Barbarossa DLC: a case for a map and railroad overhaul at the example of Fall Blau (Stalingrad)

[Dlin369]

I'd like it if bombers can disrupt supply lines - maybe with some distinction between CAS and Strategic bombing (hopefully giving TACs some more usage). I don't know how they could best model it though. Bombing rail lines and trying to fix them without causing much disruption sounds like an interesting dimension for the airwar, but might tilt the balance a lot in favor of control of the sky.

 

[him_15]

That's pretty impressive.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

We have proposed (in the comments to @safe-keeper 's Thread) to move infrastructure from the state level to the provincial level. (As it was in HoI III)

(map originally provided by @Fulmen here.)

This would make the infrastructure map much more granular.
This would also make implementing railways easier. A Railway would increase infrastructure only in the provinces through which it passes, not the whole state.

I'd like it if bombers can disrupt supply lines - maybe with some distinction between CAS and Strategic bombing (hopefully giving TACs some more usage). I don't know how they could best model it though. Bombing rail lines and trying to fix them without causing much disruption sounds like an interesting dimension for the airwar, but might tilt the balance a lot in favor of control of the sky.

This would also require infrastructure in provinces instead of states. Otherwise bombing a frontline state would reduce infrastructure on both sides, harming your forces as well.

 

[Takethe3]

Fully agree with a lot of this - I never feel that logistical tails and supply chains matter enough in this game. I can run 24 divisions through Central Asia or Burma etc without too much fuss, and if China capitulates you see the Japanese doing the same through the Himalayas.

 

[seattle]

While WiTE would represent smaller railroads, it also agrees that they were scarce in that particular area :

View attachment 599477

WitE also has only 1 railroad from Rostov to Stalingrad and 1 from Maikop to Stalingrad. The smaller ones in the Don bassin aren't strategically relevant. It's particularly interesting how there are no railroads in the Caucasus area between Stalingrad and Astrakhan.
That makes both cities so important to capture.

In HoI4 you simply blitz repair infra and if necessary build some more. The more I think about it, the more it sucks. Then again, I got 2,400 hour sunk into HoI4, more than any other game. So I can't really complain too much. It's probably just the feeling that the game could be made so much better.

 

[seattle]

Here's another interesting TIK-video about the railroads and their impact on Fall Blau. Splitting the Army Group because of the railroads and their supply limitations makes more and more sense.

 

[kimidf]

Also this patch should insert the possibility the ability to destroy the infrastructure and factories and forts of a province through a scorched earth policy as did the Soviets during the German advance.

 

[Sayd]

What is WitE?

 

[walt526]

War in the East. It's a mod where the only action is along the Eastern Front.

 

[mmarques]

I seriously hope that the upcoming grand expansion Barbarossa will overhaul many things in HoI4. Let's discuss the map and logistics here.
I'll start with an example of the Fall Blau region from Rostov to Maikop and the lower Volga.
I recommend TIK's Battlestorm Stalingrad series on YouTube as a reference: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNSNgGzaledi9jQeOzCUtBP2pxYdCYiXX

This is how "Warplan" (Slitherine) models the region:
- Stalingrad-Astrakhan: Lots of swamps on the eastern bank of the Volga. You can tell at one glance why Germany wanted to take Stalingrad and Astrakhan (railway junctions and the latter also being a port for the Caucasus oil.
- In WW1 Ludendorf declared the end of the railroad for troop logistics and announced the age of trucks for flexibility. However, that might work in France, but not in Russia with severe fuel shortages and the Rasputitsa. In 1942 Germany's oil situation was so dire that Fall Blau relied almost solely on railroad transports and supplies instead of trucks. That however lead to a "railroaded" (pardon the pun) conduct of the campaign. Which leads to the next point:
- Railroads from Rostov to Stalingrad and from Rostov to Maikop: That is a possible explanation why Hitler split the Heeresgruppe and sent one half prematurely into the Caucasus. The railway capacity was already strained be half of the army group, so the split at least made logistical sense.
- A two-track railway line can transport the same amount of supplies as the equivalent of 1,600 trucks. Tradeoff: less fuel consumption for less operational flexibility

View attachment 599355

HoI 4: The Stalingrad-Astrakhan region.
- All plain territory, no swamps. Zero logistical puzzle due to lack of realistic terrain and complete absence of railroads.
- In vanilla you can simply rush from Rostov to Turkmenistan with neither Stalingrad nor Astrakhan playing a role.
- Logistics hardly exist and can be easily solved by repairing infra and constructing more while blitzing ahead. Even tough mods like "Total War" (which are brutal on logistics) can stop a player from annexing the Soviet a.i. in 1-2 years.
- Rivers don't feel like sizeable obstacles, partly because of missing railroads.


View attachment 599354




Google Maps: here you can see how accurate Warplan got the region.

View attachment 599352

Love those mods were using for terrain and plans, what are they?

 

[seattle]

Love those mods were using for terrain and plans, what are they?

Those aren't HoI4 mods, but completely different games. Gary Grigsby's War in the East is also not a mod.

 

[mmarques]

Those aren't HoI4 mods, but completely different games. Gary Grigsby's War in the East is also not a mod.

Center screenshot is HOI4

 

[seattle]

Center screenshot is HOI4

Oops, sorry! I just checked and I only got "Total War" and "Opaque Political Map" in that screenshot. Don't know if vanilla looks different.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

New proposal, related to this one (and expanding on our infrastructure proposal, which seems popular): Varying combat width.

 

[Vohen]

Another thing to consider here is the balance target for the European theater.
That is to have the Germans capitulate the Soviets by 1945 tops if the allies don't open a second and third fronts by 1943 and 1944 max (how realistic that is is irrelevant, it's a good target regardless for gameplay reasons, to keep the allies on their toes).
I haven't played without Expert AI in a good while, so I don't know how well the current German AI is reaching that target, but they received a significant nerf already with the resistance and occupation rework, and a logistics rework would be yet another one on top of that.
Now, if the current AI is capitulating by '43 or '44 (again, I wouldn't know), that might be a welcome nerf, but if not, there need to be something to counterweigh that.
Just something to think about.

Not only barbarrosa but Jap vs China would become a much slower war because of that because after the coast the japanese player would find it very difficulty to conquer the interior.

This is another (and quite understated imo) very important factor here.
Right now, devs had to artificially hold the Japanese AI off from navally invading China for a few years for them to not capitulate too fast.
The end result is quite good given what we have to work with, China is holding on much more frequently now, but it's not organic at all.
Logistics would solve this issue, with offensives grinding to a halt the further they go into the interior, without the need of restraining the AI whatsoever.

 

[mmarques]

Oops, sorry! I just checked and I only got "Total War" and "Opaque Political Map" in that screenshot. Don't know if vanilla looks different.

The map just looks so clean, I like it.

 

[qqmagnuz]

This bring to mind another point about rivers : with the tactics that reduce combat width that always end up getting used in river-crossing battles, even with the stats penalty they can often be more advantageous to the attackers, as the defender is just one bad reinforcement roll away from being pushed back, while the attacker who is attacking with a single 40-width tank division obviously doesn't care.

Defenders do not have to roll in order to reinforce the battle. But attackers do when attacking with multiple divisions.

 

[Bki]

Defenders do not have to roll in order to reinforce the battle. But attackers do when attacking with multiple divisions.

But there's no roll if you have a 40-width division there and it get deorg. The battle and the province is lost.

 

[Zilcho]

Split up railroads from just infrastructure perhaps would be one way? That way you could further work within the current system without overhauling too much. Secondly you add construction/repair time modifiers. Some could be based on things like compliance/resistance but also on say how far away in the logistic net a province/region is if it's not your core region perhaps. Things along this line is a way forward that doesn't overhaul everything but still allows for more diversity but not necessarily add too much new micro.

Splitting out railroads from infra would allow railroads to be province based for example compared to infrastructure. Modifiers could help simulate things like different railway gouges and similar things you would want the game to keep in mind while still being a bit abstracted.

Another line of thinking that doesn't exclude the above but could add another layer would be supply depots and hq's, potentially something along the line of "temporary" or operational buildings perhaps. Currently divisions have supplies and planning/entranchement built up which is fairly abstracted. You can strat out divisions at an immense speed and current abstractions does not take in to account potential limitations in logistics or organisation.

If you had something like temporary buildings you could potentially improve both the pure logistics but also planning and making it more visible. Say on an army level you have hq's and or supply depots as temporary buildings. They would move along with the army and provide bonuses or maluses that helps model over extension or chaos in organisation. Some generals where good at administration and would reduce maluses or quicker build them back up say when the hq is moved. Logistic trait would affect the organisation of supplies etc. Something along these lines could be used to expose these variables more easily, add granularity to logistics but without introducing too much micro.

It would also add specific targets for counter attacks. Either by land, air or spies and add some more dynamic. It would work best I think if we also had a concept of operations/ battle plans that where removed from specific armies or army groups. Being able to direct civilian or military resources for build up and planning and then assigning the armies later. The more pre prepared ( drain on civ's or mil's ) a plan is the less time for armies to adapt once assigned.

Build up of military planning and logistics before barbarossa or even a majority of troops shift east. Build up for planning/logistics for defensive lines away from the front for defence in depth.

If we are allowed to create plans or operations and have them ready without them being army/group specific you could potentially add resource costs for the planning. So you plan D-Day and start spending resources on it so that once the beach head is secured you have hq and supply depots moved there more quickly for lower maluses.

If you are on the defensive as Soviet you have plans for scorched earth that can be activated. The more things needed to be damaged the more resources needed to be entirely succesful etc.

Plans for advances by he germans would similarly be used to be effective in your pushes as your supply lines are being stretched. The further away you are the costlier, especially if railroads/infrastructure is low and damaged.

Not only would this be able to further be tied in to the intelligence system so you can get a warning of the enemy planning something big it could also help mitigate issues with too much micro potentially added by logistic changes as well add some more immersion. Trying to keep things not too dissimilar from as they are now would make it easier to not wreck havoc to the AI.


Another line of reasoning I find interesting to consider is to split the thinking even further. Logistics aren't just moving troops from A to B and keeping them supplied it's also keeping things organised and knowing what's where and when it will arrive etc etc but we are playing fairly fair removed from this.

If you add operations/battle plans that aren't army specific you could attach "logistical" costs to these. In order to activate and/or getting the potential bonuses or maluses why not tie this to the logistics system? Your troops might have the supplies but things are disorganised so things build up more slowly. We have pushed deep in to the Soviet Union, we have priority on keeping the troops supplied but our logistics are stretched thin so the planning fills up more slowly to simulate that the administrative/planning side of logistics being stretched and focused on the basics.

Something along those lines could also be interesting. I think also adding long term cumulative bonuses/maluses might be used in a way here that doesn't add too much complexity. If you struggle for extended periods with supply things are stretched and could affect the planning in more ways than just the pure supply.

 

[Duke_Dave]

I would like to see trains as a land equivalent of convoys. Right now when germany has Romania on their side and conquers the Caucasus you can't really cut them off from their oil supply even when having air dominance over all of europe. I would like to see trains that I build like convoys that can be destroyed by air raids, partisans and encirclement.