HOI4 Dev Diary - Fuel

[BATMARV]

Did anyone notice the other branch off of light tanks?

 

[Ironside121]

Did anyone notice the other branch off of light tanks?

There's only been numerous comments on this thread and another thread or two opened on the topic

 

[amynase]

Hey, I was wondering if we might see a rework to how the AI uses Naval transport since this DLC is Navy focused? Any chance Italy wont lose its entire army to the Royal Navy and Japan will actually conquer Indonesia after Man the Guns?

Also since the USA will be one of the nations that get overhauled, will they get more factory slots? Historically, the USA had a 3x larger economy than the Soviet Union in WW2, while ingame they have less factory slots and thus the Soviet Union overtakes them lategame. (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori..._ww2_who_had_greater_industrial_capacity_the/)

 

[Telenil]

Hey, I was wondering if we might see a rework to how the AI uses Naval transport since this DLC is Navy focused? Any chance Italy wont lose its entire army to the Royal Navy and Japan will actually conquer Indonesia after Man the Guns?

Podcat has said the AI will have the possibility to make naval "no-go zones", that should fix the problem of losing the transports (presumably transports will also have more opportunities to escape).

Also since the USA will be one of the nations that get overhauled, will they get more factory slots? Historically, the USA had a 3x larger economy than the Soviet Union in WW2, while ingame they have less factory slots and thus the Soviet Union overtakes them lategame. (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori..._ww2_who_had_greater_industrial_capacity_the/)

What we know is that the US industry will never be even close to historical, otherwise the Allies would win every game.

 

[GreasyCylinder]

That's fairly straightforward: because it's not worth going through the complex process of fixing and testing on a part of the game that they probably have started to overhaul for the next expansion.

Also it's arguably not the worse of the bugs that are in the current version, and they have to draw the line somewhere. They fixed the Chinese Power Struggle instead, and that one could actually ruin a playthrough.

Yeah and they totally reworked air combat in the last major patch and look, an entire aspect of it is broken. I don't know what world you people live on where you think it's acceptable to ignore a game breaking bug for this long.

Because the mechanics of it are anything but obvious. The intricacies of air and naval interaction and that of land based versus carrier planes, is all quite elaborate. If it were an obvious fix then a hotfix would already have been released a month ago. I know a couple of modders who spent weeks working on it and have cobbled together a partial solution, but it is rough around the edges to say the least.

Yeah a couple modders working on it in their spare time have made more progress than an entire dev team. It wasn't broken before, why is it so hard to fix it now? How do you fudge something up this bad and then can't make a fix for it?

Not that it matters if this bug gets fixed in the update, i'm sure something else will completely break and all the new features will be implemented so horribly it'll be unplayable.

But that's okay because if you ignore whatever breaks and wait several months for the next $20.00 DLC, the game will work this time! They've assured us!

 

[agus92]

My skill is already at the bottom. now my games will be even harder for me

Then improve, or lower the difficulty or the speed you are playing on.

 

[agus92]

Actually this thread got me thinking about that (this is probably a topic for another thread though).

What if gold was a non-replenishable stockpile? Every nation would start with whatever stockpile they had in 1936. The only way to gain more would be conquest. This could then be spent on fuel, licenses, or equipment. It could maybe even spent some decisions, like boosting stability/war support.

The key would be that you can’t automatically gain more of it. There could be a small bonus associated with having a decently sized gold reserve, which you would lose if you spend it all. It would basically be a resource for emergencies or when you need a small boost.

This could alleviate political power, which is maybe getting a little overstretched as a game mechanic.

Interesting idea.

You could make gold replenishable with microtransactions, and thus HoI4 mobile would be born!

Edit: before disagreeing, you may want to contemplate the possibility that it was a joke

 

[Nidhunter]

yeah all stats. a tank that cant move effectively cant really be where it needs to be etc.

I’m going to dispute that reasoning. During the Battle of Kursk the Red Army was unable to field all of their tanks and as such those without mobility were dug into makeshift bunkers as part of the defensive line. Therefore I would propose that a differentiation be made between the values as related to attacking a new province as compared to defending an existing one if possible. However that may rely on also calculating the tank battalion’s stats by using the entrenchment value of a division. In effect the tank could then be compared to some kind of anti-tank gun with additional hardness or defensive characteristics while its main armaments are unchanged.

 

[Vohen]

I’m going to dispute that reasoning. During the Battle of Kursk the Red Army was unable to field all of their tanks and as such those without mobility were dug into makeshift bunkers as part of the defensive line. Therefore I would propose that a differentiation be made between the values as related to attacking a new province as compared to defending an existing one if possible. However that may rely on also calculating the tank battalion’s stats by using the entrenchment value of a division. In effect the tank could then be compared to some kind of anti-tank gun with additional hardness or defensive characteristics while its main armaments are unchanged.

That was such an off scenario, I feel like it'd be more fitting to be a general trait, which would decrease, to a degree, the lack of fuel penalty for entrenched armored units.

 

[paranoidsteve]

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.

It is my understanding that most motorbikes in the German WW2 army where used by division level MP's, who had to be faster moving then everyone else in the division , so that they could set up and direct the divisional troops while they where moving, as it was standard practice to remove road sign posts while in retreat, or in the case of England because you expected invasion at any time.

I also had a 2nd idea about the new branch on the tank tech tree...It might be for tank transporters ,saving both fuel and losses from reliability issues in armoured divisions.

 

[Nidhunter]

That was such an off scenario, I feel like it'd be more fitting to be a general trait, which would decrease, to a degree, the lack of fuel penalty for entrenched armored units.

While that may work it would be better implemented as part of a defensive doctrine change. That changes the speed value of armour battalions in exchange for increasing defence and leaving firepower the same. The tank is arguably better defended due to the (probable) presence of infantry anti-tank to either side while it’s rear armour is unlikely to be vulnerable to exposure as part of the line. And fuel doesn’t have an effect on the firepower of a tank save when related to a tank’s ability to outflank an opposing tank. Which in game mechanic terms would likely result in the piercing ability of the tank being most affected except in a situation where the tank is buried in the earth as opposed to a semi-trench as the gun would be lower down and thus make it easier to hit the lower glacis of an advancing tank which would increase the tank’s ability to pierce in that scenario. (The tactic was later used by the German while on the retreat.) On average however, assuming good coordination and tactics from the tanks in the division the piercing ability of the tanks would likely balance out. Hard attack would depend on the gun and the target angle but if in a line then a tank somewhere in the line will be able to get a side-shot at an opposing tank turret. They will also expose their own of course but then it becomes a numbers game. Overall however digging the tank into the ground increases its ability as compared to it merely being stationary.

Then you can put a load of bushes on it.

 

[Nidhunter]

Regarding reconnaissance: In order of descending likeliness assuming availability;
Aerial photography, already aquired maps, specialist infantry, regular infantry, local knowledge. This misses a few options but covers the major ones.

Outside of the various military intelligence circles photographic evidence was considered to be the next best thing to god handing you information as photographs were considered immutable. Presuming the army had maps from either friendlier times or previous conquests these would give a good overview of the upcoming terrain.

However it should be noted that outside of the United Kingdom’s Ordnance Survey few countries had an equivalent, France’s was disbanded in 1940 but kept the actual maps, some were in German hands while others were smuggled into the United Kingdom, including a complete map of France and Northern Africa. It’s geographical engineers became, infamous i suppose for their work on counterfeits. I could not find Germany’s or the USSR/Tsarist Russia’s equivalent but the Russian maps would likely be imprecise due to somewhat larger concerns. Such as disloyalty... Germany’s however would likely have been quite good. For those wondering the current German mapping agency was founded in 1999. It should be noted however that Soviet map-makers, at least after the war were exceptionally good at what they did. During the Cold War they secretly mapped the entire of the United States, Europe, Japan and other territories in exceptional detail.

Anyway, reconnaissance. Assuming the previous were either unavailable or outdated specialist infantry would be employed to advance ahead of the army and mark down various terrain features and potential obstacles. They would not go far, probably about a day or two ahead of the main force’s planned route but they would be able to tell what exactly to expect re: bridges, towns.etc

Local knowledge: most useful on the defence but it depends on the local attitudes. Polish people likely assisted the Red Army, for a time, while during the Allied invasion of Sicily locals could be asked where the Germans went and be trusted to give the true response the majority of the time. On a somewhat amusing note the Axis had no true high command coordinating shared logistics or similar unlike the Allied forces. The implementation of factions more closely resembles the Axis than the Allies in formation.

 

[DocDesastro]

Is there a mechanism planned for supplying fleets? Like assigning convoys to fleets which can actually be sunk by submarines? Convoy requirements depend on home harbor - fleet distance. Oil is a very versatile resource. During production it represents making plastic parts like bakelite or similar stuff. Crude Oil can be turned into various fuels like diesel, heavy fuel for ships and light fuel for planes and cars. It can be turned into coke and hydrogen and sulfur can be extracted which in turn is versatile for fertilizers and rubber vulcanization. Technologies like cracking or reforming can raise the amount of fuel gained. Maybe one could address the refinery settings for toggling WHAT will be made from the crude oil. If you have limited resources, then this is crucial. I would like to see a comeback of currency as well to trade more efficiently. civilian factories serve for building stuff and can be assigned for producing export goods which will produce 'currency'. This you can trade for other stuff. Add gold and diamonds and cash crops like coffee, tea and cocoa as strategic resources and you gain provinces in the world, that will become more interesting for conquest and give some states means of trade. Also, I kinda miss food to supply armies so it might be a good idea to have agriculture in a certain way to supply vast armies - which are free currently. Just give out the arms and the soldiers will work the whole war...yeah, right. We are not touching civilian stuff like sieging here, but this could represent a kind of soft cap for armies like fuel is for tanks, planes and ships. Having no food will lead to combat penalties and attrition. So by encircling armies you really could starve them out. I like, where the game is going now. You won me back as a customer by now.

 

[swatdennis]

I like this, but I also hate that most of the things that are NEEDED to make this game good are in the DLC's (Germany and Japan being able to be made democratic for example), so I hope this DLC will not be another necessity to make this game that much better, I will never buy EU4 just because of the swarm of DLC, and I really hope this game does not end up like that game. I mean, to make this game the full expansion costs more then 80 euro's already. (40+20+15+10) That and WTT has not gone on sale yet once and is the most expensive, to look at the prices will Man the guns cost 25 Eur? Since it goes up with 5 Eur every DLC, I can't wait to get 40 Eur expansions...

 

[BurdenedWarrior]

The hoi team, what a keeper.

 

[DocDesastro]

Meh...a AAA title is about 60€ alone. Add a single expansion and you are there already. I at least recognize the fact, that they keep the game developing and expanding. Asking for money in the process is not outrageous in my book. What kept me from starting in the beginning...well...the problem HoI4 had was that a full-fledged HoI3 existed with stellar mods like BI and TR. Starting anew from scratch with less functions but looking better...well try to convince the customer of it. 'Pay $$$ and you get less gameplay (which we will add later for more $$$) - but it looks nicer. Ask EA what this did for e.g. The Sims 4. But this game here is looking better every patch and can expect support.
And also keep in mind: there are some folk out there not wanting to buy a new rig to have make the sequel work if the current version is acceptable. And let us not forget, how many time one can spend on the game. HoI goes in the hundreds of hours usually - that is a meagre 80 cents for 1 hour of entertainment. 1,5 hours of cinema cost 8+ €. A single scoop of ice-cream might cost 1€ and is eaten in 5 minutes. It is relative. The greatest problem one might have is dish out all that money at once. Well, save money and buy part after part. One is not entitled to being able to purchase the game only because it exists.

 

[smythw]

Apologies if this has already been suggested here(didn't want to read through 22 pages), but if PI want to add a new resource, can I suggest food?

Of course this opens up lots of new possibilities to restrict army size and impact war support etc. I don't see the point in adding additional scarce metals, such as copper, as this offers little over the existing resources we have.

As for the "fuel was too complex for the playerbase to understand" rationale for excluding it from the base game initially; well some people may be gullible enough to swallow that, but I think it far more likely that PI thought that they could deliver part of it as a paid option in a DLC later on.

 

[iDovke]

Apologies if this has already been suggested here(didn't want to read through 22 pages), but if PI want to add a new resource, can I suggest food?

Of course this opens up lots of new possibilities to restrict army size and impact war support etc. I don't see the point in adding additional scarce metals, such as copper, as this offers little over the existing resources we have.

As for the "fuel was too complex for the playerbase to understand" rationale for excluding it from the base game initially; well some people may be gullible enough to swallow that, but I think it far more likely that PI thought that they could deliver part of it as a paid option in a DLC later on.

It was suggested multiple times from something like page 15 onwards

 

[HaruhiFollower]

Apologies if this has already been suggested here(didn't want to read through 22 pages), but if PI want to add a new resource, can I suggest food?

This has come back dozens of times already - anything close to proscribed topics is no go.

 

[DocDesastro]

This has come back dozens of times already - anything close to proscribed topics is no go.

I went through the forum rules again and did not find anything about it. It was about using forbidden political symbols and keeping the civilians out of the game. Which is fair. But: they are working currently on a mechanism which introduces a kind of cap for armored units, ships and planes. We are talking about fuel. When raising and building a tank army now you will additionally have to think about sustaining them over time. I like the manufacturing mechanisms to produce equipment very much at the moment.

But there still is a simple problem: Armies not relying on fuel - which are for free after founding them. You just need the equipment and you are fine. So...if you have enough military factories, then you can churn out infantry divisions. Manpower is the limit. If you, however, produce a tank division, you will need a kind of upkeep in form of fuel to have them operating. I do not think, this is balanced well.

All 'living' components of an army need 'rations' - which are not depicted in the game. Let us not call it food for political correctness sake, but some stuff, men and horses need and which represents a soft cap on how many units of a certain type you can have operating. This will in fact, heavily influence the style of play for certain countries.
How to produce 'rations'? Well...this depends on the degree of agriculture in a country. We can have civilian factories, military ones - why not 'farms dedicated to military supply' or whatever we will call them. Those will produce said 'rations', which are consumed by units with living components. You can build more of them, some provinces are more fertile than others so they yield more than others and a agricultural tech tree can improve things even more. The point is, 'rations' are accessible for all countries so everyone with enough manpower can field an infantry-based army. Limits are manpower and ration production. Losing territory can have a severe effect on maintaining your army now. I cannot see, how this might clash with rules on topics. There are and have been games that used 'food' as a strategic resource for unit maintenance. I think it is o.k. to emulate the fact that you must have a certain degree of industrialization to create an army and a certain degree of agriculture to maintain it.