• 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!
 
I'm not saying that USSR singlehandedly won the war, obviously it was a team effort, and all parts of the team aiding each other was crucial. I'm specifically saying that having this:

as the balancing target is just wrong; don't you agree? Allies securing a big landing historically was not the decisive factor, so it shouldn't be the decisive factor in the game as well.

I honestly think you are reading far too much into @podcat ’s statement. Of course he is aware of the complexities of WW2 and it’s historical course. But as an approximate balancing target in a game of this kind, I think his arguments and reasoning are fair. There has to be an incentive to play as any nation - the easiest being Germany.

Besides - what big landing do you think he is referring to? Torch, Husky or Overlord?
 
as the balancing target is just wrong; don't you agree? Allies securing a big landing historically was not the decisive factor, so it shouldn't be the decisive factor in the game as well.

Not sure how I feel about Germany being able to steamroll the Soviets by design. I don't suppose complaining this close to the patch will matter much. My concern is that the allies will never be able to launch successful invasions of Europe. This is currently the case and the DD acknowledges as much. We're basically still going to see Germany steamroll the Soviets 10 times out of 10 assuming the player does not directly intervene to save them.

But that's not the design. The design is Germany wins by late 45. That's a good target.

Germany winning in 41 / 42 would be a bad design idea (and unhistoric). Germany winning in 45 gives a decent opponent. Play as Allies & try to stop the win. Play as USSR & try to stop the win. Play as Germany and try to beat the time table. Expecting the player to do better than the AI is a reasonable view but challenging them with a strong opponent is best.

HOI3 Germany was scripted to fail (massive bonuses to attack on Barbarossa followed by massive penalties on General Winter). As the allies you just sit on the sidelines and then when Germany falters naval invade Greece and try to reach Poland before USSR to wall them off (and then deal with what remains of German forces). It lacked challenge and realism.

A '45 target for the conquest gives every country a chance to get involved meaningfully.
 
@ Indyclone 77:

This is a Webtool for Devs to check the Game faster and accurater for Bugs, Failures and much more. This tool isn´t anything for stranger People. Why should the Devteam give his best Weapon for the Gamedevelopement to a stranger People hand? They must be goony to do that. If I were the Dev-Team-Boss I wouldn´t.

If you wanna have it and I were the Dev-Team-Boss only for a big Licence-Money Payment and a contratct not to give it to other stranger Peoples if it´s a Tool they programmed themselfs.

If it is a Tool which is from an other Company they have to pay Licence-Money and have a Contract too normaly. So a big procedure from making more Contracts etc. is following.

I would have this too, if I wanna use Pictures from a game for an AAR after the new Copyright-Law from Europe. So I let my Hands off not to burning them. I give you a good advice: Let your hands off and be very happy that Paradox make all their new Games (Hearts of Iron, Stellaris) modable, which isn´t self-evident.

@ all: To the Dev Diary itself I have to say following. I have never mentiont this Problem, but many others. So it´s good that the AI gets a big boost for 1.7, 1.8 and following Patches / DLC´s in that things. I´m looking forward to see what we get in the next Dev Diary.

All that things which the Devs mentioning are already in the Basic-AI-Process. You could see what the Devs are Changed in the AI-Playstile. Here what I have mentiond from the Basic-Versions up to Man the Guns DLC:

1. In the full Basic Versions (1.0 to 1.2.1) you hadn´t a chance to make war, because you lost before the Game comes to fully drive [AI to aggressive]

2. In the following Versions with the DLC´s Togehter for Victory / Death or Dishonor (1.3.0 up to 1.4.2) you could make war and as a player you could win the first time after the Game comes to fully drive [AI to defensively]

3. In the next Version with DLC Waking the Tiger (1.5.0 up to 1.5.4) the AI was getting a litte more aggression back, but therfore she was broken in some Parts, what the Devs mentioned too and promised to fix that in the next Version´s and DLC´s [AI gets a little more aggressive back]

4. In the last Version with DLC Man the Guns (1.6.0 up to 1.6.2) the AI is on the right way to get a middle between aggrassive / denfensively to make it for the Player harder. But we have not to forget that the AI has to manage a new Navyplaystile now. She still have Bugs in some Parts, but the Devs are giving the AI more life back [the Middleway like for a human player is comming slowly]

So we hope that the Devs will get a cool AI for a long Hoi 4 Playtime after the Game gets much more potential in the next few years / in the decades.
 
Last edited:
I honestly think you are reading far too much into @podcat ’s statement. Of course he is aware of the complexities of WW2 and it’s historical course. But as an approximate balancing target in a game of this kind, I think his arguments and reasoning are fair. There has to be an incentive to play as any nation - the easiest being Germany.

Besides - what big landing do you think he is referring to? Torch, Husky or Overlord?
I'm thinking Husky.
 
Back in the actual game terms, I think podcat's goal is roughly about right for what I want to see in the game. I want AI Germany to slowly and VERY NARROWLY beat AI USSR, absent any player involvement. Maybe not every single time, but the majority of them. I know good and well, as do most of the rest of you, that this is not 100% historically accurate, but it makes for a better game, and at the end of the day, that's what we're talking about. A game. I want it to mostly reflect the realities of the time period, I want the equipment to act the way it should, and I want the battles to be bloody and hard fought. But I also want a compelling game that forces me to have an impact on the final outcome.

Then why don't you argue in favor of balancing the game in a way that Japan (narrowly, but decisively) crushes the USA in the Pacific and takes California in most games? It would be very interesting to play this as e.g. the British, it will force you to have an impact on the outcome, in your terms. But you're not arguing in favor of this, why?
 
Then why don't you argue in favor of balancing the game in a way that Japan (narrowly, but decisively) crushes the USA in the Pacific and takes California in most games? It would be very interesting to play this as e.g. the British, it will force you to have an impact on the outcome, in your terms. But you're not arguing in favor of this, why?

Because that's not remotely believable, whereas the Germany/USSR balance is. Even most Japanese in the higher ranks knew they were fighting a war they couldn't win in that sense - they were hoping to force the Americans to negotiate a favorable peace. Their mistake wasn't underestimating the economy of the US, their mistake was underestimating how much Pearl Harbor would counter the peaceniks and galvanize resolve to get revenge.

By the way, one of the current flaws of the game is that these sorts of negotiated peace deals aren't even possible in the game. I wish that could be rectified in some way.

I think Japan as it is in the game right now is about right. Able to take China and India if you don't stop them...maybe Hawaii. If you want them to land on the west coast, you should be the one running them, or boost their slider a LOT.
 
All I can do is hope it actually works out well. I'm not really confident at this stage lol
 
OK, I don't even use the battle planner most of the time, but I still have to ask..why on earth would you put Mountaineer divisions and armored divisions in the same army? I thought everybody kept armored divisions under their own separate command, am I the only one? And I would definitely not leave them spread out across the front line - you bunch them up and use them en masse to create decisive breakthroughs.

I don't play like that normally, it was just an experiment with AI turned off to see if the battleplanner considers the terrain or not :p

A more realistic example would be to put ordinary infantry divisions with mountaineer division in the same army when defending. In that case, the same thing will happen, it will put the orginary infantry on the mountains, and the mountaineers in the forest ;)
 
I don't play like that normally, it was just an experiment with AI turned off to see if the battleplanner considers the terrain or not :p

A more realistic example would be to put ordinary infantry divisions with mountaineer division in the same army when defending. In that case, the same thing will happen, it will put the orginary infantry on the mountains, and the mountaineers in the forest ;)

In that case, I would imagine podcat's reply to your post overrides mine, at least in terms of applicability and utility.
 
Because that's not remotely believable, whereas the Germany/USSR balance is. Even most Japanese in the higher ranks knew they were fighting a war they couldn't win in that sense - they were hoping to force the Americans to negotiate a favorable peace. Their mistake wasn't underestimating the economy of the US, their mistake was underestimating how much Pearl Harbor would counter the peaceniks and galvanize resolve to get revenge.

By the way, one of the current flaws of the game is that these sorts of negotiated peace deals aren't even possible in the game. I wish that could be rectified in some way.

I think Japan as it is in the game right now is about right. Able to take China and India if you don't stop them...maybe Hawaii. If you want them to land on the west coast, you should be the one running them, or boost their slider a LOT.

I believe that your position is internally inconsistent. If you argue from historicity/believability point of view, then USSR should be winning over Germany in most games even without a D-Day scale western front being opened. If you argue from the "more interesting gameplay" point of view, then you should also argue in favor of other things like the one I suggested; but you're not doing this, saying that they should be possible, but with the help of the "Strengthen <whatever>" slider. To that I say that this slider also works for Germany.

If you want an ahistorical outcome of the USSR losing to Germany in case of no D-Day, just use your "Strengthen Germany" slider, and you will get your "compelling game that forces me to have an impact on the final outcome". But the default balance should be the historical one (well, at least this should be the aim).
 
I don’t mind either way whether it’s entirely historical or catered to make an interesting game for the player on a historical setting. If they are catering the game towards player challenge then I am fine with that.

If Germany always wins without a 2nd front then that does not bother me but I would like it to stretch longer than a 42/43 finish for them (at least 44). However this is of course with the current state of the game until they devote more time to improving the ability of a 2nd front in the future which would then balance that issue and allow the Germans to more likely lose (arsenal of democracy gets involved).

I kind of think a good time for that would be when they make a D-Day actually possible for the player. So we can organise a joint invasion with the AI (AI with AI also). MTG would have been an obvious time to have done this (ships and all) as we did get amphibious vehicles but understandably it’s a bigger job than that which probably requires a bit more work on the AI side.
 
I believe that your position is internally inconsistent.

Not really - I'm still arguing for a slightly stronger result for Japan than the historical outcome, just still within the realm of believability.

But at this point, I am finished discussing it with you. I'm not going to go back and forth with this for days, as you seem to want to do with everyone on here. I have made my points, you have made yours. Have a good one.
 
Perhaps, i am alone, but is there any way to turn off the battle planner? I want to control my divisions without any "red" marking on the counters on a normal (eg. clearly visible borders) map...
 
While historically the Soviet Union did defeat the German Realm and the European Axis, it was not necessarily a one-sided front, I don't doubt the Soviet Union on its own could have repelled the Axis Alliance, but they certainly wouldn't be able to push into Axis territory given their logistical lines were stretched historically, and in this scenario they would lack the lend-lease and the American-British frontlines in Italy and France that helped relieve pressure. It is true that Lend-Lease wasn't in large quantities until after Operation Uranus, but the fact of the matter is it played a critical role in 1944 and onward, the Soviets, like the Germans, had difficulty using the different rail-lines, and much of the production the Soviet Union was able to muster up was thanks to increased food supplies, vehicles, and various other sources from the United States and the British Empire, enabling them to focus on Armour, Artillery, and their Aircraft.

As it stands, the game wouldn't really be any fun if the Soviet Union defeats the German Realm consistently, so a balance is needed, like Japan defeating the British puppets in Asia and the Chinese, the German Realm needs to at least for the majority of the time, be capable of defeating the Soviet Union around 1944-1945 to provide a sense of a challenge and balancing for multiplayer games. The French Republic actually could have defeated the Germans during Case Yellow, but factors led to their defeat, should this be represented in the game? No, the French need to collapse, in order for the game to resemble the war, thus the French Republic is weaker than its historical counterpart for balancing purposes, the same must apply to the Allies as a whole.
 
Last edited:
In most of my japanese game. SU lost by attrition around 1947. It's weird since they should've more manpower than Germany.

The front breaks really quickly when they lose 18 millions soldiers.

Allies try to naval invade France and Italy but Italy has so many divisions. So, they lose everytimes.

Maybe you should increase the strategic bombers effect in Germany.

I remember in HOI3 playing Germany was a nightmare because of that. After 1943, your production was wiped out. Most of players tried to invade UK before 1942 to prevent that. But in HOI4, it's not really hard to stop allies bombers. Even in my japanese game, they attack with 500 bombers. I intercept them with 400 fighters and they stop.... Such a joke in comparison of HOI3...

More allies bombers in Germany would help more than improving AI according to me.
 
Last edited:
@podcat Will these changes to armygroup orders help solve the problem of divisions shuffling all around the line? Often I see divisions from one end of the line moving way far away to reinforce a weaker part of the line, while simultaneously a division from the other part of the line is moving to fill one down by the first division. Normally long before they get there the weak part is already holding fine again or the province was taken by the enemy and now a bunch of new rounds of shuffling divisions. Basically will this make divisions try and reinforce closer areas and take into account if division A is going to reinforce an area that division B is closer to and is also headed to then will division A look for a different place to go? Sorry if this does not make sense. I just see the main problem with AI lines is they are constantly moving troops in dumb ways so their line loses org and entrenchment.
 
Yeah, I'll also pipe up and say that balancing the game around Germany defeating the Soviets unless the player saves them is dumb.

If I want a game to feature super-Axis, I can use the power sliders to achieve that. Otherwise, I'd prefer the game to be balanced as historically as feasible.
 
This is a Webtool for Devs to check the Game faster and accurater for Bugs, Failures and much more. This tool isn´t anything for stranger People. Why should the Devteam give his best Weapon for the Gamedevelopement to a stranger People hand? They must be goony to do that. If I were the Dev-Team-Boss I wouldn´t.
Why wouldn't they? It would be very useful for modding, among other purposes, since the release of HOI4 the Devs have shared many tools with the community and that's how https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1702462029 mods like this became true, it's mutually beneficial because amazing mods will also help them to market the game and keep player activity high. There is no reason (well, assuming Devs have time to make it really work for end-users) not to let we players use it, they won't be able to sell it as another DLC anyway. Oh wait I said nothing.