• 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.
Hi everyone and welcome back to regular weekly dev diaries (if you don't count the april fools one last week). I know you are all super excited to hear what we have been up to since Battle for the Bosporus. The answers to that are going to take a few dev diaries to cover, so I figured I would start with a timeline for you:
  • We recently released 1.10.4 to fix various multiplayer exploits going on, but seems an important case was not detected at the time so we are working on a 1.10.5 to address that soon.
  • Pdxcon is coming up in May so expect to hear some more details there.
  • The yearly anniversary is coming in June so expect some cool stuff and a patch.
  • We are however spending most of our time on the 1.11 Barbarossa update as well as the unannounced expansion that will be released together with it. That's what we will spend most of our diaries on, as well as today!

‘Barbarossa’ and the unannounced DLC will focus on the Eastern Front and the core of Hearts of Iron, which is warfare - particularly land warfare. Historically the Eastern Front was without doubt the most important front for World War II. It was the largest confrontation in history and
is where Hitler’s expansion was first stopped and pushed back signaling the eventual doom of the axis powers. There are several areas we want to improve here. Weather does not feel impactful enough, while historically it had a massive impact. Logistics currently doesn’t have much player interaction and is mostly something you have to deal with only when problems appear, and finally the combat and division meta has been stable (with an emphasis on large divisions) for a long time - something we hope we can shake up. As you can imagine, these are all things that affect the game on a deeper level and take a lot of work to get right.

Today, I’ll give you guys a bit of an overview on the supply aspect, but fair warning: it’s early days and stuff may still change here before we’re done. I’ll probably spend 3+ diaries on supply over the course of the development to cover everything, but I figured it would be nice to hear about the overarching ideas.

The old system worked by having discrete supply areas pathing back to the players capital and keeping track of the bottlenecks. To simplify a bit ;) - those bottlenecks then decided how many units could fit into areas near the front without penalties. The areas themselves were unintuitive to players and required you to check multiple mapmodes to see if you stepped over an edge etc. I do like bottleneck systems though, because feedback is usually immediate, but it suffered from not having much scaling cost as distances increased, so it was hard to use it to limit snowballing. As I mentioned it was also a system you didn't care too much about until you had problems, while historically, logistics was a vital part of planning a campaign. This led to combining the issue with another gripe of ours - that the way fronts moved in WW2 often followed important railroads, but don't really in HOI4. We came to the conclusion that we should try and make a system focused on railways and with a truck based component as a way to get more out of it when away from the rails.

1617799554638.png


In our new system, supply flows from the capital (the total amount available depends on your total industrial base) through railways, where the level of the railway acts as a bottleneck. To transport more, you need a higher level railway (or a bigger port if it goes over water) so the railways are the current bottlenecks in a way. Depending on how much supply is transported you need a certain amount of trains for the rails to perform. Trains are a new equipment type that we will dig into in a future diary (well actually, several types ;P)

An important part of railways is that they are capturable, so as you push into enemy territory you will want to make sure to hold vital railways and capture railway hubs to supply your troops. There is a conversion time here to model the fact that there was usually some repair or re-gauging that needed to happen for attackers.

1617798271066.png

1617799689604.png

Mapmodes are still quite WIP ;)

Rivers also had a huge importance on the eastern front for transport and supply so they will work essentially like basic railroads now, where you need to control both sides of their banks to use them to ship supplies around.

1617798407335.png


Supply is drawn from what we call Supply Hubs now, which are either cities, naval bases, or manually constructed stations along the rails, which have to be linked into the network. Air supply works a bit differently but we will talk about this in the future along with some other supply additions...

The flow of supply from a Hub to a division depends on the terrain/weather etc, and ideally you want to have available trucks here (which is to say, motorized equipment) to increase the amount of supply you get as well as range. Cost of trucks and trains and losses to attrition and bad weather will be a limiting factor on your logistics.

1617798787102.png


Overall, this creates a system where it's strategically sound to fight over railways, prepare for large offensives, to try and bleed each other's logistics capability and to force care when advancing in bad terrain and weather. The result is a much more fun, historical and immersive Eastern Front as well as adding a new layer of invasion planning in the rest of the world.

See you all next week for the next diary!
 
Last edited:
Yay - the long awaited supply rework is afoot!

In general, I really like the sound of it; just three points/issues:
In our new system, supply flows from the capital (the total amount available depends on your total industrial base) through railways, where the level of the railway acts as a bottleneck.
"Flows from the capital" is the first point that really disappoints me. The mathematical form for flow from distributed origin points is actually no more 'heavy' than the single point version, as I wrote while ago, so I don't really think this is necessary or desirable. It also means that placement of industry doesn't really matter, which is not really a valid model (or as fun a game).
Rivers also had a huge importance on the eastern front for transport and supply so they will work essentially like basic railroads now, where you need to control both sides of their banks to use them to ship supplies around.
Nice, but is coastal shipping to be handled also? This was incredibly important not just for the UK but along the Scandinavian and north German coasts as well. The use of coastal routes, and their interdiction by naval and air forces, was a significant factor in the North Sea, Baltic, Persian Gulf, Pacific Islands, Indian Coast and Mediterranean sea areas, so not really a minor concern...

Finally, I asume we'll hear about how the AI handles the new system? I can see reasons why it might improve the AI, actually, but eagerly await reports of its progress!
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Yay - the long awaited supply rework is afoot!

In general, I really like the sound of it; just three points/issues:

"Flows from the capital" is the first point that really disappoints me. The mathematical form for flow from distributed origin points is actually no more 'heavy' than the single point version, as I wrote while ago, so I don't really think this is necessary or desirable. It also means that placement of industry doesn't really matter, which is not really a valid model (or as fun a game).

Nice, but is coastal shipping to be handled also? This was incredibly important not just for the UK but along the Scandinavian and north German coasts as well. The use of coastal routes, and their interdiction by naval and air forces, was a significant factor in the North Sea, Baltic, Persian Gulf, Pacific Islands, Indian Coast and Mediterranean sea areas, so not really a minor concern...

Finally, I asume we'll hear about how the AI handles the new system? I can see reasons why it might improve the AI, actually, but eagerly await reports of its progress
Wait till you see their final work , there's more to come , podcat said that the exploit of surrounding the capital is not gonna work anymore : there will be some changes to it .
Some people only see a twentieth of their work at start to judge the final product . It is not the final DD on supply
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Love the idea of having to manage supply more, but I'm afraid of how this will affect mods. Not all mods are set during a WW2 scenario and it won't make sense to fight over and rely on railroads.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Come to think of it, Italy's just another example of how we need a proper war score and surrender system.

Edited because I know someone will say we don't need a surrender or war score system because WWII was a fight to the death:

Even without considering ahistorical scenarios that's untrue. Italy surrendered shortly after the Allies made landfall, Finland, Romania, and the other Axis satellites just up and left the Axis towards the end of war, France had plenty of territory left when it surrendered in 1940, and Japan gave in and capitulated before the Allied invasion even begun. Pretty much the only country of the whole world war that surrendered only when it was out of manpower and completely overrun was Germany, and that was because it was run by an utterly insane Führer who genunely believed he was winning, even as Soviet artillery shells rained around his bunker.
You seem to believe that the decisions in Germany, unlike any other country, were made by a single individual. As if there was no diplomatic corps, no General staff, no foreign ministry. Germany kept on fighting not because they believed they were winning but because they knew that there would be no Germany after the war. The Allies had demanded unconditional surrender as early as January 1943. Germany was seeking peace with the allies as early as October 1939, asking for status quo(effectively allowing them to keep Danzig and Poznan). I do agree that WW2 was not a fight to the death though. Allied fear that Stalin would make a seperate peace with the Germans led them to focus in Europe rather than the pacific f.e.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
The result is a much more fun, historical and immersive Eastern Front as well as adding a new layer of invasion planning in the rest of the world.
Have you checked the impact in the other major fronts where supply was a huge issue? I foresee this making the Japanese invasion of China a bit more of the slog that it was historically, but Japan might need some other kind of balancing to make them not too awful. (I.e. strengthening them in a way that it is viable to begin the Pacific war and invasion of the Indies before finishing off China)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Still magically spewing supplies from the capitol just killed my hype in the crib. Oh no, its surrounded and suddenly nobody can find so much as a loaf of bread or bullet!
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Have you checked the impact in the other major fronts where supply was a huge issue? I foresee this making the Japanese invasion of China a bit more of the slog that it was historically, but Japan might need some other kind of balancing to make them not too awful. (I.e. strengthening them in a way that it is viable to begin the Pacific war and invasion of the Indies before finishing off China)
Actually it would be good that Japan stuck itself in China : it would ad some historical accuracy , today if you want Japan to be stucked in China it as to be hardcoded.
But if Japan is stuck in China without being harcoded it could be pretty awesome

Tho , it has to be possible to win as Japan otherwise it is'nt worth it
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Actually it would be good that Japan stuck itself in China : it would ad some historical accuracy , today if you want Japan to be stucked in China it as to be hardcoded.
But if Japan is stuck in China without being harcoded it could be pretty awesome

Tho , it has to be possible to win as Japan otherwise it is'nt worth it
Well, yeah. Obviously it's good for Japan to be stuck in China for longer. The problem is that in game, Japan is pretty much crippled if they don't finish off China fast enough, when historically they were able to conquer a bunch of colonial land during their war with China.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It's... it's... BEAUTIFUL!

My two greatest passions, history and trains, all in one! Please tell me each country will have unique train equipment based on their real-life railroads?
I'd like to see different locomotives to hurdle on the map leaving the smoke and developing steam engines just like ships. Imagine the Isuzu truck convoy heads to the North-Chinese frontline bringing supply from the port in Dalian. Beautiful..
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Wait till you see their final work , there's more to come , podcat said that the exploit of surrounding the capital is not gonna work anymore : there will be some changes to it .
I wonder if the fix (or one of them) might be as simple as the game checking to see if the capital is surrounded, and if it is, to start tracing supply from the second-biggest city instead.

Obviously this has problems, too, but it would at least be a start.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Literally copied from victoria ii... You guys didnt even bother to make new assets for the rails....
It's worse than that. If you dig deeper, you discover that the reason they're so suspiciously similar is that they both ripped off how railroads and military logistics work in reality :eek: . Lazy, lazy devs.
 
  • 13Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, yeah. Obviously it's good for Japan to be stuck in China for longer. The problem is that in game, Japan is pretty much crippled if they don't finish off China fast enough, when historically they were able to conquer a bunch of colonial land during their war with China.

The problem there is that to make Japan slower in invading China, they massively over-buffed China. If you add in a better (more accurate) mechanic that will slow them down in China, you can address the military balance issue there, and so at least partially resolve that issue.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Even without considering ahistorical scenarios that's untrue. Italy surrendered shortly after the Allies made landfall, Finland, Romania, and the other Axis satellites just up and left the Axis towards the end of war, France had plenty of territory left when it surrendered in 1940, and Japan gave in and capitulated before the Allied invasion even begun. Pretty much the only country of the whole world war that surrendered only when it was out of manpower and completely overrun was Germany, and that was because it was run by an utterly insane Führer who genunely believed he was winning, even as Soviet artillery shells rained around his bunker.
If I may add, at the time of capitulation Germany still had 3-5 MILLION soldiers over Europe. But yeah, we do need a better surrender system.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Actually it would be good that Japan stuck itself in China : it would ad some historical accuracy , today if you want Japan to be stucked in China it as to be hardcoded.
But if Japan is stuck in China without being harcoded it could be pretty awesome

Tho , it has to be possible to win as Japan otherwise it is'nt worth it
I don't think it needs to be possible to win as Japan, so long as there's a way to create and maintain a stable equilibrium where Japan can hold the eastern third of China without too many units after it conquers it.

100% of China's chromium and roughly 80% of its steel and tungsten are in the northeast coastal plain and the Guangxi Clique's starting territory. If Japan can ahistorically manage to conquer the latter - where most of these resources are - in addition to the former, it will have a large majority of China's resources as well as most of its population and industry.

If it can then redeploy a significant portion of its army to Southeast Asia, it should be able to conquer and hold the Dutch East Indies, Burma, and the Philippines without too much trouble.
 
  • 2
Reactions: