• 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 - War Changes and Game Difficulty

Hello everyone, last week we covered the last of the new focus trees, so from now on we will focus (heh) on new features and changes again. Today we are going to start off by talking about changes to how wars work as well as sharing some very interesting telemetry data!

War Changes
When we planned out Waking the Tiger, we knew that we wanted to solve several issues with wars once and for all. The game wasn’t really set up for 3-way-wars and it tried to stop you from 3-way wars as much as possible, and if it failed some pretty nasty bugs could happen. Wars could in certain cases end up either having to force friends into war, or drop people from wars which usually really messed up both multiplayer and singleplayer when it happened. It was all just a nasty and horrible mess on the code side as well.

Our changes effectively mean that now every two nations at war have their own little war and we instead present wars as a summary of sides that make sense. How you look at a war as a player shouldn't really look any different now. This was a massive change that has taken us a lot of time (and quite a bit of sanity), but I am confident that it will have been worth it with all the issues it has solved and freedom for players it will enable (particularly for mods that like to do a lot of wars from events and focuses where there was a big chance of things working out wrong - not naming any names).

When playing, the biggest changes you will notice is that wars merging now is a lot smoother. War score, casualties and such are properly tracked and retained. Its now also possible to fight 3-way wars (or more) so we can handle Axis vs Comintern vs Allies vs The Japanese co-prosperity sphere etc.

The war interface has also gotten a bunch of changes:
Screenshot_1.jpg

  • You can now filter nations like minors, capitulated, or nations who aren’t called in yet
  • We show nations that could be called in, but aren’t in blue (so you can see that the soviets have not called in Republican Spain yet), this is instead of the old interface where there was separate lists, now a button appears if you yourself have the power to call them.
  • We group up factions and summarize stats for them for easier comparisons
  • The interface lets you pick among your wars, but there is also a War Summary that collects all war allies and enemies in one big page. The interface also scales with your screen size, so it's much easier to get an overview of large complex wars now.
Screenshot_2.jpg


One of my favourite new things is that we show a breakdown of the casualties, so you can see how many casualties you caused for a specific nation:
Untitled-2.jpg


Difficulty Settings
We are slowly building up better and better telemetry on HOI players and I really love to share it with the community when it’s surprising, and this one surprised me a lot actually! It turns out that close to 40% of players prefer to play on the lowest difficulty setting. I would have expected this to be quite a bit less!

difficulty.jpg


As number of hours you play goes up people migrate away from recruit a bit. So for players with less than 50 hours played, 60% of them use Recruit and after playing 200+ hours only about 28% still use Recruit. Veteran shows the largest relative change. For beginners, it is 1.4% who use it and it goes up to 3.5% for 200+ hour players. The vast majority use Regular. It's the difficulty setting that doesn't give you any bonuses or penalties so this is usually what people prefer. My design philosophy is to try and stay away from direct combat bonuses and such that will make you learn the game in the wrong way. I prefer buffing things that allows a player to play more sub-optimal, so faster research (or slower so you must make more optimal choices), smaller losses on efficiency when changing production lines or less impact of lack of resource and such. It's also important to only affect the player as you don't really know which of the nations will end up on their side or as enemies. For example, in HOI3 depending on country it could actually be easier at harder settings, since certain nations were advantaged by that in an allied role.

So what are we doing about this? First of all we are adding two more settings (the gods of symmetry demand it!). A new difficulty before Recruit called Civilian and a new harder difficulty called Elite.
upload_2018-1-24_16-16-49.png


I also thought I would mention that we haven't really analyzed the custom difficulty settings yet but plan to in the future. I always recommend them to tailor your game. Say if you want a particularly strong Soviet to fight as Germany.

See you all again next week! Also don't forget to tune in to World War Wednesday at 16:00 CET where we start a new campaign to show off all the new stuff in Waking the Tiger as a Chinese warlord on the rise!

Rejected diary titles:
  • Dan Lind's "War and Peace (Book One of Four)"
  • War (screen), What is it good for?
  • I guess we don’t need to spend all the work we do on improving the AI after all
  • War. War sometimes changes
  • You can't fight in here. This is a wargame forum.
  • Players online usually lie about the size of their conquests
  • You get a war, and you get a war! Everyone gets a war!
  • Maybe finally Quill18 can now play competitive multiplayer without getting shafted by a war-merge bug!
 
Last edited:
Good changes. I like the custom difficulty settings myself. I tend to like it when the AI does better rather than cheat on the AIs behalf, but I also get disappointed when the eastern front is way to easy to win regardless of which country I choose.

Question for anyone know hows. Is there a way to merge templates ie all units of template A switch to template B. This happens to me a lot late game if I annex a puppet and have a ton of their useless divisions or if I want to consolidate all of my tanks to modern tanks without using a ton of experience. If not is that on the list of things to do?
 
Podcat - to answer what difficulty I (personally) play on - primarily I play on Regular; the reason for this being that I honestly rarely play majors (excluding Germany) and just as rarely play as a member of the Allies. Playing on veteran as a member of the allies would not make the war harder (as, short of a miracle, the allies always win) and playing as veteran as a minor in the Axis just means it'll take me longer to build a fleet in order to defeat the Allies (as, unless I burn my manpower early or play as a particularly weak minor, I can defeat the Allies on land with minimal losses).

In short - only the length of time taken to win the war is really effected by the difficulty, unless you're deliberately poking the bear in the face and using a Neutral/Allies Poland and need the tech and guns ASAP. Playing as an allied minor, the penalty could be 10, 20 even 100 times what it currently is, and for all intents and purposes the war would still end the same way, and even with considerably more punishing penalties for Axis minors, defeating the Allies will still just take you sacrificing the Wehrmacht in their millions whilst your troops take key objectives like ports.

Due to the above, I would assume most people just sit on regular (as I do), as HOI4 taking longer equates to HOI4 getting more and more tedious as all the nations build hundreds of divisions without bothering to actually wage a war with them. I am kinda surprised that so many people use recruit, but having said that, there are a lot of people who are pretty clueless at how to play.
 
Podcat, did you guys changed the economic laws requierments? I managed to see today that Daniel change to Partial Mobilization at 5% tension.
My guess is that now Economic Laws ar now tied to War Support. He had 40+% war support.
If “yes” then whats the purpose of World Tension now?
 
I coded a lot of nice improvements for the template designer last week actually. A lot of stuff is down to proper scripting of weights for templates tho. If they never add support the scripting of target templates is definitly wrong in black ice then. I've added some debug tools to make template scripting easier for ai scripters which will be in Tiger

I get the feeling there will be some nice little improvements coming this patch ;-) And I really hope Multiplayer is getting some love. As the base gets more experienced, I think more will move to multiplayer. Its gone from 11% to 13-14% already right?
 
It would be nice to see how many and what kind of Equipment a state lose in a war (i Know we can see that in the theater, but only for 12 month).

You guys think its possible that a next DLC bring some more units?
 
Last edited:
Sorry its my fault for unclear screenshot. note how tooltip is on Veteran. Regular is still default and has no modifiers
Ah, then all is well, thank you for clearing it up :)
 
@podcat It'd be useful if clients could see slider settings in the MP lobby. It's rarely a problem as most hosts are fairly trustworthy, but you know, just in case.

The additional information on casualties is a very nice touch btw.
 
On the difficulty question, I agree with what's been said about player debuffs not being the desired metric as opposed to competent AI. I think it's a poor replacement. But instead of just lodging a complaint, I want to give a detailed example as to why I just play on regular despite finding the game fairly easy. Most of my play time has been on the Soviets, especially recently, so I'll stick to them, and as a note, I generally play with mods that ensure the historical NAP between Japan and the Soviets stays intact. At the historical Barbarossa start date, I field between 6-8k full engine/reliability/gun fighter 2s along with 1-2k other fighter 2s, 6-8k T-34 and -44s, many of the -34s being variants, around 200-250 10INF divisions for garrison/holding the line, and 75-100 40width INF/ART divisions to push with my tanks when the time comes.

Given the PP penalty on veteran, I'd probably have to forgo the industrial and inf equipment research bonuses, and probably one or both of the air-related military commanders. Given the research penalty, I'd probably not get to Air Skirmish in Operational Integrity in time, and I might be a doctrine tech or two behind (I use either Deep Battle or GBP Assault), and probably the latest inf equipment and artillery techs, or all decryption/encryption techs. Given the production penalty, lets be liberal and say I have 40-50% less equipment overall, because mil factories would be coming up slower as well as them having less production. With that, I'd still have enough infantry to cover the line, enough planes to have air superiority in at least 1 air zone, and a few 40 width tank divisions to make a breakthrough, JUST at the historical start date of Barbarossa. None of this changes the fact that once Germany's initial planning bonus runs out, they will simply burn all their equipment attacking entrenched defenders and I can then do whatever I want to win. So why am I going to gimp myself when no strategic changes are required, when I can just play on regular and have more fun experimenting?
 

maxresdefault.jpg


We're fine. We're all fine here, thank you. How are you?

(Busy putting out fires at work, so I just read the DD.)

It turns out that close to 40% of players prefer to play on the lowest difficulty setting.

pwning-with-powershell-22-638.jpg


I would have guessed the number was closer to 20%. The number of hours in game affecting difficulty levels used doesn't surprise me (50 hours just to get a basic handle on things is about par for the course for a Paradox title I'd say), but wow, those numbers on lowest difficulty setting surprise me.

Note that I have said before that new players to the game often face an uphill struggle compared to veterans of the franchise. Every month, we usually get a "I can't defeat France" thread on the forum. HOI4 isn't an easy game by any stretch. I guess the number of players who are crying into their computers and losing to the AI is far higher than even I thought.
 
I cant say ive ever played on recruit.

I like veteran, it actually makes some of the majors feel better (looking at you USA). But it doesnt really make the game harder. It makes your build up take longer (more time between PP use, longer research), and thus requires a different 'Build Order'.

Hopefully one day the AI gets to a point where iterative difficulties can come out.

As it stands though, the community discusses strategy based on the normal difficulty. Deviating from that with less PP generation and longer research just makes my experiences in the game inconsistent with others.
 
I would enjoy some iprovement of peace deals. For example if you are playing as democratic Czechoslovakia, it would be way more realistic to have a peace a conference after capitulating Germany, maybe Hungary also. There should be way to do some separate peace or something simillar.
 
yeah its a very interesting question my guess is:
- forum community is still a very small part of all owners, so even if you all play on max difficulty the number would still work out
- people dont like to say they play on lower difficulties
- people may be using custom difficulties a lot more as some ppl said, nerfing your production isnt always fun, so may be better to buff the enemy
- MP players are 14%, and wouldnt really be using this right so that affects numbers too especially if a lot of good players go to play MP instead as a challenge

but yeah its very interesting, what do you normally play on for SP?
For my part, there are two reasons I rarely ever play on Veteran. First, I generally prefer boosting my enemies rather than nerfing myself. But the main reason is that I just hate the political power penalty. The way it's additive with other modifiers makes countries like France and the US so awkward that it's just demoralizing.
 
I get the feeling there will be some nice little improvements coming this patch ;-) And I really hope Multiplayer is getting some love. As the base gets more experienced, I think more will move to multiplayer. Its gone from 11% to 13-14% already right?
I hope that you're right. However, I fear that a not insignificant portion of what Paradox's data shows as "multiplayer" is just a few friends linking up to fight the AI. Especially in a role play type scenario or using a mod to make the AI different/more challenging. I'm curious if Paradox has a way of determining PvP multiplayer from PvE multiplayer.

That being said yes as the game ages a bit I think that more will try out multiplayer. I guarantee you that there will be a huge surge in MP after the release of Tiger, especially in non-historical rule set games that will allow the new non historical paths for Germany, Japan and others. I know that my one friend and I, we like to do Japan and Manchukuo in multiplayer so our strategy will be that much stronger with the new focus trees. I've been speculating how best I should do it.

Maybe build up Manchukuo with Japan's focuses then go Khodoha faction and allow Manchukuo to break free and have them take over all of or most of China rather than me and I do an early war VS the USSR. I know that will be a major pain in the sides of the USSR player especially when coordinated with a German attack. So many possibilities. Or Maybe I do Khodoa and have a free Manchukuo support a Nationalist China take over the rest of the war lords and join my Japan-Manchukuo faction for Asian domination.
 
I can announce that we will announce the date within a week or two, to not be overly specific :p
Finally! We at least got the announcement of a broad date for an release date annoucement! :D
 
What I find most strange about the telemetry is that even for 200 hours + players only 3.5% are playing on hard difficulty. Yet everywhere I turn on these forums, Steam or reddit, everyone keeps complaining about how easy the game is and how easy it is to win against the AI...

This would lead you to believe that most players choose to play on harder difficulties, to get more of a challenge, right?

But for some reason we don't. Why is that?

Its because it doesnt change the AI skills. Its just buffing their whole shit up. Industry, research ... it doesnt feel right. I want to fight AI that has better tactical and strategic skills ... not idiot AI that just has a buff on all his shit to produce and spam more units which get circled like always before.
 
Its because it doesnt change the AI skills. Its just buffing their whole shit up. Industry, research ... it doesnt feel right. I want to fight AI that has better tactical and strategic skills ... not idiot AI that just has a buff on all his shit to produce and spam more units which get circled like always before.
If you're looking for an AI that is actually as skilled as an experienced player, forget it. It's never gonna happen. Look at all the trouble it took to make an AI that could beat the best human at chess. If all the world's problems in hunger, nuclear proliferation, and climate change could be fixed if only an AI could defeat the best HoI4 player on Earth, and all the nations of the world combined their best and brightest minds and a large portion of their GDP to the task of creating such an AI... they might have it in a few years. Maybe.