• 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!
 
So if I'm playing a minor country like, say, New Zealand, AI USSR will reliably lose to the Axis by '45 (which I doubt will not happen much earlier with the current game mechanics), unless they are saved by the AI Allies?

Let's just forget that the back of the Axis was broken by the Soviet Union and the Germans were in full retreat by the time the main Allied landings in Western Europe happened!?!:mad:
A potent Germany, even when not very historical, is still a good thing for balance towards playing as a nation in the allies. So long as the soviets do not fold as early as 1942, it should still be a big step up from the current state of affairs.
 
I'm not happy about (what I feel) is an ahistorically designed Nazi win over the Soviets. What level of buff would I need to add to the USSR pre-start to get them to be the default winner?

As it was clear after 41, the war was over the future of post-Nazi Europe, divided between the Western Powers and the Communists. There's still a lot of fun to be had with that theme.
This is a game, not the actual war. Germany lost the war on September 1, 1939. You might think that there is a lot of fun deciding the future of post war Europe, but I really doubt that most people would agree.
 
Last edited:
Is there an effort to give the player more control for where the AI places its armies? I'm asking mostly due to the issue where the AI uses up all the supply in an area, and if you don't directly control it there is nothing you can do to fix the issue.
 
6th Army almost certainly wouldn't have been encircled had LSSAH and Grossdeutschland not been sent to France in response to the Dieppe landings, since the lack of mobile reserves was the decisive factor in the success of Operation Uranus. Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of men in Norway as well.

LSSAH was sent west as part of the routine rotating of forces back from the front for rest and refit, as it had been rendered badly understrength by the summer's fighting and needed recuperation and not in response to any WAllied landings. Grossdeutschland was never sent west at all and at the time of Uranus was still on the Eastern Front, tied down fighting the Soviet offensives near Rzhev. So they were unavailable due to reasons that had nothing to do with the WAllies. Even had they been available, there is the issue that the Germans had a hard enough time supplying the forces they had at Stalingrad to begin with, how are they supposed to add another two panzer divisions? And the hundreds of thousands of men in Norway and need for garrisons in France and elsewhere were always going to be there so long as there was the threat of Anglo-American landings in the west... or even just the need to ensure occupied territories don't revolt.

The fact that you think it was a simple meatgrinder belies that you haven't researched the war sufficiently. It was a war of maneuver. On a grand scale, yes,

The grand scale is what I'm talking about and yes, on a grand scale the war was a meatgrinder, one of attrition. Operationally, there was plenty of room for maneuver sure. But strategy trumps operations, nevermind tactics.

There are countless examples of where local superiority made an incredible difference, from 1941-onwards. Adding 120,000 (highly mechanized and very experienced in maneuver warfare, led by a set of extremely capable commanders, I might add) troops means the operations like Uranus would likely fail. If Uranus fails, Stalingrad falls, AG Caucasus doesn't withdraw, and the Soviets are in real trouble.

The Germans didn't have the logistics in the East for another, particularly not at the Stalingrad region where the Germans were having to pullback some of their forces just to be able to supply them (the 6th Army had to send it's horses back to Rostov in order to get the feed out to them, which left their artillery effectively immobilized). Even then, the lack of mobile reserves for the 6th Army was a result of the decision to commit too many of his forces to the city battle and failing to hold back an adequate reserve, rather then any sort of overall lack of forces. Given the aforementioned logistical difficulties and the fact that the Germans didn't expect the Soviets to launch a major offensive in the Stalingrad region, those 120,000 men would likely wind up deployed to the wrong point of the front as the Germans had many other weak points they wanted shored up on what was, as you yourself pointed out, a vast frontline for which they had inadequate forces to man.

All Paradox is doing is acknowledging the historical reality that the war was a lot closer of a call than those with second opinion bias (or first, as the case may be) realize. It obviously wasn't Hollywood "Americans save the day" but it wasn't as if the Soviets had everything in hand the moment Barbarossa was conceived. No amount of revisionism will change that.

This is a nice mix of revisionism and strawmen. Modern history has pretty solidly shown that the war wasn't really a close call. Nowhere was the observation made that the Soviets had everything in hand the moment Barbarossa was conceived, but they did have everything in hand by the time of November 1942, when their counter-offensive at Stalingrad was ready to go off.
 
Last edited:
And how about sytuation when Player control another not involved country ? Your target should be to soviet AI bit germans afther tey rich Stalingrad in 1944 and then pusch on germans. If Allays are not involved Soviet should have a harder time but finaly win nethertheless. It is historical fact the fasist coutntis never where able to bit the soviets becoue there whas a too much defrence in economy power and logistic. It should be mirored in the game. Soviet should halve more factorys then germany even if germany controll france and western europe.
 
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.
This is not very historical. When the allies landed in Normandy in 1944, the soviets had already pushed the germans out of Ukraine after defeating the germans at Kursk and Stalingrad, and just 2 weeks after D-day they launched Bagration, kicking the germans out of Belarus, destroying Army Group Center and trapping Army Group North. While they probably wouldn't have been able to defend Moscow or Stalingrad (losing any of these battles would have meant the collapse of the Eastern Front) without the allied lend-lease, they didn't need the allies to open another front to beat Germany.

A more accurate target would be for the Soviets to mobilize lots of infantry-only divisions with green training, and fill the gaps though losing millions of manpower. Allied lend-leases would play an important role here, as the soviets still needs lots of other equipments before they are able to reindustrialize.

If the Soviets can push back the Germans on their own, there is no reason to play someone on the Allied side.

Yes there is, the historical objective. Before 1943, stop the Germans from conquering the USSR. After 1943, try to secure as much of Europe as possible from the Commitern.
 
In HoI4, at least last time I played, you don't need to take just a couple of VP but almost all of it. Unless Japan helps and occupies Vladivostok, you will have to march to Kazakhstan. Maybe an event (there was one in HoI3, wasn't it?) for a negotiated peace deal after taking the major cities would be nice. Although it would be hard to balance: SU would be meaningless without those valuable western regions and Germany has no incentive to stop when they have already broken through. And noone wants an european peace in 42.
I haven't played in a while but distinctly remember Poland taking of all of the soviet union with me (taly) and them not being very far east of the Ural. Granted I could have taken most of that land but again it just felt wrong to be able to take so much land so easily.
This is a game, not the actual war. Germany lost the war on September 1, 1939. You might think that there is a lot of fun deciding the future of post war Europe, but I really doubt that most people would agree.
When they went to war with the allies not when they went to war with the soviets, the soviets they could actually have defeated, it was against the allies they should have stood no chance whatsoever and they really only did because the allies were reluctant to fight and did a huge number of really bad blunders. The moment the USA put their industry at the allies disposal the war was essentially lost for the Germans. Not the moment they attacked the soviet union.
 
Germany lost the war on September 1, 1939.
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'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 think that is exactly right especially if Halifax was prime minister. War between Germany and SU was probably inevitable, but if the Western Allies were not already at war with Germany it isn't clear which brutal dictator if either they would have supported.
 
It is ahistorical, but it would make things dull for the Western Allies if the game was too realistic.
Yet...for countries not in the war, Allies minors or even Axis minors, if every game ends as German win against Soviet while Allies fail to achieve victory every time, it can be a problem too.

How can New Zealand saves the day if Britain and USA don't know how to naval invade German while Japan is running wild all over Asia. :p
 
Last edited:
This is not very historical. When the allies landed in Normandy in 1944, the soviets had already pushed the germans out of Ukraine after defeating the germans at Kursk and Stalingrad, and just 2 weeks after D-day they launched Bagration, kicking the germans out of Belarus, destroying Army Group Center and trapping Army Group North. While they probably wouldn't have been able to defend Moscow or Stalingrad (losing any of these battles would have meant the collapse of the Eastern Front) without the allied lend-lease, they didn't need the allies to open another front to beat Germany.

A more accurate target would be for the Soviets to mobilize lots of infantry-only divisions with green training, and fill the gaps though losing millions of manpower. Allied lend-leases would play an important role here, as the soviets still needs lots of other equipments before they are able to reindustrialize.



Yes there is, the historical objective. Before 1943, stop the Germans from conquering the USSR. After 1943, try to secure as much of Europe as possible from the Commitern.

Because Italian front obviously doesn't count as second front :rolleyes: /s
 
Because Italian front obviously doesn't as second front :rolleyes: /s

Italy proper occurred after the Soviets had gained the upperhand and were pushing the Germans back across Ukraine. Sicily occurred concurrently with Kursk, but ironically reduced the scale of the Soviet victory there, as it forced Hitler to can Citadel and pull the panzers back, meaning they were available to blunt the Soviet counteroffensives at the critical moment. Had they still been in the salient trying to attack forward they would have been cut off and destroyed themselves. The Germans still lost and had to retreat, but they were able to scramble backwards just in time and avoid outright annihilation for another year.
 
I understand why Germany - USSR balance is tipped to Germany for game balance reasons, but I'm shocked that some forum users here seem to forget that actually in reality 8 out of 10 (some argue that 9 out of 10) German soldiers were killed on eastern front.
 
Since you make some of the same arguments twice I'll sort them accordingly.

Leaving aside that the LSSAH and Grossdeutschland were sent west as part of the routine rotating of forces back from the front for rest and refit and not in response to any WAllied landings,

This is factually incorrect. I can't find the reference in the more modern books I've read but the reason for their redeployment was expressly to provide a mobile reserve in response to the Dieppe raid. As I've said this is confirmed in more modern works but because I don't want to go through them the Wikipedia citation is Cooper, Matthew (1978). The German Army 1933–1945.

Even then, the lack of mobile reserves for the 6th Army was a result of the decision to commit too many of his forces to the city battle and failing to hold back an adequate reserve, rather then any sort of overall lack of forces.

Because the above, yes. They had adequate reserves (especially considering how touch-and-go Operation Uranus was for a while). They redeployed them in response to Dieppe.

there is the issue that the Germans had a hard enough time supplying the forces they had at Stalingrad to begin with, how are they supposed to add another two panzer divisions?

The Germans didn't have the logistics in the East for another, particularly not at the Stalingrad region where the Germans were having to pullback some of their forces just to be able to supply them (the 6th Army had to send it's horses back to Rostov in order to get the feed out to them, which left their artillery effectively immobilized).

They had two mechanized divisions there before. They had issues but they weren't nearly as bad as 1941. Horses are a very specific matter because feed takes up a lot of space on trains for what it's actually worth, as opposed to something like ammunition or fuel. Because the 6th Army wasn't going anywhere it made sense to demobilize. The fact that the Germans demobilized on parts of the front to alleviate the logistical burden doesn't mean their logistics were insufficient as an absolute matter, it just means they improved them when they believed they had the opportunity to do so.

And the hundreds of thousands of men in Norway and need for garrisons in France and elsewhere were always going to be there so long as there was the threat of Anglo-American landings in the west... or even just the need to ensure occupied territories don't revolt.

Yes, that is the point. Without that threat there are a lot more divisions on the Eastern Front.

The grand scale is what I'm talking about and yes, on a grand scale the war was a meatgrinder, one of attrition. Operationally, there was plenty of room for maneuver sure.

So you agree that local superiority is king?

those 120,000 men would likely wind up deployed to the wrong point of the front as the Germans had many other weak points they wanted shored up on what was, as you yourself pointed out, a vast frontline for which they had inadequate forces to man.

Which would force the Soviets to deploy more forces to counter those men (again, highly mechanized) or else risk German local superiority and breakthrough on another front, one likely close to Moscow, which the Soviets prioritized heavily. It's a huge advantage any way you slice it, if you actually look at the deployment comparisons it's not like the Soviets had enough of an advantage that they could just ignore 120,000 experienced troops. That's ridiculous.

Modern history has pretty solidly shown that the war wasn't really a close call.

Nope, unless you're making the extremely narrow argument that German total victory was impossible, which is true. Settled peace was far from out of the question until 1943, and would have been much more likely in the event of the likely Soviet stalemate if they had lost reliable access to the Baku fields. Even with Baku, the Soviets were chronically short of aviation fuel and high-quality fuel generally and had to import it from the Americans. Without Baku they're in real trouble, and are likely unable to initiate major offensives. There's no way the Axis could have pushed to the Urals, but they didn't have to in order to "beat" the Soviets.

The Germans were doomed to lose after declaring war on the Americans, however. They could force the Soviets into stalemate (which is pretty widely accepted. No reliable access to Baku=no fuel=no offensives), but they couldn't do the same for the Americans and British. Even if they never set foot on the continent, the development of nuclear weapons meant that the Germans were doomed unless there was a settled peace.

but they did have everything in hand by the time of November 1942, when their counter-offensive at Stalingrad was ready to go off.

How so? With LSSAH and GD in place (or a similar reserve), Uranus fails and Stalingrad falls. AG Caucasus doesn't need to withdraw and would benefit from the shortening of the line and newly-free men once Stalingrad was concluded. Once access to Baku is cut (ie when bombers come within range of the Astrakhan rail line and the Caspian convoys), the Soviets will be desperately short of fuel. That doesn't sound like they had everything in hand, it sounds like they needed a decisive win to seize the initiative. Historically they got that win, but to think that it was a foregone conclusion is preposterous.

I understand why Germany - USSR balance is tipped to Germany for game balance reasons, but I'm shocked that some forum users here seem to forget that actually in reality 8 out of 10 (some argue that 9 out of 10) German soldiers were killed on eastern front.

And using AFV statistics to extrapolate if Germany had sent all its AFV production to the East, they would have destroyed every single Soviet AFV in existence when the war began, plus all those built (including the inflated AFV production statistics given how the Soviets accounted for repairs), with time to spare. This is all before accounting for things like strategic bombing.

It was a team effort. The Soviets bore the brunt of the land fighting but don't confuse that with winning the war single-handed.
 
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!

Hail Hydra
 
imho:
1. Arguably, the only way for Axis to win WW2, was for the Germans and the Japanese to both go for the USSR (and not putting Halder in charge..).
2. Germany lost the war in winter 1941, when they didn't reach caucasus oil fields. Even though the chance of axis winning the war would've been very small anyways, they definitely would be bigger. (You wanna thank Halder for that, if there's a single person, that truly made German victory impossible, blame him.)
3. USSR could've 1v1 the Axis, the war would have taken much longer, and would have been more bloody, but considering that soviet industry since (iirc) mid 1942 was outproducing the Germans, even in a full-on attrition warfare Russians would have won. (by axis I mean GER,ITA,HUN,ROM.)
please don't downvote me into nonexistence