• 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:
Well trading is very simplified as any country will trade with you at the same cost of factories just as long if you are not at war or in a faction opposing them.

That's the point. It's tedious and simple enough to be a legit automation candidate. Most of the time you can just trade until you're not short and call it a day once you're well into the game. Maybe with some conditions added.

The worst part right now is that you have a shortage alert, but no surplus from trade alert.
 
You are not familiar with the concepts of 'division of labour' and 'specialties' are you?

Paradox has dedicated AI programmers.

Not every programmer or content developer knows how or even understands how to code or edit code for the AI.

Your assumption that any more work on the AI would have been done had they not expanded other portions of the game is very dubious.

On the contrary, the more hands you had on the code, the more likely that bugs and serious errors would arise as different persons edit different portions of the program.

I was speaking in generalities-- I agree with your first few retorts above.

But the bolded? Come on. Hire more AI programmers and stop with the fluff.
 
I haven't personally touched the difficulty settings mainly because I don't like being debuffed. Slower tech, less PP, and lower production seems like it would just make my armed forces less diverse and mess up my production planning. Buffing the AI alone, however, seems like a better idea if it must be done. So far I've just used Vanilla+ which I feel fixed some major issues with the AI (suicidal offensives, bad divisions, etc.) but I think I might mess with the custom difficulties for my next playthrough.
 
Well, there are still some strategic decisions here. You may not care about all of your production enough, that you want to spend civilian factories for the speed up. For example navy is not key to your strategy, so you let your dockyards produce something, but not at max speed by importing too little oil. Or the import would require dangerous convoy routes. I would say that the game is simplified enough that trade is not too much burden for the player, especially the focus of HOI4 is indeed the industry aspect of war.
This is true, perhaps there should also be a slider to only allow the autotrader to use a certain percentage of your Civilian IC to trade, and when that limit is reached you get the "out of civ factories for trade" alert and can choose to either add more or continue building/repairing. And of course there would be an import/export checkbox for each resource to tell the AI whether or not to import a certain resource, so for example if you really really need oil but can afford to slack a little on chromium and need the extra civ factories, you can automate that too.

Basically I'd just want a system that eliminates the need to return to this screen every five minutes to perform the exact same button presses because you added another few military factories to the production line or because a nation is now trading with another big buyer eating into your stock.
 
I was speaking in generalities-- I agree with your first few retorts above.

But the bolded? Come on. Hire more AI programmers and stop with the fluff.
Did you miss the next sentence of his post ;) ?
 
Really was hoping to see some sort of offer/sue for peace functionality like in EU4/HOI2 series.

I know, before anybody says it, this game is focused on WW2. Doesn't change the fact that there are little proxy wars which shouldn't mean every major alliance gets dragged into every single war.

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.
Beside AI improvements, I think a proper peace system like that in EU4 is what I want the most out of future HOI4 patches. Even between major players in WWII itself, you should be able to try to win an honourable peace if the war grinds down to a stalemate or you realise you can't achieve that Endsieg you dreamed of.

This also has historical precedence. The Soviets and Germans actually had some cautious peace talks in 1943, I believe, and Rommel probably would have negotiated a peace with the Allies had he managed to assassinate Hitler in 1944.

In fact, I believe there should be a variable marked "Stalemate" or for that matter "phoney war" :p , that goes up whenever time passes without either side making gains, particularly when they are fighting a land war.
 
In fact, I believe there should be a variable marked "Stalemate" or for that matter "phoney war" :p , that goes up whenever time passes without either side making gains, particularly when they are fighting a land war.

This would make playing Japan past 1942 much more tolerable. It's easy enough to make territorial gains in the Pacific/India and then turtle, but I find mounting invasions of the UK and US when playing "historically" tedious, and if the Allies suffered as many casualties in reality as the AI in this game allows, they would have eventually given up.
 
This would make playing Japan past 1942 much more tolerable. It's easy enough to make territorial gains in the Pacific/India and then turtle, but I find mounting invasions of the UK and US when playing "historically" tedious, and if the Allies suffered as many casualties in reality as the AI in this game allows, they would have eventually given up.
Yeah, if I've defeated the Soviets and dug in my forces in the west behind a strong Atlantic Wall, I shouldn't have to invade the UK and US to officially win the war. That's just ridiculous.
 
Yeah, if I've defeated the Soviets and dug in my forces in the west behind a strong Atlantic Wall, I shouldn't have to invade the UK and US to officially win the war. That's just ridiculous.

Game score wise no you shouldn't have to invade, but in realty yes. Hitler conquest of the Soviets would have not stopped there. He wasn't just in it for oil, or land, but for the power and the control. Any country you cannot control by decree or by puppet is a challenge to your power. You know once he was finish with the Soviets states, there were already plans to invade both the UK and the USA. Game wise you should be forced to defeat the opposing factions by either invasion or they just giving up and how many countries (excluding the Cecks.) can you list that just gave up without being invaded.
 
Game wise you should be forced to defeat the opposing factions by either invasion or they just giving up and how many countries (excluding the Cecks.) can you list that just gave up without being invaded.

I'm not a fan of engaging in counterfactuals, but considering that in reality the UK+US had less than a million military deaths, and in game it can be 10-20 million, I think war support would change drastically even without an invasion.
 
Probably because it's an independent, and neutral, fascist city, that also shares a border with Germany. If Hitler has to bail, it would probably be the safest bet, besides Italy.
He also has no history there. He spent most of his life in Austria and would almost certainly return there. Austria, Italy, and Switzerland are all far more likely then Danzig.
 
I'm not a fan of engaging in counterfactuals, but considering that in reality the UK+US had less than a million military deaths, and in game it can be 10-20 million, I think war support would change drastically even without an invasion.

Quite true it should and that's why I asked the question in the dev diary "Stability and War Support" does a great loss of casualties in battles affect war stability.
If it doesn't it would great if we could mod it n. The air war also affects things as successful enemy bombing (or nuking) will lower War Support. Shooting down enemy bombers will offset this somewhat, as people are seeing you fight back against the enemy.
 
Quite true it should and that's why I asked the question in the dev diary "Stability and War Support" does a great loss of casualties in battles affect war stability.
If it doesn't it would great if we could mod it n. The air war also affects things as successful enemy bombing (or nuking) will lower War Support. Shooting down enemy bombers will offset this somewhat, as people are seeing you fight back against the enemy.
Yeah, running out of manpower should be a strong incentive for a peace treaty.
 
even more difficulties? but i only play in regular...
i agree for war resolutions , it could be sooo infuriating in a 3-way war to defeat the axis and see the allies take nearly everything while they did nothing except sit on their asses...