• 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!
 
Since the debate is still going, let's look at both strategies that Germany could choose when attacking soviets (I assume there was a strategy to go north but who cares?):

Going centre towards Moscow: (Supported by OKW/OKH)

Pros;
Humiliating Soviets;
Capturing a major railway and industrial hub;
Possibly getting rid of Stalin (depends if he decides to stay in Moscow or not);
Being able to bleed soviets out (think of it like Verdun);
Making Goebbels happy (propaganda);

Cons;
Possibly running out of petroleum
Getting into attritional WW1-style combat (there's no way Stalin would allow the germans to capture the city without fight, I assume that he would throw there everything he could);
Making russians veeeery angry;
Overstretching of frontline (thus logistical problems + giving soviets more options for offensives as germans can't have reserve Panzers everywhere);
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going south towards Caucasus: (Supported by Hitler)

Pros:
Caucasus oilfields (ability to wage mobile war much longer + increasing industrial output due to steady supply of fuel);
Ukrainian grain (ability to supply German troops and civilians without having to resort to starving occupied countries like poland, france or norway);
Keeping frontline relatively short;
Stopping western allies from supplying Soviets through Persia;
Giving much more options to Axis what to do next;

Cons:
Not decisive (Caucasus area is easy to cut off, there's no reason why Stalin would suicide armies there to defend something indefensible, it doesn't force them to fight for it);
Not as prestigious;
(I can't think of anything else, any suggestions?)

About both strategies; Hitler IRL decided to go south, Franz Halder, the main commander of German troops in the East and the one who was planning Barbarossa decided to go for centre, well, now we know that doing both strategies didn't work out well. If you had to choose one of these strategies, which one and for what reasons?
 
Still better then any of Hitler's war related* decisions during WW2;)
Well I disagree of course. Stand-fast orders orders like 6th army in Stalingrad make more sense once you accept that fall Blau is pivotal for the entire war. If you don't accept that Fall Blau decides the entire war then of course you will regard Stalingrad as a major blunder that makes no sense.
 
(I can't think of anything else, any suggestions?)

If the Soviets managed to launch a counter attack, the Germans might get trapped in the Caucasus. (Not likely, but still possible)

Having cut of or threatened allied supply routes, might motivate the Allies to send forces to aid the Soviets and make sure the Germans won't be able to use the oil for longer then a few weeks/ months. (Only likely when the Axis is pushed out of North Africa.)
 
Since the debate is still going, let's look at both strategies that Germany could choose when attacking soviets (I assume there was a strategy to go north but who cares?):

Going centre towards Moscow: (Supported by OKW/OKH)

Pros;
Humiliating Soviets;
Capturing a major railway and industrial hub;
Possibly getting rid of Stalin (depends if he decides to stay in Moscow or not);
Being able to bleed soviets out (think of it like Verdun);
Making Goebbels happy (propaganda);

Cons;
Possibly running out of petroleum
Getting into attritional WW1-style combat (there's no way Stalin would allow the germans to capture the city without fight, I assume that he would throw there everything he could);
Making russians veeeery angry;
Overstretching of frontline (thus logistical problems + giving soviets more options for offensives as germans can't have reserve Panzers everywhere);
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going south towards Caucasus: (Supported by Hitler)

Pros:
Caucasus oilfields (ability to wage mobile war much longer + increasing industrial output due to steady supply of fuel);
Ukrainian grain (ability to supply German troops and civilians without having to resort to starving occupied countries like poland, france or norway);
Keeping frontline relatively short;
Stopping western allies from supplying Soviets through Persia;
Giving much more options to Axis what to do next;

Cons:
Not decisive (Caucasus area is easy to cut off, there's no reason why Stalin would suicide armies there to defend something indefensible, it doesn't force them to fight for it);
Not as prestigious;
(I can't think of anything else, any suggestions?)

About both strategies; Hitler IRL decided to go south, Franz Halder, the main commander of German troops in the East and the one who was planning Barbarossa decided to go for centre, well, now we know that doing both strategies didn't work out well. If you had to choose one of these strategies, which one and for what reasons?

You forgot to mention the massive soviet troop concentrations in the greater Moscow area in 42. The soviets massed their troops there because they wanted to push back the Wehrmacht (in which they eventually succeeded). Another massive encirclement would have hurt the Red Army a lot.

However, we are talking about 1942 here. The war was already lost for Germany. At this point we are merely discussing which country is going to be nuked into oblivion by the US. The contenders are solely Germany and Japan. No idea why anyone should contest the title
 
Last edited:
Well I disagree of course. Stand-fast orders orders like 6th army in Stalingrad make more sense once you accept that fall Blau is pivotal for the entire war. If you don't accept that Fall Blau decides the entire war then of course you will regard Stalingrad as a major blunder that makes no sense.

In order to be valid, that argument also requires the opportunity to seize Stalingrad with the 6th army, which did not exist. Hitler just decided to have his men butchered in the cruelest, most humiliating way possible because that would save his face for another month or two. There is no sense in forcing your hand into a meat grinder. Its hardly a well thought tactical decision, to my mind. The Hitler apologists usually blame Göring here. While that remains debatable, appointing Göring as chief in air force in the first place sure is one of the many many major strategic blunders Hitler proudly and boastfully engaged in.
 
Last edited:
Well I disagree of course. Stand-fast orders orders like 6th army in Stalingrad make more sense once you accept that fall Blau is pivotal for the entire war. If you don't accept that Fall Blau decides the entire war then of course you will regard Stalingrad as a major blunder that makes no sense.

Lose ground, keep men, lose men, men and ground is both lost.

I think the war was kind of decided when the US joined, to force the US to make peace, Germany would have to capitulate the UK, they failed to secure the air in 1940, making it nearly impossible. It isn't likely they would succeed while fighting the soviets and if the invasion took place and wasn't already repelled by the British, the US would make haste sending troops to fight the Germans. Fall Blau only decided how much of Europe would be soviet. (Still a big deal)

I think most people agree with me when I say Germany was never able to win when the US joined, and they failed to take Britain. And Hitler probably only made it less likely to win by commanding the armies himself.
 
Since the debate is still going, let's look at both strategies that Germany could choose when attacking soviets (I assume there was a strategy to go north but who cares?):

Going centre towards Moscow: (Supported by OKW/OKH)

Pros;
Humiliating Soviets;
Capturing a major railway and industrial hub;
Possibly getting rid of Stalin (depends if he decides to stay in Moscow or not);
Being able to bleed soviets out (think of it like Verdun);
Making Goebbels happy (propaganda);

Cons;
Possibly running out of petroleum
Getting into attritional WW1-style combat (there's no way Stalin would allow the germans to capture the city without fight, I assume that he would throw there everything he could);
Making russians veeeery angry;
Overstretching of frontline (thus logistical problems + giving soviets more options for offensives as germans can't have reserve Panzers everywhere);
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going south towards Caucasus: (Supported by Hitler)

Pros:
Caucasus oilfields (ability to wage mobile war much longer + increasing industrial output due to steady supply of fuel);
Ukrainian grain (ability to supply German troops and civilians without having to resort to starving occupied countries like poland, france or norway);
Keeping frontline relatively short;
Stopping western allies from supplying Soviets through Persia;
Giving much more options to Axis what to do next;

Cons:
Not decisive (Caucasus area is easy to cut off, there's no reason why Stalin would suicide armies there to defend something indefensible, it doesn't force them to fight for it);
Not as prestigious;
(I can't think of anything else, any suggestions?)

About both strategies; Hitler IRL decided to go south, Franz Halder, the main commander of German troops in the East and the one who was planning Barbarossa decided to go for centre, well, now we know that doing both strategies didn't work out well. If you had to choose one of these strategies, which one and for what reasons?
Germany wasn't going to get anything out of Baku oil anyway. Soviets weren't idiots and could in calculating too - so they tried to leave behind as little fuel as it was possible. When Germans were moving towards Krasnodar and Kuban in 1942, they were going to get local oil. Soviets delayed German advance by throwing against them famous "russian cossacks" - in cavalry charges too (and they weren't anecdotal or funny), and bought themselves a few days. In these days Soviets sealed all oil wells in the rear with concrete. Until this territory was freed, Germans didn't get anything out of them.
 
In order to be valid, that argument also requires the opportunity to seize Stalingrad with the 6th army, which did not exist. Hitler just decided to have his men butchered in the cruelest, most humiliating way possible because that would save his face for another month or two. There is no sense in forcing your hand into a meat grinder. Its hardly a well thought tactical decision, to my mind. The Hitler apologists usually blame Göring here. While that remains debatable, appointing Göring as chief in air force in the first place sure is one of the many many major strategic blunders Hitler proudly and boastfully engaged in.

Well technically speaking paulus did succeed in taking stalingrad, and get encircled in the process. But the city was taken. The strategic relevance of the city is essentially a similar importance that voronzeh had, a city where more then 500.000 soldiers were killed/wounded during the fall blau and one where constant fighting continued. That is, a cornerstone of the defense from a logistical and strategic point of view. To ensure the safety of the rear of the german forces in the caucasus stalingrad was needed. And to ensure the safety of stalingrads rear voronezh was needed.

While it is true that stalingrad was not a key objective at the start of blau once the offensive was split between army group A and B the respective objectives were a securing of the flanks (stalingrad, voronezh) for one and the conquest of krasnodar and baku for the other.
 
Last edited:
In order to be valid, that argument also requires the opportunity to seize Stalingrad with the 6th army, which did not exist. Hitler just decided to have his men butchered in the cruelest, most humiliating way possible because that would save his face for another month or two. There is no sense in forcing your hand into a meat grinder. Its hardly a well thought tactical decision, to my mind. The Hitler apologists usually blame Göring here. While that remains debatable, appointing Göring as chief in air force in the first place sure is one of the many many major strategic blunders Hitler proudly and boastfully engaged in.
Now the 6th army did get encircled but you have to understand that Stalingrad laid upon a grand strategic objective of Fall Blau. The Volga river. Hitler wanted to block Soviet oil transports up that river from the caucasus. Now you also have to consider that promises were made by other army elements that the 6th army could be bailed out and by the Luftwaffe that they could be supplied through the air. Now neither worked of course but that's something they didn't know. Also consider that after the failure to break the encirclement by other army elements the 6th army was massively outgunned at this point (military history visualized has made a very well researched video on how unlikely a breakout would be to succeed had such an order been issued). So in that situation the rational course of action is to just sit on the Volga and defend and cause as many casualties on the Soviets as possible before you have to surrender because the situation is desperate and the grand strategic objective is far more important than small-scale tactical victories at this point.
This is why I believe the stand-fast order was rational given the desperate circumstances.
 
Apart from the all-important Soviet-German debate.......
I notice they showed us a simulation of Japan conquering all of China in 1941.
Hope they would understand that is ahistorical, not balanced nor fun, and have at least *some* intention to change it in the future.:oops:
 
Last edited:
Apart from the all-important Soviet-German debate.......
I notice they showed us a simulation of Japan conquering all of China in 1941.
Hope they would understand that is ahistorical, not balanced nor fun, and have at least *some* intention to change it in the future.:oops:
I think the simulation is because that's another problem area they're trying to address. There was a stopgap solution in a recent patch to make Japan just invade less aggressively, but what we really need is adjustments to supply and attrition mechanics to represent how difficult it was for Japan to invade inland without massive infrastructural investments.
 
I think the simulation is because that's another problem area they're trying to address. There was a stopgap solution in a recent patch to make Japan just invade less aggressively, but what we really need is adjustments to supply and attrition mechanics to represent how difficult it was for Japan to invade inland without massive infrastructural investments.
And guerilla warfare. And Nationalist China not falling apart once Japan beats their frontline troops...
 
Well technically speaking paulus did succeed in taking stalingrad, and get encircled in the process. But the city was taken.

He did not as far as I know.

Certainly he took most of the city and before Operation Uranus Soviet control over the city was isolated to two small pockets near the Volga while the Germans controlled 90% of Stalingrad.

But that said, the 10% of the city that remained in Soviet hands was enough for them to put an organized resistance against the Germans and were never expelled. So technically the city did not fall under German control.
 
Sure, Russian Empire and Soviet Union are just the same in terms of industry and elites being competent.

And Tsarist Russia didn't get LL of 500,000 trucks, 2 mio pairs of boots, mios of railway equipment and locomotives, thousands of tanks and planes etc.

But I forgot, equipping an entire army doesn't have an impact on a war...

Well, and if you add that to what you wrote then we truly have an enemy that plays in a completely different league than WW1 Russia.

The key factor was IMHO that German leadership became worse each year while the Soviets became more adept.
Compare the campaigns of 1941, 1942, 1943 and the apex of Maskirovka in operation Bagration of 1944.

Had leadership competency remained stable from June 1944 onwards, no amount of LL would have saved the Soviets past 1943.
 
Caesar style leader could have won if you put him in charge of Germany in '33.
Too bad that Caesar style leaders usually have too much iron and steel in their bodies.

Russia was defeated in the WWI by the Germans in 1918,

It was ? Well then i do have some news for you. Russia was defeated in the WW1 by its own goverment and own people who tired from total incompetence.
Without revolution Germans would be defeated even sooner cause there would be zero troops moved from Eastern front to Western.

Wilhelm II was enough to bring the largest country of the world to it's knees
Hmm.... I have not seen the act of unconditional surrender from the Russian Empire, and have you seen? I guess yes.
Oh also Wilhelm 2 was enough to bring one of the largest economical, political and military power in the world to its knees. Great job !

And when that war started, the Imperial Russia was larger than the SU.
Larger - you mean with those impassable Siberian forests, dead tundra or sultry deserts of Central Asia? Incredibly useful land.


And here I am, still waiting for a Spanish Civil war focus tree

France cant send or sell weapon for Republicans (they stoped it when gernans press on them but still).
Mexico cant help them at all while only they and SU were able to supplie them.
Mexico focus tree only allow you to take refugers and some buffs for yourself. Heh
 
Last edited:
And Tsarist Russia didn't get LL of 500,000 trucks, 2 mio pairs of boots, mios of railway equipment and locomotives, thousands of tanks and planes etc.
Yeah, and Tzarist Russia also couldn't produce own engines, so all producton of cars, planes and tractors relied on import and licensing. Also Tzarist Russia couldn't produce enough armament - artillery and even rifles were scarce and so Russians had to order every foreign shit being sold and capable to fire in the general direction of enemy. Ammunition issue was no better. Situation with army uniform was not great too. Hell, what was good in Tzarist Russia at all?

Sure, Soviets had own f*ck ups in their own "Great war". But none of these f*ck ups were somehow connected with the fact that state is unable to produce enough wartime materiel to continue war and private contractors stole millions from military orders of state, while agricultural economy was starving own citizens to continue grain import (part of which went to Germany through Finland as a contraband).

That is the trick here. We compare two systems. One failed in every war of 20th century and crumbled under own weight during conflict, which it didn't even need. Second managed to jumpstart development and prepare to another worldwide scale conflict and win it - as a state, being one huge factory of war.
 
He did not as far as I know.

Certainly he took most of the city and before Operation Uranus Soviet control over the city was isolated to two small pockets near the Volga while the Germans controlled 90% of Stalingrad.

But that said, the 10% of the city that remained in Soviet hands was enough for them to put an organized resistance against the Germans and were never expelled. So technically the city did not fall under German control.
Having checked my source, I must apologize. You are indeed correct. the soviets did manage to maintain a bridgehead and remain a presence in the city.