HOI4 Dev Diary - Fuel

[safe-keeper]

Oh the humanity. Hoi4 did an amazing job of having an ok supply system, which you didnt need to micromanage, or wonder about unless something went wrong (ie having your infastructure destroyed or trying to cross perilous terrain with too many troops). And now that old kraken is being awoken again with fuel... I really had hoped you finally would have left the age of "stockpile everything" behind.
Please tell me fuel will be a separate 9,99euro DLC so I can enjoy the awesome and much awaited Sea combat enhancement without having to wonder what else I soon need to stockpile. Like food, water, canteens, underpants, toothpicks and well, bullets i would think.

Modding infinite fuel will probably be the easiest thing in the world.

 

[Zwirbaum]

Modding infinite fuel will probably be the easiest thing in the world.

Yup, putting Oil back in production cost, and reducing fuel usage of all units to 0 seems like quite easy thing to do.

 

[Dalwin]

Modding infinite fuel will probably be the easiest thing in the world.

Yup, putting Oil back in production cost, and reducing fuel usage of all units to 0 seems like quite easy thing to do.

The bigger problem is that there are certain to be other changes to production etc. to balance out the change in oil/fuel. just taking out fuel and putting oil back in production will not get other things back to the way they were.

In fact, Podcat already mentioned one of these things. The base attack of tanks is going to be increased somewhat so that the current strength is somewhere in between what the new ones will be for fueled and unfueled states.

 

[Zwirbaum]

The bigger problem is that there are certain to be other changes to production etc. to balance out the change in oil/fuel. just taking out fuel and putting oil back in production will not get other things back to the way they were.

In fact, Podcat already mentioned one of these things. The base attack of tanks is going to be increased somewhat so that the current strength is somewhere in between what the new ones will be for fueled and unfueled states.

And that's also not a problem to revert to the old stats. I mean, if someone doesn't want to have fuel in-game, it will of course take a little bit of work, but should be doable, with a little bit of work here and there.

 

[Cardus]

Was Italian coal transports by ship along the coast to Vichy France or Spain really hampered alot during WW2? I think that route should have been very safe at least until 1943 considering the threat from land based air and smaller coastal warships / subs / mines that Italy could ( and did ) use to punish any allied ships venturing near Axis shores ( like Malta ) from 1940-42.

No. During WWII there was no coal transport by ship. Coal was imported from Germany through the Brenner pass. This constituted a bottleneck and made Italian production extremely limited and expensive.
How Italy did depend on sea-lanes and particularly on coal imports was pretty clear to the British that before Italian belligerence blockaded Italian imports from northern Europe. The fact that the country was locked by the British that at will could strangle it was one of the main reasons for the war.

 

[Cardus]

Coal (and coastal convoys) were both very important to Italy, and the RN was able to raid the Italian coastline (as well as subs/aircraft, they sent a relatively strong force to shell oil storage at Genoa in one raid early on, and bombarded the main port in Albania* at another). However, the net impact of RN raids on Italian coastal convoys was negligible, and from what I've read coastal convoys in northern Italy remained important and relatively effective until very close to the end of the war.

In terms of Italy's coal supply, pre-war the vast majority was shipped through the Straits of Gibraltar, and at the outbreak of war there were (iirc) difficulties, but longer-term Italy was able to replace its coal imports via sea with coal imports overland - note that the items from Spain mentioned below will be via coastal convoys in the Med:

• Italy used rail to get around the loss of coal imports by sea: "Italy, meanwhile, imported by rail 13.55 million tons of coal from the Reich, the greatest availability of energy in its history; more than 1.5 millions tons of iron, wood, and other items arrived from Spain nearly uncontested." (from "Struggle for the Middle Sea: The Great Navies at War in the Mediterranean Theater, 1940-1945" by Vincent P. O'Hara)

One thing to keep in mind though is that while the RN didn't effectively disrupt the coastal convoys historically, it was something that would have been tactically possible (the RN and RAF played merry havoc with German coastal convoys later in the war - air-dropped mines and air attack (again, iirc - a little ropey on this) being the key mechanisms, and both would have been possible in the Med as well, had the resources been available, but the RN's focus was instead on convoys to Africa).

Imo, the big thing here would be - what if Italy didn't have access to German (or British) coal? Everything's fine in historical mode, but there are plenty of alt-history scenarios that could play out in ahistorical mode where Italy's coal situation would be anything but assured.

* Can't remember the name off the top of my head - sorry Albania!

As far as I can remember that numbers are imprecise*. Italian PEACE needs (import) were 12 million a year. This is what barely Italy could import from Germany during WWII. That meant the industry could not expand the production.


* I did a research long time ago. If I will find the documents I will link/quote them here.


EDIT
Some data from 1943 to 1945
http://www.italia-resistenza.it/wp-content/uploads/ic/RAV0068570_1972_106-109_03.pdf

See https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblic...liano-1862-1950/commercio-estero-italiano.pdf page 236. You will see how price increased and total coal import matched the PEACE needs only in 1940. The lowest number was in 1942 with 10.7 million. That proves Vincent P. O'Hara doesn't know the matter.

PS
The shortage of electricity was so dire that there were blackouts.

 

[Axe99]

As far as I can remember that numbers are imprecise*. Italian PEACE needs (import) were 12 million a year. This is what barely Italy could import from Germany during WWII. That meant the industry could not expand the production.


* I did a research long time ago. If I will find the documents I will link/quote them here.


EDIT
Some data from 1943 to 1945
http://www.italia-resistenza.it/wp-content/uploads/ic/RAV0068570_1972_106-109_03.pdf

See https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblic...liano-1862-1950/commercio-estero-italiano.pdf page 236. You will see how price increased and total coal import matched the PEACE needs only in 1940. The lowest number was in 1942 with 10.7 million. That proves Vincent P. O'Hara doesn't know the matter.

PS
The shortage of electricity was so dire that there were blackouts.

Cheers Cardus . I'm afraid I've only got that source, so that was the best I knew - appreciate the deeper perspective (O'Hara does have his issues - his strategic assessment of the importance of the Mediterranean theatre is atrocious - he tends to get his facts straight but then misinterpet them (strategically - he writes very well operationally about naval warfare) after reading your posts it looks like he's done this with Italy's coal situation - sorry to post dodgy info and thanks for setting the record straight ).

 

[Cardus]

Cheers Cardus . I'm afraid I've only got that source, so that was the best I knew - appreciate the deeper perspective (O'Hara does have his issues - his strategic assessment of the importance of the Mediterranean theatre is atrocious - he tends to get his facts straight but then misinterpet them (strategically - he writes very well operationally about naval warfare) after reading your posts it looks like he's done this with Italy's coal situation - sorry to post dodgy info and thanks for setting the record straight ).

Hi Axe99, the problem is that often people like O'Hara have issues in reading the data therefore they mention anything that passes from the top of their head.
Regarding the British "piracy"/interdiction of Italian sea-lanes BEFORE the belligerence and as that was one of the main reasons for the war please see this
http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...2005/09/15/la-perfida-albione.html?refresh_ce

"The English naval blockade triggered the timer of the Italian war adventure, changing the sentiment of the public opinion against the British of a population still unwilling to take up arms"

 

[TheDungen]

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.

Technically warships at least could be run on coal. and there's no shortage of that in Germany and France. Perhaps there should be a decision to run them on coal in exchange for something like speed or reliability (really it's refueling time that is the main advantage of oil over coal).

I also hope control of navies is still indirect and not the static armies on water approach that your other games have when it comes to naval warfare.

 

[DocDesastro]

I guess one must take a closer look at resources because they depict to a certain extent the degree of industrialization of a country and in turn the ability to field a high-tech army or not. Therefore we might need the following 3 resources besides those used to produce stuff like steel or tungsten:

Food
Low-tech countries might be able to manufacture small arms and to a certain extent heavier equipment but will be limited to only elites having for instance artillery cannons. Food would limit the size of an army using mostly men and horses. Also - without wanting to touch civilian issues - but in reality a factory worker needs something to eat as well, as he does not work on the fields anymore. Since industrial revolution there was a bilateral connection between growing industry and innovations in agriculture to feed the same number of men with less farmers. All factories should demand this as a resource available to operate properly. The bigger your industry, the more and bigger fields you need. Neglecting this will cause reduced efficiency depicting the workers trying to grow their own food. Armies without food will suffer severe attrition penalties. Provinces could provide food for a certain troop number but no more so encircled units might live of the land but if too many units are encircled, then we have a problem. Throw in seasons for extra giggles. And now we understand, why it is a bad idea to have big armies running around the Russian tundra in winter and why it is wise to capture the Crimea...
Food should be exportable to give low-tech agricultural coutries a means to get better equipment and resources they need.

Coal
Once you industrialize, your factories need electrical power. Everything bigger than a manufactorium will need it. So you cannot grow your industries limitless. Build power plants which will do the upkeep for the industry and those will use coal to work. Best example I saw was a lets play with Italy. Player used the 'Oh, lets do some factories here and there. You can do it because it is YOUR country.' like in a Bob Ross TV show episode. We all know this works somewhat else.

Fuel
A motorized army will need fuel. Period. Does it have a motor? If yes, then build refineries and get the fuel flowing. Otherwise that kind of equipment is almost useless. No planes will fly. No lorry or tank will work. Ships...well...coal consumption is thinkable for surface ships - but I cannot imagine a submarine running on coal combustion (I guess the very first ones did, however).

Maybe make these resources dependent on the difficulty you play. If you are whining about not understanding vanilla, then turn off the mechanisms, advanced users might gladly have fun with. And remember: War is not only about the fighting men...but also about the industry behind it. Mismanaging industry will lose you a war. Managing your industry is all what the years 1936-1939 are about.

 

[philjd]

Technically warships at least could be run on coal. and there's no shortage of that in Germany and France. Perhaps there should be a decision to run them on coal in exchange for something like speed or reliability (really it's refueling time that is the main advantage of oil over coal).

I also hope control of navies is still indirect and not the static armies on water approach that your other games have when it comes to naval warfare.

There is a lot more to converting an oil fired ship to one running on coal.

Simple list-
1) Coal bunkers - coal will not fit into an oil bunker very well, getting coal physically into the ship requires putting holes into the armoured decks and shutes down to the bunkers. Getting the coal to the boilers may need an internal redesign.
2) Boilers - an oil fed boiler has different 'feeding' methods to shoveling coal into it.
3) You need to burn more coal to get the same power output as oil, so slower ships without changing the complete engineering set up.
etc.
4) Exhaust funnels - much greater volume of more visible fumes than oil fired which affects spotting plus also combat visibility.
etc

In short, you would need to rebuild the engineering spaces of the ships that you wanted to convert. Not an easy choice to make, have fuel but worse ships at a disadvantage, or better ships that need resource availability to function fully.

 

[TheDungen]

There is a lot more to converting an oil fired ship to one running on coal.

Simple list-
1) Coal bunkers - coal will not fit into an oil bunker very well, getting coal physically into the ship requires putting holes into the armoured decks and shutes down to the bunkers. Getting the coal to the boilers may need an internal redesign.
2) Boilers - an oil fed boiler has different 'feeding' methods to shoveling coal into it.
3) You need to burn more coal to get the same power output as oil, so slower ships without changing the complete engineering set up.
etc.
4) Exhaust funnels - much greater volume of more visible fumes than oil fired which affects spotting plus also combat visibility.
etc

In short, you would need to rebuild the engineering spaces of the ships that you wanted to convert. Not an easy choice to make, have fuel but worse ships at a disadvantage, or better ships that need resource availability to function fully.

Actually diesel engines are built to be able to run on coal dust.
And also a lot of ships in this era run on coal period, they haven't yet been retrofitted for using oil. And quite frankly why would they? Oil is in really short demand while coal is in ample supply. And ships and trains can run on coal while tanks and planes simply cannot. Look no one is denying oil was more convenient but when you're running out of oil you make do with what you have.
I know for a fact that several of Sweden's vessels even those built during the war were coal powered. Fairly certain of the the Arholma class minesweepers at least.

That said perhaps coal versus oil should be a design choice when creating a model.

 

[philjd]

Actually diesel engines are built to be able to run on coal dust.
And also a lot of ships in this era run on coal period, they haven't yet been retrofitted for using oil. And quite frankly why would they? Oil is in really short demand while coal is in ample supply. And ships and trains can run on coal while tanks and planes simply cannot.
I know for a fact that several of Sweden's vessels even those built during the war were coal powered. Fairly certain of the the Arholma class minesweepers at least.

That said perhaps coal versus oil should be a design choice when creating a model.

I am not saying that it is impossible, or that oil powered were the only ones getting built. But for major warships, not many with diesel engines, and there are lots of very good reasons for having oil fired ships. It all depends on expected availability of the oil. apologies to Sweden, but no blue water navy built coal fired warships of any significance in the run up to or during ww2.

 

[TheDungen]

I am not saying that it is impossible, or that oil powered were the only ones getting build. But for major warships, not many with diesel engines, and there are lots of very good reasons for having oil fired ships. It all depends on expected availability of the oil. apologies to Sweden, but no blue water navy built coal fired warships of any significance in the run up to or during ww2.

The nazis actually made heavy use of the diselengine though granted the larger ships used oil steamtubines. But if they had run out of oil or started running short on it you can bet they would have started to retrofit stuff. Which is what happened when oil became more expensive in the latter half of the 19th century, oil turbines were phased out and replaced by marine diesels. The otto engine so beloved by americans have never been in the running for serious marine propulsion. And it is also the engine which would be hardest to covert to running coal.

Edit: Actually right me if I am wrong but it seems that there is no significant difference between coal and oil steam turbines well except that coal is a much bulkier fuel to transport.

And I got to correct myself the dieselengine was not designed to run on coal dust it was designed to run on a vast number of different fuels, including solid fuels such as coal dust and even sawdust, but as far as I know the only diselengine ever run for a significant time on solid fuel was one in Pittsburgh which ran for 12 years using coaldust.
Not sure about coal slurry though seeing it's a liquid fuel. That said things like that may be what is represented by the synthetic oil plants.

 

[philjd]

The nazis actually made heavy use of the diselengine though granted the larger ships used oil steamtubines. But if they had run out of oil or started running short on it you can bet they would have started to retrofit stuff. Which is what happened when oil became more expensive in the latter half of the 19th century, oil turbines were phased out and replaced by marine diesels. The otto engine so beloved by americans have never been in the running for serious marine propulsion. And it is also the engine which would be hardest to covert to running coal.

Edit: Actually right me if I am wrong but it seems that there is no significant difference between coal and oil steam turbines well except that coal is a much bulkier fuel to transport.

And I got to correct myself the dieselengine was not designed to run on coal dust it was designed to run on a vast number of different fuels, including solid fuels such as coal dust and even sawdust, but as far as I know the only diselengine ever run for a significant time on solid fuel was one in Pittsburgh which ran for 12 years using coaldust.
Not sure about coal slurry though seeing it's a liquid fuel. That said things like that may be what is represented by the synthetic oil plants.

Yes, the Nazis used diesel and a mix of diesel/turbine, but for the additional range they could achieve with the much more economic diesels - not for any possibility of the unavailability of oil.
You can build a boiler that will run on anything that will burn, it is a case of what is actually practical and relevant to the vehicle being propelled.
Turbines - I am not an engineer, but as far as I know and I have read a lot about naval warships of the early 20th century, the method of generating the steam does not matter to the turbine itself. But it is the efficiency of the 'burn' in order to generate steam, fuel oil has provided the most efficient way to do that (barring nuclear I suspect). And, there is also the handling etc, with a full crew of 'stokers' needed in addition to the normal engine room staff.
The ramifications of using coal as primary fuel has far reaching design and performance issues.

 

[Axe99]

Edit: Actually right me if I am wrong but it seems that there is no significant difference between coal and oil steam turbines well except that coal is a much bulkier fuel to transport.

Just a quick drive-by post, but in terms of the difference between oil and coal, oil has substantial benefits. The RN transferred to a policy of 'all oil' for its major warships (DDs and up) well before it had secured wartime stocks of oil, because its ships would have been at a significant disadvantage had they remained on coal (despite having good stocks of some of the best coal in the world). These reasons, however, did not apply to all vessels - minesweepers, for example, are excellent examples of ships that can run fine on coal, as they're not expected to reach high speeds, don't need long endurance, and aren't designed to be directly in naval combat. Even anti-submarine vessels (as long as submarines are still slow underwater) aren't terrible on coal, although the more prominent exhaust fumes are a disadvantage. The advantages include:

• Oil doesn't require stokers, who get tired - so oil-burning ships can maintain top speed for as long as their engines or fuel stocks can manage, while coal burning ships rely on the endurance of their stokers.
• Oil tends to have greater calorific value for a given weight - so 1000 tons of oil is more fuel than 1000 tons of coal. I think (but can't recall for sure) this makes it easier to run ships at higher speeds as well, for a given sized boiler room arrangement.
• Resupplying of oil tends to be quicker and easier - and it's far, far easier to do replenishment at sea with a liquid fuel.
• Coal fumes are far more visible from a distance, and also more likely to interfere with the visibility of fire control positions.

In this context, it's unlikely that speed-dependent ships (ie, frontline warships) would likely be retrofitted to coal (thanks Sourlol ), as their slower speed would make them more vulnerable to submarine, surface and air attack. However, the Kriegsmarine (and the RN) did build and run coal-powered auxiliaries (anti-submarine escorts and minesweepers) because the above disadvantages are far less important for these vessels.

Hope that helps - I can look up things in more detail if that'd be useful, just going from the top of my head .

 

[Sourlol]

In this context, it's unlikely that speed-dependent ships (ie, frontline warships) would likely be retrofitted to oil, as their slower speed would make them more vulnerable to submarine, surface and air attack.

Do you mean retrofitted to coal?

 

[Sourlol]

On the whole coal argument, i think it is silly to consider such an abundant (yet required) resource for the game. We don't model horses, cigarettes, or staple food production, why bother modeling a resource that seems to have rarely been in shortage without substitutes?

However, in the context of modding id see an obvious place for coal: WWI. If yall are gonna get uppity for coal, get uppity in the war where it mattered. And it mattered a lot.

In short, I think we'd all be in a better place if we put this effort into "wanting coal" instead into "making convoy production non trivial"--as if merchant marine tonnage produced/lost was a stat that mattered, we might already be concerned about getting starved for resources as compared to looking for additional resources to add to somehow make this part of the game matter.

 

[Axe99]

Do you mean retrofitted to coal?

Aye, sorry - brain on the fritz, thanks for the pick-up .

 

[kaguravitro]

will be a dev diary this week?