HOI4 Dev Diary - Fuel

[man0lo]

Right now its a 90% penalty to stats if I recall if you are completely out. and more to speed.

@podcat Although 90% is certainly huge penalty it's still not total realistic. In reality if there is no fuel a vehicle cant move at all. The best historical example is the "Battle of Bulge" where german units were forced to abandon their vehicles due to lack of fuel. I cant see how a tank division can move or an air wing can operate without fuel.

if we made them unable to move certain situations would be too horrible

Yes but you could just depend it on difficulty level. For example in low difficulty levels having only stats penalty but in Veteran at least all vehicles should be immobilized if fuel is completely depleted.
Please reconsider. Thanks a lot.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Let's not get started on how population recruitment works too. Increasing your birthrate shouldn't give you more people to recruit for at least 16 years- depending on the age that qualifies for recruitment in that country.

In what game does it work that way?

Not in any Hearts of Iron games that I am aware of.

 

[sterrius]

@podcat Although 90% is certainly huge penalty it's still not total realistic. In reality if there is no fuel a vehicle cant move at all. The best historical example is the "Battle of Bulge" where german units were forced to abandon their vehicles due to lack of fuel. I cant see how a tank division can move or an air wing can operate without fuel.

Yes, but the fact this is a game can create some pretty weird scenarios if units just stop moving.
Example is a unit moving from province A to B. A unit can´t stop in the middle, he either cross, is blocked or turn back. Would be funny to see tanks teleporting back because by lack of fuel they need to go back to the province they came .

-90% is a penalty strong enough to make even a german division with tons of speed buffs to very likely lose to a normal infantary in speed. More than enough to be overrun.

A Light tank III (14km) is reduced to 1,4km/h. Not even counting forest or mountains.
good luck running .

Enough for even infantary to overrun units.

 

[Murtagks]

I think the fuel change its a great idea. Because i think with fuel in the navel combat, Doomstacks its near to impossibel. Becuase the Doomstacks need to much fuel, thats why i think we need to use smaller ships to engage convoy or for smaller operations and then for big operations the big fleet. But for that i hope that the fuel silos are expansive to build (because when not we can build 100 of silos and have endless of fuel) and that the big ships need much of the fuel.

I think then in the when the DLC is released. It will be very funny to use strategic bombers as Germany against Soviet Union to destroy the fuel silos and habe a good start with Operation Barbarossa or as England or USA to Bomb the fuel silos from Germany to help Soviet Union.

I think the idea with Fuel is endless. Its great!

Thats why I hope that the constructon cost of Fuel silos are in the game very expensive fom 12000 to 20000.

 

[Vohen]

@podcat Although 90% is certainly huge penalty it's still not total realistic. In reality if there is no fuel a vehicle cant move at all. The best historical example is the "Battle of Bulge" where german units were forced to abandon their vehicles due to lack of fuel. I cant see how a tank division can move or an air wing can operate without fuel.

Yes but you could just depend it on difficulty level. For example in low difficulty levels having only stats penalty but in Veteran at least all vehicles should be immobilized if fuel is completely depleted.
Please reconsider. Thanks a lot.

I think a much better approach would be to have a huge penalty to reliability and/or a significant increase in attrition, signaling exactly that a lot of vehicles are getting abandoned in the way, be it in combat, or just from one province to another.
Think about it, a division wouldn't get stuck in place, completely helpless, because they lack fuel, they would at least attempt to retreat/move on with whatever they can take with them, lack of fuel just means that they can't take vehicles.

 

[benjaseth]

I don't know who this guy is:

But he needs to become a Stellaris Mammalian portrait, right now

 

[SentosKarum]

The Royal Navy switched to oil firing well before WWI. Germany was never in any danger of running out of coal, making it a largely useless ressource for them because they don't have to care about it. Neither does Japan (coal was one of the few things Japan was largely self-sufficient in). That means neither nation needs to trade for coal or care about conquering more coal. Neither do Britain, France or the US have to care about coal. Not sure about the Soviet union, but never heard that they were close to running out. Copper was a much more sought-after resource.

It is true that Coal was never a resource in danger of running out. However, for Germany it was coal that ended up fueling their... fuel needs. That's what Synthetic Oil Plants use after all. And it was coal that ended up powering their power stations - if it could get there.

Realistically a Germany that loses the Ruhr by occupation, by nukes or by strat bomber swarms is dead. (Unless it has expanded in other regions) Because that's where coal was and the coal powered the industry... and the trains. If the coal can't get out of the Ruhr Germany is screwed. Unless it had other sources...

So coal, by being concentrated in just one region of Germany (The Ruhr) in WW2, certainly can make an impact on how Germany plays - if it is threathened Germany has to respond or risk industrial and logistical collapse (If its historical role is properly simulated).

So I'd tie Coal with Synthetic Fuel plants - states with coal get a bonus to their plants output (To represent the fuel not having being expended to haul the coal around) and I'd suggest some decisions that allow the player to choose the degree with which their infrastucture and industry is coal, oil or electricity* powered. As Germany did historically players might opt to place their synthetic fuels plants outside the (then) range of strat bombers to avoid having them bombed...

But that probably adds to much complexity for too little gain.

*I'd suggest state level buildings that consume either coal or oil and in special cases water to produce electricity.

 

[Wraith11B]

I think the fuel change its a great idea. Because i think with fuel in the navel combat, Doomstacks its near to impossibel. Becuase the Doomstacks need to much fuel, thats why i think we need to use smaller ships to engage convoy or for smaller operations and then for big operations the big fleet. But for that i hope that the fuel silos are expansive to build (because when not we can build 100 of silos and have endless of fuel) and that the big ships need much of the fuel.

To piggyback on this, it might mean that fleets "deploy" with more reasonable force structures. Much of the Italian fleet didn't necessarily always go to sea because it was in overhaul or there just wasn't enough fuel.

 

[Sourlol]

I don't like that you want to add fuel, this will make the players instead of using tanks, use infantry with anti tanks. I do not want to see a Germany without tanks and without blitzkrieg.

Germany invaded USSR with 154 divisions, 19 were panzer.

Germany should be mostly infantry, and they should use the lions share of their fuel on the army with less and less to the Air Force and navy.

 

[man0lo]

I think a much better approach would be to have a huge penalty to reliability and/or a significant increase in attrition, signaling exactly that a lot of vehicles are getting abandoned in the way, be it in combat, or just from one province to another.
Think about it, a division wouldn't get stuck in place, completely helpless, because they lack fuel, they would at least attempt to retreat/move on with whatever they can take with them, lack of fuel just means that they can't take vehicles.

I like very much your aspect. It would be realistic enough if the attrition increased to vehicles due to fuel run out. However what about Air wings ? How can an air unit fly without fuel??

 

[kaguravitro]

If some developer can clarificate the "base gain" and "from 51 oil" in the image.
Base gain from IC, from tech?

 

[man0lo]

Yes, but the fact this is a game can create some pretty weird scenarios if units just stop moving.
Example is a unit moving from province A to B. A unit can´t stop in the middle, he either cross, is blocked or turn back. Would be funny to see tanks teleporting back because by lack of fuel they need to go back to the province they came .

-90% is a penalty strong enough to make even a german division with tons of speed buffs to very likely lose to a normal infantary in speed. More than enough to be overrun.

A Light tank III (14km) is reduced to 1,4km/h. Not even counting forest or mountains.
good luck running .

Enough for even infantary to overrun units.

I dont think there will be any in game trouble if a vehicle unit stay immobilized in a province due to lack of fuel... It would be realistic.
But anyway... Except of land units. How an air unit could fly without fuel?

 

[Lawsford_Soren]

Can the fuel system be modded to work for, say, ammunition? That is, if someone hypothetically wanted to split infantry equipment into guns and ammo, and use ammo as fuel for infantry, could that be done?

That would be a wonderful idea, although Ammo should be split to Shells and Ammo-Boxs; one for Hard Attack, and one for Soft Attack.

 

[kaguravitro]

It is true that Coal was never a resource in danger of running out. However, for Germany it was coal that ended up fueling their... fuel needs. That's what Synthetic Oil Plants use after all. And it was coal that ended up powering their power stations - if it could get there.

Realistically a Germany that loses the Ruhr by occupation, by nukes or by strat bomber swarms is dead. (Unless it has expanded in other regions) Because that's where coal was and the coal powered the industry... and the trains. If the coal can't get out of the Ruhr Germany is screwed. Unless it had other sources...

So coal, by being concentrated in just one region of Germany (The Ruhr) in WW2, certainly can make an impact on how Germany plays - if it is threathened Germany has to respond or risk industrial and logistical collapse (If its historical role is properly simulated).

So I'd tie Coal with Synthetic Fuel plants - states with coal get a bonus to their plants output (To represent the fuel not having being expended to haul the coal around) and I'd suggest some decisions that allow the player to choose the degree with which their infrastucture and industry is coal, oil or electricity* powered. As Germany did historically players might opt to place their synthetic fuels plants outside the (then) range of strat bombers to avoid having them bombed...

But that probably adds to much complexity for too little gain.

*I'd suggest state level buildings that consume either coal or oil and in special cases water to produce electricity.

Something need for frederich nightmare, iron courtain even ensing mods.

 

[kaguravitro]

That would be a wonderful idea, although Ammo should be split to Shells and Ammo-Boxs; one for Hard Attack, and one for Soft Attack.

shells for art and tanks sound interesting, becose they produces more amount than the gus. For normal inf equipment i feel is no necesary becose the self rifle production is the ammonition and the rates of destruction or gus is good to model that (no one build a rifle and not the bullets).
But some mods have this as equipment and works good becose then affects the str (is bad lossing it when you move and not only incombat but works fine even if i dont like light ammo employment). But values should be equalizated to dont have extremes cases, dont forget eequipment define str of an unit.

 

[scroggin]

I like what I hear in this DD. Its exactly what I were hoping for with Fuel.

Can synthetics also be overhauled in this DLC?
— synthetic Oil production should Require manpower to reflect the labour involved in mining the coal.
— Synthetic Rubber should be produced from oil. It should be a good choice for a country like the USA with lots of natural oil, to produce synthetic rubber as they did historicaly

 

[davidc929]

To piggyback on this, it might mean that fleets "deploy" with more reasonable force structures. Much of the Italian fleet didn't necessarily always go to sea because it was in overhaul or there just wasn't enough fuel.

Attrition is defibetly needed for ships. A lot of the Atlantic convoy escorts returned to port with significant damage from storms. Far more damage than was probably ever done by German warships on them.

 

[Vohen]

I like very much your aspect. It would be realistic enough if the attrition increased to vehicles due to fuel run out. However what about Air wings ? How can an air unit fly without fuel??

He mentioned a penalty to mission efficiency, but not to what degree.
I'd hope that a wing with no fuel would get a 100% penalty, but who knows what'll be.

 

[scroggin]

Finland was the #1 supplier of nickel to Germany from 1940 to 1944 (IIRC ~90% of Germany's nickel came from Finland by 1944). Without nickel you can't make shells, engines for prop-pitch aircraft, etc. Finland also produced copper. Perhaps the Kolosjoki nickel and copper mines in Petsamo can finally get some love from PDX, that'd be awesome.

The petsamo nickel mines were strategicaly very important to Germany. To be at war with Russia but not have finland in control of Petsamo was a very bad situalion for Germany. This is why Germany did their best to bring Finland into war with Russia at the start of barbarosa.
The strategic importance of nickel to Germany and its importance in Finland merits it being included as a separate resource.

Without Nickel you cant make such lightweight piston engines- poorer aircraft performance.

You cant make good heat resistant metals
-unreliable jet engines
-problems with rocket design
-problems with nuclear reactors

 

[Dalwin]

they said it's not moddable (yet) but another dev siad they really wanted to add ammo to the game.

Actually that dev said that HE wanted to not THEY. He also pointed out that his boss was firmly set against the notion.