• 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!
 
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.
So, instead we are playing the game where you assert that I misread a German sentence because I am "missing out on an entire contect", but you refuse to show how I am misreading that?
You are trying to assert as much an absolute position here as I did when I said von Manstein is lying. I explained how inconsistencies, along with other sources, show how he is lying, thus providing proof for my claim. Now it's on you to explain why I am misreading, and how ther actually is more to the text I quoted.
 
So, instead we are playing the game where you assert that I misread a German sentence because I am "missing out on an entire contect", but you refuse to show how I am misreading that?
You are trying to assert as much an absolute position here as I did when I said von Manstein is lying. I explained how inconsistencies, along with other sources, show how he is lying, thus providing proof for my claim. Now it's on you to explain why I am misreading, and how ther actually is more to the text I quoted.
I merely asserted that the "proof" you brought supported @hkrommel far better than it did you. I never wrote anything about a specific sentence, that was all you. I am going to cease here, since your behaviour in the entire thread speaks of you being incapbable of accepting that things can be other than either/or.
 
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).
''Der von Manstein zum AOK 6 am 27. Dezember ausgesandte Emissär schilderte die Notwendigkeit zum sofortigen Ausbruch, doch Paulus lehnte wegen Hitlers Versprechen, die 6. Armee ausreichend zu versorgen und rechtzeitig zu entsetzen, jedes eigenmächtige Handeln ab.''
Translation: Manstein sended an emissary to AOK 6 on December 27th to break out immediatly, but Paulus denied because Hitler promised they will get supported by air and released later.
 
That's just parroting von Manstein's own claim from Lost Victories (in which he directly refers to an order to AOK 6 on December 27th to prepare a breakout and wait for the codeword). Which is unsurprising, since many historians since have taken von Manstein's words at face value, hence the myths around the Stalingrad breakout.

Edit:
''Der von Manstein zum AOK 6 am 27. Dezember ausgesandte Emissär schilderte die Notwendigkeit zum sofortigen Ausbruch, doch Paulus lehnte wegen Hitlers Versprechen, die 6. Armee ausreichend zu versorgen und rechtzeitig zu entsetzen, jedes eigenmächtige Handeln ab.''
Translation: Manstein sended an emissary to AOK 6 on December 27th to break out immediatly, but Paulus denied because Hitler promised they will get supported by air and released later.
Actually, the translation isn't "sended an emissary to AOK 6 on December 27th to break out immediatly", but is "sent an emissary to 6th army which showed that an immediate breakout was necessary." So even this quote doesn't say von Manstein actually ordered the breakout!
 
That's just parroting von Manstein's own claim from Lost Victories (in which he directly refers to an order to AOK 6 on December 27th to prepare a breakout and wait for the codeword). Which is unsurprising, since many historians since have taken von Manstein's words at face value, hence the myths around the Stalingrad breakout.

Edit:

Actually, the translation isn't "sended an emissary to AOK 6 on December 27th to break out immediatly", but is "sent an emissary to 6th army which showed that an immediate breakout was necessary." So even this quote doesn't say von Manstein actually ordered the breakout!
And that is the problem when you're not a native speaking german!
It does mean Paulus should break out immediatly, but he denied.
 
'Der von Manstein zum AOK 6 am 27. Dezember ausgesandte Emissär schilderte die Notwendigkeit zum sofortigen Ausbruch, doch Paulus lehnte wegen Hitlers Versprechen, die 6. Armee ausreichend zu versorgen und rechtzeitig zu entsetzen, jedes eigenmächtige Handeln ab.''
"The from Manstein to 6th army on 27th december sent emissary described the need for an immediate breakout, but Paulus rejected, because of Hitler's promise to adequately supply the 6th army and to relieve it on time, to do any unauthorized actions."

"schilderte die Notwendigkeit zum sofortigen Ausbruch" DOES NOT MEAN "ordered an immediate breakout", it means "showed the need for an immediate breakout".
I may not be a native German, but I can read well enough to understand this. Don't try to mislead your readers.
 
You have to read between the lines too.
First of all it is written in a 3rd persons view. It is in no means stated about an direct order from Manstein to Paulus, but a highly recommendation to Paulus to break out (because Manstein couldn't give Paulus the direct order to do so), in german this is the meaning of 'break out and i'll help you, although I can't give you the order to do so'.
 
Von Manstein was Paulus' superior, if anyone had the authority to order the breakout (besides Hitler), it would be him. He could've given Paulus a free hand (as requested multiple times by the latter), but he feared getting on Hitler's wrong side.

And I in fact agree with that it is by no means a direct order from Manstein to Paulus, but a recommendation! However, in von Manstein's memoirs he literally says (referring directly to this same order) that he ordered Paulus to break out immediately, but that Paulus didn't follow this order because he didn't want to disobey Hitler. Which means he is lying. Thus my point stands.
 
You can't say that ! As I told you this was written from a 3rd persons view. Manstein couldn't order it directly (without a trial) because his commander (Hitler) said no !
Otoh Paulus could have give the order to break out directly , maybe with a trial (in good old german military tradition , officiers are to handle free if they see the situation needs to do so), and Manstein did 'recommend ' Paulus to do so , wich is for a native german like a non-official order .
Empfehlung in this context means order.
 
I'm not getting into this interpretation thing because I've said my piece about the rules of logic. One last thing on that: proving a negative in this case requires actual proof, not one statement that is apparently quite nuanced in the original German and, at least according to two native German speakers, supports Manstein's claim. You can't just assert untrustworthiness and a nuanced statement to conclude that all other possibilities are false and therefore only your claim is true. That's not how logic works.

I'll leave the translations to the people who speak German.

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

The community never will because there are enough people on any side of an argument deluded by bad history or nationalist/general fanboy sentiment. To be sure many people have well-reasoned belief in a position too, so when those people agree or agree to disagree, that's generally a good indicator. Historians don't engage with this sort of what-if because as a profession historians generally abhor what-ifs. However a few pages (11-13) back you'll see the argument conclude with a general consensus or acquiescence in the negative. Sure there were a few holdouts, but their arguments were of the general "assert, rinse, repeat" variety. The biggest caveat was the logistical point, which I addressed on page 12.

Just to clarify when I say "alone" I mean without allied invasion of mainland Europe.

Ok, that's a different claim. For future reference "alone" means exactly that, "alone." It's not a term given to double meanings and that sort of thing. If you want it to have some other meaning (and insist on not using a different word) you should provide more context so the reader can understand that you don't mean "alone."
 
Last edited:
You can't say that ! As I told you this was written from a 3rd persons view. Manstein couldn't order it directly (without a trial) because his commander (Hitler) said no !
Otoh Paulus could have give the order to break out directly , maybe with a trial (in good old german military tradition , officiers are to handle free if they see the situation needs to do so), and Manstein did 'recommend ' Paulus to do so , wich is for a native german like a non-official order .
Empfehlung in this context means order.
Die kleinen Gemeinheiten des Befehlens - oder: Der Unterschied zwischen Befehl und Erwartung.

It is especially important to note here that for Germans (and probably for other groups, but for germans is pretty important because of the rule-fetishism) there are ways to mark out orders as "to be obeyed" and "to be ignored", or to phrase actual orders in a way that it isn't an order formally. The distinction between formal orders and informal orders can get a bit confusing for an outsider. For example:
  • If your superior tells you "Ich würde Ihnen empfehlen, dass sie dieses und jenes tun" that translates to "I would recommend that you do this-and-that", but is actually an order (or at least is taken by most to be one - which makes it one). Precisely when depends on the context, tone and relation between the speaker and spoken-to.
  • "Ich sehe das kritisch" - "I view that in a critical light" mostly means you want that issue discussed again. If talking about a date (i.e. software delivery), it means I think you are bumf*ck nuts for even considering that date (and saying so). But when talking about anything else, it just means I want to talk some more about it.
  • On the contrary "Es wurde angeordnet, dass..." - "It has been ordered, that..." can mean (depending on organisation) that whatever follows, is not expected to be obeyed. But that violations should be kept on the down-low.
  • "Es wurde klargemacht, dass die Situation nicht weiter ertragbar ist" - "It was clarified that the situation is no longer endurable" means that a) The entire house is burning and b) something is done about it. It is basically the german equivalent to "Situation a bit sticky."
Directly going against the orders of a link higher in the hierarchy is a big no-no, but engineering that the orders couldn't be obeyed (or creating a sufficent excuse) is all well and good. That sort of thing is called "eine goldene Brücke bauen" - "to build a golden bridge", which refers to getting out of a situation despite orders to the contray. All that depends context, company and so on. It can also plain not work.
 
That's all well and good, but von Manstein claims in his memoirs he didn't just "suggest" to Paulus he should maybe break out (although that's clearly what he did), but that he directly ordered him to break out immediately, and that Paulus refused to do so.
 
That's all well and good, but von Manstein claims in his memoirs he didn't just "suggest" to Paulus he should maybe break out (although that's clearly what he did), but that he directly ordered him to break out immediately, and that Paulus refused to do so.

I'm pretty sure what @permanently_afk and @Frank+Frei are trying to tell you is that, in the cultural context, that suggestion is in fact an order and would clearly be understood as such. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I'm pretty sure what @permanently_afk and @Frank+Frei are trying to tell you is that, in the cultural context, that suggestion is in fact an order and would clearly be understood as such. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Nope, you got it.
You can't give an order in direct contradiction to another order already given by a higher authority, so you go around it by giving it informally in a way everybody should recognise. As to why Paulus didn't act on it: That is speculation. This sort of thing relies on implication, meaning an error in transport may well have changed the meaning. Or Paulus simply chose to obey the formal order by Hitler instead of the informal one by Guderian. Or he never got it. And so on and so forth.
 
But that's not what von Manstein says in his memoirs. He doesn't say that he gave a suggestion that could be interpreted as an order, he literally says he just ordered the immediate breakout; nothing vague or informal, but explicit.

Edit: I dug up some quotes from von Manstein's book:
The immediate problem - that is, from 19th till 25th December - was whether Sixth Army would actually be able and willing to carry out the order issued to it.
In the week that followed the Army Group’s order for an immediate break-out, the fate of Sixth Army was decided.
The second quote is very formal: Note the "Army Group's order" rather than "my suggestion".
 
Last edited:
But that's not what von Manstein says in his memoirs. He doesn't say that he gave a suggestion that could be interpreted as an order, he literally says he just ordered the immediate breakout; nothing vague or informal, but explicit.

Edit: I dug up some quotes from von Manstein's book:


The second quote is very formal: Note the "Army Group's order" rather than "my suggestion".

When two native German speakers disagree with your interpretation of an interpretation of German, it's probably time to stop.