• 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!
 
That's what he claims in his memoirs yes, but in reality Paulus never received this order from von Manstein, even though he several times requested permission to break out. IF von Manstein had actually gived that order, Paulus would've tried to break out. But von Manstein didn't dare to do so, and doomed the 6th army. And lied about it after the war to shift the blame.

I have no idea whether you're correct or not, but you are taking on the task of proving a negative, which requires more than a simple claim. What evidence is there that Manstein lied about giving that order?
 
Not true. When von Manstein's attack stalled before Stalingrad, he ordered (as Army Group commander) Paulus (his subordinate) to break out. Paulus could have just obyed and blamed von Manstain later, if Hitler would not have accepted. But instead Paulus asked for Hitler's permission. When Hitler said "No", Paulus stayed in Stalingrad and doomed his troops.
By then it was FAR too late.
I concur with Beevor in this case. Paulus not preparing his armoured forces prior to Uran and then wasting their limited readiness piecemeal west of the Don instead of a concentrated counterthrust towards Vasiljevsky's south pincer was paramount to incompetence. It practically doomed the 6th army and in the end Germany (though strategically it was a path to downfall by December 41).
 
I have no idea whether you're correct or not, but you are taking on the task of proving a negative, which requires more than a simple claim. What evidence is there that Manstein lied about giving that order?
Easy. Manstein claims he gave the order to breakout, explicitly referring to this exact order:
1. Fourth Pz. Army (57 Pz. Corps) has beaten enemy in area Verkhnye Kimsky and reached Myshkova at Nizh Kimsky. Attack launched against strong enemy grouping in area Kamenka and north of here. Hard fighting still expected.
Situation on Chir front does not permit forces west of Don to advance on Kalach. Chirskaya in enemy hands.

2. Sixth Army will begin ‘Winter Tempest’ attack earliest possible. Aim will be to link up with 57 Pz. Corps, if necessary by advancing beyond Donskaya Tsaritsa, for purpose of getting convoy through.

3. Development of situation may make it necessary to extend task in para 2 up to Myshkova. Code-word ‘Thunderclap’. In this case the aim must likewise be to establish contact with 57 Pz. Corps in order to get convoy through, and then, by covering flanks on the lower Karpovka, to bring army forward towards the Myshkova simultaneously with sector-by-sector evacuation of fortress area.

It is essential that Operation ‘Thunderclap’ should immediately follow ‘Winter Tempest’ attack. Supply by air must be carried out in the main without advance stockpiling. Important to hold Pitomnik airstrip as long as possible.

All weapons and artillery which can be moved, primarily guns needed for the fighting and also any weapons and equipment which are difficult to replace, will be taken along. To this end they will be moved in good time to the south-west of the pocket.

4. All necessary preparations to be made for action laid down in para. 3. Only to be implemented on express issue of ‘Thunderclap’.

5. Reports day and time on which you can attack in accordance with para. 2.
However, as we can see in paragraph 4, Paulus had to wait for the "express issue of [the codename] 'Thunderclap'." Paulus never received this order.

So, von Manstein didn't give the order to break out (even though he claimed he does with the above order), instead he gave the order to prepare the breakout but wait for the order "Thunderclap", which he didn't send (he doesn't even claim he ever sent it to Paulus, and Paulus wouldn't challenge such an order from von Manstein anyway).
 
Not true. When von Manstein's attack stalled before Stalingrad, he ordered (as Army Group commander) Paulus (his subordinate) to break out. Paulus could have just obyed and blamed von Manstain later, if Hitler would not have accepted. But instead Paulus asked for Hitler's permission. When Hitler said "No", Paulus stayed in Stalingrad and doomed his troops.
Paulus even theoretically could not break through the encirclement. The German soldiers were hungry and frozen, they would have walked no more than a few hundred meters and did not die from lack of strength, they had no means to transport guns (the fuel was over and all the horses had long been eaten) for a breakthrough. And even if by some miracle the German soldiers could pass some distance, they was spotted with reconnaissance plane (open frozen steppe) and instantly destroyed by artillery or air force.
 
Paulus even theoretically could not break through the encirclement. The German soldiers were hungry and frozen, they would have walked no more than a few hundred meters and did not die from lack of strength, they had no means to transport guns (the fuel was over and all the horses had long been eaten) for a breakthrough. And even if by some miracle the German soldiers could pass some distance, they was spotted with reconnaissance plane (open frozen steppe) and instantly destroyed by artillery or air force.
Well, in the early stages of the encirclement it might've been possible, since the Soviets severely underestimated the number of encircled troops (they estimated they had trapped around 80,000 men, while in reality it was three times as many). But von Manstein convinced Hitler that he could break through by himself, and Göring and the Luftwaffe told him they could (theoretically) supply the 6th army in the meantime, so Paulus had to hold fast even though he wanted to break out himself.

It would still have been a close run though, and all the heavy equipment would be lost, but still: a lot of experienced men would've been saved that could later help stabilize the line... maybe.
 
Easy. Manstein claims he gave the order to breakout, explicitly referring to this exact order:

However, as we can see in paragraph 4, Paulus had to wait for the "express issue of [the codename] 'Thunderclap'." Paulus never received this order.

So, von Manstein didn't give the order to break out (even though he claimed he does with the above order), instead he gave the order to prepare the breakout but wait for the order "Thunderclap", which he didn't send (he doesn't even claim he ever sent it to Paulus, and Paulus wouldn't challenge such an order from von Manstein anyway).

That doesn't support your claim though. You said he never gave the order to break out because he never sent the order "Thunderclap" to Paulus. Your support for that is Paulus never receiving that order (which you didn't support) and Manstein never claiming he gave the "Thunderclap" order. However, Manstein claims that he did give the breakout order, which to me means he claims to have given whatever order necessary to initiate the breakout. In short, you haven't connected the dots. You may well be right but you must prove:

1. There was a specific codeword that needed to be sent to initiate the operation. That is self is unclear, as "express issue of Thunderclap" could mean the issue of the word as a code word, or it could mean the issue of the orders to begin the operation.
2. Manstein never sent that order. That he never claimed "I, Erich von Manstein, sent the codeword order" is not proof of this since he claimed to order the breakout. Since he claimed to order what the code word requires, it is clearly implicit in that claim that he issued whatever code words were necessary

Whether or not Paulus recieved the order is itself another burden to prove.
 
Well, in the early stages of the encirclement it might've been possible, since the Soviets severely underestimated the number of encircled troops (they estimated they had trapped around 80,000 men, while in reality it was three times as many). But von Manstein convinced Hitler that he could break through by himself, and Göring and the Luftwaffe told him they could (theoretically) supply the 6th army in the meantime, so Paulus had to hold fast even though he wanted to break out himself.

It would still have been a close run though, and all the heavy equipment would be lost, but still: a lot of experienced men would've been saved that could later help stabilize the line... maybe.
That was way before von Manstein even assumed command though.
The battle was lost at an earlier date.
Typhoon was doomed before its inception.
 
However, Manstein claims that he did give the breakout order, which to me means he claims to have given whatever order necessary to initiate the breakout.
When he says in his memoirs: I gave Paulus the order to break out IMMEDIATELY, he directly refers to the order I quoted above (and even provides it in an appendix)... but, as I showed, that order isn't an order to break out, but to prepare and wait for the codeword!

So what he claims is an order to break out, actually isn't.
 
When he says in his memoirs: I gave Paulus the order to break out IMMEDIATELY, he directly refers to the order I quoted above (and even provides it in an appendix)... but, as I showed, that order isn't an order to break out, but to prepare and wait for the codeword!

So what he claims is an order to break out, actually isn't.

So he didn't give it immediately (assuming that order constitutes the entirety of his actions for a long enough period of time to be considered outside the realm of the "immediate") but that doesn't mean he didn't give the order at all, which is your claim.
 
That was way before von Manstein even assumed command though.
The battle was lost at an earlier date.
Typhoon was doomed before its inception.
You're right, it probably was too late alreay.

Interestingly, according to David Glantz' Stalingrad, Paulus wanted to mount a breakout attempt immediately, but von Manstein recommended a delay for such an action before he came up with his "Operation Thunderclap" plan!
 
So he didn't give it immediately (assuming that order constitutes the entirety of his actions for a long enough period of time to be considered outside the realm of the "immediate") but that doesn't mean he didn't give the order at all, which is your claim.
For the third time, when he says: THIS is the order with which I told Paulus to break out IMMEDIATELY, and then he directly refers to the order I quoted (which says, again, prepare breakout, wait for the codeword).
 
For the third time, when he says: THIS is the order with which I told Paulus to break out IMMEDIATELY, and then he directly refers to the order I quoted (which says, again, prepare breakout, wait for the codeword).

That doesn't mean he never gave the order. That means that he didn't give the order immediately, at least not with the order quoted. That could mean he quoted the wrong order, forgot to specify that he issued the codeword separately, or simply forgot when he issued the codeword if he did. It does not provide evidence that he never issued the order, which was your claim.

Remember you voluntarily took on the task of proving a negative. I'm simply holding you to that. "Not A" does not mean B. It could mean B. It could also mean C, D, E, F, G, etc.
 
Sigh...

So, when von Manstein proves himself wrong... it's just a simple mistake, he provides the wrong order (although a separate order just saying "Thunderclap" would've been rather confusing), or he's forgetting things?

Stop making excuses. He proves himself wrong in his memoirs, which to me indicates he's just lying. Since von Manstein also lies about A CERTAIN TOPIC THAT SHALL NOT BE DISCUSSED HERE in his memoirs, and since he was partially to blame for a delay for any breakout initiative in the first place (according to Glantz), it's very likely he's lying here too.

But nooo, he's just forgetting things. The infallible genius that is von Manstein.

Stop treating me like a fucking idiot, please.
 
IMO, it is good to have the some "favorable outcomes" for any wars that will occur during campaign times with different conditions. But it is realy hard to simulate them in the game. I see 2 weaknesses in current realization for this, especially for Soviet - German wars.

1. For now by default Allied AI does not support USSR with lend-lease, but in real historical situaton there were a lot of resources delivered to Soviets. And the key word is resources - Allies mostly supplied Soviets with food (both for frontline and the rear), metals, vehicles, in-game "support equipment" (medical supplies, optical equipment, tents etc) and technology. Airplains or tanks were unsignificant in whole mass and in comparsion with USSR production and does not play any real role in the fight, but still were shipped. So in general Allied lend-lease was more hi-tech than just infantry equipment and contained more raw stuff. At the moment of 1.6.2 in HOI4 it is not in the place - USSR have just a few convoys (actual lend-lease was delivered by Allied convoys) and Allied help is too late to come or not even happened.
2. Allied bombing runs on Germany was not only aimed for production reduction but for resources excavation too - tungsteen, copper, oil, energy generation. There is no more stupidly looking things in life than a lot of military factories without required components and supplies. Also, Allies created a series of political operations with aim to cut off germans from vital military stuff, which was recieved by germans through trade with neutral countries - Turkey, Iraq, iran. in 1.6.2 bombing can not affect significaly resource excavation and in generally it is useless to bomb anything - 250 or 230 military factories are realy not the price of victory in HOI 4 (if we talking about AI vs man).

So, what should Allies do during 1941-1944? Secure shipping routes - retake North Africa, focus production on destroyers and aircraft for marine patrol, weaken german resource excavation and production - by cutting ties with Japan or neutral countries, strategic bombings finally with STRATEGIC BOMBERS and not with 1st gen Whitleys, buff soviet war machine - with resources, supplies and hi-tech weapons - so Soviets can create more efficient templates and something except infantry. And this should be enough for Soviets to turn the tide and win the war probably in 1947 (that is just my proposal, it could be different, but in 1943, even before landings in Italy or D-Day, the outcome of the war was already without a doubt - Germans were not ready for attrition war).

And at last, personal - In curent representation US does not even to try to topple goverment in Venezuela (actually, Venezuela was not a faschist goverment at all, but US still pressured them to stop any relations with Axis) or stage a coup in Argentina or UK does not want to occupy Iraq to secure the shippings to USSR and colonies. Allies are to just to good and peacefull ))) All wars are started by "bad boys", but it was not quite accurate in actual 30s-40s. They was not so brutal but definetely with the same will to power.
 
Sigh...

So, when von Manstein proves himself wrong... it's just a simple mistake, he provides the wrong order (although a separate order just saying "Thunderclap" would've been rather confusing), or he's forgetting things?

Stop making excuses. He proves himself wrong in his memoirs, which to me indicates he's just lying. Since von Manstein also lies about A CERTAIN TOPIC THAT SHALL NOT BE DISCUSSED HERE in his memoirs, and since he was partially to blame for a delay for any breakout initiative in the first place (according to Glantz), it's very likely he's lying here too.

But nooo, he's just forgetting things. The infallible genius that is von Manstein.

Stop treating me like a fucking idiot, please.

It's possible he never gave the order but you haven't shown that this is more likely than any other option. For example, he may have given the order, but have given it too late. Or he may have given the order but rescinded it. Or he may have given the order but it never reached Paulus. Or you're correct and he never gave the order but is lying to try and redeem his reputation. All of these things are equally supported by the evidence you presented. Logic doesn't care about your personal opinion about someone's trustworthiness.

Even if he's lying, what is he lying about? He could be lying about whether he gave the order at all, or he could be lying about when he gave it, among other options. Your point is only correct if he is lying about ever giving the order, and you have yet to show why this possibility is more likely than any other.

Edit: Since things have gotten a little heated it appears, I want you to know I have no idea whether you're right or not. Certainly Manstein's trustworthiness is in question, but to make the bold claim that it's "easy" to prove that he never gave the order is overstepping, plain and simple. You're certainly free to do that, but it isn't a logically supported conclusion based on the evidence you've presented.

Right now all you have is an untrustworthy person who made an unsupported (not necessarily false) claim about whether he did something immediately. The combination of untrustworthiness and lack of support may be enough to conclude that most likely he did not order immediate evacuation (though it would not prove that, again proving a negative is incredibly difficult), but it does not support that he never did so. For that point all you have is untrustworthiness, which standing alone is worth nothing. If Manstein claimed the sky was blue on a given morning, the simple fact that he has lied about other topics is not enough to conclude otherwise with any sort of definiteness.
 
Last edited:
I frankly would take ANY memoir with a grain of salt. The author is very likely to try to overplay their achievements or coverup for their mistakes.
 
I know someone asked about Japan/China earlier in the thread, but I didn't see a reply. Are the devs taking a look at Japan's offensive in China? In most of my game, Japan overruns China with relative ease. I don't mind this happening on occasion, but it seems too common as things stand now. Yes, I can buff China in settings; will I still need to do that in 1.7?
 
Mixed feelings on Germany being able to defeat the SU on their own by '45 as the design. I understand the reasons behind it, but don't think those reasons work for a Italy player like myself.

Previously it worked out well. When the Soviets started to push Germany back I was forced to invade Turkey and then open a new front in the oil rich mountains to save Germany. It created something of a tactical challenge because not only did it give something of a race against the clock vibe (must subdue Turkey quickly) but Italy is not a resource rich nation, so it definitely put a bit of stress on me.

But now I can sit back and do nothing but build planes to prepare for the invasion of the UK now that I need not worry about reinforcing and resupplying troops in Russia.

I know Italy is not one of the top played nations but I cannot overstate how much easier this makes an Italian playthrough.

Hopefully giving the SU a slight boost I can find that perfect balance
 
I know someone asked about Japan/China earlier in the thread, but I didn't see a reply. Are the devs taking a look at Japan's offensive in China? In most of my game, Japan overruns China with relative ease. I don't mind this happening on occasion, but it seems too common as things stand now. Yes, I can buff China in settings; will I still need to do that in 1.7?

TBH for a Japan to be of a somewhat viable opponent for Allies - they need to wrap up the Sino-Japanese war. Otherwise Japan would be too weak, when it would be denied Chinese resources and need to divide their army/airforce attention.

At least for now.
 
Since there's a lot of talk about Soviet Union "1v1" against axis and I see there's plenty of people who have watched that video about oil affecting Germany's war effort I kind of want to ask how much oil Germany could realistically buy from other countries if there was a true 1v1 vs Soviet (i.e. no British blockade).
In that oil video, it says Germany can only conduct large scale offensives for around 2 months after barbarossa starts in June 1941. So essentially they have to secure the caucasus oil fields by september 1941 in our timeline in order to fuel their war machine. Now let's say in an alternate timeline Germany could buy oil from countries like Venezuela, could this alternate time-line Germany extend the fortunate times of early Barbarossa for long enough to force the Soviet Union out of the war?

If it's true that Germany indeed had the upper hand provided they could secure enough oil, maybe Paradox has succeeded in modelling the Eastern front correctly with only 1 major anomaly (that I think everyone here can agree on): oil is not as big of a limiting factor for Germany in HOI4 as it was in real life.