Port Supply Exploit

[LordWahu]

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.

The problem here is that the current supply system only properly works in Russia and France

France (and Europe in general) is well developed, and you're never far from one, while Russia is well simulated with the distances and supply difficulties

Places like Africa and China are miserable slogs (and not in the way they're supposed to be) because (according to my personal analysis anyways) the system was optimized for Barbarossa.

And don't get me started on South America

 

[Dalnar]

Only central africa is really horrible, nothing one supply hub in Congo for the sake of gameplay wouldn't solve. Maybe VP on maps should act as small hubs as well.

 

[Kanitatlan]

The problem here is that the current supply system only properly works in Russia and France

France (and Europe in general) is well developed, and you're never far from one, while Russia is well simulated with the distances and supply difficulties

Places like Africa and China are miserable slogs (and not in the way they're supposed to be) because (according to my personal analysis anyways) the system was optimized for Barbarossa.

And don't get me started on South America

I think Africa and parts of China are that bad on purpose to reflect the near impossibility of supplying anything more than minimal forces in those areas. The new supply rules aren't a particularly realistic simulation of supply but it does seem to be reasonably effective. The problem with addressing its obvious weaknesses is that a realistic simulation cannot be practically achieved. This was tried in HOI3 and it is patently obvious that improving the HOI3 system to something that worked was never going to be achievable.

 

[LordWahu]

I think Africa and parts of China are that bad on purpose to reflect the near impossibility of supplying anything more than minimal forces in those areas. The new supply rules aren't a particularly realistic simulation of supply but it does seem to be reasonably effective. The problem with addressing its obvious weaknesses is that a realistic simulation cannot be practically achieved. This was tried in HOI3 and it is patently obvious that improving the HOI3 system to something that worked was never going to be achievable.

I won't deny that Africa and China are supposed to be sloggish

But right now, they're the wrong kind of sloggish

Unfortunately I can't find the right words to explain my position. I'll try to get back to you on that

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

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

While it's more of a "game balance" thing rather than exploit (not the only instance of it being rather... questionable, either), I believe increasing cost for the first level of port would, indeed, solve the "problem". There was a thread a while back about port costs. As result I posted a suggestion (for what little good it can do) that pretty much sums it up.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ports cost less, but are:

1. Much more limited than supply hubs wrt where they can be placed
2. Easier to cripple via convoy raiding than hubs are to fully cripple with bombing
3. More liable to enemy countermeasures (naval invasion)

In the past, posters have complained that naval superiority doesn't matter enough. This cost disparity makes it matter more, and in fact actually forces nations to move their ships and defend their convoys, in contrast to the "superiority" from a "fleet in being" that continues to exert "superiority" even when it does not challenge interdiction.

 

[Glassius]

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

He is not a random guy, he is FeedbackGaming! Guy personally challenged by developers during live streams.

If he is not an authority in HOI4, then no one is.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

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?

The only bit of reason here (if read in between the lines, that's it) is that it should not be possible to buid a port in any tile one wants, that's just silly as certain spots are not suitable for that no matter what.

Neither it shoud be possible to designate any random tile as a landing spot for invasion, but these two issues seem to much to ask from HoI4 in its present state, so claiming that simply following the game mechanics and building ports to their indended role is... ugh, quite brave of a statement.

 

[GrandVezir]

Having seen the video (along with most of his videos), the exploit-y part is chaining ports along the North African coast, to avoid having to build rail+hub combinations.

Of course, in that video FBG kept getting naval invaded behind his front line. So this is a tactic even normal vanilla AI can counter.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Ports cost less, but are:

1. Much more limited than supply hubs wrt where they can be placed
2. Easier to cripple via convoy raiding than hubs are to fully cripple with bombing
3. More liable to enemy countermeasures (naval invasion)

In the past, posters have complained that naval superiority doesn't matter enough. This cost disparity makes it matter more, and in fact actually forces nations to move their ships and defend their convoys, in contrast to the "superiority" from a "fleet in being" that continues to exert "superiority" even when it does not challenge interdiction.

You need to consider that a port supply hub can be used as a simple supply hub fed by rail rather than by sea. When used that way it is simply a cheaper supply hub.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

In the past, posters have complained that naval superiority doesn't matter enough. This cost disparity makes it matter more, and in fact actually forces nations to move their ships and defend their convoys, in contrast to the "superiority" from a "fleet in being" that continues to exert "superiority" even when it does not challenge interdiction.

Debatable: it's way easier to kill enough convoys to deny supply to a single port (and shut down the entire chain) than to kill enough convoys to affect dozen ports supplying same area.

 

[George Parr]

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.

Uh, no, that wasn't the case at all.

Supply hubs are areas with good train and road connections, and lots of storage space. Things weren't constantly on the move, instead they were brought somewhere, where they were temporarily stored and processed for further transport. This meant that significant amount of supplies could be captured under the right circumstances. It would have been utter mayhem if supplies were just unloaded from trains, put onto trucks and send on their way. You needed to know exactly where something was supposed to be heading, or else you would never accomplish a proper spreading of supplies. You also didn't need "some tents to store things". That is vastly underestimating the scale of supply-logistics.

There were obviously different levels to this. A big city with great railway-connections operated on a far larger scale than a small town on on the end of a rail-line in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Znail]

Having seen the video (along with most of his videos), the exploit-y part is chaining ports along the North African coast, to avoid having to build rail+hub combinations.

Of course, in that video FBG kept getting naval invaded behind his front line. So this is a tactic even normal vanilla AI can counter.

The problem here isn't that that building ports worked but that rail+supply hubs does not. Quite frankly building a train station should not be that big a deal. Most towns or villages that a rail line goes through tends to manage to build stations that can unload supplies.

How about giving victory points supply a small boost if they are connected by a rail line?

The problem is that supply hubs costs too much to ever build, even less as part of an offensive due to the long time it takes.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Look, I'm going to say it again. The problem is game implementation practicality. Yes, there would be far more supply depots. Just to give an example, during the battle of Stalingrad the actual German railhead and supply depot was at Kalach but in HOI4 we need to try and supply from Rostov. The game implementation isn't "right" but it kind of works and trying to implement it "right" isn't practical. The argument isn't that the game has got it right, the argument is that all of the objections are asking for something that is too difficult to implement.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

What they should maybe look into, is to reduce the supply range of ports by maybe half

We agree to the rest of your comment but not this part.

 

[vermicious knid]

I think supply is working fairly well. Sometimes I still see weird routing to ports, but nothing like what was happening in the initial NSb release.

The port thing isn't an exploit. It appears to be working as designed. Easy enough to tweak if you find it unbearable, but I like that supply complications now prevent silly stuff life extreme snaking or blitzing all of Africa.

 

[Corpse Fool]

If he is not an authority in HOI4, then no one is.

Then I guess no one is.

 

[GrandVezir]

Then I guess no one is.

Probably not.

HoI4 is complicated enough, and allows for so many different approaches, that I would say no one is an authority on the entire game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You need to consider that a port supply hub can be used as a simple supply hub fed by rail rather than by sea. When used that way it is simply a cheaper supply hub.

Which still does have some relevant restrictions, of course.

 

[Glassius]

I still have problem with the supplies system for two reasons
1. It is a capital which produces supplies and then "teleports" them over rails. That oversimplification creates place for exploits. I think they should be produced in provincies with military factories and evenly distributed over hubs, according to demand.
2. There is no possibility to overstore supplies nor to empty hubs. Overstoring them could create fortresses. Like Hel reinforced area which was sieged for 24 days and Breslau, 82 days. Also, when Germans approached Stalingrad, Soviets withdrew food, animals and trains to not let them be captured.

I guess both problems could be fixed by real distribution system, but current mechanics are kinda OK