• 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!
 
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.
Again, von Manstein says: I ordered Paulus to breakout immediately; he then refers directly to the order I quoted. How could you then come to the conclusion that he instead gave the order, but too late? If that was the case, he'd be lying too (since he says: I ordered to breakout immediately). If he rescinded it, why doesn't it appear like he gave the order in the first place? And the order never reaching Paulus is really a bit of a stretch, since: a) Paulus and his superiors (von Manstein and Hitler) still had unbroken contact, and b) von Manstein doesn't even consider that possibility, but instead just blames Paulus for not listening to what he calls an order to break out immediately (which, as I've shown, it isn't). The only logical conclusion, if you don't want to weasel through with increasingly convoluded excuses, is that he's lying. Or he's a demented idiot, who forgets things in his memoirs (just like his war crimes)...? No, he is very selective when he does such things.

Von Manstein has a clear incentive to lie about this: He already omits in his memoirs that, when the encirclement happens and Paulus and the other generals want an immediate breakout attempt by the 6th army, von Manstein was the one to suggest to Hitler to postpone such an initiative and instead break through from the outside. This doomed the 6th army. When von Manstein's relief attempt got stuck in the face of stronger Red Army resistance than expected, he realized his plan didn't work and gave Paulus this order to clear his tracks and shift responsibility on Paulus.

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.
Have you read the quotes? He says that he ordered Paulus to break out immediately, but he lies about: a) the order is an order to breakout, and b) it is an order to break out immediately, and subsequently c) it's Paulus' fault that he doesn't break out immediately even though he (von Manstein) supposedly gave him that order.

Right now all you have is an untrustworthy person who made an unsupported (not necessarily false) claim about whether he did something immediately.
It's not just an unsupported claim, he literally contradicts himself.

To me, it increasingly seems like you're intentionally trying to misinterpret things.
 
Seems like resonable goals, I like the symmetry with ww1, if Germany has the west secured then they will eventually grind Russia down.

Here's a problem though, in game the USSR capitulates when certain number of victory points have been taken, and that's all well and good but in reality that wouldn't have been an unconditional surrender. If the USSR had lost a few more major battles and the Germans taken a few more cites then the USSR would likely have offered Germany peace terms but not a full annexation. It's a bit immersion breaking when losing cities west of the Ural result in Germany (or sometime even Poland) suddenly reaching to the pacific.

Sensible settled peace mechanic is missing from game. It could be tied to lenght of war, loss of manpower, and level and change of war support, in addition to victory conditions. If intelligence, inter-faction coordination come available, then 'I don't peace out, as I expect second front opening any mont now' - 'I peace out, as no support is to be had, and we're bleeding out'
 
When you (Captured Joe) are quoting von Manstein, you are using translations. You quoted Manstein in English, so it cannot be original. Translations never exactly explain the same meanings as the originals. That's why legal documents are interpreted in courts from the originals deeds (original language). Manstein wrote his wartime orders and his post-war memoirs in German. Have you read thru the original German texts and compared them?
There is a real possibility for misinterpretations based on translating multimeaning words, translator errors, typo errors, whatever. You cannot "read between the lines" from translated texts as you might be able to do from the originals, and even then, it should be interpreted thru the context of that time (words get different connotations in diffent times). Any native German-speakers here who could read thru the originals in German and make comparisons?

Most war memeries are "colored" to make the author look more heroic. Did von Manstein do that in his memories? Possibly, but showing he lied just in a certain part of his memoirs needs evidence (and he cannot testify any more).
BTW, does anyone know, did any Paulus' HQ or von Manstein's HQ staff officer / signals officer write memoirs?
 
Hmm, you think the translation is faulty? Why don't you provide me with the original German version then?

Also, nice to see you finally replying to my posts rather than just respectfully disagreeing with every single one of them.
 
Hmm, you think the translation is faulty? Why don't you provide me with the original German version then?

Also, nice to see you finally replying to my posts rather than just respectfully disagreeing with every single one of them.

I am not German and I am also dependent of translations. I speak Finnish, English, Swedish and Spanish, but not German. However, if I read same books in English and in Finnish (for example both translated from German), I often find differences. Unfortunately, translators do not just translate, they make choices and interpretations.

Sorry, but I don't know where to easily find these orginal German documents. I do know they have large wartime document archives in Germany, but they are not all available online, as far as I know.
 
Hmmm, I just found a spicy message from von Manstein in a German book (Tosrten Dietrich's Stalingrad) online; here it is:
EVoTl.jpg
I can read German quite well (and have actually read several German generals' memoirs, although mostly from WW1), so here's a quick and dirty translation:

The reality on site was misunderstood. The commanders of the 4th Air Fleet (Richthofen) and the VIII Air Corps (Fiebig) declared that a long supply by air of the cauldron [the surrounded position of 6th army] was impossible. Weichs and Paulus didn't share Manstein's assessment of the situation either. Mannstein perceived it neccessary to urge Paulus obedience:

The order of the Führer relieves you of the responsibility, which goes over the purposeful and strong-willed order of the Führer. What happens after the army, in fullfillment of the Führer's orders, has shot its last bullet, won't be your responsibility.

Manstein's attitude shows that for this general, Hitler had become the highest moral authority.
In his book Lost Victories, Manstein blamed Paulus after the war for the destruction of the 6th army. He claimed that he [Paulus] had lacked the courage to do operation "Donnerschlag" [Thunderclap], although he had given him the order to breakout. The sources tell a different story, however. Manstein didn't dare either to order the breakout against Hitler's wishes. Paulus however could at this point not break out anymore, since the unsupplied army only a movement margin of 20 kilometer had left. The danger to get stuck defenseless and unsupported in the steppes, and become easy prey for the Soviet troops, was too great. The breakout of the 6th army, as we now know, should have happened directly after the uncirclement. The Stavka [the Soviet supreme command] hadn't expected anything else, either.

This directly supports my arguments... and it's in original German.:cool:
 
And here's yet another German article, which is about the same thing: https://www.rolfsteininger.at/bilder/extra36 2601.pdf

Am 26. November machte Paulus einen letzten Versuch: Er forderte von Manstein „für den alleräußersten Fall die Genehmigung zum Handeln nach Lage“. Unter Hinweis auf den „Führerbefehl“ lehnte dieser ab; gleichzeitig versuchte er, Paulus von dessen Gewissensnöten zu befreien: „Was wird, wenn die Armee in Erfüllung des Befehls des Führers die letzte Patrone verschossen haben sollte, dafür sind Sie nicht verantwortlich.“ So einfach war das offenbar. Paulus, zum Generaloberst befördert, gab den Leitspruch aus: „Drum haltet aus, der Führer haut uns raus!“

My translation:
On the 26th of November, Paulus made one last attempt: He urged von Manstein "for the uttermost case the permission to act according to the situation". He [von Mastein] rejected this, noting the "Führerbefehl" [order from the Führer]; at the same time he tried to free Paulus from his pangs of conscience: "What happens when the amy, in fullfillment of the Führer's order, has shot its last bullet, won't be your responsebility." It was as easy as that. Paulus, who was promoted to Colonel-General, issued the motto: "Just hold out, the Führer is getting us out!"
 
Hmmm, I just found a spicy message from von Manstein in a German book (Tosrten Dietrich's Stalingrad) online; here it is:
This directly supports my arguments... and it's in original German.:cool:
And here's yet another German article, which is about the same thing: https://www.rolfsteininger.at/bilder/extra36 2601.pdf
My translation:
On the 26th of November, Paulus made one last attempt: He urged von Manstein "for the uttermost case the permission to act according to the situation". He [von Mastein] rejected this, noting the "Führerbefehl" [order from the Führer]; at the same time he tried to free Paulus from his pangs of conscience: "What happens when the amy, in fullfillment of the Führer's order, has shot its last bullet, won't be your responsebility." It was as easy as that. Paulus, who was promoted to Colonel-General, issued the motto: "Just hold out, the Führer is getting us out!"
As a native german speaker I can tell you: No, it doesn't. It supports @hkrommels position of "you can't prove he ordered it, but you also can't prove it that he didn't" far better. You are apparently missing out on various subelties and double meanings - it is one of the "I will step out for a cup of coffee, while I leave the file on the desk" kind of situations.
 
And yet another German article about this: https://www.blikopdewereld.nl/geschiedenis/europa/duitsland/3227-stalingrad-mythos-einer-schlacht
Der Ausbruch jedoch, der in den ersten Tagen noch Aussicht auf Erfolg hat, bleibt aus. Die Generäle bestärken Hitler in der Auffassung, dass ein Rückzug der Anfang vom Ende wäre. Als er am 24.November in einem „Führerentscheid“ Stalingrad, wo es kaum ein noch unversehrtes Haus gibt, zur „Festung“ erklärt, erhält er Unterstützung von seinem Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein – wider besseres Wissen. In einem eilig erstellten Lagebericht teilt er seinem Führer mit, dass der Ausbruch der 6. Armee nicht nur möglich, sondern auch der sicherste Weg sei, um Schlimmeres zu verhindern. In der Stadt und der Kalmückensteppe zu bleiben, beurteilt er aber als das „größte Risiko“, um dann als schneidiger Feldherr doch genau dafür zu plädieren.

My translation:
The breakout however, which in the first few days would still have had the prospect of succes, didn't materialize. The generals strenghtened Hitler's view, that a retreat would be the beginning of the end. When he, on the 24th of november, declared Stalingrad, where barely a house had been left intact, in a "Führer's decision" a "Fortress", he received support from his Field Marshal Erich von Manstein - against better knowledge. In a hastily prepared status report, he told his Führer that a breakout of the 6th Army is not only possible, but also the safest way to prevent worse. He judged as the "greatest risk" to stay in the city and the steppes, but then this dashing commander pleaded for exactly that.
 
As a native german speaker I can tell you: No, it doesn't. It supports @hkrommels position of "you can't prove he ordered it, but you also can't prove it that he didn't" far better. You are apparently missing out on various subelties and double meanings - it is one of the "I will step out for a cup of coffee, while I leave the file on the desk" kind of situations.
How does "Auch Manstein hatte es nicht gewagt, gegen den Willen Hitlers den Ausbruch zu befehlen" have any double meaning? It literally means: "Manstein didn't dare either to order the breakout against Hitler's wishes." Which is exactly my argument.

Are you really a German speaker?
 
And yet another German article about this: https://www.blikopdewereld.nl/geschiedenis/europa/duitsland/3227-stalingrad-mythos-einer-schlacht


My translation:
The breakout however, which in the first few days would still have had the prospect of succes, didn't materialize. The generals strenghtened Hitler's view, that a retreat would be the beginning of the end. When he, on the 24th of november, declared Stalingrad, where barely a house had been left intact, in a "Führer's decision" a "Fortress", he received support from his Field Marshal Erich von Manstein - against better knowledge. In a hastily prepared status report, he told his Führer that a breakout of the 6th Army is not only possible, but also the safest way to prevent worse. He judged as the "greatest risk" to stay in the city and the steppes, but then this dashing commander pleaded for exactly that.
Did you note that you are sourcing from a) a netherlandic page and b) from an article explicitly called "The Myth of Stalingrad"? Such articles tend to be iconoclast for the sake of being iconoclast and not especially...objective.

Also, just because it is in german, it doesn't mean it is truer...
 
o_O It has been a few days.... Did the community come close to the conclusion whether Soviet can defeat German alone yet?
If not, I will check back again later. :p
 
To be honest i disagree with this kind of design philosophy . I understand that the game needs to be balanced however I think it can be done in a much better historically accurate way .
Here is what I would suggest I think the Soviets should be able to beat Germany alone however it should be made so that it is a lot slower if there is no allied invasion maybe the Soviets would be able to defeat Germany around 1948 . A player would probably want to finish a lot sooner .
Just to clarify when I say "alone" I mean without allied invasion of mainland Europe.
 
Tell me then, what subtleties, if any, does the sentence I quoted have?
No, we are not playing that game. You are missing out on an entire context by zeroing in on a single sentence in a single (secondary) source in order to prove that you are right. And over that you are forgetting that NOT A does not equal B.

To re-iterate: The burden of proof is on YOU - since you are trying to assert an absolute position.