-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Even Germany used trucks to some extent (to supply their panzer divisions). Additionally, equating rail and horse is a mistake. Rail was always preferable. But in many places rail lines were few and far between (e.g. Eastern Europe). And even where there was a rail head, either trucks or horses had to bring the supplies directly to the front (although this point is not as important).
The problem with that statement is that most supplies were not moved by truck (for armies other than US and UK). If you look at Barbarossa, over 600,000 horses were used by Germany for logistics or transport while less than 600,000 vehicles were used in any role. If you were to look in depth into Barbarossa and the subsequent campaigns in the east you would realize that logistical problems caused by an overrelience of horses (on both sides) were very important.
It's funny, but this reminds me of the system in what is now an ancient game:
"Second Front: Germany turns East", published in 1990.
It brought home the significance of the rail network in Barbarossa. In essence, you advanced along rail routes and they were automatically 'converted' to your ownership over time. The rest of your supply/logistics fanned out from the neares 'friendly' rail line.
Partisans could pop up on a rial line and ruin your day, too.
I thought it was one of the best simulations of Barbarossa I ever played. It went right down to factories to produce specific models of aircraft or AFVs, so you had to juggle the whole 'I want new tanks, but that means a period of producing nothing while my factories gear up to the new model - then I have to produce enough to roll them out to my divisions over time' issue.
Anyway, I think there might also be a 'subsidiary supply capitals' plan in here. The SU, for example, might well view Minsk, Smolensk, Stalingrad, Leningrad as subsidiary supply dumps that always contain a certasin level of supplies, with excess stockpiling in Moscow. If your troop concentration draws heavily on the Leningrad dump during the Finnish war, then Moscow pushes more to Leningrad and Leningrad supplies the front line. Will be interesting to see how that works out....
Either way, definitely improvements over HoI2. Losing 30% of supplies in a convoy is a real "OUCH!!" moment, potentially.
"Second Front: Germany turns East", published in 1990.
It brought home the significance of the rail network in Barbarossa. In essence, you advanced along rail routes and they were automatically 'converted' to your ownership over time. The rest of your supply/logistics fanned out from the neares 'friendly' rail line.
Partisans could pop up on a rial line and ruin your day, too.
I thought it was one of the best simulations of Barbarossa I ever played. It went right down to factories to produce specific models of aircraft or AFVs, so you had to juggle the whole 'I want new tanks, but that means a period of producing nothing while my factories gear up to the new model - then I have to produce enough to roll them out to my divisions over time' issue.
Anyway, I think there might also be a 'subsidiary supply capitals' plan in here. The SU, for example, might well view Minsk, Smolensk, Stalingrad, Leningrad as subsidiary supply dumps that always contain a certasin level of supplies, with excess stockpiling in Moscow. If your troop concentration draws heavily on the Leningrad dump during the Finnish war, then Moscow pushes more to Leningrad and Leningrad supplies the front line. Will be interesting to see how that works out....
Either way, definitely improvements over HoI2. Losing 30% of supplies in a convoy is a real "OUCH!!" moment, potentially.
Indeed, the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to have supply flow exclusively from the capital. It seems to unfairly screw over the Soviets, given that they have to trace supplies over half of Eurasia with no means of convoying.
I mean, screw them over not in the sense that they have to pay extra supply tax - I don't much care if supplies from Vladivostok IC appear in Moscow or in Vladivostok.
What really worries me is what happens to supply line adjustments at such enormous distances - if you move a division in the Far East two provinces from its usual location, how many weeks will it take for the supply line to actually adjust? How do you invade Manchukuo with a large armored force if those tanks have to run on their own supplies all the time?
I mean, screw them over not in the sense that they have to pay extra supply tax - I don't much care if supplies from Vladivostok IC appear in Moscow or in Vladivostok.
What really worries me is what happens to supply line adjustments at such enormous distances - if you move a division in the Far East two provinces from its usual location, how many weeks will it take for the supply line to actually adjust? How do you invade Manchukuo with a large armored force if those tanks have to run on their own supplies all the time?
How indeed? I imagine that something like offensive supply would keep the tanks supplied as long as the offensive was quick, but Manchuria would be a case where supply lines should take a while to set up. During the Chinese civil war, the Nationalists confined themselves to the cities and railroads because, even though the terrain was flat, they couldn't supply troop concentrations in anywhere but the cities.
To take your example, A soviet armored strike should be viable, but they better end the offensive parked in Mukden or Harbin, where they can be supplied by rail. I also imagine that there would be an existing Russian supply depot in Vladivostok to supply those divisions directly. This way, the initial push comes from a mix of the on board supplies and those drawn from Vladivostok. Vladivostok is supplied from Moscow at a substantial penalty, but that won't come into play until the Vladivostok dump runs out. So let's say that the Vladivostok depot is being sent 30 supplies from Moscow receiving 20 supplies everyday a 33% supply distance penalty. At peacetime the supply consumption of in theater units is 15. The depot fills up until it's holding 1,000 surplus supplies.
The offensive begins!!! Multiple divisions bridge the Amur River while Soviet tanks pour out of Mongolia. Supply consumption jumps to 50 every day, but they have a 30% penalty from the low infrastructure, so they are drawing around 70 supplies from the Vladivostok depot. Once that runs out (roughly two weeks), they start drawing supplies directly from Moscow and the supply route is drawn across the entire distance, giving a 63% penalty to the advancing divisions. Troops would need to rest for a while to allow the Vladivostok depot to fill up again.
You might ask what's the difference then? But mathematically there is one.
For the first two weeks, every 100 supplies sent from your capital would be reduced by 33 on its way to Vladivostok and then reduced a further 20 supplies on it's way to the troops. Out of the original 100 you have lost 53 supplies in transit. The infrastructure penalty on the divisions fighting, however, is still only 30% because they are drawing supply directly from Vladivostok.
Once the divisions use up that depot, they are losing 63 of every 100 supplies and the troops are fighting at a 63% penalty.
The numbers are made up but I imagine that a supply depot system will make it so that most of the time troops won't be tracing their supply directly to the capital for the purposes of the supply penalty. Ultimately all supplies come from there and losing the route cuts you off but there will be a time lag.
The vast majority of supplies were mostly moved by rail. Yes the Germans had lots of horses (they even bought the UK military horses a couple of years before the war) but that part of the logistics were in the divisions rather than the "pure" supply line.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? We don't know if you can have multiple depots on the same landmass.
The only indication is the mysterious blue trail of provinces south of Tiaret, which *might* indicate that the supplies are being shipped to some depot in French West Africa. But it could just as well be a trickle of supplies shipped from there (some port) to Tiaret, which may be acting as a supply dump for the whole of French West Africa, for all we know.
The only indication is the mysterious blue trail of provinces south of Tiaret, which *might* indicate that the supplies are being shipped to some depot in French West Africa. But it could just as well be a trickle of supplies shipped from there (some port) to Tiaret, which may be acting as a supply dump for the whole of French West Africa, for all we know.
Do you ever get the impression they tell us just enough to... Well, get us speculating.
Each update always leaves you wondering, did they mean this or was it actually that????
As far as marketing the game goes they are doing wonders.
Each update always leaves you wondering, did they mean this or was it actually that????
As far as marketing the game goes they are doing wonders.
Maybe thats their intend to make us say our opinions and suggestions?
Or maybe they are just having great fun seeing us argue and speculate
Or maybe they are just having great fun seeing us argue and speculate
You can't expect more at that point really - it's wonderous enough we get regular, weekly updates on all the mayor game mechanics elements to expect them to describe things fully and in detail.
Most of the stuff we see is still in process of changes and adjustments - remember, it's still almost a year to the premiere. We are not talking about early beta here, more about very early alpha, that is still not fully closed in terms of game functions and mechanics.
What about having supply tax heavily reduced (perhaps zero), when in your own country and along 50+ infrastructure (railway) regions? One would still need some time for the supplies to reach those troop-concentrations, when planing Operation Autumn Storm into Manchuria, but at least the tax would be minimal.
oh it would be so nice to be able to create a rail system to provide the front with more supplies.. when I say to be able to create a rail system I mean, not in the generic way it is represented in HOI2 by infrastructure, but in a direct way...
I would like to see a system where infrastructure represents general things like streets, local administration (will slightly reduce revolt risk) and will so establish supply network nearshore to the front, while player can create a rail system for far distance supply... maybe from capital to distribution center... and would be great to see it on the map... so you can see directly where supply network is established and to which extend...
This should mean;
-SU builds infra up up to 50, it could supply without penalty from moscou to polish border or vladivostok?
-Germany no penalty to supply up to SU (when poland annexed) but penalty to supply high infrastructured areas like western-europe,
-USA no penalty to supply from washington DC to LA, Alaska or island in the Pacific?
Not very realistic I think
Actually building railway lines will never be ingame. Historically railway lines were normally not built just taken over.
As far as I understand it will form part of your infrastructure.
Burma Railway?
USSR built almost 7000 km of new railway between 1939-45 (and repaired almost 50000 km!)
Well, if I understand new system correctly, it will "trace" optimal supply lines for every unit stack, effectively forming land convoys routes.
To improve troughput of such "route", infrastructure can be improved in selected provinces (remember, provinces are smaller nowadays, so infractructure improvement cost might finally be economically acceptable). It will effectively simulate things like investments in rail, tracks conversion (russian standard), upgrades and such. Which brings us again to the balancing issue - will it be worth to actually do that and at what lenght of campaign such investments will become reasonable option?
To improve troughput of such "route", infrastructure can be improved in selected provinces (remember, provinces are smaller nowadays, so infractructure improvement cost might finally be economically acceptable). It will effectively simulate things like investments in rail, tracks conversion (russian standard), upgrades and such. Which brings us again to the balancing issue - will it be worth to actually do that and at what lenght of campaign such investments will become reasonable option?
And 95% of this was with US rails :rofl: Also nearly every locomotive that ran on these new railways was "made in USA"