I like to think that you assign factories to an invisble quartermaster with an order like produce what is needed for a tank battalion
And all that is represented by tank equipment.
And all that is represented by tank equipment.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
.png){kind=avatar}
This sounds like a completely unrealistic system. But it might be more fun this way, while still preserving the essential idea of supplying troops. The problem seems to be a lot of cognitive dissonance cropping up with the terms being used. Change all the resource names from oil and steal to flob and flib and everyone would probably not have the same issue accepting this gameplay element.
Anyway, I'll just wait and see how it actually plays out in practice before I judge it too harshly.
Anyway, I'll just wait and see how it actually plays out in practice before I judge it too harshly.
The irony of this whole situation is that the new supply system is really quite similar to the much-maligned 'arcade mode' that gets a bit of a sledge in the OP. In some ways it's more detailed (capacity is still a thing, and it looks like it's calculated in an elegant, plausible and interesting way, as is the 'flow' of capacity from the capital) but in other ways it's less (you still needed fuel and supplies in arcade mode in HoI3, as well as manpower and equipment - in HoI4, you just need manpower and equipment) and it's an insta-transport system (like HoI3 arcade mode, although I actually don't mind this, as most armies tended to have supplies in tow when they went on the march - it's more realistic than the 'supplies start moving from the capital when you move' of HoI3's non-arcade mode).
Now, I don't mind the idea of an arcade mode for supply, but I don't think it's wrong for most of us that prefer deeper logistics (which we got in HoI1, 2 and 3, so it's not without precedent) to be a little sad at the removal of it in HoI4.
It's about strategic balance and choice. If you abstract fuel into supply, then suddenly you need the same ratio of fuel:everything else to run an infantry division as you need to run an airbase full of heavy bombers (which is, of course, anything but the case). By removing the capacity to vary the level at which a unit or airbase receives fuel, supplies and equipment, we're simplifying the resupply system to two flows (manpower and equipment, instead of manpower, equipment, fuel and supplies), limiting the choices and the strategic flexibility available to the player. That's not to say it's not a reasonable design decision - it is - but it seems odd to me that something that's strategically important at the high level (the balance between new equipment, fuel and supplies) has been cut, while something that's really just flavour detail at the low level (battalion-level division designer) gets in.
Thing is, you don't need stockpiles to get something that's a huge improvement on the current (you could just have civilian or military factories creating a flow of supplies and fuel - so if your flow of fuel dropped below the needs for all of your units to attack, you then have to choose between offensives, for example). The 'it wouldn't work because of stockpiles' is a bit of a furphy. You can either have limited stockpiles (really not that hard to code) or the 'no explicit but implicit small stockpile' system that factories work with.
It's unrealistic for a bunch of reasons, but some of those are very sensible abstractions. Some of us don't like it for different reasons to others, but my beef is that it assumes that the ratio of equipment:supplies:fuel is the same for every strategic situation. From a 'modelling logistics' perspective, that's a very blunt way of looking at it, and a step backwards (in terms of strategic depth and player decision-making) from earlier games in the series.
Well, they'll last 30 days, and then they'll be in trouble, although their capacity to survive is likely better than HoI3, as there'll still be some locally sourced supply unless they're surrounded in a small pocket with no cities or VPs. So 30 divisions would be in trouble, but looking at Korea, for example, you could drop ten 'supply worth' of units onto the peninsula and wouldn't need to run a convoy there. Ie, if it's 2 supply units for a division, and a HoI3-sized three-brigade div, that'd be 50,000 troops in Korea that didn't need a convoy to keep their ammo and fuel up to speed, they'd be able to, in the system, source it all locally. The numbers are still being balanced, so I think it's too early to go ga-ga about this kind of thing, but it looks like it'll be far easier to have troops at the ends of the earth without convoy support than HoI3.
This was only the case if you made sure you built it. Now, of course most players would produce enough, but it still took up IC. At the start of a game, I'd use a fairly small proportion of IC on producing supply, and a large one on producing units. At the end of the game, a larger proportion (often quite large) would be producing supplies, and a smaller proportion would be producing units, because the units in the field, even those not currently fighting or moving, needed to be supported. Under HoI4's system, units in the field that aren't doing anything and aren't in an 'attritive environment' (desert, jungle, arctic) will effectively be 'free of charge', which could (should) lead to some odd force level situations, particularly later in the game.
Now, if you remove the silly sized stockpiles in HoI3, and keep supply as needing to be built, then you could actually end up with some pretty interesting strategic situations. Under the proposed supply system here, it's not that interesting at all - it's just 'you'll take losses you need to replace fighting, training or moving through rough terrain, which you can make up if you're in supply'. HoI3 had this, as well as the logistics metagame of making sure you actually had the capacity to produce the fuel/supply to keep those units moving (even in arcade mode).
This is because every area will have a 'base' level of supply that doesn't require intervention from the capital, unlike HoI3, where (in standard mode, not arcade) you needed to be able to trace a line back to the capital to have any long-term supply (ie, beyond anything you might have brought with you or captured in the short-term). In the Korea screenshot, for example, you can have 10 supply units there forever without any link to another part of your logistics system at all. I think (although it's not entirely clear) that they won't receive equipment (ie, replacement fuel, ammo and equipment) unless there's a link to the capital though. But if they just sit there and behave themselves, they could 'live off the land' in Korea for the duration of the game.
That's no true - in HoI3 an army has it's equipment (tanks, infantry equipment, trucks, support equipment, what-have-you) and the things it's people and those equipment use up (spare parts, ammo, food, etc.,) and fuel (if it has equipment that needs it) and the people in the unit (manpower). In HoI4, this has all been rolled into two resources (equipment, manpower), despite the fact that the rate of use of these three elements varied wildly depending on the situation. It's obviously easier to manage (any system with two variables instead of four is going to be easier, all else being equal) and could turn out to be a good game design decision (although I personally think it'll make balancing hard and lower immersion, because of the implausible results that'll follow), but it's impossible for a less detailed system, when the reality of consumption varies like it does, that from a resupplied goods perspective the system for HoI4 is more realistic. More fun for some for sure (it's clear plenty of people like the new system, just like plenty of people liked arcade supply in HoI3, and there's nothing wrong with this at all - we all enjoy different elements of these games differently), but not more realistic.
Now, I don't mind the idea of an arcade mode for supply, but I don't think it's wrong for most of us that prefer deeper logistics (which we got in HoI1, 2 and 3, so it's not without precedent) to be a little sad at the removal of it in HoI4.
What I dont quite understand: Why should "fuel" and "supply" be seperated items? "Supplies" just means "everything a unit needs to function", so fuel could be abstracted into a single "supply" resource that is transported down the road.
The problem many people have here is that they dislike units "living off the land" even if cut off. But Podcat already said the numbers are subject to rebalancing. So maybe in the end, a province could sustain just 1 division each, and everything else is subject to your supply route management. And if supply is just one item, why can't it be abstracted totally?
If your supply lines are cut off, your units run out of supply (they WILL have an individual supply-meter/stockpile) and then tanks probably won't move anymore until you open supply routes again.
The new system makes more sense the more I think about it! We just have to move away from the old thought-musters in HOI3 were supply and fuel were tangible, seperate items!
Then it makes sense and isn't even immersion breaking
just to tag you
It's about strategic balance and choice. If you abstract fuel into supply, then suddenly you need the same ratio of fuel:everything else to run an infantry division as you need to run an airbase full of heavy bombers (which is, of course, anything but the case). By removing the capacity to vary the level at which a unit or airbase receives fuel, supplies and equipment, we're simplifying the resupply system to two flows (manpower and equipment, instead of manpower, equipment, fuel and supplies), limiting the choices and the strategic flexibility available to the player. That's not to say it's not a reasonable design decision - it is - but it seems odd to me that something that's strategically important at the high level (the balance between new equipment, fuel and supplies) has been cut, while something that's really just flavour detail at the low level (battalion-level division designer) gets in.
Thing is, you don't need stockpiles to get something that's a huge improvement on the current (you could just have civilian or military factories creating a flow of supplies and fuel - so if your flow of fuel dropped below the needs for all of your units to attack, you then have to choose between offensives, for example). The 'it wouldn't work because of stockpiles' is a bit of a furphy. You can either have limited stockpiles (really not that hard to code) or the 'no explicit but implicit small stockpile' system that factories work with.
It's unrealistic for a bunch of reasons, but some of those are very sensible abstractions. Some of us don't like it for different reasons to others, but my beef is that it assumes that the ratio of equipment:supplies:fuel is the same for every strategic situation. From a 'modelling logistics' perspective, that's a very blunt way of looking at it, and a step backwards (in terms of strategic depth and player decision-making) from earlier games in the series.
Well, they'll last 30 days, and then they'll be in trouble, although their capacity to survive is likely better than HoI3, as there'll still be some locally sourced supply unless they're surrounded in a small pocket with no cities or VPs. So 30 divisions would be in trouble, but looking at Korea, for example, you could drop ten 'supply worth' of units onto the peninsula and wouldn't need to run a convoy there. Ie, if it's 2 supply units for a division, and a HoI3-sized three-brigade div, that'd be 50,000 troops in Korea that didn't need a convoy to keep their ammo and fuel up to speed, they'd be able to, in the system, source it all locally. The numbers are still being balanced, so I think it's too early to go ga-ga about this kind of thing, but it looks like it'll be far easier to have troops at the ends of the earth without convoy support than HoI3.
This was only the case if you made sure you built it. Now, of course most players would produce enough, but it still took up IC. At the start of a game, I'd use a fairly small proportion of IC on producing supply, and a large one on producing units. At the end of the game, a larger proportion (often quite large) would be producing supplies, and a smaller proportion would be producing units, because the units in the field, even those not currently fighting or moving, needed to be supported. Under HoI4's system, units in the field that aren't doing anything and aren't in an 'attritive environment' (desert, jungle, arctic) will effectively be 'free of charge', which could (should) lead to some odd force level situations, particularly later in the game.
Now, if you remove the silly sized stockpiles in HoI3, and keep supply as needing to be built, then you could actually end up with some pretty interesting strategic situations. Under the proposed supply system here, it's not that interesting at all - it's just 'you'll take losses you need to replace fighting, training or moving through rough terrain, which you can make up if you're in supply'. HoI3 had this, as well as the logistics metagame of making sure you actually had the capacity to produce the fuel/supply to keep those units moving (even in arcade mode).
This is because every area will have a 'base' level of supply that doesn't require intervention from the capital, unlike HoI3, where (in standard mode, not arcade) you needed to be able to trace a line back to the capital to have any long-term supply (ie, beyond anything you might have brought with you or captured in the short-term). In the Korea screenshot, for example, you can have 10 supply units there forever without any link to another part of your logistics system at all. I think (although it's not entirely clear) that they won't receive equipment (ie, replacement fuel, ammo and equipment) unless there's a link to the capital though. But if they just sit there and behave themselves, they could 'live off the land' in Korea for the duration of the game.
That's no true - in HoI3 an army has it's equipment (tanks, infantry equipment, trucks, support equipment, what-have-you) and the things it's people and those equipment use up (spare parts, ammo, food, etc.,) and fuel (if it has equipment that needs it) and the people in the unit (manpower). In HoI4, this has all been rolled into two resources (equipment, manpower), despite the fact that the rate of use of these three elements varied wildly depending on the situation. It's obviously easier to manage (any system with two variables instead of four is going to be easier, all else being equal) and could turn out to be a good game design decision (although I personally think it'll make balancing hard and lower immersion, because of the implausible results that'll follow), but it's impossible for a less detailed system, when the reality of consumption varies like it does, that from a resupplied goods perspective the system for HoI4 is more realistic. More fun for some for sure (it's clear plenty of people like the new system, just like plenty of people liked arcade supply in HoI3, and there's nothing wrong with this at all - we all enjoy different elements of these games differently), but not more realistic.
- 4
HOI3 do not have equipment, it have divisions and there is a huge difference between these two. HOI3 do not have realistic supplies at all, like you can potentially produce supplies for things that have yet to be designed. HOI3 do not take account for strategic resources in the same way as HOI4 will. If you lack tungsten for example your anti tank guns will slowly lose their effectivness because you will be unable to supply them.
In HOI4 you will need constant production of certain equipment to keep your army running, it is alot deeper then HOI3 generic supply.
In HOI4 you will need constant production of certain equipment to keep your army running, it is alot deeper then HOI3 generic supply.
- 4
HoI3's equipment is implicit in the IC required to produce reinforcements. For example, when you upgrade from an infantry to a motorised division in HoI3, you need the reinforcement slider at a certain level for a certain amount of time for this to happen. There's no new manpower, it's making the equipment that motorises that division (as well as perhaps implicit retraining). It's not 'explicit' equipment, but it's there in effect (and just like HoI4, it teleports to the unit instantly). In HoI3, a unit received manpower, IC from the reinforcement slider if it had taken losses (ie, abstracted equipment), supplies and fuel. In HoI4 a unit will receive equipment and manpower. In HoI3 the devs had four variables to balance army performance over time and at a point in time, in HoI4 they have two. It's all about the underlying maths of the model that's being used to resupply units. In HoI3 there was a variable for equipment (it's just not called this), a variable for manpower, a variable for supplies and a variable for fuel. In HoI4, there's just equipment and fuel.
There's no way this doesn't make it harder to balance, because now attrition in Barbarossa needs to balance fuel use and equipment loss, for example, instead of having a separate system of accounting for each - so they have to get a rate of attrition that gives a reasonable average of both. However, if the operation goes differently than it did historically, using the average of the two, instead of modelling each separately, is more likely to lead to unrealistic results.
Now, if the ease of use for the player offsets the difficulty balancing and the implausible/ahistorical results, then that's fine. If we don't care about implausible/ahistorical results, that's also fine. We can't, however, say that HoI4's system is more realistic or more flexible (in terms of how it manages the cost of running a unit) than that in HoI3.
As for the stockpiling issue, that's a different problem altogether. I think it would be better if supplies and fuel were not a stockpile but a flow like everything else. Do this (presumably pretty easy in a system that's built around flows rather than stocks) and it's a non-issue.
- 3
There is a potentially big bug in this supply scheme. Suppose you have 3 armies in 3 different supply areas, and the supply path of each pass through one supply area which is the same for the 3 different supply path. In HOI3, that supply area need to handle the sum of the supply requirement for all 3 armies. In HOI4 scheme, it is not clear whether this will be the sum of the 3 armies, or the max of the 3 armies (potentially supply all 3 armies with the supply of one army) -- since HOI4 may not accumulate supply requirement of each supply area to save computational time and code complexity.
Think I stated this in my post on page 18 that Paradox went with an "arcade" supply system to get HOI4 out the door due to not being able to simulate a stable supply or fuel system at all. I get what Podcat and his team put down as key parts of supply but they completely did nothing to really address it, another Band-Aid system. Not sure what most think this game should be, but all see is a complete artist upgrade of game to make it look like EU/CK with a lot of the dynamics of those 2 games to cater to the younger eye candy let me buy the game mom crowd. Not at all happy with this diary let alone many of the other changes Paradox will not include because it caters to younger generation. Those of us that are more into history aspect or realism which takes even more time to code and plan are now given the take it or leave it outcome. Come on Paradox, tell us the truth about how you messed up and let marketing ruin the game that could be so much more? Come clean stop feeding us this bologna.
- 1
- 1
Apparently factories dont make supplies because those factories aren't modeled in the game. This also tells us that civilians are naked because civilian clothes factories aren't in game. But that's alright because those civilians are actually robots since agriculture isn't in the game. And they run on very long lived nuclear power sources because coal isn't in the game.
Okay sarcasm aside, ITS ABOUT GAMEPLAY PEOPLE. Having the option to not make enough supplies is stupid gameplay.
Okay sarcasm aside, ITS ABOUT GAMEPLAY PEOPLE. Having the option to not make enough supplies is stupid gameplay.
- 7
- 3
Think this through mathematically though. It means, in peacetime, when there's no attrition (through warfare or moving through bad terrain), your only limit on the size of your armed forces is manpower. This is a bad abstraction, and bad abstractions tend to build on themselves to lead to implausible gameplay results.
Edit: Only limit is the size of your manpower and the total supply capacity of all your supply regions, but I'd expect this to be so high as to still lead to the abstraction being a pretty bad one.
Last edited:
- 7
Yeah i see my eastern tank divisions (10,20,...50,...?) moving ( peaceful ) west after a deal with the sowjets and losing how much?
Every time I move larger formations I will get a headache from the costs.
Every time I move larger formations I will get a headache from the costs.
First, I don't agree with you that it is gameplay, nor is it "stupid" to stockpile things, like ammunition, so that you can later produce less of it and draw the balance from your stockpile. To me that is "smart" not "stupid".
Second, even if it is "better gameplay" (whatever that is supposed to mean), I don't care! I want more realism, not smoother gameplay. Further I don't think that is a binary choice. If your designers are up to it you can have both.
Let me ask a serious question, to anyone that likes this new supply system. There are now battle plans, no divisional leaders, no OOB, an abstract air force, no resource stockpiles to manage, and now no supply system to manage. What do you see yourself doing when you play the game? Seriously. Other than research choices and National Decisions it seems to me that the game is being designed for the player to do nothing but sit there and watch the screen.
- 2
- 1
Yes what would be stupid is ever running out.
Sure the realism of using metagame knowledge to achieve implausible results. Such realism!
- 4
Based on that logic, we shouldn't be building divisions either (as it would be rather silly running out of them as well), but just have a large 'army' that stays up-to-strength
.- 4
- 1
Something else to remember is IC is split between civ, mil and nav factories. This means that you have to allocate some factories for supply (be it fuel or ammo or socks). So in the end it still works about the same way. You still use some IC to produce supplies, and if it's all put on the military factory's then that is fine because you can say that military factory's make everything for the military. A civilian factory can be used to pull in oil, because it's a free market, this in turn can be used to make more equipment in your military factory's, so really it could end up requiring both the civilian and the military factory. If you start getting bombed you will have to use civilian factory's to repair your military factory's. Also since ships have a option to make it easier to repair them by sending them home to repair, I'm almost positive that Naval Factory's will be used to repair the ships. Perhaps it's not that you have to have another ship being built, it just uses up some of the factories, and the ones that are not used up on repairing will be used to keep creating what ever else it was creating.
It is almost the same with the ground units. If that ground unit wanted say , 15 different parts for 10 different tanks, the military factory is basically using some of it's factory power to produce replacement parts. It does not seem logical to break them up to a million different things like, parts, fuel, food. So for example it's not like one factory will make just one tank, and now that you are needing reinforcements that one factory will have to give up it's tank to the front line, it's more like 8 factory's all working on building tanks and it outputs 50 tanks a month or whatever, and a portion of those tanks is used for resupply of your divisions. If your division start taking loses you can look at it like now you only are out-putting 40 tanks a month, which is 20% less tanks. Which now accounts of the amount of IC (mil factory) that you will need to fuel, cloth and give ammo and replacement parts to fix some tanks, and a few new tanks to replace the losses. So you are still allocating IC to supplies.
The way you want to do it you want to have a whole different building to supply it? Or just the Civ building alone supply it?
Equipment is not just supply, Equipment is more part a part of supply. A disbanded unit could give it's equipment to the other division in it's province, but would still be out of supply. So to make supply not just pop out of no where, then include it in the production, because production is now your IC. Also if you look back you will see they use to detail out fuel in the division template, but it was removed a few DD's later. I assume it's because they tried it, and found a better way.
It is almost the same with the ground units. If that ground unit wanted say , 15 different parts for 10 different tanks, the military factory is basically using some of it's factory power to produce replacement parts. It does not seem logical to break them up to a million different things like, parts, fuel, food. So for example it's not like one factory will make just one tank, and now that you are needing reinforcements that one factory will have to give up it's tank to the front line, it's more like 8 factory's all working on building tanks and it outputs 50 tanks a month or whatever, and a portion of those tanks is used for resupply of your divisions. If your division start taking loses you can look at it like now you only are out-putting 40 tanks a month, which is 20% less tanks. Which now accounts of the amount of IC (mil factory) that you will need to fuel, cloth and give ammo and replacement parts to fix some tanks, and a few new tanks to replace the losses. So you are still allocating IC to supplies.
The way you want to do it you want to have a whole different building to supply it? Or just the Civ building alone supply it?
Equipment is not just supply, Equipment is more part a part of supply. A disbanded unit could give it's equipment to the other division in it's province, but would still be out of supply. So to make supply not just pop out of no where, then include it in the production, because production is now your IC. Also if you look back you will see they use to detail out fuel in the division template, but it was removed a few DD's later. I assume it's because they tried it, and found a better way.
- 1
Everytime I got new weapons in HOI3 it was the upgrade slider that I had to use to re-equip the troops, which comes directly from IC, just like reinforcements, it comes from IC.
IC is now civ, mil and nav factories. It still comes from IC then in HOI4 since IC = Factories.
So, is having the option to lose "bad gameplay"? You should be able to make a logistical mistake and end up in deep problems, but this is mostly removed, especially from naval warfare.
- 5
I still think you have a logical error in this argumentation:
You claim that by merging fuel and supplies into "just supplies" we could not present different units needs accurately. Your example being that a INF division would use the same amount of fuel as a ARM division. But here is your logical error: "Supplies" as an item already were pretty much simplified and did not depict the situation back then realistically. Since supply is everything (food, ammunition, clothing, spare parts, toilet paper ect), why would an armored brigade consume the same proportion of supplies as an infantry division? Tanks need a constant stream of spare parts, heavy tank shells but not much food. Infantry basically only needs food and ammo (and medical supplies ect). My point is that with "supplies", we had no problem rationalising that every unit would use a different kind of supply in different proportions. Why do you have a problem n o w to rationalise that supply for a tank means "10% food, 60% fuel, 30% ammo" and for an infantry brigade means "60% food, 40% ammo"?
However: I DO agree that leaving fuel (or supply for that matter) out as a tangible asset/item, things get simplified a lot, which might upset many people (not me, though). I think the system is capable of depicting the net effect of a lack of fuel correctly. If you suffer a penalty because you don't have enough fuel or because you can't replace your losses fast enough, what's the difference in a grand strategic view? In the end, all that matters is that lack of oil still leads to lower combat value!
While this system might be exploitable to some extent, from the other discussions on this forum i concluded that this is only an issue regarding naval warfare, since there is no real attrition involved that needed to be replaced (thus rendering the "lack of oil means less tanks" mechanic useless). The Devs need to come up with a solution for this specific naval problem.
But land combat is pretty much good as it is
- 1
- 1
Sure until someone finds a way to build a massive stockpile of tanks (etc.) and then use that stockpile to happily blitz everyone without needing fuel or oil. Add this (or something similar) on top of fleets not needing fuel and I am sure lots of people will be very happy with these abstractions.
Last edited:
- 1
Dude if you manage to gather enough oil to build up a huge stockpile of tanks, you pretty much would have enough oil to produce a shitton of fuel as well. If you then attack me, your tanks will still have losses, and you can only replace those losses if you fight in areas with good supply capacity/throughput to bring equipment to the front. That's the same like bringing fuel to the front.
So if you manage to build up an army with enough resources and logistics to replace losses instantly, you pretty much deserve to win the war, don't you think?
- 1
- Status