So, it seems the supply system is going to be changed. Opinions?

[No idea]

Johan (in reddit) answered this:

Question:"can you reveal anything about the supply system in hoi iv? Will the player be able to have greater control and feedback?"

johans answer:"it will not be the system of hoi 3, and it should be understandable by a human.

I dont knowl what to think about this. I liked the hoi3 supply system, although it needed some improvements and tweaks, overall it was much better than the one in hoi 2. I was hoping a tweaked and improved version of the hoi 3 supply system, not a new system. It is impossible to say anything about the new system, since we have no info at all, but i hope the system wont be CODificated just to make it easier to understand. Easier to understand is good. CODification isnt.

 

[Dalwin]

Until we see details on the changes it is hard to have opinions other than "it needs to be changed" which is certainly the popular concensus. Some feel that we would gain by differentiating rail lines from roads instead of just having homogenous infrastructure. Others want to have supply depots placed by the players.

There are lengthy threads on both of those topics.

There are some issues concerning supply between allies that I think need to be worked out.

 

[Jorlaan]

One thing I VERY MUCH want is the ability to decide WHERE to send my supplies. This is a twofold idea:

I want to be able to decide the route my convoy's are to take. This way maybe I can route my convoys around the areas most commonly filled enemy subs and other ships.

I also want to be able to supply what troops I want. So lets say I'm playing as Canada and I have troops stationed at home, in Gibraltar, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily and North Africa. This is preparation for an invasion of Italy. If for some reason my supply stockpiles are getting low, maybe I didn't do enough buildup beforehand, I should be able to "cut" supplies going to my home based troops, so that my overseas troops have a larger pool to draw on and they'll actually get what they need. As the troops at home run out of supplies I can no longer do anything with them until I resupply them, but that's OK because there is now enough for my combat troops. A few months later and I've ramped my supply production high enough that I can "reactivate" my home troops.
This of course works in many ways, I think we should be able to stop sending supplies to whatever units we want. Those units wil lose all their org of course as their supply runs out and gain it back once resupplied; so it is a tactical decision and not something you'd do to front line troops.

 

[Dalwin]

I am a little concerned that this latter concept would be very gamey. This mainly matters in MP games, though.

You would not be cutting supply unless you had shortages. Your concept would let you intentionally short yourself in some areas to boost others. I can see this in a crisis, but the way you describe it, I think it would become business as usual instead of being an exception.

What would be better in the above situation is to be able to cut your home supply comsumption by demobilizing some of the units. Put them into reserve. You'd have to mobilize them again before you could use them.

You are not going to be having tens of thousands of soldiers in your homeland being told, "Go sit in the barracks. We are not going to feed you, but on the plus side we won't ask you to fight either."

 

[Mannstien]

I'd prefer to set supply priortization at the Army or Army group level with Corp being optional in those horrid supply situations on the Eastern Front or in China. As for convoy management I'd say leave it to some supply and logistics admiral as it feels like there just aren't that many routes for a given destination to choose from that some clever AI couldn't figure out when it needs to change routes but if there's not than I would rather have control.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'd like a simpler version of HoI3's supply system. The only thing I can think of that would be added would be a supply dump feature, non manageable really, which was based wherever the Army HQ was located. The Army's units draw from this rather than directly from the capital. Therefore, the draw calculation per Army would dump the required supplies in that HQ province. The units would all draw from that province. More supplies than needed means good, less than needed just increases the draw from the capital to that supply dump province. Therefore there'd be no need for return flow, per province. The calcuations would be be easier and simpler to understand. Some interface on the Army panel would be all that's needed to get a glimpse of the supply situation.

In addition, an option to "overstock" supplies in that HQ dump would give players some peace of mind that the dump would be more than sufficient in the short term.

When the Army HQ moves, so does the dump, along with supplies. The only reason to ship it back to the capital would be if the Army was disbanded or lost units. In other words, dump draw > need by 50% or something.

 

[Holy.Death]

I dont knowl what to think about this. I liked the hoi3 supply system, although it needed some improvements and tweaks, overall it was much better than the one in hoi 2. I was hoping a tweaked and improved version of the hoi 3 supply system, not a new system. It is impossible to say anything about the new system, since we have no info at all, but i hope the system wont be CODificated just to make it easier to understand. Easier to understand is good. CODification isnt.

Honestly, what's wrong with simple rules or simple systems? It's part of the charms for boardgames to have simple, yet interesting systems that take a few minutes to understand and play. It doesn't make them stupid. I'd like HoI to achieve that level.

 

[Dalwin]

Honestly, what's wrong with simple rules or simple systems? It's part of the charms for boardgames to have simple, yet interesting systems that take a few minutes to understand and play. It doesn't make them stupid. I'd like HoI to achieve that level.

Absolutely agreed. A game mechanic can be simple and transparent and still manage to be elegant.

 

[Holy.Death]

Well, "it should be understandable by a human" sounds like it'll be complicated and Podcat somewhat confirmed they'll keep infrastructure levels. I guess because they want to be able to use both roads and rails (or simplify them into a single feature). I hope they'll manage to catch the distinctivity between roads and rails this time. I still think it'd be much easier to keep rails and roads as separate features, with ability of building both in the same spot (save for terrain rules).

 

[safe-keeper]

johans answer:"it will not be the system of hoi 3, and it should be understandable by a human.

The first part is a bit redundant: if it's understandable by humans, it goes without saying it's not Hoi3's system .

 

[Porkman]

Well, "it should be understandable by a human" sounds like it'll be complicated and Podcat somewhat confirmed they'll keep infrastructure levels. I guess because they want to be able to use both roads and rails (or simplify them into a single feature). I hope they'll manage to catch the distinctivity between roads and rails this time. I still think it'd be much easier to keep rails and roads as separate features, with ability of building both in the same spot (save for terrain rules).

Agreed. It was disheartening the flippant way podcat talked about it in that thread.

 

[safe-keeper]

The way I interpreted it, he meant, "it won't be the HOI3 system, and, it should be understandable to humans [unlike the HOI3 system]".

 

[mursolini]

The first part is a bit redundant: if it's understandable by humans, it goes without saying it's not Hoi3's system .

HOI3 supply system was understandable if you really learn a lot of rules and understand how stuff is calculated and what is prioritised and how infra and convoys work.

Wasn`t a great system by any means.

 

[Holy.Death]

It was understandable, but it wasn't working as intended and it caused a lot of confusion. Some people made high infra lines and supplies refused to go through that lines. I'd rather see myself - a player - designating routes from point A through B to C, like in Ticket to Ride (you build routes that link all points). It's as simple as setting a bunch of destination points across the map.

 

[pete_ts]

I also want to be able to supply what troops I want. So lets say I'm playing as Canada and I have troops stationed at home, in Gibraltar, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily and North Africa. This is preparation for an invasion of Italy. If for some reason my supply stockpiles are getting low, maybe I didn't do enough buildup beforehand, I should be able to "cut" supplies going to my home based troops, so that my overseas troops have a larger pool to draw on and they'll actually get what they need. As the troops at home run out of supplies I can no longer do anything with them until I resupply them, but that's OK because there is now enough for my combat troops. A few months later and I've ramped my supply production high enough that I can "reactivate" my home troops.

This is on top of my wish list as well. As a prelude to an invasion over seas I'd like to stack supplies in a port to be used later.

Example: Before launching Torch want to flood the ports of North Africa with supplies before kicking off he invasion.

 

[Fawr]

I hated the HOI3 system so much that I turned it off (the alternative wasn't much better because it let encircled enemies stay in supply, but it was still better). Changes are welcome IMO!

 

[unmerged(13597)]

I hated the HOI3 system so much that I turned it off (the alternative wasn't much better because it let encircled enemies stay in supply, but it was still better). Changes are welcome IMO!

I did the same thing, and I think it may even have increased the realism of the game. The HOI 3 system works fairly well for small armies close to their supply source (capital), but breaks down completely for large armies far away from the capital.

During the era of the world wars, transporting supply was not that hard as long as you had access to railroads.

Adding railroads would be a huge improvement. By letting supply move along railroads instantaneously and with unlimited throughput, one would add a lot of realism and probably decrease computation power needed at the same time.

Now, the real challenge should be to move the supplies from the rail head to the units. For units that are far from the rail head, this could be a problem. To mimic the supply issues that Germany had during 1941, a timed event would be appropriate, where rail that Germany captures from Russia during the first 6-12 months of them being at war would become heavily damaged upon capture.

 

[PB-DK]

...if hoi4 has a similar supply system as AOD has i might be able to forgive paradox for cancelling east versus west

 

[Pugmak]

The first part is a bit redundant: if it's understandable by humans, it goes without saying it's not Hoi3's system .

My concern is over which sort of human to which he's referring. Will it be understandable to programmer/coder humans, or normal humans?

 

[snoopy1710]

My thoughts:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?752395-Regarding-the-supply-system&highlight=

Snoopy