Hearts of Iron IV - 33rd Development Diary - Supply

[Axe99]

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"?

You're absolutely right in that the "supplies" situation in previous games had the same issue that we have now with equipment, but it's more granular. Equipment is less detailed than supplies is less detailed than food/ammo/medical supplies, is less detailed than water/food/small arms ammo/artillery shells/bandages/morphine and so on. I'm not saying I didn't have an issue with previous games - rather, I'm saying that taking the number of variables that can supply a unit from 4 to 2 limits the capacity at which these things can be modelled, and that at a certain point of abstraction, it will start to distort how things work at the macro level. Given we've literally got one non-manpower variable, the potential for distortion is actually quite high. Three non-manpower variables means it's easier to fit the function to actual behaviour, and it's something the series has had before. Given the series has had difficulties (to put it mildly) balancing nations in the past, reducing the range of things available to help achieve an appropriate balance for HoI4 will make things harder.

Don't get me wrong, I can accept it, in the same way I can accept running over ammo in a game of Call of Duty automatically picks it up and puts it into a full mag on your magic (and presumably rather heavy, for most CoD situations!) webbing. As a gameplay device, there's nothing wrong with it, but we're accepting a reduction in strategic depth, player control, historical plausibility/immersion for ease-of-use. There's nothing wrong with preferring ease of use over strategic depth, control and immersion, but I think it's worth recognising that this is the choice the supply system is making, in effect.

 

[keynes2.0]

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 .

No that's not at all equivalent. There are different kinds of divisions to build.

 

[Axe99]

No that's not at all equivalent. There are different kinds of divisions to build.

OK, if you want to get nitpicky, then let's talk about replacements. Why should we bother have replacement equipment built, as any sensible army worth its salt will be replacing it's equipment? Ie, you could apply your argument to supplies to the equipment that's used as replacements as supplies in the new system. Why not have units just stay automatically fully replenished, as long as they're in supply?

 

[ozmono2005]

No that's not at all equivalent. There are different kinds of divisions to build.

I think the logic still breaks down. It goes something like this I believe, why have different divisions as it would be pretty silly not to build the correct ones? It's a management game even if it's a warfare game and choices, be they making trade offs for stockpiles of resources or supplies, or choosing what divisions to build generally adds to the depth and replay ability. That said I don't think the supply system is all that bad, it's just not that good either.

 

[Denkt]

HOI3 do not offers as deep supply system as HOI4 do. In HOI3 I can for example first produce a bunch of supply then a bunch of divisions and so on. I can just move my production focus all the time without much penalty.

In HOI4 you can not do what I said above, you will not change production often because you will lose efficiency if you do that.

To create an armored division in HOI3 I have to design an armored division then tell add the division in the in the production que and to support it I just have access to fuel and have supply reinforcement and upgrades can be done long after I have been producing any tanks (do a factory one day produce weapons and the next day tanks?)

To create an armored division in HOI4 I have to design an armored division which now cost army knowledge (army experience). Then I have to assign a number of factories to produce tank equipments which requires a number of different startegic resources. To support my armored division I need to have tank equipments in the stockpile. To upgrade my armored division I need to produce more modern tank equipment, if I switch my tank production line to the more modern tank equipment I will lose efficiency which will hurt in the short term and may prove critical if tank equipment is in short supply. Another thing I have to keep in mind is the availability of the strategic resources I need to keep the tank line running an enemy could destroy my access to one of these resources which will mean I can no longer support my armored divisions. I can not just take these factories of tank production like I can in HOI3 because I will run out of tank equipment eventually.

 

[BrotherJonathan]

I'm not sure quite what to make of this (I barely understood the original supply system, so I can't really tell the difference at this point), but it seems like you've managed to streamline things quite a bit. This looks like it will give players more direct control over the supply system, hopefully eliminating the annoying feeling I tend to notice when playing older Paradox titles of the game essentially "playing itself" with no player control or input.

 

[sgt.stickybomb]

Does any one know if supply travels instantaneously or does it take time depending on the destination?

 

[Axe99]

HOI3 do not offers as deep supply system as HOI4 do. In HOI3 I can for example first produce a bunch of supply then a bunch of divisions and so on. I can just move my production focus all the time without much penalty.

In HOI4 you can not do what I said above, you will not change production often because you will lose efficiency if you do that.

To create an armored division in HOI3 I have to design an armored division then tell add the division in the in the production que and to support it I just have access to fuel and have supply reinforcement and upgrades can be done long after I have been producing any tanks (do a factory one day produce weapons and the next day tanks?)

To create an armored division in HOI4 I have to design an armored division which now cost army knowledge (army experience). Then I have to assign a number of factories to produce tank equipments which requires a number of different startegic resources. To support my armored division I need to have tank equipments in the stockpile. To upgrade my armored division I need to produce more modern tank equipment, if I switch my tank production line to the more modern tank equipment I will lose efficiency which will hurt in the short term and may prove critical if tank equipment is in short supply. Another thing I have to keep in mind is the availability of the strategic resources I need to keep the tank line running an enemy could destroy my access to one of these resources which will mean I can no longer support my armored divisions. I can not just take these factories of tank production like I can in HOI3 because I will run out of tank equipment eventually.

You're mainly talking about the production system here, not the supply system. You're right in that individual equipment being specific to certain things does introduce some depth in supply, but I'd argue that this is offset by the fact that those individual 'equipment' actually represent a weighted average of everything that equipment will need in its life (ie, technically speaking, there is no supply at all, there's just a stacking limit, and when you lose old equipment, you get new equipment as long as you're not over the stacking limit for the supply region).

 

[ozmono2005]

Does any one know if supply travels instantaneously or does it take time depending on the destination?

There are people who have been talking about it, questioning it and analysing it to the extreme. I'm not really one of them, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'm under the impression the simplest way to describe the current system is a supply cap that is influenced by interconnected provinces. So a bit like EU in that there is a cap before you start taking attrition but expanded on as connected provinces via land or ports expand the cap. I'm under the impression that so long as you keep the connectivity of the provinces contributing to the cap that it will be instant but not entirely sure.

 

[Denkt]

You're mainly talking about the production system here, not the supply system. You're right in that individual equipment being specific to certain things does introduce some depth in supply, but I'd argue that this is offset by the fact that those individual 'equipment' actually represent a weighted average of everything that equipment will need in its life (ie, technically speaking, there is no supply at all, there's just a stacking limit, and when you lose old equipment, you get new equipment as long as you're not over the stacking limit for the supply region).

All supplies have to be produced so the production system is of extreme importance for the supply system.

 

[ozmono2005]

All supplies have to be produced so the production system is of extreme importance for the supply system.

Sort of, aren't there really two types of supplies though? One being the supply cap that is determined by interconnectivity of provinces and one being replacement equipment.

 

[Denkt]

Sort of, aren't there really two types of supplies though? One being the supply cap that is determined by interconnectivity of provinces and one being replacement equipment.

Yes HOI4 have two type of supplies, actually the HOI4 supplies is basically how good your logistical network is while equipment is the things your divisions need.

 

[keynes2.0]

I think the logic still breaks down. It goes something like this I believe, why have different divisions as it would be pretty silly not to build the correct ones?

If the devs put in divisions that are obviously suboptimal, that would be wrong.

You keep asking this series of rhetorical questions but each one is a loaded question. The "logic" is that you are shifting the burden of proof on me to point out a loaded question, after which you will ask another loaded question and so forth until I get bored and leave.

 

[Lifthrasil]

Don't get me wrong, I can accept it, in the same way I can accept running over ammo in a game of Call of Duty automatically picks it up and puts it into a full mag on your magic (and presumably rather heavy, for most CoD situations!) webbing. As a gameplay device, there's nothing wrong with it, but we're accepting a reduction in strategic depth, player control, historical plausibility/immersion for ease-of-use. There's nothing wrong with preferring ease of use over strategic depth, control and immersion, but I think it's worth recognising that this is the choice the supply system is making, in effect.

That's true. I also thought that this leads to a massive simplification and found it a bit odd that fuel or at least supplies itself won't be such an issue anymore. But since I'm pretty much a HOI-noob I didn't really mind, as the old system was mindcrushingly frustrating. They probably go for a bigger market share this time, that's why they abstract those things.
An easy way to solve this would be (as proposed by others) to just make ships (and maybe also planes and tanks) use up a small portion of raw oil from your "stock" just to be operable.

 

[ozmono2005]

If the devs put in divisions that are obviously suboptimal, that would be wrong.

You keep asking this series of rhetorical questions but each one is a loaded question. The "logic" is that you are shifting the burden of proof on me to point out a loaded question, after which you will ask another loaded question and so forth until I get bored and leave.

You say something based on a certain logic, I ask one rhetorical question (and that's all) with the same logic that you did that demonstrates that the logic is flawed, atleast from my perspective and now I am shifting the burden of proof? It's your logic that we are discussing not mine, accusing me of shifting the burden of proof is ironic. It seems as though you are arguing that the game should sort of win itself.

 

[JamesJameson]

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.

So you think someone will figure out how to not take attrition from moving, bad weather, ect. Or that they wont take any losses to attrition during fighting? If your blitz is what iIthink it is(tanks moving far,fast, while encircling army's), you will be running into lots of problems that will require you to replace your losses to your tank divisions, if you don't have oil now because someone managed to take it from you, and you have no synthetic shops, which (this is still alpha/beta) gave 1 rubber 2 oil, then you can't replace your tank losses as fast, or at all possible. The farther you go in your blitz stance the worst it will get.

I feel like if someone has way more tanks than I do, and is able to just drive through my country, I would not expect gas to stop them. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying in real life gas couldnt stop an army, because it could. I'm just pointing out that Even if they did lose all there Oil, but still had a huge army of pre-built tanks that they made to game the system, they can go as far as they can take them, but I don't think that is as far as you think it is. Eventually they will break down from other issues like supply, attrition,and combat. I think you should just think of fuel as supplies, and equipment as supplies. They all supply the front line from your available IC and with your available resources.

 

[JamesJameson]

That's true. I also thought that this leads to a massive simplification and found it a bit odd that fuel or at least supplies itself won't be such an issue anymore. But since I'm pretty much a HOI-noob I didn't really mind, as the old system was mindcrushingly frustrating. They probably go for a bigger market share this time, that's why they abstract those things.
An easy way to solve this would be (as proposed by others) to just make ships (and maybe also planes and tanks) use up a small portion of raw oil from your "stock" just to be operable.

Well if that is the solution people are proposing, isnt that already what is happening? It's getting pulled from you oil, but you want it changed so for balance they would up the supply of oil you get, just so that you can pay for stuff every day? Which makes a good point, what is the actual solution that is being proposed? We use to have IC to pay for reinfor/supplies/upgrades(new equipment) Now we use IC in factory form, which is basically what IC stood for in the first place...Industrial Capacity. And that system has actual equipment now, so which factory are you wanting to pay for the fuel? Synthetic was planned to give you 1 rubber and 2 oil, it might have changed by now but still where do you want to pay for this fuel from?

 

[FUregistration]

HoI3 was hard to start with, it was difficult to sometimes comprehend what in hell was wrong, the AI was bad and the political/diplomatic system even worse, and the game as a whole was very micro intensive, but oh man it was a game worth the title of Grand Strategy.
I'm not saying that HoI4 won't have improvements over HoI3... but after reading all this dev diaries about HoI4...

We even made a separate Arcade Mode for supply which of course nobody used (what self respecting player would pick something called "Arcade Mode"?).

... this sentence just wins the Ironic Award for 2015.

 

[Jonas]

1. Do you at any point in HoI3 run out of supply in your stockpile? - no you dont
2. Do you at any point in HoI3 send less supply than is needed into the supply network? - no you dont
3. Do you at any point in HoI3 have troops that are out of supply? - yes it can happen
Why do you have units which are out of supply? - because they are either cut off or they are in an area where the throughput cant send the supply needed to the units.

I usually had a stockpile of 80000 to 90000 supplies in HoI 3 and it could go down by 50000 supplies in a single day because the system was so dysfunctional. I sometimes ran close to 0 supplies in the stockpile in spite of using all my factories for supply when these events occurred.

A very large army in HoI 3 would consume a lot of supplies. Producing those supplies and paying the tax of getting them to where they were needed took a significant proportion of my industrial capacity. Some people here speak of meaningful choices. I produced inferior units with less supply needs not only to counter the problem of supply transportation, but to reduce the actual amount of supplies needed. I produced the expensive units first and the cannonfodder later to minimise the supplies needed in the entire campaign.

Abstracted supply production will not reward those who strive to reduce their supply needs below the threshold. (I am aware that more units will lose more equipment, but that would be true with a more pure attrition system too.)

Now the realistic attrition has been "supplemented" with unit reduction to simulate the use of supply and fuel. I predict a lot of balancing issues trying to mix the different natures of attrition and supply and fuel useage along with combat losses into one single mechanic. I can already see some pretty insane effects in the production of war materials.

 

[Jonas]

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 HoI3, if You lost the tungsten, Your AT capabilities were reduced, perhaps even too quickly. In HoI4, You will need chromium to fuel advanced tanks and replace their tracks and gearboxes. I would rather need chromium to replace blown up tanks. It would all work so beautifully if we needed the resources actually needed to produce a weapon to produce the weapon and the resources actually needed to supply and fuel the weapon to supply and fuel it.

It is not just a question of what You name the resources! Different resources are available at different levels and different activities should drain these resources in different ways. This system has a huge impact on the strategic limitations and options.