• 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!
 
@podcat - thanks for the update. Couple quick questions regarding MtG related changes:
1. Right now admirals have a soft cap for trait XP at 24 ships, is this intended or related to the general army system? It's a bit annoying when you're playing a naval power and have to constantly hire more admirals to have a shot at getting decent traits.
2. Is the generation of naval XP period working as intended? I've played a few games as each of the big naval powers and never really had enough to do much other than design new ships. It's a bit tough to amass enough to boost doctrines or research.
 
... 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 ...

Part of the issue with D-Day, and some of the Italian events, is that it really needs a method to mislead the opposition. Having a large army on the UK South Coast, as seen by Germany, it is probably obvious that they will move armies along the entire North coast of France. What we need is a method to 'persuade' them that they should concentrate on Pas-de-Calais so that we can land in Normandy, for example.
 
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.)

It wasn't producing nearly enough to supply its larger army though, you need to keep proportions in perspective. They were woefully short regarding basic items like aviation fuel, locomotives, and even boots. They were able to produce such large numbers of tanks because they didn't need to produce many of their own trucks due to lend-lease. The problem with drawing conclusions like the one you did for a "1v1" scenario is that you're cross-applying data from a situation that was not "1v1." Had the Soviets truly been alone, their production numbers would have looked very different.
 
Well, following the timeline of events, one can see the connections and interdependencies of actual developments during some pretty decisive operations of the Western Allies and the USSR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration


To me, this obviously is way more than a coincidence. The bottom line is that the anti-GER-coalition cooperated pretty well for their most decisive operations and that they decided wisely to use all available of their combined power to actually break their enemy. Who knows what would have happened if they had not. I for my part feel assured that none of the big three would have beaten Germany alone. Their combined power and effort eventually outnumbered and foiled the German power, their side campaigns like the bombing campaigns were required to successively weaken their opponent so they could finally win on the actual battlefield in the end.


Regarding the ingame balance and given the statement of the devs, the AI capabilities to attack and invade need to be cream to reflect that. If one plays on a remote spot of the world, the call of ww2 should be fairly close to keep things interesting.

If one plays any of the big major powers, the winner sits in front of the computer - no matter which nation he plays. This was, is and will be the state of affairs i think.

The job of the AI is to be a good match, no more and no less.
 
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.

I highly doubt that. I think it has more to do with you making the Soviet Union too weak because I still steamroll the Germans just as easily now as I did before 1.6.2.
 
It wasn't producing nearly enough to supply its larger army though, you need to keep proportions in perspective. They were woefully short regarding basic items like aviation fuel, locomotives, and even boots. They were able to produce such large numbers of tanks because they didn't need to produce many of their own trucks due to lend-lease. The problem with drawing conclusions like the one you did for a "1v1" scenario is that you're cross-applying data from a situation that was not "1v1." Had the Soviets truly been alone, their production numbers would have looked very different.
Fair enough, but still, even without Lend-lease the soviets would be able to win the war, as I said it would take much longer and would definitely be bloodier.
 
Fair enough, but still, even without Lend-lease the soviets would be able to win the war, as I said it would take much longer and would definitely be bloodier.

How would they do that without aviation fuel, locomotives, trucks, boots, machine tools, medical equipment, radios, radio wire, etc.? Given enough time to get their industry on track, sure, but without lend-lease (machine tools being key here) that wouldn't happen until long after it did historically (and historically they never really did during the war, only after), by which time they would have effectively lost.
 
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.

Here is what Wikipedia actually says on why the LSSAH was transferred out:

"Under pressure from heavy Soviet counterattacks during the winter, the LSSAH and Army Group South retreated from Rostov to defensive lines on the river Mius.[46] After the spring rasputitsa (seasonal mud) had cleared, the division joined in Fall Blau, participating in the fighting to retake Rostov-on-Don, which fell in late July 1942. Severely understrength, the LSSAH was transferred to the Normandy region of occupied France to join the newly formed SS Panzer Corps and to be reformed as a Panzergrenadier division."

As one can see, nowhere is Dieppe mentioned and the timing is off: LSSAH was sent west in late-July, after Rostov-on-Don fell, whereas Dieppe occurred in late-August. The reasoning given is also explicit: it was sent to be refitted and reformed into a panzergrenadier formation, not in response to any sort of landing.

So that's LSSAH, here's what the Grossdeutschland was doing at the time of Stalingrad:

"The Infantry Regiment Großdeutschland reorganized and expanded to become Infanterie-Division Großdeutschland (mot.). The division was assigned to German XLVIII Panzer Corps during the opening phases of Fall Blau, Wehrmacht's 1942 strategic summer offensive in southern Russia. During the combined Soviet winter offensives Operation Uranus and Operation Mars, the division fought near Rzhev, where it was rendered combat ineffective."

Well ain't that a pickle: it was never sent westward at all and was in fact on the Eastern Front at the time of Uranus! And you accuse me of being uninformed!

(especially considering how touch-and-go Operation Uranus was for a while).

The Soviets rolled the tactical defenses in several hours and the operational defenses within days, with the Operation being completed within four days. That's as solid a performance as the German one at the start of Blau or Barbarossa, not touch-and-go at all.

They had issues but they weren't nearly as bad as 1941.

No, they were even worse. It's been pointed out that the supply state of the 6th Army was so bad that malnutrition was being observed even before the Soviet counter-offensive began. Beyond that, the panzer divisions were short of fuel, spare parts, and even tanks as a result of the terrible supply situation.

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

But at that point, your not talking about the effects of the WAllies actually landing in Europe, which is what is being argued, but the effect of the WAllies being in the war at all. Two different things.

So you agree that local superiority is king?

So long as one has strategic superiority and the acumen to use it, which the Soviets did, local superiority is inevitable. Strategic superiority in the end creates the opportunity for local superiority.

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.

Given that the Soviets launched not one, but two major offensives in the winter of 1942/43 yet still also still maintained large strategic reserves, they can easily do that without compromising Uranus.

Nope. It's shown the opposite in fact, unless you're making the extremely narrow argument that German total victory was impossible, which is true.

Pretty much across the board, modern analysis of German strategy and the strategic set-up of the command by the likes of Geoffrey Megargee and economic strengths by the likes of Adam Tooze have demonstrated that the Germans were too far outclassed to achieve even a moderate victory. Even the German Army's official modern military historian has argued as such. It's pretty clear that modern historiography pretty well has come down that the war was not a close-call at all. Now observing that the historical war wasn't a close-call isn't the same thing as saying a German victory is impossible, which is how you have apparently construed it, but it does indicate that things need to be radically different for it to occur and shuffling some forces around is more akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic then such a meaningful change.


Because they had prepared the forces and shaped the battlefield to ensure success. It was Soviet efforts to mislead the Germans and amass their own forces that created their superiority.

With LSSAH and GD in place, Uranus fails and Stalingrad falls.

Given the above, the LSSAH gets rolled since it's a understrength formation denied the ability to recuperate (much like the 22nd panzer division, which was part of the 6th Army's then-existent mobile reserve and which was flattened by the Soviet attack) and the part of the line GD is withdrawn from has collapsed, the Germans are encircled there, and the Germans have to send even more forces to prop contain it, meaning the GD becomes a pebble trying to hold back the tsunamis in it's little region because a lone division against multiple armies might as well be just that.
 
Last edited:
Here is what Wikipedia actually says on why the LSSAH was transferred out:

"Under pressure from heavy Soviet counterattacks during the winter, the LSSAH and Army Group South retreated from Rostov to defensive lines on the river Mius.[46] After the spring rasputitsa (seasonal mud) had cleared, the division joined in Fall Blau, participating in the fighting to retake Rostov-on-Don, which fell in late July 1942. Severely understrength, the LSSAH was transferred to the Normandy region of occupied France to join the newly formed SS Panzer Corps and to be reformed as a Panzergrenadier division."

As one can see, nowhere is Dieppe mentioned and the timing is off: LSSAH was sent west in late-July, after Rostov-on-Don fell, whereas Dieppe occurred in late-August. The reasoning given is also explicit: it was sent to be refitted and reformed into a panzergrenadier formation, not in response to any sort of landing.

A mechanized formation serves as a reserve while being refitted in an area where there were landings. That's what a good portion of the mobile forces during the D-Day landings were doing. Considering that I've cited a source saying it was redeployed in response to Dieppe to serve as a reserve, it was redeployed there, and was refitted while in place, that seems to be the case. Nothing you've cited has contradicted this.

So that's LSSAH, here's what the Grossdeutschland was doing at the time of Stalingrad:

"The Infantry Regiment Großdeutschland reorganized and expanded to become Infanterie-Division Großdeutschland (mot.). The division was assigned to German XLVIII Panzer Corps during the opening phases of Fall Blau, Wehrmacht's 1942 strategic summer offensive in southern Russia. During the combined Soviet winter offensives Operation Uranus and Operation Mars, the division fought near Rzhev, where it was rendered combat ineffective."

Well ain't that a pickle: it was never sent westward at all and was in fact on the Eastern Front at the time of Uranus! And you accuse me of being uninformed!

There is no citation for this portion.

The Soviets rolled the tactical defenses in several hours and the operational defenses within days, with the Operation being completed within four days. That's as solid a performance as the German one at the start of Blau or Barbarossa, not touch-and-go at all.

Operationally it faced issues on the opening moves on the southern flank from the committal of the understrength 29th Panzergrenadier, which threatened to cut off the Soviet spearhead before it was redeployed. Touch and go in the sense that its success was attributable to the routing of the Romanians. Where it faced stiff resistance, it faltered.

No, they were even worse. It's been pointed out that the supply state of the 6th Army was so bad that malnutrition was being observed even before the Soviet counter-offensive began. Beyond that, the panzer divisions were short of fuel, spare parts, and even tanks as a result of the terrible supply situation.

Supply situation or production situation? Here's a hint: it was the production situation. Malnutrition was obviously an issue because of the exigencies of urban warfare.

But at that point, your not talking about the effects of the WAllies actually landing in Europe, which is what is being argued, but the affect of the WAllies being in the war at all. Two different things.

I've been talking about the latter this entire time, responding to the claim that the Soviets could have won alone, and your specific claim what 120,000 extra men would be irrelevant, which is absurd.

So long as one has strategic superiority and the acumen to use it, which the Soviets did, local superiority is inevitable. Strategic superiority in the end creates the opportunity for local superiority.

It's a question of degree, not kind. It's not as if there's some threshold and once you cross it, you have local superiority at will.

Given that the Soviets launched not one, but two major offensives in the winter of 1942/43 while also still maintaining large reserves, they can easily do that without compromising Uranus.

Anyone can launch an offensive. If both succeeded you might have a point, but one of those failed miserably, to the tune of 300,000 casualties compared to 40,000. 120,000 extra mechanized troops for the Germans means the Soviets must counter that, likely canceling one of the two offensives, if not both, or the Germans have the ability to launch a counteroffensive.

Pretty much across the board, modern analysis of German strategy and the strategic set-up of the command by the likes of Geoffrey Megargee and economic strengths by the likes of Adam Tooze have demonstrated that the Germans were too far outclassed to achieve even a moderate victory. Even the German Army's official modern military historian has argued as such. It's pretty clear that modern historiography pretty well has come down that the war was not a close-call at all.

Again you fail to define victory, and again you fail to realize that Stalin, Churchill, and FDR were not privy to the data Tooze has. Extrapolating this back to determine the likelihood of a settled peace is anachronistic, which is why historians generally don't do that.

Given the above, the LSSAH gets rolled since it's a understrength formation denied the ability to recuperate (much like the 22nd panzer division, which was part of the 6th Army's then-existent mobile reserve and which was flattened by the Soviet attack) and the part of the line GD is withdrawn from has collapsed, the Germans are encircled there, and the Germans have to send even more forces to prop contain it, meaning the GD becomes a pebble trying to hold back the tsunamis in it's little region because a lone division against multiple armies is just that.

It certainly depends on the execution, yes. If sent in support of the southern flank, the offensive there had been seriously threatened historically by the 29th Panzergrenadier that the Soviets were worried. Luckily they had enough forces through the gap that the 29th had to withdraw. If you add GD or LSSAH to the mix, it's more up in the air and more likely to come down in favor of the Germans. You seem to be forgetting the significance of a mobile reserve however, and most military historians I've read have concluded that the presence of LSSAH and GD would be a significant, even if not decisive, determinant of the outcome of the operation.

Regardless, we are sufficiently off topic for the DD so I'll leave it here.
 
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.

Had the Germans captured/eliminated the B.E.F. at Dunkirk, and not switched away from bombing the RAF, then the road would have been open to take Britain prior to Barbarossa.
 
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.
There was no way militarily for Germany to win the war. Churchill was Britain's PM, and would never made peace with Germany. So there was no possiblity of a negotiated peace.
 
I'm glad that you're working on improvements with the battle planner, but what about solving all the battle planner bugs and giving it more depth? Right now, it can't be trusted, and if I'm forced to babywatch it, I might aswell control all divisions manually. For example:

- Divisions holding a defensive line will eventually run out of organization. When that happens, they will retreat one province back. The problem is that they will not wait for their organization to recover before they go back into the defensive line, and neither do they gain organization in the reserves. This means that players need to manually do division rotation, which is a lot of micro.

- Divisions attack further than the line we have drawn, they attack wider than the line we have drawn, and sometimes the line becomes completely bugged when they just have a few provinces left to take.

- Multiple breakthrough orders that meet up in one province tend to mess up the entire battleplan of all divisions involved, since these divisions will now try to defend the entire encirclement and not just their own breakthrough.

There are many more issues, but the point is that it's not much help that you make the battle planner UI more clear, if it can't be used reliably. Right now the battle planner is only useful for drawing 2 lines and press play while watching how your units suicide against mountains and swamps. Please, give us a more advanced battle planner that works properly.

It seems you've designed the battle planner to work on edges of provinces. Would a better approach be to make it work on actual provinces? So instead of telling your units which edge you want to defend, you tell your units which provinces you want to defend. And instead of telling your units which edge you want to breakthrough towards, you tell your units which provinces you want to breakthrough through.

Just a suggestion, but I would be happy if we got a battleplanner that actually works ;)
 
Last edited:
Does this mean that the Allies can actually hold a landing in France and Italy now? Because every time I invade Italy, the Ai sends their divisions and relentlessly attacking and then the Axis counterattack and all of it is lost.
 
Does this mean that the Allies can actually hold a landing in France and Italy now? Because every time I invade Italy, the Ai sends their divisions and relentlessly attacking and then the Axis counterattack and all of it is lost.
Do you have green air? Is your fleet providing naval gunfire support?
 
One more thing I forgot to mention :p

Since you've been working with the eastern front, that kind of relates to the western front aswell. And currently in the game, USA will always join the war against Germany due to them getting into a war against Japan, and Britain then asking them to join the war against Germany. In reality, that's not really what happened. It was Germany that declared war against USA, and if Germany wouldn't have done that, it's a high chance that USA wouldn't have participated in the war against Germany. Since you've added a lot of major a-historical paths in the game, it would be nice to also see these minor a-historical paths, i.e. playing the round as historical Germany, but be able to take a slightly different approach.
 
Do you have green air? Is your fleet providing naval gunfire support?
Why yes. We even have full supply! The allies just over attack at the rivers just above Taranto. Then all of a sudden, they counter attack! The same thing occurs in north western France from Normandy to Bordeaux for me. Just unfortunate that it appears that they can’t break any of the Italian and German divisions.
 
I'm glad that you're working on improvements with the battle planner, but what about solving all the battle planner bugs and giving it more depth? Right now, it can't be trusted, and if I'm forced to babywatch it, I might aswell control all divisions manually. For example:

- Divisions holding a defensive line will eventually run out of organization. When that happens, they will retreat one province back. The problem is that they will not wait for their organization to recover before they go back into the defensive line, and neither do they gain organization in the reserves. This means that players need to manually do division rotation, which is a lot of micro.

- Divisions attack further than the line we have drawn, they attack wider than the line we have drawn, and sometimes the line becomes completely bugged when they just have a few provinces left to take.

- Multiple breakthrough orders that meet up in one province tend to mess up the entire battleplan of all divisions involved, since these divisions will now try to defend the entire encirclement and not just their own breakthrough.

There are many more issues, but the point is that it's not much help that you make the battle planner UI more clear, if it can't be used reliably. Right now the battle planner is only useful for drawing 2 lines and press play while watching how your units suicide against mountains and swamps. Please, give us a more advanced battle planner than works properly.

It seems you've designed the battle planner to work on edges of provinces. Would a better approach be to make it work on actual provinces? So instead of telling your units which edge you want to defend, you tell your units which provinces you want to defend. And instead of telling your units which edge you want to breakthrough towards, you tell your units which provinces you want to breakthrough through.

Just a suggestion, but I would be happy if we got a battleplanner that actually works ;)

Also battle planner does not seem to prioritise correct troops i.e putting mountain troops on mountains if there are any on the front line.
 
If the Axis didn't had a contested front in North Africa and several divisions to garrison Europe it is likely that the Red Army would have been defeated in 1941.
This.

The North African campaign wasn´t where the UK binded most Germans. The Germans kept tens of divisions in France to counter the British troops across the channel. I am actually pretty sure that Churchill noted in his book that the German army in the France outnumbered the British and it was like 1942-3. And the army in Britain ammounted to hundreds of thousands. Now they probably weren´t top-grade troops, but still.

I don´t know if Germany could win with these guys, but they would definitely have a hell of an impact.
 
Also battle planner does not seem to prioritise correct troops i.e putting mountain troops on mountains if there are any on the front line.

Exactly, that is also one huge problem. We can't manually specify which units we want where, and neither does the battle planner do it automatically. Last time I tried out the battle planner with an army consisting of both mountaineers and tanks, the tanks got stuck up in the mountains while the mountaineers got killed on the plains... For defensive lines, this should be automatic, for offensive lines, it could be solved if we could specify a lot of small orders, but then the battle planner bugs out if you give it anything more complex than 2 stright lines.