• 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!
 
Well I think for one it's just an absurd situation that once you dig a bit deeper you can reach powers levels almost rivaling captain hindsight in sheer war-winning capacity. "If only we could hand-pick our leaders from the best that have ever existed we could have won this". I think if we restrict our scenarios to at least allow the fascists to assume power in Germany and start WW2 like it happened in our time-line it would be extremely unlikely for Hitler to have relinquished power to someone else, even if they were as competent as those people you mentioned.

On the 2nd point. You claim that fighting for a justifiable cause would have made a large difference (a war winning difference even). Now for the German soldiers it seemed like morale and war support was extremely high until the very end so I assume you mean the difference is that they could have garnered more support from Ukrainians and Russians and the like in conquered territories. I am of the opinion that the main limiting factors for German success in Barbarossa were strategic resources (most importantly oil). They could easily replenish their losses in both personnel and AFVs in the early stages of Barbarossa but had to eventually downsize the number of mechanized and armored divisions due to lack of fuel. I hardly think recruiting more soldiers from conquered territories in Soviet Union would have made a difference. It wouldn't have solved the main issue of fuel running out so they can't conduct large scale offensives. The main obstacle that needs to be overcome is the red army whether your goal for invading is pure benevolent slavophilia to liberate the oppressed or plain old lebensraum.

Since we are all fans of impossible hypothethical scenarios, let's consider one: What if Canada suddenly decides to mobilize a huge army with the goal to annex the United States. In such a scenario I don't think the war would be any more/less difficult whether your stated reason for annexation was to create a pan-anglo-saxon empire or to fight global warming. I think both scenarios would be incredibly similar in terms of difficulty even though one of the scenarios sounds slightly less appaling to a progressively minded person from the 21st century. The main obstacle that you have to overcome in both cases is the U.S armed forces and they need to be defeated in the field no matter how many sympathizers you convert to your cause.

In modern wars it seems to be the equipment (and the firepower associated with said equipment) that decide wars. Not manpower. Now of course if your background to invasion are so incredibly just and benevolent that half of your enemies just lay down their weapons or turn on their own country that would be a different matter entirely but I can't see that happening in the case of Germany vs the Soviet Union.

I'm sorry, I know you put some time and effort into that post, and I actually agree with a lot of the stuff you said. But I do not think you actually know what I and kapiszon were talking about. Also, the whole discussion is hintsight so I'm not exactly sure why you are pointing that out. I never disputed that there other factors (you named crude) which made Germany fail in WW2. I didn't even dispute that if Hitler had implemented a different occupation policy, things would have went otherwise (you failed to understand that I neither advocated nor rejected this, in fact, I rejected discussing that idea in this specific context).

My point was that taking the Einsatzgruppen and Lebensraum out of the equation does leave us with a different war so its pointless to discuss wether that would have changed the course of the conflict. The conflict as we know it would not have appeared in the first place.

Also, I'm still puzzled why you completely reject the idea that a Napoleon or Caesar type leader could have led Germany to victory under any circumstances, or why you strictly reject the idea that fighting for a justifyable cause would not have made things easier for Germany in any regard. I find that quite odd. Maybe you can elaborate your points
 
Last edited:
Well Ceasar didn't even conquered whole France (there's one little village , where ... :mad: )and Napoleon managed to get Moscow (with the majority of his troops were german nativs) but forgott to prohibit smoking :eek: , so I doubt the outcome would have been different than Schickelgrubers try . :D
 
Also, I'm still puzzled why you completely reject the idea that a Napoleon or Caesar type leader could have led Germany to victory under any circumstances, or why you strictly reject the idea that fighting for a justifyable cause would not have made things easier for Germany in any regard. I find that quite odd. Maybe you can elaborate your points
I already presented my view. My point is that you still have to contend with the enemy army in the field whether you invade in the name of sunshine & rainbows or not. I believe that certain conditions can lead to insurmountable disadvantages that even a brilliant leader can't overcome. Is Napoleon gonna lead the wehrmacht from the frontlines like he did back in the day for example? The impact one man can have in a ww2 army the size of the wehrmacht at its peak strength would be quite a bit diminished compared to the grand armée at its peak because of difference in size. These things have to be taken into consideration.
Why not present your own evidence/research now since you're the one that introduced these theories. I can't just accept these theories without a healthy dose of rationalism to back up the claims.
 
I already presented my view. My point is that you still have to contend with the enemy army in the field whether you invade in the name of sunshine & rainbows or not. I believe that certain conditions can lead to insurmountable disadvantages that even a brilliant leader can't overcome. Is Napoleon gonna lead the wehrmacht from the frontlines like he did back in the day for example? The impact one man can have in a ww2 army the size of the wehrmacht at its peak strength would be quite a bit diminished compared to the grand armée at its peak because of difference in size. These things have to be taken into consideration.
Why not present your own evidence/research now since you're the one that introduced these theories. I can't just accept these theories without a healthy dose of rationalism to back up the claims.

I did not present any theory. Neither did I state that historical Caesar or historical Napoleon would have won WW2. What I said is that a Napoleon or Caesar style leader could have won. Because these two actually bothered to prepare their campaigns and analysed their enemies. Well at least in the beginning. What I find very irritating is the idea that someone thinks that these two leader archetypes never could have won a similiar endeavor, while these two leaders military archievements massively outweight those of Hitler (which managed to listen to Manstein once, and that's pretty much it). So I still stand by this comment, the vast majority of people interested in military history probably would never doubt that a Napoleon or Caesar style leader could have won if you put him in charge of Germany in '33. Already the fact that their ambitions would have been way more down to earth would have made success way more likely.
 
I'd like to start a new game, but obviously wanna wait for the 1.7 beta.
I'm sure most of us feel the same way.

So how about a bit more transparency on the progress, dear devs? Would be greatly appreciated.
Ready for bug and balancing report duty!

Dev diaries typically come out on Wednesdays. I'd say you'll know more very soon.
 
I did not present any theory. Neither did I state that historical Caesar or historical Napoleon would have won WW2. What I said is that a Napoleon or Caesar style leader could have won. Because these two actually bothered to prepare their campaigns and analysed their enemies. Well at least in the beginning. What I find very irritating is the idea that someone thinks that these two leader archetypes never could have won a similiar endeavor, while these two leaders military archievements massively outweight those of Hitler (which managed to listen to Manstein once, and that's pretty much it). So I still stand by this comment, the vast majority of people interested in military history probably would never doubt that a Napoleon or Caesar style leader could have won if you put him in charge of Germany in '33. Already the fact that their ambitions would have been way more down to earth would have made success way more likely.
Well you know, Hitler seemed to have a better idea on how to defeat the Soviet Union than Manstein did. Good thing for Germany that Manstein wasn't in charge.
 
Russia was defeated in the WWI by the Germans in 1918, before Germany lost the war to the Western allies of WWI. You do not need Caesar or Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II was enough to bring the largest country of the world to it's knees. Please don't forget this part of history and claim, that Germany winning over Soviet Union was impossible between 1941-1945. It historically happened in 1918, after nearly 4 years of fighting. And when that war started, the Imperial Russia was larger than the SU.
 
Well you know, Hitler seemed to have a better idea on how to defeat the Soviet Union than Manstein did. Good thing for Germany that Manstein wasn't in charge.

I do sincerely hope that was meant as a joke.
 
I do sincerely hope that was meant as a joke.
No. Hitler seemed to have a better understanding of the economic aspects of the war than most if not all of the top generals of the OKH and OKW.
The drive to Moscow approach is no guarantee that the Soviets will surrender. Napoleon took Moscow and still lost. And Soviet generals were saying that losing Moscow would be a big blow but would not interrupt their grand strategy.
Hitler's approach of striking south towards the oil fields of the caucasus was the correct way to fight the war.
 
No. Hitler seemed to have a better understanding of the economic aspects of the war than most if not all of the top generals of the OKH, OKW and Wehrmacht.
The drive to Moscow approach is no guarantee that the Soviets will surrender. Napoleon took Moscow and still lost. And Soviet generals were saying that losing Moscow would be a big blow but would not interrupt their grand strategy.
Hitler's approach of striking south towards the oil fields of the caucasus was the correct way to fight the war.

Hitler's insistence on economics as the center of his war aims was one of many mistakes, not something to be lauded. You win a war by defeating the enemy ARMIES, not by taking an ore mine, even one so rich as the Donets basin area. His generals were among the best the world has ever known, they (and their soldiers) were trained to work best when given freedom to maneuver. They would approach Hitler with how they could win a victory if only they could do XYZ operation, he would not allow it because it risked giving up some particular location for a short period of time.

Read about Manstein's "Backhand Blow" operation at Kharkov in 1943 to see what Manstein was capable of when given authority to do so. Hitler's strategies were misguided attempts to hold locations that he would end up being forced to lose anyway, because he would not allow his commanders the free reign to do his job.

As the war went on, Hitler took more and more direct control of operational decisions. As the war went on, Stalin delegated more and more decision making authority to his underlings. There are VERY few people who would try to argue that the drug-addled Austrian corporal was making the right calls in these cases, but apparently you are one of them.
 
Some interesting facts/numbers from Wikipedia:
Soviet production and upkeep was assisted by the Lend-Lease program from the United States and the United Kingdom. In the course of the war the US supplied $11 billion of materiel through Lend-Lease. This included 400,000 trucks, 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks), 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food.[143] The British supplied aircraft including 3,000 Hurricanes and 4,000 other aircraft during the war. Five thousand tanks were provided by the British and Canada. Total British supplies were about four million tons
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Industrial_output

In the German version of that article they also say (translated via Google translator):
"Over the course of the war, the US supplied 57.8 percent of the aviation fuel, 53 percent of all explosives, nearly 50 percent of copper, aluminum and rubber tires, 56.6 percent of all warped rails, 1900 locomotives and 11,075 freight cars. This was opposed by 92 locomotives and 1087 wagons from Soviet production. At the end of 1942, only five percent of Soviet military vehicles came from foreign production, and at the end of the war over 30 percent. By weight, nearly 50 percent of all US shipments were food."

I personally didn't know it was that much support.
A friend said only gold was accepted as payment.
 
Last edited:
Hitler's insistence on economics as the center of his war aims was one of many mistakes, not something to be lauded. You win a war by defeating the enemy ARMIES, not by taking an ore mine, even one so rich as the Donets basin area. His generals were among the best the world has ever known, they (and their soldiers) were trained to work best when given freedom to maneuver. They would approach Hitler with how they could win a victory if only they could do XYZ operation, he would not allow it because it risked giving up some particular location for a short period of time.

Read about Manstein's "Backhand Blow" operation at Kharkov in 1943 to see what Manstein was capable of when given authority to do so. Hitler's strategies were misguided attempts to hold locations that he would end up being forced to lose anyway, because he would not allow his commanders the free reign to do his job.

As the war went on, Hitler took more and more direct control of operational decisions. As the war went on, Stalin delegated more and more decision making authority to his underlings. There are VERY few people who would try to argue that the drug-addled Austrian corporal was making the right calls in these cases, but apparently you are one of them.
Of course he would step in more and more seeing how the OKH convincing him to strike center was beginning to squander his last few chances of winning the war as fuel reserves were rapidly depleting. Seems rational to begin to micro-manage failing elements.

Those epic tactical encirclements of the France campaign and early Barbarossa that the Wehrmacht were so good at executing would become increasingly rare if the panzers would run out of fuel to perform them and even if they did perform massive encirclements and destroyed armies it seemed that the Soviets had no problem replenishing their forces.
 
... beginning to squander his last few chances of winning the war ...

OK, now I KNOW you're delusional. His "last few chances of winning the war" expired in 1941. At the VERY latest.
 
Last edited:
OK, now I KNOW you're delusional. His "last few chances of winning the war" expired in 1941.
Agreed. What I'm saying is that Hitler realized this and began to strike south. Something that should have been given priority from the start hadn't it been for Halder, Brauchitsch and Bock.
 
Russia was defeated in the WWI by the Germans in 1918, before Germany lost the war to the Western allies of WWI. You do not need Caesar or Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II was enough to bring the largest country of the world to it's knees. Please don't forget this part of history and claim, that Germany winning over Soviet Union was impossible between 1941-1945. It historically happened in 1918, after nearly 4 years of fighting. And when that war started, the Imperial Russia was larger than the SU.
Sure, Russian Empire and Soviet Union are just the same in terms of industry and elites being competent.
 
Agreed. What I'm saying is that Hitler realized this and began to strike south. Something that should have been given priority from the start hadn't it been for Halder, Brauchitsch and Bock.

If the war is lost anyway, and HItler knows it, what difference does it make whether he strikes south in 1942 or not?
 
If the war is lost anyway, and HItler knows it, what difference does it make whether he strikes south in 1942 or not?
My point was that he was increasingly becoming distrustful of his generals because in his eyes (and mine), they were squandering the war with their decision of thrusting toward Moscow. And thereby I'm saying it's rather rational to begin to micro-manage parts that are failing in his eyes (and mine).
The point isn't whether the war is lost or not by such and such date or whatever. The point i'm putting forward is that the best way to conduct this war in the situation that Germany was in at the time was to seize strategic resources in the south. Hitler (and I) believed that this part was of such fundamental importance that he most likely felt it was justified to put his fingers where they had previously not been just to make sure his generals didn't wander off on their own little agendas that detracted from Hitler's economic warfare. That's my take on the whole situation.
 
Sure, Russian Empire and Soviet Union are just the same in terms of industry and elites being competent.
Sure, Wehrmacht was on par with the German Imperial Army, and Hitler's fleet was even greater and if needed could have easily spared several battleships to support local landing operations, like those at Ezel/Moonsund in 1918.
 
Hitler seemed to have a better understanding of the economic aspects of the war than most if not all of the top generals of the OKH and OKW.

Apart of this being right or not, he clearly didn't understand what to do with his economy and the goods produced. He drained fuel by ordering his tanks to change plan and go the other way, he focused on heavier and heavier tanks, wasting resources, and would order troops to keep their ground, when it was clear they would lose from the enemy, which meant losing a lot of equipment and experienced soldiers. Maybe he understood the importance of economics better than his generals, maybe not, but he certainly didn't know how to use resources in war.