Closed Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Supply Suggestion #2345234

  1. #1

    Supply Suggestion #2345234

    So, after re-reading This thread yet again, I feel compelled to post, yet again, a supply suggestion.



    First off, I want to make it known that for those of you who don't know, it was said by a Paradox representative (Kallocain I believe, but due to 1/2 of these forums, including Search, not working for me, I can't find the thread to link it) that given the choice, Paradox would have loved to give every single division it's own "supply trace", which would solve most of the "oddball supply" issues this game seems to have, as well as just about ALL of the misunderstanding issues of the supply system.


    However, said post said that such a system was simply unfeasable, as it took the already complicated set of calculations and exponentially expounded them.



    Any suggestion to the supply system would have to take into account that the existing system was chosen because, among other considerations, it allowed the computer not to kill itself trying to pull it off.

    Often I see the "make the HQs the supply hub", without further elaboration; the "suggestor" then seems to imply that this wonderful idea would solve everything. The only universe where making broad, top-level assertions with no follow up is successful is the Dilbert comic.

    Not that EVERYONE who has said this has ever not expounded, but... the full-hearted attempts are few and far between.



    And as such, I post this idea. Let's see how it goes...





    Main Step 1: Leave the "single supply depot per connected landmass" basic concept.
    --- This depot would be the "supply hub" of any division not attached (in some way) to a 6* HQ, or any division who is not land-connected to it's 6* HQ. Also, it would remain the hub for all Naval and Airborne supply requests (see later on for simple suggestion regarding those).

    Also, and most importantly, this hub would also be the "servicer" of 6* HQs.

    As this system is "already in place", the reprogramming for it, and expected necessary computer cycles, should be minimal.


    Main Step 2: Convert 6* HQs to be localized supply depots for all land-units attached to them (including themselves).
    --- Of course, I have no access to the source code, but I would assume that changing the portion of the supply-draw code from "get_supply_route($main_depot)" to "get_supply_route($HQ)",
    AND/OR
    having a "$supply_from" flag per operational division that defaults to "$main_depot", gets set to "$HQ" when attached or moved, and re-set to "$main_depot" when de-attached, would causes minimal computing time, and minimal code changing.




    supply calculation:
    ---The supply draw of each entity on the board is unchanged, save for the 6*HQs, which will have a value of sum($attached_land_divisions + $self). The draw pirority of the 6*HQ, however, is LOWEST of all types of draw; I.E. for each province that is determining what is "drawing" from it, it figures out all requests BEFORE the 6*HQs request (to prevent HQ stockpiles with out-of-supply divisions, and also to prevent supplies ping-ponging between HQ and divisions).



    Air/sea divisions:
    --- rebased air and sea units often end up out of supply upon arrival while the system tries to catch up, which is poor practice, both historically AND programatically.
    --- All ports and airports have a draw of their own, equal to 5*maxlevel (value subject to debate, but calculation is based on how large the port is when fully repaired; strat-bombings should not affect draw requests). However, while they have a draw, said ports/airports continue to NOT use supplies themselves.
    ---As supplies do not "decay", the overall effect of having this would mean that the port maintains a basic supply while unusued and out of the way; and if an unused port/airport is in the middle of a supply highway, once it gets it's desired value, it will then pass through 100% of future supplies that hit it's province.



    Moving 6*HQs:

    When a 6*HQ moves a province, the supplies it takes with it are based on the following calculation:
    A) figure out the supply cost of the 6*HQ (and included brigades, if you like to put AAs with your HQ's ;p) by itself.
    B) figure out the draw value of all other units (divisions, fleets, wings) on the province, using the current system's values.
    C) Figure out the value of sum($attached_land_divisions + $self)

    Call the total supplies/fuel on the 6*HQ's province as X.

    if X <= A, then the moving HQ takes all the supplies in the province with it.
    if X > A and X < (A + B); OR if B > C (for example, if you just created a 6*HQ and haven't attached anything to it yet), then the moving HQ takes A supplies with it, and leaves the rest fot the divisions that are still in the province.
    if X > (A + B) and X < C, then the HQ leaves behind B supplies, and takes the rest.
    if X > C, then the moving HQ takes C resources with it, and leaves the rest, which then follow the game's existing logic of "trying to get back to the $main_depot".

    This amount is INFRASTRUCTURE INDEPENDANT; regardless if the province is a 1 or a 10, the 6*HQ + supply depot concept means that the 6*HQ would have sufficient trucks/horses/etc. to ship an amount of supplies = C (which is already beyond the game's abstraction anyway), and as such would "move with" that amount of resources anyway, just like a regular division brings it's 30-day supply when it moves.



    Losing 6*HQs:

    If a 6*HQ is disbanded or destroyed, all atatched units immediately revert their "$supply_from" flag to $main_depot. The supplys that were with the 6*HQ remain in that province, and will try and get back to the "$main_depot" as well (if possible)





    As each "unit" already has a self-contained calculation for it's supply draw, and each province already follows "supply rules" based on what "draw requests" it receives, these changes, I would assume, would result in a minimal increase of processor power, as the number of "new" equations is only a linear factor of the number of 6*HQs on the board, with a slight overhead of each time a unit is attached or removed from a 6*HQ (to reset that unit's "$supply_from" flag).




    What this would result in, with the game's abstraction level:


    ---When a 6*HQ moves, all subordinate units will start "drawing" from it's new location. This may (depending on current supply lines) result in them ending up in short-term supply deficit. I personally have no trouble with this, as moving "supply depots" in the middle of heavily supply-intensive times would have the same effect IRL, but your opinion may vary.
    ---Moving a 6*HQ into a specific area in preparation for a future offensive would have the passive effect of causing a "supply buildup" to automatically begin.
    ---The 6*HQ (or more specifically, the 6*HQ's province of residence) would become a major Logistical Bombing target. Much care must be taken to prevent air-raids on it, just like Log-bombing the current enemy's main depot (or capital if land-connected). However, if the 6*HQ's province is decimated, it can move to a new one, so single-province megabombing would not be a total-army crippling factor.
    ---It would now be VERY BAD to lose a 6*HQ to a concerted blitz/paradrop effort. Guarding them with some actual combat units would be a good idea, and targetting them would (maybe) be a viable strategy
    --- Poor infrastructure would still stall a large offensive, but the impact of unit movements that aren't directly in line with a previous supply path would have their impact on the supply route cut from (from position to $main_depot) changed to (from position to 6*HQ); assuming the 6*HQ is even remotely near the units, this turnover time would be substantial (if a 6*HQ unit is 1/2 the distance to a division as the $main_depot is, then each division movement not along the current supply path would take 1/2 as long to reconcile).
    ---Small operations will likely not end up in "out of supply" territory given a small buildup time (logistical bombing notwithstanding), but large operations (I'm looking at YOU, Barbarossa) run the risk of having the 6*HQ run out of even it's dramatically-inflated 30-day supply value, causing a stall, or potential necessary retreat. Which is exactly how "the logistics of extended campaigns" ARE supposed to be challenging, IMO, rather than issues like "I moved 5 divisions 1 province north, now they need 40 days to get fresh supplies from Berlin"
    ---Bold individuals might push their 6*HQ REALLY close to a front line to minimize supply time. This would be dangerous yet effective; also, whichever divisions are closest to the "pushed forward" 6*HQ would be getting the equivalent of "preferred supplies", which is another suggestion I see often.
    ---Trying to mix 6*HQs in the same area may result in a "draw war" between them. This should be left up to the player; you are a leader of a WW2 entity, doing something as nuts as giving multiple 4-star generals command over the exact same region is something YOU should avoid ;p
    Last edited by themousemaster; 06-08-2010 at 23:40.
    Naval Changes: You need em, I got em. --Rather outdated, but I'm leaving it up ;p--
    An improvement to supplies, with (I surmise) a minimal invasion of code and processor power. --sadly locked due to thread necromancy rules, but I'm happy to re-start this discussion if you are--

  2. #2
    I find myself significantly surprised that this thread generated ner' a single response
    Naval Changes: You need em, I got em. --Rather outdated, but I'm leaving it up ;p--
    An improvement to supplies, with (I surmise) a minimal invasion of code and processor power. --sadly locked due to thread necromancy rules, but I'm happy to re-start this discussion if you are--

  3. #3
    I will then have lets say 102 HQ to solve my supply issues . Only thing we really need are railroads like it was in real life no one was transporting supplies from let say central Germany to Russian heart land by Car/truck only final stage was done by other means then rail . Wee need railroads badly

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by peryskop View Post
    I will then have lets say 102 HQ to solve my supply issues . Only thing we really need are railroads like it was in real life no one was transporting supplies from let say central Germany to Russian heart land by Car/truck only final stage was done by other means then rail . Wee need railroads badly


    creating 102 6*-HQs would result in having a draw against your capital of essentially 102 different "supply dumps". Even with a full-10 infrastructure, this would result in bottleneck city.


    In a non-aggression period (say, if germany nullifies UK and hasn't gone to war with USSR yet), this would be an effective way to "pre-stockpile" in preparation for the eventual attack, however, as you can "wait out" the bottleneck.


    Or you might mean that you will just make a number of really small theaters, to make "small supply dumps" near the forward lines, making the loss of any given one not as disasterous as a single-supply megadump, but also resulting in each dump only servicing (and stocking up for) a limited number of divisions, as each 6* HQ will only call for supplies to support it's attached units.



    Perhaps it's just me, but none of those above scenarios sound adverse. Pre-stocking for an assault, numerous small dumps, and/or logistical craziness as "102 HQs" all try and draw at once during an extended campaign all sound like reasonable situations for a country-leader to face during prewar/wartime.
    Naval Changes: You need em, I got em. --Rather outdated, but I'm leaving it up ;p--
    An improvement to supplies, with (I surmise) a minimal invasion of code and processor power. --sadly locked due to thread necromancy rules, but I'm happy to re-start this discussion if you are--

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by themousemaster View Post
    I find myself significantly surprised that this thread generated ner' a single response
    Welcome to the barren wasteland that is threads on supply system improvements.

    I like your idea. It's more complex than my own suggestion (caution! link pimping!), but in my defense I was going for something really simple in the hopes that it might actually be implemented.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnusOpus View Post
    Welcome to the barren wasteland that is threads on supply system improvements.

    I like your idea. It's more complex than my own suggestion (caution! link pimping!), but in my defense I was going for something really simple in the hopes that it might actually be implemented.

    While your linked idea is certainly simple from a theoretical standpoint, I'm not sure if it would have a discernable effect...

    Having a province draw "twice as much as normal" might lead to a makeshift supply dump, but if it's not an official "supply from" point for the units, then all a unit would have to do is move perpendicular to the line from capital->division, and suddenly it's previously short supply-trace just went back to pre-change levels.

    So unless all of your divisions moved "linearly" from the pseudo-dump, it would cease to function for it's given role, making it's overall "bonus" to supply management somewhat unquantifiable.
    Naval Changes: You need em, I got em. --Rather outdated, but I'm leaving it up ;p--
    An improvement to supplies, with (I surmise) a minimal invasion of code and processor power. --sadly locked due to thread necromancy rules, but I'm happy to re-start this discussion if you are--

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by themousemaster View Post
    While your linked idea is certainly simple from a theoretical standpoint, I'm not sure if it would have a discernable effect...

    Having a province draw "twice as much as normal" might lead to a makeshift supply dump, but if it's not an official "supply from" point for the units, then all a unit would have to do is move perpendicular to the line from capital->division, and suddenly it's previously short supply-trace just went back to pre-change levels.

    So unless all of your divisions moved "linearly" from the pseudo-dump, it would cease to function for it's given role, making it's overall "bonus" to supply management somewhat unquantifiable.
    Yeah, a lot depends on what the devs mean by 'draws from adjacent province', and how they determine the least-cost route for any given unit. You can see on the supply map that there are certain bottleneck provinces for any front - a place where *most* of the supplies to *most* of the units pass through. These tend to be those with a higher infrastructure than surrounding provinces, between the drawing units and the supply source. So you'd still have to be pretty intelligent in your placing of the depots, and it wouldn't work perfectly. I propose it mostly because, yes, I do think it would be easier to code than HQ-based solutions (I'd really prefer an HQ-based solution), and really I just want a little bit more flexibility over my supply lines other than 'use transport aircraft'.

  9. #9
    The system wouldn't work because of the need to put several theatres worth of supply through a single province which the 6*HQ resides in. The train from the main depot to that province would only be 1 province wide and would not be able to supply 2kk of troops. That would create the need for more 6*HQs to be created so as to distribute the supply differently, but it worsens the OOB nightmare and makes the logistical system even worse because the player would need to account for the amount of troops under the 6*HQ, the throughput of the provinces leading up to it, the supply loss per node, stuff like that. This is tedious, boring and very easy to make mistakes.

  10. #10
    Field Marshal Beagá's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIFor The GloryArsenal of DemocracyHeir to the Throne
    Victoria 2Crusader Kings IIFor the MotherlandVictoria II: A House DividedCrusader Kings II Holy Knight
    HOI3: Their Finest Hour

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    3,540
    Supply system fix is very simple, mantaining the supply network should cost IC proportional to the distances required and partisan activity (talking on the gameplay side of supply, and not the odd supply routes).

    These logistical issues are the kind of thing that will have to wait a new HOI to be fixed.

  11. #11
    Wow, I was never expecting this thread to see the light of day again.

    That said, as it is now 2 expansions later and it seems supply still works the same way, I suppose all the data in it is still relevant enough to maintain the thread. I hope anyway, as this forum's definition of "thread necromancy" seems more strict than most.

    Quote Originally Posted by mottwww View Post
    The system wouldn't work because of the need to put several theatres worth of supply through a single province which the 6*HQ resides in. The train from the main depot to that province would only be 1 province wide and would not be able to supply 2kk of troops. That would create the need for more 6*HQs to be created so as to distribute the supply differently, but it worsens the OOB nightmare and makes the logistical system even worse because the player would need to account for the amount of troops under the 6*HQ, the throughput of the provinces leading up to it, the supply loss per node, stuff like that. This is tedious, boring and very easy to make mistakes.
    This isn't true.

    the current supply system, if the "direct route" to the capital/main depot is insufficient for it's draw, will instead send "draw requests" to all provinces adjacent to it.

    I.E. Assuming a "hex" board of provinces, if the direct route from, say, Berlin to a 6*HQ 4 provinces West of it is insufficient for the total draw, the 6*HQ will send requests also to the provicnes NW, SW, etc. The combined throughput of all those paths is the actual amount of supplies that reach the HQ, not just the linear one.

    And if you have so many units that all paths from Berlin -> 6*HQ are maxed out... then the problem isn't with the supply system, it's with you having too many units, or you needing to stop the enemy STRs from hitting your roads
    Naval Changes: You need em, I got em. --Rather outdated, but I'm leaving it up ;p--
    An improvement to supplies, with (I surmise) a minimal invasion of code and processor power. --sadly locked due to thread necromancy rules, but I'm happy to re-start this discussion if you are--

  12. #12
    Field Marshal CplKatie's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron IIISemper Fi

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tokyo
    Posts
    3,302
    This entire topic is flawed because it assumes that units have control over where they are supplied from. Units are modifiers to province supply demands, that is all. Supply in a province moves 2 directions, it will move taxed in a demand request from another province and it will move tax free towards a landmass stockpile. How would the game be able to figure out that new system without a complete re-write of the system? All you are doing is making a giant effort to move laterally. Even though the unit will clearly recieve its supply from a specific port province on the map, it will say supplied from the stockpile billions of miles away.

  13. #13
    Considering how bad the supply system was when the game started (do you even remember trying to play as Japan when HOI3 first came out?), I'm happy with the way it is now.

    Changes to the system are just icing on the cake. It now works more than 98% of the time, which is fine by me. Are a few divisions of mine OOS, oh, that's because of bad INFRA and it's a new invasion corridor. Supplies catch up and everything is good.

    It's fine. Leave it alone. If you're going to change anything, the only thing they really need to change is that the supply system should A) use the path of least resistance to supply farflung networks (Russia's east coast, for example), and B), should create more than one route to get supplies somewhere. I already think it does #2 to a certain extent, now it's just icing on the cake to fix it. For #1, I do believe it uses more of a "path of least distance" which is both good and bad.

    But we can always research better supply throughput, so relax.

  14. #14
    I will fully agree that the current model is FAR better than the 1.4 supply debacle.

    That said:

    Quote Originally Posted by CplKatie View Post
    This entire topic is flawed because it assumes that units have control over where they are supplied from. Units are modifiers to province supply demands, that is all. Supply in a province moves 2 directions, it will move taxed in a demand request from another province and it will move tax free towards a landmass stockpile. How would the game be able to figure out that new system without a complete re-write of the system? All you are doing is making a giant effort to move laterally. Even though the unit will clearly recieve its supply from a specific port province on the map, it will say supplied from the stockpile billions of miles away.
    That is pretty much the entire purpose of the suggestion. Right now, the system has control over where a division supplies from (you can "game" said system by adding manual supply convoys; I have no issues with this, as it is an intelligent way of "forcing supply"). The sugestion would alter that so that the player has control over where he wants a unit supplied from instead, by virtue of how he designs his OOB.

    whether or not this is a "total rewrite", I don't know. I've have the pseudocode of the change to the original posting; but without the source code in front of me, I can't tell the extent of the actual change. I'm just assuming the current "per division" logic is a recursive loop, so altering 1 variable ($base_case_source) would be all that's necessary. Only Podcat (et. al.) would know for sure.

    Do I expect said change in HOI3? Meh, no more so than I do my desire for a better in-depth naval combat representation. Doesn't mean that I can't make a suggestion to allow it as such.
    Naval Changes: You need em, I got em. --Rather outdated, but I'm leaving it up ;p--
    An improvement to supplies, with (I surmise) a minimal invasion of code and processor power. --sadly locked due to thread necromancy rules, but I'm happy to re-start this discussion if you are--

  15. #15
    Field Marshal CplKatie's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron IIISemper Fi

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tokyo
    Posts
    3,302
    I would love to see them disable the threshold limits on overseas stockpiles or switch the threshold control to line up with the auto create/destroy supply convoys. The way it works right now is that a supply stockpile shuts off supply transfers when the stockpiles local supply is a certain amount of days stored of the required daily value. This works fine now, but if they allowed for advanced users to control it in a more legal way it'd really make the game more fun, and would allow some more novice players be able to understand logistics a little better. A great many people think that red arrows are supply convoys but all they are is the path a supply convoy would run if they do run. Supply shuts off if the threshold is met. I think they wont do it cause at the end of the day its about making the game fun for all, and theres too many automated speed 5 gamers who dont want to have to micro manage convoys and would rather have supply flaws than manual control of supply.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by CplKatie View Post
    I would love to see them disable the threshold limits on overseas stockpiles or switch the threshold control to line up with the auto create/destroy supply convoys. The way it works right now is that a supply stockpile shuts off supply transfers when the stockpiles local supply is a certain amount of days stored of the required daily value. This works fine now, but if they allowed for advanced users to control it in a more legal way it'd really make the game more fun, and would allow some more novice players be able to understand logistics a little better. A great many people think that red arrows are supply convoys but all they are is the path a supply convoy would run if they do run. Supply shuts off if the threshold is met. I think they wont do it cause at the end of the day its about making the game fun for all, and theres too many automated speed 5 gamers who dont want to have to micro manage convoys and would rather have supply flaws than manual control of supply.
    We'll put this post and my idea on the "HOI4" list then?
    Naval Changes: You need em, I got em. --Rather outdated, but I'm leaving it up ;p--
    An improvement to supplies, with (I surmise) a minimal invasion of code and processor power. --sadly locked due to thread necromancy rules, but I'm happy to re-start this discussion if you are--

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by themousemaster View Post
    --- All ports and airports have a draw of their own, equal to 5*maxlevel (value subject to debate, but calculation is based on how large the port is when fully repaired; strat-bombings should not affect draw requests). However, while they have a draw, said ports/airports continue to NOT use supplies themselves.
    I think this is something that would be really useful right now, I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult to implement (but then I have no idea)

    You wouldn't have to rewrite the entire supply system to do this either.

  18. #18
    Field Marshal CplKatie's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron IIISemper Fi

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tokyo
    Posts
    3,302
    Quote Originally Posted by MastaMark View Post
    I think this is something that would be really useful right now, I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult to implement (but then I have no idea)

    You wouldn't have to rewrite the entire supply system to do this either.
    Except that this is a workaround to compensate for bad player behavior. You guys are innately gaming the AI by not placing ground forces in your ports and airbases. You will see the exact same results as your proposed plan if you put a fuel/supply using ground unit in those provinces. You'll see better results in FTM since they attempt to store 30 days worth of supplies in the province as opposed to TFH where they only store 15 days.

  19. #19
    Covert Mastermind Demi Moderator Secret Master's Avatar
    EU3 OwnerNapoleonic MarshalDeus Vult!Europa Universalis: RomeVictoria: Revolutions
    Europa Universalis III: In NomineRome: Vae VictisHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneAchtung Panzer
    Mount & Blade: Warband200k ClubSemper FiVictoria 2Commander: Conquest of the Americas
    LionheartDivine WindShip Simulator ExtremesMagickaCrusader Kings II
    Mount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of NationsFor the MotherlandSengokuSword of the Stars II
    Hearts of Iron III CollectionVictoria II: A House DividedCrusader Kings II Holy KnightWarlock: Master of the ArcaneMarch of the Eagles
    Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    It's a secret, duh...
    Posts
    11,796
    Posting in threads that are two years old is thread necromancy. Thread necromancy is not allowed. One of the many reasons is because the information tends to be out of date. While themousemaster has had many interesting suggestions of the years, this particular one is a suggestion about a version of the game that is YEARS out of date.

    This thread will be closed. If you spreadsheet logistics experts want to start an actual new thread about supply and debate the merits of the system, knock yourselves out.
    All Hail Him,

    The Secret Master

    Note: If I write a post in this hideous color, I am speaking as a Demi-Moderator. Paying attention is strongly advised.

Closed Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts