Hearts of Iron IV - Development Diary 2 - The Tools of War

[Cardus]

If you mean to say that some designs are cheaper, quicker, and easier to build, then you are correct. But that is not the same as saying that a design is unsuitable for mass production.

No. Mass production is about splitting a complex task in many simple tasks that can be performed by (non specialized) workers or by machines, standardization, etc. In order to mass produce something the following factors are required:
1) a specific plant
2) an appropriate design
3) the right work organization.

Above I mentioned a tank and a merchant ship; for both of them (for their mass production) a new design was required.

 

[Poh]

Is it true that a new design always implies a less efficient production?

In my understanding the E-tank series was not really a technological improvement but more a new design suit for mass production (i.e. what USA and Soviet Union did much earlier). I have understood that in game there will be a trade-off between efficiency and a new production line (as well as for AOD) but in my opinion the E-series shows exactly the contrary i.e. there is a case in which a new model requires less time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-50_Standardpanzer#E-50_Standardpanzer

It’s true that the E-series didn’t prove itself but the idea was copied from Germans biggest opponents (i.e. from USA and USSR) that proved how standardization and design simplification can make the difference.

In summary:
A new design suit for mass production might imply a loss of efficiency (less productivity) ONLY IF the currently produced design already is suit for mass production.
In case the condition is not met, the introduction of a new design (suit for mass production ) implies a GAIN in productivity and the above mentioned trade-off at the beginning doesn’t hold.

Theres imho two different aspects in this. you will always have a production efficiency drop when you start a production and then it will pick up its pace. The other part of production is the philosophy are you gearing your designs towards an increased production. On this point the germans also lacked behind US and USSR and i beleive its the industrial efficiency tech in HoI3. That the E-50 is a faster tank to produce is because they designed it to be faster though you would still see a production drop from changing to a new tank though it would pick up and surpass the previous tank faster. Also the germany slowly optimised the production of the pzIV to increase production.

 

[Cardus]

Theres imho two different aspects in this. you will always have a production efficiency drop when you start a production and then it will pick up its pace. The other part of production is the philosophy are you gearing your designs towards an increased production. On this point the germans also lacked behind US and USSR and i beleive its the industrial efficiency tech in HoI3. That the E-50 is a faster tank to produce is because they designed it to be faster though you would still see a production drop from changing to a new tank though it would pick up and surpass the previous tank faster. Also the germany slowly optimised the production of the pzIV to increase production.

Yes, already said it

The point is that you might have a MBT not suit for mass production and a MBT suit for mass production. If you switch from the first to the second you will have a net benefit and not (as naively expected) a loss. So, in your example, a switch from Sherman to Pershing may negatively affect production but a switch from Panther to E-50 would INCREASE production.

 

[superZAKTAN]

Looks interesting, I also like how they've added pictures to give the screens more pop :laugh:

 

[illathid]

RE: the production efficiency of the E-50 tank and the production lines.

I think we are only getting part of the picture. My understanding is that each equipment item will still have a resource and time cost. The longer a production line makes that equipment item the lower those cost will be. However, there's no reason to assume that the base costs costs for each item will be the same. Say that Tank A has base cost of 100 resources and takes 100 days to make, but it's been in the production line so long so long that it now only costs 50 resources and 50 days. Now after research you unlock Tank B which has a base cost of 60 resources and 60 days. While you might have small decrease in productivity when you switch over, your net gain to productivity will increase. These base costs could be further influenced by other techs or doctrines.

At least that's my take on it.

 

[RedHunter]

RE: the production efficiency of the E-50 tank and the production lines.

I think we are only getting part of the picture. My understanding is that each equipment item will still have a resource and time cost. The longer a production line makes that equipment item the lower those cost will be. However, there's no reason to assume that the base costs costs for each item will be the same. Say that Tank A has base cost of 100 resources and takes 100 days to make, but it's been in the production line so long so long that it now only costs 50 resources and 50 days. Now after research you unlock Tank B which has a base cost of 60 resources and 60 days. While you might have small decrease in productivity when you switch over, your net gain to productivity will increase. These base costs could be further influenced by other techs or doctrines.

At least that's my take on it.

It was set up to take a lot less effort to make, and become the standard medium tank of Germany, but it never got built, so we don't really know.

Though after the war France built tanks based on that design.

 

[TheCrimsonMajor]

As someone who really appreciates the kind of visual information that a simple icon can convey, it looks great! One aspect of HoI3 that didn't work well for me was the focus on textual over visual information. I'm excited to see how it develops.

 

[mursolini]

I will buy that argument, if you can show me a MBT that is unsuited for mass production.

The truth is that pretty much anything is suited for mass production.

Which design, then, is unsuited for mass production?

Well, if you want an example of MBT badly suited for mass production, Soviet T-64 and T-80 come to mind. They were great tanks at their time, but were significantly more expencive and complex then T-55 and T-72 respectivly, causing SU to produce 2 functioning MBTs at the same time, which, kinda rendered the consept of "MBT" moot. Then Russia managed to achieve improvements to T-72 and T-90 was born, whicle Ukraine simplyfied and improves T-80 till today.
:laugh:

 

[RaptorCommander]

Can we please see the infantry tech screen

 

[illathid]

It was set up to take a lot less effort to make, and become the standard medium tank of Germany, but it never got built, so we don't really know.

Though after the war France built tanks based on that design.

Yep, already knew that.

I was commenting more on the discussion of how this could be modeled if needed in game.

 

[Cardus]

RE: the production efficiency of the E-50 tank and the production lines.

I think we are only getting part of the picture. My understanding is that each equipment item will still have a resource and time cost. The longer a production line makes that equipment item the lower those cost will be. However, there's no reason to assume that the base costs costs for each item will be the same. Say that Tank A has base cost of 100 resources and takes 100 days to make, but it's been in the production line so long so long that it now only costs 50 resources and 50 days. Now after research you unlock Tank B which has a base cost of 60 resources and 60 days. While you might have small decrease in productivity when you switch over, your net gain to productivity will increase. These base costs could be further influenced by other techs or doctrines.

At least that's my take on it.

Yes. The so-called bonus for "practical" should remain unchanged. For example

The first ships required about 230 days to build (Patrick Henry took 244 days), but the average eventually dropped to 42 days.

 

[podcat]

The first ships required about 230 days to build (Patrick Henry took 244 days), but the average eventually dropped to 42 days.

Other than liberty ships though I think we checked and there was no real improvement in efficiency for ship production. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though

 

[FOARP]

Yes. The so-called bonus for "practical" should remain unchanged. For example

One thing I really, really want to either see made clearer or dropped from the game are the complicated mechanisms surrounding theory and practicals. It really is impossible to know whether, e.g., it is worth building IC as a given country without either whipping out the calculator or making repetitive play-throughs. This differs from trying different military/diplomatic strategies since these have an enjoyable element to them - there is nothing specifically enjoyable about filling up a build-queue.

 

[Balesir]

I do see your point on a detail level but I don't know why there cannot be a mechanism to give USSR equipment just like we will be able to give them tanks and planes. In that equipment there would be abstracted trucks along with guns, now weather this could break the game play I am not sure.

Well, we don't know what else will be separated from "equipment", yet, so it's hard to say for sure. Are AT guns, field guns and AA guns separate, or a part of "equipment"? What about rifles, packs, uniforms, squad support weapons (mortars, MGs) and cooking equipment?

My real point is that trucks (including amphibious variants, armoured variants and so on) are useful for the logistic chain in a way that the other potential parts of "equipment" are not. They have a specific and crucial goal, and thus it would be helpful to model them separately. In addition, if "equipment" is largely uniforms, personal weapons, cooking and survival gear and so on, then it is largely relevant counted as amounts per unit of manpower engaged. Motive elements, on the other hand, have a demand that is much more dependant on the length of supply lines and intensity of fighting. Different demand factors seems to me to be an excellent reason to differentiate things in the model.

 

[unmerged(53009)]

Have to agree that trucks being included as stated by Balesir, Centuron1973, physics1915, Joppos, would be my own preference. Apart from a logistical and troop movement uses, many trucks/half-trucks etc were utilised as SPAA, SP anti-tank, SP artillery and not forgeting the Katyusha multiple rocket launchers. I think including trucks opens up more opportunities than abstracting them does.

 

[Bobb4]

Tanks will not be chickens, don't worry You can make as many production lines as you like, but each factory can only be assigned to one line at a time, so if you spread your efforts too thin you will not be making much of anything. We'll go into more details about production in a future DD, this one is just the basics to show where we are heading.

1) Does this mean production lines will have actual locations on map?
2) Doe this mean strategic bombing may actually affect production of a particular tank?
Or will it still be abstract?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Other than liberty ships though I think we checked and there was no real improvement in efficiency for ship production. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though

Look at submarine production or production of smaller ships such as escorts and you will often find just as massive gains as with aircraft / tanks.

The thing with bigger ships was that they took so long time to build and was built in so few numbers, that technology often required quite extensive changes in design from one ship to the next.

For the Capital ships The "Efficiency" gained should instead be measured by how a much bigger and more advanced ship can be built in the same amount of time. All Capital ships like Battleships, Cruisers and Carriers in generally increased quite drastically in size & complexity from the first WW1 designs. Instead of just armor and guns you had a twice the tonnage Battleships with radar firecontrols, spotting radars, anti air, torpedo protection, mechanized turrets, float-plane operations and so on.

 

[podcat]

Look at submarine production or production of smaller ships such as escorts and you will often find just as massive gains as with aircraft / tanks.

U-boat production:
1935 (14)
1936 (21)
1937 (1)
1938 (9)
1939 (18)
1940 (50)
1941 (199)
1942 (238)
1943 (286)
1944 (229)
1945 (91)
Total: 1156

http://www.uboat.net/technical/shipyards/

There is a jump at 41 but this doesnt look like improved production of individual units, it looks like someone assigned more dockyard space to make more in parallel, because after that increases are not very big and can be explained by resource availability. I cant find any data on production time on individual boats so far

 

[Bullfrog]

Manufacturing in sections or pre-fab/modular construction increased Uboat production during the war.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-050.htm

 

[Alex_brunius]

There is a jump at 41 but this doesnt look like improved production of individual units, it looks like someone assigned more dockyard space to make more in parallel, because after that increases are not very big and can be explained by resource availability. I cant find any data on production time on individual boats so far

How the cost of a type VII uboat sunk throughout the war is a better example then just plain total production. I can't recall where I read about this right now, Ill have to check more later tonight.

Possibly one of the sources from the average costs cited in this survey:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html


The German ones are also perhaps not the best example due to as we have seen their reluctance of adopting assembly line production large scale. They didn't really go over to assembly line production for uboats until the XXI class (with quite impressive results seeing how they managed to build or partially build something like 200 Type XXI uboats before a single one was put into operation ).