either side.

What I mean is that the game does not need to be only balanced by rude force power, but by 1936 it was by far not that clear who will be on which side as currently given by the game.
 
Germany lost the moment the soviets and above all the US joined the war.

The most important balance issue is not the soviets. It´s the US. And regarding it the only thing that could be done is Japan going for Vladivostok. Yes I know LEand LEase didn´t win the battle in 1941 but the more it progressed the more soviets needed Land Lease, and while they might not lose, soviet casualties would be MUCH greater.

However that is irrelevant because the game ends too early. HOI needs to go to at least 1952, but IMO 1964, so that blunders will have long term effects.
 
Hi, @podcat ,

You say re. the AI/battleplanner using troops in suboptimal terrain:
Thats never been its purpose. That stuff is on player level and this is why there are armies so you can set the specific areas you want them in.
Sorry, but that doesn't really work right now. I'm currently playing a game as UK, and I assigned an army to help out France on its Italian frontier (as it seems to get trounced there a lot, for some reason). The little front between Switzerland and the Mediterranean isn't really big enough to divide over two armies, and it's almost all mountain. Almost. There is one tiny corridor of non-mountain just by the coast. I only had one mountaineer division trained up in Europe at that point. Guess where the battleplanner put the mountaineers? Yep - on the coast. So, I moved them into the mountains manually, and moved another division to the coast. Next time I look - they're back as they originally were! Id on't know if it's a frontage thing, or what, but the AI seems to be convinced that the mountain troops need a beach holiday while the other divisions badly need to practice their skiing. In combat.

All giggles aside - it would be really nice if the battleplanner showed at least some inclination to put specialist troops where their skills will do the most good. Please? :)
 
I am glad that there is going to be a reevaluation of the war on the Eastern Front. In some of the games I played where France and Czechoslovakia form the Little Entente ( I was on the sidelines ) and war begins in 1938 Germany brushes by the Czechoslovak forts and even made incursions into the Maginot line. The German General staff didn't think they were ready for war IRL and would probably have lost. I think this shows that Germany is overpowered in the game.

Likewise I think the USSR is overly successful as well in this game. Before the German invasion the USSR did have a few victories against Finland and Japan but in these cases they had strong numerical advantages in men and even a much larger advantage in equipment (tanks and aircraft), the Winter War in Finland can be described as pyrrhic . Lend lease tanks from the UK participated at the battle of Moscow in 1941, some sources say 30% of medium and heavy tanks were from the UK at that battle. At the beginning of Barbarossa despite being warned of an attack and having around parity of manpower but advantages in aircraft tanks and equipment the USSR lost territory in 2 1/2 weeks about double the size of Germany's seizure of territory during the Polish campaign. Obviously there was a command issue that caused unnecessary casualties and defeats. By the end of the war the Red Army was a steamroller, but lend lease was a significant factor. At the Battle of Kursk the Germans lost about 2000 armored vehicles and tanks. The USSR got abot 12000 tanks in total from the UK and USA, this is an amount that could let the German Army replace their losses at Kursk 6 times. The factor that probably also led to the demise of Operation Barbarossa is the logistics, supply chains and vastness of the USSR.

Perhaps some changes can be made to how low supply affects divisions. Perhaps like low org a division below a certain supply level can not attack or enter undefended enemy territory (this penalty can be lessened or removed for special forces, especially for paratroopers)
Perhaps provinces can have a maximum amount of divisions in a province, this could prevent outcomes of just stacking huge amounts of units and overwhelm the enemy that way. If you want to invade Luxembourg you cant use 50 divisions, you can use 8 max.

I think the effects of the Great Purge focus should be more pronounced and lasting.
Germany wins if they get Moscow quick and USSR plummets into civil war or the USA stays out of it and the coin flips to their side. If Japan invades...

Someone else mention riverine flotillas in a post. Maybe some more units can be added that played stronger roles on the Eastern Front. Like:
Armored Trains
Horse Artillery
and since a lot have been asking for this Armored cars (armoured recon support or line units)

Another look should be given to cavalry since these units were used up until the end of the war, even charges taking place.
 
This addresses two points:
1. It strongly counters the argument that the Soviets could have won fully alone

I don't think it strongly counters that position.

The logisticians planning Barbarossa warned ahead the operation about the Heers logistical deficiencies. I'm not sure they would be thrilled to add to that strain by adding x number of AFVs. And where would Germany get fuel and spare parts to keep the push going?


Sounds like a good update.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it strongly counters that position.

The logisticians planning Barbarossa warned ahead the operation about the Heers logistical deficiencies. I'm not sure they would be thrilled to add to that strain by adding x number of AFVs. And where would Germany get fuel and spare parts to keep the push going?


Sounds like a good update.

Do you have anything more solid than assertion though? You're changing some variables without a corresponding change in others (i.e. more trucks and logistical capacity due to reduced demand elsewhere), so without actually taking into account all (or even the main) relevant factors I don't think your conclusion is supported.
 
Last edited:
Hi, @podcat ,

You say re. the AI/battleplanner using troops in suboptimal terrain:

Sorry, but that doesn't really work right now. I'm currently playing a game as UK, and I assigned an army to help out France on its Italian frontier (as it seems to get trounced there a lot, for some reason). The little front between Switzerland and the Mediterranean isn't really big enough to divide over two armies, and it's almost all mountain. Almost. There is one tiny corridor of non-mountain just by the coast. I only had one mountaineer division trained up in Europe at that point. Guess where the battleplanner put the mountaineers? Yep - on the coast. So, I moved them into the mountains manually, and moved another division to the coast. Next time I look - they're back as they originally were! Id on't know if it's a frontage thing, or what, but the AI seems to be convinced that the mountain troops need a beach holiday while the other divisions badly need to practice their skiing. In combat.

All giggles aside - it would be really nice if the battleplanner showed at least some inclination to put specialist troops where their skills will do the most good. Please? :)


@podcat

This please!
 
theirs alot of people saying a scripted axis win is not historical, and people are correct in saying that the soviets crushed the axis late in the war, but if d-day did not happen the Germans would not have to have pulled some armies and tanks from the east after their series of victories after the battle of kursk, the soviets were very close to surrendering but the allies eased up pressure at the right time for the soviets to regain strength. even after d day the soviets were still losing massive amounts of troops and tanks, but the germans just did not have enough troops to capitalize on that.
(if i remember right germany pulled about 1 million troops from russia to france, thats enough to make a difference)

hopefully this does improve the ai, but one big issue you need to fix is troop prioritization for army group frontlines when the frontline changes a bit, or say you have 1 army group front line on 2 seperate areas, for example when playing france having 3 armies on the german border and 2 on italy, if you gain or lose land on either when they are the same army group, pretty much every division has to redeploy to the farthest possible point from its current position on the front, this happens even when you have armies assigned to specific locations just not as bad, its hard to explain but its super obvious when looking ingame.
 
i had a teacher in high school and he liked to say that hind sight is always 20 20, and it really is true, its pretty easy to see what should have been done differently for either side to win, but during the actual war it was a time of experiments and just trying things, or lack their of (italy).

hopefully paradox can improve more areas of the game so we can get more interesting games
 
In term of Allied help to USSR i think lend-lease and bombing of Germany were more important than battles it self. In conventional warfare Axis would bleed dry before Soviets anyway, specially since soviet forces were getting more and more sophisticated as time went on while Germans forces were degrading after 1941.

As for D-Day it definitely came after it was clear that the Soviets would win. If D-Day would happen like in 1942 or at least in 1943, then we are talking.
 
i know, after the battle of Stalingrad. If anything Operation Bagration helped Allies to secure France.

Or they both helped each other, that's kind of how two fronts work.