Port Supply Exploit

[CSARebel]

Just watched FeedbackIRL's YouTube video on the port supply exploit. Where building a port is cheaper then building a supply depot but gives you basically the same advantage.

Would it be possible to eliminate this exploit by making the first port point extremely costly but subsequent port points cost much less?

 

[Silverhood]

Just watched FeedbackIRL's YouTube video on the port supply exploit. Where building a port is cheaper then building a supply depot but gives you basically the same advantage.

Would it be possible to eliminate this exploit by making the first port point extremely costly but subsequent port points cost much less?

I mean, it's not technically an exploit. The most recent patch did up the cost a bit. A supply hub will generate supply from local industry in the province, which a port will not. A port also opens you up to enemy naval invasions; usually not an issue if you are the Allies, but if you're fighting them, you don't want to open more doors.

What they should maybe look into, is to reduce the supply range of ports by maybe half, but also reduce the cost of building a supply depot in a province with a port. The bigger the port, the cheaper it would be to build.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

I mean, it's not technically an exploit. The most recent patch did up the cost a bit. A supply hub will generate supply from local industry in the province, which a port will not. A port also opens you up to enemy naval invasions; usually not an issue if you are the Allies, but if you're fighting them, you don't want to open more doors.

What they should maybe look into, is to reduce the supply range of ports by maybe half, but also reduce the cost of building a supply depot in a province with a port. The bigger the port, the cheaper it would be to build.

Contrarily, I think the supply range of regular hubs should be increased instead, and supply amount from ports severely decreased at low levels.

 

[Znail]

Personally so do I think the high cost of a supply hub is more of a problem then the lower cost of a port. The issue with the supply hub is that there is only one kind, max level. If you could build a cheaper level 1 supply hub so would that help out in areas where the hubs are too far apart to cover while getting cheap max level hubs would make supply too easy.

 

[Kanitatlan]

This problem is fairly clear when you get used to the new supply rules and there really isn't an obvious solution. The issue is that the supply system only works if you severely ration supply hubs. The behaviour of supply in Russia so that supply suddenly gets really shitty when the Axis invasion passes the Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov line is entirely dependent on the pre-game set up of supply hubs. This means that creating supply hubs needs to be severely rationed and hence very expensive. On the other hand, there is a limit to how expansive it is reasonable to be for building ports (I think), although I'm not entirely clear why ports have to be buildable from scratch at all - what would happen if you couldn't?

You can't address it by building smaller capacity supply hubs because then lots of smaller hubs becomes the perfect solution to supply issues and doesn't need railway upgrades. I've looked at this before and addressing these sorts of issues would require a major elaboration of the new supply system and, in particular, leads to having to develop a scheme for the flow of supplies and any one who played HOI3 knows what kind of an algorithmic morass that can turn into.

 

[pheonicia]

Now that mulberries are in the game (assuming you have the dlc) you could make ports really expensive. The only times I ever really built ports before was to supply naval invasions.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

i guess the real question is, why didn't WWII combatants IRL build ports for supply instead of supply hubs? were supply hubs ever really "built?"
i'm not certain of the answer but i'm fairly confident it has something to do with loading supply onto ships being far slower than doing so onto trains?

 

[Kanitatlan]

i guess the real question is, why didn't WWII combatants IRL build ports for supply instead of supply hubs? were supply hubs ever really "built?"
i'm not certain of the answer but i'm fairly confident it has something to do with loading supply onto ships being far slower than doing so onto trains?

The supply hub scheme in the game is really a game mechanism to simulate supply rather than an attempt to simulate reality. The truth is that in WW2 supply hubs weren't a huge issue to set up and weren't a major expense. I had an uncle who spent the entire war managing supply "hubs" (for the RAF - tactical airforces - lots of bombs and rockets - relatively safe whilst being absolutely terrifying). The problem is that the game needs a supply system that doesn't take over the game and the problem is that logistics is why general staffs were invented and are a much bigger management issue than the fighting. Since the audience for HOI4 want to play a game about the fighting there needs to be very serious compromise in the supply system - hence where we are.

I think my position is don't dare criticise the system as it is designed unless you are really sure you can come up with something better that is genuinely practical and be prepared to justify why your alternative would really work. I've had some experience of real life logistic programming and it is an absolute nightmare of a problem. I'm going to be very, very careful about criticising it.

 

[bERt0r]

i guess the real question is, why didn't WWII combatants IRL build ports for supply instead of supply hubs? were supply hubs ever really "built?"
i'm not certain of the answer but i'm fairly confident it has something to do with loading supply onto ships being far slower than doing so onto trains?

Because a harbor is a lot more expensive than a little railway station.

 

[SRhistory]

Just wonder if you all are aware of:
- at the cost of 5% Stability you can build supply hub 300% faster
- you can have (not sure about the name) flooting ports which are very handy
- ports still needs ships to supply them

and pls keep in mind the japan/usa part. Without those port or when they are to expensive to build… well navy and passific war will be very hard.

so still want to increase the cost for a port? I don’t see a reason then making the game harder and less fun.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Just wonder if you all are aware of:
- at the cost of 5% Stability you can build supply hub 300% faster
- you can have (not sure about the name) flooting ports which are very handy
- ports still needs ships to supply them

and pls keep in mind the japan/usa part. Without those port or when they are to expensive to build… well navy and passific war will be very hard.

so still want to increase the cost for a port? I don’t see a reason then making the game harder and less fun.

Not everyone can build supply hubs 300% faster, that is country specific.

Also, the Pacific war doesn't really have a need to build new ports as level 1 ports are available everywhere, all that is really needed is the ability to upgrade ports.

 

[FindFloppies]

I think this is one of those that if you think it's an exploit...don't use it.

MP groups can decide on the use of this as well.

Just like the DD 'roach' meta. I call it an exploit and don't use it. You can do the same about this.

 

[Eisscrat]

Dont see why paradox build in this restrictive " supply hub" thing. What is a supply hub? Simply a point were supplys loaded from a train to a truck. Since in that time all was transported in crates or barrels instead of freight containers all you need were lot of people that carry the things from one to the other vehicle. Maybe you need some simple ramps or some tents to store things.
Think there is no need for this only this fixed 200day bulding massive stations can unload trains and noobe else.

Paradox made this strict rule to be deoendant on the hubs while in real life there were a lot of possibilities to go around that bottleneck. For example a mobile supply battalions that unload the trains were the tracks ending near the front. Double or tripple the supply trucks for a division to give them more carry capacity for some time like the red ball express in france 1944. And no the motorised supply hub is not this. I talk about hundreds of trucks if needed and you can afford it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't see a functional definition of "exploit" that constrains anticipation to this, but not other things which would widely not be considered exploits.

 

[nkibilko]

Just watched FeedbackIRL's YouTube video on the port supply exploit. Where building a port is cheaper then building a supply depot but gives you basically the same advantage.

Would it be possible to eliminate this exploit by making the first port point extremely costly but subsequent port points cost much less?

Is one random guy on youtube's opinion really actually meaningful?

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Is one random guy on youtube's opinion really actually meaningful?

It's not just an opinion, it's a fact of the game system. Ports function as supply hubs with way lower cost. Ports do everything supply hubs do but better and are cheaper.

 

[SRhistory]

Not everyone can build supply hubs 300% faster, that is country specific.

Also, the Pacific war doesn't really have a need to build new ports as level 1 ports are available everywhere, all that is really needed is the ability to upgrade ports.

It depends on the play style for the Pacific. So i built some new ports for eilands and some other countries. That’s my playstyle. About the 300% faster build … have played many countries now and all of them had the option to choose it.
so it depends.. and why nerf more and take the fun away?
Last OP is saying this based on one YouTube person thinks… euh….??? Based on this thread most people don’t share this…

 

[Dalnar]

It's not exploit, it's even mentioned in the hoi4 wiki.

Logistics - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

"If it looks like it’s not cost-effective, or possible, to get hub supply from existing hubs, it is also possible to build new supply hubs. On the coast, ports act as supply hubs, and are considerably cheaper (5,000 CIC for the first level of the naval base, with a further 1000 CIC added to the cost for each subsequent level). Inland, however, supply hubs need to be used, which require 20000 CIC (modified by any construction speed and infrastructure construction bonuses)."

 

[Znail]

You can't address it by building smaller capacity supply hubs because then lots of smaller hubs becomes the perfect solution to supply issues and doesn't need railway upgrades. I've looked at this before and addressing these sorts of issues would require a major elaboration of the new supply system and, in particular, leads to having to develop a scheme for the flow of supplies and any one who played HOI3 knows what kind of an algorithmic morass that can turn into.

That is only if "small hubs" are so cheap that they cost effectively replaces real hubs despite providing much less supply each. The obvious solution to that is to make a "small hub" cost more then that break point. The only reason I want the option to build something cheap is for areas where there are no supply hub and a small one would at least give some access for troops. This can also be between hubs that in some areas can't quite cover the distance.

The main problem and why supply hubs needs to cost so much is because the supply system does not in any way limit how many supply hubs the same train line transports supply to making two supply hubs next to each other effectively double the amount of supply. That could be solved by diminishing returns from multiple supply hubs to regions. That does not solve the issue with that rail lines can supply infinite hubs down the line, but that is less abusive and does not demand a fix, even if it would be preferable.

 

[Jays298]

It's not an exploit. The ports are already expensive and the cost was raised to reflect this.

The game lacks basic and intermediate supply networks. The humble port is a bit of a stop gap.