No connection to capital... Bad idea

[KiwiNoob]

What the heck is the point of having supply points to capture if you need a connection to the capital to reinforce anyway?

The new supply system was supposed to do away with this capital rubbish.

Had a very nice invasion going on - secured all the VP's to make sure I had enough supply then found out that supply doesn't make any difference if you don't have a connection to the capital.

It makes precisely no sense at all - not everything in a country comes from the capital - in fact, for many countries the capital isn't even the biggest city. It can also come from the population and industry of other places.

Please remove.

 

[Bundeswag]

Could you explain the situation a bit more? How did you do an invasion with no connection to capital?

 

[KiwiNoob]

The connection was lost after the invasion (of Africa) began.

Was playing as Italy so had connected core provinces in Ethiopia which incidentally also had some military factories.

One complaint in HOI3 was the capital thing so I have no idea why it's migrated into HOI4

 

[Bundeswag]

The connection was lost after the invasion (of Africa) began.

Was playing as Italy so had connected core provinces in Ethiopia which incidentally also had some military factories.

One complaint in HOI3 was the capital thing so I have no idea why it's migrated into HOI4

So you lost connection to Ethiopia because UK controlled Gibraltar and Suez so you couldn't get convoys there?

 

[KiwiNoob]

Yeah but it shouldn't matter (I deliberately ignored Suez because I had the cores in Ethiopia, no industry in N.Africa and Ethiopia as a puppet). Cores which contain approx 6000 recruitable population and 3 military factories.

If you'd like to put arbitrary and weird rules around being connected to the capital then at least let people create supply points to stockpile troops and equipment to work around the weird rules.

As an example - I'm from NZ (Auckland). A lot of our industry was/is in & around Auckland. If we got cut off from the capital it would be the Capital that's in more of a pickle.

 

[dave1233]

Yeah but it shouldn't matter (I deliberately ignored Suez because I had the cores in Ethiopia, no industry in N.Africa and Ethiopia as a puppet). Cores which contain approx 6000 recruitable population and 3 military factories.

If you'd like to put arbitrary and weird rules around being connected to the capital then at least let people create supply points to stockpile troops and equipment to work around the weird rules.

As an example - I'm from NZ (Auckland). A lot of our industry was/is in & around Auckland. If we got cut off from the capital it would be the Capital that's in more of a pickle.

Supply is generated from VPs so there should be some supply in Ethiopia just not much

 

[KiwiNoob]

Supply is generated from VPs so there should be some supply in Ethiopia just not much

Sorry - updated the OP to be clearer.

Even with supply your units will not reinforce (manpower or equipment) without the connection to the capital.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Sorry - updated the OP to be clearer.

Even with supply your units will not reinforce (manpower or equipment) without the connection to the capital.

How do you propose the Italian manpower should be able to get from Italy to Ethiopia if Suez and Gibraltar is blocked?

How do you propose the Italian equipment produced in Italy should be able to get from Italy to Ethiopia if Suez and Gibraltar is blocked?

Yeah but it shouldn't matter (I deliberately ignored Suez because I had the cores in Ethiopia, no industry in N.Africa and Ethiopia as a puppet). Cores which contain approx 6000 recruitable population and 3 military factories.

How do you know that these factories are producing exactly the kind of equipment you need and not something else, and how do you know that the population isn't already recruited to other units?

If the game was accurate you shouldn't even be able to use those 3 Military factories down there at all because they are cut off from your resources anyways...

 

[14lokk1]

How do you propose the Italian manpower should be able to get from Italy to Ethiopia if Suez and Gibraltar is blocked?

How do you propose the Italian equipment produced in Italy should be able to get from Italy to Ethiopia if Suez and Gibraltar is blocked?




How do you know that these factories are producing exactly the kind of equipment you need and not something else, and how do you know that the population isn't already recruited to other units?

If the game was accurate you shouldn't even be able to use those 3 Military factories down there at all because they are cut off from your resources anyways...

Not being able to use them seems off…I think the game logic should always assume the factories there use the minimum amount of resources probably making infantry equipment. And from there, the troops should be able to use all the equipment created there. Also, locally recruited manpower should be able to replenish the unit.

 

[KiwiNoob]

How do you propose the Italian manpower should be able to get from Italy to Ethiopia if Suez and Gibraltar is blocked?

How do you propose the Italian equipment produced in Italy should be able to get from Italy to Ethiopia if Suez and Gibraltar is blocked?




How do you know that these factories are producing exactly the kind of equipment you need and not something else, and how do you know that the population isn't already recruited to other units?

If the game was accurate you shouldn't even be able to use those 3 Military factories down there at all because they are cut off from your resources anyways...

Why are people fixated on the capital? I dont know how many times it needs to be said. I'll try in caps (not in a shouty caps - more like a talking loudly in a crowded room) "IRL NOT EVERYTHING HEADS TO OR SPEWS FORTH FROM A COUNTRIES CAPITAL".

Nor does everything (like resources) come from or head to a countries capital.

It's not cool to make the capital the be-all and end-all then not give the player the appropriate tools to work around it being unavailable such as supply depots, the ability the determine what local factories produce or direct trade to particular places.

Not being able to use them seems off…I think the game logic should always assume the factories there use the minimum amount of resources probably making infantry equipment. And from there, the troops should be able to use all the equipment created there. Also, locally recruited manpower should be able to replenish the unit.

The only problem is that it introduces a lot more complexity both in player time and in game mechanics. Just removing the 'connection to capital' block on reinforcements would be the easiest solution.

I have noticed that available supply drops sharply (almost to 0 in non-core regions) when the connection to the capital is cut - this to me seems like the problem is already solved. As long as the units can be supported by the local supply (available without the connection to cap.) they should be fine.

 

[Axe99]

Think of the capital as a shorthand for 'the industrial and manpower core of the country'. In the context of your specific example (a cut-off Ethiopia), I think it makes perfect sense (although if we want to be sure, we should look up the situation facing the Italian forces in the East African Campaign and see what happened there ). There are some situations that it holds up less well, but as a general rule of thumb, I'd argue it does a 'good enough' job to make everything work reasonably most of the time, and the amount of work required for a deeper logistical model would have at the very least likely delayed the game by months (development then testing). Given they were pretty keen to launch the game last year, I'd argue it's a decent decision and a reasonable-enough abstraction.

That's not to say I wouldn't love a deeper logistical model, but I wouldn't slot "main supply path flows from the capital" into HoI4's list of key issues that need resolving.

 

[KiwiNoob]

Think of the capital as a shorthand for 'the industrial and manpower core of the country'. In the context of your specific example (a cut-off Ethiopia), I think it makes perfect sense (although if we want to be sure, we should look up the situation facing the Italian forces in the East African Campaign and see what happened there ). There are some situations that it holds up less well, but as a general rule of thumb, I'd argue it does a 'good enough' job to make everything work reasonably most of the time, and the amount of work required for a deeper logistical model would have at the very least likely delayed the game by months (development then testing). Given they were pretty keen to launch the game last year, I'd argue it's a decent decision and a reasonable-enough abstraction.

That's not to say I wouldn't love a deeper logistical model, but I wouldn't slot "main supply path flows from the capital" into HoI4's list of key issues that need resolving.

I don't want a deeper logistics system either, especially as there are much bigger fish to fry. Just need to remove the 'connection to capital' requirement for reinforcements. As long as they are in supply they can reinforce.

A shortcut is fine if it works but in this case, it doesn't. Firstly because there is available manpower and production locally. Secondly because there is no counter-mechanic provided to cater for situations where you foresee, don't care or plan to be cut off.

As mentioned - the available supply already drops sharply when the connection to the capital is lost. In Italy's core provinces in Ethiopia this fell from about 27 to 6. This actually mimics what should happen well - when cut off from the main industrial area the area is still able to support a greatly reduced number of troops from local manpower and industry.

 

[balmung60]

I'm confused OP, where do you think you're going to get supplies or trained men from? There's very little manpower and almost no industry in the area, which may or may not even make relevant equipment, and surely almost all training grounds are in Italy proper, rather than middle-of-nowhere Africa.

Your argument would make sense in some weird edge cases, such as an Iranian thrust north managing to separate Moscow from Kiev and Leningrad or Mexico and Canada pushing through the central USA to cut off the west coast from Washington DC, though they'd also have to sink an enormous amount of convoys for that to work. However, your case is not one of those cases. You want colonial troops to magic in new shipments of equipment and trained men that cannot escape through two of the most important naval chokepoints in the world - Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. I mean, why does Britain hold on to that land and rule the waves if not to stop the exact thing you're trying to do?

 

[KiwiNoob]

I'm confused OP, where do you think you're going to get supplies or trained men from? There's very little manpower and almost no industry in the area, which may or may not even make relevant equipment, and surely almost all training grounds are in Italy proper, rather than middle-of-nowhere Africa.

Your argument would make sense in some weird edge cases, such as an Iranian thrust north managing to separate Moscow from Kiev and Leningrad or Mexico and Canada pushing through the central USA to cut off the west coast from Washington DC, though they'd also have to sink an enormous amount of convoys for that to work. However, your case is not one of those cases. You want colonial troops to magic in new shipments of equipment and trained men that cannot escape through two of the most important naval chokepoints in the world - Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. I mean, why does Britain hold on to that land and rule the waves if not to stop the exact thing you're trying to do?

As mentioned in some of the earlier posts. There was sufficient recruitable manpower and 3 military factories available as well as a Ethiopia as a puppet (who would also be able to provide manpower and equipment) so there was plenty of local resources.

Cant argue that "local industry doesn't count because we don't know what it produces", since players are not given control over individual factories, otherwise I'd have set them to relevant equipment. As it happens even just basic infantry equipment and a little arty would be fine (which most of my factories were making anyway).

As for 'training grounds' - most cities/provinces have basic military centers even just for recruitment/admin purposes. And since I'd been planning the fight for almost a year lets just imagine I had the foresight to send a handful of trainers over there.

Lets also not worry too much about the training aspect as there were plenty of examples in WW2 of people just being given guns and told to charge. In Russia's case sometimes it was just knives. And I didn't need crack SAS troops, a dude with a gun was fine by me.

So - local manpower, local industry, puppet with manpower & industry, an excess of supply (I only had a dozen smaller divisions) and yet I cant rustle up a single spare gun?

 

[Alex_brunius]

As mentioned - the available supply already drops sharply when the connection to the capital is lost. In Italy's core provinces in Ethiopia this fell from about 27 to 6. This actually mimics what should happen well - when cut off from the main industrial area the area is still able to support a greatly reduced number of troops from local manpower and industry.

Where do you draw the line though?

German tanks in control of Stalingrad but otherwise cut off are getting a little bit of supply from the VP, and they have more MIC available from occupation then Italy in your example does in Ethiopia as well as some recruitable pop even after removing the non core penalties ( 1.14M * 0.02 * 0.1 = 2280 men ).

Should they be able to reinforce too? If they could it would be quite silly, wouldn't it?

So - local manpower, local industry, puppet with manpower & industry, an excess of supply (I only had a dozen smaller divisions) and yet I cant rustle up a single spare gun?

The issue is that the system has to be consistent and work for all situations. If you had a heavy tank reinforced division down there is it reasonable to assume that Italy's heavy tank factory would happen to be located in Ethiopia too?

Supply access represents much more simple and cheap industrial products that can be easier "rustled up", like access to food, fuel and ammo.

 

[KiwiNoob]

Where do you draw the line though?

German tanks in control of Stalingrad but otherwise cut off are getting a little bit of supply from the VP, and they have more MIC available from occupation then Italy in your example does in Ethiopia as well as some recruitable pop even after removing the non core penalties ( 1.14M * 0.02 * 0.1 = 2280 men ).

Should they be able to reinforce too? If they could it would be quite silly, wouldn't it?

The issue is that the system has to be consistent and work for all situations. If you had a heavy tank reinforced division down there is it reasonable to assume that Italy's heavy tank factory would happen to be located in Ethiopia too?

Supply access represents much more simple and cheap industrial products that can be easier "rustled up", like access to food, fuel and ammo.

You're using very fringe case examples when you're using heavy tank divisions as an example. They make up about 0.3% of all the divisions on the planet. And even then most of their equipment is trucks and guns which could still be acquired in smaller numbers.

And yes - if there was only one or two divisions in Stalingrad then I think they probably could rustle up some equipment. If you're using Stalingrad as an example because of actual WW2 events then in game that would represent 25 or more divisions. And in-game, just like in WW2, attrition would finish them off. So this change still works for your scenario.

You do want the rules to be consistent but they should try and work for as many situations as possible. I see a lot more examples where this change makes sense than ones where it doesn't.

 

[Alex_brunius]

You're using very fringe case examples when you're using heavy tank divisions as an example. They make up about 0.3% of all the divisions on the planet. And even then most of their equipment is trucks and guns which could still be acquired in smaller numbers.

No they wouldn't. Cut off factories in reality produce nothing.

To produce something as simple as infantry equipment you need all materials and little nuts and bolts and industrial tools and resources to be able to build everything from mortars & MGs to clothing to daily gear and basic radios or vehicles.

To get something as basic as the steel you need access to the entire resource flow from the iron ore, the coal and the steel mills.

Let's face it, Your not going to be able to do that in occupied Ethiopia in 1940 in reality...

And yes - if there was only one or two divisions in Stalingrad then I think they probably could rustle up some equipment. If you're using Stalingrad as an example because of actual WW2 events then in game that would represent 25 or more divisions. And in-game, just like in WW2, attrition would finish them off. So this change still works for your scenario.

Attrition wouldn't finish them off, because reinforcements in HoI4 are binary.

Either you get full reinforcements, or you get 0 ( when cut of from home territory ). A division which is getting only 5% of the supply it needs in Hoi4 will still be able to reinforce 500 tanks in a single reinforcement tick as long as you have them available in the stockpile.


If you want any supply at all to be a qualifier for enabling receiving reinforcements then even 25 divisions in Stalingrad would receive full reinforcements the way the game works at the moment. ( Yes it would be expensive on your stockpile after a while, but they would still be reinforced fully as quickly as if they were not cut off at all and in full supply ).

 

[Bundeswag]

Yeah but it shouldn't matter (I deliberately ignored Suez because I had the cores in Ethiopia, no industry in N.Africa and Ethiopia as a puppet). Cores which contain approx 6000 recruitable population and 3 military factories.

If you'd like to put arbitrary and weird rules around being connected to the capital then at least let people create supply points to stockpile troops and equipment to work around the weird rules.

As an example - I'm from NZ (Auckland). A lot of our industry was/is in & around Auckland. If we got cut off from the capital it would be the Capital that's in more of a pickle.

In that case you lost connection to your whole homeland. There would be no way to send equipment and manpower to Ethiopia with the mediterranean closed, as was the case irl.

 

[KiwiNoob]

No they wouldn't. Cut off factories in reality produce nothing.

To produce something as simple as infantry equipment you need all materials and little nuts and bolts and industrial tools and resources to be able to build everything from mortars & MGs to clothing to daily gear and basic radios or vehicles.

Didn't say produce. In the case of Stalingrad it's a fairly big city that had plenty of war time industry running when they got there. There would have been supplies to capture/scavenge for a smaller number of troops (low supply). However not enough for a large number (attrition due to low supply)

Let's face it, Your not going to be able to do that in occupied Ethiopia in 1940 in reality...

In the reality of my game the Italian cores had a decent amount of industrial capacity plus the entire of Ethiopia as a puppet.

In the reality of real life there would be more tools at my disposal - like sending a couple of spare men and guns there before the outbreak of war.

Attrition wouldn't finish them off, because reinforcements in HoI4 are binary.

Either you get full reinforcements, or you get 0 ( when cut of from home territory ). A division which is getting only 5% of the supply it needs in Hoi4 will still be able to reinforce 500 tanks in a single reinforcement tick as long as you have them available in the stockpile.


If you want any supply at all to be a qualifier for enabling receiving reinforcements then even 25 divisions in Stalingrad would receive full reinforcements the way the game works at the moment. ( Yes it would be expensive on your stockpile after a while, but they would still be reinforced fully as quickly as if they were not cut off at all and in full supply ).

Attrition would finish them off. 0 org kind of makes it difficult to fight.

But you just pointed out another flaw that should be fixed. Division reinforcements should be multiplied by their available supply. If a unit only has 10% supply they should only reinforce at 10% of the normal rate.

 

[Saint Gwynllyw]

What the heck is the point of having supply points to capture if you need a connection to the capital to reinforce anyway?

The new supply system was supposed to do away with this capital rubbish.

Had a very nice invasion going on - secured all the VP's to make sure I had enough supply then found out that supply doesn't make any difference if you don't have a connection to the capital.

It makes precisely no sense at all - not everything in a country comes from the capital - in fact, for many countries the capital isn't even the biggest city. It can also come from the population and industry of other places.

Please remove.

This issue also makes submarines pointless when sinking British convoys, as all the territory marked 'UK' on the map is directly linked to the British mainland. In other words, all the resources directly controlled by the British empire go directly to the UK stockpile irrespective if they are not connected by sea as they don't need to be transported.