Dev Corner | Thermodynamics

[stingray20]

you can simply revert back to an older version (Right click on the game in steam -> properties -> betas -> opt into past versions in this list.)
as a sidenote 1.11 patch is No Step Back

I’d prefer not to revert back, I’d rather they implement a way to teach us how to manage the additions they put into the game.

 

[General Tao]

Please can the devs consider also factoring in infrastructure level to the amount of energy required to run factories. Infrastructure has had a reduced importance since it cut ties with the number of factories it allowed and this would be a good opportunity to bring back its relevance.

It would also make strategic bombing more effective by having damaged infrastructure less effective at distributing energy to factories. Full damage on infrastructure could potentially sever energy supply entirely.

 

[qer]

Going to say that if the idea is to encourage demobilization, so long as higher mobilization increases contruction rate by increasing the amount of construction available makes me think that is better to suck it than to switch to a lower law. Consumer good demand demand should probably be a thing separated from industry dedicated to consumer goods.

Also would be great for modding purposes if we finally get the ability to set other resources as flows like oil.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

I approve Coal addition as a way to reduce unnatural autarky HoI4 nations have.

What I fail to understand is why no mention is made of having to haul it too - being a cheap bulky cargo historically, a lot of Coal in e.g. Britain was moved around via coastal shipping. Rendering this as yet another instance of resource teleportation would once again deprive Navy of its legitimate wartime targets. Please, don't tell us we will be able to freely use Coal located half a map away.

What I also fail to understand is why the MIC/NIC output disparity is reinforced instead of getting addressed.

Each Factory, regardless of the type, has the same base Energy demand

That's just short-sighted the same way as Light and Medium tanks consuming the same amount of Fuel.

 

[Andreu]

In what ways can you disrupt your enemy's energy production ? Stirring up resistance to reduce ressource extraction should work I assume, where possible, but can one disrupt the coal chain through convoy raiding or damaging/capturing railways, isolating factories, or does coal magically turn into energy teleporting to factories accross the world as soon as it's extracted ? Adding a new resources is a really good opportunity to give some more love and importance to industrial logistics, even if just a little... notably to convoys - them being more important for the industry to run could also make navy more impactful.

Absolutely agree, good point!

Anything that feeds the concept of 'resources war' will make the map (and, therefore, military operations) more interesting.

 

[Ollfardh]

Uranium would be a resource that probably does not matter at all until ~1942/1943, and it's importance only increase (or even skyrocket) after that date, making it a resource that is completely ignored for the first half of the game. I'm not a fan of adding a resource that could matter only in some runs.

I'm not sure I agree with that. While Uranium did not have real military purposes until 1939, it became improtant before WW2 started when scientist realised its potential, like Einstein wrote in his famous letter to Roosevelt. At the time, Union Minière had over 1000 tons in stock in Olen, Belgium from its Uraniuam mine in Katanga. British and French scientist expressed interest in it, but before anything could be sold, the Germans invaded Belgium and took the Uranium (but didn't accomplish anything with it).

As we all know, another part of the stock made its way to the USA and was used for the Manhattan Project. I already mentioned this in the Dev Diary of the new faction mechanics, but the international cooperation for the Manhattan Project was essential and could be improved on in the game.

If not used as a resouce, could you add some more events relating to Uranium? The fate of the stock in Olen: sold to the French, sold to the Britsh or captured by the German (historical path after the surrender of Belgium or capture of the tile east of Antwerp). Improving the Katanga Mine and using the Uranium for the Manhattan project are already part of the Congo Mission Tree iirc, but not in the Belgian or USA mission tree and it could be expanded for alt-history.

 

[TheRedBarron]

Sounds awesome I play with a mod that makes civilian factories use existing resources in the game and I like the idea of it preventing gross snowballing. HOWEVER it seems to me you can’t trade coal which is unfortunate. I feel like that’s not the best way to go about it, because certain countries would get unfairly capped IMO. While countries like us USA,sov,ger,eng get stronger long run.

Maybe trade laws by resource? I’ve always wanted that (since 2016). Always felt weird to constrict all my other exports over 1 resource being scare

 

[ivanpozgaj]

If coal ends up equally tradeable as the rest of resources, AI will run out of IC so quickly.
Also, trading coal makes no sense. You trade away coal, to get factories which need coal… only a few countries will be able to afford that. Needs a bit of a rethink…

 

[Zwirbaum]

Sounds awesome I play with a mod that makes civilian factories use existing resources in the game and I like the idea of it preventing gross snowballing. HOWEVER it seems to me you can’t trade coal which is unfortunate. I feel like that’s not the best way to go about it, because certain countries would get unfairly capped IMO. While countries like us USA,sov,ger,eng get stronger long run.

Maybe trade laws by resource? I’ve always wanted that (since 2016). Always felt weird to constrict all my other exports over 1 resource being scare

Coal is a normally tradable resource.

 

[FORMICARIUS]

Would be fun if coal is located in countries with less factories, just to create interdependence between countries and thus practical war goals or alliances.

 

[Telenil]

No oil power plant then?

 

[Li Three]

Adding coal as a resource to the game would be a highly challenging design choice, as this change could shift future confrontations to focus on seizing key industrial regions. Given that Ukraine supplied nearly half of the Soviet Union's coal, would the game potentially reflect scenarios like "Germany capturing Ukraine resulting in a near-halving of overall Soviet industrial capacity"?

 

[51states]

A good step in the right direction. Will we be getting food as a division limiter in the future as well?

 

[Just a Goldfish]

Will the economic laws be reworked to make non-militarized options more viable? Right now, Civilian Economy mostly feels like a handicap with no real benefits, while rushing to Early or Partial Mobilization is always the optimal strategy. It would be great if there were more meaningful trade-offs or incentives for staying civilian longer. I don't think an increased or decreased energy demand offsets this imbalance enough.

 

[DominusNovus]

Currently we are letting Industry in states with Dams or Reactors require less coal.

That seems like a workable solution, but it could be better. If you look at where Hoover Dam sends its power, you’ll see that (today) about half goes to California.

I’m not sure what the best solution is, I appreciate you don’t necessarily want to create sources of energy production apart from coal, as the system you’re currently using doesn’t really work with that set up. The first idea that comes to mind:

Trace out a radius around the location of the dam/reactor, and apply the modifier to factories in the states that fall within that radius. The game should be able to handle that - aerial warfare works with straight line distances.

Also, I just want to say how excited I am to see the economic underpinnings of modern warfare being more fleshed out.

 

[Helicopter200]

We get more realistic economy and energy mechanics before gta 6

 

[Magaan_625]

Wow, you chosen to copy paste Black Ice this time. Good job.

EDIT
Okay, but more seriously: it's good you're (finally) trying to establish some limitations to the industry. Hovewer the increased energy consumption with mobilization is not enough. It still relies on that fundamental flawed principle "bigger, more = better", because it will just incentivize players to conquer more lands with coal and we're back to square one. Plus it discriminates over minor nations, which are already tough to play if you don't follow a specific meta.

What you should do is add some cost to mobilization that can't be mitigated by just expanding. For example, make something similar to HoI3, where high mobilization at peace grants debuffs to the economy.
Or take inspiration from Victoria and rework stability, war support, party popularity etc. so that they actually impact the game meaningfully, instead of just making annoying "Strikes!" pop-up that you pay with pp to go away. For example, imagine you mobilize too high, your stability and war support start going down, and if you don't do something to mitigate or slow it down (propaganda, censorship?) civil war or army rebellion starts.
You could make it so low mobilization grants great bonuses in those aspects. It would also make avoiding war for some time sensible, while currently the game incentivizes the player to go and grab as much land and resources as they can asap.

 

[germaniec7]

Concept is intresting, but:

Economic Laws:

I dont know why you want to add soft-limit to industrial expansion when we already have hard limit in from of building slots(that I personally found very restrictive).

I understand what you try to do with adding another modifier to economic laws, but it create in current state very wierd situation. If your "Building Energy" will drop after implementing better economic law (for example War Economy) you will produce less military equipment than you would while still having civilian economy. And you only get Consumer goods modifier and building speed for factories in return. I dont think thats a good balance. I would even predict noone will go(apart from coal rich Major Powers) past partial mobilization.

If you want players to not instantly go into Total Mobilisation, or at least for them to reconsider, I would suggest swapping Civilian factories building speed modifier around, so that you get buffs at Civilian Economy but debuffs at "better" Economic laws. And maybe adding some other building modifiers in same way also. And on top of that maybe making new categories of laws where you can put power consumption modifier and maybe something else too. So called "Prodaction Laws" or something.

Just make Civilian Economy specilized in building yourself up, and Total Mobilization specialized in war time production. This way players will have intresting choice when and if to swap.

Power Production:

I expected something more when I heard you are adding power to hoi4. Maybe some new power plant building with state modifiers would be nice(on top of producing power of course)? Right now its just another fuel that you will or will not have. And thats besicly it.

First of all, if you want to add rich gameplay into the game and not another poor mechanic, you have to add possibility to burn oil as power.

Second: You propably should add a way for nations without coal to be able to use its limited resources more efficiently or something. Just because they have small coal consumption at low amount of factories does not mean they will not have problem down the line.

Third: Add a way to turn of all or to set how much factories of each type you want to turn off to preserve power. You might for example pick up during conquest some dockyards that you will not use as you are land power, or you are desperately defending your last scrap of land and those civ factories will really not come in handy at that hour.

Overproduction:

What happens in this case? Can you direct excessive power to your neighbour at price or to your ally for free? Maybe some additional buff? That is not scaling?

 

[akau82]

Could you please add the ability to give land to liberated/other nations in peace conferences? It would help a lot doing "realistic" things. Also other fun thing would be to make weaker nations able to "steal" land from countries who are having a civil war.

 

[DaReal-BurningDeath]

What i will like most about the feature is that i hope it allows to take strategic ressources away through capturing in order to limit the ecomomy. I already liked the fights for rubber uk vs ger and ger vs sov related to oil in romania and kaukasus. If this adds another layer boosting the importance for certain strategic regions affecting the entire xountry its going to be great.