Hearts of Iron IV - 33rd Development Diary - Supply

[JamesJameson]

I think that the word choices used in the DD is confusing some people to think that supply and equipment are one in the same.
Also, there is no tanks that run forever, the tank will take attrition from moving and that means that if you move deep into the Soviet land from Germany, the tanks will take attrition from just moving, not to mention the terrain and weather. Most importantly though, how many times in HOI4 do you expect to travel far distances without running into enemy? The main thing is that as you fight and take attrition from movement, weather, terrain and/or poor supply. That attrition and fighting will cause you to need new equipment either way! That new equipment cost oil to build, and if you have no oil then you can't replace your units that you lose from attrition and fighting. If you think you can go over bad terrain and have the same amount of tanks as you entered with, then it would be totally unrealistic. Breakdowns, accidents, and misuse of equipment is realistic. So if you plan to move your tanks around, you have to plan to replace the ones that you lose. The main issue is production of equipment, equipment breaking down because it's being used. This simulates your fuel usage, as; the farther you go, the more fuel you would need. It's all tied into the same concept, if you are running the tank division around the map, you will need to have more oil to replace the ones you lost. If you have no oil, then slowly your tank division will start to break down and you wont be able to refuel them, so you will have to leave them behind, blow them up so the enemy can't get them. Why have "fuel" be it's own supply then if really it all happens in the same thing. If you run out of fuel to supply the tank division with, and then the tank division got attacked, they would have to destroy all there tanks while retreating to prevent the enemy from taking them and using them against you. So if out of fuel = destroyed tanks, then why not just include it in the production of tanks, because tanks require oil, and tanks without oil don't work.

As far as building giant navies at the start because they you do not have to upkeep them, that is not true, I don't think. As far as I understand ships still need supply! and if you go over that supply limit then you will need to build more ships due to attrition. The thing that makes me unsure about this is that the first picture in the DD shows what I think is a 64 ship fleet. It's stationed in Japan and the supply region it's stationed in still requires only has 1 supply, which is being used by the single infantry unit in the region. Not sure if it's shown some where else or if that represent the number of ships in the area (Though they will still need supply from somewhere), anybody know?

 

[Hobus1]

After reading this entire thread and seeing the good and the ugly, I cant seem to understand how Paradox skipped or missed the main issues of HOI3 in the supply system they are using now in HOI4. I feel that this is just arcade supply dumbed up or down, however you take it, to pacify the fact they had no real insight on how to code a system to accomplish supply at all. I would love to have seen a fuel and a supply system independent of each other and that supply depots could be used to store supplies at intervals through out the war which I think actually did happen, but there has to be an easier method to simulate this fuel and supply issue and Paradox completely threw up the hands and said not touching it, lets arcade it and call it a day.

Sad that business caters to the masses of glitz and make it simple stupid for all, so they will buy the game and we can roll in the money. Very sad about this diary, this has to be a major drawback for me as well as other areas that Paradox choose to glamour up instead of make it more realistic for us long time players or should I say the old farts like myself. Well Paradox you had me going to the store to buy once more but I don't want to play an EU/CK game in HOI4, I want the challenge without the fluff, I wanted new ideas to fix the flaws of past mistakes and I have not seen it here with supply system from what has been said and discussed. Sigh.

Totally Agree with this. It is as if CIV5s oil units mated with EUIVs supply system to get HOI4s supply system.
A bit of a sad day for me, but I'm sure the more casual wargamers will love this, which is most likely why they did it.

 

[Axe99]

I think that the word choices used in the DD is confusing some people to think that supply and equipment are one in the same.
Also, there is no tanks that run forever, the tank will take attrition from moving and that means that if you move deep into the Soviet land from Germany, the tanks will take attrition from just moving, not to mention the terrain and weather. Most importantly though, how many times in HOI4 do you expect to travel far distances without running into enemy? The main thing is that as you fight and take attrition from movement, weather, terrain and/or poor supply. That attrition and fighting will cause you to need new equipment either way! That new equipment cost oil to build, and if you have no oil then you can't replace your units that you lose from attrition and fighting. If you think you can go over bad terrain and have the same amount of tanks as you entered with, then it would be totally unrealistic. Breakdowns, accidents, and misuse of equipment is realistic. So if you plan to move your tanks around, you have to plan to replace the ones that you lose. The main issue is production of equipment, equipment breaking down because it's being used. This simulates your fuel usage, as; the farther you go, the more fuel you would need. It's all tied into the same concept, if you are running the tank division around the map, you will need to have more oil to replace the ones you lost. If you have no oil, then slowly your tank division will start to break down and you wont be able to refuel them, so you will have to leave them behind, blow them up so the enemy can't get them. Why have "fuel" be it's own supply then if really it all happens in the same thing. If you run out of fuel to supply the tank division with, and then the tank division got attacked, they would have to destroy all there tanks while retreating to prevent the enemy from taking them and using them against you. So if out of fuel = destroyed tanks, then why not just include it in the production of tanks, because tanks require oil, and tanks without oil don't work.

The thing is, the ratio of material and factory days used to build a new tank with a 'standard lifetime of fuel and ammo' isn't standard, and will vary (wildly) by the various uses of the tank. If, for example, the ratio set is for Germany in Barbarossa, then the USSR (which had huge levels of tank attrition compared with the other majors) will have some pretty expensive reinforcing to do, which will require more oil (because its tanks were built with the amount of fuel a German tank in Barbarossa used, on average) than it should have, so the USSR suddenly needs more oil to achieve its historic tank production and reinforcement rate than the Germans. If, on the other hand, you set it for the Russians in Barbarossa, the Russians are fine but now Germany needs nowhere near as much oil as it should for one standard tank 'life', and will have an easier time building up a large armoured force.

This is why I say it would make more sense to remove the distinctions between tanks and just have tanks/planes/ships/infantry, and fuel and supplies, than Medium tank 1941, variant 2, which is all well and good for flavour at the operational level, but with a supply system at a strategic level that's really, really rough in terms of approximating what went on.

As per my other posts, I'm sure HoI4'll still be fun, and we should all respect the right of the devs to design the game they want to make, but we should recognise that the abstraction that all 'tank lives' involved the same amount of fuel and ammo, or that it evens out in the end, isn't an abstraction that reflects reality, but rather one that distorts it.

 

[JamesJameson]

They will require different amount of supply, depending on what they are, how they get upgraded, and what units are attached. Also are you saying there is a problem because Germany and USSR used different amount of fuel, for different tanks? I don't see how this ties into anything, please explain.
So you want to remove the variants of equipment, please explain how this will make the game more complex?
I think your trying to say that fuel use should be modeled exactly as it was in real life for each tank? but then saying you don't think they should have different types of tanks would be a way to eliminate that? Why is it that it has to be set to the amount of fuel that they used in real life? You must also remember that game in general are abstract, tanks in real life don't have stats. When you stat messing with more supply for a tank in games, you have to give that tank boosts to represent the extra currency being spent in game. Nobody will build tanks that cost more but perform worst.
So your saying if they need more fuel in real life, then in this current supply system you will need to produce a lot more equipment and for someone it would be off? I don't think that is how it will work. Again, in games we use stats to give a permanent attack rating. In real life things are much much less clean cut. Trying to involved real world fuel usage will make balancing the game almost impossible. Because when something starts to use more of something, there has to be a benefit or else the player will completely ignore it.
Also what is this standard lifetime of fuel and ammo you speak of? They still need supply...consider it fuel and ammo if you want. It's Oil cost that your talking about, and Oil is a resource, and will be "used" up as you use the division that was made by it. Because as you use the division, it will suffer attrition and casualties, which in turn makes you use more Oil.

I must say, I think someone needs to give you a copy of the game to that you can see for yourself a little better.

 

[Jonas]

I don't think the weight of the equipment being shipped imposes any load on the supply system. As I understand it, divisions have something like a daily supply requirement as a stat. The sum of all these daily requirements (which go up when fighting) is what will overload your infrastructure and ports. Then you compare supply demand to supply availability to see what fraction of your normal equipment delivery rate you get each day.

So it's totally possible to load up artillery with a very high supply consumption stat, so divisions with lots of artillery will be harder to support in low-infra regions.

Alright. I suppose the actual moving of the units will require some other form of infrastructure then. I just do not like the effects the severe simplification of doing away with supplies and fuel will have quite apart from moving things around. If You have the resources actually needed to build a tank and you are confident you will conquer oil later, You cannot build the tanks in advance and fuel them up later. If You have the resources actually needed to build a tank and You expect Romania to join You later, You cannot build Your tanks until Romania joins You. If You have all sorts of resources and a lot of tanks and You lose Your ore mines You will not be able to fuel the tanks You have. If You are the Netherlands with a lot of oil and a friendly neighbour gives You a lot of tanks You will not be able to fuel those tanks. I can make countless examples of the wierd effects. I hope there will be fuel and supplies i HoI 5.

 

[JamesJameson]

Alright. I suppose the actual moving of the units will require some other form of infrastructure then. I just do not like the effects the severe simplification of doing away with supplies and fuel will have quite apart from moving things around. If You have the resources actually needed to build a tank and you are confident you will conquer oil later, You cannot build the tanks in advance and fuel them up later. If You have the resources actually needed to build a tank and You expect Romania to join You later, You cannot build Your tanks until Romania joins You. If You have all sorts of resources and a lot of tanks and You lose Your ore mines You will not be able to fuel the tanks You have. If You are the Netherlands with a lot of oil and a friendly neighbour gives You a lot of tanks You will not be able to fuel those tanks. I can make countless examples of the wierd effects. I hope there will be fuel and supplies i HoI 5.

You can fuel these tanks you speak of, it's replacing them you can't do. Except for the times you say the country does have oil, in which case they can replace them.

 

[Jonas]

Also what is this standard lifetime of fuel and ammo you speak of? They still need supply...consider it fuel and ammo if you want. It's Oil cost that your talking about, and Oil is a resource, and will be "used" up as you use the division that was made by it. Because as you use the division, it will suffer attrition and casualties, which in turn makes you use more Oil.

But moving troops around unopposed will cost a much higher degree of fuel rather than casualties while a fixed, intense battle will cost a lot more casualties than fuel. The system used will make no distinction between the two states other than that one will cost more of everything, or as You say, one will use up the division by moving it. I sure hope equipment loss is not tied to manpower loss; otherwise the unrealistic effects will spill over on manpower too. If I have X % of breakdowns and use Y litres of fuel driving a tank from Dresden to Bremen, I will also lose Z number of tank crews.

 

[Jonas]

You can fuel these tanks you speak of, it's replacing them you can't do. Except for the times you say the country does have oil, in which case they can replace them.

How can I fuel the tanks? I need to build the "tank resource" to fuel them and the "tank resource" will require metal.

 

[Magnus Imperator Rex]

Weird supply system is weird.

How do you give supplies & fuel to a panzer unit?

By sending more panzers.

Seems legit.

 

[Midden]

Look on the bright side, at least there are Transport Planes.

 

[JamesJameson]

How can I fuel the tanks? I need to build the "tank resource" to fuel them and the "tank resource" will require metal.

No, you just need to build tanks to replace the ones you lose.

Weird supply system is weird.

How do you give supplies & fuel to a panzer unit?

By sending more panzers.

Seems legit.

Your still confused about equipment and supply being the same thing. They are not. You don't send replacement equipment as supplies, you send supplies as supplies. You send more Panzer II when you lose some Panzer II and want to replace them.

 

[Jonas]

No, you just need to build tanks to replace the ones you lose.



Your still confused about equipment and supply being the same thing. They are not. You don't send replacement equipment as supplies, you send supplies as supplies. You send more Panzer II when you lose some Panzer II and want to replace them.

Interesting how those statements go against every other post I have read in this thread, including the DD and Podcat's comments to the responses. I guess time will tell.

 

[Magnus Imperator Rex]

No, you just need to build tanks to replace the ones you lose.



Your still confused about equipment and supply being the same thing. They are not. You don't send replacement equipment as supplies, you send supplies as supplies. You send more Panzer II when you lose some Panzer II and want to replace them.

Read the DD again, please. Cheers

 

[Shiftey]

Perhaps in the same way you'll be making all kinds of equipment that is supplied to the units. You could use your industrial capacity to also manufacture ammunition and perhaps even fuel (although that should be done by refineries, but we cant have everything) and have them supplied to units in the same way as the other equipment. The player would just need to queue some factories to produce those things. You could just increase the default industrial capacity slightly to compensate for this change.

 

[MGL 86]

I actually like new supply. Call me whatever you want. As long as we are sending something to frontline to help units there, that is supply

 

[The Albatross]

Oil should definitely be a part of supply - I honestly don't like the "so you don't have to stick them in port" part, because it sounds as "losing is unfun". Sorry, but I want to be punished if I fail to refuel my ships. And while a tank can be abstracted as "the #XX tank of this company", a capital ship will be more important and probably at sea for most of the game. And I don't want to have a fuel-strapped Japan that still sorties out Yamato, Musashi, and the whole Kido Butai as if nothing.

WeissRaben makes a good case:
Consider these historical situations --- for Naval Warfare only:

Sea-warfare 1: U-boats only had enough fuel-oil for a 2-3 week cycle for offensive OPS. To rectify this, GER utliised covert surface ships - Raiders + Supply ships to refuel, re-arm and re-provision U-boats close to their Area of Operations [AOs].
"Etappendienst was the key for commerce war, for regular naval units, for auxiliary cruisers, for the blockade runners that brought strategic goods to Germany from Japan and other countries, and for the replenishment of fuel, drinking water, food, spares and torpedoes for U-Boats at sea."

GER also developed the Milch Cow SUB units. These were less likely to be interdicted.
Relevance: Without these supply tools -> GER surface raiders & U-boats had their ranges, capabilities and duration at the 'front-lines' curtailed.
Significance: The proposed supply system does not factor these historical features.

Sea-warfare 2: The IJN strike against Pearl Harbour in 1941 clearly demonstrates the LOG reality about how vital OIL is in warfare.
The IJN did not target US drydocks, maintenance or LOG facilities.
This oversight by the IJN in leaving the US fuel farm intact is recorded thus;
"Pearl Harbor was the only refueling, replacement, and repair point for ships operating in the Hawaiian area.[33]
Part of Pearl Harbor ís duty of being the Pacific Fleet's chandlery was thestocking and disbursing of oil.
To that end, the US Navy had just finished restocking its oil tanks in Pearl Harbor to its total capacity of 4.5 million barrels of oil. [34]
The loss of this amount of oil would have driven the Pacific Fleet back to the West Coast [35] and effectively knocked almost all of the Pacific Fleet ships out of contention, instead of the nineteen sunk and/or damaged in the attacks."
Relevance: The Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbour that day numbered 86 ships.
Significance: Destruction of the fuel farm would have had a catastrophic effect on US and Allied offensive OPS against JPN incursions into the South & Central Pacific AO.
The proposed Supply system does not reflect these historical realities.

Sea-warfare 3: Allied dependence upon Petroleum Oil & Lubricants [POL] were directly targeted by U-boats.
In this reference, a tactical victory by U-boats in the Carribean had a massive effect on geo-political situation in the UK;
"Further south in the Caribbean, the tankers that carried oil from Venezuela to the Dutch refineries on Aruba and Curacao were also priority targets. Unfortunately for the allies, these tankers were specially designed, shallow draft tankers that allowed them to pass through the shallow Gulf of Venezuela. Normal tankers could not be substituted here; their loss was replaceable only by new construction.19 At one point, the sinking of four of these tankers so severely shocked the remaining crews, that they mutinied and refused to go to sea without proper escorts. This virtually stopped England's major supply of oil."

This comment by Sohbet Karbuz clarifies the differences between GER and JPN LOG strategies in WW II.
"From December 1941 to October 1942, Japanese submarines attacked just 19 merchant ships between Hawaii and the west coast; 15 of these were in December 1941. The result? Not even need to be mentioned. Overconfidence, poor tactics, and a mentality that stressed commerce and logistical targets were not worthy of destruction for Japanese."

"German submarines, on the contrary, sank 391 ships in the western Atlantic, 141 of which were tankers. One quarter of the US tanker fleet was sunk in 1942. But neither the German nor the Japanese Navy considered mutual cooperation in war planning a matter of much importance when Germany and Japan entered into their alliance with each other.
Whereas, the fuel supplies at Pearl Harbor were crucial for the US Navy to bring the war to the Japanese Navy. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz summed up the situation best, “Had the Japanese destroyed the oil, it would have prolonged the war another two years.”

Relevance: Fleet Oilers play a critical role in sea-warfare capability.
Significance: The proposed Supply system does not reflect these historical realities.

Possible solution: Rather than dismantle all of the great work of PDX DEVS -- perhaps scripted EVENTS can provide a 'strategic reality dimension' to these issues.

What do you think???

 

[joeenochs]

If one does large operations with his tanks, where one covers hundreds or thousands of kilometers, then it should could a lot of oil, so one has to think twice. One may only think about the Battle Buldge with respect to the strategic importance of oil. This seems to be not covered in the system anymore. This decision is not explainable for me. Maybe it was not such a good idea to remove stockpiles after all.

 

[Axe99]

They will require different amount of supply, depending on what they are, how they get upgraded, and what units are attached. Also are you saying there is a problem because Germany and USSR used different amount of fuel, for different tanks? I don't see how this ties into anything, please explain.

The thing is, the USSR used less fuel than it did steel and other materials for tanks, because it lost more tanks per kilometre driven, so the appropriate 'cost' of tank in the USSR in factory days of steel, chromium and oil would be different than it would be in Germany. The game can either have a cost that suits fits the German pattern of usage, that means the USSR uses more oil than it had to historically, or you have a Soviet pattern of usage that means the Germans need less oil than they did historically. Either way, it creates balance issues for one nation or the other. Or you can track fuel separately and it's all easy, not to mention a good deal more intuitive.

So you want to remove the variants of equipment, please explain how this will make the game more complex?

That's not what I said. What I was getting at, is that for a grand strategy game of the second world war (or any mid-20th century conflict that uses more than infantry), the management of fuel supply was far more important (at the strategic level) than the balance between tank types or variants. We've got incredible operation detail for a grand strategy game, but at the strategic level, the supply system is oversimplified to the point of significant distortion.

Why is it that it has to be set to the amount of fuel that they used in real life?

I'm just using the real life examples because it's easier to do than making ones up. At the end of the day, forcing a ratio of equipment:supplies:fuel into the production process, rather than letting them be independent of each other, reduces player choice, reduces strategic options and creates balancing issues, as different ratios of equipment:supplies:fuel will give more or less benefit to different nations (because of different strategic situations). So it removes player choice, removes strategic depth and creates balancing difficulties. It also distorts the operational warfare. Those are my four key issues with abstracting fuel into production.

I must say, I think someone needs to give you a copy of the game to that you can see for yourself a little better.

Haha, I wouldn't complain if this was the case . I mean, it's all good - it's PDS' game and all, and it'll be playable (I enjoy strategy games all the way back to chess and draughts, so I can handle abstraction ), but fomr a series that's always aimed (if not achieved) at something that does a reasonable job of abstracting the mechanics of the time, the system leaving fuel out (and supplies, but if they rolled fuel into a supply widget that was built that'd go some way to managing it) seems to be moving away from that. I do like their way of tracing supply - I actually think that's a step forward - it's just how they measure the actual provision of it that's got me scratching my head. You don't even need to bring stockpiles back to deal with it either, although I think a system that was mainly flow with a small stockpile (in effect, what they're doing with factory production) would work best.

Look on the bright side, at least there are Transport Planes.

Hahaha Aye, and you only need to fill their gas tank up once to boot .

 

[Victor Cortez]

Sea-warfare 1: U-boats only had enough fuel-oil for a 2-3 week cycle for offensive OPS. To rectify this, GER utliised covert surface ships - Raiders + Supply ships to refuel, re-arm and re-provision U-boats close to their Area of Operations [AOs].
"Etappendienst was the key for commerce war, for regular naval units, for auxiliary cruisers, for the blockade runners that brought strategic goods to Germany from Japan and other countries, and for the replenishment of fuel, drinking water, food, spares and torpedoes for U-Boats at sea."

GER also developed the Milch Cow SUB units. These were less likely to be interdicted.
Relevance: Without these supply tools -> GER surface raiders & U-boats had their ranges, capabilities and duration at the 'front-lines' curtailed.
Significance: The proposed supply system does not factor these historical features.

I don't get this.
Subs had a limited range. Other ships/uboats were used to increase that range. I don't see what this has to do with the supply system.
I hope that subs will work like planes. You pick a fleet, you assign it a mission and if it's in range it will go. Then back to port, then back to the mission, then back to the mission...

Sea-warfare 2: The IJN strike against Pearl Harbour in 1941 clearly demonstrates the LOG reality about how vital OIL is in warfare.
The IJN did not target US drydocks, maintenance or LOG facilities.
This oversight by the IJN in leaving the US fuel farm intact is recorded thus;
"Pearl Harbor was the only refueling, replacement, and repair point for ships operating in the Hawaiian area.[33]
Part of Pearl Harbor ís duty of being the Pacific Fleet's chandlery was thestocking and disbursing of oil.
To that end, the US Navy had just finished restocking its oil tanks in Pearl Harbor to its total capacity of 4.5 million barrels of oil. [34]
The loss of this amount of oil would have driven the Pacific Fleet back to the West Coast [35] and effectively knocked almost all of the Pacific Fleet ships out of contention, instead of the nineteen sunk and/or damaged in the attacks."
Relevance: The Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbour that day numbered 86 ships.
Significance: Destruction of the fuel farm would have had a catastrophic effect on US and Allied offensive OPS against JPN incursions into the South & Central Pacific AO.
The proposed Supply system does not reflect these historical realities.

In game you would destroy the port facilities, right? This should limit the amount of ships that you can harbour there. I might be missing something here.

Sea-warfare 3: Allied dependence upon Petroleum Oil & Lubricants [POL] were directly targeted by U-boats.
In this reference, a tactical victory by U-boats in the Carribean had a massive effect on geo-political situation in the UK;
"Further south in the Caribbean, the tankers that carried oil from Venezuela to the Dutch refineries on Aruba and Curacao were also priority targets. Unfortunately for the allies, these tankers were specially designed, shallow draft tankers that allowed them to pass through the shallow Gulf of Venezuela. Normal tankers could not be substituted here; their loss was replaceable only by new construction.19 At one point, the sinking of four of these tankers so severely shocked the remaining crews, that they mutinied and refused to go to sea without proper escorts. This virtually stopped England's major supply of oil."

This comment by Sohbet Karbuz clarifies the differences between GER and JPN LOG strategies in WW II.
"From December 1941 to October 1942, Japanese submarines attacked just 19 merchant ships between Hawaii and the west coast; 15 of these were in December 1941. The result? Not even need to be mentioned. Overconfidence, poor tactics, and a mentality that stressed commerce and logistical targets were not worthy of destruction for Japanese."

"German submarines, on the contrary, sank 391 ships in the western Atlantic, 141 of which were tankers. One quarter of the US tanker fleet was sunk in 1942. But neither the German nor the Japanese Navy considered mutual cooperation in war planning a matter of much importance when Germany and Japan entered into their alliance with each other.
Whereas, the fuel supplies at Pearl Harbor were crucial for the US Navy to bring the war to the Japanese Navy. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz summed up the situation best, “Had the Japanese destroyed the oil, it would have prolonged the war another two years.”

Relevance: Fleet Oilers play a critical role in sea-warfare capability.
Significance: The proposed Supply system does not reflect these historical realities.

It's been said that you need to protect your trading routes. I'm missing your point.

No flaming intended.

 

[Modo]

The main issue in HoI3 was supply flowing directly along front lines in case of slow front movements. If you tried envelopment on a large scale, you would get bottlenecks along the front (whenever you got pushed back along the static part of the front, even by one province, a big pile of supply would be lost). This made a lot of realistic strategies on the eastern front essentially useless (like going at Moscow from the south, around the big forest/marsh areas). You had to either do a general straight push, or be very quick/lucky enough to not get stuck in permanent out of supply situations.

Is this fixed? Specifically, does the new system know not to push supplies directly along a front line?