Cheers for the DD Podcat
. As always, I (and most if not all of we, I'm sure) appreciate your openness and honesty. I also like the general direction of the supply system (in terms of managing what's sent to units to keep them operational) - the supply system in terms of transfer of resources and transparency to players (and I'm presuming that equipment doesn't move one province per day either, which will be a huge improvement.
However, removing fuel and supplies is a choice that I can only reasonably understand from Mursolini's suggestion that the aim was for something deeper, but time ran out so there was a need to shoehorn in something that would 'do the job'. It's a bit hard to know where to start with the whole equipment/fuel/supply = one item with the same cost thing, but the fundamental issue is that the ratio of the consumption of equipment/parts, fuel and ammunition/food/other consumables varies, and substantially, between different units in different situations in a way that makes a fundamental and sizeable impact on the management of war at the strategic level.
Accordingly, removing this distinction from the series removes depth from gameplay, and choices from players, and these are choices and depth that impact on the outcome of things like Operation Barbarossa, the War in the Pacific and the speed the Allies can breakthrough from France into Germany. When modelling/abstracting the second world war, it makes more sense to remove the distinction between medium/light/heavy tanks at different years, than it does to assume that the ratio of consumption of equipment/parts, fuel and supplies is a constant. Ie, a HoI where there was no tech progression, and there was just tanks/fighters/infantry/ships, would likely do a better job of WW2 than a game that sets a fixed ratio of equipment, fuel and supplies.
Of course, it's not my game, and PDS should make the game it wants to make (and I'm still looking forward to playing it
), but it is a shame to see such a disregard for the time period, and a reduction in depth in the base game.
I've got a bunch of questions, but only really two critical ones:
If we mod fuel and supplies separately into the game, and adjust the resource cost of each to better reflect historical usage ratios, will the AI be able to handle it?
and
Can we set an upper limit on the amount of fuel and supplies that can be stockpiled, and will the AI be able to understand it?
If the answer is yes to both, I'm all smiles. If no, then it will be somewhat saddening, but I'll cope.
Any big cities/victory points will increase it. So holding out in these is possible.
Next diary we will take a look at civil wars and coups!
Is this a different level for different cities/VPs, and not for all VPs? Say, for example, Guadalcanal is a VP, it would be seven shades of odd for that to be a source of supply? Depends a lot on where the VPs are, so hard to judge, but be careful with how these are set, as making VPs/cities too strong a sources of supply (and depending on where they are, making VPs give supply at all) could further reduce strategic depth.
I know I haven't provided many details for my concerns, but that's because this post is long enough already. I'll explain each issue in individual threads, to try and avoid things getting overly tangled.
And don't get me started on them dumbing down the game by removing the "Convert avgas to bunker fuel" spell.
They haven't actually removed this spell, but rather they've buffed it - now you can convert pretty much anything to anything, just at a fixed rate. This proposed system is a huge drop in realism, not the other way around. Now this is the devs' prerogative, but given the excellent work to increase strategic depth and player choice elsewhere, it's a shame to see it take a backward leap here.
