Hearts of Iron IV - 22nd Development Diary - 28th of August 2015

[FmrPFCBob]

I'd expect it to function as it did in III where reinforcement and upgrades were prioritized at the division level, doing so on a template level would be counterproductive to the intent.

 

[LostinSpice]

I take my example from the screenshot below;

Looks to me like you pick a a division's priority on the division designer (just right of the name). Now I remember somewhere a Dev saying older equipment can be used for training, but if your division begins life at elite status it would be filled with the best stuff you have available. I would prefer the status of a division picked at an individual level rather than as a group but there you go.


Edit: Perhaps the Upgrade slider can be used to stop all upgrades to training divisions?

 

[FmrPFCBob]

I found this in an older diary "You can define if a division template is reserves, default or elite, which defines which divisions get priority on better equipment or not."

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...h-development-diary-26th-of-june-2015.866109/

That's pretty much the same as what the wiki said. Didn't see anything yet as to division settings but I imagine they're still there.

 

[rjohansen]

I'd expect it to function as it did in III where reinforcement and upgrades were prioritized at the division level, doing so on a template level would be counterproductive to the intent.

Or both... That is what I would have preferred. If possible. You could set the rule at the template lever, but can override those settings on the division if you wish to.

 

[Agilent]

Okay, so all this complicated argument will serve what purpose? Just give a simple reply about what you think and then go play HOI3. You all know your going to buy HOI4 if you like it or not. There is always mods as well If you feel that everything has to be accurate to history.

 

[Agilent]

If the division was cut off and surrounded, would it still use less supplies? Those trucks and support equipment would be useless to provide anything, except use up more fuel to keep running. So in this example the division would use the same supplies as one without a logistics unit. The only way to understand the explanation is that the logistics company stores supplies for the division to allow for rapid movement, being surrounded and suffering lack of supplies. So in essence the division uses the same supplies but has extra stored with it, the resultant being it 'appears' to use less supplies.

The divisions have their previous shipment of supplies which will eventually run out. So they don't appear to use less supplies.

 

[Dadoz]

The divisions have their previous shipment of supplies which will eventually run out. So they don't appear to use less supplies.

Bad logistic = more supply lost stolen or ruined (transport damage, bad storage damage, sold by soldier/officer ecc ecc). Better logistic = less supply wasted minor supply usage. Is not that hard

 

[plasticpanzers]

Gee I love it when folks get protective of the game. If you read my post it said perhaps it means being more efficent (or effective). I don't like
games that have wobbly logic in explanations of effects. You cannot 'reduce' supply usage so a fellow shoots 10 times now with 9 bullets or
eats just as well with 9 rations rather than 10. adding 150 men and their trucks to a division would not have a major effect on a 10,000 man
division, its too small, it just adds 150 more mouths and more trucks to fuel. If you look at a TOE of a company sized motorized unit you will
see they have to have their own admin and supply and hq section. There is a law of diminishing returns which is why higher, non divisional
supply forces supply extras to divisions. That is what Corps/Army formations provide.

 

[Krafty]

Argh 13 pages.

Does anyone know if we can mod all these screens? Id figure adding new techs is pretty straightforward, like adding a new idea or idea group in EU4?

I feel likes its been answered, but I just cant remember, can we mod in to use more or less support units allowed in a division, and additionally, can we add techs to increase how many support units a division can have, like the past HOI games? Im nostalgic for features. Ill definitely be modding alot of things, so im curious about modding features and support.

 

[Axe99]

One thing to keep in mind with all the support divisions is that they all require equipment (and a range of different types of equipment). Unless you're getting lend-lease from the US, this will all be factory lines. The equipment will also take attrition. I could imagine that the actual cost of equipment to maintain the support battalions will be a reasonable factor in terms of how many we have in our divisions. For example, it'd be right handy to have a logistics company in every single one of our combat divisions, but what if that cost us so many trucks that we could have fielded another five motorised divsions? There'll only be so many production lines available, and if we need more lines for support equipment and trucks, that's less tanks, fighters and what-have-you. Lots of interesting choices await, methinks, and I'd bet good money it'll be much, much harder to min/max HoI4 than HoI's past.

You cannot 'reduce' supply usage so a fellow shoots 10 times now with 9 bullets or
eats just as well with 9 rations rather than 10. adding 150 men and their trucks to a division would not have a major effect on a 10,000 man
division, its too small, it just adds 150 more mouths and more trucks to fuel. If you look at a TOE of a company sized motorized unit you will
see they have to have their own admin and supply and hq section. There is a law of diminishing returns which is why higher, non divisional
supply forces supply extras to divisions. That is what Corps/Army formations provide.

There is actually the potential for a lot of wastage if your supply chain isn't well organised, in use, wasted fuel, wasted time, wasted people-hours of work and all of that. And that's on top of actual waste (soldiers managing to snag extra rations, wasted ammo while training off the front line, wasted ammo through spoilage due to weather, damage or what-have-you, food wastage, etc.,). It's a little-appreciated art, but good organisation of resources does lead to less resources being used.

 

[Daztek]

Map issues - Dresden isn't accurately placed. It should be adjacent to the Elbe. If the city on the east bank is Bautzen, it shouldn't be adjacent to the Elbe.

 

[xtfoster]

I have difficulty with the explanation of the 'logistic company'. 10000 men eat, shoot, use fuel for 10,000 men. How can you 'reduce' the use of
such supply/ammo/fuel by simply adding 150 or so more men plus their vehicles? You then have 10150 men who eat, shoot, and use fuel. The
explanation or usage may be an efficency in the use of supply rather than the reduction of usage which sounds just wierd.

Either re-explain the usage or justify it or change it to another type of support unit. Perhaps the 'static fortress artillery' of my eariler post. Would
make more sense for static, garrison, fortress units than a logistics company that simply adds to the logistic usage of 'stuff'.

Look at it this way. Those 10,000 men are eating 10,000 men's worth of food, shooting 10,000 men's worth of bullets, etc. However without an efficient bureaucracy (the formal logistics company) another 1,500 men's worth is being lost in transit, sold on the black market, etc.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Thats where I said in my post "the explanation or usage may be an efficency in the use of supply rather than a reduction which sounds wierd". Players
should not have to interpret or explain either poor wording or description of a units abilities that PDX is using. They need to clarify dubious descriptions.

 

[mdw1985]

Map issues - Dresden isn't accurately placed. It should be adjacent to the Elbe. If the city on the east bank is Bautzen, it shouldn't be adjacent to the Elbe.

True, just like niederbayern and oberbayern have been switched...

 

[Poh]

Thats where I said in my post "the explanation or usage may be an efficency in the use of supply rather than a reduction which sounds wierd". Players
should not have to interpret or explain either poor wording or description of a units abilities that PDX is using. They need to clarify dubious descriptions.

The question is what is most important a description that defines 100% what the unit does to provide the bonus it has. Or that the description defines what the bonus does. From a gameplay perspective the latter is the most important and it will also lessen the amount of "thinking" you have to do when reading said description. Which leaves brainpower to think about more important decisions.

I would agree that the first type of description might add more flavour as it would pin out precisely what the devs think a unit does.
Then again it might be that the unit is designed to improve the supply going to the division and this would really be an increase in supply throughout put however from a game perspective its much easier to just let said unit reduce the supply consumption (just like logistic wizard). The question is would you then want a description which describe throughout put being improved and then contradict it by having another type of bonus on the unit?

 

[plasticpanzers]

I would like just an accurate discription rather than one that makes no sense as it currently does. It is open to interpretation that neither you or I can clarify
and only PDX can.

 

[paranoidsteve]

I would like just an accurate discription rather than one that makes no sense as it currently does. It is open to interpretation that neither you or I can clarify
and only PDX can.

It makes perfect sense. You have to remember that they are building a WWII game, not a WWII simulator.

 

[General Baker]

Recconaissance should be

Logistics should be

 

[Fulmen]

Very nice dev diary.

However, I spotted a minor mistake: the recon and logistics counters are incorrect.

EDIT: Emu'd by General Baker.

 

[joeenochs]

I really like the counters. They give the game a certain "seriousness".