• 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!
 
Please give us the ability to name plans so we can call our attack plan Operation Barbarossa etc. Should be a very easy thing to add to the game. Also, since the AI balance of power seems to change with each update...I think it would be a good idea if you could write a little recommendation for which AI nations should be power buffed and by how much, every time an update is released.
 
Could you please focus on AI naval transportation as well? It’s really game breaking (at least for me) when AI loses millions of soldiers by transporting divisions without any protection.
 
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.
Hi Podcat,

Is there any chance of adding a feature to prevent overlapping of multiple army groups to this list? I find preventing overlap of army groups to be the most tedious aspects of being a player who prefers controlling their fronts the way you described in the quote above. As it stands now, in the eastern front the easiest way to manage our fronts is to use our army groups more like theaters and our army's more like army groups.

Overall these changes look really exciting though!
 
Regardless, we are sufficiently off topic for the DD so I'll leave it here.

Aw man, and here I was looking through the Wikipedia cite for an exact quote, pulling up unit histories, retrieving German production vs loss AFV figures, and cracking open my David Glantz books on Stalingrad, to name a few. Then I see this and it's kinda "oh yeah, this'd evolve into a threadjack on a mods thread. That's a bad idea". Bit of a buzzkill that. :p
 
Last edited:
Aw man, and here I was looking through the Wikipedia cite for an exact quote, pulling up unit histories, retrieving German production vs loss AFV figures, and cracking open my David Glantz books on Stalingrad, to name a few. Then I see this and it's kinda "oh yeah, this'd evolve into a threadjack on a mods thread. That's a bad idea". That's a bit of a buzzkill :p

You were going to quote Wikipedia as a source? Oh boy :eek:
 
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.
You probably overestimate the infantry and its role.

IIRC 2/3 of the Luftwaffe pilots perished in West or over Germany; not at the Eastern front. Close to 100% of the German submarines were sunk not by the Soviets, that's for sure. Then Bismarck and the rest of the surface navy is not something the Soviets handled either. And all these things had extreme impact over the course of the events.

By the way, I'm Russian.
 
To make the AI more effective at invading you should make it so it understands how supplies work, invasions always fail because they don't hold on to captured ports/send too many divisions where they can't get properly supplied.
 
Seems like resonable goals, I like the symmetry with ww1, if Germany has the west secured then they will eventually grind Russia down.

Here's a problem though, in game the USSR capitulates when certain number of victory points have been taken, and that's all well and good but in reality that wouldn't have been an unconditional surrender. If the USSR had lost a few more major battles and the Germans taken a few more cites then the USSR would likely have offered Germany peace terms but not a full annexation. It's a bit immersion breaking when losing cities west of the Ural result in Germany (or sometime even Poland) suddenly reaching to the pacific.
I think what would have happened is an unconditional surrender where Germany would set up various smaller Reichskommissariats and subjects (perhaps even run by locals) for anything past moscow.

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
Personally I do agree that USSR probably could have carried the day on their own, but I think they may have failed without allied lend lease. I dont think the caucasus oil fields would have been a big enough factor, altho from a game perspective its exactly the kind of thing we do want to have impact things significantly.
As for Japan, I really doubt they could have applied enough pressure given their fronts in China, but big strategic mistakes have happened before and Stalin might have sent someone a lot less capable than Zhukov over there, keeping valuable forces away from the front with Germany.

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.
We'll talk balance next week. The cap was a bug.

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.

I really do doubt that, the way I see it Americans were at this point ready to join, and Hitler saw it as: 1) By declaring war he could perhaps get the japanese to open another front vs USSR, taking the pressure off. and 2) Americans may perhaps have focused on the pacific first, but there is no way they wouldnt come after Europe after. Roosevelt imo very much saw nazi germany as the big threat for a long time.
The reason we dont really play with this alt history (we do plenty of less plausible things after all!) is because of balance. The allies need the help.
You did get me thinking though and it might be fun to try. Having AI do slightly different strategic plans "randomly" has been a goal of mine for a long time.

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.

Thats never been its purpose. That stuff is on player level and this is why there are armies so you can set the specific areas you want them in.

Hi Podcat,

Is there any chance of adding a feature to prevent overlapping of multiple army groups to this list? I find preventing overlap of army groups to be the most tedious aspects of being a player who prefers controlling their fronts the way you described in the quote above. As it stands now, in the eastern front the easiest way to manage our fronts is to use our army groups more like theaters and our army's more like army groups.

Overall these changes look really exciting though!
Give it a spin once the open beta is available and let us know how it plays. I havent really tried like that so not sure how that particular style has been impacted by the front changes. It might be more stable, but not sure. The main focus there has been to make multiple AG fronts more stable for the AI, which was a big issue on the large fronts

sad :(.
is this because of frontline stability changes? I thought those would be on AI side, which is not in save games..
64 bit, frontlines and convoy related stuff. all of it kinda breaks saves. We are going to a major version (1.7 rather than 1.6.3 which usually means not save compatible)
 
Hey podcat, still considering the colour change for integrated puppets? Hehe...
 
Interesting changes, definitely for the better. I think Soviet and Allied AI is the biggest current issue.
Next good fix would be Chinese AI in my opinion. IRL China held out and waited for US victory in the Pacific, but in game China and the UF falls before 1940 every time. Making a Chinese civil war non-existant.
Whatever you did to Germany and Japan's AI was pretty good, but the allies/Comintern/CUF can't do anything without player intervention.

I had a non-historical focuses, default AI game where the Soviets couldn't even beat the Pact of Rome with Romania. That's even after I sent them 500,000+ infantry equipment as China.

Within that game, somehow the commune of France held against Germany and Scandinavia (don't ask) until 1945, but was still slowly losing and might have won if the British had more than 30 divisions. The British never sent divisions to France, never attempted a naval invasion into either Norway or the Low countries/Germany. I sent over 1,000,000 guns to both countries, yet none could withstand the actual 1,000 divisions Germany had. The only reason the Allies won, was because I, China sent over 4,000,000 men into southern France. Germany didn't even get the Soviet's industry, but if they did they would be unstoppable.

This is a common theme. Many discussions have been held, and the German industry never seems to stop or stagnate.
Try having the Germans grind against you until they run out of Manpower/equipment? Good luck, you'll run out of men, guns, time, or patience. And that's if they never break through.

It is simply not possible to play as a minor with the current situation, I really hope you guys improve this. :)
 
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.

Absolutely not. The Royal Navy would stop any invasion attempt cold. Even if it didn’t, the Germans didn’t have the logistics to invade. They were planning on using Rhine River barges in a volatile sea, a recipe for disaster. The forces involved in Sea Lion could be driven back by the Home Guard without a miracle on the German side. Even if the Luftwaffe completely removed the RAF from the skies, their effects would be limited due to range.
 
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”.

How... defitist of you, it's like the AI department has been relocated to France.

Could it be that you're all overthinking/overengineering this?!

Firstly, startegy gamers don't have too high expectations of AIs because of past experiences (especially when you consider the competition too). So, from our side, we don't expect competent AI, it just needs to be able to do the basic stuff well enough, most of the time. It's really not a high bar of expectations on this side. I don't want to generalize, but anyone with half a brain and experience with strategy games shouldn't expect too much of AI running on a basic gaming PC.

If the Ai is able to use the game's features without any smart capacity of anticipation, if it only uses scripted responses, it should be more than enough for most people. And the design of HoI4 should allow it to perform certain scenarios that might surprise players in their first playthroughs anyway.

If the basics don't work, on the other hand, it can break imersion. It doesn't matter if the AI can do complex stuff if at some point it makes basic strategic mistakes that make it easy to defeat, it can ruin tens of hours of playthrough. Think of chess, what would be the point of some advanced move that leaves you obviously open for a checkmate? Before attempting anything interesting, you have to cover the basics properly.

Secondly, the scope of the "basics" isn't some never-ending goal. Before being competent, the AI needs to be able to use all of the game's features properly. That's it. It stands to reason too. And the list of features is finite (not to mention that it should be problems you guys had to deal with before in past titles, even if the context was slightly different). The scope of the game increased, but quite slowly and in line with existing design choices. The AI should be able to use 100% of the games features properly, this is not a list of requirements that you guys can't know or get a handle on. How many years after release can we expect at least this to be done? If you focus on anything else while the basics still don't work properly, close to 100%, then you're doing it wrong, you're overthinking the problem. The same if you add more advanced capabilities that break the AI's ability to perform basic tasks that is was able to accomplish correctly before. So, it's not fair to us to say that it will be a never ending topic, there's at least something that you should get a handle on and if there's some objective reason why some things won't work, we at least deserve a detailed explanation, it should make for an interesting read at the very least.
 
The reason we dont really play with this alt history (we do plenty of less plausible things after all!) is because of balance. The allies need the help.
You did get me thinking though and it might be fun to try.

Aha, I understand. May I suggest 2 possible solutions:

1. If Germany has not declared war on USA within a specific date, you could add a national focus or decision that allows USA to send a bigger volunteer force to the allies. That combined with the already aviable lend lease, would still provide a lot of help for the allies.

2. If solution 1 is not possible, then atleast it should be possible for Germany to sign a peace with USA if they manage to capitulate Britain.

Having AI do slightly different strategic plans "randomly" has been a goal of mine for a long time.

Yeah, that sounds interesting, just make sure to allow players to adjust this randomness when setting up a new game. For a semi-historical game it would be very interesting if AI did small things differently, while in a fully historical game it would be better if the AI does everything as expected.

Since we're talking ideas and suggestions, I'd just like to slightly bump some other suggestions :p

Air Missions and Air Regions
Defensive Divisions and Organization
Paratroopers and Transport Planes
War Support and Surrender Limit
Overall Improvements

;)