Dev Corner | Thermodynamics

[Caeric]

Will we have coal refining techs, similar to the fuel refining ones, increasing the energy gained per coal? I think this would be a really good addition.

To my knowledge the quality and efficiency of the coal was mostly tied to the type of deposit, such as anthracite coal being highly sought after for burning more efficiently than for exple the oily lignite coal of Germany.

 

[Deathmisser]

First time commenter on here so I like to share my first question, would we be able to build storage warehouses or create a national stock pile of materials going forward as I feel like this could help minor nations out a lot, if they are either thinking about going to war or if their major trading partner who been trading you lot's of coal gets knocked out.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

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.

Unless they deviate from the real life in a really odd way, I can already see great challenges (and I mean this as a positive) with keeping all my unified Scandinavia factories running. Historically, before WW2 at least both Denmark and Norway relied heavily on Coal imports from Britain.

From the top of my head, I don't recall any major Coal exporter not having a developed industry himself, though.

 

[Raghenfred]

About the fact that only coal actually generate energy and nuclear reactors and dams don't, does it mean I cannot make a fully green country by 1950 ?
This will definitely ruin my democratic EU LARP

 

[Eh up me duck]

Looks very interesting!

Hopefully it is not like the existing resources where you are simply overflowing with everything. It is a bit silly that historical Germany has an abundance of rubber and fuel for example.

 

[styroler]

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.

I don’t see why it wouldn’t just be easier for them to just make power a convertible resource like oil into fuel and just have coal as the main source of that resource (but other sources get created later like dams and nuclear reactors). While I understand that power was not literally stored in the WW2 era, stockpiles of power plant fuel producing goods (like coal, reservoirs for dams, and eventually uranium stockpiles) were stored up before the war by nations preparing for war. So the devs can easily abstract this into a “power plant fuel” aggregate resource. This also lets nations like Britain or Germany store up these resources before the war breaks out, and makes convoy raids, bombing of infrastructure and fuel storage, and disruptions to supply lines more devastating than just effecting combat abilities. This also makes bombing Dams an actually somewhat useful raid, since this is literally a mission I have never done since the Gottenerung DLC came out because why would I put a lot of effort and resources into developing an attack that only effects a few states on the map temporarily, but if I can actually disrupt an enemy nations whole power supply, I might at least consider this raid.

Also, oil (fuel (which they could rename petroleum reserves to avoid confusion with power plant fuel)) should also be possible to be converted into power too, just at a less efficient rate. Oil power plants absolutely did exist in the WW2 era, they just weren’t as common because of the cheapness of coal. If a country found itself in a situation where it somehow lost all of his coal resources and still has oil, it shouldn’t just run out of power. There are plenty of situations in WW2 when I can think of a nation running out of oil based fuel but still having access to power, but I can’t think of any situation in which a country with plentiful oil reserves was close to running out of power; because they would just burn the oil reserves instead. Obviously because of its use in producing fuel, oil would be a last resort resource to turn to if you can’t supply your power needs with coal first. Maybe they could create some sort of law or slider determining how much of your fuel is allocated to produce electricity when you’re in a power deficit.

Edit: one final note, if the Devs do make Power an Aggregate resource like fuel, (as others had said) i would make it so that some early game ships can run on coal power instead of fuel. WW2 was the era in which there was a transition from coal to oil fleets happened because oil was ultimately a better resource but coal was still cheaper. Because the devs probably don’t want to create two types of engines though, here’s how I would do it. Make it so all ship engines can take either oil or coal (power), but early engines have really high oil consumption and really low coal consumption, while late game is vice versa. Then make it so you can prioritize which fuel source the navy draws from. This would make it so low coal producing nations would stick to earlier engines for better fuel efficiency longer, while higher oil fuel producing nations will try to switch to it as quickly as possible to save power for industry. I’m sure there are other possibilities but this avoids the situation where one or the other resource becomes useless.

 

[KaptianKaos8]

If the players do not come to the Millenium Dawn economy, the Millenium Dawn economy shall come to them in the base game.

Ditto. When you look at the current problems with the game, the energy distribution is not one of them. If it ain't broke, don't brake it.

 

[TechGlitchReporter]

Will this be DLC-locked or basegame?

 

[PurpulaPhoenixum53]

Question:

Would it be possible for trains and have a "Steam Engine" Module for Ships and Tanks? This way coal is usable as not only a civilian good, but also a military good.

 

[Red Mapoleon]

Reserved for Developer replies~

Maybe coal should impact trains and supply as well. If you are short on coal then your trains would not be able to deliver supplies to the front either.

 

[Trier]

Three questions.

1. Will coal only be able to be prospected like other resources, and impacted by state infrastructure. Or will you be able to create coal mines similar to oil refineries?

2. How will AI interact with coal? Will they seek-out 100% efficiency and artificially limit their industrial expansion to match? Or will they still just create as many factories as possible at the expense of having a terrible efficiency rating?

3. Will coal effect trains at all? To the best of my knowledge, many trains up until the 1950's and beyond ran on coal? Could this make an austerity train unique by having it be the first without coal?

 

[octopus_rex]

Will unassigned factories contribute to energy requirements?

For instance, say that I have 10 factories, but enough energy to fully power just 5.

If I assign only 5 of those factories, will they function as fully powered, or 50% powered?

Scaling energy requirements for factories that are in use vs not in use is more complex, but might create a more dynamic system with interesting choices.

 

[lucaildibi]

Will we have a possibility for mixed production with oil? If i have no coal but lots of fuel, i burn fuel to power cities...
How will the "coal liquidization" work? Energy+coal=fuel?

PS In 1936, 94% of italian energy production came from Hydropower. Pls add dams in northern italy <3

 

[DominusNovus]

I don’t see why it wouldn’t just be easier for them to just make power a convertible resource like oil into fuel and just have coal as the main source of that resource (but other sources get created later like dams and nuclear reactors). While I understand that power was not literally stored in the WW2 era, stockpiles of power plant fuel producing goods (like coal, reservoirs for dams, and eventually uranium stockpiles) were stored up before the war by nations preparing for war. So the devs can easily abstract this into a “power plant fuel” aggregate resource. This also lets nations like Britain or Germany store up these resources before the war breaks out, and makes convoy raids, bombing of infrastructure and fuel storage, and disruptions to supply lines more devastating than just effecting combat abilities. This also makes bombing Dams an actually somewhat useful raid, since this is literally a mission I have never done since the Gottenerung DLC came out because why would I put a lot of effort and resources into developing an attack that only effects a few states on the map temporarily, but if I can actually disrupt an enemy nations whole power supply, I might at least consider this raid.

Also, oil (fuel (which they could rename petroleum reserves to avoid confusion with power plant fuel)) should also be possible to be converted into power too, just at a less efficient rate. Oil power plants absolutely did exist in the WW2 era, they just weren’t as common because of the cheapness of coal. If a country found itself in a situation where it somehow lost all of his coal resources and still has oil, it shouldn’t just run out of power. Obviously because of its use in producing fuel, oil would be a last resort resource to turn to if you can’t supply your power needs with coal first. Maybe they could create some sort of law or slider determining how much of your fuel is allocated to produce electricity when you’re in a power deficit.

The problem with that is that, if power is a resource that can be stockpiled, it mitigates the geographic impact of having non-coal sources of power (which, for all practical purposes, is dams and, for those that want to play late-game, nuclear power plants). Power is generally transmitted no further than about 500km (until you get into HVDC lines), so you can't really just store up lake Mead. The Hoover Dam will produce what it produces, pretty much day in and day out, with comparatively little variation, and it all has to be consumed when it is generated, within that radius. There isn't much variability there. Same for a nuclear reactor.

Having power be a convertible and stockpile-able resource actually mitigates the strategic utility of bombing a dam - as the country could stockpile up the excess power that the dam produces that they're not using, and then coast by with that when the dam is damaged.

 

[Cornutus]

Unequivocally good news. Coal/Energy was long overdue.

I want to joke around and say "HOI4 is finally approaching HOI2 level 10 years after release, and by 2035 we may even get money as a resource finally" but at the same time this looks better than what we saw and the last few DLCs. So I guess something is better than nothing, how much better we'll have to see.

I do wonder what the logic is behind "why does Total Mobilization use exactly 50% more energy than Partial Mobilization and not 100% or 200%". Like what is the base for the weights besides "arbitrary game logic", or how does it tie in with objective reality.

 

[Gutowsky]

I think there is a big problem with this that is, the way resources are distributed in the game makes this damaging... at best. There are nations with nothing in them, and let's not even talk about how Africa is useless in base game, since there is nothing there. Same applies to regions like Latin America with no resources, so they would just not be playable with few building slots and few factories. So like unless there isn't a big change to how resources are placed in the map, I don't see this working for the vast majority of nations, specially minor nations. (also can you guys like, add the 5th research slot the south american DLC, it's been almost a year and it's still missing)

 

[GianpietroU90]

Hi Paradox, really thanks for this little but interesting Dev Corner!

I was having a bet with my brother, based on your previously posted dev diary map, and I bet on coal so I have won, thanks guys!

Apart from that I just want to point out a thing; while this is something I personally like and that is also something that can potentially make WWII simulation more consistent (speaking of Italy, it is well known that the lack of resource, specifically coal, made Italian industries significantly less efficient in producing supply for the war machine), I also have the fealing that if not implemented in the correct way, it will make the allies countries even more efficient and dofficoult to fight. For instance, while the axis powers will have almost always energy problems -at least based on my understanding of the war economy in these countries-, the USA and USSR (and potentially the UK) will never really suffer for lack of it.

So my question is, how are you planning to make the system adequate to the gaming experience, compromising between historical aspect and having fun, especially with smaller nations?

 

[Perikles]

Since more goods need to be traded, the cost for imports should be lowered, not just 8 items per CIV but maybe 10. The cost for raw materials as percentage of GDP is and was anyway much much smaller than depicted in HOI4.

 

[DiabloLama]

Can you prioritize energy consumption to different factory types or is it always evenly distributed?

ATM equal distribution

I'm really hyped about changes you announced in this DD.

Why are you currently opting for equal distribution of energy among all factory types?

If you're worried about players turning power off on all Civilian Factories, maybe introduce some scaling maluses to Stability/PP Gain when required amount of Consumer Goods is not delivered? (Or some bonuses when it exceeds the limit).

Even a 3-dot scale of Energy Priority (similar to those used to determine where to deliver Equipment first: Existing Units/Trained Units/Garrisons) would be better than none, imho.

This way I wouldn't be forced to waste energy on all my Dockyards if I didn't want to build any ships for a while.

 

[CaptainBruh]

Not having coal be an alternative (even if obsolete) fuel source for ships is a missed opportunity. We have lots of ships in game that used coal, and coal is now a resource, but for some reason they consume oil? Especially since it could work great with Man the Guns module system - new systems not intersecting with old content is always a major concern, evidenced by many comments here asking about dams and civilian nuclear buildings.