Hearts of Iron IV - 33rd Development Diary - Supply

[Bsharp]

Ok, I've read at least a hundred posts and don't have time to read the rest. Still, I want to give my opinion.

Fuel should be accounted separately from spare parts because this forces a player to make decisions, creating choices and 'fun'. Fuel considerations also enhance realism, immersion, and (again) 'fun'.

Realism: An armored brigade without spare parts will suffer increased attrition and gradually decreasing combat effectiveness. Even when they're down to their last tank, that tank will perform at its full capability. On the other hand, a brigade without fuel becomes immediately, 100% unable to move. The difference is as night and day. When a unit that didn't have spare parts suddenly gets them, it will take some time (days or weeks) to repair the tanks. A unit that was out of fuel will be at full capability within hours.

Strategy: The currently planned system forces the player to build no more fuel-consuming units than he can currently supply. As Germany, you can't anticipate capturing oil fields. If you don't already have oil, you can't build the tanks/planes/ships. That is not historical. In a competitive war (as this should be) one may not know the future of their strategic fuel supplies. Historically, Germany and Japan built military organizations that they could not fuel, even though they had plenty of spare parts. On the other hand, it would be entirely possible that a country could be over-cautious in this regard and build too few mechanized units, thus creating a less capable military and increasing the probability of losing the war. Don't take that decision away from the player! Let the player estimate how much mechanization he'll be able to support.

Plenty of games have trade-offs of realism at least this serious. But, I am not happy about this one because it appears so incredibly easy to remedy! When opinions are strong, why not bend to them? What's the real reason for not having a fuel resource?

 

[Praetori]

Realism: An armored brigade without spare parts will suffer increased attrition and gradually decreasing combat effectiveness. Even when they're down to their last tank, that tank will perform at its full capability. On the other hand, a brigade without fuel becomes immediately, 100% unable to move. The difference is as night and day. When a unit that didn't have spare parts suddenly gets them, it will take some time (days or weeks) to repair the tanks. A unit that was out of fuel will be at full capability within hours.

I don't fully agree. A brigade that is low on fuel will stop operational scale maneuvering or non essential movement (such as utilizing terrain instead of roads) well before they run completely dry in order to have fuel to move and defend itself, some units within the brigade will get fuel while others will be ordered to stop and ration.
In a pinch the non essential vehicles and tanks will be stripped and scavenged for fuel, ammo and spares to power the combat-battalions if movement is forced anyway (and lose a lot of vehicles and heavy equipment in the process if retreating). The thing is that the majority of the combat-strength of an armored brigade lies in the armored battalions and those will be prioritized to have fuel long after most of the operational movement of the brigade is slowed due to the support assets, infantry, headquarters, artillery etc being restricted in movement.

You do have a point though that up to a certain degree the performance of a unit is unaffected if they have enough fuel. After that, mobility (especially on the strategic and operational scale) and combat strength gradually decrease if the allocated fuel is less than 100% of the requirements.
At some point there's too little fuel left in the brigade to move all the equipment even if only utilizing roads and that's when the scavenging happens (if movement is forced). Also a unit that's forced to move but can't maneuver in the terrain and that have to rely exclusively on roads for moving and fighting is very vulnerable and not as combat capable.

Worst case scenario you abandon everything that cannot be moved and consolidate the remaining fuel to select units in order to complete a retreat. Getting away with 10 tanks, 40 trucks and 2000 men is better than not getting away at all and there are few brigade or divisional level commanders that wouldn't do something similar.

 

[Modestus]

I don't fully agree. A brigade that is low on fuel will stop operational scale maneuvering or non essential movement (such as utilizing terrain instead of roads) well before they run completely dry in order to have fuel to move and defend itself, some units within the brigade will get fuel while others will be ordered to stop and ration.
In a pinch the non essential vehicles and tanks will be stripped and scavenged for fuel, ammo and spares to power the combat-battalions if movement is forced anyway (and lose a lot of vehicles and heavy equipment in the process if retreating). The thing is that the majority of the combat-strength of an armored brigade lies in the armored battalions and those will be prioritized to have fuel long after most of the operational movement of the brigade is slowed due to the support assets, infantry, headquarters, artillery etc being restricted in movement.

You do have a point though that up to a certain degree the performance of a unit is unaffected if they have enough fuel. After that, mobility (especially on the strategic and operational scale) and combat strength gradually decrease if the allocated fuel is less than 100% of the requirements.
At some point there's too little fuel left in the brigade to move all the equipment even if only utilizing roads and that's when the scavenging happens (if movement is forced). Also a unit that's forced to move but can't maneuver in the terrain and that have to rely exclusively on roads for moving and fighting is very vulnerable and not as combat capable.

Worst case scenario you abandon everything that cannot be moved and consolidate the remaining fuel to select units in order to complete a retreat. Getting away with 10 tanks, 40 trucks and 2000 men is better than not getting away at all and there are few brigade or divisional level commanders that wouldn't do something similar.

How does a Division that is in a poor Supply Area recover? As far as I can tell it cannot so it must retreat to a good Supply Area or the player must somehow make the poor Supply Area good.


Sending replacement equipment (Fuel) is pointless as it makes no difference the Division will still be considered to be out of fuel, in real life you can halt and wait for the fuel to catch up in HOI IV it never catches up unless you change the Supply Area to good.

 

[Alex_brunius]

How does a Division that is in a poor Supply Area recover? As far as I can tell it cannot so it must retreat to a good Supply Area or the player must somehow make the poor Supply Area good.


Sending replacement equipment (Fuel) is pointless as it makes no difference the Division will still be considered to be out of fuel, in real life you can halt and wait for the fuel to catch up in HOI IV it never catches up unless you change the Supply Area to good.

Unless the units consume different amounts of supplies depending on what they do. Then you can stop combat/movement and reduce consumption.

 

[Modestus]

Unless the units consume different amounts of supplies depending on what they do. Then you can stop combat/movement and reduce consumption.

Yes but unless you get out of the poor Supply Area or change it to good you will still continue to lose equipment, your still considered to be in poor Supply.


I suppose I could imagine a scenario where your matching or replacing the equipment faster then your losing it but that would be slightly bonkers.

 

[Praetori]

How does a Division that is in a poor Supply Area recover? As far as I can tell it cannot so it must retreat to a good Supply Area or the player must somehow make the poor Supply Area good.


Sending replacement equipment (Fuel) is pointless as it makes no difference the Division will still be considered to be out of fuel, in real life you can halt and wait for the fuel to catch up in HOI IV it never catches up unless you change the Supply Area to good.

If demand is the same no matter what then you still have some options. You can decrease the overall drain by moving out other units further back or you can increase the efficiency of the supply-area by widening the chokepoint (bigger ports/better infra). The new system "assumes" that you would always want to send as much available supply to the units at the front thus the total limitations are the same in the rear as up-front and supply doesn't seem to get progressively worse as in HOI3.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IRL a division getting into a bad supply-situation will improve what it can automatically if not on-the-move. A lot of the non-combat workload for soldiers on the eastern front (on both sides) consisted of building roads, both new ones across terrain and improving existing ones. This is partially emulated by the battle-planner system which I sincerely hope also holds bonuses for supply.

Logistics IRL is no easy matter and designing a realistic but easy to learn hard to master system for a game is probably no easy task. The supply-system in HOI3 wasn't terrible at the heart of it but it had some major flaws creating all the issues. The first was that it was very very hard for the normal player to decipher and understand what happened and how supply and fuel moved and the second was that there was no way for the player to influence HOW supply flowed over land, you could have a INFRA10 path and still supply would take other stupid paths through bad provinces instead. An armored corps moving or even worse, strat-redeploying (counterintuitive) 20 provinces behind the front would cause sudden and unfathomable fuel loss two weeks later at the frontlines (with players wondering why supply was ok but fuel was not).
Only after a certain number of match iterations would you get a "feel" for how supply could be expected to flow on each front but the AI was as clueless every time (evident from the troop requirements requested in the theater tab). Sending 50 armored divisions into eastern Ukraine is, for the historically or militarily versed player a big no-no but in HOI3 there was no indications whatsoever that it was a bad move (evident from the many threads on the matter on this very forum).

Simplifying the system by removing fuel from the equation and merging supply into binary supply-areas and supply/fuel abstracted straight into the production of the units might be a good move for the strategic part of the game but it really removes something from the operational side of the simulation.

 

[takedown47]

Ok, I've read at least a hundred posts and don't have time to read the rest. Still, I want to give my opinion.

Fuel should be accounted separately from spare parts because this forces a player to make decisions, creating choices and 'fun'. Fuel considerations also enhance realism, immersion, and (again) 'fun'.

Realism: An armored brigade without spare parts will suffer increased attrition and gradually decreasing combat effectiveness. Even when they're down to their last tank, that tank will perform at its full capability. On the other hand, a brigade without fuel becomes immediately, 100% unable to move. The difference is as night and day. When a unit that didn't have spare parts suddenly gets them, it will take some time (days or weeks) to repair the tanks. A unit that was out of fuel will be at full capability within hours.

Strategy: The currently planned system forces the player to build no more fuel-consuming units than he can currently supply. As Germany, you can't anticipate capturing oil fields. If you don't already have oil, you can't build the tanks/planes/ships. That is not historical. In a competitive war (as this should be) one may not know the future of their strategic fuel supplies. Historically, Germany and Japan built military organizations that they could not fuel, even though they had plenty of spare parts. On the other hand, it would be entirely possible that a country could be over-cautious in this regard and build too few mechanized units, thus creating a less capable military and increasing the probability of losing the war. Don't take that decision away from the player! Let the player estimate how much mechanization he'll be able to support.

Plenty of games have trade-offs of realism at least this serious. But, I am not happy about this one because it appears so incredibly easy to remedy! When opinions are strong, why not bend to them? What's the real reason for not having a fuel resource?

Well said

 

[Denkt]

The currently planned system forces the player to build no more fuel-consuming units than he can currently supply. As Germany, you can't anticipate capturing oil fields. If you don't already have oil, you can't build the tanks/planes/ships.

This is wrong, production will only stop if you lack all resources for the equipment. If you lack oil but have the other resources needed to produce the equipment such as steel for ship, you are still able to produce the equipment but at a slower rate (which is not a good thing in the long term).

Historically, Germany and Japan built military organizations that they could not fuel, even though they had plenty of spare parts. On the other hand, it would be entirely possible that a country could be over-cautious in this regard and build too few mechanized units, thus creating a less capable military and increasing the probability of losing the war. Don't take that decision away from the player! Let the player estimate how much mechanization he'll be able to support.

Very possible to do similar misstakes in the game. Like you could create more armored divisions then what you can support. Like if you create a massive amount of armored divisions, that mean you will need alot of tank equipment to cover losses to attrition and to combat. If you can't cover these losses you will have division that only have half the tank equipment they need or even less which may force you to disband many of them losing all experience they have earned.

Like you would have an X stockpile of fuel you will have a Y stockpile of tanks which don't tell us anything how many tank division we can support.

The problem with fuel resources is that it is to universal, I would just produce as much as I could which greatly simplifies the production part and basically remove the current choice of investing your limited amount of oil into either the navy, the airforce or the army. The developers know very well how to make the game good.

People arguing for fuel, here are some points:
- the HOI3 flow system is not possible to implement well. Even if it functions its not understandable to most people. We tried for years to make it work, it just doesnt. its shit on many levels and affected the rest of the game design in negative ways. The solution to the problem is definitly not "try harder".
- abstraction is necessary to make a game, and it is a game, it isnt a simulation we are trying to make. Most suggested solutions I'v seen in threads have either had huge flaws or basically made something that is exactly like supply making it pointless to separate.
- Its good to be passionate about stuff and raise concerns, but generally for stuff like this we already know the exact reaction it will have and consider it before hand. You also have to take opinions from people who havent played the game with a grain of salt as it can only be a hunch or feeling on their part. Of course there is also people who have played HOI3 so long that they do not see its flaws anymore ("the hoi3 supply system was almost perfection" some guy commented in a thread).

 

[Cpt Crash]

The new situation with oil was not what I was expecting. Like many, I had hoped for something like build-able and movable supply bases. However, the new system is not all that bad. The oil requirements for building certain types of equipment could be viewed the same as stockpiling fuel. If stocks of oil using equipment are used up, the units will begin to lose strength and/or effectiveness. If there is no oil to produce an item, that type of unit will shrink and die. This is a fairly reasonable approach to attain the desired affect.

I do not think it is possible to have a game with historical levels of fuel production and use. It will always have to be abstracted one way or another. An ai will never be able to cope with one alliance having a hundred times more fuel than the other. HoI 4 is just using another form of abstraction to get this important item into the game.

HoI 3 tried a flowing supply system--with mixed results. It was easy to "game" and prone to wild fluctuations. I strongly suspect that the end game slowdown was not caused by added units, but by millions of units of supply and fuel moving throughout the world. It really did add up. Playing as a major, I could almost stop producing supplies for nearly a year due to a back flow of supplies and fuel caused by my infra building.

I am not a programmer so have no idea how hard it would be to have supply dumps. As we have not seen those yet, I suspect that it is not a very easy item to implement into a game of this scope.

 

[takedown47]

Buildable supply bases and flowthrough are not my concern, what I'm seriously worried about is it won't be fun to play as a grand strategy game because tanks don't have to worry about oil to move around the map anymore (even though we have oil as a strategic resource). so what's the point if Germany with access to no oil can build uber panzer army and invade russia like they are some sort of reverse Ghengis Khan? Countries with the highest industrial capacity in this supply system design choice will always win out because they will simply out build their opponents without any regard for "can I afford to fuel these new units?" or "is it worth pushing 500km into this flank or should I wait and save up some fuel for a more powerful push in the spring over here?"

 

[Caesar15]

Worst case scenario you abandon everything that cannot be moved and consolidate the remaining fuel to select units in order to complete a retreat. Getting away with 10 tanks, 40 trucks and 2000 men is better than not getting away at all and there are few brigade or divisional level commanders that wouldn't do something similar.

Imagine the terror going through a German player's head as he sees his panzers being abandoned as the red horde advances through Germany.

 

[Cpt Crash]

Buildable supply bases and flowthrough are not my concern, what I'm seriously worried about is it won't be fun to play as a grand strategy game because tanks don't have to worry about oil to move around the map anymore (even though we have oil as a strategic resource). so what's the point if Germany with access to no oil can build uber panzer army and invade russia like they are some sort of reverse Ghengis Khan?

The way I understand it, that cannot happen. If Germany does not have the required oil, it will not be able to build the tanks for new units--or even keep pace with replacement requirements. Of course, Germany should not run completely dry--there should be some oil resources. Tank production should be able to continue right up to the end--maybe even high production due to increased efficiency, but it will not be able to build more than can be supplied.

Countries with the highest industrial capacity in this supply system design choice will always win out because they will simply out build their opponents without any regard for "can I afford to fuel these new units?" or "is it worth pushing 500km into this flank or should I wait and save up some fuel for a more powerful push in the spring over here?"

That may very well be true, but there should be other considerations too.

Oil is important in this new system--perhaps more so than in previous versions--time will tell..

 

[takedown47]

The way I understand it, that cannot happen. If Germany does not have the required oil, it will not be able to build the tanks for new units--or even keep pace with replacement requirements. Of course, Germany should not run completely dry--there should be some oil resources. Tank production should be able to continue right up to the end--maybe even high production due to increased efficiency, but it will not be able to build more than can be supplied.

No you can still build it just takes longer, hence our frustration with the way it currently works, that you use oil to build tanks and tanks to fuel tanks

 

[Jonas]

Like you would have an X stockpile of fuel you will have a Y stockpile of tanks which don't tell us anything how many tank division we can support.

The problem with fuel resources is that it is to universal, I would just produce as much as I could which greatly simplifies the production part and basically remove the current choice of investing your limited amount of oil into either the navy, the airforce or the army. The developers know very well how to make the game good.

In my opinion, fuel that can only be used in tank A variant 1 is too specialised. I was content with the abstraction that fuel was fuel. You are right that it will create a new need for a strategic decision regarding what to spend fuel on, because once committed to tank A variant 1 it cannot be recycled. I just do not feel the need for that strategic decision adds much value. In fact, I think it detracts from the gaming experience. Anyway, I want to thank You Denkt, for using proper arguments consistently throughout this thread.

HoI 3 tried a flowing supply system--with mixed results. It was easy to "game" and prone to wild fluctuations. I strongly suspect that the end game slowdown was not caused by added units, but by millions of units of supply and fuel moving throughout the world. It really did add up. Playing as a major, I could almost stop producing supplies for nearly a year due to a back flow of supplies and fuel caused by my infra building.

I am not a programmer so have no idea how hard it would be to have supply dumps. As we have not seen those yet, I suspect that it is not a very easy item to implement into a game of this scope.

In my opinion the flaw in the current system is not in the distribution. In fact, I like the distribution system. There is no need for a flow system or even the luxury of supply dumps. They would be great to have, but the main flaws lie in production and losses. Production will not have logical requirements and losses will not be incurred from logical causes. Someone might think it does not matter, because the player will not control or manipulate the supply system directly. I think it matters very much because the player will have to deal with the effects of the system and the effects will be massive.

I am very glad the policy of only caring for systems the player interacts with directly did not apply to the greatly improved air and naval combat systems.

 

[Peter Wass]

Buildable supply bases and flowthrough are not my concern, what I'm seriously worried about is it won't be fun to play as a grand strategy game because tanks don't have to worry about oil to move around the map anymore (even though we have oil as a strategic resource). so what's the point if Germany with access to no oil can build uber panzer army and invade russia like they are some sort of reverse Ghengis Khan? Countries with the highest industrial capacity in this supply system design choice will always win out because they will simply out build their opponents without any regard for "can I afford to fuel these new units?" or "is it worth pushing 500km into this flank or should I wait and save up some fuel for a more powerful push in the spring over here?"

Christ on a boat. Do you look at this before you post it? If Germany has no oil it won't be able to build an "uber panzer army". It might be able to build some units, but at a considerably slower rate than countries with large oil supplies. Once it hasn't built this "uber panzer army" it won't be able to keep it equipped either because it will be too busy failing to build it to build sufficient equipment, and then when it has failed to build it and to keep it in equipment, the unbuilt, underequipped "uber panzer army" will be unable to roll over russia [sic] because the supply capacity of the provinces won't support it. Other than everything you said though you might have a point. (And lets not get started on the whole tanks fuelling tanks nonsense.)

 

[Modestus]

If demand is the same no matter what then you still have some options. You can decrease the overall drain by moving out other units further back or you can increase the efficiency of the supply-area by widening the chokepoint (bigger ports/better infra). The new system "assumes" that you would always want to send as much available supply to the units at the front thus the total limitations are the same in the rear as up-front and supply doesn't seem to get progressively worse as in HOI3.

Hmm......

Your either withdrawing some Divisions from a bad Supply Area or trying to turn a bad Supply Area into a good one, in a roundabout way your attempting to change the logistical conditions under which your forces are operating, I need to think about that, it feels wrong though.

 

[The Albatross]

I don't get this.
Subs had a limited range. Other ships/uboats were used to increase that range. I don't see what this has to do with the supply system.
I hope that subs will work like planes. You pick a fleet, you assign it a mission and if it's in range it will go. Then back to port, then back to the mission, then back to the mission...



In game you would destroy the port facilities, right? This should limit the amount of ships that you can harbour there. I might be missing something here.


It's been said that you need to protect your trading routes. I'm missing your point.

No flaming intended.

@Victor Cortez -- been away - just noticed your reply to my post.

The milchkuh [milkcow] & covert resupply GER ship options achieved the following;
*** Extended the operational range of the Type VIIC - U-boat workhorse - enabling them to remain in the target areas for longer periods.
*** Allowed for resupply of torpedoes - standard load was 14 torps - thus enabling an immediate 2nd OPS cruise.
*** Food, water and medicine + any urgent medical attention for injured or sick crew members.

The OPS DATA for the Type VIIC is below;



The benefits for U-boat OPS has been stated here;

"Within a month of the U.S. declaration of war,the first German submarine arrived inAmerican waters.
Between mid-January 1942 and the end of June, U-boats sank 397 ships—171 off the east
coast of the United States, 62 in the Gulf of Mexico, and 141 in the Caribbean Sea.
Many of these vessels were tankers.
In the beginning of March, Adm. Karl Dönitz, commander of Germany’s submarine fleet, used specially modified U-boats to refuel and resupply operational submarines.
These “milch cow” submarines, as he called them, extended a U-boat’s patrol of five to six weeks to averages of sixty-two days with one refueling and eighty-one days with a second refueling. This practice vastly expanded each submarine’s effectiveness in the American theater."

The point is simply this --- the US East Coast is a loooong way from the U-boat bases in Europe.
For example === Bordeax, France to Charleston, USA is 3,700 Nautical Miles [NM] - ONE WAY - and takes 15 days @ 10 knots.
The normal range for the Type VIIC is 8,500 NM.
If it takes 30 days to transit this distance, then the U-boats are on station for a very limited range & time.
Limitations are therefore to about 1,100 NM for offensive cruising OPS and ONLY for approx 14-18 days.
Tactical limitations for the U-boat to maintain stealth will add significant time and distance to the transit time.
Hardly effective.

By using these types of resupply support, GER U-boat OPS were extended from 14-18 days on station - to approx 50 days with a second refueling.

The current Supply Model does not factor this IRL factor into the gameplay.

How to fix/model this reality?
As stated before, perhaps an Event is required.
If Political + Industrial Points [or whatever else] are spent, then "Germay develops the Milchkuh capability - enabling extended U-boat offensive operations."
The ranges of the U-boats are then extended.

 

[Nicolas I]

I actually like new supply. Call me whatever you want. As long as we are sending something to frontline to help units there, that is supply

But nothing is sent to ships, so no supply whatsoever...

 

[Praetori]

Imagine the terror going through a German player's head as he sees his panzers being abandoned as the red horde advances through Germany.

As it should be. There's a clear difference between leaving 30 lame ducks behind for the rear to handle when on the offense towards Dunkirk than pulling back at Tjerkassy. If the engine will reflect that or not remains to be seen however.

 

[optik]

1.To build a tank i need metal (for simplicity metal includes parts), the cost of actual manufacturing of my tank is the IC cost. To build a tank is then dependent on the resource i have to build it and the IC to manufacture it ( IC accounting for fuel required for furnaces/lorries etc ).

2. To run the tank i need fuel and spares (spares being attrition represented by metal usage over operating time). my tank has a range of 1 barrel / 100km and every 500km it travels i may need some spares (without combat and varied on terrain etc). It therefore requires supply -fuel and metal to operate, its operating cost increases over time and in certain activities (combat/stationary)

3. Lets say i have 1000 metal and 10 fuel. I can then build myself 10 tanks (costing 100) but can only operate 1 for 1000km or all 10 for 100km.

4. I could effectively build my 10 tanks and use the one to go 1000km (where a conquerable fuel source is), with the hope that i will secure a new source, which once i have i can continue to operate my other tanks.

5. If my one tank on the mission to the fuel source gets destroyed at 500km, i still have 5 barrels left to do something with the other tanks and i have to make another decision on how to operate them based on the supply i have available.

6. In the equipment system if i have 1000 equipment, i can build 10 tanks @100 but send all 10 to capture that fuel source with no worry of operating cost.

7. We should be able to cut supply starving fuel dependent units until they run out and simply become stationary, able to move again once they have received a new fuel load, and by cutting supply i mean hitting oil refineries, taking fuel provinces or cutting supply convoys/lines, this would cripple a mechanized army meaning it cant move as fast or as far in one sitting as it could with good fuel supplies, but their infantry would still work if they wanted to move them independently of the mech.

8. If i stop the equipment flow i slow down the supply of all the units equally, meaning it cripples the entire force, mech or not.

9. We have a choice on how many tanks we can build/want to build which is influenced by our IC and availability of resources to actually OPERATE them. Do i want to build 100 tanks and only operate 20 for local defense and have 80 in reserve(stationary but combat effectiveness greatly reduced) or build 10 and potentially send them to the other side of earth? these are choices which we should have.

10. By adding an equipment (all costs included in first manufacture) system you take away the focus of operating cost and how battle/interdiction etc influences how i can use my tank and all the choices for dynamic planning and strategy that comes with it, because the tank that i produce can essentially go on forever.

11. I should be able to build armour without having the ability to actually operate it - because i actually have the ability to build it but not operate it, if i want to have 100 heavy armour sitting in berlin acting as pillboxes as opposed to 100 light armour running to Moscow because i actually have enough fuel to get them there (unless interdicted) then i should have that choice.

12.There is a distinction between manufacturing cost and operating cost. manufacturing supplied by IC and operating supplied by available resources. The equipment supply system has lost the distinction which seems to have simplified it too much.

13. The equipment system has substituted operating cost for production time, no fuel = takes longer to build whereas it should be that no fuel = tank no drive from factory and tank no get to front. You cannot simplify to such an extent that the tank once built is guaranteed to get to the front.

14. The ultimate cost on average per vehicle will also be higher with equipment, considering the short time span of the game. The cost of unlimited fuel will be factored into the manufacturing price making it a high initial price. If the tank is destroyed in 2 months i lost all that extra cost associated with unlimited fuel, which i could of used to operate 30 other tanks for 2 months if it was on a fuel as you drive system. It is wasted cost which starts to get offset, the longer the tank is alive, given the combat nature of the game it probably wont be that long to offset the cost.

15., The simplification has also simplified the options and potential tactics/strategy/planning that comes with the game. i dont see why there cant be the same supply system for equipment but add a fuel and maybe food whatever. I should have to secure every resource i need to operate an army, the consequence for failing to secure a resource should result in my army not functioining, ie no fuel no vehicle support, no metal but fuel no building new ones, but continue operating existing ones. The equipment system penalizes you with production time and volume rather than operating potential.

16. please point out the flaws or misunderstandings that i have about this system because it is concerning that it is perhaps too simplified and i would really like to be wrong about it.

If you are wondering or want to discredit what i have asked based on game time, i have been playing HOI series for many years, despite having few posts. thanks