• 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 - Fuel

Hi everyone! We have now been working on Man the Guns for a bit and it is time to kick off dev diaries again!

For those who missed it, Man the Guns is the expansion we are currently working on. The main theme is naval warfare and it will be accompanied by the 1.6 ‘Ironclad’ free update. There is no release date yet. We will let you know when we can commit to a date :)
So without further ado, rev up your engines! Today we are going to be talking about fuel...

Fuel is something we originally decided to abstract into the production of vehicles in HOI4. The reasons for this were twofold: It simplified things, making the game easier to get into and learn and it avoided issues with fuel stockpiling in HOI3 (I’ll get to that later). I still think these were worthwhile tradeoffs with the gameplay impacts it had, but some areas, particularly naval warfare, never felt right without an overall worry over a supply for fuel, which essentially drove Japanese war planning historically. This in combination with a feeling that our fans can for sure handle a little nudge towards complexity now kinda cemented the idea that we couldn’t really make a naval expansion without expanding on this area.

upload_2018-6-27_13-32-30.png

(no numbers are final etc ;))

Land
Fuel is used by trucks, tanks and other land equipment with engines in your divisions. They will use much more when fighting and moving than when stationary or during strategic redeployment (in fact right now those consume no fuel, but that might change with balance work). A division carries a bit of fuel with it ( much like how supply works), so there is a short grace period if cut off. If a division is in bad supply it will refill its fuel more slowly (meaning you won’t be able to attack or move rapidly as frequently), and you might even be unable to refill at all if totally cut off. Being without fuel will negatively affect the stats of the battalions that need it as well as severely impact speed depending on how low they are.
upload_2018-6-27_13-3-24.png


Air
Your active air wings will consume fuel. The amount will naturally depend on the type of plane (strat bombers love to guzzle down that fuel) but also what mission type. Planes on interception will be very fuel efficient as they only take off when there are enemies attacking ground targets or bombing etc. Transport planes on air supply missions will also be able to deliver fuel to pockets etc. When low on fuel air wings suffer big efficiency penalties.

Sea
Running a lot of active capital ships is something you will need to be careful with in Man the Guns. These behemoths will be going through your fuel stockpile like starved baby whales on the teat. To handle this and make fleets act more realistically and in a more controlled manner we have changed quite a bit here, so stay tuned for future diaries. The main point is that big fleets are costly to run and you will need to make decisions on how to best utilize them and how much to fit into the rest of your fuel use. Speaking of, you’ll be able to control who gets first dibs on fuel through prioritization just like with equipment (but we are also working on adding extra controls on top of this so you can more easily balance between the different branches of the armed forces). A fleet that is low on fuel will suffer penalties to its stats as well as operational range.


Production
Fuel is produced from unused oil, and equipment that used to use oil now no longer need that to be produced. I am currently looking into possibly adding copper or another resource in its place (and in some other places), but we will see if that ends up being a good idea or not ;) Will let you know. Anyways, if you are low on fuel there are several ways to go:
  • Acquire more oil rich states.
  • Increase infrastructure on your own oil rich states.
  • Trade for foreign oil.
  • Build synthetic refineries.
  • Lend leased fuel.
  • Capture enemy stockpiles.
  • Research improved oil to fuel conversion technologies.
  • Each unit of oil you have access to use your current techs to generate a certain amount of fuel. This fuel is then put into your stockpile for use by your forces.
Screenshot_2.jpg


Stockpiling
Fuel is possible to stockpile, in fact it is necessary if you can’t guarantee a steady stream of produced fuel during wartime. The size of your national stockpile will depend on the number of states and their infrastructure, your economic law and if you have built Fuel Silos. This is a new building that takes up shared slots and will probably provide the majority of your stockpile space. It is also a building that can be damaged from bombing etc. which in the worst case could lead to a loss of fuel. Capitulating enemy neighbors is also going to be a good way of acquiring more fuel as it will work just like seizing their equipment stockpile in that respect.

upload_2018-6-27_11-41-38.png


HOI3 also had stockpilable fuel, and there it was quite a problem. As a beginner you did not know how much (or even that you had to) stockpile and as an experienced player there was no issue in making a stockpile big enough that you wouldn't ever have to worry. In HoI4 we are aiming to force a tradeoff between building up your industry and increasing the stockpile (have to spend civilian factories to get more oil from trade instead of building more factories) as well as trying to keep the total amount you can stockpile within reasonable bounds. Our goal is fuel as something you’ll need to consider for all your operations and playing it really safe will mean less industrial output in the long run.

Since I bet this will be the first question, fuel is going to be in the free update, but there will of course be features in the paid expansion that tie into it (stay tuned for more diaries!).

We are still working on all things fuel so I’ll wrap up here. Hopefully it gave you an idea of what we have done and are planning to do. I’ve saved some interfaces talk for future diaries, and also, be aware that many things could end up changing based on gameplay feedback. Rest assured though, I’ll keep you updated on stuff like that in these diaries up to release. This is not really anything out of the ordinary, but I usually keep systems like this that need long term balance and iteration for later. Fuel however ties into a lot of future topics, so I wanna make sure you are all clued in :)

Now for something completely different...
I assume nobody has managed to avoid having their mailbox fill up with fun updated privacy policies and things related to the new European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). During all this a really smooth looking lawyer dog in the smartest little suit I have ever seen came over to visit us from Brussels. He told us there are a bunch of regulations we too need to follow in our games… so to make sure we remained Good Boys in the eyes of the law we have added a couple of things to Hearts of Iron IV. The most important is to include our Privacy Policy in the game and making it easy to find.
upload_2018-6-27_11-45-24.png


Legal texts are long and boring and nothing has really changed in how we do things. So I would rather spend my time answering questions here and writing the rest of the diary, so I will refer you to check it out ingame or here if you want to.

What I would rather talk about is how gathering data from players is useful to us. Because it is. Super useful! Without telemetry we would be resorting to guesses and risk only the most vocal minorities to be heard. For example, telemetry data is one of the major things we look at for deciding what nations to develop focus trees on. We get data on how popular difference choices are for focuses, letting us spot balance issues or unpopular paths that could use some love and care. We can spot if new out of sync errors are introduced in multiplayer in graphs and get crash reports automatically uploaded to help us fix problems easily. All this, combined with a scoopful of forum reading, is what helps us steer this ship, so thanks for helping :)

Oh I almost forgot, because we had to make the GDPR compliance hotfix we managed to sneak in a fix you guys have been asking for. We solved an issue for a case in China (similar things could also happen elsewhere) when a nation had both a takeover and inherited wars (like when seizing ownership in the Chinese power struggle) and was at the same time occupied. As a Japanese player this would lead to the less than happy situation of seeing your occupied areas flip back to the enemy and leaving troops cut off from supply. We also fixed a crash issue that was reported in some big mods. The patch should be releasing shortly.

Next week some of the team will be on summer vacation (including me!) but Bratyn is going to be here to talk about all the awesome stuff he has been doing with Britain, so don't forget to tune in!

  • Fuel for Thought
  • The Rise of Legal Pooch: GDPR always strike twice!
  • How we sell your personal data to Big Pharma for cocaine in 3 easy steps!
  • We have updated our fuel policy
  • Starved Baby Whales on the Teat is actually the name of the HoI 4 punk rock band playing at PDXCON 2019
  • Fuelling your conquests
  • Some of your data is belong to us, if you are okay with that
  • Help us help you help us
  • Our coders call it Nightmare Fuel actually
  • Adding fuel to the fire that engulfs the world
  • Anyone doing a dramatic reading of our privacy policy may request one Admiral to be added to the game
  • Proudly Introducing Gasoline Mana
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't the Russians, and to a lesser extent, the Germans, use large formations of armoured cars ? for infantry support ?

though I think armoured cars were mostly used in the armoured reconnaissance role, which would be a support unit.

Not sure about the Soviets, but the Germans didn't really do that. Infantry divisions only had a very small number of armored cars (and even those were the small ones) among their recon units, and I don't think they had enough armored cars for any other roles, apart from maybe older vehicles in security roles behind the lines. The recon-unit in general was split into three different companies, a cavalry one, a bicycle one and the "heavy" one, which was also split into three smaller groups (using 2 infantry guns, 3 anti-tank guns and 3 armored cars, at least early in the war). Panzer-Divisions used whole companies of them in their recon-units, but even those were usually paired with other units to form the recon-battalion. On paper that is ;)


The Russians also took Northern Bucovina, which was never a part of the Russian Empire, nor in the Russian sphere in the secret clause of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

This rang some alarm bells in Berlin, as it proved Russia could potentially threaten Germany's primary source of oil before Germany was ready to confront Russia. Indeed later in private talks with the Finnish leadership in June 1942, Hitler admitted that he was wary of Russia seizing the Ploesti oil fields in 1940, when Germany was still unprepared for a war in the East.

Btw this was actually the second time the Russians violated the M-R Pact. The first was with the invasion of Poland: Russia was supposed to attack at the same time as Germany, but decided to wait until the 17th of September to see how the invasion progressed, before joining in.

The pact didn't specifically mention any action that was to be taken, only how interests were to be split in eastern Europe in the case of "political changes happening", therefore the Soviets not attacking right away was not a violation of the pact. There may have been other discussions on how to act, but the pact itself did not mention any military action.

I wouldn't consider taking Northern Bucovina an all that drastic violation of the pact either. The whole thing was very much in movement and not a 100% defined plan. Plenty of changes were made to it after the war had broken out (e.g. Lithuania falling to the Soviets instead of Germany, with further Polish territory going to Germany instead). Germany wasn't supposed to be supportive of Finland either, yet that is exactly what they did after the Winter War had ended. Granted, they kept to their word during the winter war itself, but clearly broke the agreement when ignoring that Finland was supposed to be in the Soviet sphere afterwards.
 
Don't overdo it. I played HoI3 a few years ago and hated it despite watching several tutorial playthroughs trying to learn & like it. Ultimately ended up uninstalling it due to the complicated mess it was (esp the army/unit CoC & supply area). When HoI4 came out I was very skeptical until I started to watch the preview dev play videos and realized it was a completely different game.

(I hope you add in a detailed customized game rules/settings screen like CKii has so that players can toggle off DLC update rules/features they don't want!)
yeah, what worries me now about hoi4 is that they appear to be slowly re-adding things from hoi3, now sometimes this is good but sometimes it isn't, and if they start re-adding bloated/broken stuff then the game will just get worse and we'll be back to hoi3
 
I think it will depend on balance. If Germany/Japan needs a big stockpile of it before going to war, then I can certainly see it going in the other direction just as much with USA/SU needing to sell more oil pre-war to allow stockpile build up.

Basically most pre-war demand might turn out to be stockpiling to prepare for the war to come.
Of course, it will depend on balance. I am merely pointing out that one must look at all aspects and not merely assume that the introduction of fuel is totally in favor of the US/USSR with no downside.
 
Not sure about the Soviets, but the Germans didn't really do that. Infantry divisions only had a very small number of armored cars (and even those were the small ones) among their recon units, and I don't think they had enough armored cars for any other roles, apart from maybe older vehicles in security roles behind the lines. The recon-unit in general was split into three different companies, a cavalry one, a bicycle one and the "heavy" one, which was also split into three smaller groups (using 2 infantry guns, 3 anti-tank guns and 3 armored cars, at least early in the war). Panzer-Divisions used whole companies of them in their recon-units, but even those were usually paired with other units to form the recon-battalion. On paper that is ;)
.

For some reason, I thought that a lot of the German recon was on motorcycles. Maybe I just watched the Great Escape too many times.
 
yeah, what worries me now about hoi4 is that they appear to be slowly re-adding things from hoi3, now sometimes this is good but sometimes it isn't, and if they start re-adding bloated/broken stuff then the game will just get worse and we'll be back to hoi3
I really don't think we are in any danger of repeating the mistakes of HOI3 when things are added back in. Compare the expansion of the command structure for example. We can now have commanders on 2 levels. HOI3 had either 4 or 5 counting divisional.
 
I really don't think we are in any danger of repeating the mistakes of HOI3 when things are added back in. Compare the expansion of the command structure for example. We can now have commanders on 2 levels. HOI3 had either 4 or 5 counting divisional.

And the distance required for the effect as well, and the visual representation of that (which worked quite well for what it was, but oh the fun switching units between command structures to keep them within the command radius :)).
 
And the distance required for the effect as well, and the visual representation of that (which worked quite well for what it was, but oh the fun switching units between command structures to keep them within the command radius :)).
In Grigsby's WitE that is the "g" key. It assigns whatever you have selected whether a division or air unit or HQ to the nearest HQ of the appropriate level, e.g. a corps HQ would get assigned to the nearest army.
 
I really don't think we are in any danger of repeating the mistakes of HOI3 when things are added back in. Compare the expansion of the command structure for example. We can now have commanders on 2 levels. HOI3 had either 4 or 5 counting divisional.
well i hope you're right dalwin but I fear for the AI with this new oil stuff
 
The pact didn't specifically mention any action that was to be taken, only how interests were to be split in eastern Europe in the case of "political changes happening", therefore the Soviets not attacking right away was not a violation of the pact. There may have been other discussions on how to act, but the pact itself did not mention any military action.

I wouldn't consider taking Northern Bucovina an all that drastic violation of the pact either. The whole thing was very much in movement and not a 100% defined plan. Plenty of changes were made to it after the war had broken out (e.g. Lithuania falling to the Soviets instead of Germany, with further Polish territory going to Germany instead). Germany wasn't supposed to be supportive of Finland either, yet that is exactly what they did after the Winter War had ended. Granted, they kept to their word during the winter war itself, but clearly broke the agreement when ignoring that Finland was supposed to be in the Soviet sphere afterwards.
They took more than was agreed to, which could be argued was a violation. Germany only declared complete political disinterestedness to the areas specified to be in the Russian sphere. In Romania's case that was only Bessarabia.

And yes, in a sense Germany also violated it afterwards by denying the Russians another shot at conquering Finland.
 
Don't overdo it. I played HoI3 a few years ago and hated it despite watching several tutorial playthroughs trying to learn & like it. Ultimately ended up uninstalling it due to the complicated mess it was (esp the army/unit CoC & supply area). When HoI4 came out I was very skeptical until I started to watch the preview dev play videos and realized it was a completely different game.

(I hope you add in a detailed customized game rules/settings screen like CKii has so that players can toggle off DLC update rules/features they don't want!)
I don't want the clunky mess that was HOI3 either (this coming from someone with 700+ hours logged with that beast of a game), but remember that in quite a few respects, HOI4 is more complicated than HOI3. Production, for example. You don't just spend generic IC on abstracted divisions and planes, you build specific kinds of production facilities which in turn churn out individual guns, planes, and tanks for your armed forces to use.

Implentation is what's important here. HOI3 wasn't a mess because it was complicated, it was a mess because PDX had less experience and/or less of a budget. A HOI3 remake released today would probably have been significantly easier to learn and understand, and a whole lot less clunky, even with exactly the same features.
 
This will completely transform how we play Hearts of Iron IV. Nice work.
 
This will completely transform how we play Hearts of Iron IV. Nice work.
 
This will completely transform how we play Hearts of Iron IV. Nice work.

I especially like that we're getting restrictions on stockpile size. No more HOI3-style 99999 fuel reserves ;) .
 
Capitulating enemy neighbors

It's so annoying when people misuse the term "capitulate"... you force someone to capitulate or capitulate to someone, you don't "capitulate someone".
I get it that people make mistakes, but it just seems to be all over the place. On Youtube, on forums, apparently on developer diaries...

That aside, I predict more invasions of the Middle East in this future patch... yes, yes... removing British access to that fuel will take out their navy without having to spam naval bombers over the English Channel... the production can be put to something more useful... something like getting a million guns in stockpile for no reason whatsoever... no reason whatsoever [cough stage a civil war cough].
 
Great, another feature that the AI would not handle properly.

I see the Fuel mechanics being fun in the latewar Germany scenarios (44-45) somewhat, but for the grand campaign it doesn't add much, just a few more clicks to do before the war.
 
I'm more interested in talking naval organization. What you did with the Armies and Army Groups was fantastic. You should do the same with the Navy. It'd be easier to manage ship groups and it'd make it more like how fleets are actually organized... This is coming from an actual Sailor who hates the overly simplistic organization we've got going now... Fuel though... I like it.

Simply put... I recommend a "Fleet" "Force" "Group" approach. Fleet = Theater, Force= Army Group, Group= Army... This will allow a lot of selective flexibility missing in the naval game play.

As much as it's rather outside of how things ran back in the day, a Unified Combatant Command approach (ie, dismissing your theater/fleet suggestion) and instead having the Army Group-level as "Fleet" with component "Task Forces" would probably be an easier implementation. For instance, the first capital ship that the AI loads into the fleet could dictate the "style" of the task force, preventing things from going HoI3 where the AI would just lump ships together.

Since this is a naval themed expansion/patch is there any chance we will get an interception order for ships (i.e a fleet sails out of port when the enemy is detected/engaged within range ). I think it would pretty historical to have light ships patrolling and have battleships sail from port to join them if they find a significant enemy force. This would also help reduce the fleet micromanagement now that having fleets sailing all the time will not be optimal.

This used to be the case in HoI3: the Sortie command, but it never quite worked right because the ships that the fleet found would likely not be in that particular area by the time that the dispatched fleet would get there.