HOI4 Dev Diary - Supply and Mulberry Harbors

[Znail]

Hmmmm.... maybe a "quick & dirty" abstraction would be to remove factories based on the military size.

Something like ...

IF # of Divisions > 50 disable 1 MIL and 1 CIV
IF # of Divisions > 100 disable 2 MIL and 2 CIV
IF # of Divisions > 150 disable 3 MIL and 3 CIV
etc, etc.


Agree. But so many other changes, making any change to the "supply capital" concept was probably rejected because of the possibility of introducing new bugs. Maybe with some tweaks, we can get multiple supply capitals.

That doesn't take size of divisions into acount, so it should be a formula that involvs battalions.

Another way would be to add a fraction of total battalions to the "factory" count for Consumer goods as that would accurately simulate it being costly having a large proffesional army around in peace time.

The main issue with adding supply is that it kind of requires the main means of getting around this cost and that is having a military reserve.

 

[minimouse007]

Historically supply and logistics was a huge manpower drain - will this be represented in game?

this is actually more important for the game than it initially seems. while most in-game army numbers are ok from a realism point of view, the problem is that usually a huge part of these were part of support units and logistics, so the game's representation of these "numbers" being all on the frontline are a bit misleading. Not to mention that lategame has a rather large issue of just endless numbers of units on a tile if the front is not wide enough (sometimes up to more than 10 div/tile). If we would just think about the fact that the US had somewhere below a third of their army as frontline units, these endless slaughterfests would become much more reduced and fun combats. Currently it makes little sense to field anything else than crazy tank divisions for pushing in mid to lategame, simply because the number of frontline units...... while a more historical frontline strengths would be a simple buff to literally anything else

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Historically supply and logistics was a huge manpower drain ... this is actually more important for the game than it initially seems.

Absolutely. Been preaching this for years. For the ground forces, 10,000 men in frontline units should have another 10,000 men in non-divisional support. There are exceptions, like the US or Soviets, but having that non-divisional slice is just as critical as having fuel represented.

 

[Nikolai II]

Yes of course

If Railroads can be build , they can be destroyed,too.

Check out the : "Railroad Plough" it lowers the Railroad to 0.0 very fast . But it need to be invented first and this should be integrated into the next dlc

No need to *invent* how to destroy a railroad. The rail wolf was just a faster way to make a less thorough destruction, so it averages out.
More men and a bit longer time makes it even harder to repair.

 

[Nikolai II]

I don't know history of Reichsbahn at all, but for some reason during WW2 Germans decided to change gauge of railways track in occupied areas of Russia rather than create bogie-change stations and assets. IMO it was a stupid decision - it looks much easier to me to create 5-10 stations way behind front lines and change bogies there rather than re-lay thousands of kilometres of rail track in bad weather (plus you get to use all captured rail transport without alterations). Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable on this can comment why Germans went this way and not the other.

A quick google referred me to the following page: https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-State-Railway-Deutsche-Reichsbahn/

Coupled with the referral I quickly learned that:

Soviets had hidden their marshalling yards further back even to begin with, meaning little rolling stock was available for stealing.
Regauging could keep up for a fair distance (see table below) until Soviets did find the time to start wrecking the rail on retreat.
If the Germans did capture any significant amounts of rolling stock and rails intact, they would keep that area in operation on the native gauge.

The following gives an indication as to how quickly German railwayrepair forceswere able to make a destroyed line operable again:

11 July 1941 – 4th Pz Group reaches Porkhov;
18 July 1941 – 1st DRG train arrives same
23 August 1941 – 4th Pz Group reaches Luga;
23 August 1941 – as above
08 August 1941 – 16th Armee reaches Staraya Russa;
29 September 1941 – as above

 

[Bullfrog]

Basically every major belligerent utilized all available manpower. The key differences across nations were priorities. Manpower for the combat forces vs industry is a balance in game, but the navy and airforce and logistics for all branches basically isn't represented. In order to limit ridiculous division counts, conscription law manpower gain is artificially reduced. Note we have largely accurate populations per country but cannot generally replicate historical peak armed forces strengths.

A good gameplay option would be a mostly abstracted but MP expensive logistical arm of the military that supported all land, sea and air forces on map. Manpower could be normal from conscription laws (double).

Combined with doctrine/officer corps focuses and an advanced logistical system (all of which are coming) the player could determine how much of a logistical wizard they wanted to be. As manpower became a problem later in the war, the player could reduce logistical manpower to create or replenish units, at the cost of said logistical wizardry and associated benefits.

So then we could have a three way balance for manpower resource management- between industry, logistics and fielded armed forces...and accurate manpower and reduced number of late game divisions.

 

[GrandVezir]

No need to *invent* how to destroy a railroad. The rail wolf was just a faster way to make a less thorough destruction, so it averages out.
More men and a bit longer time makes it even harder to repair.

The old, reliable "Sherman's necktie." No special machines or engineers required, just enough soldiers to lift a section of rail, the railroad ties and rails themselves, the means to make a fire out of the ties, and a few crowbars. It's world noting that neither method of destruction dealt with the grading and railroad bed itself, so probably fell short of completely "deleting" the railroad from the map. Also, how to simulate such a campaign?

Obviously, a player/AI would not want to destroy rail that they were still using -- maybe a decision for "declare a scorched earth policy" (or however you'd want to phrase it), which would, in turn, unlock a series of on-map decisions to ruin (set to 100% damage) rail and/or infrastructure in a state under that country's control. Perhaps with some sort of timer, unless you're using a clever device like the railroad plough?

Edit to add: or a continuous focus, "Scorched Earth," unlocks a series of decisions to ruin (100% damage) ports, airfields, rail, or infrastructure in a controlled state. Maybe add in a small command power/political power cost, to reflect the diversion of resources from other things.

 

[Gropa]

Are you planning to assign a section of the front to allies?

 

[GrandVezir]

Are you planning to assign a section of the front to allies?

Not if I can help it.

 

[Axe99]

Cheers for the DD Arheo and the extra info Podcat The supply rework is (at least so far) my favourite part of what's been announced for NSB/Barbarossa - the current supply game isn't bad, but the update sounds sooooo much better

As part of No Step Back, we’re introducing a new dimension to naval invasions. Floating, or ‘Mulberry’ harbors can now be constructed once the appropriate research has been completed.

This is, perhaps unsurprisingly, my favourite part of this DD - very cool indeed As well as floating harbours, is there some provision for basic supply over a beachhead as well? Not Mulberry level, but as well as actually supporting invasions, one of the big things LCAs, LCTs, LCVPs, LCAs, LSTs et al did (as well as lighters and ship's boats) was to supply smaller invasions. Ie, even without a Mulberry, it might be nice if it were possible to have a small trickle of supply, rather than nothing at all, through ships assigned to the invasion (maybe the naval invasion order could do this?)

Oh, and one last thing - one of the new loading screens for NSB is this awesome Polish cavalry, so we figured we should share it as a summer wallpaper for you

That is a crackingly good loading screen - big props to the artist

Not atm, we felt it probably isnt worth the complexity

I'd throw in a +1 for motorisation taking fuel - it adds to the strategic choices and reinforces the importance of oil - but appreciate it would likely require some rebalancing of oil use or oil supply on the map, and that resources aren't infinite. I'm not sure how complex it could be from a player's perspective (as a player, I'd personally be more confused that it didn't use fuel, rather than it did) - would it be much more than another entry on the 'fuel use' pop-up, and perhaps on the pop-up for that supply hub?

Basically every major belligerent utilized all available manpower. The key differences across nations were priorities.

As best I recall, as well as priorities, the amount of logistic support needed to support far-flung invasions was far higher than rolling into the country next door - so, for example, the personnel requirements to support the Commonwealth forces for an invasion of Japan would be higher than for an invasion of France (all else being equal) - these personnel would be spread out all over the place, on ships and bases in-between the UK and Japan. At the moment, with no personnel needed for ports or airfields (or trains/logistic trucks), and industry personnel being very roughly abstracted, it makes it far easier for the US and UK in particular (in a historical game) to field much greater troop strengths than they did historically.

Some kind of basic personnel requirement for logistics trucks, trains, supply hubs and merchant ships in use could go a long way to helping with this (although there'd be some UI and gameplay challenges to make sure available manpower didn't bounce up and down with changes in these).

It's a super-easy naval pic for this week's DD - only one choice really - here's a Mulberry in action

 

[Duke_Dave]

Are you planning to assign a section of the front to allies?

I mean depending on how this plays out with trainlines I might just send all the Romanians, Hungarians, Italians to take over the Southern part of the front, grind down Soviet dvisions in the North, take Moscow and then follow the railway lines South.

 

[Shavius]

This was how it was done in every HOI until 4.

Exactly, I think it is a great feature to stop countries from rolling the snowball, I see no reason why it is replaced in the 4th game

 

[Bullfrog]

Cheers for the DD Arheo and the extra info Podcat The supply rework is (at least so far) my favourite part of what's been announced for NSB/Barbarossa - the current supply game isn't bad, but the update sounds sooooo much better



This is, perhaps unsurprisingly, my favourite part of this DD - very cool indeed As well as floating harbours, is there some provision for basic supply over a beachhead as well? Not Mulberry level, but as well as actually supporting invasions, one of the big things LCAs, LCTs, LCVPs, LCAs, LSTs et al did (as well as lighters and ship's boats) was to supply smaller invasions. Ie, even without a Mulberry, it might be nice if it were possible to have a small trickle of supply, rather than nothing at all, through ships assigned to the invasion (maybe the naval invasion order could do this?)



That is a crackingly good loading screen - big props to the artist



I'd throw in a +1 for motorisation taking fuel - it adds to the strategic choices and reinforces the importance of oil - but appreciate it would likely require some rebalancing of oil use or oil supply on the map, and that resources aren't infinite. I'm not sure how complex it could be from a player's perspective (as a player, I'd personally be more confused that it didn't use fuel, rather than it did) - would it be much more than another entry on the 'fuel use' pop-up, and perhaps on the pop-up for that supply hub?


As best I recall, as well as priorities, the amount of logistic support needed to support far-flung invasions was far higher than rolling into the country next door - so, for example, the personnel requirements to support the Commonwealth forces for an invasion of Japan would be higher than for an invasion of France (all else being equal) - these personnel would be spread out all over the place, on ships and bases in-between the UK and Japan. At the moment, with no personnel needed for ports or airfields (or trains/logistic trucks), and industry personnel being very roughly abstracted, it makes it far easier for the US and UK in particular (in a historical game) to field much greater troop strengths than they did historically.

Some kind of basic personnel requirement for logistics trucks, trains, supply hubs and merchant ships in use could go a long way to helping with this (although there'd be some UI and gameplay challenges to make sure available manpower didn't bounce up and down with changes in these).

It's a super-easy naval pic for this week's DD - only one choice really - here's a Mulberry in action
View attachment 736351

Indeed you are correct. The amount of shipping required was enormous. One example: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-6.html
Due to dispersion and lack of centralized depots, a 40,000 man force in the Pacific had the same shipping requirement as 100,000 men in Europe.
Backed up here: http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/o/Logistics.htm
Pacific theater divisional units required about 2.5x the shipping capacity relative to their European counterparts. Deployment of a single infantry division required 6 cargo ships, an armored division required 15. Sustainment required dedicated convoys of hundreds of ships.

So manpower for this support. The US merchant marine service alone required a quarter million men. But aside from that, every Allied nation had to project military power across the water into areas requiring construction of forward bases, supply depots, infrastructure, airfields and so on, to varying degrees. Trucks or barges or trains ran constantly. Hence the divisional slice of UK and Commonwealth armies was 60-90,000 men. 35-50,000 for US divisions.

To compare, Germany and the USSR generally had more economical slices in the 1:1.2 combat to support ratio. Hence the cost of power projection.

 

[Shavius]

So, does the focus "Reintegrate the Railroads" of Hungary reduce the time taken to convert railroads from pre-Austrian Empire countries?

 

[GrandVezir]

So, does the focus "Reintegrate the Railroads" of Hungary reduce the time taken to convert railroads from pre-Austrian Empire countries?

They were all the same gauge anyway. No need to convert.

 

[Axe99]

Indeed you are correct. The amount of shipping required was enormous. One example: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-6.html
Due to dispersion and lack of centralized depots, a 40,000 man force in the Pacific had the same shipping requirement as 100,000 men in Europe.
Backed up here: http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/o/Logistics.htm
Pacific theater divisional units required about 2.5x the shipping capacity relative to their European counterparts. Deployment of a single infantry division required 6 cargo ships, an armored division required 15. Sustainment required dedicated convoys of hundreds of ships.

So manpower for this support. The US merchant marine service alone required a quarter million men. But aside from that, every Allied nation had to project military power across the water into areas requiring construction of forward bases, supply depots, infrastructure, airfields and so on, to varying degrees. Trucks or barges or trains ran constantly. Hence the divisional slice of UK and Commonwealth armies was 60-90,000 men. 35-50,000 for US divisions.

To compare, Germany and the USSR generally had more economical slices in the 1:1.2 combat to support ratio. Hence the cost of power projection.

Cheers Bullfrog, that post really highlights the value in modelling that, in terms of both modelling the challenges facing the US and UK historically, but also modelling the challenges that might face a Germany invading the US

 

[Znail]

Cheers Bullfrog, that post really highlights the value in modelling that, in terms of both modelling the challenges facing the US and UK historically, but also modelling the challenges that might face a Germany invading the US

I actually agree that it should be present, but unlike fuel transportation so is it a major balance change that needs a lot of work to get right.

 

[Flavius Anthemius]

> Here, the clock indicates rails that are not yet converted

That's a clock for ants

Will trucks and horses suffer attrition? Will there be 'horsepower'?

 

[stefffff1871]

Very nice indeed but i am still curious if we see an italian (or maybe a german aswell) focus tree rework?! Sure not such a big part of barbatossa but you sure agrees that people waited waited now for long enough now, especially considering the previous DLCs

 

[JojoCgame]

Can you rework the "No supply for AI" into a Priority system. So you could say: Prioritise supply for myself and/or ally #1 and then less people further down the priority list. That way minors can still say that their units get priority without preventing the AI from doing anything on their front. Also give the AI the insentive to prioritise players over other AIs on their soil (say you play USA and on d-day you don't have supply in France because the AI again floods your little foothold with units.

Also please have supply be able to use different ports to reach the same destination, so you don't have just one port bottlenecking a full theatre