• 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
Not open for further replies.
Look tanks run on fuel. HoI3 had this, HoI2 had this, HoI1 had this, in HoI4 they got lazy and made it so tanks now work like cavalry riding around the world powered by mana. It's indefensible and many people will find it ridiculous once the game comes out. Using Oil as a repair cost or build cost and pointing to that and saying hey look oil is required for tanks is stupid. My opinion.
 
  • 18
Reactions:
"Allright, here is the plan men. Kampfgruppe Peipper must reach Malmedy in two days with 40 Tigers, but they only have 10 Tigers in their fuel tanks and will consume another 10 during their advance. They really should have made these Tiger engines less Tiger thirsty. Have the Victory Points department deliver another 10 Tigers asap. We also don't have any shells to shoot the enemy with, so 100 armor piercing Tigers are needed."
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Equipment are in HOI4 what supplies was in HOI3.
I am sure that you are aware about the difference between supplies, fuel and replacing the engine of a tank.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
To be honest: i don't like the new supply system!!! Why in the world should germany ever split it's army groups in 1942 in russia, when there is no oil consumption? Why in the world should Japan ever declare war to the u.s., if the embargo won't hurt them really? Why in the world should i care for infantry divisions, if i just could be the "pre-war-nice-guy" and could get all the oil i will ever need for my wars?

Sorry pdx, but leaving out fuel from the game is just not an improvement of the supply system. It is just an arcade mode.

I backed this game since the first day, when i heard of it. And i accepted the 3D models and all the delays of the release. I also accepted the lack of an oob system. But this is just "dumbing down" the game for the mainstream customer...It is what it is and though i can call it by its name.

Pdx is an awesome company with very dedicated people and you get all my respects. But since i read about the new supply system i truly cannot believe, that you actually cared about the opinion of your fans concerning the supplies. This topic was one of the most anticipated ones concerning the dds. And everyone trusted you, to create a very good supply mechanic. But now you show up and want to sell us a system, where ships run on fairy dust and tanks are already produced with a lifetimes ration of fuel...by that you really cut off a very important part of strategic warfare...
 
  • 21
Reactions:
there is alot of mention about high level strategy but not much about simulation.
Sure, let's not call it a simulation, let's call it high level strategy, that doesn't change the fact that HoI4 isn't going to be a simulation and certainly isn't going to be a high level strategy.

It is up to the developers on what HOI series is about
Nope.
Its up to them to develop the game, what categories the game falls into is not defined by what they call it but by whatever the gameplay falls into, very different.

Really confused by the backlash here.
Its very simple, lots of people were expecting a "grand war strategy" game, and since supply mechanics are extremely important and complex in real life, people are pissed because instead we are going to get a game with less supply complexity than some real time tactics games...
 
  • 9
Reactions:
To be honest: i don't like the new supply system!!! Why in the world should germany ever split it's army groups in 1942 in russia, when there is no oil consumption? Why in the world should Japan ever declare war to the u.s., if the embargo won't hurt them really? Why in the world should i care for infantry divisions, if i just could be the "pre-war-nice-guy" and could get all the oil i will ever need for my wars?

Sorry pdx, but leaving out fuel from the game is just not an improvement of the supply system. It is just an arcade mode.

I backed this game since the first day, when i heard of it. And i accepted the 3D models and all the delays of the release. I also accepted the lack of an oob system. But this is just "dumbing down" the game for the mainstream customer...It is what it is and though i can call it by its name.

Pdx is an awesome company with very dedicated people and you get all my respects. But since i read about the new supply system i truly cannot believe, that you actually cared about the opinion of your fans concerning the supplies. This topic was one of the most anticipated ones concerning the dds. And everyone trusted you, to create a very good supply mechanic. But now you show up and want to sell us a system, where ships run on fairy dust and tanks are already produced with a lifetimes ration of fuel...by that you really cut off a very important part of strategic warfare...


No money in game, no fuel in game ...... I second the above. Much anticipated game will be bought and tried ... but not with the same level of enthusiasm ....
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Fuel costs fuel to deliver. And spare parts for trucks. It doesn't cost tanks. I can't believe there is an argument about this.

Indeed it does cost fuel to deliver fuel and it also costs trucks, the trucks that break down when delivering the fuel but that is not in the game, the cost is payable in the loss of tanks not trucks.


And its an important difference, if you build up a stockpile of Trucks you cannot decide to create a Truck Division and send it off to try and seize the Ploiești oil fields you can however build up a stockpile of Tanks and decide to turn them into an armoured Division and have a go and you may just succeed.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Lets say it costs you 1 steel and 1 oil to build a fuel truck and it costs you 2 steel to build a tank, tanks go into Divisions and fuel trucks go into a stockpile and every time you perform an action with your PZ Division it costs you some of those trucks.

I'm also a bit sad at the lack of 'cost' of supplying (ie, no supply throughput cost a la HoI3), and agree that some of the equipment can be extrapolated into producing a supply infrastructure necessary to deliver the fuel, but the ratio of steel to fuel is out, as is the timing in many cases. In a perfect world (for the detail/strategy nuts at least :)), we'd be able to invest in a supply organisation and infrastructure that delivered the fuel, and one of my modding ideas is to have something you can invest in that modifies the amount of stacking limit you get flowing from the capital depending on this (so creating a proxy supply infrastructure, that takes trucks and manpower, say, but is abstracted out as an off-map thing - a bit like how there'll be convoy transports that are likely to be off-map most of the time).

In terms of the steel ratio, a Pz III comes in at 23 tonnes, while the common Opel Blitz used during WW2 came in at 3.6. I can't find the weight for the tanker version, but I'd be very surprised if it brought it up to 11.5 tonnes, and even then the assumption works on the truck being a single-use item. If you could get the ratios right, then it'd work, but then you've got a separate form of equipment to supply fuel and the like with, and it gets back to the original issue.
 
Paradox, tear down this wall !

*wrong reference*

Uhh..i mean...give me back my oil !

:D

Ich bin Paradoxianer!

1556915-971444_20100818_003.jpg
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Beginning to wonder if its as dumb as it seems.


If Paradox had decided that fuel would be supplied to PZ Divisions by Trucks would it be more acceptable?


Lets say it costs you 1 steel and 1 oil to build a fuel truck and it costs you 2 steel to build a tank, tanks go into Divisions and fuel trucks go into a stockpile and every time you perform an action with your PZ Division it costs you some of those trucks.


That is not too far removed from the situation at the moment except of course that there are no trucks and its costing tanks instead. Similar situation with the supply areas, the worse your supply area the more fuel trucks you lose except of course in HOI IV we lose tanks.


But why not have fuel trucks?


1\You have an extra cost (steel) that will impact on the amount of steel that you have available to build tanks, so if you choose to build up a stockpile of trucks you will reduce the amount of tanks and anything else that requires steel to build.


2\ You can choose to build up a stockpile of trucks before a major offensive but that will obviously cost you building up your fighting forces.


3\ Your tanks may grind to a halt but they wont be destroyed unless they are actually attacked.


Edit: Essentially I am saying put fuel back into the game but that it costs steel to deliver it.

So yes, for me it would be somewhat more acceptable. I do have a couple of thoughts on the rest of your post though (1-3, after that random thoughts!)

1) Why would you assume that the fuel trucks would be lost once they delivered their fuel? Why can't they go back to the stockpile and get more fuel? That they could be destroyed would be very good, that they would always be consumed would be no different than the current proposed system.

2) If it costs 2 steel to build a tank then it should cost me 0.05 (at the most) steel and no oil to build a truck. The truck should deliver fuel, not consume oil. This part of your suggestion has not changed anything.

3) Oil should be consumed by nothing. Fuel should be used to power motorized equipment.

4) To a point made elsewhere, we are now at HOI4, and we still don't have railroads? You know, those things that dictated the axis of advance for the Germans in Russia and the Japanese in China? The things that the Allies bombed the heck out of in France, and the Low Countries, and Germany? Not important, not a Strategic consideration at all, nope (heavy sarcasm).

5) Some of you may remember a 1985 game by SSI called USAAF. It was about the bombing campaign against Germany. In that game, 30 years ago, there were 12 different resources that you could bomb, rail yards, ball bearings, electric power, aircraft factories, etc. I had hoped that as time went by that games like that would have a positive impact of games of the future, but it seems that such detail and immersion is, sadly, not what the majority today are looking for. Even HOI4, which I had hoped would be the next evolution as the Premier Simulation of WWII, has taken out fuel as a resource, let alone ball bearings or electric power. Such is life I suppose.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Lets take a look:)

Going to defend my own points then.

Technology is much more even in HOI4 then is predecessor like Italy will be as strong as Germany then it comes to tech with about 4-5 tech slots each and the minimum number of tech slot a country can have is 1. Better tech is better and so should it be. We don't know if late tech stuff however need more resources, like chromium have been stated to be for the most advanced tanks. Again you base your oil need around losses instead of production, yes a country that lose alot would need alot of production to recover these losses but as equipment have no base resource cost you don't know who need more oil because if Soviet is able to produce twice as many tanks for the same resources as Germany, Soviet can take twice the losses for the same investment.

Well, if Italy is going to have as technologically advanced equipment as Germany, the game will be historically flawed in that sense too. Nonetheless, assuming that there are in fact technological differences between countries, and that the less technologically advanced force will have higher causalities, more oil will be consumed by less technologically advanced countries.

Yes, Soviet might produce twice as much oil as German, but will Hungary, Finland, Italy or China produce twice as much oil as their enemies? Is Poland producing twice as much oil as Germany? You got to try to see the whole picture here.

What you are saying is very risk, tech rushing is expansive and basing everything around a doubtful resources is like putting a foot in the grave from day one. Yes this gamble can work but then I don't you will be in deep trouble. I would rather tech rush something I know I always have good access to because that way Im risking less.

If oil really is to be a scarce resource with the new system, it means that countries like Japan and Germany at some point no longer will be able to produce much equipment. The cost of tech-rushing compared to the cost of not being able to produce any equipment is peanuts.

More or less the same as if fuel was a resource because you would then need to conserve fuel.

While conserving fuel in previous HOI games generally meant not using your whole armed forces offensively at the same time, conserving fuel in HOI4 will mean not taking cassulties. Thus, the consequences of not micromanaging oil consuming forces in HOI4 will now be much higher. Moreover, while not consuming oil was impossible in HOI 1, 2 and 3. it will technically be possible to not consume oil in HOI4.

Again, if oil really is to be a scarce resource with the new system, the prospect of not having to consume oil, combined with the prospect of not being able to replace losses because of lack of oil, will take micro management to a whole new level.

You underestimate the power of attrition. If you base your army around oil equipment you will need oil because you can not afford the production slowdown for lacking oil. If you are unable to supply the army with equipment the army will collapse and doing a transition into a non oil army will be extreamly painful and sure loss in a large war.

You underestimate most players. Sure, if you lack oil in this new system, you are in big trouble, and I've repeatedly mentioned some of the more flawed reasons for that. However, most players will never get to that point. A decent player playing as Germany or Japan will easily avoid oil shortages by:

  1. Stockpiling equipment
  2. Superstacking navies and the aircraft
  3. Tech rushing the oil consuming forces that typically take high losses
  4. Micro managing the most oil consuming units such as tanks
  5. Taking relatively few losses against the AI

If you read the DD you will see that you can still hurt armies by qutting them off. Aircrafts and Ships are vulnerable because they need a supply line to operate.

A far as I know, they don't need supplies to operate, but they need supplies to operate optimally. In the previous HOI games, an air force or tank division could literally not operate without oil. Tanks would be trapped wherever they were located and aircraft would not be able to take off.

You don't have much control over who your resources are exported to because trade work on the principe of the free market. You can still produce equipment that wan't oil even without access to oil but as said many times before production of such equipment will not be effective. These countries can atleast build
synthetic plants to get atleast some oil. We don't know how the game will play out yet because so much have been changed:)

Sure, but if this game will portray the historical and realistic oil shortages that Germany and Japan suffered, this would in HOI4 terms mean that the German and Japanese AI will be rendered unable to produce tanks and aircraft from 1944 and onward. Unless Podcat goes even more a-historical and gives Germany and Japan massive deposits of oil, the German and Japanese AI are officially screwed.

We don't know how it will play out yet but HOI3 stockpiles was more or less unlimited which don't seems to be the case in HOI4;)

The stockpiles will not be unlimited but they will most likely be big enough to effectively stop any oil shortages. So it's pointless anyways.
 
Last edited:
"Allright, here is the plan men. Kampfgruppe Peipper must reach Malmedy in two days with 40 Tigers, but they only have 10 Tigers in their fuel tanks and will consume another 10 during their advance. They really should have made these Tiger engines less Tiger thirsty. Have the Victory Points department deliver another 10 Tigers asap. We also don't have any shells to shoot the enemy with, so 100 armor piercing Tigers are needed."

No you got it wrong, not tiger in tank, it is TRE - tigers ready to eat, since they no longer produce MREs (meals ready to eat) since no separate distinct supply production.
 
Edit: Essentially I am saying put fuel back into the game but that it costs steel to deliver it.

OR, put fuel back into the game without the difficult to explain cost of steel to deliver it. That way attrition can do its thing and represent disease, desertions, accidents and possibly resistance if it is abstracted. Mixing in supply and fuel useage in attrition will make it impossible to balance the system properly. Combat units, and indeed fuel trucks (if we want to complicate the game by adding such a feature), should be subjected to this attrition. Supply trucks should not be "used up" because they have delivered a load of fuel just as tanks should not be "used up" because they have delivered a load of fuel or ammunition.

One of the core problems with the current system is that different outputs such as supply, fuel and tanks should require different inputs such as oil, raw materials and in SOME cases manpower to produce. The inputs should be available in different quantities, creating realistic problems in producing the outputs. Above all, different drains on the output, such as attrition, combat, supply and fuel useage should cause specific and DIFFERENT losses of the outputs. This is why mixing these different systems into one will cause unrealistic effects all over the chain.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.