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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
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?
The new system isn't based on flow. As best as we can tell, there's a 'supply capacity' for each 'supply region' As long as you're under the supply capacity, you'll get the supplies you need (so instantly teleported from the stockpiles, given equipment is by the look of it the only thing that units get).
The game is going to abstract the details in your points. If I may suggest that if you consider Supplies also means Fuel then Hoi IV factors in a fuel impact to your war making.
1) U boats will have a mission range, and be supplied (fuel ect) from it's home port. I suppose one could say it is receiving milch cows while operating in it's limited range zone. As I understand it when the U boat needs repair, you can set it to return home for repairs automatically. Yes you could say that not having it return every 3 weeks automatically to port is a detailed weakness in the new system.
2) I suppose your strike fleet could target the Port, down grade it so that the in game supplies (fuel) coming in to Pearl Harbour are not enough to keep the 86 Pacific Fleet ships in supply, I have no idea what happens in game if your fleet is out of supply (fuel etc). So in my view your point 2 may in fact be able to be done in Hoi IV.
3) As above, I think "Supplies" means fuel as well, and from what has been explained, U boats nailing supplies (fuel) reduces the ability of the receiving port to supply units: land; aircraft and I assume also ships will then get the out of supply malus. (Which I take to mean fuel shortage). I understand the malus is quite debilitating. You would have a good point if the malus doesn't affect ships, I hope it does.
I hope the devs take note of the feedback on the forums. I think that adding Oil refineries as strategic buildings producing fuel (same type as synthetic rubber plants), and having a small stockpile to act as a buffer for let's say 1 week representing the oil in process of conversion, and the fuel already in the supply network would be pretty easy and solve most of the complaints expressed on the forum, and will also prevent different gaming tactics that some players here already started to think about.
Countries with lots of oil but very limited refining capacity would, under the current system be able to field large tank armies, even though in reality they would not have been able to fuel them.
I would be willing to wait an extra month for the game if this crucial aspect will be fixed. If not, I hope modders will rise to the challenge and will create probably the most popular mod for the game.
While I find it a bit immerion breaking that I don't have to worry about fuel and ammo as tangible assets anymore, I think it makes the game much more enjoyable.
If I understand correctly, the system works like this:
We just ASSUME that every nation has ALWAYS ENOUGH fuel/ammo, but the problem is how to get them to the units, yes? So "supply" actually just means "capability to send abstracted fuel/ammo to your units". If you are "incapable" (out of "supply"), your units take extra attrition ect. This requires them to need more equipment, and this equipment is transported over the same routes like "abstracted supply" is. So it basically goes like this:
1) My "Armored Corps I" is out of supply and gets no more abstracted fuel.
2) Their losses rise due to that (can't commit all tanks to the battle ect)
3) They need more tanks to replace losses.
4) They can't get enough replacement-tanks because the supply route is cut/bottlenecked.
5) Result: Their combat value declines!
That's actually not that dumb!
If I have tons of oil but my supply line is shit, I can produce many many tanks, but my divisions still lose many tanks and I also can't bring them to the divisions.
=> combat value declines
(which means I have enough "fuel" in the capital, but no way to bring it to the units)
If I don't have oil but supply lines are great, I will lose not so many tanks but it's hard to replace those lost in the fight.
=> combat value declines
(which means I don't actually have enough "fuel" but for some reason my units can still fight on.)
So the system is definately not a perfect representation of reality, but it comes close enough (regarding the effects of it) and makes the game much more enjoyable.
I was talking about ingame mechanics! I know that Germany (and other countries) had problems with getting enough supply/fuel In R e a l L i f e. But HOI4 assumes that there was enough in every country and the problem is more on the logistics side. They basically abstract lacking fuel in German frontline troops (which lead to lower combat value) by slowing down their tank-production, thereby slowing down their replacement rates and thus lowering combat value. The effect is the same. I haven't thougt about exploits yet, though...
I'm more a casual and I think it's great, and I guess the hard core fans can also live with it
With all due respect this is stupid, as not all nations always had enough fuel (Germany and Japan are major examples). And even ammo was problematic, as large offenses would need stockpiling of ammo near the front line, as an offensive burns through ammo much faster then the maximum speed at witch it can be produced. For example the Soviet Union stockpiled huge amount of ammo before operation Bagration, and had to stop most activity at the front in order to allow the trains to feed the stockpiles.
I find the abstracted system un-elegant and out of place with a game that until now made large steps towards realism.
With all due respect this is stupid, as not all nations always had enough fuel (Germany and Japan are major examples). And even ammo was problematic, as large offenses would need stockpiling of ammo near the front line, as an offensive burns through ammo much faster then the maximum speed at witch it can be produced. For example the Soviet Union stockpiled huge amount of ammo before operation Bagration, and had to stop most activity at the front in order to allow the trains to feed the stockpiles.
I find the abstracted system un-elegant and out of place with a game that until now made large steps towards realism.
I see your point, we don't appear to have a logistic system, that builds in delay for offensives. I noticed that in the multiplay play through back in July, the Italian player, sends his whole army into Yugoslavia, once the job is done, 5 days later it seemed they were all re-deployed back on the French border ready to invade France. It did seem to me that there was any logistic delay built into the game. Which to me meant that everything was fast, one offensive after another until WW2 was over in 1939. I wonder what mechanics are going to slow conquest down?
Should units being in AI-mode have a gradually reduced supply-usage (say 1% per day upto a cap of 30%), so that you can gradually assemble the units for the execution of a plan in a jump-off supply-area (it would be a bit like the ´stockpile´ button in HoI2, in effect)? Manually redirecting units would then reset this to 0, so player-intereference in a plan would result in an increased supply-need?
On a less serious note, looking at the ethopia screenie: Should rocket units feature a toggle-button, so when they are fired, you can ride them in 1st person mode into their targets?
I must say i really really like that the new system gives instant feedback that you can use to solve problems with the supply flow. its going to be so much easier to find problems and to tell new people why throwing lots and lots of panzers against the soviet might in the end not be the best idea even though the divisions are cool.
Why do a lot of people in this thread say that supply = equipment and that theres no supply? X amount of your civilian factories are locked into producing supply for your army. Supply is a thing which isnt the same as equipment! Equipment is a part of the supply units need.
Its obvious from the DD (which is a bit vague on the subject i must say) that if you are not in supply you get penalties which includes taking more attrition. Attrition = equipment loss.
A units fighting stats are largly derived from the equipment it has. So if they dont get equipment they fight worse. If they arent in supply they lose their equipment faster.
Having fuel abstracted into land units seems like a good way to do it imho. Tanks breaks down, need spare parts, need fuel constantly so having each tank equipment also include some fuel makes sense. If you do not have access to fuel you produce less tanks = less spareparts/fuel for your operating tanks -> less equipment in divisions -> less fighting stats. Lack of fuel would essentially do the same if you had a fuel units. It would decrease the effectiveness of your tanks or make you abandon them.
As for ships im a bit more skeptical as some of the others. I can see the point that as Japan and Italy having your fleet sit in port most of the game might not be that interesting. On the other hand that was the reality they fought the war in.
However we have seen some numbers from the press event which hint at some pretty hefty penalties to production times of ships if you lack oil. This will hurt quite a bit if you lack oil. And you really want to be able to rebuild the losses you eventually take as Japan when the US starts throwing ships at you.
The other interesting thing is that lack of ressources doesnt mean do not produce, just producing with less efficiency. So you wont as Germany just ignore your naval factories. Ofcourse you can have them lowest in the production queue but you still have some incentive to atleast do something with them.
Hmmm: What are the most pressing questions for Podcat to answer? I think that no specific fuel mechanic has some Hoi stalwarts freaked, they are expecting a system where: Oooh my planes or fleet or tanks has no fuel, therefore they can't fly / move / rebase:
I will have a go at summarising the most pertinent questions:
1) When land units are in supply - but say lose 50% of their equipment (tanks in a say a battle that lasts 2 days) - how long does it take for the replacement tanks to arrive? is it instant once they are out of battle?
2) If a fleet is based in a far port - that is subject to receiving diminished supply ( say 80%) what effects does it suffer? Then say it is 100% out of supply what effects does it suffer? can it re-base?
3) Same as 2) but for aircraft.
Hmmm, i dont quite see, why fleets on missions cant use oil in addition, by drawing it directly from the strategic ressourse income, taking precedence over oil-usage for production.
I think a major issue with the new system is that by not having supply as entity it doesn't seem to capture the major impact of being low on ammo for lack of industrial output or transport.
All German units in the Crimea fight and stay in supply so long as they are not over the region's supply limit.
Real life- the Germans artillery were very low on ammunition for months because of poor supply, as they were not the priority for shells etc. Which had major impact on the fight.
Ok so game has to be fun over realism when there is a choice. But I find if HoI had logistics impacting on units performance for low ammo and fuel states fun.
I really hope they improve this, and have fuel and supply packets to be produces. Heck they don't need the flow, they can have a tap on or off approach and give each unit X % resupply based on the stats they are using.
I have another question:
How does the current system represent the Western Allies use of more resources for Logistics?
Hmmm: What are the most pressing questions for Podcat to answer? I think that no specific fuel mechanic has some Hoi stalwarts freaked, they are expecting a system where: Oooh my planes or fleet or tanks has no fuel, therefore they can't fly / move / rebase:
I will have a go at summarising the most pertinent questions:
1) When land units are in supply - but say lose 50% of their equipment (tanks in a say a battle that lasts 2 days) - how long does it take for the replacement tanks to arrive? is it instant once they are out of battle?
2) If a fleet is based in a far port - that is subject to receiving diminished supply ( say 80%) what effects does it suffer? Then say it is 100% out of supply what effects does it suffer? can it re-base?
3) Same as 2) but for aircraft.
About 2&3: I´d think they´d suffer pretty much in the same way as land units: reduced combat effeciency and speed (for ships only). Rebasing should always be possible, a reserve for this purpose be considered held back at all times.
About 1: That´s indeed an important question - will there be any delay between loss&replacement at all? I dont think a unit in battle wont receive replacements, either. How fast will units replenish, if i have the equipment in the stockpile and how long will it take for equipment that i restarted producing just now to reach the front? Will said equipment clog the supply lines - e.g. count against the supplylimit of an area?
All German units in the Crimea fight and stay in supply so long as they are not over the region's supply limit.
Real life- the Germans artillery were very low on ammunition for months because of poor supply, as they were not the priority for shells etc. Which had major impact on the fight.
You can set up resupply priorities for each theather (or commander, I'm not sure), so the troops in Moscow get top priority and those in Crimea get lowest.
What this means in gameplay terms is that while the arty regt in Moscow will always be at 100% strength (or close to), those in Crimea will be at 40% (it's a guess of course).
Doesn't this simulate what happened? At the end of the day, if you have 2 guns with 50 shells each, or 1 gun with 100 shells, from a grand strategy point of view, there's not much difference.
How does the current system represent the Western Allies use of more resources for Logistics?
Not sure what you mean. But I would expect the superior western allies resources should mean that in the event of a "normandy landing", you can quickly expand the port you've taken, increase infra in both southern england and north france and make sure you're units are doing fine. In other words, less bottlenecks.
I think a major issue with the new system is that by not having supply as entity it doesn't seem to capture the major impact of being low on ammo for lack of industrial output or transport.
All German units in the Crimea fight and stay in supply so long as they are not over the region's supply limit.
Real life- the Germans artillery were very low on ammunition for months because of poor supply, as they were not the priority for shells etc. Which had major impact on the fight.
Ok so game has to be fun over realism when there is a choice. But I find if HoI had logistics impacting on units performance for low ammo and fuel states fun.
I really hope they improve this, and have fuel and supply packets to be produces. Heck they don't need the flow, they can have a tap on or off approach and give each unit X % resupply based on the stats they are using.
I have another question:
How does the current system represent the Western Allies use of more resources for Logistics?
If i understand correctly, this will be represented like this in HoI4:
Obviously, the germans are over their supply capacity for the crimea, since they have issues delivering shells to their arty. Now the question wether we can say specfically in the game, wether to de-priotize the arty in a certain supply area. If so, that is would the germans did. The arty (or if you cant choose, some other unit in the area, or all of them) takes more attrition and thus performs worse.
Those reinforcements due to lack of supply can be partially seen as a backlog of prior supply needs. Supply need is rather fixed but if it is not met, then extra need will occur, and that is handled via reinforcements, not supplies.
will there be any delay between loss&replacement at all? I dont think a unit in battle wont receive replacements, either. How fast will units replenish, if i have the equipment in the stockpile and how long will it take for equipment that i restarted producing just now to reach the front?
It should be similar to the EU IV system where only a fraction of what you need reaches the troops each day if the need for reinforcement is higher than your reinforcement ability. The equipment as a whole should reach the front with each reinforcement tick; I doubt very much there will be any flag regarding production dates.
I must say i really really like that the new system gives instant feedback that you can use to solve problems with the supply flow. its going to be so much easier to find problems and to tell new people why throwing lots and lots of panzers against the soviet might in the end not be the best idea even though the divisions are cool.
Why do a lot of people in this thread say that supply = equipment and that theres no supply? X amount of your civilian factories are locked into producing supply for your army. Supply is a thing which isnt the same as equipment! Equipment is a part of the supply units need.
Is it though? Podcat said it's no longer a flow system - so we're not building supplies and sending them down the chain as before (or at least, that's how some of us read it). As best I can tell, the 0.98 supply use in the 43eme's Division's stats below represents how much of the supply cap it takes up, rather than how much supply units it uses each day.
If we do actually produce supply as well as equipment, then:
- that's a lot better;
- leaving fuel out is inconsistent - it might be confusing to players if all the fuel built into the equipment at the start but the spare parts/supplies are something that comes along as a flow.
It should be similar to the EU IV system where only a fraction of what you need reaches the troops each day if the need for reinforcement is higher than your reinforcement ability. The equipment as a whole should reach the front with each reinforcement tick; I doubt very much there will be any flag regarding production dates.
Hmmm, okay, well then the units´ repair rate should maybe depend on how much the supply need of an area is below its capacity. Ideally, all units requiring reinforcements should be counted and weighed, added to the supply need, and the difference of this sum to the supply limit of the area should modify the repair rates of said units. If it is negative they´d repair slower than normal, if it is positive they get a bonus to it. So small units in good infra close by can replenish relatively big losses a lot faster, than big armies in a distant swamp can replenish relaively minor losses.
With all due respect this is stupid, as not all nations always had enough fuel (Germany and Japan are major examples). And even ammo was problematic, as large offenses would need stockpiling of ammo near the front line, as an offensive burns through ammo much faster then the maximum speed at witch it can be produced. For example the Soviet Union stockpiled huge amount of ammo before operation Bagration, and had to stop most activity at the front in order to allow the trains to feed the stockpiles.
I find the abstracted system un-elegant and out of place with a game that until now made large steps towards realism.
In RL you are totally right!
But I was talking about ingame mechanics! I know that Germany (and other countries) had problems with getting enough supply/fuel In R e a l L i f e. But HOI4 assumes that there was enough in every country and the problem is more on the logistics side. They basically abstract lacking fuel in German frontline troops (which lead to lower combat value) by slowing down their tank-production, thereby slowing down their replacement rates and thus lowering combat value. The effect is the same. I haven't thougt about exploits yet, though...
Is it though? Podcat said it's no longer a flow system - so we're not building supplies and sending them down the chain as before (or at least, that's how some of us read it). As best I can tell, the 0.98 supply use in the 43eme's Division's stats below represents how much of the supply cap it takes up, rather than how much supply units it uses each day.
If we do actually produce supply as well as equipment, then:
- that's a lot better;
- leaving fuel out is inconsistent - it might be confusing to players if all the fuel built into the equipment at the start but the spare parts/supplies are something that comes along as a flow.
I might have dreamed something i will not deny that i just think i remember seeing supply. Its true theres no flow system but even if its just a supply cap the units still need to be in supply and that is not the exactly same thing as equipment. which a lot of people make it sound like.
