Hearts of Iron IV - 33rd Development Diary - Supply

[JamesJameson]

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.

Since when did they remove the option to move single divisions?

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.

Oil is already in the game. Mods are meant to not be like the base game.

 

[FUregistration]

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

That's a ridiculous argument, you don't need to see anything in action to know the effects.
And yes, it does lack critical depth because its a critical strategic resource in that particular war, how many times does this have to be explained?

I didn't list removal of control of divisions as something deeper/more complex.

Indeed you are correct.
But I can just change that for another point on your list and my point would stand.

 

[wingo]

There is always base attrition of all equipment, which can be modified by improving reliability stat and is also modified by terrain, weather and supply situation.

You always have to take into account all systems interacting together in plausible scenarios. You can always invent scenarios in which the supply system makes no sense, but these scenarios usually make no sense themselves or would lead to certain defeat given approximately equall skill of players.

One scenario presumes overwhelming superiority on eastern front, so you have minimal losses therefore minimal fuel requirement. But:
1. If supply allows you to have overwhelming strength compared to Russians without suffering supply problems (including reduced fighting efficiency and high attrition due to supply issues), then supply numbers are imbalanced and should be changed during beta.
2. If game allows Germany to produce overwhelmingly better land army compared to USSR so it can have minimal lossess even at the gates of Moscow, then there is tech or production imbalance which should be adressed during beta. All scenarios presented on forum which presume that Germany can prevent oil shortage during war by just tech rushing and producing all tanks/planes they will ever need before war starts just mean Germany has just too many factories and will be nerfed.
3. If Germany can roll mechanized forces to Ural with minimal losses (even presuming minimal opposition), then base (and terrain and weather) attrition should be ballanced to produce something more plausible.

In the end, if all other mechanics will work as intended (and devs want to insure that given the stated vision), oil/fuel availability will limit mechanized forces in plausible ways, end justifying the means and all that. Not immediately, but gradually over time, which I think was their goal, because it would be stupid to have binary states like move full speed one day and stop the other day, because you "just run out of fuel", forget all things like conserving when running low and reserves for critical situations. If we had separate fuel for supply, it would mean producing a system which would not reintroduce stockpiling and produce gradual effects of fuel shortage, reduce (or eliminate) hindsight and last but not least, will be easily visible, understandable and fun, which would be no easy task! Also an extra layer of complexity on top including managing priority if you don´t have enough fuel (on top of managing priority for equipment) and separately balancing effects of fuel shortages, so more things that could contain possible exploits. Given all that, an extra layer of complexity just to simulate fuel consumption would be redundant, and mostly there just for immersion.

Fleets are a special case because they do not have attrition, but as Podcat said, it is not much fun having to watch your grand fleet sit in port while USA takes over Pacific because you have no fuel to intercept them. Much better to challenge them, but not be able to replace lossess because you have no fuel to produce those replacements (just roleplay you saved just enough fuel for those critical missions). Also, looks like we will be producing ships faster than IRL so do not expect that Japan starting fleet "running on fairy dust" will be enough to win the war. In the end, the result is the same (defeat because of lack of fuel), which is what counts.

 

[Axe99]

There is always base attrition of all equipment, which can be modified by improving reliability stat and is also modified by terrain, weather and supply situation.

They're useful thoughts, but the issue with this is that it relies upon the assumption that loss of equipment through attrition via weather or terrain is the same as usage of supplies is the same as usage of fuel, and that combat losses in equipment use the same ratio of equipment:supplies:fuel as general use and loss of equipment to attrition. Because these values and the relationships between them vary markedly for different nations at different times in different situations, it introduces a hard mathematical rigidity into the series that previously had the capacity to balance these values separately. It's mathematically impossible to plausibly come up with one figure for these costs that'll work in all situations, which means balancing will be difficult and historically plausible results far harder to obtain. It's like trying to fit a one-variable function to a three-variable function - you just can't do it consistently. Without seeing the game in action, I'm not sure where the glaring issues will pop out, but I sincerely believe it's impossible for the abstraction they've settled on here to not have glaring issues, from a historical plausibility perspective. Of course, it works fine as an internally coherent system, but it won't feel like WW2.

Fleets are a special case because they do not have attrition, but as Podcat said, it is not much fun having to watch your grand fleet sit in port while USA takes over Pacific because you have no fuel to intercept them. Much better to challenge them, but not be able to replace lossess because you have no fuel to produce those replacements (just roleplay you saved just enough fuel for those critical missions). Also, looks like we will be producing ships faster than IRL so do not expect that Japan starting fleet "running on fairy dust" will be enough to win the war. In the end, the result is the same (defeat because of lack of fuel), which is what counts.

This isn't a terribly strong argument from either a game design (navies don't need to use equipment to maintain themselves and armies and air forces do is an inconsistency in game design) or a historical plausibility perspective. It's just as reasonable to say it's not much fun to have your tanks stuck in mud in Russia, or to be out of supply at all, ever, or it's not much fun to have an opposition that has a chance to win in single player. Fun is very, very subjective, and clearly it's not much fun for many people on the forums at least to have fleets that don't require anything to run for literally decades. Given the inconsistency in game design vis-a-vis navies, I suspect the true argument for the reason navies don't have supply is far more complicated, but that it wasn't easy or appropriate to share publicly at this point.

 

[meioutaxes]

Is it possible to capture enemies' "supply"? This is normal in HOI 3, but since in HOI 4, supply equals equipment, things may be changed. However, capturing supplies from opposing forces, like ammunition, fuel/oil and even equipment, is quite common in real world military conflicts, hope paradox team could give us such kind of simulation in the new HOI series' game.

 

[KiwiNoob]

Fleets are a special case because they do not have attrition, but as Podcat said, it is not much fun having to watch your grand fleet sit in port while USA takes over Pacific because you have no fuel to intercept them. Much better to challenge them, but not be able to replace lossess because you have no fuel to produce those replacements (just roleplay you saved just enough fuel for those critical missions). Also, looks like we will be producing ships faster than IRL so do not expect that Japan starting fleet "running on fairy dust" will be enough to win the war. In the end, the result is the same (defeat because of lack of fuel), which is what counts.

That is a terrible argument because it removes one of the largest strategic element in the war. Capturing/ruining a countries oil supply in order to starve their navy, air force and mechanized forces was a massive deal. With oil handled the way it currently is its basically saying to players:

"Oh, I see you didn't put any effort into defending your oil supply and now it's all gone. Don't worry too much about your giant tactical blunder, you now have a year to correct the issue before it starts causing you any real problems"

"Well, unless you also didn't stockpile any planes or tanks in which case you're so awful at this game no amount of weird game mechanics can save you."

 

[KiwiNoob]

Is it possible to capture enemies' "supply"? This is normal in HOI 3, but since in HOI 4, supply equals equipment, things may be changed. However, capturing supplies from opposing forces, like ammunition, fuel/oil and even equipment, is quite common in real world military conflicts, hope paradox team could give us such kind of simulation in the new HOI series' game.

Currently there is no captured equipment in game but it's something they'd like to add down the track.

 

[safe-keeper]

That's a ridiculous argument, you don't need to see anything in action to know the effects.

Yes, you do need to see it in action to get a feel for what it plays like.

I agree with him/her, I'm highly sceptical, but interested in seeing how this will play out.

 

[FUregistration]

Yes, you do need to see it in action to get a feel for what it plays like.

I agree with him/her, I'm highly sceptical, but interested in seeing how this will play out.

What....
Its the whole basis of theoretical science, and the whole basis of learning... You analyze the income of a system and you know what the outcome will be, I mean... there's like 20 different scientific areas where this simple principle is studied in order to later be applied to EVERYTHING...

I can tell you right now how will this play out.
HoI4 is going to be a great game, people will love it for the most part, but after a few months, all those "exploits" people complain about in HoI3 and use to justify this new ridiculous dumbed down version of mechanics in HoI4, will just be replaced by the new HoI4 exploits that derive exactly from what people are so eagerly and naively defending right now.

 

[Tharkun]

"Base attrition"? rofl

Tank divisions ideally carried with them enough fuel to run 150-200 Km. Let's say 200. About two HoI provinces.
So...
in order for this so called logistics system to supposedly simulate fuel usage of tank divisions, the division must lose all its tanks just by advancing two provinces.

Yes. It's that stupid.

 

[takedown47]

"Base attrition"? rofl

Tank divisions ideally carried with them enough fuel to run 150-200 Km. Let's say 200. About two HoI provinces.
So...
in order for this so called logistics system to supposedly simulate fuel usage of tank divisions, the division must lose all its tanks just by advancing two provinces.

Yes. It's that stupid.

lol I know right, it's a poorly designed system. I'm struggling to get my head around how it works. We use oil to build tanks and then use those tanks to refuel existing tanks??

 

[blue_yonder]

I am confident that within two years of release, HOI4 will have a fuel system that meets the design goals set out in DD1. Until then, mods will have to do. I have never, ever, used a mod in any game I’ve played, but I will have to break that principle and rely on the work of amateurs.

What I’m hoping for is that instead of ill-thought-out fuel mods mushrooming within days, untested and paying no regard to the capacities of the AI as per usual, Secret Master, Axe99 and others with good reputation and knowledge will work together to produce a community mod that doesn’t see the light of day for at least a month after launch and preferably much longer.

 

[cacti]

I would REALLY like to see the code involved in this. I just got my degree in game and simulation programming and am itching to get involved in something...ANYTHING lol

 

[takedown47]

I am confident that within two years of release, HOI4 will have a fuel system that meets the design goals set out in DD1. Until then, mods will have to do. I have never, ever, used a mod in any game I’ve played, but I will have to break that principle and rely on the work of amateurs.

What I’m hoping for is that instead of ill-thought-out fuel mods mushrooming within days, untested and paying no regard to the capacities of the AI as per usual, Secret Master, Axe99 and others with good reputation and knowledge will work together to produce a community mod that doesn’t see the light of day for at least a month after launch and preferably much longer.

lol modders aren't amateurs. Often their work is better than Paradox which is why the good modders get hired to join the main dev team. Wiz for example who is now a dev, made an exellent mod for CK2 called CK2Plus, which was and still is hands down better than the original vanilla version.

 

[Axe99]

I am confident that within two years of release, HOI4 will have a fuel system that meets the design goals set out in DD1. Until then, mods will have to do. I have never, ever, used a mod in any game I’ve played, but I will have to break that principle and rely on the work of amateurs.

What I’m hoping for is that instead of ill-thought-out fuel mods mushrooming within days, untested and paying no regard to the capacities of the AI as per usual, Secret Master, Axe99 and others with good reputation and knowledge will work together to produce a community mod that doesn’t see the light of day for at least a month after launch and preferably much longer.

Haha, you're far too kind to include me in that paragraph. I'm very much an amateur when it comes to modding (the last HoI modding I did was for HoI1, although I've been looking in the HoI3 files to 'warm up' for HoI4), but I'll be helping out the heavyweights as best I can - the HoI3 modders tended to be realism-focussed, so I'd expect more than a few to be interested in something like this. You're quite right in that any decent mod will take a while to get up to speed. That said, I'd be surprised if some of the HoI3 modders weren't in the beta, and if any of them turn their hand to it, there might be something sooner after launch. If not, though, it's going to take some serious time with the game to get a feel for it before it's possible to put together a mod that's likely to be reliable, and then a bit more time testing and refining it. It's also worth noting that most games (and PDS games definitely fall into this category) often have a couple of large-ish patches soon after launch which can influence balance a fair bit, which might slow down the process a little, depending on how they play out.

 

[Joppos]

Fleets are a special case because they do not have attrition, but as Podcat said, it is not much fun having to watch your grand fleet sit in port while USA takes over Pacific because you have no fuel to intercept them. Much better to challenge them, but not be able to replace lossess because you have no fuel to produce those replacements (just roleplay you saved just enough fuel for those critical missions). Also, looks like we will be producing ships faster than IRL so do not expect that Japan starting fleet "running on fairy dust" will be enough to win the war. In the end, the result is the same (defeat because of lack of fuel), which is what counts.

Having fleets stuck in port and being unable to do anything is exactly as fun as having no fleets at all and being unable to do anything. It's just not a good argument. The fact that all equipment of a sort, no matter if land, air or sea has to be depleted before fuel effects are felt will just create a lot of funky unreasonable situations across the globe that really benefits none.

 

[JamesJameson]

That's a ridiculous argument, you don't need to see anything in action to know the effects.

Are you saying someone is ridiculous because they don't know if this will cause your desired effects on the HOI4?

 

[Midden]

If a fleet / aircraft / tank is in supply, it has sufficient (fuel) to undertake it's mission.

As a player you can: raid convoys, bomb ports / and I assume infrastructure to disrupt enemy supply (fuel).

There are some mechanics in the game, i.e. it isn't totally absent.

 

[Zaku]

What....
Its the whole basis of theoretical science, and the whole basis of learning... You analyze the income of a system and you know what the outcome will be, I mean... there's like 20 different scientific areas where this simple principle is studied in order to later be applied to EVERYTHING...

I can tell you right now how will this play out.
HoI4 is going to be a great game, people will love it for the most part, but after a few months, all those "exploits" people complain about in HoI3 and use to justify this new ridiculous dumbed down version of mechanics in HoI4, will just be replaced by the new HoI4 exploits that derive exactly from what people are so eagerly and naively defending right now.

How are you even mentioning theoritical science? The very basic of science is that you need data to be able to get to a conclusion. You can't tell from 3 screenshots, and 20-30 lines of vague presentation if a system is complex or not. You may like or not like the basics, but to say the system is simple/dumbed down without even seeing it first is just wrong.

That's a ridiculous argument, you don't need to see anything in action to know the effects.
And yes, it does lack critical depth because its a critical strategic resource in that particular war, how many times does this have to be explained?

Really? You quote only a part of my post and tell me my answer/preference is ridiculous? Real mature.

 

[Zaku]

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).

You don't need to persuade me that the lack of the fuel is bad, I'd also like to have it back.
My point is that abstracting is better then having a broken and utterly unrealistic system like Hoi3 had. I think the game will be deep and complex enough with all the other great features we saw so far even if the fuel has been abstracted.
I would like to have a proper supply system very much, but I don't know how the Clausewitz can handle it.