• 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 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 what I've told you , to read between the lines and not to take the translation word by word (that's a kind of a google-translated result). A german field-marshall won't write in his statements he disobeyed his orders and even worse , he wont say he ordered his substitutes to disobey the orders of his chief , that would have sentenced him to dead as mutany.
 
So what you're saying is, that when von Manstein writes in his memoirs, he means "I suggested the 6th army should breakout" when he says "I ordered the 6th army to breakout immediately"? Or are you saying that he is making this "suggestion" with his actual order (which he provides in the appendix)?
 
It means : Paulus get the hell out of here I will wait for you to help you with all I can but hurry up before Schickelgruber knows what's going on here ! ;)
 
But that doesn't mean von Manstein sent him an actual order, which he says in Verlorene Siege (whereby he lays the responsibility with Paulus for his refusal to follow this order). Why would he say "I ordered 6th army to breakout immediately" if he means that he gave Paulus an informal suggestion? And remember, Paulus had been asking for a free hand since the beginning of the encirclement (with von Manstein (of all people!) suggesting to Hitler that the 6th army didn't need to break out), what would a suggestion accomplish other than shifting the responisbility away from von Manstein, since Paulus knew very well that he was doomed if he wouldn't breakout! But von Manstein makes it look like he actually gave an order, and that Paulus chose to obey Hitler's wishes instead.
 
Also, remember this message by von Manstein to Paulus on 26 november;
Der Befehl des Führers entlastet Sie von der Verantwortung, die über die zweckmässichste und willensstärkste Durchführung des Befehls des Führers hinausgeht. Was wird, wenn die Armee in Erfüllung des Befehls des Führers die letzte Patrone verschossen haben sollte, dafür sind Sie nicht verantwortlich.
Isn't this the polar opposite of suggesting disobedience to Hitler's wishes?
 
Also, remember this message by von Manstein to Paulus on 26 november;

Isn't this the polar opposite of suggesting disobedience to Hitler's wishes?
Jesus christ mate move on with your life. This entire argument has moved so far past "whether or not the Soviets losing to the nazis if the allies don't lend lease and open up other fronts in game is a good idea" that I'm honestly surprised the mods haven't cracked down yet.
 
What about an event where the soviets surrender, similar to the one the japanese have? It could trigger when you capture important cities (Kiev, Stalingrad, Leningrad Moscow).
 
What about an event where the soviets surrender, similar to the one the japanese have? It could trigger when you capture important cities (Kiev, Stalingrad, Leningrad Moscow).
You mean, white peace case? Well, variant with A-A line could work, but in general it is already time to add working mechanic of said white peace into the game. Because adding unique events to every possible war combination is not even funny.
 
The biggest problem I'm seeing with most of the axis-will-win arguments is that they assume the Nazis get all of the benefits of conquering Europe with none of the costs, which is both silly and not the scenario posited by the Dev diary.

The only way that they get the benefits of their conquests without the cost of keeping them defended whilst facing off against the Soviets is if they have successfully peaced out Britain first (or occupied them). In such a case, with the Axis entire military might and much of Europes industrial might against the Soviets (and the soviets for whatever reason receiving no assistance from the US), the Axis probably would have won.
In game I'm quite sure they would already win such a scenario (even sans the current front line shuffling bug), which I think is fine.

The scenario that is actually being posited in the Dev diary is one in which everything is going otherwise historically but the allies fail to make a significant landing in Europe and that guarantees that the soviets lose. This is obviously ridiculous from a historical perspective as even if you count Husky as a major landing, the Nazis had already been stalled in what would be their final strategic offensive, operation citadel.

You can absolutely make the argument that without having to divert new troops and equipment to Italy it could have been possible for them to once again amass a large enough reserve on the eastern front for another offensive, and that is certainly plausible. You could also argue that that hypothetical offensive might have succeeded, and I would say it was possible. You could further argue that such an offensive might have been so successful that it turned the tide permanently in favor of the Axis and allowed them to defeat the Soviets despite all the metrics stacked against them, and I wouldn't say it was absolutely impossible. You might then also argue that not only were those things possible, but they were in fact inevitable, and I would probably write a somewhat lengthy forum post calling you an idiot.
 
The biggest problem I'm seeing with most of the axis-will-win arguments is that they assume the Nazis get all of the benefits of conquering Europe with none of the costs, which is both silly and not the scenario posited by the Dev diary.

The only way that they get the benefits of their conquests without the cost of keeping them defended whilst facing off against the Soviets is if they have successfully peaced out Britain first (or occupied them). In such a case, with the Axis entire military might and much of Europes industrial might against the Soviets (and the soviets for whatever reason receiving no assistance from the US), the Axis probably would have won.
In game I'm quite sure they would already win such a scenario (even sans the current front line shuffling bug), which I think is fine.

The scenario that is actually being posited in the Dev diary is one in which everything is going otherwise historically but the allies fail to make a significant landing in Europe and that guarantees that the soviets lose. This is obviously ridiculous from a historical perspective as even if you count Husky as a major landing, the Nazis had already been stalled in what would be their final strategic offensive, operation citadel.

You can absolutely make the argument that without having to divert new troops and equipment to Italy it could have been possible for them to once again amass a large enough reserve on the eastern front for another offensive, and that is certainly plausible. You could also argue that that hypothetical offensive might have succeeded, and I would say it was possible. You could further argue that such an offensive might have been so successful that it turned the tide permanently in favor of the Axis and allowed them to defeat the Soviets despite all the metrics stacked against them, and I wouldn't say it was absolutely impossible. You might then also argue that not only were those things possible, but they were in fact inevitable, and I would probably write a somewhat lengthy forum post calling you an idiot.
What exactly is the point you are trying to convey here?
 
What exactly is the point you are trying to convey here?
The devs do anything to favor the Germans fans in every possible and completely ahistorycal way. In these game we can had only Mighty and Perfected Germany and countries which exist to fall no matter what happened. Like France, Poland, SU and the rest of Europe.

It should be a race against time, but not for the USSR.
For Germany.
If UK does not capitulate, if the Japanese do not open a second front against the USSR and AXIS do not force SU to capitulate in the 41/42 - they lose.
All other scenarios of the victory of the *thousand-year Reich* in such conditions are fantasies. And it is a pity that paradox have chosen this path.

Now comapre these DD with pre-order trailer. Great job/
 
Last edited:
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:

View attachment 480597

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:

View attachment 480598

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:

View attachment 480595
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:
View attachment 480596

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.
View attachment 480601

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!
Will the focus tree come to Turkey ?
We want the focus tree to come to Turkey for months.
 
We want the focus tree to come to Turkey for months.
Haha, SU and France avait rework for 3 years already and how we can see its not happened. And if it would be it do not made them stronger or that *broke balance* and germans wouldnt be able to do anything.
 
The Soviet Union is so weak at the moment, that they always lose against Germany. So, I used console commands to strengthen them a little with about 40 military factories, long before the war with Germany (I played as Japan) and during the war I reinforced them with tens of millions of men but it all was in vain, they lost anyway. The Soviets really need to be way stronger and smarter. Can't wait for Hydra! :)
 
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!

The debate is several decades old by now and greater minds than ours have delved quite deep into the subject.
I believe that von Manstein's words in his memoirs must be weighed against actual HQ and order transcriptions from the dates in question. The situation was far from clear until some time after he'd assumed command.

The 6th army shouldn't have been in jeopardy had Paulus and his staff acted decisively from the get-go.
They failed to react during Dec 19th and 20th and then squandered their mobile resources piecemeal and too late west of the Don instead of coordinated (that they even failed to have even a mobile reserve to begin with was the single most catastrophic error) in an area that was essentially outside of their main AO (which was even stranger since they largely ignored the threatened sector the month before and in early December).

The actions that led to the encirclement was well under way on Dec 21st (when von Manstein assumed command of Armygroup Don, and he himself was not even present). After December 23rd a breakout couldn't have been performed with any haste regardless since Paulus didn't have anything left to effectively do so with. And without anything to link up to it would have just served to doom any rallied formations in the open field.

It's all academic but OKH had forbidden a breakout (ie a retreat from the Volga) and von Manstein wasn't one to take the responsibility of overruling said orders at that time.

The northern Soviet pincer was aimed towards Kalach and not the Morozovsk Stalingrad rail line (which ran much further south) and 6th army HQ seems to have realized this on the 21st already so the entire decision to throw away the only reasonable reserves they had (and piecemeal), instead of keeping the lines of communications open or as a readily available counter-attack force against a possible southern pincer, was the greatest mistake in a series of bad decisions. von Manstein's dealings at that stage must be seen in the light of a lack of accurate operational insight and only when he met up with von Bock would he have been informed about the operational reality or maybe even later (he visited AGC HQ on Dec 24th on his way south). That Paulus and staff had wasted the only good cards they had several days prior.

By that time it's quite possible that von Manstein, with his tactical acumen, realized the 6th army was probably doomed.

But to get back OnT. The original statement I believe was that the dilution of force that other campaigns brought also added to the German disaster at Stalingrad. (as in "if the Germans had had Rommel and the D.A.K components in the USSR instead......").

People rant on about supplies and whatnot but the reason Case Blue even developed the way it did (changes which cost enormous amounts of precious fuel, supplies and not to forget, railroad, transport and air-lift capacity) was because of a lack of sufficient forces to achieve all the goals on-time and thus Gröfaz and OKH decided to run them in parallel instead of sequentially.

Had components of the D.A.K, part of the forces in Norway and elsewhere been available in Ukraine/Russia in the summer and autumn of '42 then 4th PzA would've never been redirected and the supply-situation would't have deteriorated the way it did. That could've made the outcome something completely different as the Stalingrad Front wasn't even close to a state of meaningful readiness at that point (without the supply SNAFU caused by the redirection of 4th Panzer Army and supporting forces and later 1st PzA, then the 6th and 17th would've been able to continue their advances uninterrupted several weeks before they did historically).

There are a lot of if's and but's but that's part of the whole reason with historical GSG-titles.
In terms of good gameplay I agree with PDS on the statement that the USSR should fall if the Allies do nothing. That is, if there's nothing preventing the Axis from going full effort into the USSR. If there's no lend-lease or even diversionary combat-actions by the western Allies then the USSR should eventually fall (which it probably would've under those circumstances).
 
Last edited:
I'm going to have to disagree with this; there was a very real possibility for a negotiated peace between Germany and Britain following the Fall of France. Under a PM other than Churchill, it might have occurred, and the Germans made repeated proposals to the English regarding this. It is much more accurate to say that Germany lost on December 8, 1941.

I fully support the view that Germany lost on 1st September '39 they had no way of defeating Britain, I think your buying the myth of Churchill a little, Germany have no chance in hell of landing troops on the British mainland and keeping them supplied. The Germans needed to beat the Russians by October/November so the US entry into the war wasn't a decisive factor just acceleration of the inevitable and the Germans only had to go to war with Russia because of British blockade
 
Im shocked, nobody even mentioning the fact soviets was extremely "buffed" by allies due to lend-lease, what made them hold on so long and then break through together with allies. Even more, they say "ahistorically designed Nazi win over the Soviets". Im shocked x2 because that's not russians who say about it and x2 more is that posts about it being mostly approved by the people. They think, while living in Western countries, that their countries did nothing to help the soviets back time and waited until the winner was determined and only then involved in war?

AS RUSSIAN i couldn't resist writing it. It was the USSR and Allies together who defeated the Axis and there is no way USSR or Allies defeating Axis alone without any third party involvement and cooperations.

The world united against Axis and fought together against them for people to write now that someone would win alone? Do you guys even know it was WORLD WAR and why is it called like that???
 
Last edited:
Will the focus tree come to Turkey ?
We want the focus tree to come to Turkey for months.

If you look at the thread entitled "HOI4 Dev Diary - 1.6.2 and Roadmap", you'll find a fairly comprehensive list of goals for the devs, including ones marked out that have already been completed. It's well worth your time to read in general anyway.

Among those is a new focus tree for Turkey. So I can say it's highly likely that one will happen at some point in the future.

I can also say with equal surety that it will NOT be in the Hydra patch. They only tend to add new trees with paid DLC, and Hydra is not going to have that. The earliest you will see a Turkish focus tree is going to be the 1.8 Husky patch and DLC. If the guess of some people is accurate that the Husky patch is focused on the Med Sea area (since Operation Husky was the allied codename for the invasion of Sicily), then a Turkish tree would fit nicely into that theme. That's by no means a guarantee, but it is a cause for hope. I too enjoy playing as the Turks, so I would like to see that happen as well.
 
Im shocked, nobody event mentioning the fact soviets was extremely "buffed" by allies due to lend-lease, what made them hold on so long and then break through together with allies. Even more, they say "ahistorically designed Nazi win over the Soviets". Im shocked x2 because that's not russians who say about it and x2 more is that posts about it being mostly approved by the people. They think, while living in Western countries, that their countries did nothing to help the soviets back time and waited until the winner was determined and only then involved in war?
My post probably will be deleted, but AS RUSSIAN i couldn't resist writing it. It was the USSR and Allies together who defeated the Axis and there is no way USSR or Allies defeating Axis alone without any third party involvement and cooperations.

You see in western countries, what a lot of people think about Stalin and overall Soviet union is incredibly similar to Stalinist-era soviet proppaganda :)