Hearts of Iron IV - 33rd Development Diary - Supply

[FUregistration]

I didn't list "improvements", I listed features that were more deep or complex than they were in HOI3. Whether you see them as improvements is up to you.

Ok then...
I acknowledge the deeper and/or complex features, but they aren't that many, some are minor and welcome, some are changes that add no more complexity than before, and then we have big improvements indeed, on production and diplomacy. And then of course you list deeper and/or complex features that in fact are completely the opposite. I guess its a question of opinion, I for one, when I see a gaming series that is about realistic grand war strategy, I won't list the complete removal of your control over your divisions as an deeper and/or complex feature... plenty of other examples.

It doesn't matter how much improved the game will be on certain areas, if it lacks the depth in the critical areas its a fail in my opinion. For example, the lack of fuel, its like playing an realistic First Person Shooter with infinite stamina.

 

[KiwiNoob]

there is complexity that comes from the way different game mechanis iteract, and that, is depth.

Complexity does not equal depth. Google it and you will get a dozen explanations.

Yes, really. That, is what "easy to learn" part is supposed to imply.
For example, it is easy to learn how the pieces move, thus start playing. Yet it would take years, before player actually starts playing well, and understanding what s/he is trying to achieve from move one. "Learn" substitutes for "know game mechanics enough to play".

What I meant is that I think "Easy to learn. Hard to master." says it better than your way.

Wait, what? We used to have 1 type of IC, 4 types of resources and that was about it. Also, the speed was determined by practicals. We now have 3 types of IC, 6 types of resources, a million of variants of equipment, a system of factory gearing replacing practicals, 3 types of combat expirience to upgrade your equipment, a division constructor, far more complex than in HOI3.

Oh, and supply system is still more complex, as we now have more moving pieces, like controll of region mechanics, supplies "spill" from one region to another, victory points and cities providing supplies, and troops having an overall supply level.

PI removed complexity? Nope, PI just removed bad UI and added more complexity.

I disagree. I think the production line system is much less complex than the HOI3 production sliders. It removes a lot of micromanagement, the resource mechanics are much simpler than the HOI3 stockpiles and trading is simpler. Research looks simpler but this is partially offset by the new combat experience upgrade system. In all cases the UI looks more functional. Taken as a whole I think its fair to say HOI4 will be simpler. However I don't think it will lose any of it's depth.

Yes, oil is a major point of contention, but don`t tell me not having supply flow like in HOI3 is not a downgrade.

Not having supply flow like in HOI3 is not a downgrade.

Supply still 'flows' and requires a player to protect that flow. The supply system in HOI3 was terrible as soon as the supply lines got more than 20-30 provinces long. While its true I'd need to see how the supply 'regions' work in game before passing final judgement they would have to be pretty bad to be a 'downgrade' from HOI3

 

[loup99]

Mod it!

Well, in PDS games generally you can't add new completely systems, which oil would be. I guess you could combine what is available to get something, but not really in a way that feels like the base game.

 

[Zaku]

I acknowledge the improvements, but they aren't that many, some are minor and welcome, some are changes not improvements, and then we have big improvements indeed, on production and diplomacy. And then of course you list improvements that in fact are completely the opposite. I guess its a question of opinion, I for one, when I see a gaming series that is about realistic grand war strategy, I won't list the complete removal of your control over your divisions as an improvement... plenty of other examples.

It doesn't matter how much improved the game will be on certain areas, if it lacks the depth in the critical areas its a fail in my opinion. For example, the lack of fuel, its like playing an realistic First Person Shooter with infinite stamina.

But does it lack depth, just because fuel has been abstracted? We don't know that, because we haven't seen it in action.

Since this is a video game it will never be realistic, you always need abstractions. Lets look at your example of realistic FPS. How is an FPS realistic at all? I mean then the game should quit and uninstall when you die, because after all in real combat you don't get a second chance when you die. What I'm getting at, is when someone develops a game they need to draw a line about things like this. You will never ever have a 100% realistic game because it's not fun. Hoi3 supply for example was terrible IMO, it was not fun at all(and also not realistic). It never worked after you conquered large areas of overseas. While I don't like that fuel is gone, but if Paradox can't solve the system in the game engine any other way then abstracting it, I think it is a better idea then to give us a broken system like Hoi3 had.

 

[KiwiNoob]

What about no supplies, no fuel, no money, no independent units smaller than a division (in HOI3 in several mods we had even battalions), no NATO counters, no OOB, no unit leaders, no air units and much more "arcade" abstraction to come?

'Supply' is still in the game. Supplies in HOI3 were a pain in the ass. You just set your production sliders. Watched the usage bounce around like mad then sighed when all your units were suddenly out of supply.

'Fuel' does suck. Needs to be in game as a consumable resource.

'No Money'. No loss. It served no real purpose and was a mechanic that was easily abused. Money also wasn't very important in WW2. Scarcity of resources and shipping capacity were the bottle necks.

'No independent units smaller than a division' - as far as I'm aware there is nothing stopping you having a division template with only one or two battalions. I imagine this will be useful especially for garrisons and remote regions with low supply.

'OOB'. This one I'm on the fence. The OOB in HOI3 was way too much, especially for large countries. This might be 'not enough' but will have to see.

'No air units'. While we (might?) not be able to name individual squadrons/wings the air combat mechanic is looking like it's going to be a lot better than in HOI3

 

[safe-keeper]

Ok then...
I acknowledge the deeper and/or complex features, but they aren't that many, some are minor and welcome, some are changes that add no more complexity than before, and then we have big improvements indeed, on production and diplomacy. And then of course you list deeper and/or complex features that in fact are completely the opposite. I guess its a question of opinion, I for one, when I see a gaming series that is about realistic grand war strategy, I won't list the complete removal of your control over your divisions as an deeper and/or complex feature... plenty of Id other examples.

I didn't list removal of control of divisions as something deeper/more complex. Again, I listed what did indeed make the game deeper or more complex, and left the other things out because, well, I wasn't making a list of things that were streamlined or simplified.

 

[KiwiNoob]

Why do you think you can't have control over a division? Where has that ever been said?

As far as I know you can still control individual divisions and can still get the planning bonus too. You only need to have a plan - not follow it - to get the bonus.

 

[Jazumir]

Hmmm, Kiwi, i am not sure you are right on this one. I think you assign divisions to a plan (and a leader) and in order to control a division manually, you will most likely have to detach it from the plan, by which it would lose the bonus attached to it. But i could be entirely wrong here. But otherwise, i´d imagine you gave an order to a division manually just to have it overrode (-ridden?) by the AI the next hour.

 

[GIJoe597]

I cannot help but notice the majority of people singing the praises of this do not have HOI in their icon list. I very seldom post in these forums, but I fall in the; "this is a dumbing down of the game and I do not like it", category.

 

[Zaku]

I cannot help but notice the majority of people singing the praises of this do not have HOI in their icon list. I very seldom post in these forums, but I fall in the; "this is a dumbing down of the game and I do not like it", category.

What does the Hoi3 icon have to do if someone likes a feature or not in a different game? Besides, most of the posters here have the icon so I don't see where you're going with this.

 

[grandad1982]

Hmmm, Kiwi, i am not sure you are right on this one. I think you assign divisions to a plan (and a leader) and in order to control a division manually, you will most likely have to detach it from the plan, by which it would lose the bonus attached to it. But i could be entirely wrong here. But otherwise, i´d imagine you gave an order to a division manually just to have it overrode (-ridden?) by the AI the next hour.

Not sure where it was stated but I'm 99% sure it was said that you can micro units that are part of a plan, even if the plan is being exicuted, and get the planning bonus. I'm sure people with better memories and more forum fu could find the post!

 

[cacti]

'Supply' is still in the game. Supplies in HOI3 were a pain in the ass. You just set your production sliders. Watched the usage bounce around like mad then sighed when all your units were suddenly out of supply.

'Fuel' does suck. Needs to be in game as a consumable resource.

'No Money'. No loss. It served no real purpose and was a mechanic that was easily abused. Money also wasn't very important in WW2. Scarcity of resources and shipping capacity were the bottle necks.

'No independent units smaller than a division' - as far as I'm aware there is nothing stopping you having a division template with only one or two battalions. I imagine this will be useful especially for garrisons and remote regions with low supply.

'OOB'. This one I'm on the fence. The OOB in HOI3 was way too much, especially for large countries. This might be 'not enough' but will have to see.

'No air units'. While we (might?) not be able to name individual squadrons/wings the air combat mechanic is looking like it's going to be a lot better than in HOI3

This...SOOOOOOOOOOOOO this

any word on that infamous "Consumer Goods" slider?

 

[ultracougar]

Perhaps my fears can be assuaged, and forgive me if this has already topic has already been addressed in this thread, but I'm a bit worried about the oil. Specifically for the one scenario that immediately scared me. So, oil is required to reinforce divisions, which I suppose on its face is a good way to help fix the supply problems. No more stockpiling oil, ect. ect. So this system would work if a tank division is advancing and consistently taking losses, and then being replaced by tanks, which require oil, so oil is consumed. However, what if the unstoppable german war machine is causing 10-1 kill death ratios on the front line? And RAPIDLY advancing, but taking MINIMAL losses, thereby consuming minimal oil in replacements, and thereby being a rolling armored machine that uses very little oil in comparison to the amount of land they are taking, and the amount of fighting they are doing, simply because they are not taking substantial losses. I feel like this system could make a successful armor focused player end up using minimal oil, simply by sustaining minimal losses, considering the actual distance moved, and amount of time spent fighting isn't factored in. Any thoughts on this?

 

[cacti]

wreck the infrastrucre behind their lines with aircraft, that creates bottlenecks as discussed in the diary. Furthermore I am sure through gameplay you would develop your own ways to counter armor heavy players, I would imagine terrain still plays a heavy role in bonuses to combat. Crossing mountains, rivers, and whatnot with armor...no bueno.

 

[ultracougar]

wreck the infrastrucre behind their lines with aircraft, that creates bottlenecks as discussed in the diary. Furthermore I am sure through gameplay you would develop your own ways to counter armor heavy players, I would imagine terrain still plays a heavy role in bonuses to combat. Crossing mountains, rivers, and whatnot with armor...no bueno.

But I feel like the player shouldn't have to actively work to make the enemys logistics not work, for a situation where basic logic dicatates the logistics would fail on their own, without enemy intervention. If Germany doesn't oppose the Soviets for some reason, for example, and they decided to drive 30 tank divisions hundreds of miles across the East without resistance, the Russians would have to spend 0 fuel for this effort, if the system works exactly as the diary describes. And furthermore, what about air divisions that do not sustain losses? What about once you have air superiority and you're mercilessly bombing your enemy? You won't be sustaining losses, and not using fuel. Basically you'd have a fuel free air force that runs on, I don't know.

 

[Peter Wass]

I cannot help but notice the majority of people singing the praises of this do not have HOI in their icon list.

Utterly irrelevant. I'm sure I can't be the only one who doesn't have the icons for al of the paradox games I've bought and played (and played and played and played)

 

[cacti]

During WW2 the Allies and Axis repeatedly targeted infrastructure. I'm sure you're aware that in the lead up to Op Overlord for example nearly every single sortie was against rail yards, bridge heads, major highways, refineries, oil storage facilities, etc. All of it was designed to cut off occupied France from the rest of the Reich. The unforeseen consequence of that however was that it starved out the rest of the German military as well. Do I think that some measuring stick for fuel should be in there? Yes of course I do. But I also think that to say that the player shouldn't have to actively target enemy infrastructure doesn't really do this period of warfare justice. Targeting infrastructure was all that was done during this time period when we are talking about a strategic bombing sortie.

edit: I mean just think of the naval blockade of Britain! That is targeted infrastructure strikes to a T.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

During WW2 the Allies and Axis repeatedly targeted infrastructure. I'm sure you're aware that in the lead up to Op Overlord for example nearly every single sortie was against rail yards, bridge heads, major highways, refineries, oil storage facilities, etc. All of it was designed to cut off occupied France from the rest of the Reich. The unforeseen consequence of that however was that it starved out the rest of the German military as well. Do I think that some measuring stick for fuel should be in there? Yes of course I do. But I also think that to say that the player shouldn't have to actively target enemy infrastructure doesn't really do this period of warfare justice. Targeting infrastructure was all that was done during this time period when we are talking about a strategic bombing sortie.

edit: I mean just think of the naval blockade of Britain! That is targeted infrastructure strikes to a T.

Except that's not what he meant with his comment. You can't use infrastructure bombing as an excuse because it will make the enemy need oil to replace attrition losses. That feature should stand on its own...

Your whole argument crumbles into the dust when Germany gain supreme air superiority over Russia and drive their tank divisions through the eastern steps to Moscow with minimal usage of oil for both their tank forces and air-force.

It is all about the snowballing of the whole mechanic.

The dumb thing is that factories are basically your primary oil fields and oil are just an efficiency factor. In some cases it will even be smarter to fight for more factories than go after important oil fields. It depends on where they are and how difficult they are to reach and then defend. Factories practically give you more resources now, it just is a very "gamey" mechanic.

I'm sorry Paradox... this is just one step to far in the streamlining of the game to accommodate new customers... I'm out until it becomes an interesting game with a bit more immersion and eye for realism again.

 

[ultracougar]

Except that's not what he meant with his comment. You can't use infrastructure bombing as an excuse because it will make the enemy need oil to replace attrition losses. That feature should stand on its own...

Your whole argument crumbles into the dust when Germany gain supreme air superiority over Russia and drive their tank divisions through the eastern steps to Moscow with minimal usage of oil for both their tank forces and air-force.

It is all about the snowballing of the whole mechanic.

The dumb thing is that factories are basically your primary oil fields and oil are just an efficiency factor. In some cases it will even be smarter to fight for more factories than go after important oil fields. It depends on where they are and how difficult they are to reach and then defend. Factories practically give you more resources now, it just is a very "gamey" mechanic.

I'm sorry Paradox... this is just one step to far in the streamlining of the game to accommodate new customers... I'm out until it becomes an interesting game with a bit more immersion and eye for realism again.

Exactly this. I wasn't claiming that the player shouldn't have to do strategic infrastructure attacks. I was claiming the player shouldn't have to do strategic infrastructure attacks to SIMULATE a BASIC PHYSICAL FACT that in order for tanks to move, they require oil, and that in order for trucks to move, they require oil, and that in order for planes to fly in the air they require oil. And without attrition through the enemy purposefully attacking infrastructure, OR without significant combat losses, there is no system seemingly in place to account for just the simple fact of operating equipment. And lets even go a step further, we are now going to pay a one time static fee for a piece of tank equipment. If that tank division mostly survives the war, you have essentially payed a one time operating fee of oil, for infinite use time. For infinite combat time, given you don't sustain losses. That doesn't make sense to me. So you're telling me I can create two tank divisions for the same oil cost. And one tank division, I have extreme success with and push all the way to Moscow, then I decide to drive the successful tank division all the way to Ukraine, and then up north and then back to Moscow. And then the second division drives all the way to Moscow and fights in equal amounts of fights, but loses 25% of its force. So now, the first tank division has used 100% of the oil requirement, and then second division has used 125% oil? How has the tank division that encountered more losses have a higher rate of oil use than the successful tank division that drove all around Russia on a joy ride?

This COMPLETELY makes sense from a strictly one time fee production standpoint, and that's where this system should be used alongside a sustained use system. You pay a one time fee to get a tank onto the field. You have to use oil to send tanks to the front line to reinforce, that makes sense. But what about what comes after that? As a sustained game play mechanic that operates throughout the entire war, it doesn't make sense. There has to be someway to simulate the sustained use of vehicles and armored forces, and the basic maintenance of a war machine. This system would work, if ONLY being pertained to the initial creation of armored and motorized units. It would make sense for it to cost oil to send units to the front line to reinforce divisions.

But how can you just stop there? That seems like the first step. You have to go all the way and make sure it makes sense units to continue to run, rather than just make sure they've begun running. This system just doesn't go far enough.

It just feels like they lopped off the end of the system. Like it was supposed to be, "It costs fuel to build units, and it costs fuel to replace lost units, and then it costs fuel to use units." And they just lopped off the third rule.

And we could talk about what it means to have air superiority and fuel consumption for days, most likely! If Romania somehow had 1000 bombers, and has air superiority, suffering no losses, can little ol' Romania now fly endless bombing missions without worrying about oil access?

And oh boy, naval battles! Can I just move 10 aircraft carriers around the world now, and not worry about oil consumption? I mean podcat even said in this forum that he agrees its a massive buff to the Japanese because now they just have to pay oil to replace their ships and do not have to worry about just simply paying to use them, which supposedly is more fun because the Japanese player or AI can actually actively use their ships. Well, what if the Japanese player is good and solidly defeats the US at sea? Is their reward for not taking losses at sea that their ships now run on good military skills? and don't require oil? I don't get it at all.

 

[Axe99]

But does it lack depth, just because fuel has been abstracted? We don't know that, because we haven't seen it in action

It's the nature of the abstraction - the fact that you just need the resources at one point in time, and that you only need two (manpower and equipment) rather than 3-4 (manpower, equipment, supplies and fuel) to maintain units means it has to be reduction in depth in terms of maintaining units. You can abstract supplies into equipment (it's still a poor match in terms of resource-wise), but the fact that it teleports rather than has some supply attrition over the path is also a reduction in depth. Regardless of whether these things are good or bad, under this system there are less challenges faced by the player in managing the supply of their units than HoI3 (in ways that, imo, are a poor match for the way these things operated historically, which is likely to lead to odd gameplay situations, but that's to be seen, so that's just a guess).

Hmmm, Kiwi, i am not sure you are right on this one. I think you assign divisions to a plan (and a leader) and in order to control a division manually, you will most likely have to detach it from the plan, by which it would lose the bonus attached to it. But i could be entirely wrong here. But otherwise, i´d imagine you gave an order to a division manually just to have it overrode (-ridden?) by the AI the next hour.

I've got similar memories to Grandad1982 on this one - I'm pretty sure we'll be able to make adjustments to the orders of units who are following a plan, so that should be all good. As you say, it's unclear as to what will happen in terms of switching control back to the plan (maybe there's some kind of 'detach from plan control' toggle, or after they've followed the manual order given they return to plan control, or some other mechanism?), but we should be able to issue orders to all our ground units at any time (well, as long as Grandad and me aren't both similarly geriatric ).