Hearts of Iron IV - 33rd Development Diary - Supply

[NeFuRii]

I find resource management to be a fun part of the games I play, previous hearts of iron games included. I do not require over complicated systems, and in many cases abstractions work really great saving up on unnecessary micromanagement. However.... putting fuel in the same bag as other materials is an oversimplification at best, and game killer at worst.
Fuel consumption rate should not be tied 1:1 to spare parts usage/war casualties. Ammunition and other supplies is fine in the hoi4 model, as those are related to the unit they are used to supply. It can be imagined that producing 88mm shells or barrel replacements is similar to producing the tank/artillery piece that uses them. In many cases the components and resources required would be similar, as well as some generic factory output needed to produce shells/medicine/clothes for soldiers of those divisions. This is a logically acceptable solution, and to be honest, producing supplies in previous hois wasn't a very significant part of the game. It doesn't matter if the IC is used to produce a tank-replacement-supply or a generic supply like in hoi3, end effect is the same.
So I applaud, it's a great idea Paradox!

BUT, fuel? Fuel is so different. Panzer division suffering heavy damage to sudden bombardment shouldn't require paying the life time fuel supply again, while it should require only lost men/units being replaced and then a tiny bit of fuel used to fill them up. The bad thing is that essentially this system means that attrition loses, war loses and unit movement are the same thing, requiring the same materials for sustaining/replacing/refueling your army.

Also, fuel becomes just another generic resource for production. It looses its uniqueness.

Fuel being a separate resource, governed by its own modifiers sounds better to me.
I mean... if my unit just sits in a province, not fighting, not doing anything, it suffers some attrition there. If the same unit starts moving i guess it will suffer different (probably higher) attrition rate. If its fighting, it will lose it's strength etc. But in all cases, in hoi4, the fuel usage will always remain proportional to other materials used for repiairs.
In reality I would guess that a moving unit should probably have, let's say, 2x bigger attrition but 5x bigger fuel consumption than a stationary one.
If all resources are used only for production and work in the same way It means that the least common of them is the only important one for a given unit. If you compare how much unit costs to how much of specified material you produce daily, then the only important factor is the one material that is the least. You can then optimize the production so that you pick a different unit that uses some material that you have an abundance of, still, it comes down to a simple problem of how much you can build at present. If fuel was handled differently, there would be some room for planning if what you produce, by the time its produced, will be usable due to fuel restrictions. I find the second variant more appealing...

 

[Krafty]

Paratroopers cost more, no? Such a strategy would be disastrous if it failed, no?

Ask the dozens of AAR writers and youtubers who have done it. I stay away from such gamey tactics usually. Outside of Albania or Haiti World Conquests.

Point being. It doesnt fail.

Against a competent player? Its riskier, but not exactly engrossing risk vs reward gameplay. The other guy pauses, says some things to you in the chatbox your mother wouldnt appreciate, then logs off.

I was hoping to not see that repeated.

 

[Nicolas I]

So far from what we've seen, the HoI4 system takes this level of magic and adds ships that don't require any ongoing industrial or resource cost.

I wonder if you could have a kind of attrition of ships and work that into supply and repair mechanisms. Say ships lose org while at sea. You have a special production line "naval supply" that has priority like other production lines. If your ships in port aren't at full org, the naval supply production line temporarily steals naval yards from production lines that are below it in priority to provide org to your fleets. Once you research underway replenishment, your fleet at sea can access this naval supplies production line while in range of a base, further techs increase the supply range.

Repair could work similarly. You have a naval repair production line and it steals naval factories from lines below it in priority to restore hitpoints to damaged ships in your naval bases.

If repairing, resupplying and building all took roughly the same resource profile per naval yard then you wouldn't see resource fluctuations, but maintaining and repairing a large fleet would bite into your capacity to build new ships.

Why develop all these tedious workarounds simply to avoid using the word "fuel" ?

 

[Praetorian44]

Great DD! I've been looking forward to hearing about HOI4's supply system since the game was announced. I hated the way that supply worked in HOI3, so I'm glad that you guys have made some much needed changes. Keep up the good work!

 

[D3m0]

And a sweeping strategic retreat does not strain fuel supplies? If Germans move an inch forward, the French move an inch back, unless it's an encirclement, in which case the encirclement will capture French supply depots located close to the frontline.

That doesn't account for lopsided combat loses and denying the enemy supplies from capture was commonplace.

Germany was, in fact, trying to throw everything it had into large-scale offensives, to "even out the odds" and come to a negotiated peace.

Everything it could, which resulted in limited offensives like the Aredennes and Lake Balaton. In HoI4 there would be nothing to limit you in such a way.

 

[HUBW]

Amazing job Paradox can't wait!

 

[Nicolas I]

...If you don't have oil you will be unable to build many ships which will lose you the naval war which is the same result as if your ships would be out of fuel.

From a gameplay perspective, there's a big, fat, large, huge difference between having build a fleet (spending dockyard time and ressources) and having to limit the moves of that fleet for lack of fuel, and not being able to build a fleet at all.

You may swallow all of the new system, but no need to resort to senseless explanations like that to justify its few weaknesses.

 

[Alexander Seil]

That doesn't account for lopsided combat loses and denying the enemy supplies from capture was commonplace.

Lopsided losses = encirclements and disorganized retreats. Neither of these magically leave the defender's supply lines and depots unaffected.

"Denying enemy supplies from capture" means blowing up your own depots and equipment, with the end result that the defender still loses the supplies.

Everything it could, which resulted in limited offensives like the Aredennes and Lake Balaton. In HoI4 there would be nothing to limit you in such a way.

Nothing, except low organization, low equipment and low manpower?

 

[BeauNiddle]

The bad thing is that essentially this system means that attrition loses, war loses and unit movement are the same thing, requiring the same materials for sustaining/replacing/refueling your army.

But all of those things ARE the same thing.

If your tanks don't have enough fuel you siphon what fuel you can into a few tanks and fight with just those.
If you are out of ammo you move what you can to a few tanks and fight with just those.
If your tanks break down / lose their treads / strip their gears then you what parts you can to repair the others and fight with just those.
If you are bombed flat and most of your tanks are destroyed then you gather what is left and you fight with just those.

In each case and every case the result of mishaps is the unit has to fight with less than a full compliment of tanks.

Hence the new supply system works exactly as intended.

 

[Alexander Seil]

I have a feeling that some people can't quite come to grips with Paradox making a strategic game and not Steel Panthers with 2 million units.

The relevant question to ask isn't "how does this model simulate a hypothetical tank battalion at full complement with enough ammo to last a year being stopped in its tracks by lack of fuel," but "how does this model prevent China from getting steam-rolled every single goddamn game?" But no, let's just keep talking about cool panzers and worrying about the proper representation of effects of different barrel lengths on penetration.

 

[mursolini]

I have a feeling that some people can't quite come to grips with Paradox making a strategic game and not Steel Panthers with 2 million units.

I`m pretty sure most people grasp the idea that HOI4 is a division based game.

The relevant question to ask isn't "how does this model simulate a hypothetical tank battalion at full complement with enough ammo to last a year being stopped in its tracks by lack of fuel," but "how does this model prevent China from getting steam-rolled every single goddamn game?" But no, let's just keep talking about cool panzers and worrying about the proper representation of effects of different barrel lengths on penetration.

How does China not get steamrolled every time if Japan doesn`t care for fuel, as all it`s navy will just run on concentrated Emperor`s will, instead of American oil, that can be cut by embargo, leaving Japan unable to enforce blockade, and supply their troops in China.

Even funnier, Japan is under no pressure whatsoever to push into pacific, as it can purchase oil from Venesuella or Persia while at peace. And after ships are built, they don`t need to be refueled anyway.

 

[Hobus1]

But all of those things ARE the same thing.

If your tanks don't have enough fuel you siphon what fuel you can into a few tanks and fight with just those.
If you are out of ammo you move what you can to a few tanks and fight with just those.
If your tanks break down / lose their treads / strip their gears then you what parts you can to repair the others and fight with just those.
If you are bombed flat and most of your tanks are destroyed then you gather what is left and you fight with just those.

In each case and every case the result of mishaps is the unit has to fight with less than a full compliment of tanks.

Hence the new supply system works exactly as intended.

Yes we all know that Hitlers 50th Birthday Parade cost about the same number of losses as The Battle Of St. LO. Heck Just getting the men down the autobahn in the 30s cost the German Army about as many tank losses as they suffered in Market Garden. Good Points.

 

[Secret Master]

If thats true, thats not as bad, but still compounds the problem and oil being used in everything but inf and arty, means its more important to bomb than any other resource. If you can still build tanks that say, require 1 tung, 1 steel, 1 oil, with just steel, or just steel and tungsten just slowly, well ok, thats a tad better.

Well, it was an important resource to the Axis. Japan's air force was basically sitting around waiting to fly one-way trips against US ships in 1945. They had plenty of planes, but not enough fuel train pilots to do more than fly into ships. Or enough fuel to fly multiple sorties.

The Regia Marina spent half the war sitting around doing nothing due to fuel shortages.

Even Hitler acknowledged in 1942 that if the oil in the Caucuses couldn't be secured, Germany was screwed.

I don't see making oil a bottleneck a bad thing. And since the game has ersatz goods, it should be possible to balance.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Yes we all know that Hitlers 50th Birthday Parade cost about the same number of losses as The Battle Of St. LO. Heck Just getting the men down the autobahn in the 30s cost the German Army about as many tank losses as they suffered in Market Garden. Good Points.

They have already said that being in battle has a different attrition rate than just moving. So for example if sitting still is attrition rate x moving might be 3x and fighting could be 20x. (hopefully things like mud double the base attrition and strategic redeployment halve / quarter it)

So it does cover all of those different situations.

 

[Hobus1]

They have already said that being in battle has a different attrition rate than just moving. So for example if sitting still is attrition rate x moving might be 3x and fighting could be 20x. (hopefully things like mud double the base attrition and strategic redeployment halve / quarter it)

So it does cover all of those different situations.

The bad thing is that essentially this system means that attrition loses, war loses and unit movement are the same thing, requiring the same materials for sustaining/replacing/refueling your army.

So this mans quote that he quoted is essentially correct.

 

[BrotherSurplice]

After a couple of glasses of 16yo Lagavulin

Automatically makes this the best dev diary.

Seriously though, getting more stoked for HoI4 with every one of these. Keep it up Paradox!

 

[BeauNiddle]

I have a feeling that some people can't quite come to grips with Paradox making a strategic game and not Steel Panthers with 2 million units.

The relevant question to ask isn't "how does this model simulate a hypothetical tank battalion at full complement with enough ammo to last a year being stopped in its tracks by lack of fuel," but "how does this model prevent China from getting steam-rolled every single goddamn game?" But no, let's just keep talking about cool panzers and worrying about the proper representation of effects of different barrel lengths on penetration.

As Podcat mentioned supplies rates and amount of equipment are different things.

To prevent china being steamrolled they just need lots of thin supply areas with rubbish throughput. Any Japanese who push into the heart of China are at the end of a long tail of supplies that mean few units can fight effectively but the Chinese, being close to their capital, can afford to supply larger armies. Conversely if the Chinese push back to the coast they are at the end of long tail of supplies and the Japanese can afford easy replenishment.

If they have three or 4 bands of supply zones that only give 20% of surplus supplies to surrounding areas then it should have the effect you want.

 

[BeauNiddle]

So this mans quote that he quoted is essentially correct.

Sorry I don't understand. I agree those things have the same effect, I don't agree with his claim that's a bad thing.

 

[misterbean]

Let's construct a scenario. I am playing UK and Germany gave Dönitz his 250 subs by 1939. They manage to complete sever all links between Britain and the rest of the empire. What does this mean, given what we know now?

For one, UK no longer has infinite amounts of resources in London. This means that production in Britain can be affected by shortfalls. Do we know if land/naval/air production is limited to the homecountry alone, or could they start building spitfires in Alexandria and Cairo instead? If not, that means that Britain can indeed be starved. If they can't produce anything, or ship it out, the British troops overseas will slowly die from attrition, even without taking war with Italy into account. Seems logical, right?
Regardless of whether you actually build supplies and convert fuel, the ability to cut a nation off from the rest of the world's markets might be interesting.

What do the rest of you think? Where does my scenario lead?

 

[Alexander Seil]

I`m pretty sure most people grasp the idea that HOI4 is a division based game.

How does China not get steamrolled every time if Japan doesn`t care for fuel, as all it`s navy will just run on concentrated Emperor`s will, instead of American oil, that can be cut by embargo, leaving Japan unable to enforce blockade, and supply their troops in China.

Ah, yes, the oil embargo that retroactively prevented Japan from advancing for 3 years. The oil embargo came in July 1941...

Even funnier, Japan is under no pressure whatsoever to push into pacific, as it can purchase oil from Venesuella or Persia while at peace. And after ships are built, they don`t need to be refueled anyway.

For the fifth time, if oil is required to repair ships, what's the problem?