Future DLC - Better Representation of Railroads and Key Junctions

[Searry]

I dislike it because it doesn't offer any meaningfull choices and you can completely ignore it(if you posses enough pre produced equipment) as well. Hence the mechanic doesn't bring anything into the game apart from tedious managemnt in my opinion, I don't mind simple systems as long as they give you choices and are a factor during planning as it should be in ww2 game won't you agree?

I think you can slightly ignore it with the right side massault tree, you still have to keep it repaired constantly, otherwise it's pretty annoying which is it's whole purpose. I only play MP though.

For instance HoI 3 logistical system was supposedly more realistic but due to being convoluted and not offering any meaningfull choices ended up being tedious and boring boring as well.

Yes, now think about what you wish for this game. Nobody wants another HOI3.

Thridly a good logisitical system in WW2 era game helps it all around as it makes whole combat mechanic a more enagaing task in my opinion where you have to plan for something more than just a breakthrough on the riverline anywhere on map, it would also make being on the defense more interesting.

I think you only play against the AI.

There is nothing wrong in writing an opinion about what I think should be done better in the game, that's the idea of forum isn't it?

Correct.

 

[count_m4ximus]

I think you can slightly ignore it with the right side massault tree, you still have to keep it repaired constantly, otherwise it's pretty annoying which is it's whole purpose. I only play MP though.

You think wrong then, ignoring it is simply a case of having enough facotries regardless of doctrine, additionally annoyance is hardly a desired outcome for an ingame mechanic

Yes, now think about what you wish for this game. Nobody wants another HOI3.

True and adding railroads would be a great step in avoiding it.

I think you only play against the AI.

it's irrelevant what you think about this my dude maybe try addressing my points instead?

 

[Searry]

You think wrong then, ignoring it is simply a case of having enough facotries regardless of doctrine, additionally annoyance is hardly a desired outcome for an ingame mechanic

This is incorrect because you cannot push or hold forever in 0 infrastructure which causes supply issues.

True and adding railroads would be a great step in avoiding it.

I disagree, better keep this game casual. There are other games for more complex mechanics and complexity is better for turn based games anyhow.

it's irrelevant what you think about this my dude maybe try addressing my points instead?

It is not irrelevant. You cannot get the correct results since the AI is braindead.

 

[count_m4ximus]

This is incorrect because you cannot push or hold forever in 0 infrastructure which causes supply issues.

True but this is a marginal case and does not invalidate my point about whole system.

I disagree, better keep this game casual. There are other games for more complex mechanics and complexity is better for turn based games anyhow.

I guess we disagree on this point then. I would like to have a more complex engaging system with railroads in place you don't fine. We'll see what the devs will do with logistics overhaul

It is not irrelevant. You cannot get the correct results since the AI is braindead.

Correct results of what? You don't have to play MP in order to judge whether a system is fun and enagaging or not. Now balancing it is a whole other issue, and for this MP experince is indispensible.

 

[Searry]

True but this is a marginal case and does not invalidate my point about whole system.

It isn't marginal in the meta.

I guess we disagree on this point then. I would like to have a more complex engaging system with railroads in place you don't fine. We'll see what the devs will do with logistics overhaul

Agreed.

Correct results of what? You don't have to play MP in order to judge whether a system is fun and enagaging or not. Now balancing it is a whole other issue, and for this MP experince is indispensible.

I solely think in terms of balance so I misunderstood what you meant.

Anyway, we obviously disagree. I will unwatch this thread now.

 

[pheonicia]

I have yet to see a suggestion for railways that doesn't add a lot of complexity for a small gain in "realism". Further more, I have definitely not seen any suggestion that wouldn't confuse the hell out of any player that doesn't spend all their time on the forums and reads all the threads and dev diaries.

 

[count_m4ximus]

It isn't marginal in the meta.

In my experince it mainly depends on the seciton of the world you're fighting in.

I solely think in terms of balance so I misunderstood what you meant.

Sure, glad we undestand each other now

Anyway, we obviously disagree. I will unwatch this thread now.

ok

 

[count_m4ximus]

I have yet to see a suggestion for railways that doesn't add a lot of complexity for a small gain in "realism". Further more, I have definitely not seen any suggestion that wouldn't confuse the hell out of any player that doesn't spend all their time on the forums and reads all the threads and dev diaries.

Can't speak on what the devs have in mind for this.
Hopefully something like this:

Having railroads which are visible on the map sort like convoy routes, where you can add trains and which will be mian arteries of conflict, especially in low infrastructure region like Rural China or Russian Siberia.

This adds a new level of startegic planning which allows for better modeling of conflict specifically in low infrastructure regions and much more interesting defnesive play instead of whack a mole near a fortified river in my opinion.

It will also make defending a country more interesting in my opinion, by making the possible combat areas more obvious.

 

[safe-keeper]

Infrastructure needs to be a provincial building, not a state building. One of the few things I liked in HOI III, was that you could go into the Infrastructure mapmode and actually see where the Trans-Siberian Railroad was.

Same for the railroad networks in Norway, a mountainous country with relatively few railroads. The railroad were strategically important in HoI3.

 

[Ffire]

I believe the simpliest the better, both for perfomance and AI. This is how I imagine a supply system reusing some ingame mechanics could be.

This idea reuses the oil mechanic already in game :

• Units carry supplys, and needs them to fight. With no supplys, their combat capacity drops near 0.
• Supply could be produced without specifical ressources from MILs. They represent anything needed by a division : ammo, food, clothes, med, etc...
• Supply consumption is based on the activity of the unit : low if at rest, very high in harsh conditions
• Supply is affected by attrition so terrain and weather has effect on that.

The impact on your logistical capacity in a region should depend on how much supply, fuel equipment is atm going through that area.
So your logistics are under pressure during high intensity combat or bad weather.

Land convoys should be implemented, like naval convoys, usings trucks (to represent both trucks and locomotives). I don't believe we need to add locomotives. All supplies, equipment, oil, ressources land transport and strat moves, should requires some land convoys. No oil consumtion for those (most of land transport in WW2 era was done by rail, using coal rather than oil).

New building idea : supply depot : part of the supply flow can start from a supply depot, rather from your capital. So you can stockpile in supply depot to prepare for an offensive.

 

[BeauNiddle]

I believe the simpliest the better, both for perfomance and AI. This is how I imagine a supply system reusing some ingame mechanics could be.

This idea reuses the oil mechanic already in game :

• Units carry supplys, and needs them to fight. With no supplys, their combat capacity drops near 0.
• Supply could be produced without specifical ressources from MILs. They represent anything needed by a division : ammo, food, clothes, med, etc...
• Supply consumption is based on the activity of the unit : low if at rest, very high in harsh conditions
• Supply is affected by attrition so terrain and weather has effect on that.

The impact on your logistical capacity in a region should depend on how much supply, fuel equipment is atm going through that area.
So your logistics are under pressure during high intensity combat or bad weather.

That's already how the game works. That's exactly what attrition is. Except the current implementation is better than your design since if you want the latest in armour piercing ammo you need to have the resources to build the latest in armour piercing ammo (build the latest AT gun). No more being able to create the best armour piercing ammo from WW1 surplus infantry bullets like you could in HOI3.

I do think attrition rates should be increased but as previously noted the current AI can't handle it.

Land convoys should be implemented, like naval convoys, usings trucks (to represent both trucks and locomotives). I don't believe we need to add locomotives. All supplies, equipment, oil, ressources land transport and strat moves, should requires some land convoys. No oil consumtion for those (most of land transport in WW2 era was done by rail, using coal rather than oil).

New building idea : supply depot : part of the supply flow can start from a supply depot, rather from your capital. So you can stockpile in supply depot to prepare for an offensive.

Some sort of noticable manpower drain / cost for logistics would definitely be welcomed. We will have to wait until Barbarossa DevDiaries start to see what solution Paradox are going with.

 

[count_m4ximus]

I believe the simpliest the better, both for perfomance and AI. This is how I imagine a supply system reusing some ingame mechanics could be.

This idea reuses the oil mechanic already in game :

• Units carry supplys, and needs them to fight. With no supplys, their combat capacity drops near 0.
• Supply could be produced without specifical ressources from MILs. They represent anything needed by a division : ammo, food, clothes, med, etc...
• Supply consumption is based on the activity of the unit : low if at rest, very high in harsh conditions
• Supply is affected by attrition so terrain and weather has effect on that.

Yes AI handles supplies and logistics poorly already, however a system where it is clearly defined what is important for supplies, like railroads for instance might actually solve this and add a bit more complexity.

The impact on your logistical capacity in a region should depend on how much supply, fuel equipment is atm going through that area.
So your logistics are under pressure during high intensity combat or bad weather.

This would be a horror to manage as a single change from clear weather to storm might mean you lose your precious stockpile of tanks just by being transported. And you might miss this.

Land convoys should be implemented, like naval convoys, usings trucks (to represent both trucks and locomotives). I don't believe we need to add locomotives. All supplies, equipment, oil, ressources land transport and strat moves, should requires some land convoys. No oil consumtion for those (most of land transport in WW2 era was done by rail, using coal rather than oil).

New building idea : supply depot : part of the supply flow can start from a supply depot, rather from your capital. So you can stockpile in supply depot to prepare for an offensive.

Land convoys vulnerable to partisant attacks awsome, however I think railroads still should be implemented as that would model combat better and make cities important as you have a startegic reson to capture them as opposed to just victory point vaule and a bit of shift in supplies.

 

[goodcigar]

My freind play Unity of Command 2 and it has really good Logistics system.

Also Panzer Corp 2 seem good.

 

[realCuervo]

Yay, Ethiopian Emperor can now escape to Djibouti through railroads if present!

 

[brantodb01]

Im torn tbh, on one hand i like the idea of needing special designed units for areas with poor supply.
However i also feel like if it's late game and you have 400 civs you should be able to develop poor supply regions to be for for a modern army

 

[Ffire]

That's already how the game works. That's exactly what attrition is. Except the current implementation is better than your design since if you want the latest in armour piercing ammo you need to have the resources to build the latest in armour piercing ammo (build the latest AT gun). No more being able to create the best armour piercing ammo from WW1 surplus infantry bullets like you could in HOI3.

I do think attrition rates should be increased but as previously noted the current AI can't handle it.

That's not how the game works. Atm the logistical burden does not change during combat or if weather is bad. You need of course your equipment to be shipped to your frontlines units, but the supply use (the stat that define how much a division impact your logistics) of those units stay the same. Atm, an unit static and doing nothing had the same amount of supply use that one fighting in the russian winter.

If your units and some depot system let you to stockpile some supplys close to the front, those being available to frontline units, that will allow an army to advance in a devasted country, but they will need to stop, regroup, and rebuild their logistical system at some point. They will stop sooner if advancing in an high attrition zone, because the attrition will destroy their supplys and equipment faster.
That would mimic much accurately how was the ww2 warfare.

 

[BeauNiddle]

That's not how the game works. Atm the logistical burden does not change during combat or if weather is bad. You need of course your equipment to be shipped to your frontlines units, but the supply use (the stat that define how much a division impact your logistics) of those units stay the same. Atm, an unit static and doing nothing had the same amount of supply use that one fighting in the russian winter.

Food & maybe clothing is covered by supply. Ammo, replacement parts & repairs are covered by equipment. (it's debatable is clothing is covered by infantry equipment or supply). So yes staying still in a sunlit meadow or being in the harshest winter doesn't affect your food usage but does affect how much ammo you use & how often things break.

The logistics in game also affect how long it takes to get replacement equipment to the unit AFAIK.

I look forward to how they improve the system in the next DLC.

 

[Alpha Bravo 77]

I think the logistic system need also an air contribution. Now we can use the transport planes for supply the troops circled but my idea is that they can be used by airports to airports for logistic system. it could be another myssion.

 

[Ffire]

Food & maybe clothing is covered by supply. Ammo, replacement parts & repairs are covered by equipment. (it's debatable is clothing is covered by infantry equipment or supply). So yes staying still in a sunlit meadow or being in the harshest winter doesn't affect your food usage but does affect how much ammo you use & how often things break.

The logistics in game also affect how long it takes to get replacement equipment to the unit AFAIK.

I look forward to how they improve the system in the next DLC.

Sorry, but maybe I wasn't specific enough. Using supply or actual equipment isn't the important point.

The important point is that atm, an unit standing still require the same logistical capacity from your infrastructure, ports, convoys lines, than one fighting and moving in an harsh terrain/weather.
Let say as an example you have enough logistic in one province to support 10 divisions. If you divisions stay still, suffering no casualties at all, they use the same amount than fighting divisions loosing 80% of their equipment. And if your infrastructure is barely able to supply your 10 divisions while they do nothing in summer time, how could that infrastructure support them if they are fighting intensively in the mud ?

 

[BeauNiddle]

Sorry, but maybe I wasn't specific enough. Using supply or actual equipment isn't the important point.

The important point is that atm, an unit standing still require the same logistical capacity from your infrastructure, ports, convoys lines, than one fighting and moving in an harsh terrain/weather.
Let say as an example you have enough logistic in one province to support 10 divisions. If you divisions stay still, suffering no casualties at all, they use the same amount than fighting divisions loosing 80% of their equipment. And if your infrastructure is barely able to supply your 10 divisions while they do nothing in summer time, how could that infrastructure support them if they are fighting intensively in the mud ?

Ah right. At the moment supply calculations use perfect conditions for calculating throughput. With conditions only changing the required quantity shipped. That could certainly be improved (although I dread to think what the performance hit could be if they're not careful)