Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Hearts of Iron IV - 33rd Development Diary - Supply

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 48386 Bug Reports 17326 After Action Reports (AAR)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
"Hey, tell the Fuehrer we can't build more Tigers."
"Why not?"
"We need 3.000 gallons of fuel to build a Tiger."
"But... the tank is not made out of fuel and we need to stockpile fuel near the front in order to use our tanks later."
"Hey I just work here. Give us 3.000 gallons now and the tank can run for 100 years continuously, even if there isn't a single drop of fuel in the entire Reich."
"Really? I give you 3.000 gallons now and then I can use it like... forever?!"
"Yes, the tank just needs to be 'in supply'."
"Hahahahahahahahaha...Ok...um.....hahahahahahahaha, where is my HoI3 copy?"
 
  • 14
Reactions:
If attrition rates are well represented you will not be able to move the tank for long without consequences since it will break down and need to produce a replacement
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Weil Am Rhein said:
With all the point/counterpoint where the new supply system is concerned, my head is just spinning. Consider the following scenario: I am a small nation. I build 40,000 tanks that come with "forever fuel tanks". I attack another nation and subdue it in less than 30 days before attrition is a factor. If this can happen, how is that realistic?
Click to expand...

Once you attack, you start taking attrition. You lose tank equipment (let's distinguish that from an actual tank on the map) while you're fighting. You lose more in difficult terrain conditions during the battle. Even if you completely crush the enemy and lose nothing to enemy action, you still lose tank equipment during the battles. If your tanks are in an area with insufficient connectivity (it's not about "getting supplies," but "being connected to the supply network"), then after "a short period" (per the Diary) you start losing tank equipment to attrition. The attrition scales up the longer your tanks are not connected, reaching its peak at 30 days. Additionally, there are scaling penalties to movement and combat abilities. And lastly, equipment lost to attrition or combat is not replaced while disconnected, so while you might retain your manpower the division loses tanks. Whatever happens, you'll be down a bunch of tank equipment after the war.

The confusing part about the simulation is that you feel like you're producing Shermans, but actually some of your tank equipment is Shermans, some of it is a Sherman's worth of spare parts, and some of it is a Sherman's worth of fuel.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a sherman´s worth of fuel, though. It´s impossible to quantify uniformly across the board. And it doesnt have to be allocated to the tank at the start of its production either, irl. The reason people usually breath pretty hard during the act of procreation is not that they want to provide the possible offspring with enough oxygen for its entire lifetime - it´s simply not how it works.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
Jazumir said:
There is no such thing as a sherman´s worth of fuel, though. It´s impossible to quantify uniformly across the board. And it doesnt have to be allocated to the tank at the start of its production either, irl. The reason people usually breath pretty hard during the act of procreation is not that they want to provide the possible offspring with enough oxygen for its entire lifetime - it´s simply not how it works.
Click to expand...

I quite agree, and I think this system (which is principally good) could be married with a fuel requirement as well.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Vukodav said:
We are talking about supplying here, not replacing loses. If it is the same thing for the developers, I just might stick to that "uninteresting" system that was unrealistic, but way more realistic than this.
Click to expand...

You would rather have a less interesting because it was more realistic? It's a shame there's no disrespectfully disagree button.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Just to throw another match into the fire, we know that a 'standard' triangle infantry division uses 1 supply point. How many does a 'standard' medium tank division use ? Will an overuse of armoured divisions on a front have supply problems and become easy meat for massed infantry divisions? I really hope I get a beta invite so I can stop whistling in the dark.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Axe99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You've forgotten that training your troops costs attrition. So sure, you could pre-build a massive stockpile of tanks (soon to be obsolete once war starts) and never train your troops to use them, thereby having a massive paper tiger.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Maarek said:
You would rather have a less interesting because it was more realistic? It's a shame there's no disrespectfully disagree button.
Click to expand...
Well, sorry, there is not. Uninteresting was under quotation marks, you know, " " these things? It was uninteresting to those who could not figure it out - while it was actually very realistic. The main faults were the fall of capital and fleet that didn't need to return to the port.

But as the flow of supplies goes and the network itself, it was very interesting and realistic. Complicated, yes, and that made it fun. Because supply is the thing generals think about. Who does not like it and finds it boring, should stick to RTS games, not grand strategy games.

But I have noticed that HOI players liked it, while people who like this new system of HOI4 are mostly playing other PDX games.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
HOI3 did not have a good supply system, the supply resource was just terrible and more about exploiting then having any startegy behind it.

podcat said:
yeah, which means that *how* to supply someone becomes more important. If you lose some resource you need (say chromium for advanced tanks) you might have to reoganize those divisions to be able to supply them.
Click to expand...
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Thanks for all responses. From my example, it seems that the short term is all that matters. I have expanded my territory and don't necessarily care about existing units-- now dissolving due to out of supply attrition. Ignoring them or even disbanding them, I start to produce my numerous tanks or whatever again to repeat another take over of a small nation. The only consequence is needing time to do it again. I'm not trying to be obtuse, just putting out feelers for pitfalls of the new supply system. Boiled down, could a player use this technique to expand by snowballing the limitations of the new supply system?
 
RickInVA said:
When war was declared in 1939 Hitler was informed that Germany had 1 year of oil reserves (Tooze), J
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tooze also says those numbers were optimistic. It wasn't actually that much in terms of sustained operations.

WeissRaben said:
Which, incidentally, puts Germany in a waaay better position than OTL: the Reich was going to collapse, bad, if it didn't get the resources it then looted from France. As you said, they didn't have the money: their economy was on the verge of a complete meltdown. French resistance would have spelled their end.
Click to expand...

Podcat did say that the goal was to make the Axis easier to play than historically.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Scrapping the oil consumption mechanic is a huge mistake. It takes away from the game a whole dimension of strategic considerations which historically shaped the actions of all participants of the war.
Now, an oil embargo won't ever diminish the Japanese Navy's ability, and cutting Germany from Romanian oil field will stop its tank production, but have no effect on the ability of the Panzerdivisions to drive forward towards Moscow. At least, as long as they have bread and shells, which I'm sure are a great power source for tank and ship engines.

Separating oil from every other type of supply in HoI3 was common sense. The game doesn't need separate game mechanics for food and bullets, but oil has to be there, not just as a construction requirement, but as a ressource that all mobile units, all planes and all ships consume when they move and fight. It makes whole regions, like Indonesia, Romania, the Middle East or the Caucasus relevant.

There is a line between streamlining and hurting the core essence of the game for the sake of simplicity, and here, it has been crossed.
 
  • 15
Reactions:
I've scanned through this thread so I may have missed this question. How does bombing infrastructure affect supply and would it be possible under the current system to bomb a country out of supply (aviation fuel). Just like the allies did to Germany?
 
  • 6
Reactions:
LostinSpice said:
I've scanned through this thread so I may have missed this question. How does bombing infrastructure affect supply and would it be possible under the current system to bomb a country out of supply (aviation fuel). Just like the allies did to Germany?
Click to expand...
From what I understand you will still be able to bomb infrastructure including resource producing regions and the production of said resources. That said, I imagine, if you managed to effectively cut off their oil producing regions you aren't going to ground their entire airforce anytime soon because the airforce fuel/oil is payed in advance. However the bright side is they won't be able to replace their loses of airforces quickly because they will incur a penalty to building new planes from lack of oil.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
well hoi4 just went of my to buy at discount list... and it has ended up in the too shit to buy at any price... honestly?? tanks and units that can operate without fuel or supplies, massive bollocks
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back