HoI4 Dev Diary from the Product Manager

[Farquarsen]

my issues with the game have not changed since the release, hopefully with a rework of the Naval game, some of them will be addressed and will no longer afflict me.

1. The AI does not have a fixed historic track. A Deutsche AI should be the most fixed track in the game, and yes this does mean it will do the same predicable decisions game after game and in 1939 with a 1936 start will have in place and on the borders, units that resemble the actual order of battle that existed on September 3, 1939. Ahistorical game, anything goes and the AI is free to choose, otherwise its tied to a railroad track with very predictable outcomes. AI for the other countries with historical setting ==True, will also follow a railroad that should ensure the same historical outcome that occurred in 1945. Hitler sucked as a general and it showed in the final outcome.

2. The naval engine is broken. Carrier Task Forces have air planes and those air planes search. Destroyers, light cruisers and submarines in the carrier task force screen the carriers and provide anti submarine and anti air protection for the carriers. Destroyers do not search and do not die in record numbers. Historically, destroyers in a Carrier Task Force had a higher survival rate than the carriers. In the game, destroyers in a CTF die early and often.

3. Most ships survived WWII, in the game, the mortality rate for ships is extremely high.

4. Supply is not realistically simulated. To keep this example simple, lets limit the discussion to oil. Whether tanks on land or ships at sea, both require oil. In the game, while a ship or tank is being built, the oil it will need is considered in the equation. I will concede some energy resource has to be expended to run the blast furnaces required to produce the steel but the oil required to put the ship to sea or run the tank has to be expended during the time the unit in question is engaged not when the unit is being built. When a country runs out of oil, units dependent on oil should be required to stop in place or not leave port. When a country runs low on oil, the units movement should be reduced and some units especially ships should not deploy (leave port) .

5. The game lacks an economic governor. There are just so many tanks, ships, airplanes a country can build and when it runs out of capital, it can build no more. You can play the game as Ethiopia and conquer the world. In what fantasy universe are you in?

 

[gossamer]

Wrong. HOI 3 was also a Total War game...no Limited War except by event.

Ah I didn't know that, I barely played HOI3, felt like it was significantly worse than HOI2/3rd party HOI2 so I avoided it.

I didn't like how limited it was (governments basically cannot change) and how rediculous the tech tree was.

 

[Moser]

My role as a Product Manager is to make sure that we can deliver the best possible game to you guys whilst ensuring that the teams involved get the resources they need to do so.

Well, I'm sorry to be frank, but you failed on both aspects. HOI4 was not delivered to us in the best possible form, and I feel as though from the sluggish pace of improvements that there has not been an all-hands-on-deck attitude from Paradox to improve the game ASAP.

And I could care less about "Well, we need to release DLC in order to recoup the costs of improving the game". Why should I care about your revenue when I have already paid for the product? The whole "Release now, fix later" strategy that you are openly admitting is the business plan is so backwards to me.

I have a great idea. Release a nearly complete game first. Test it thoroughly, document the bugs, then FIX the bugs before release. Then develop the DLC and recoup your costs. And if that sales strategy is too honest for your bottom line, then maybe you should stop selling games altogether because I don't think anyone of us can stomach another 1.0 release like HOI4 ever again.

Or at least put a disclaimer on your next title: Due to our need to make money and justify any further development on this game, we are selling the game to you now in an unfinished form with the expectation that you will purchase it for full price and purchase any future DLC as well. What we showed you in the development diaries for the past year are a vision for the game, but half of that stuff isn't working well or at all, and the AI is absolutely atrocious and likely will not be in an acceptable state for another two years of development. So if you can swallow that, then please by all means, give us your money.

 

[joreri508]

Well, I'm sorry to be frank, but you failed on both aspects. HOI4 was not delivered to us in the best possible form, and I feel as though from the sluggish pace of improvements that there has not been an all-hands-on-deck attitude from Paradox to improve the game ASAP.

Paradox is a quite profitable company, so they should be able to afford to release quality. I doubt the forced go to market of HOI IV was due to cash-flow constraints. I suspect the problem is dubious corporate culture, and a good sign for the future is that they are currently recruiting a new CFO. The former CFO quit in August and there are recruitment ads on the net at the moment.

Lets hope they recruit an experienced professional who can allow product managers to prioritise quality (long term business) before short term profit. Also, lets hope the AI design is fixable rather than patchable... Mods like Expert AI 2.0 and Total War shows the core game machine can allow a better working AI. Its just a shame that unpaid mods authors has to lead the way to fix Paradox problems.

 

[ShinsoBEAM]

5. The game lacks an economic governor. There are just so many tanks, ships, airplanes a country can build and when it runs out of capital, it can build no more. You can play the game as Ethiopia and conquer the world. In what fantasy universe are you in?

I agree with basically everything else, even if I think there are more pressing concerns mostly with the AI picking it's battles poorly.

But I strongly disagree with this, the paradox games each have their own focus. HoI on total war and tactics, Victoria on Economics and Crusader Kings on Dynastic Politics. I guess you could say EU is on diplomacy but it has slowly slid into a vaguely everything game along with Stellaris. Having HoI/Victoria/CK focused on their game design objective I believe makes them better games if less accurate.

 

[CrazyZombie]

I agree with basically everything else, even if I think there are more pressing concerns mostly with the AI picking it's battles poorly.

But I strongly disagree with this, the paradox games each have their own focus. HoI on total war and tactics, Victoria on Economics and Crusader Kings on Dynastic Politics. I guess you could say EU is on diplomacy but it has slowly slid into a vaguely everything game along with Stellaris. Having HoI/Victoria/CK focused on their game design objective I believe makes them better games if less accurate.

Just to define: WW2 was a war of economics and industries.

 

[Gamer_1745]

Just to define: WW2 was a war of economics and industries.

Tell that to the French.

Long wars become about that, but I could see Germany also defeating the Soviets in 1941 so this need not be the case.

 

[withche.07]

My suggestions:
1. Please first focus on building more unique national trees and national spirits. These things are what makes countries different from each other.
2. Please add more personalities and even pictures. Those give great flavour to game, making it lot more interested. (I really wanna see lot more pictures of Turkish racist ideologist Nihal Atsız's pictures in the game if I go fascist: https://www.google.com.tr/search?q=nihal+atsız&source=lnms&tbm=isch)
3. Please add lot more events!
Two very importants could be added into game about Turkey:
a. German–Turkish Non-Aggression Pact
b. Independence of Hatay state from French Mandate Syria & joining Turkey later on.

I am pretty sure there are even lot more could be added about war participants.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Tell that to the French.

France had relatively good tech for 1939-1940. But you should know just one fact to understand situation in their military industry: before 01.09.1939 French army was getting 11 tanks S35 per month. As soon as war has started, speed of production was greatly increased - to 13 tanks per month.

During 2 pre-war years whole mighty French industry managed to produce about 200 tanks S35. To be able to match these figures with normal state and normal industry another interesting fact: in USSR average number of produced tanks per month was 200-250 tanks in the one factory in Kharkov. And these wasn't some cheap light tanks, these were newest T-34. And KhTZ was not the only factory in USSR, producing T-34s. Btw, after factory was moved to the Ural in october 1941, in december 1942 it was making already 750 tanks per month.
In august 1942, when tank factory in Stalingrad was bombed and shelled by Germans every day, factory managed to give to the front 240 tanks. Last vehicles were produced practically on the frontline and were coming in the battle as soon as were able to move, without scopes, painted camo, anything except armor and armament.


And similar situation was with everything - firearms, artillery, tanks, planes. It isn't surprising that Wermacht had an easy journey to the Paris.

So you still want to say that French industry was "normal" or equal to the German?

 

[adam_grif]

So you still want to say that French industry was "normal" or equal to the German?

I'm not weighing in one way or another but you need to do a more holistic comparison of industry if you're going to compare. S35 was one of several models being simultaneously produced. The German industry may have been superior to the French, but it was not superior to the combination of French+British+Commonwealth.

 

[Gamer_1745]

@CrazyZombie

My Point is once Fall Gleb started the level of French production didn't matter. And before on something simple like tanks they had more. In a War of Maneuver/Decision production matters very little, but if it is a War of Attrition then it is one of the primary things (manpower being the other).

 

[CrazyZombie]

I'm not weighing in one way or another but you need to do a more holistic comparison of industry if you're going to compare. S35 was one of several models being simultaneously produced.

T-34 is too not the only tank, produced in USSR.

Anyway, let's take a look at other models...

D2. In production from 1936 to 1940. 100 vehicles produced.
B1. 1935-1940, 403 vehicles.
H35. Already better, 1936-1940, 1200 tanks. If not to remember USSR, where T-70, as main light tank of infantry support, was produced in number of above 8k tanks during period between January 1942 and October 1943.
R35. 1600 tanks. Look above.

The German industry may have been superior to the French, but it was not superior to the combination of French+British+Commonwealth.

The other conservator didn't mention Britain or Commonwealth. He said something about France and only France.

 

[CrazyZombie]

@CrazyZombie

My Point is once Fall Gleb started the level of French production didn't matter. And before on something simple like tanks they had more. In a War of Maneuver/Decision production matters very little, but if it is a War of Attrition then it is one of the primary things (manpower being the other).

Level of French production did matter. Because most armored units were under-equipped, and due to retarded doctrine even the few number of existing tanks was pasted at all available units, only chance for France to have opportunity to resist longer than it would took for Germans to cross one street in Stalingrad in the future, was overproduction of arms BEFORE the war. Like USSR did as a result of "war panic" of 1927, having 11k T-26 produced, which in 1941 were destroyed in combat, left because of breaking on march but shot in return and bought enough time.

Anyway, France had enough peace time to try change something but they didn't. So they lost even before war has started. They missed the time when even their army would be enough to smash German one and their stockpiles of arms would be way bigger than German. But they gave Germans so needed time.

Don't look at war as isolated act. Technically it is won or lost before official declaration, simply by economic and industrial power. One of reasons, German attack in 22.06.1941 was unexpected, Soviet high command could not believe that Germans would attack with forces that were seen as extremely insufficient and same for industrial production numbers. Soviet intel managed to provide pretty accurate figures in these spheres.

 

[adam_grif]

T-34 is too not the only tank, produced in USSR.

Anyway, let's take a look at other models...

D2. In production from 1936 to 1940. 100 vehicles produced.
B1. 1935-1940, 403 vehicles.
H35. Already better, 1936-1940, 1200 tanks. If not to remember USSR, where T-70, as main light tank of infantry support, was produced in number of above 8k tanks during period between January 1942 and October 1943.
R35. 1600 tanks. Look above.



The other conservator didn't mention Britain or Commonwealth. He said something about France and only France.

The person you quoted said "Tell that to the French" in response to the comment that WWII was a war of economics and industry. While you can make that case for large parts of it, the campaign in France was not a campaign in which one side had a large material or economic superiority. You're looking at the statement far too narrowly. France fell despite the allies having a material superiority, a stronger economic base, and comparable/higher manpower available in the field. The Germans were not enjoying some kind of 2:1 numerical advantage with zillions of tanks and planes compared to the allies. They enjoyed advantages in some areas while the allies enjoyed avantages in others. Despite this, secondary factors allowed them to execute an extremely decisive victory. Fall Gelb was not "about" material superiority.

 

[Showers]

I like this. It's nice to learn how the games you play are made.

 

[Silver Wanderer]

Please continue giving us your feedback! I will stay around the thread to answer as many questions as I can.

So besides the obvious issues that the community brings up every day (AI Is the major one).
Is there any plan to go back and fix your previous work (For free) I was pretty disappointed with the lack of historical detail put into the Australian focus tree (Which I know not all this stuff is obvious to you guys because you don't live here). I mean simple stuff like the war time PM, not using the fact that NZ is rightful Australian land or even just bringing up the major Australian war time efforts in WW2. Kind of hurts to see you guys brush over the diggers.

Also I understand that you guys in a previous Dev Diary said the reason the first two DLCs were lacklustre was because you are focusing on game fixes instead, but if that's the case why keep the high pricing ? You guys seem to be self aware of the community but when it comes to pricing and marketing its basically a joke. Even with the whole region pricing screw up recently, less of a nock on you guys and more of me just pointing out maybe some one needs a new marketing and retail team.

Finally seriously good job on the recent free changes, they were great. Just hope that you can put more effort into the payed ones too. Kind of been feeling like Paradox's DLC has been getting worse for all your games, which is sad because I know you guys can do great things. Any way just my thoughts.

 

[Ultimaratio]

I do not get it. You want to sell the best possible product for us and then you come up with a half baked HOI 4 and overpriced DLCs one year after the release??? In the Cornflake DD you talk about all the features you want in the game which actually should be in the game from start and we have a good chance to pay for the missing content again and again. I am willing to pay for addional content if it adds something substaintal to the game but not the stuff you bring a long for HOI 4.

 

[Antimonum]

A very concrete case for HoI where we have had to alter our plans was for the first expansions which has affected those of you who bought the Expansion Pass. Our initial plan was to include the first two expansions at a USD 50 value for USD 40. After the launch of HoI IV we realised after your feedback that certain aspects of the base game needed attention. We already had plans for these expansions, but we decided to scope Together for Victory and Death or Dishonor down and put more effort into the free updates and bug fixing.

We believe that we have made the base game a better experience thanks to these fixes but this has made the Expansion Pass holders confused as to what and when they will get their promised content. And rightly so. What I can say is that we are aware of the situation and are working on a solution. Our goal is to make the holders of the Expansion Pass feel it was worth the wait even though it is taking longer than initially planned. Stay tuned!

How about instead of making excuses that you made more free improvements to the base game for selling so little content for the price paid and essentially ripping off the people who bought the season pass you instead invest in a bigger team who can produce the content faster. The current pace of 5 countries Focus Trees for 10-15 USD for 6 months is financially prohibitive for the game Fans if they want to have all the countries Focus trees to play with and they want to because experienced players like to play with minors esp. in single player. Why would anyone be stupid enough to continue buying DLC if its so slow to develop, expensive and lacklustre when there are mods that have Focus Trees for almost all the countries already. If i have to wait 5 years and pay 10x15 Dollars for something I am already playing for free now using mods - what is the point Paradox. Don`t you understand you are alienating your fanbase with this policy?

And do not get me wrong I would like to buy Focus Tree DLCs in the Future but the pacing have to change by haste otherwise the base game will be extremly boring up to unplayable in single player for years until every freaking country gets its Focus Tree in 2040 if we still live.

 

[Pyro157]

Despite enjoying the game immensely and loving all the updates and patches that the devs have made, I've got some complaints of my own too:

• The AI keeps trying to pump out as much equipment as possible, resulting in some tech assigned to factories never getting built because all of them are full. Same with the dockyards.
• The Japanese AI never naval invades Hong Kong, Burma, Australia, or British Malaya. These were key to the Japanese aims and the Burma Campaign was one of the biggest in the Pacific War, but nothing happens to them.
• The German AI somehow never manages to even reach the border of Stalingrad, instead getting stuck near Kiev for several years before the Soviets crush them.
• Is there a way to properly drag out WW2 until 1945?
• When an airbase is available, the AI will dump planes until the airbase is overcrowded and you can't deploy your air force.
• It's frustrating that we're not able to assign one front line to multiple countries, especially those on our nation's border.
• The AI either trains too many divisions and runs out of manpower, or trains a few and stops despite having lots of manpower. Ethiopia keeps on having just 1 division to defend the country for some reason.
• Radar is barely researched in AI nations and support companies are badly neglected.
• There really should be a way to remove forts for the player nation, if you don't need them anymore.
• A fixed historical track is really, really needed for all nations, especially the majors and minors with unique focus trees.
• Garrisoning still has problems-the troops will land, then promptly decide to leave over and over again. They never reach their destination, just circling the ocean forever.
• Why is the spearhead command part of TFV? It was such a signature tactic of the Germans that I don't see why it should be given to the base game instead of locked behind a DLC.
• A lot of work is still required in peace conferences-the day where there is no bordergore, where everyone gets the territory they want or historically took, is a long way away.
• Democratic nations in vanilla should really unlock daily democratic support-it's available to the communists and fascists, why not them?
• No dedicated political section of the tree for non-aligned nations, and no advisor either.
• Airdropping supplies is not a feature, which is ironic because it was important during WW2, such as during the Burma Campaign, supplying a landlocked China and the 101st at Bastogne.
• The supply system on the whole needs a good rework.
• The AI should really use War Economy more, not Total Mobilization. They should only use Total Mobilization as an absolute last resort, like when 50% away from surrendering or having lost almost all their civilian factories.
• Still no way to lend-lease/get rid of captured enemy equipment you don't need, or scrap old planes.

 

[Axe99]

How about instead of making excuses that you made more free improvements to the base game for selling so little content for the price paid and essentially ripping off the people who bought the season pass you instead invest in a bigger team who can produce the content faster. The current pace of 5 countries Focus Trees for 10-15 USD for 6 months is financially prohibitive for the game Fans if they want to have all the countries Focus trees to play with and they want to because experienced players like to play with minors esp. in single player. Why would anyone be stupid enough to continue buying DLC if its so slow to develop, expensive and lacklustre when there are mods that have Focus Trees for almost all the countries already. If i have to wait 5 years and pay 10x15 Dollars for something I am already playing for free now using mods - what is the point Paradox. Don`t you understand you are alienating your fanbase with this policy?

And do not get me wrong I would like to buy Focus Tree DLCs in the Future but the pacing have to change by haste otherwise the base game will be extremly boring up to unplayable in single player for years until every freaking country gets its Focus Tree in 2040 if we still live.

Not in any way to put your personal financial situation in a negative light (for you, $150 over five years, or $30 a year, or 58 cents a week, may be prohibitively expensive), but some things to keep in mind:

• More staff on the team means the DLC has to become more expensive, not less. Staff aren't paid for in dreams and good intentions. It would have more in it (at least hopefully), but whether it would be possible to produce content as efficiently with more staff is something the devs have suggested may well not be the case - so you may end up paying more for less (you'd just get it sooner).

• You only have to pay full price at launch. If money is an issue (and my 'fun' budget has had its moments when it's been quite restricted, and I had to manage it carefully), wait for sales. Paradox have regular sales (DoD (10 per cent off) and TfV (20 per cent off) are on sale at time of typing from the Paradox store, and Steam sales are pretty frequient as well). Wait long enough, and you'll get permanent price drops as well (I can personally attest to HoI3 not costing $9.99 at launch!)

• $25 of DLC in 12 months is hardly exorbitant or out of step with the industry. To take a random example of DLC pricing from another game released last year, it's $19.99 for XCOM 2's Reinforcement Pack, and $39.99 for 'War of the Chosen'. Civ V's Brave New World and Gods and Kings still cost $49.99 each, years after release (I just looked that up then, my eyes are still de-widening!)

• At one point, you complain that you don't want to pay $150 for something you're already playing now for free using mods. There's a number of layers to this:

• If this is true, why on earth are you complaining? Why not happily play the mods, have fun and profit? Indeed, you could even be appreciative of Paradox's modding policy that allows you to avoid getting any DLC at all because (if what you are saying is true.....) everything's been made and is available already.

• The reason for this, I'd wager, is that it's not true. There is some great modded content out there, and mods are brilliant, but DLC has its advantages for a number of reasons:

• Quality: Now, some mods are of a level of quality that is comparable with vanilla content, but these are few and far between. The vast, vast majority of mods lack the thoroughness of research (and yes, there are some slips in vanilla, but there is an extraordinarily large amount of data in HoI4 - any dataset that large will have slips in it - there are plenty of slips in mods as well, and generally more off them), the QA or the balance.

• New features: Autonomy, licensed production, tech-sharing, blitz (controversial, but nonetheless true). These are all new features that were added in via DLC that were not possible via modding.

• Ongoing support: Very few mods stand the test of time (and big credit to those that do). DLC, generally has ongoing support for the rest of the game. I don't need to worry about my Commonwealth focus trees in TfV not being updated in two years time, for example.

• While we don't have to pay for it (at least, at the time of the DLC), one of the key things to keep in mind is the reason that DoD and TfV were smaller in scale than regular expansions was because the devs were working hard on free updates to the game. The new air UI and system (there's a new system under the hood, even if it's not entirely apparent on the surface), the substantial improvements to AI, the garrison feature and a bunch of other things have all been added, and at a price that regardless of your income, financing isn't an issue. Now, as I'm sure we're all well aware, someone has to pay for this at some point (be it Paradox from reduced profit, or the fans that are more wiling to pay for the improvements covering the cost for those that aren't - devs don't eat and electricity doesn't flow for nothing), the pricing structure is such that those who don't pay for the DLC still get regular updates to their game, support and new features. This is a good thing, not a bad one.

Sorry if I sound short - a bit crook - you're absolutely entitled to complain. It's important, however, to consider the broader context of what you're complaining about if you're looking to make a difference.