• 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:
has anyone made a guns of the patriots reference yet?

EDIT: doesn't seem like so WAR HAS CHANGED
 
Last edited:
I can't wait for this update. I love HOI but once I start reading the dev diaries for a new expansion I stop playing altogether because I don't want to play until the new updates are in place. It's a black hole of despair. Especially since the dev diaries go for so long.

Patiently waiting. ;)
 
I can't wait for this update. I love HOI but once I start reading the dev diaries for a new expansion I stop playing altogether because I don't want to play until the new updates are in place. It's a black hole of despair. Especially since the dev diaries go for so long.

Patiently waiting. ;)
I'm in the same boat. I just can't go back to what it is now after reading about all these improvements.
 
So you nicked my signature? Ah well I nicked it myself so it's fair
 
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 agree; I always play regular, and buff my enemies.
 
I can't wait for this update. I love HOI but once I start reading the dev diaries for a new expansion I stop playing altogether because I don't want to play until the new updates are in place. It's a black hole of despair. Especially since the dev diaries go for so long.

Patiently waiting. ;)
I agree! WtT is looking like an entirely new game. This is one heck of a DLC. Tip 'O the cap to Podcat and the team!
 
All I want is good, fixed, peace conferences. 1000 hours later and I still haven't had a game where peace conferences did not annoy me. My least favorite thing about the game as of now.
 
"Players online usually lie about the size of their conquests"

Truer words have never been spoken. This graph proves that most people lie about their difficulty settings.


When looking for a bigger challenge, I usually either pick a country I don't usually, or I opt for a harder nation to play as. I'm not a fan of other settings than regular, I started on hoi 2 that way. I find changing the rules by which only either the AI or the player plays is "artificially" increasing/decreasing the difficulty.

the ai essentially is cheating then to be a year ahead in research. So is it really "veteran" or "elite" to just be facing a Maus tank division in 1944 with Shermans? Certain mechanics need to be unmolested by penalties or bonuses to maintain fair gameplay that can still be variably challenging.
 
Last edited:
but yeah its very interesting, what do you normally play on for SP?

I think I'd prefer nerfs to combat ability over research and production nerfs. Crippling my research and production limits my choices. If I want that, I could just play a minor nation.
I want the full flexibility and the diverse army and fully fledged out branches that come with a major nation. A nerf to combat ability could negate the simple head-on-roll-over strategy and would force me to employ better tactics, find better strategies and make better use of combined arms.

I don't complain about the AI (couldn't do this any better myself) and I usually play on regular difficulty. But I can understand some of the previous posts, since I did try out veteran difficulty a few times. During those days the enemy would bleed themselves dry in relentles attacks. Higher difficulty would simply drag out the game longer, give yourself less diverse equipment for counter attacks, but wouldn't lead to a more interesting or challenging gameplay. Perhaps some people will try it again once Tiger is released and find things have changed?

And of course: sounds great so far, I can't wait for the release!
 
How bout you fix the base game before adding yet more DLC? Is that too much to ask? Supply is still broken, you still have the -manpower bug, 1/2 the airfields still aren't anywhere near their 'coverage' leaving entire sections of the map unable to hit with fighters regardless of where you build airfields, you still have broken national focuses, and the UI still doesn't work if scaled. And that's just off the top of my head.

And no one plays on veteran because -political power leaves some nations completely SOL regardless of how well you play. Course no one really plays this game anyways because you refuse to fix even the simplest day 1 bugs, its an unbalanced mess, and the battle AI is the screwiest POS I've ever seen. I mean I love how you have to set up battle lines and set battle plans to get the planning bonus, but never actually hit 'execute' because that button should pretty much be called 'insta-suicide all my men'. Fundamental core basics in this program are broken, and you're asking about DLC!!?
 
200+ hours only about 28% still use Recruit

Can we get a break down of what countries these perma recruit are playing; or are they typically millennials?
 
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?


I don't like Veteran because I don't like losing the PP especially for a country like the US. I'd much rather have my opponent get buffs than I get a malus.

Before I started us Expert AI, I crank up the sliders to max for my opponent on regulars. Since I switched to using Expert AI, I set the level of difficulty at difficult or very difficult and use the slider to give the other countries a couple of notches. The last 4 of 5 games I've played at those levels have resulted in the AI pretty much playing me to a draw.
 
Doesn't look important to me..
Sure but what are the negative to adding it?
Compared to the positives of:
Historial accuracy
Some neat alt history ideas, lets say the the Kaiser wins in germeny, maybe there could be a chance for hitler to exile to danzig.Interesting things like that.
At the end of the day there is no reason not to add the free city of danzig to the game.
 
Last edited:
If there's a war that both sides have a lot of losses, but it's strategically a stalemate, I should be able to offer white peace.

WW1 was prime example of this yet there were no peace negotiations. People of power didn't care about millions being massacred on the front for no strategic gain.