Hearts of Iron IV - 33rd Development Diary - Supply

[Axe99]

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.

Aye, I'm not saying whether the new approach is better or worse than HoI3s, because until we get our feet wet and see it in action, it's just too hard to tell (not least as there's still decent-sized chunks of the game we know nothing about ). That said, I'm not convinced it will be better, but that the problems with the new system could well be deeper than the issues with HoI3s system - instead of messing with day-to-day gameplay (there's nothing like Italy and Romania deciding to help in Russia and smashing your supply capacity) it'll potentially be affecting far bigger-picture strategic considerations.

On the realism side, aside from the broader strategic impacts, I'm also not sure the new system will be more realistic, but rather unrealistic in other ways (beyond the obvious ships running on fuel tanks that never run out, it doesn't look like there's a cost for transferring supplies, so beyond the level of the stacking limit presumably dropping for harder-to-reach areas, it'll be as cheap to transfer supplies to a unit parked in the capital as it will be to transfer it to someone stationed in the Arctic circle - and no bringing Greenland into it ). Whether it's more or less is also a bit hard to tell at this point. There's absolutely a huge improvement in useability and transparency, but on other fronts time will tell.

That said, it might all work out in the wash, in which case you can all have a good 'ole laugh at me in six or so months time .

I do agree the vast, vast majority of other changes they're bringing to HoI4 are brilliant, and even if the supply system is a step backwards or sideways, I expect HoI4 as a whole to be a substantial step forwards. I'll still be pre-ordering HoI4 when it becomes possible to do so on Steam, and I'm still looking forward to it like nothing else (not an exaggeration - even excellent-looking Stellaris doesn't make the HoI4 grade).

 

[No idea]

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.

I dont agree. HoI 3 had a proper supply system. A good one, that had several problems, but nothing that couldnt be solved, imho.

The new system is ok for me, but the lack of fuel as a consumable and the lack of a "supply transportation cost" make it worse, in those aspects, than the HoI 3 one. The only thing where the new system is going to bright (or so it seems) is that it will be easier to understand and to solve problems with your supply.

 

[Zaku]

I dont agree. HoI 3 had a proper supply system. A good one, that had several problems, but nothing that couldnt be solved, imho.

The new system is ok for me, but the lack of fuel as a consumable and the lack of a "supply transportation cost" make it worse, in those aspects, than the HoI 3 one. The only thing where the new system is going to bright (or so it seems) is that it will be easier to understand and to solve problems with your supply.

Well maybe you can solve the issues with the supply system hoi3 had, but developers couldn't. The game had several patches and expansions, and the problem still persists so I guess that they can't fix it because of engine limitations. It has been improved since vanilia, but it still doesn't work well if you have a large overseas empire.
I do not wish to get into the details, because this is not hoi3's forum and you could write pages and pages about the problems with its logistics system, but if you played with the game you know what I'm talking about.

 

[No idea]

Well maybe you can solve the issues with the supply system hoi3 had, but developers couldn't. The game had several patches and expansions, and the problem still persists so I guess that they can't fix it because of engine limitations. It has been improved since vanilia, but it still doesn't work well if you have a large overseas empire.
I do not wish to get into the details, because this is not hoi3's forum and you could write pages and pages about the problems with its logistics system, but if you played with the game you know what I'm talking about.

Perhaps the old system problems couldnt be "fixed", but the principle of supplies and fuel travelling to the units was a good one. Now supplies dont have to travel and fuel doesnt exist as something your units need to work, with all the potential "problems" people have pointed. From a designer perspective, perhaps the new system is "better" because it doesnt have the problems of the old one and it is eaiser to understand, but the new system hasnt much bearing on reality, and it will generate weird situations (like fleets sailing on fairy dust or units being able to advance into enemy territory endlessly)

 

[Modo]

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).

Ahh, so we're back to HoI2 in terms of logistics. I see someone gave up.

 

[Acaios]

it's nice to see that a lot of people does not understand the new supply system.

 

[Modestus]

Perhaps the old system problems couldnt be "fixed", but the principle of supplies and fuel travelling to the units was a good one. Now supplies dont have to travel and fuel doesnt exist as something your units need to work, with all the potential "problems" people have pointed. From a designer perspective, perhaps the new system is "better" because it doesnt have the problems of the old one and it is eaiser to understand, but the new system hasnt much bearing on reality, and it will generate weird situations (like fleets sailing on fairy dust or units being able to advance into enemy territory endlessly)

With regards land units that does not seem to be the intention but its going to be very hard to get it right.


For the system to work attrition needs to be at a level where your PZ Divisions may actually run out of tanks, that the losses are comparable to the use of fuel.


So if your PZ Division drives from Berlin to Moscow in summer unopposed it will arrive with almost no tanks and if it does it in Winter it will run out of tanks by Smolensk .

 

[No idea]

With regards land units that does not seem to be the intention but its going to be very hard to get it right.


For the system to work attrition needs to be at a level where your PZ Divisions may actually run out of tanks, that the losses are comparable to the use of fuel.


So if your PZ Division drives from Berlin to Moscow in summer unopposed it will arrive with almost no tanks and if it does it in Winter it will run out of tanks by Smolensk .

Yes, they can balance that problem with attrition, but then they would be using out of reality levels of attrition to get things right (more or less, because while attrition takes its toll, you can wreak havoc behind enemy lines, something you shouldnt be able to do, or you should do it just to a certain level, if you needed a constant flow of fuel). And then unrealistic levels of attrition carries its own share of problems. Basically, I think they are fixing some problems creating new, altough different, ones.

 

[fattymac]

I don't know if this has been stated or not, but i have an idea that may or may not fix this situation with the oil.

What we know:

1) No resource stockpiling
2) Equipment stockpiles
3) some equipment requires oil to make (planes, tanks, ships)
4) attrition, fighting, etc... drains equipment

What if you remove the oil requirement from the making of the equipment and create a new equipment piece that is made at civilian factories that converts oil (resource) into fuel (equipment), and make the fuel part of the equipment pieces that require it.

So an example would be a Panzer brigade that requires tanks and fuel, just like a infantry brigade requires infantry kits, or a motorized brigade needs infantry kits and trucks. This way you get the loss of oil in a semi-realistic manner and also the ability to stockpile oil (fuel).

Its already being done with infantry brigades requiring kits of equipment which is close to the previous HOI's supplies.

This could be done to ships as well, make the ships needing fuel as a equipment supply to keep them going

**edit

 

[salciccia]

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.

That is exactly what happened in Italy: six battleships and no oil to run them (from late '42 onward, i think).
Now we will see Littorio's going up and down in the Mediterranean - at least until sunk by RN - in a totally unhistorical way?

 

[wingo]

That is exactly what happened in Italy: six battleships and no oil to run them (from late '42 onward, i think).
Now we will see Littorio's going up and down in the Mediterranean - at least until sunk by RN - in a totally unhistorical way?

Yes, devs made a conscious decision to allow this, because it is a game. In HOI3, anyone could stockpile before the war and have no problems for the whole game. In HOI4, even though we will not have problem moving around oil-hungry units, we will have at least problem producing new oil-hungry equipment (including ships).

 

[Tharkun]

In HOI3, anyone could stockpile before the war and have no problems for the whole game.

Total crap.

You could have 99.000 supplies stockpiled as Germany and still have logistical issues in Russia. You know why? Because HoI3 had a distribution system.

You could have 99.000 fuel stockpiled as Japan and still not be able to operate the entire Combined Fleet out of the Marshalls. You know why? Ships needed fuel in order to move. And ports.

 

[Poh]

Total crap.

You could have 99.000 supplies stockpiled as Germany and still have logistical issues in Russia. You know why? Because HoI3 had a distribution system.

You could have 99.000 fuel stockpiled as Japan and still not being able to operate the entire Combined Fleet out of Midway. You know why? Ships needed fuel in order to move and Midway only had a small port.

and that hasnt changed

 

[Tharkun]

and that hasnt changed

Of course it has changed. Tanks now need tanks and ships need ships in order to move. And there is no distribution system whatsoever. There is a teleportation 'mechanic' in place.

We 're dealing with flat earthers here....

 

[Poh]

Of course it has changed. Tanks now need tanks and ships need ships in order to move. And there is no distribution system whatsoever. There is a teleportation 'mechanic' in place.

We 're dealing with flat earthers here....

As i understand what we have been told:
For land units we have supply areas. A supply area has a certain local supply capacity. besides the this it recieves supply capacity from neighboring supply areas aswell as a "flow" of capacity stretching back to the capital or the next best source if the capital is taken.
This means that while theres no actual supply running in the system you still have capacity being "transported" from area to area and therefore you can still have large logistical issues in Russia. For all intents and purposes it function exactly the same as the HoI3 system when the latter has enough supply being sent into the system, except its more transparent and its easier to solve problems in the HoI4 system.
For ships its true that theres no fuel but from what we have been told iirc the ports still need to recieve supply capacity. As such you might not be able to operate the combined fleet out of the Marshalls if you are not able to ship enough capacity to the supply area.

So what you say is correct and wrong at the same time because while theres no distribution of supply theres distribution of capacity which enables units to go out of supply.

 

[Jazumir]

I don't know if this has been stated or not, but i have an idea that may or may not fix this situation with the oil.

What we know:

1) No resource stockpiling
2) Equipment stockpiles
3) some equipment requires oil to make (planes, tanks, ships)
4) attrition, fighting, etc... drains equipment

What if you remove the oil requirement from the making of the equipment and create a new equipment piece that is made at civilian factories that converts oil (resource) into fuel (equipment), and make the fuel part of the equipment pieces that require it.

So an example would be a Panzer brigade that requires tanks and fuel, just like a infantry brigade requires infantry kits, or a motorized brigade needs infantry kits and trucks. This way you get the loss of oil in a semi-realistic manner and also the ability to stockpile oil (fuel).

Its already being done with infantry brigades requiring kits of equipment which is close to the previous HOI's supplies.

This could be done to ships as well, make the ships needing fuel as a equipment supply to keep them going

**edit

Not exactly a fresh idea, but a good and simple one. It´s rather obvious, really, isnt it? Excessive stockpiling would have to be dealt with, though, by some sort of cap, maybe? Also: If we had such a system as decribed, should tanks (et al) still need fuel -maybe less- to be produced, as in the current design?

 

[Tharkun]

As i understand what we have been told:
For land units we have supply areas. A supply area has a certain local supply capacity. besides the this it recieves supply capacity from neighboring supply areas aswell as a "flow" of capacity stretching back to the capital or the next best source if the capital is taken.
This means that while theres no actual supply running in the system you still have capacity being "transported" from area to area and therefore you can still have large logistical issues in Russia. For all intents and purposes it function exactly the same as the HoI3 system when the latter has enough supply being sent into the system, except its more transparent and its easier to solve problems in the HoI4 system.
For ships its true that theres no fuel but from what we have been told iirc the ports still need to recieve supply capacity. As such you might not be able to operate the combined fleet out of the Marshalls if you are not able to ship enough capacity to the supply area.

So what you say is correct and wrong at the same time because while theres no distribution of supply theres distribution of capacity which enables units to go out of supply.

What I say is correct and right at the same time, because as long as units remain under the area limit, they essentially use no supplies whatsoever. Realising this, they then had to invent another stupid concept in order to make this stupid concept work. They invented "base attrition", which must necessarily be absurdly high if it is to even resemble historical fuel usage. (I am delibereatly concentrating on land units here, because the thought 'ships need ships to move' makes my head explode).

What's even more stupid (in fact insulting) is that they needed these "abstractions" in the first place. And I don't buy the marketing bullshit either. I don't think there is any gamer in existance above 10 years old that doesn't understand the basic concept "tanks need fuel in order to move". They were just lazy/run out of time/couldn't make what they really had in mind work.

 

[Zaku]

I don't know if this has been stated or not, but i have an idea that may or may not fix this situation with the oil.

What we know:

1) No resource stockpiling
2) Equipment stockpiles
3) some equipment requires oil to make (planes, tanks, ships)
4) attrition, fighting, etc... drains equipment

What if you remove the oil requirement from the making of the equipment and create a new equipment piece that is made at civilian factories that converts oil (resource) into fuel (equipment), and make the fuel part of the equipment pieces that require it.

So an example would be a Panzer brigade that requires tanks and fuel, just like a infantry brigade requires infantry kits, or a motorized brigade needs infantry kits and trucks. This way you get the loss of oil in a semi-realistic manner and also the ability to stockpile oil (fuel).

Its already being done with infantry brigades requiring kits of equipment which is close to the previous HOI's supplies.

This could be done to ships as well, make the ships needing fuel as a equipment supply to keep them going

**edit

But what's the difference in what you're suggesting and what paradox did? Let me explain myself:
Building tanks is not actually building tanks. I know it sounds stupid, but bear with me for a sec. Building tanks means you build tanks, and you also build parts, engines for the damaged vehicles... and filled fuel barrels for the empty ones. When a division is fighting it suffers losses. Now part of the losses are actually the fuel they used in certain operations. Same goes with moving, they have attrition when they move so they do use fuel even then.
I know it's a bit wonky, and I don't like it either, but Paradox games always used abstractions like this, so I guess we have to bear with it.
By removing the oil requirement of the tanks and building fuel seperately like you suggest is basically the same then building them together.

 

[Joppos]

By removing the oil requirement of the tanks and building fuel seperately like you suggest is basically the same then building them together.

Except it really isn't. The two alternatives have pretty profound differences. One for example doesn't require concurrent supply of fuel for its planes/tanks/vehicles to function, with serious strategic and tactical implications. It models oil shortage by removing tanks/planes/trucks from divisions/wings, making sure that even if you gain access to oil you still have to build those lost vehicles up again before your army is ready. It also prohibits the player from building at a normal pace during oil shortage.

Luckily, at least for land warfare, it seems very moddable. Much less certain for air and sea though.

 

[Cardus]

But what's the difference in what you're suggesting and what paradox did? Let me explain myself:
Building tanks is not actually building tanks. I know it sounds stupid, but bear with me for a sec. Building tanks means you build tanks, and you also build parts, engines for the damaged vehicles... and filled fuel barrels for the empty ones. When a division is fighting it suffers losses. Now part of the losses are actually the fuel they used in certain operations. Same goes with moving, they have attrition when they move so they do use fuel even then.
I know it's a bit wonky, and I don't like it either, but Paradox games always used abstractions like this, so I guess we have to bear with it.
By removing the oil requirement of the tanks and building fuel seperately like you suggest is basically the same then building them together.

This kind of abstraction is just arcade. A matter is producing hardware (such as engines, spare parts, etc) and another matter is extracting oil. Hardware can be produced anywhere there is a plant, oil can be extracted only in some specif places. The UK or Germany can build as many tank plants as they want but they cannot get as much oil as they want. They must trade and buy it. That's why a "realistic" game needs money. That's why a "realistic" game should distinguish between finished goods and resources/raw materials. Finally (but not for importance) resources and finished goods should "flow" to ensure that they go where they are needed when they are needed.

Any other solution is just arcade. People have the right to like it but there is no historical/real rationale behind that. In my opinion instead of trying to justify this decision from the reality it would be much more honest to say: "we like it because it is much easier" and/or "the engine cannot handle the logistic" and/or "we dumbed it down because we want to sell the game to a bigger audience" and/or "we like it because we like it".

At the end it is just a game. Peace and love my friends.