• 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!
 
as the balancing target is just wrong; don't you agree? Allies securing a big landing historically was not the decisive factor, so it shouldn't be the decisive factor in the game as well.
depends on what your ultimate goal is. If you are trying for something closer to historical accuracy (which I abhor because it would be boring), then you might be right and the goal should have the Germans start to feel the pressure once they are truly facing a multi-front war (and yes, Sicily did force them to divert troops from the Eastern Front).
However, if you are trying to balance it for GAMEPLAY, then yes the Germans should be able to plod on as long as there is only 1 continental threat to them.
 
Then why don't you argue in favor of balancing the game in a way that Japan (narrowly, but decisively) crushes the USA in the Pacific and takes California in most games? It would be very interesting to play this as e.g. the British, it will force you to have an impact on the outcome, in your terms. But you're not arguing in favor of this, why?
Because even the Japanese didn't think that was possible. They gameplayed a Pearl Harbor that included an invasion force and came to the conclusion that it would just make things worse not better. Their hope with what they went for was grab as much as they could (Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, etc.), then bunker down and hope the American public would call for a negotiated peace instead of a costly war to take back what was mostly other people's territory.
 
Then why don't you argue in favor of balancing the game in a way that Japan (narrowly, but decisively) crushes the USA in the Pacific and takes California in most games? It would be very interesting to play this as e.g. the British, it will force you to have an impact on the outcome, in your terms. But you're not arguing in favor of this, why?
Why would they, when the USSR slowly collapsing does the trick, and the Allies can't really intervene much against Japan in the first place? The only real presence in the Pacific apart from the Japanese and Americans is the British. What is Britain going to do, launch a Pacific Overlord invasion against the home islands while the IJN dominating the Pacific? Sure, the Soviet player can interfere, but a Soviet war against Japan is really ahistorical, and as such the game can't be made so that the Allies depend on them.

In Europe, by contrast, both the UK and US, and minors such as Brazil and Canada, can realistically interfere in North Africa, Italy, Norway, and France. Even a minor can have an impact as they can, for example, raid the Norwegian coast or send troops to North Africa, and when the Allies gain a foothold in southern Italy or on the French coastline, it has an actual impact on the war as Germany has to compensate by pulling troops from the Soviet front.

I don't neccessarily agree with making the USSR lose every time, but I'm willing to give it a chance and I have to admit it does sound like it's going to add some tension to the game as the Allies.

Perhaps, i am alone, but is there any way to turn off the battle planner? I want to control my divisions without any "red" marking on the counters on a normal (eg. clearly visible borders) map...
I'm not sure what you mean. You can just select a division and right-click where you want it to go, like in any strategy game. The battle planner is "off" by default. You have to turn it on by assigning divisions to plans.

If what you mean is if you can directly control troops while retaining the planning bonus, for example, sure, just delete their plans/orders when they're done preparing, and then you can direct them manually.
 
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.
That is one of the most absurd thing of revisionist history I've seen. Prohorovka part of Kursk battle alone took similar number casualities than whole Western front.
 
That is one of the most absurd thing of revisionist history I've seen. Prohorovka part of Kursk battle alone took similar number casualities than whole Western front.

Operation Zitadelle German Casualties - ~54k (Prokhorovka was part of it - 842 casualties)
Operation Husky Axis Casualties - ~180k

Hmm
 
So if I'm playing a minor country like, say, New Zealand, AI USSR will reliably lose to the Axis by '45 (which I doubt will not happen much earlier with the current game mechanics), unless they are saved by the AI Allies?

Let's just forget that the back of the Axis was broken by the Soviet Union and the Germans were in full retreat by the time the main Allied landings in Western Europe happened!?!:mad:

I suggest you read up on Lend Lease. According to Wikipedia ( I know it's not the most reliable source ) 30 to 40 percent of the tanks available to the red army in front of Moscow in December 1941 were made in Britain. More than 50 percent of the aircraft built by the Soviets during the war used aluminum supplied by the USA. And where do you think they got all the rubber used in tank tracks and aircraft tyres?
 
Some people in this thread have a problem when understanding the concept of "escalating advantage" - that is by seizing an advantage it becomes greater. To the UdSSR, the WAllies either provided advantages (such as stated by @Markus Marius above) or denied the Nazis advantages (by diverting AFVs as stated by @hkrommel - or the fact that the air war kept much of the heavy AA production away from the eastern front. Those ack-acks sure would have made holes in soviet heavy tanks.)

On the opposite, those same people have trouble accepting that this principle works as well for the Nazis as it does for others. If the first blows come harder and faster, if the airspace can't be contested by frontal aviation, if there is plenty of tanks to go around - that all can push the UdSSR beyond the tipping point, which would have lost them the war.
 
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)
Excuse me, what "series of German victories after the battle of Kursk" (which apparently left the Soviets "very close to surrendering") are you talking about?:confused:
 
I suggest you read up on Lend Lease. According to Wikipedia ( I know it's not the most reliable source ) 30 to 40 percent of the tanks available to the red army in front of Moscow in December 1941 were made in Britain. More than 50 percent of the aircraft built by the Soviets during the war used aluminum supplied by the USA. And where do you think they got all the rubber used in tank tracks and aircraft tyres?
According to most books on the Eastern Front I've read, Lend-Lease only really picked up steam in 1942-43. It certainly helped, especially in the later part of the war and in the air war, but the vast majority of the effort was done by the Soviet Union themselves. They turned the war around in 1941-42, mostly by themselves. Without Lend-Lease, it would've taken longer with much more loss of life, but the Germans were already aware they were losing the war when Stalingrad happened.

And I'd be perfectly fine with the Allied Lend-Lease contribution being represented in-game. What I'm NOT fine with, is the game being balanced at the Soviets being crushed by Germany around 1945 if the Allies don't come in swinging with a large-scale invasion.
 
I'm not sure what you mean. You can just select a division and right-click where you want it to go, like in any strategy game. The battle planner is "off" by default. You have to turn it on by assigning divisions to plans.

If what you mean is if you can directly control troops while retaining the planning bonus, for example, sure, just delete their plans/orders when they're done preparing, and then you can direct them manually.

The right "clicking" is not working with landig and parachuting. The manual control of the divs is not easy due to "mapping issues" (eg. too many provinces (?) in Netherlands and China and Japan area color similarity, etc).

And I do not like the exclamation mark on my counters :)


+1
Is there any possibility to order my bombers to attack a single province (eg. support the breakthrough) instead of attacking the whole area?
 
The right "clicking" is not working with landig and parachuting.
Nor should it. Having to actually prepare amphibious invasions and air drops is one of the things I like the most with HOI4. You're not telling your troops to take a stroll through the park, you're ordering a naval landing, or airborne invasion, with tens of thousands of men. The logistics of that should require some time to put together.
 
I'm genuinely curious to hear contrary opinions on this one.

The loss ratio that you cited shows refers to relative loss, not absolute. For example, the USSR lost 20,500 tanks in the 1941 campaign while Germany lost 2,850. This gives a ratio of 7.2: 1.

But did the USSR have a chance to create 7 times more tanks in real history (even with foreign assistance)? Not. Because the ratio of 7.2: 1 was temporary and later on it decreased.

The same goes for infantry losses. For example, some researchers say that the USSR had no chance in a war of attrition against Germany because its infantry loss ratio in 1941-1943 was higher than the difference between the total number of mobilized population of Germany (18-20 million) and the USSR (34-35 million). Even if we deduct the mobilization resource of Germany for the west (~ 30%) and add German allies for the east, the ratio of human resources will be 2:1 in favor of the USSR (perhaps a little more).

Thus, if we use linear logic, we will make an erroneous conclusion that the USSR lost the war of attrition because it lost more people in 1941-1943 than in the 2:1 ratio. The answer here is that the loss ratio shows relative losses, not absolute ones. For example, in one local battle, the USSR could lose 5,000 people against 1,000 in Germany. This is a fivefold difference, but the USSR does not have 5 times more people than Germany in real life. Thus, the loss coefficient shows only relative losses and changes over time.

As for the loss of armored vehicles and aviation, it must be borne in mind that the Soviet losses had a greater percentage of non-combat losses (breakdown) as a result of the technical lag behind Germany. But even if we take into account the losses of 2.94:1 as real, then for the USSR it was not a problem, because it had the worst coefficients earlier. In the case of an alternative history, the duration of the war would be longer and production rates are higher than in real life.
 
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.

Thanks for engaging, and sorry for being off topic.

I'm afraid that my knowledge of various statistics of the war are insufficient to make a serious evaluation of the suggested scenario, i.e. a German-Soviet war without other participants (if I'm not mistaken and it's an axis-soviet war that is proposed?). Acquiring such statistics and the insights needed to draw conclusions from them is not a reasonable use of my time and resources. But, if you still care to indulge me:

Russian geography is not a variable. Notoriously bad roads, different rail gauge, rasputitsa and so on. This is certainly one of the main relevant factors.

As for changing variables and not accounting for corresponding changes elsewhere, I strongly believe you are as guilty of that as the next guy. Here are some variables that I believe should be accounted for if one want to make the case that the Germans could have won in the proposed scenario.

  • Rails and rolling stock – Deutsche Reichbahn incorporated rolling stock and rails from occupied Europe. I don't know the ratio of German/foreign railway carriages used during the war, but I would be surprised if the capture of such materiel wasn't a significant net gain for the axis. What do you think?

    Also, in my understanding, Barbarossa was a huge priority logistically. Therefore I think it's wildly unreasonable to assume that troops on garrison duty in Europe historically took the same toll on logistical capacity as the forces deep into Russian territory. If we assume that I'm right and extrapolate to our solo-soviet-scenario, we would have more men and equipment on the eastern front, but with a smaller corresponding growth of transport capacity in terms of trucks and rolling stock. And we would still be limited by the same god-awful infrastructure that confronted the Germans historically. Have you accounted for that?
  • Supplies – Once again I wold assume that forces on garrison duty requires less supplies than forces in active combat areas. So again, yes, we would have more divisions on the eastern front, but is it really clear that there was enough supplies and munitions for them to be combat effective in an offensive role? Without sacrificing other equipment? And, if there was, can the supplies get to the front at an acceptable rate?
  • Nutrition – the food shortages would have been even worse without the seizing of 80% of French food production. How would that affect production numbers?
  • Various plundering – I'll grant the Germans the Czechoslovakian armor, its gold reserve and the Skoda-Werk, since the capture of those didn't provoke a war with the allies. But, would you, or anyone else for that matter, contest that all German production numbers between september 1939 and 1945 are inflated by resources stolen from the rest of Europe? Yet, you use these inflated numbers as basis for you scenario. Or am I missing something?

In reality, it was a team effort. The Soviets endured the worst of it and without allied help the calamity would probably have been even greater. Possibly fatal, but probably not.


And they were first in space :cool:
 
While I'm happy with the adress of the issue of the Soviet AI often losing against the German AI, I feel like the Sino-Japanese war is an even worse offender.
Japan always steamrolls China by 1938-1939, even if we custom buff China 1 level, Japan still wins by 1940 top. However if we buff China 2 levels then Japan gets pushed out of Manchuria.

This is a problem because Japan should get bogged down untill the Soviets invade Manchuria in 1945.
 
That is one of the most absurd thing of revisionist history I've seen. Prohorovka part of Kursk battle alone took similar number casualities than whole Western front.

I rarely if ever comment on "historical debate" stuff but I simply couldn't help myself. And I wouldn't throw around "revisionism" when making statements like the one you did.
To be fair, the total losses on the Eastern front eclipsed the Italian and Normandy front (even if you add up 39-41 and North Africa it's still dwarfed) but on the Divisional scale the German losses on the Eastern Front weren't more gruesome than they were on the Western Front. Several prominent historians have even showed the opposite to be true. There were simply a lot more divisions involved for a much longer duration in the East which meant the total figures were much larger.

In the battle of Kursk in '43 (following Citadel) the Germans suffered some 100-120k losses which are about the same figures as they did in Normandy one year later (that is up to mid-July 44, before Falaise).
In Normandy the Germans had between 300-400k troops in total (in the AO depending on date) while they numbered between 800-950k (AO) at the start the Battle of Kursk.

The battles and Area Of Operations are different but they're interesting to study due to comparative scaled differences in size, duration and force-composition. Normandy June-July was approximately 50 by 100km and Kursk 100 by 200km.
Fewer involved forces, smaller area but (in terms of percent of the total force involved) losses almost twice as high as those at Kursk one year prior.
 
Last edited:
As I did not think, but it is impossible to simulate June 22, 1941 and in which the USSR turned up in a slouch:
- firstly, Germany struck suddenly without a declaration of war; this is impossible in a game
- secondly, the Soviet infantry divisions were staffed by peacetime soldiers. In most divisions there were from 5 to 8 thousand soldiers instead of 12 thousand. And the divisions sent to the border were the same.
- third, a warning about possible threats was received a day before the war and there was a limit not to succumb to provocation. And many generals did not mobilize the soldiers.

All these factors can not be at least somehow simulated or replaced in the game. So in the game the USSR will beat Germany.
 
Last edited: