HOI4 Dev Diary - Fuel

[Dalwin]

@podcat - Just to clarify, if there's literally no fuel left can we we assume that no vehicles can operate? Or do they just suffer a reduction in efficiency/combat stats?

There would never be absolutely no fuel, just as there is never absolutely no steel and so on. There are a lot of parts of the economic model which are abstracted out but which still exist invisibly behind the scenes.

Now if your per turn production is less than your consumption, you will zero out the stockpile, but you still have production that is getting used every turn. You will be facing chronic shortages but will have some control over where those shortages bite you.

 

[kaguravitro]

View attachment 383732
Is that a new hat I see?

its a capo dog

 

[Dalwin]

Civilians are completely unrepresented in the game (except for state population) for multiple reasons.

Just because they are not specifically represented does not mean they are completely unrepresented. There is a civilian economy running in the background of the game. It involves more than just a demand for consumer goods. Consider this to be abstracted in such a way that its default state applies no other modifiers to game mechanics.

For example, look at conscription laws. Obviously raising more conscripts is taking workers out of the economy which is why you start getting significant penalties.

The same could be done with fuel and rationing. Exercise some decision that costs you PP and either stability or war support in exchange for better oil conversion efficiency would be one way to do it. Just because the game does not list a number fort civilian usage of fuel (or steel for that matter) does not mean that it is not there. This is a common fallacy among players, thinking that they see all sources of something. An even bigger one is believing they should have total control over all sources.

 

[Dalwin]

Ye i agree i hope we see capture of oil before surrender and they should add usage of fuel in both consumer goods and more usage of fuel when industry is working to build other buildings.

I think it is pretty clear from the DD that both of those already exist. Capturing a state which contains a silo is one obvious example but probably not the only one.

And what did you think all that gobbledygook about number of states and infrastructure level etc. etc. was at the beginning? That was clearly allowing (in an abstract manner requiring no micro) how much of your oil was being used by the civilian economy.

 

[GibGab501]

I'm not sure if this has been said already, but I literally just made the account to suggest this.
Since many multiplayer strategies rely on making multiple production lines to get the most out of efficiency, how about making each production line occupy some fuel? That way, adding more factories onto each production line costs less than making, say, 3 different plane lines in order to boost efficiency. That way you can also simulate the Axis struggling with production as the war went on while the allies and the USSR can use their factories in the most efficient way. Do make it a small cost so smaller nations can afford it, maybe 1 or 2 per production line. Not per factory, note, but rather per production line. Just as a way to punish the use of many production lines to abuse the efficiency growth mechanic.

I was also thinking that your economic laws also introduced an oil consumption. The U.S., for example, would consume a ton of oil in 1936 with Isolationist while Germany would consume little with partial mobilization. It would also introduce a reason to switch to war economy instead of just staying at partial mobilization for nations like Italy and Japan and it would allow the player to also struggle with the civilian oil needs. Basically make it so that if the oil demand is not met, war support and stability start decreasing quickly. Maybe starting at .5, .75 or 1 per month? That way between 1942-1945 Germany would be like it was in real life, unstable and unwilling to keep fighting. Literally up to a 45% reduction in stability and war support, leading to mutinies and such.

The second is the most important to me because it actually reflects the reality of the war. Having read up on the subject, it seems like the annexation of territories also caused an increase in a necessity for fuel so that would be a fun thing when considering annexing France, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. Instead of taking it directly and tanking the fuel supply, it would encourage puppets and the like. Tank Vichy France's fuel supply, not yours. It would encourage some more realism when playing countries and discourage the classic map painting at the start of the game.

Overall I like the idea but a ton can be done with it to give us an accurate representation of World War 2. Hope you live up to the potential of this expansion.

 

[Dalwin]

I've got two questions regarding this dev diary.

1. With the introduction of fuel, are you getting rid of naval range for ships, or is it going to be based on their fuel storage? I'm asking because if a ship is well supplied by convoys or has a lot of places to stop they can ideally keep at sea for months.

And 2. Is unit consumption of fuel determined by what that unit is doing? I feel like it would make more sense for a panzer unit to consume less fuel if it is sitting still in the capital rather than if it is going full speed ahead up the Russian steppes.

And I know a few people have mentioned it before me, but I like the idea of adding rations for infantry units as an opposite to fuel. I don't really see how it would lead to more infantry spam, considering that is already spammed a lot anyway but as Napoleon said, An Army Marches on its Stomach

Naval range is already based on their fuel storage. That is why a squadron of destroyers attached to a few BBs will have significantly longer range than if the capital ships were not there.

 

[Dalwin]

That was my first thought as well.
Although the first armoured car model being available in 1939 seems strange.

Amphibious tanks maybe?

 

[vengen]

What about "fuel depot"?

Fuel Depot will work from my perspective as well. Although depot has more of a military connotation, I think it's still a more appropriate word than silo. However, the game is not my workproduct, so we'll see what the devs think about this. It's also a minor issue and it's already in the game, so they may view any time spent changing it as wasted.

 

[Dalwin]

This is already sort-of baked into the economy mobilization laws.

Maybe so, but it is in a very abstract way. For your point to remain valid those economic laws will now have to directly impact fuel production, even if it represents diversion to military uses rather than actual production increase per se.

 

[Dalwin]

Will fuel consumption for land vehicles depend on infrastructure/terrain etc? (also weather for planes?)

Or is consumption just a fixed value per type of vehicle?

Should be weather for land as well. Especially mud.

 

[Dalwin]

Why would Romania or any focus tree need to be reworked for it?

I would think any fuel related changes, even for Romania, could mostly be handled by decisions.

 

[Arcolin06]

A couple of comments...

I like the fuel concept. In fact, the lack of fuel was one of my biggest complaints moving from HOI3 to HOI4. WWII without fuel issues seemed insufficient. However...

I am concerned about the stultifying (word!) effect that fuel as described by the Devs may have playing both fuel-starved major powers and precariously located minors.

Japanese fleets could be easily rendered unusable, confined to port by mercantile raiding efforts as it was historically. They need to dominate the seas to keep the sealanes open, but need fuel to run their fleet. This almost forces a militant Japan to abandon a Russian strategy in favor of capturing Dutch East Indies oil, guaranteeing a war with the Allies - and potentially endless replays of a historical WWII in the Pacific, limiting alt-history options and replay value.

Italy has limited access to oil unless it trades with/conquers Romania or can break through Suez to the Arabian Gulf. While the former is possible, the latter option is really tough if the Italians can't support their own armored mech and motorized forces against Allies who are both land- and sea-mobile. Italians would almost have to commit their limited manpower to leg infantry divisions on static fronts instead of the fluid mobile warfare actually seen in North Africa. (Yes, even the Italians went motor/mech/armor in Africa historically, even if their equipment was obsolete and poorly built, maintained and supplied). While I have no objection at all to alt-history approaches, Fuel as described seems like it might force the Italians into a single alt-history path in North Africa.

And while both Japan and Italy have the build slots to invest in synthetic oil, precariously located minors with limited build slots like Greece and Sweden do not. They could easily find themselves blockaded, under land attack and unable to keep even support battalion trucks rolling. Minors in oil-poor corners of the world like Africa and South America (outside Venezuela) likewise find their options restricted, though in their case it's because oil simply isn't available in the neighborhood. Unless you're Brazil and make a snack of Venezuela early.

Fuel as described will be impossible to obtain through trade once war begins unless a player aligns himself with the dominant naval power. Where before you could 'hoard' fuel by building ships, tanks and planes before war broke out, now you'll need to fuel silos - again, taking up limited build slots - and stockpile the fuel itself. But because you will use fuel during the war I'm doubtful you could ever stockpile enough to see you through a protracted conflict.

Historical, real world problems? Sure. But I'm not sure how they add to the fun of playing.

Basically, Fuel could make the oil-rich richer (the Allies and Comintern) and the poor poorer (everyone else). As it is, the Axis has limited avenues to victory - this seems to narrow their chances. Without major oilfield acquisitions none of these nations could realistically support motorized/mechanized/armored forces, restricting alt-history possibilities.

Someone mentioned coal as an alternative fuel source for industry. That's a very good point. It was also the base material for most synthetic fuel and lubricants. That could relieve some of issues for, say, German synthetic fuel, but it does nothing for Japan, Italy and most of the resource-strapped minors.

I'm curious how Paradox will address these issues to maintain a high level of playability (particularly for the Axis) and support alt-history army, air and fleet builds (and use).

I would suggest that increasing the number of build slots per province to allow for silos and additional synthetic fuel plants is a crucial piece. Adding oil sources to the map, particularly in currently oil-poor parts of the world, would be another.

Options to prospect for oil and other natural resources would help. Allowing coal and grain (ethanol) as synthetic fuel sources could give oil-poor countries another path. Researching oil extraction from less efficient oil sources like shale sands could provide additional options. These should take dedicated research efforts, and in the case of grain could mean less food on the table (slower population growth), but could be viable.

While you *could* park your fleet like the Japanese and Italians did, fleet-parking clearly is a detriment to the fun of playing... particularly with Man the Guns adding interest to the naval war. I'd suggest some air and ship management schemes that reduce fuel consumption at the cost of some effectiveness. 'Limited Operations' could be instituted for fleets, but only in a sea area adjacent to the fleet's home port. The fleet's Subs, DDs and CLs maintain sea patrol, expending fuel. If an enemy fleet is detected the screens maintain contact but avoid full commitment while the capital ships sally forth. Capital ships use fuel, but only when they sail and using less than when on Patrol or Search/Destroy. A significant delay occurs before the big ships arrive, during which the intruders could elect to withdraw. Incidentally, fleets wanting to use this tactic should build toward fast capital ships, which Italy - and to a lesser extent Japan - did historically.

For air combat, a 'Counterair' option could keep fuel costs down for Air Superiority and Interception missions and a cost of delay in engaging the enemy, Basically, limited air patrols are up to detect the enemy, while the bulk of aircraft are on standby on their airfields. This is exactly how the Battle of Britain and the air war over Germany were fought.

TL, DR. Fine, this is aimed at the Devs, not the players. I make no legal or financial claim to these proposals, nor do I claim ownership. I just offer them as potential mitigations for possible issues that the upcoming Fuel changes might cause.

Cheers!

 

[Dalwin]

Well, that's too bad, but a question on fuel modding itself then: how moddable is it? And more specifically, can we introduce new things that take fuel besides the three branches?

Well since we saw a screen shot that showed the fuel usage for a Tiger tank, that clearly means that fuel consumption could be changed on equipment itself. It think that likely also includes changing the zero on some items to a small positive number instead to represent the logistical tail of infantry, for example. Ironic that the currently popular logistical support companies which reduce overall supply usage for units will also now increase their fuel consumption.

 

[Dalwin]

I was going to say something similar, currently mobilization laws increase factory output. My suggestion would be the reverse (they'd reduce factory output, but you'd get more fuel instead)

How much of that reduced production falls into the large slice of the civilian economy which is abstracted out of the game instead of into the slice over which we have control? I would say that most of it does which means that the current model showing an increase in production is correct since it only reflects a portion of the overall economy.

 

[Dalwin]

I think I would rightly assume that lack of fuel for tanks would negatively impact stats like soft attack, speed and breakthrough, as the tank can make less use of it because its moving around less. But what about its "inherent" stats like armor and piercing that would be constant, will they be affected?

Yes armor would be affected as well. A tank that is maneuvering less is more likely to be flanked etc. Armor anywhere but the front is always much thinner. This is part of why tanks are better on offense than on defense.

 

[Abadon777]

Great dev diary but now we need much more. Will ships also in combat burn more fuel?

 

[Dalwin]

Will convoys use fuel? I.e will japans army in china starve without convoys delivering supplies?, maybe make resources needed to move to production. Like british rubber in indochina shouldnt enter factories in england out of magic. Would make fighting in or raiding the atlantic/pacific and even indian ocean actually worthwhile and not just to stop/start invasions.

Those resources already need to be moved to the factories. Your subs can sink the convoys and the factory production will be reduced because you did so. It has been that way since v1.0.

 

[Dalwin]

Which nations in WW2 struggled more due to shortage of ammo then they did from shortage of fuel? Germany? Japan? No?

The British at Roark's Drift. (oops wrong war)

 

[Stug_Life]

I cannot wait to see what powers you are going to gives hosts on mp games!

 

[Dalwin]

Oh no...I mean hype for the new DLC, but Fuel? I want pre-1.5 HOI4 back

You can get any version you want all the way back to v1.0. Right click the game in your Steam library and choose properties. Go to the Betas tab and select whatever version you want from the dropdown. Playing some very old versions while also trying to use DLC which came later might be problematic.