• 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!
 
Hitler could have won if only he justified a war goal against the Netherlands in 1936 and annexed them. Then he could use the oil field in Curacao to build up a vast fuel reserve before WW2, and when Barbarossa came the Wermacht could have gone straight for Moscow.
 
So if I'm playing a minor country like, say, New Zealand, AI USSR will reliably lose to the Axis by '45 (which I doubt will not happen much earlier with the current game mechanics), unless they are saved by the AI Allies?

Let's just forget that the back of the Axis was broken by the Soviet Union and the Germans were in full retreat by the time the main Allied landings in Western Europe happened!?!:mad:

Agreed!

Nazi Germany overextended itself and had terrible issues at the top when it came to fighting Russia, alongisde major issues with Weather. Once those mistakes were made it was clear the Russians were going to win, the only question wasn't would they, but how long would it take and how much blood and iron would be sacrificed?


What I'd like is for it to be as someone else mentioned, very much a case of "50/50 chance" of one side or the other getting an advantage, not something that says "Hey guess what, if the Allies aren't back in Europe by 1945, the USSR is screwed."

It's not even fun to play as the Soviets right now even when sticking with Stalin- even the times I get the most troops I can I still lose to the Germans EVERY time, even in cases where I correct mistakes I made previously.
 
The USSR also requires Generals reworl, for example: Pavel Zhigarev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Zhigarev,
the commander of the Airborne Forces was the commander of the Air Force and was not under repression so he could not be repressed by Stalin, but I think to replace him with the real commander of the Airborne Forces: Vasili Glazunov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Glazunov who was also not under repression and cannot be removed.
 
Although I have really enjoyed reading this historic discussion and the different insights given, I think there should also be some emphasis on gameplay aspects.

The way I see it there are two main reasons to play a game like hoi4. First of all, the generic setting of ww2 and its warfare is just a lot of fun and works perfectly for a grand strategy game. This sort of gameplay probably works optimally when the main conflict between the axis and the allies + soviets is as balanced as possible. This would mean that the player's involvement will determine the outcome of the war. If you do well and make good decisions, your side will win. If you don't do well, it's likely your side will lose. To achieve this, it would make sense to make Germany as strong as proposed.

However, one other reason to play a game like hoi4 is because you like to basically replay history. It is especially fun to try to abuse the foresight we all have due to our historical knowledge and alter the course of the war in that way. One of the things I really enjoy is trying to come up with some course of events that could have led to an Axis victory somehow. But even simple questions like what would have happened if the USA got actively involved much sooner, or what happens when some minor joins the war, are things that motivate me to play. This style of gameplay probably works best when the game would play out historically without human intervention. That way anything the player does that diverges from the historical course of the war will have a direct effect on the outcome of the war. If Germany steamrolls Russia too hard it ruins plenty of playthroughs that want to play around the historical course of the war. It can be very disappointing for example to be playing mostly historically as the USA and notice that Germany easily managed to secure the Soviet Oil fields in '41 or '42.

These two styles of playing hoi4 essentially conflict. Historically speaking winning the war was extremely hard for germany. I think most people agree that even without opening a large second front by the allies the soviets would not have fallen to germany. That is of course when you do take into account the other historical involvement of the allies in the war, like the bombing and lend-lease. If you want the war to play out historically without human intervention, then it thus means it needs to be almost impossible for Germany to win the war. If you want the war to be more balanced I think the proposed '45 german victory over the Soviets if the allies don't open a second front seems fair.

Ultimately I do not think there is a way to set up the game that works for both these playstyles. Maybe an eventual goal could be to have two different modes for this: One mode that favors the gameplay, and one mode that plays out historically without human intervention. After all, there is already a secondary mode where the AI isn't historical at all. That being said, I can see how it is extremely difficult to actually properly balance the game so that it plays out historically
 
I played 1.7 beta and now At the begnning of Operation Barbarossa USSR have many guns but they all trying to attack germany and so their guns runs out in 1- 2 years. After that Germany attacks and wins.
 
I am very impressed with the effort PAradox puts into balancing the game. It is probably also the main reason I still play it after all these years!

However, it seems to me that the problem with offence being stronger than defense is only in part an AI issue. Rather, the fundamental challenge is that defending divisions do not regenerate org at the same rate. The attacker can use a limited number of divisions, filling up the frontage. When these run out of org, the attack is typically renewed with a fresh set of divisions, while the ones from the previous wave recover their org. The defender, on the other hand, has all divisions in the "battle zone," and if these are being attacked in waves, they do not get a chance to regenerate org. The divisions on the front line may change between waves, but since the ones which are in reseve do not regenerate org, eventually all divisions will run out of org. To make things worse, divisions which retreat always move back into the "battle zone" immediately, even if there is no urgency to do so. Thus, they typically return with minimal org and are easily defeated again.

Allowing reserve divisions in the battle zone to regenerate org would greatly change the way battles flow and possibly reintroduce the invincible "superstacks" of old, but perhaps one could develop a game mechanic a where a front could be defended in depth, with some of its divisions deployed in reserve and/or being entrenched behind the current lines?
 
Hitler could have won if only he justified a war goal against the Netherlands in 1936 and annexed them. Then he could use the oil field in Curacao to build up a vast fuel reserve before WW2, and when Barbarossa came the Wermacht could have gone straight for Moscow.
This is a very viable strategy for a German player in-game thanks to the world tension system and the implementation of fuel reserves, though Germany will need to build up some silos to have sufficient fuel capacity. Would love to see an alternate "War in 36" AI plan for Germany where they focus primarily on this strategy, since it would make the Axis more of a challenge to play against and compensate for the weakening of their current Russia rush strategy in the early 1940s.
 
That´s why i play historically and don´t beginn a war 1936, 1937 and 1938. And if you play correctly the battle for Denmark, Norway, Benelux and Northern France gets some Month.

The Devs are makining the Middleway for the AI now, not the shy AI like in the last versions and not the beasty AI in the Outcomeversion. To programming AI ins´t easy, esp. if you wanna have an AI which don´t cheat.

And I know what I´m talking about. Played Games since the 80´s.
 
I encourage anyone reading this thread to think briefly about The Time Machine. There is a lovely scene in the Guy Pierce version with a discussion about "what if".

What if the Germans had captured those troops before operation Dynamo? Considering the USA was unable to send a single ship to help rescue that army how willing would have American involvement been it the call had been something like, "Hey can you send your army.... we lost ours.... and the French army too. " That loss of manpower could have encouraged the Americans to not send any aid to the UK.

What if Japan had left all American holdings alone and instead focused on British Malaya, Australia, the Dutch East Indes and then made plans for Russia (as necessary depending on peace status).

If you line up those two points it is possible that the USA might have just sat out for another two years or perhaps never got involved in the war (before things ended).


Let's take a stroll back in HoI4 time when Japan, Germany, Hungary and Italy were all in the Axis together. How do you think a multiplayer game would go if:

1. The UK has lost all of its starting army units, equipment and supplies that have been created since mid 1939 and has 0 mp?
2. The USA is completely sitting the war out (This player had to go to piano practice and has been replaced with a passive AI).
3. Japan has mopped up all of China and all the areas previously mentioned and Germany has defeated France.

That leaves the armies of Canada, Raj and South Africa to defend Africa/India. That probably means Italy steamrolls Africa. Once that happens Spain will wake up and join the war to kick out the UK garrison.

I don't think anyone is reasonably going to claim that Canada+Raj+ British Navy+Soviets is going to win.



I think the Devs made the right decision for the game with the idea that without intervention the Soviets lose. Every game needs a villain/bad guy or even just a vague opposing force to make it work. The last Ironman game I played as the Soviets was fun fending off a very strong Germany. You can play a minor country and have a huge war impact on either side if you do all the right things. That to me strikes a fun balance when you can play so many different countries and still help win the war.
 
So are you able to have army group fronts which don't include a specific army yet? For example if I have an army group with 4 infantry armies and 1 armoured army, is it possible to assign the infantry armies onto the front as an army group frontline, and then put the armoured armies frontlines/attack orders where I want manually so that I can properly do spearhead/armoured pushes? If not I feel like th entire "army group frontline" system is a little pointless, as it forces you to have your armoured armies in different army groups.
 
Apart from the all-important Soviet-German debate.......
I notice they showed us a simulation of Japan conquering all of China in 1941.
Hope they would understand that is ahistorical, not balanced nor fun, and have at least *some* intention to change it in the future.:oops:
You are totaly right but Paradox dont listen.

Why China loses? Because Guangxi Clique has a very good economy equal to China. They produce a lot of divisions. They send them expeditionary force. But they recall in 2 minutes. 30 divisions sitting in south China.

China should have "puppet cliques focus" in war or annex, prc annex shanxi roc should annex others
 
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!

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.
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:

Do you have tools to measure economic delta? How many factories of what type built month by month? Because no amount of other kinds of tweaking are going to matter unless the ai has the tools (equipment units) to work with. This was true, and a problem, in HOI 1, and also in HOI4.

1. The balance target isn't good. It's not a challenge for the Axis player. The assumption should be 1.1.43, not 1.1.45.

2. The German ai file has this line:
ai_strategy = {
type = added_military_to_civilian_factory_ratio
value = 20
}

which means that starting 1.1.1940, the ratio of military factories to civilian skyrockets, and the German ai builds almost exclusively military factories, easily giving Germany ~240 to 280 military factories by mid 1943.

The Soviet (and the U.S.) have no such line in their ai files. They continue to build at a 50/50 ratio, which in effect means that the Soviets have about ~130 factories by mid-1943 in most games. This is never enough to gain positive flows on equipment, which in turn means they can't produce new divisions. Hence, even in ai-ai Soviet Union is a cakewalk for Axis.

This dynamic isn't altered by Allied intervention in any way, for several reasons I'm sure you are already aware of: Allied invasion (D-Day) ai can't get a real invasion going, and the Axis maintains something like 100 divisions in France/Germany to surround and destroy any invasion which gets ashore. Not uncommon to see Allies launch 15 or 30 invasions over the space of 2 years, all of which get crushed.

3. The Soviet and U.S. ai files need to be altered so that the mil/civ factory ratio is shifted to 5:1. Put some conditions on it or whatever. But as of now, the Soviet and Allied economies are grossly inefficient and unbalanced, and partly explains why the Soviet ai is consistently defeated and the Allies can't get a D-Day off the ground.
 
Do you have tools to measure economic delta? How many factories of what type built month by month? Because no amount of other kinds of tweaking are going to matter unless the ai has the tools (equipment units) to work with. This was true, and a problem, in HOI 1, and also in HOI4.

1. The balance target isn't good. It's not a challenge for the Axis player. The assumption should be 1.1.43, not 1.1.45.

2. The German ai file has this line:
ai_strategy = {
type = added_military_to_civilian_factory_ratio
value = 20
}

which means that starting 1.1.1940, the ratio of military factories to civilian skyrockets, and the German ai builds almost exclusively military factories, easily giving Germany ~240 to 280 military factories by mid 1943.

The Soviet (and the U.S.) have no such line in their ai files. They continue to build at a 50/50 ratio, which in effect means that the Soviets have about ~130 factories by mid-1943 in most games. This is never enough to gain positive flows on equipment, which in turn means they can't produce new divisions. Hence, even in ai-ai Soviet Union is a cakewalk for Axis.

This dynamic isn't altered by Allied intervention in any way, for several reasons I'm sure you are already aware of: Allied invasion (D-Day) ai can't get a real invasion going, and the Axis maintains something like 100 divisions in France/Germany to surround and destroy any invasion which gets ashore. Not uncommon to see Allies launch 15 or 30 invasions over the space of 2 years, all of which get crushed.

3. The Soviet and U.S. ai files need to be altered so that the mil/civ factory ratio is shifted to 5:1. Put some conditions on it or whatever. But as of now, the Soviet and Allied economies are grossly inefficient and unbalanced, and partly explains why the Soviet ai is consistently defeated and the Allies can't get a D-Day off the ground.

im my tests of 1.7 the Sovs without buff(sliders) just poor manage focus, decisions(political power), materials, without buff i just steamrolled them with light panzers.
 
im my tests of 1.7 the Sovs without buff(sliders) just poor manage focus, decisions(political power), materials, without buff i just steamrolled them with light panzers.

Yes, it's never going to be a challenge for the Axis to conquer the Soviet Union. That's why I'm pointing out that there are deep flaws in the factory ratio build choices (which also applies to the U.S.).

As Podcat has indicated, the game is set up to allow ai Axis victory against ai-Soviet by 1945 (though in my experience more like 1943), if the Allies do nothing. And the Allies, again by design, or error in balancing design, do nothing. GIGO.
 
And the Allies, again by design, or error in balancing design, do nothing. GIGO.

I'm currently in my first Allied playthrough as Australia (so rely heavily on USA and ENG doing some heavy lifting), and both are doing their best to attack - it's mid-1942 and they've successfully landed in Greece and southern Italy. They're not as good at consolidating their invasions as they could be, but I'm definitely not getting the impression they're doing nothing.
 
I'm currently in my first Allied playthrough as Australia (so rely heavily on USA and ENG doing some heavy lifting), and both are doing their best to attack - it's mid-1942 and they've successfully landed in Greece and southern Italy. They're not as good at consolidating their invasions as they could be, but I'm definitely not getting the impression they're doing nothing.

Tag over to the USA and UK and see what their resources and shipbuilding situations are, wouldya?
 
Tag over to the USA and UK and see what their resources and shipbuilding situations are, wouldya?

This I can do - one mo...... pics in spoilers. Not sure what you're looking for, but there are issues that stand out (ENG not using 20-odd of its NIC, and the USA running a -164 steel deficit for a start). Also, notice how much harder Japan pushes these days - a far cry from early Australia runs where one was pretty safe - they just keep coming!


20190607195931_1.jpg


20190607195851_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was looking for the US being completely starved for steel and not being able to build ships, which looks fully present there.

It's partly that the US never switches out of free trade, and partly that ships always go to the bottom of the production queue, which means everything else takes precedence over them.