• 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.
@podcat asked me to prepare a Dev Diary from a Project Lead perspective...
Quick background on me: I came on as Project Lead for HOI4 shortly after the game was released, last summer. That’s my perspective. I speak from a expansion-development point of view, and our work going forward.

The purpose of today’s Dev Diary is to give you a little insight into our development process.
Why we fix some bugs and leave others... How we decide what goes into the next expansion... and more.


Imagine, if you will, a crowded bar
Imagine all the customers screaming out their orders at once, to a single hard-working bartender.


How many words do you think the bartender will be able to make out, over the collected noise of the crowd?
How many drink orders do you think he will he be able to get right?

If you answered “none”, you’d probably be close to the truth.

My job, if I’d been working in that bar, would be to to organize a queue-system that works.
To move things along and make sure that people get what they want, as quickly as possible.

As project lead at Paradox; it’s my job to make sure that our players get what they want.
Best possible value in the game, within the shortest possible amount of time.

Here is a super condensed version of how the team and I go about making this happen.


The Design Process
First, within the team; the designer speaks for the players. They’re the one that decide what the team should do.
(Game director @podcat and game designer @Pallidum , in our case.
Continuing with the bar analogy; they’re the people who have a feel for the market and decide what goes on the drinks menu.)

New content to keep players engaged and happy... Weaknesses in the game that needs to be addressed... A balanced mix of all that good stuff is collected together in a “design document”.

The document explains the vision for each new feature, or fix, that goes with a new expansion. It essentially serves as a specification, or commission for work to be done, for the team.


How do we decide what new features and fixes go into an expansion?
The designers base their decisions on what goes into the design document, on, for example:
  • Do the features fit into the overall theme of the expansion?
    (This also goes for bugfixes where we prefer to work by theme. For example Air or Naval).
  • Do we hit a good mix of paid features and free features?
    (A lot of this is decided on how difficult things are to implement and their impact on the game’s balance.)
  • Data we collect on player behavior.
    That data is analyzed and lead to new features or fixes.
  • We have a database full of suggested improvements.
  • Not to mention bugs that we prioritize and work off, in priority order.
  • We also closely monitor mainly this forum, and (to a lesser degree) other HOI-communities, in case something pops up. Both bugs or inspired posts in the suggestion forum.

lumbergh-hawaiian-shirt.gif

(For the love of God, YES! We saw the forum bug report.)


How do we choose which bugs to fix? (A bug’s journey from the bug forum to being fixed)

As I mentioned; we have a big database with bugs, improvement ideas and feature-suggestions.
(Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to our database.)

A lot of entries in this database, however, are related to the same underlying system. Doing an overhaul on that system will get rid of a whole bunch of bugs. These are things we prioritize.

A bug often starts out coming onto our radar by being reported, here, in our bug forum.
(I really want to stress this point, because we occasionally see people posting bug reports on reddit or other places. The odds of someone from Paradox stumbling over those reports and carrying them forward into our database are slim.)

The bug is transferred from here into our database. And we start looking into it, by analyzing it.
We need to know how frequent the problem is. How serious, and how quick it is to fix.
The more frequent or serious it is increases its chances of getting fixed. Soon.
If it also happens to be quick to fix… well, that’s just a win-win.

yes_data.gif


If a bug is serious, frequent and quick to fix and it’s still not being fixed… The most likely explanation to why we’re not fixing it ; is because we simply couldn’t fit it into our schedule.

It might help to understand this, if you…

Think of the development process as a single work day...
Serious things you hear about, before lunch, will get fixed before the day is done. For sure.
Then you might work on something else, with lower priority, for a while.
Until the next big problem pops up.
But, by then, you can’t start on it. Because you can’t get it all the way done, before you have to go home. It’ll have to wait until the next day.
So, in order to not waste precious time, you squeeze in something else that will fit.

This is how our development cycles work. Sometimes we simply can’t start on something and get it fixed, or improved, before the expansion has to ship.
(This also illustrates how sometimes things with lower priority get done when some higher prio stuff are left for later.)


Difficult judgement calls
Other bugs or suggestions are more up for debate.
Doing something that will make one group of people leap for joy - might seriously anger another group. We have to stay on top of that.


The big time-stealers
Not to mention that some requests, like improving AI, is a perpetual job that can’t be rushed.

As obvious as it is that an area needs work; some things are like hatching an egg. It takes the time it takes. No matter how many bodies you throw on the problem.

vtSueQywDwn2U.gif

(Btw, this is how I imagine a Steam Summer Sale going. If Steam was a physical store.)


The Breakdown & Estimation process

Moving on: Once the design doc is complete… The team takes the design and breaks it down into bite-size tasks for coders, content designers, art, UX-design, sound etc.

When we have everything broken down into a list of tasks; we sit down together and “estimate” each task. Giving us an idea of how long the full feature will take to develop, once you add it all together.


How are deadlines and release-dates determined?
Paradox has a plan for how many expansions/DLCs we should release per year.

HOI4 release dates are determined based on: 1. that plan, 2. how quickly we can reach the desired sell-value of the release, and lastly 3. coordinated with specific dates that our marketing team have selected.
(More on this subject in next week’s Dev Diary.)


Can we make the expansion-design happen within the deadline?
After all features have been estimated; I can figure out if what we want to do is possible within the deadline. With the people at our disposal.

If yes: Huzzah!

If not: This is where I have to crush the designer’s hopes and dreams.

DHzBZxSU0AAQzXL.jpg

Splat!

We need to cut something in order to be able to finish on time.
This is something we discuss and agree on, together. While I gently pat their backs and hand them tissues.


What gets cut?
When cutting something I have to consider, for example:
  • The desirability and priority of the feature.
  • What people we have available.
    • How much, and what, each person can work on.
    • While not being blocked, or blocking, someone else.
  • What features tie into other features.
    (If there is anything independent enough to cut cleanly.)
Sometimes laying this complex puzzle, trying to fit high priority pieces together, is trickier than trying to nail jello to a wall. Things slip and change constantly. This is the very essence and nature of development work.

projectcartoon.gif


In closing

Speaking of the nature of development work… While the example above mostly serves illustrate problems with communication, which is always a factor when people with different perspectives discuss something… I think it says something about how frequent certain development problems are; that a site exists where you can create your own project cartoon, like this one.

The issues that Paradox and HOI4 struggle with are the same problems that all IT projects, everywhere, grind their teeth over. It’s terribly complex work. Which is why, although the problems and risks are well known and can be anticipated and planned around, to a degree… they remain.

The silver lining, I think, is that while our problems are the same… we at Paradox have a hell of a lot of fun while working on them.

Next week, our Brand Manager will write a Dev Diary. Before handing the baton back to podcat.

Don't forget to tune into World War Wednesday today at 16:00CEST on https://www.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive! To see podcat run Germany in massive co-op, with the other devs as generals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting if it is true (I am beginning to doubt everything that comes out of paradox). For me that is even worse - it sounds they will make another DLC for a limited price and very limited content because of the need to match the expansion pass price. It will probably be like DoD again - lacking in quality and quantity. Most people are not only unhappy about the expensive prices but also for what they are getting for those prices. And if HOIIV team continues with that pacing the game will probably be done in 2030 and cost over 200 EUR. I deem the current version of the base game boring and bare bones almost to the point of being unplayable in single player without mods. And paradox tries to drop feed us DLC-content like EUIV. EUIV does not suffer the same replayability issues like HOIIV though.

If you are going to make big claims about Paradox deception, you should really follow announcements more carefully. They have launched smaller DLC's because they have spent a large amount of time fixing the underlying issues with the game (AI, bugs etc that the community was screaming to be fixed). I believe the next DLC is going to be bigger, which is where the Paradox claim of more value comes from. This will result in more 'stuff' in the expansion but probably less time to develop the nuts and bolts of the game.
 
Interesting if it is true (I am beginning to doubt everything that comes out of paradox). For me that is even worse - it sounds they will make another DLC for a limited price and very limited content because of the need to match the expansion pass price. It will probably be like DoD again - lacking in quality and quantity. Most people are not only unhappy about the expensive prices but also for what they are getting for those prices. And if HOIIV team continues with that pacing the game will probably be done in 2030 and cost over 200 EUR. I deem the current version of the base game boring and bare bones almost to the point of being unplayable in single player without mods. And paradox tries to drop feed us DLC-content like EUIV. EUIV does not suffer the same replayability issues like HOIIV though.

Obviously, plans change and what-have-you, but the latest we've heard about the upcoming expansion is:

With the "Oak" 1.4.2 patch out the door and the team back from vacation its time to start looking at the future. This week we started work on the next DLC which is going to be a full-sized expansion. A lot of people have been asking for more mechanics and larger changes, and this will be it. As normal the expansion will arrive together with a free update we've dubbed 1.5 "Cornflakes".

Again, you absolutely have a right to complain, but you'll make a far more convincing case if you demonstrate an understanding of what's been discussed by the devs (in dev diaries, in the OP).
 
If you are going to make big claims about Paradox deception, you should really follow announcements more carefully. They have launched smaller DLC's because they have spent a large amount of time fixing the underlying issues with the game (AI, bugs etc that the community was screaming to be fixed). I believe the next DLC is going to be bigger, which is where the Paradox claim of more value comes from. This will result in more 'stuff' in the expansion but probably less time to develop the nuts and bolts of the game.

Hopefully you are right. I personally reserve the right to be skeptical about it because of previous experience with a lot of paradox DLCs.
 
They have launched smaller DLC's because they have spent a large amount of time fixing the underlying issues with the game (AI, bugs etc that the community was screaming to be fixed). I believe the next DLC is going to be bigger, which is where the Paradox claim of more value comes from. This will result in more 'stuff' in the expansion but probably less time to develop the nuts and bolts of the game.
This is worth repeating. Tough decisions had to be made. Fixing AI, and other base game-related stuff, meant less time to spend on anything else.

Quick recap on what's been said in previous DDs about things that were cut:
Bulgaria was cut due to the fact that we had trouble finding enough information in English at every turn.

What about asking the forums for help then?
What people tend to forget is that we need someone on our end collecting that info. Go through it and make sure we get enough quality info in time to do something with it.
It may sound like a minor thing. But in a project where timing is crucial; it's really not. Fearing not being able to get enough info on Bulgaria, in time, was the straw that broke the camel's back, in this case. It was too big a risk and we had to go for something more safe.

We knew that we would disappoint people by cutting Bulgaria. We also knew that spending more time than normal on Bulgaria research would have meant even less time to develop focuses and events. That would have made even more people disappointed. Between a rock and a hard place; that was the only way to go.
 
This is worth repeating. Tough decisions had to be made. Fixing AI, and other base game-related stuff, meant less time to spend on anything else.

Quick recap on what's been said in previous DDs about things that were cut:
Bulgaria was cut due to the fact that we had trouble finding enough information in English at every turn.

What about asking the forums for help then?
What people tend to forget is that we need someone on our end collecting that info. Go through it and make sure we get enough quality info in time to do something with it.
It may sound like a minor thing. But in a project where timing is crucial; it's really not. Fearing not being able to get enough info on Bulgaria, in time, was the straw that broke the camel's back, in this case. It was too big a risk and we had to go for something more safe.

We knew that we would disappoint people by cutting Bulgaria. We also knew that spending more time than normal on Bulgaria research would have meant even less time to develop focuses and events. That would have made even more people disappointed. Between a rock and a hard place; that was the only way to go.

Not a valid excuse, unacceptable reasonning, directly contradicting what your developer Archangel85 wrote in April, here is a copy of his post:

"Bulgaria is a different story. It was in the initial outline and had some research done, but was dropped because we felt we couldn't make it particularly interesting - Bulgaria never joined the war against the Soviet Union, and did as little as they could to stay in the axis. When the Red Army arrived at their borders, they immediately switched sides. Compared to the viper pit that was Romanian internal politics in the period or Hungary's desire to see past wrongs set right, it did not feel like it was worth the effort (assume that it takes us between 3-4 dev-weeks to make a focus tree, plus another dev-week to make the art for the country)."

So it seems your team did find enough information in English to decide it is not interesting enough and to not bother researching It further. Archangel85`s reasoning was already debunked in the forums with sound arguments so you have to find the easiest explanation now (no English)- nice try. There is enough information in English out there and translated books.

How will you explain the missing Finland then. I hope not with English.
 
>Bulgaria was cut due to the fact that we had trouble finding enough information in English at every turn.
>It was in the initial outline and had some research done
How are these statements contradicting?
With the information they did have they "felt we couldn't make it particularly interesting"
 
>Bulgaria was cut due to the fact that we had trouble finding enough information in English at every turn.
>It was in the initial outline and had some research done
How are these statements contradicting?
With the information they did have they "felt we couldn't make it particularly interesting"

You are not mentioning his full reasoning about the switching sides and not fighting on the eastern front - it sounds like someone making decisions on wikipedia articles. If they wanted they could have found everything they need in a reasonable time and Bulgaria does not need massive focus tree but they were obviously looking for a country to drop and decided it should be Bulgaria on the basis of first impressions.
 

See I think our problem here is mostly bad communication. As someone who has done research on Bulgaria for the TGW youtube channel I can tell you that the info on Bulgaria is relatively difficult to find and what @KimchiViking says is very true. Thing is while there is enough info on BG available in English its mostly the things everyone knows while all of the 'good stuff' is usually only available in Bulgarian. Sometimes not even online and in just paperback form or worse, spread out amongst various random places (German mining operations in Bulgaria being chief among them). Heck, until that news story about the little uranium pieces in Haskovo became mainstream news, no one had ever even mentioned that the Germans were using Uranium samples for Bulgaria to test their nukes.

Oh, and it probably didn't help that the Allies dropped that bomb on the National Archives Building and destroyed a whole bunch of invaluable documents.
 
See I think our problem here is mostly bad communication. As someone who has done research on Bulgaria for the TGW youtube channel I can tell you that the info on Bulgaria is relatively difficult to find and what @KimchiViking says is very true. Thing is while there is enough info on BG available in English its mostly the things everyone knows while all of the 'good stuff' is usually only available in Bulgarian. Sometimes not even online and in just paperback form or worse, spread out amongst various random places (German mining operations in Bulgaria being chief among them). Heck, until that news story about the little uranium pieces in Haskovo became mainstream news, no one had ever even mentioned that the Germans were using Uranium samples for Bulgaria to test their nukes.

Oh, and it probably didn't help that the Allies dropped that bomb on the National Archives Building and destroyed a whole bunch of invaluable documents.

Yes and a lot of archives were stolen by the Soviet Union and today`s Russia still refuses to share them. But there is enough information gathered from newspaper Articles, Diaries, memoirs Autobiographies, that is translated. Even online there is detailed information on important keywords like Names of Politicians, Biography of the Tsar. History of the Wars of national reunification (Balkan wars and WWI), IMRO - which even made it into the Yugoslavian tree as awkward as it is. Those stuff popup in English very easy and if you want to be sure and confirm them you just got to reed the translated books.
 
I was actually far more irritated that Finland was not in the list than Bulgaria. I don't get why? :) Seeing as they have the Winter war vs Russia and did pretty good and also fought "in" the Axis...?
 
I was actually far more irritated that Finland was not in the list than Bulgaria. I don't get why? :) Seeing as they have the Winter war vs Russia and did pretty good and also fought "in" the Axis...?

I suspect the game manager will not give an answer to that because it will feed into the critic`s arguments, but Archangel85 explanation was they need a Scandinavian DLC.
 
Yes and a lot of archives were stolen by the Soviet Union and today`s Russia still refuses to share them. But there is enough information gathered from newspaper Articles, Diaries, memoirs Autobiographies, that is translated. Even online there is detailed information on important keywords like Names of Politicians, Biography of the Tsar. History of the Wars of national reunification (Balkan wars and WWI), IMRO - which even made it into the Yugoslavian tree as awkward as it is. Those stuff popup in English very easy and if you want to be sure and confirm them you just got to reed the translated books.

Don't know how much books on the 1912-1918 could help (aside from having Dobrudzha start with a BUL core) and the IMRO had lost a lot of power due to all the in-fighting in the 1920s. I don't mind that it appears in the YUG tree, but I do find it awkward that they can easily remove it by conquering Bulgaria (wouldn't the resistance become bigger in such a case?). Speaking of the Yugoslavia focus tree, I was surprised that the Pan-Slavic path didn't have an option to have Bulgaria join Yugoslavia (with added cores and everything) as Tito and Dimitrov wanted. That would've (and maybe still could) made a very interesting focus.
 
I suspect the game manager will not give an answer to that because it will feed into the critic`s arguments, but Archangel85 explanation was they need a Scandinavian DLC.

I said that it made more sense in a Scandianavia DLC since one of the goals was to have the focus trees interact with each other more. Adding Finland to DoD would have repeated the issue of TfV, with countries stuck in different parts of the world not doing much with each other.
 
Alright thanks for the explanation Archangel85!
Wish you guys would have included both Finland and Bulgaria though, it feels like they are really missing in DoD (in my opinion, not sure how the others think about it). Hope they will be included somewhere along the way ;)
 
Don't know how much books on the 1912-1918 could help (aside from having Dobrudzha start with a BUL core) and the IMRO had lost a lot of power due to all the in-fighting in the 1920s. I don't mind that it appears in the YUG tree, but I do find it awkward that they can easily remove it by conquering Bulgaria (wouldn't the resistance become bigger in such a case?). Speaking of the Yugoslavia focus tree, I was surprised that the Pan-Slavic path didn't have an option to have Bulgaria join Yugoslavia (with added cores and everything) as Tito and Dimitrov wanted. That would've (and maybe still could) made a very interesting focus.

IMRO were killing themselves but were not out of steam in 1920s. They are the reason Yugoslavia is ruled by Regency council of Prince Paul at the start of the game (spoilers Marseille assassination 1934)