And capital ships will mostly be built before the war, before the embargo, when oil is easy to obtain, but will continue to operate unhindered throughout the war as if fuel were pissed out by a magical unicorn serving as the ship's mascot.
- 33
- 2
-
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.
- Status
More micromanagement yay. Without these micromanagements HOI is not HOI.
- 11
- 4
Don't think you will have to build carriers to support carriers. I think ships don't need any supplies after they are built however they may need to be repaired form time to time. Dockyards who build ships don't efficiency so they are bit more flexible then military factories. Ships built early will be obsolete if they survive into the late game so their usefulness is maybe limited by time, a Bismarck (1936) have probably no chance against a Moltke (1944) so father time will get them if they survive to long.
They need a crazy amount of fuel to be produced so you could expect that they stockpile fuel for the ship's lifetime while building the ship. Being unable to build modern ships will quickly destroy the navy's ability to be an effective combat force anyway.
- 2
- 2
A few clarifications. Does being out of supply have two negative effects: direct penalties to org, movement, and attack/defense ratings and also increased attrition, which in turn impacts fighting strength? Does attrition only destroy equipment, or does it lower org and/or manpower?
Is the supply bonus from the capital, or other major city, just a constant bonus? The supplies themselves don't have to move, do they? So if I've got a nice, high infrastructure route to my capital, I will constantly get the same supply bonus, even if I also have another army fighting on another front?
I assume neighboring supply zones only offer their supply if it is not being used by units locally. So if I fill each zone along the front to its supply capacity, there won't be any spare capacity to supply extra units in one zone. Do zones only share with their direct neighbors, or can a zone pull from one neighbor and then offer those supplies to another, on the other side?
Finally, can convoys increase the supply available to zones already connected by land? For example, if Turkey were in the Axis, could Germany send supplies across the Black Sea to support the invasion of the USSR? Would it increase the supply of that zone only, or will it also increase the supply of neighboring zones? Will controlling multiple ports increase the supply available to an overseas invasion force?
Is the supply bonus from the capital, or other major city, just a constant bonus? The supplies themselves don't have to move, do they? So if I've got a nice, high infrastructure route to my capital, I will constantly get the same supply bonus, even if I also have another army fighting on another front?
I assume neighboring supply zones only offer their supply if it is not being used by units locally. So if I fill each zone along the front to its supply capacity, there won't be any spare capacity to supply extra units in one zone. Do zones only share with their direct neighbors, or can a zone pull from one neighbor and then offer those supplies to another, on the other side?
Finally, can convoys increase the supply available to zones already connected by land? For example, if Turkey were in the Axis, could Germany send supplies across the Black Sea to support the invasion of the USSR? Would it increase the supply of that zone only, or will it also increase the supply of neighboring zones? Will controlling multiple ports increase the supply available to an overseas invasion force?
- 2
Is there a way to prioritise certain units over other units, if there is shortage of equipment in the pool but I want units in certain area to get more than units in some other area (both with the same level of supply reaching them)? So I could strip two army groups of replacements, to have the main one remain strong (like Army Group Center in late 1941)?
How can I stockpile resources in units for a big push if there is no stockpiling? Like German tanks in Barbarossa, where they had some trailers attached to tanks to carry more fuel with them.
How can I stockpile resources in units for a big push if there is no stockpiling? Like German tanks in Barbarossa, where they had some trailers attached to tanks to carry more fuel with them.
- 2
Most of the changes are awesome and appreciated, but I can't get over the lack of fuel and ammo? in supply lines. It makes no sense and even will cause problems especially in the Pacific, where historically cutting off Japan's oil supply lines and starving its navy was the major factor in US victory. Fuel (and ammo?) missing from supply really defeats the purpose of having any sypply system at all.
- 18
- 2
Equipment contains fuel and ammo
They not only represent what is on the picture but all the stuff needed to support it.
They not only represent what is on the picture but all the stuff needed to support it.
- 8
- 7
- 1
We, well I, need a video. Seriously, it's not 'want' or 'wish', it's 'need'.
- 3
This all feels like a huge letdown.
Now, sounds shocking, but let it sink in for a bit.
Munition was the number 1 largest requirement of a fighting army. Shells took far more steel than all other vehicles combined (except navy).
The reason why USA managed to be so far ahead in producing things, despite being in many cases on more - or less equal footing resources wise, was that USA didn`t spent 1941-1944 fighting massive land battles. US production of military equipment actually fell in 1944, as more resources had to be allocated to munition.
The price of a gun usually was only a fraction of cost of munition that would be used by it. The game simply ignores the drastic difference that having "equipment" and actually being able to support it all operational at once.
Also, "reserving" fuel for ships is ludicrous. Some ships served thrugh the war, others were sunk in moths. Some spent most of the war in docs, others sailing. But you pay all the same?
Now, sounds shocking, but let it sink in for a bit.
Munition was the number 1 largest requirement of a fighting army. Shells took far more steel than all other vehicles combined (except navy).
The reason why USA managed to be so far ahead in producing things, despite being in many cases on more - or less equal footing resources wise, was that USA didn`t spent 1941-1944 fighting massive land battles. US production of military equipment actually fell in 1944, as more resources had to be allocated to munition.
The price of a gun usually was only a fraction of cost of munition that would be used by it. The game simply ignores the drastic difference that having "equipment" and actually being able to support it all operational at once.
Also, "reserving" fuel for ships is ludicrous. Some ships served thrugh the war, others were sunk in moths. Some spent most of the war in docs, others sailing. But you pay all the same?
Most of large ships were already built in 1936(USA is exception).
- 27
- 9
- 1
I do not like the part with fuel and ammo. So, if I create a tank, and enemy has militia forces that can't hurt that tank - I can drive from Berlin to Moscow without any need to refuel the tank. I have to create a new tank, that would be transported through the supply network to the front line, and all of a sudden, my previous tank can continue its advance.
Why couldn't you just make supplies and fuel stockpile (just another two things to build) that the units would use?
In the end, my tank would stop in the middle of the Russia, because I did not build more tanks - yeah, that makes sense... NOT.
And what about the ships?! What equipment should I build and transport over the supply network for my carriers to work? Another carrier?
I support the removal of resource stockpiles and a new flow mechanics. But for God's sake, do not remove supply (food, ammo, medicine - that is not "infantry equipment" that you build in military factories... well, maybe ammo) and fuel. Just make it another "equipment" that could be stockpiled and that all units require to operate.
It makes absolutely no sense to make new tanks (or other equipment) in order to supply existing ones. It makes sense to make new ones to replace the ones destroyed - not the ones out of supply. Don't be lazy!
I bet it takes a few days to make two new "equipment" style things buildable and usable by all units through the existing supply network. For fuel, you need strategic resource oil. And you end up stockpiling fuel in the end. Same goes with the supply.
Why couldn't you just make supplies and fuel stockpile (just another two things to build) that the units would use?
In the end, my tank would stop in the middle of the Russia, because I did not build more tanks - yeah, that makes sense... NOT.
And what about the ships?! What equipment should I build and transport over the supply network for my carriers to work? Another carrier?
I support the removal of resource stockpiles and a new flow mechanics. But for God's sake, do not remove supply (food, ammo, medicine - that is not "infantry equipment" that you build in military factories... well, maybe ammo) and fuel. Just make it another "equipment" that could be stockpiled and that all units require to operate.
It makes absolutely no sense to make new tanks (or other equipment) in order to supply existing ones. It makes sense to make new ones to replace the ones destroyed - not the ones out of supply. Don't be lazy!
I bet it takes a few days to make two new "equipment" style things buildable and usable by all units through the existing supply network. For fuel, you need strategic resource oil. And you end up stockpiling fuel in the end. Same goes with the supply.
- 20
- 12
Which are included in the equipment, you don't just produce the rifle but also ammuntion for it.
Attrition will eventually destroy the tank.
That will not happen.
You don't need to build ships to supply ships. But ships will eventually be obsolete and you will be forced to build new ships, your 1936 ships will be total outclassed by the enemy's 1944 ships.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 7
- 7
Dat desert *drools*
Can we have an 'Indiana Jones finds the Ark of the Covenant" event?
Can we have an 'Indiana Jones finds the Ark of the Covenant" event?
- 6
Well, I still basically think not having fuel as an expendable resource in-game is weird. Not having supplies of any kind is also a bit strange but OK, requests for equipment does make some sense. I'll just have to play the game to see how it works out.
Good news is the supply micro from HOI3 is gone, and frankly, good riddance to it.
Good news is the supply micro from HOI3 is gone, and frankly, good riddance to it.
- 7
Yes, and when it is destroyed, I will replace it with a new tank. I would not supply my tanks with another tank in order for it to be in supply. It sure as hell ain't gonna be destroyed by attrition for 200km so that I need a fresh tank to replace it after every move. But it won't go over those 200km without fuel.
It is like, we have a tank division that is standing still. In order for it to work, let us build another tank with a full fuel tank, then ship it to the front, remove the fuel from the tank so supply our tank in the firs place... or just leave our out of supply tank in the field and use the new one.
- 12
- 11
It will take a bit of getting used to, and I am struggling with the oil side of it a bit, but that just might be my brain struggling to imagine what it will be like in game.
I have no problem with equipment including ammo and the like, because we are not dealing with the equipment of single soldier, but of a whole division, so I can accept that resupplying equipment can involve the ammo and at a stretch fuel.
If the game creates a balanced and fun supply system, even if they have to bend the rules a bit, then I won't mind as long as it doesn't feel stupid when playing the game.
I am keeping an open mind on this one, but to be fair it looks a damn sight better than the supply in HOI3.
I have no problem with equipment including ammo and the like, because we are not dealing with the equipment of single soldier, but of a whole division, so I can accept that resupplying equipment can involve the ammo and at a stretch fuel.
If the game creates a balanced and fun supply system, even if they have to bend the rules a bit, then I won't mind as long as it doesn't feel stupid when playing the game.
I am keeping an open mind on this one, but to be fair it looks a damn sight better than the supply in HOI3.
- 4
- 1
What stops stockpiling of tanks acting in much the same way as stockpiling of fuel? Aside from them being possibly a little out of date?
- 5
NICE finally a system that will allow me to conquer the world
Question tho,
what about Invasions, EG: D-day the amount of forces that landed needed tonnes of supplies, but they had no harbor and had to make shift the beaches to take the ships to move supplies, in fact it took them months to fight for a decent port to move supplies for their forces.
So will we be able to make a make shift harbor when we invade an island or country via sea on the coast and if there is is it quick to build? cause the problem i had in HOI3 was it took months to establish a proper harbor and it was hard to take ones the enemy had when they fortified the hell out of them.
Question tho,
what about Invasions, EG: D-day the amount of forces that landed needed tonnes of supplies, but they had no harbor and had to make shift the beaches to take the ships to move supplies, in fact it took them months to fight for a decent port to move supplies for their forces.
So will we be able to make a make shift harbor when we invade an island or country via sea on the coast and if there is is it quick to build? cause the problem i had in HOI3 was it took months to establish a proper harbor and it was hard to take ones the enemy had when they fortified the hell out of them.
- 1
The "Tank" equipment as I said before also contains fuel, tanks need alot of oil to be produced so if you don't have access to oil you won't be producing many tanks which mean you will not have a replacement for the lost tank. The effect will be the same in the long term as if the game had fuel as a needed resource.
They will get obsolete and they also need factories to be produced while fuel in HOI3 was produced basically for free.
It will take more tought to build an effective army, you can't just switch from producing tanks and still think your tank force will do well.
- 7
- 3
About what? The developer multiplayer sessions? They have talked a lot about them, and i think one dev diary explained a bit about them. But might still be interesting.
Will attrition be higher for moving units than stationary ones?
How a stationary unit on a desert would compare to a moving unit on European road? My instinct tells me in reality the one moving should consume more fuel than the one standing and warming up engines only from time to time. Yet with the new fuel system, that may not be the case?
Also, as other's have asked - how it will work for fueling ships?
How a stationary unit on a desert would compare to a moving unit on European road? My instinct tells me in reality the one moving should consume more fuel than the one standing and warming up engines only from time to time. Yet with the new fuel system, that may not be the case?
Also, as other's have asked - how it will work for fueling ships?
- 2
- 1
- Status