RAILWAY or AUTOBAHN like infrastructure??

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well BBBD316 you can move a lot more through the railway than you can with the road network, so level 1 road would not be the same as level 1 rail.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But HOI4 is not a game that's limited to Europe. Many parts of the world had very limited or no rail lines. While I don't mind the current infrastructure for determining supply capacity, the big difference is in strategic movement. Without rail lines a unit is forced to use its own transport, if any, while where there are rail lines fast movement can be possible even if the overall infrastructure is relatively low.
hoi 4 may use a similar method as hoi 3, which had strategic move. units could travel at (i think it was) 20xinfra kph
 
  • 1
Reactions:
We had this thread before... It was underwhelming with the devs saying rails are all over EUROPE so they are unnecessary in a WORLD War 2 game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
it would be good if they add these features in game engine such as:

Railway Level 1.2.3.
Autobahn Level 1-10.
Bridge and engineering support Level 1.2.3
Airport Level 1-5.
Port level 1-5. (Separate from naval dockyard or shipbuilding)

Transsiberian Railway had Great Vital Effect for Soviet side.
German bahn system and rail system both had significant effects on Wehrmacht manoeuvre between 2 fronts.
 
hoi 4 may use a similar method as hoi 3, which had strategic move. units could travel at (i think it was) 20xinfra kph

Yes I'm expecting that, but think about rail lines like the Burma railway. It went through thick forests over difficult terrain and many watercourses. The overall infrastructure level in the states that line passed through was rather low, but units travelling along that railway would be able to travel comparatively faster than the multiplier of infrastructure would allow. Similarly there would be some provinces in Europe that are adjacent but not directly connected by rail, meaning that units would be able to use what is effectively rail movement speed between them. I've also started reading a book on the campaign in France in 44/45. Prior to D-Day every rail bridge over the Seine from Paris to the sea was destroyed, meaning rail movement had to divert south of Paris to get to Normandy. The total infrastructure of those states was still relatively intact, with only key points like bridges being destroyed, but in HOI4 we will not be able to force reinforcing units to take such a long diversion unless we destroy every single piece of road and rail in a couple of states.

The construction of rail lines in Europe in the 1800's revolutionised the mobilisation and strategic deployment of forces. It is one of HOI's great failings that they are lumped into a generic infrastructure total.
 
i think you won't get what you're after; they're trying to simplify all supply/infrastructure so that it's not as big a cock up as it was in hoi3

They are going to make a game about the world's most industrialized total war that was won and lost on the basis of shipping capacity, railroad throughput, air transport, and access to fuel, where all logistics are simplified and fuel is not something that units in the field use....

But rocket interceptors and superheavy tanks will get detailed rules...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
To consider - what would a separate rail line look like at the province level? All it would appear like is as a province with a high level of rail infrastructure. How does this end up differing from the current model of infrastructure? At the province level individual rail lines 'disappear'.

Remember this is a grand strategy game - local details will be abstracted.
 
To consider - what would a separate rail line look like at the province level? All it would appear like is as a province with a high level of rail infrastructure. How does this end up differing from the current model of infrastructure? At the province level individual rail lines 'disappear'.

Remember this is a grand strategy game - local details will be abstracted.

Grand strategy war-games include rail lines. I just looked up some World in Flames maps online and they have rail lines.

For HOI4 rail lines could connect a point near the centre of a province to a central point in adjoining provinces that are connected by rail lines. There would only need to be 3 levels of rail lines which could be depicted as rail lines of varying widths - low capacity (single line), medium capacity (single line with frequent crossing loops) and high capacity (multiple lines). The type of rail line would dictate the speed at which units could strategically deploy and the current infrastructure could just cover roads, which dictates the speed units can move through a province when not strategically redeploying.
 
To consider - what would a separate rail line look like at the province level? All it would appear like is as a province with a high level of rail infrastructure. How does this end up differing from the current model of infrastructure? At the province level individual rail lines 'disappear'.

Remember this is a grand strategy game - local details will be abstracted.

"All developed areas had railroads" is not the same as "All areas with railroads were developed."

In Europe or America, infrastructure is supposed to represent a gradual buildup from roads to railroads to autobahns. If you have infra 15 you have 4 rail lines and an autobahn, while if you have 4, you just have a few dirt roads

In Asia, Africa, and the middle East, that infrastructure continuum didn't exist. Often, the railroad was built first, before any sort of road. The rails were built for the movement of troops and resources from the colonies. In places like China or Burma, forces had to stick close to the rails and couldn't go off for very long.

See this map...

China-map1.jpg


The original proposal from the first of these threads was very specific. (See here for the thread from 2014)

Railroads help with supply speed, supply capacity, and speed of strategic redeployment.

Roads help a little with those things, but mainly they help with tactical movement speed and partisan suppression a lot.

For rails, make it so there is level 0 to 4. This represents the level of rail infra in the province.

Let's say that each level adds
+100% to supply capacity/throughput (The amount of supplies that can flow over the rails),
+25% to strategic movement speed, (the speed divisions move when strategically redeploying,
+25% to supply speed (the speed that supplies travel over the rails.)


Next, roads. They help a little bit with everything. Give them values from 0 to 6, with 0 representing no development at all (highland Burma, the Sahara) So each level would be

+20% to supply capacity,
+10% to strategic movement speed,
+5% to supply speed,
+15% to tactical movement speed (the speed divisions move and attack at),
+10% to partisan suppression. (representing the difficulty of fighting guerillas when it's hard to get from place to place to place.


I know that sounds complex but it would work very simply in practice and result in a single set of values for each province.

So let's say that Pskov has level 2 rails and and level 3 roads.

So the level 2 railroad gives it

2 x 100% = +200% supply capacity,
2 x 25% = +50% strategic movement speed,
2 x 25% = +50% to supply speed.

It also has level 3 roads, the roads add
3 x 20% = +60% to supply capacity,
3 x 10% = +30% to strategic movement speed,
3 x 5% = +15% to supply speed,
3 x 15% = +45% to tactical movement
3 x 10% = +30% to suppression.

Now both kinds of infra combined result in single set of values like so,
(Effect from rails) + (effect from roads) = (net modifiers for the province)

In this case, Pskov has

200% + 60% = +260% supply capacity,
50% + 30% = +80% strat movement speed,
50% + 15% = +65% supply speed,
0% + 45% = +45% tactical movement speed,
0% + 30% = +30% suppression.

These are all single values according to the game.

The next day it gets muddy. Mud reduces the effect of roads by half and of rails by 10%. (How much could be based on level of the infra as well, representing that Autobahns are less vulnerable to weather than dirt roads. But the important thing is that roads are affected more)

So the new values of the rails under mud which reduces them by 10%.

(.9 from mud) x 2 x 100% = +180% supply capacity,
(.9 from mud) x 2 x 25% = +45% strategic movement speed,
(.9 from mud) x 2 x 25% = +45% to supply speed.
You can see that they are only affected a little.

The roads, on the other hand are reduced by half. So that becomes.

(.5 from mud) x 3 x 20% = 30% supply capacity
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 10% = 15% strategic movement speed.
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 5% = 7.5% supply speed
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 15% = 22.5% tactical movement speed
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 10% = 15% suppression.

Now let's see the combined values again. When it's muddy Pskov would have

180 + 30 = 210% supply capacity
45 + 15 = 60% strategic movement speed.
45 + 7.5 = 52.5% supply speed
0 + 22.5 = 22.5% tactical movement speed.
0 + 15% = 15% suppression

This will allow for weather to slow down tactical operations but without hurting supply too much. It will make it so there are tradeoffs to fighting on terrain and building different kinds of infrastructure. It very clearly shows the difference between a railway in France and one in Vietnam. It's also easy to understand. If rails are shown on the map, then supply bottlenecks will be easy to find.
 
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
They are going to make a game about the world's most industrialized total war that was won and lost on the basis of shipping capacity, railroad throughput, air transport, and access to fuel, where all logistics are simplified and fuel is not something that units in the field use....

But rocket interceptors and superheavy tanks will get detailed rules...
hey, i'm not saying i agree with them! :D
 
Not sure if this was said before, but whatching the www stream of last Wednesday(9/12) I'm pretty sure I saw a russion NF regarding railnetwork expansion or something like it. When they showed the trotsky coup bug it briefly went by it think.

But I don't know what it's implications are, as it didn't have a tooltip or information shown
 
Not sure if this was said before, but whatching the www stream of last Wednesday(9/12) I'm pretty sure I saw a russion NF regarding railnetwork expansion or something like it. When they showed the trotsky coup bug it briefly went by it think.

But I don't know what it's implications are, as it didn't have a tooltip or information shown
probably gives an infrastructure boost in some area
 
"All developed areas had railroads" is not the same as "All areas with railroads were developed."

In Europe or America, infrastructure is supposed to represent a gradual buildup from roads to railroads to autobahns. If you have infra 15 you have 4 rail lines and an autobahn, while if you have 4, you just have a few dirt roads

In Asia, Africa, and the middle East, that infrastructure continuum didn't exist. Often, the railroad was built first, before any sort of road. The rails were built for the movement of troops and resources from the colonies. In places like China or Burma, forces had to stick close to the rails and couldn't go off for very long.

See this map...

China-map1.jpg


The original proposal from the first of these threads was very specific. (See here for the thread from 2014)

Railroads help with supply speed, supply capacity, and speed of strategic redeployment.

Roads help a little with those things, but mainly they help with tactical movement speed and partisan suppression a lot.

For rails, make it so there is level 0 to 4. This represents the level of rail infra in the province.

Let's say that each level adds
+100% to supply capacity/throughput (The amount of supplies that can flow over the rails),
+25% to strategic movement speed, (the speed divisions move when strategically redeploying,
+25% to supply speed (the speed that supplies travel over the rails.)


Next, roads. They help a little bit with everything. Give them values from 0 to 6, with 0 representing no development at all (highland Burma, the Sahara) So each level would be

+20% to supply capacity,
+10% to strategic movement speed,
+5% to supply speed,
+15% to tactical movement speed (the speed divisions move and attack at),
+10% to partisan suppression. (representing the difficulty of fighting guerillas when it's hard to get from place to place to place.


I know that sounds complex but it would work very simply in practice and result in a single set of values for each province.

So let's say that Pskov has level 2 rails and and level 3 roads.

So the level 2 railroad gives it

2 x 100% = +200% supply capacity,
2 x 25% = +50% strategic movement speed,
2 x 25% = +50% to supply speed.

It also has level 3 roads, the roads add
3 x 20% = +60% to supply capacity,
3 x 10% = +30% to strategic movement speed,
3 x 5% = +15% to supply speed,
3 x 15% = +45% to tactical movement
3 x 10% = +30% to suppression.

Now both kinds of infra combined result in single set of values like so,
(Effect from rails) + (effect from roads) = (net modifiers for the province)

In this case, Pskov has

200% + 60% = +260% supply capacity,
50% + 30% = +80% strat movement speed,
50% + 15% = +65% supply speed,
0% + 45% = +45% tactical movement speed,
0% + 30% = +30% suppression.

These are all single values according to the game.

The next day it gets muddy. Mud reduces the effect of roads by half and of rails by 10%. (How much could be based on level of the infra as well, representing that Autobahns are less vulnerable to weather than dirt roads. But the important thing is that roads are affected more)

So the new values of the rails under mud which reduces them by 10%.

(.9 from mud) x 2 x 100% = +180% supply capacity,
(.9 from mud) x 2 x 25% = +45% strategic movement speed,
(.9 from mud) x 2 x 25% = +45% to supply speed.
You can see that they are only affected a little.

The roads, on the other hand are reduced by half. So that becomes.

(.5 from mud) x 3 x 20% = 30% supply capacity
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 10% = 15% strategic movement speed.
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 5% = 7.5% supply speed
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 15% = 22.5% tactical movement speed
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 10% = 15% suppression.

Now let's see the combined values again. When it's muddy Pskov would have

180 + 30 = 210% supply capacity
45 + 15 = 60% strategic movement speed.
45 + 7.5 = 52.5% supply speed
0 + 22.5 = 22.5% tactical movement speed.
0 + 15% = 15% suppression

This will allow for weather to slow down tactical operations but without hurting supply too much. It will make it so there are tradeoffs to fighting on terrain and building different kinds of infrastructure. It very clearly shows the difference between a railway in France and one in Vietnam. It's also easy to understand. If rails are shown on the map, then supply bottlenecks will be easy to find.

@ Porkman - a very detailed and thoughtful analysis - good job.
I am not a programmer, so I ask for input from those who are;

How easy is it for Porkman's idea to code??
 
@ Porkman - a very detailed and thoughtful analysis - good job.
I am not a programmer, so I ask for input from those who are;

How easy is it for Porkman's idea to code??

If the engine has the 5 modifers already implemeted not really hard. If not you would have to create them and tie them into the game structure wich could be quiet and extensive task if it isn´t meant do mod easy.
 
"All developed areas had railroads" is not the same as "All areas with railroads were developed."

In Europe or America, infrastructure is supposed to represent a gradual buildup from roads to railroads to autobahns. If you have infra 15 you have 4 rail lines and an autobahn, while if you have 4, you just have a few dirt roads

In Asia, Africa, and the middle East, that infrastructure continuum didn't exist. Often, the railroad was built first, before any sort of road. The rails were built for the movement of troops and resources from the colonies. In places like China or Burma, forces had to stick close to the rails and couldn't go off for very long.

See this map...

China-map1.jpg


The original proposal from the first of these threads was very specific. (See here for the thread from 2014)

Railroads help with supply speed, supply capacity, and speed of strategic redeployment.

Roads help a little with those things, but mainly they help with tactical movement speed and partisan suppression a lot.

For rails, make it so there is level 0 to 4. This represents the level of rail infra in the province.

Let's say that each level adds
+100% to supply capacity/throughput (The amount of supplies that can flow over the rails),
+25% to strategic movement speed, (the speed divisions move when strategically redeploying,
+25% to supply speed (the speed that supplies travel over the rails.)


Next, roads. They help a little bit with everything. Give them values from 0 to 6, with 0 representing no development at all (highland Burma, the Sahara) So each level would be

+20% to supply capacity,
+10% to strategic movement speed,
+5% to supply speed,
+15% to tactical movement speed (the speed divisions move and attack at),
+10% to partisan suppression. (representing the difficulty of fighting guerillas when it's hard to get from place to place to place.


I know that sounds complex but it would work very simply in practice and result in a single set of values for each province.

So let's say that Pskov has level 2 rails and and level 3 roads.

So the level 2 railroad gives it

2 x 100% = +200% supply capacity,
2 x 25% = +50% strategic movement speed,
2 x 25% = +50% to supply speed.

It also has level 3 roads, the roads add
3 x 20% = +60% to supply capacity,
3 x 10% = +30% to strategic movement speed,
3 x 5% = +15% to supply speed,
3 x 15% = +45% to tactical movement
3 x 10% = +30% to suppression.

Now both kinds of infra combined result in single set of values like so,
(Effect from rails) + (effect from roads) = (net modifiers for the province)

In this case, Pskov has

200% + 60% = +260% supply capacity,
50% + 30% = +80% strat movement speed,
50% + 15% = +65% supply speed,
0% + 45% = +45% tactical movement speed,
0% + 30% = +30% suppression.

These are all single values according to the game.

The next day it gets muddy. Mud reduces the effect of roads by half and of rails by 10%. (How much could be based on level of the infra as well, representing that Autobahns are less vulnerable to weather than dirt roads. But the important thing is that roads are affected more)

So the new values of the rails under mud which reduces them by 10%.

(.9 from mud) x 2 x 100% = +180% supply capacity,
(.9 from mud) x 2 x 25% = +45% strategic movement speed,
(.9 from mud) x 2 x 25% = +45% to supply speed.
You can see that they are only affected a little.

The roads, on the other hand are reduced by half. So that becomes.

(.5 from mud) x 3 x 20% = 30% supply capacity
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 10% = 15% strategic movement speed.
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 5% = 7.5% supply speed
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 15% = 22.5% tactical movement speed
(.5 from mud) x 3 x 10% = 15% suppression.

Now let's see the combined values again. When it's muddy Pskov would have

180 + 30 = 210% supply capacity
45 + 15 = 60% strategic movement speed.
45 + 7.5 = 52.5% supply speed
0 + 22.5 = 22.5% tactical movement speed.
0 + 15% = 15% suppression

This will allow for weather to slow down tactical operations but without hurting supply too much. It will make it so there are tradeoffs to fighting on terrain and building different kinds of infrastructure. It very clearly shows the difference between a railway in France and one in Vietnam. It's also easy to understand. If rails are shown on the map, then supply bottlenecks will be easy to find.


What a details.. Bravo! I like very much this kind of details and it should be implemented now in game..
 
It's things like this that makes my confidence waver.

They literally said in one of the early gameplay videos.

"We have cities and we have, um, factories, of all different types, but we don't have... uh.. rails or roads visible..... It would kind of clutter up a little bit too much I think, because its b- because this is still 1940's so it's basically everywhere in Europe so we kind of settled on, on mainly showing... uh... factories and the big stuff."