Superior supply systems

[cetvrtak]

I didn't get the reference. Can someone elaborate?

 

[Miganto]

Hoi3 has a logistics system where you have to get supply from your main areas all the way out to the extremities to keep your troops able to fight effectively. Not getting that 'logistics simulator' done right completely screws your advances. It was one of the only/best 'logistics' within paradox games at the time (hoi4 also has it now)

 

[cetvrtak]

Hoi3 has a logistics system where you have to get supply from your main areas all the way out to the extremities to keep your troops able to fight effectively. Not getting that 'logistics simulator' done right completely screws your advances. It was one of the only/best 'logistics' within paradox games at the time (hoi4 also has it now)

I played HoI4 a bit, and I'd say it's less than flawless. Allies crowding an area could make your campaign a nightmare.

Logistics in eu4 are super unrealistic. A kingdom occupying provinces thousands of miles away from their home territory? I don't think so. Though I'm no expert on the subject, I'd say that was the main reason that other than France no one else in Europe could rule over a vast area.

Spoiler

Ottomans being in a whole other league

 

[TeutonicTortoise]

Hoi3 had things like air supply, and the supply routes were on a much more province to province system rather then the broad areas in hoi4 so was alot more micro intensive, compounded by being able to specifically bomb infrastructure

 

[Battlex]

I played HoI4 a bit, and I'd say it's less than flawless. Allies crowding an area could make your campaign a nightmare.

Logistics in eu4 are super unrealistic. A kingdom occupying provinces thousands of miles away from their home territory? I don't think so. Though I'm no expert on the subject, I'd say that was the main reason that other than France no one else in Europe could rule over a vast area.

Spoiler

Ottomans being in a whole other league

You can occupy land, but how long until you can effectively centralise that land especially the hinterland or nomadic tribes

 

[kettch]

I played HoI4 a bit, and I'd say it's less than flawless.

The supply system in hoi3 is the reason the supply system in hoi4 is a lot less... ambitious than the supply system in hoi3. Which I consider to be quite the pity. Then again, the supply system in hoi3 is the perfect argument for less ambition in building a supply system, so I suppose a lesson was learned there. The supply system in hoi4 having its very own woes even with the reduced ambition just reinforces that point.

@OP: Never noticed this in 1k hrs of EU4. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I'd say that was the main reason that other than France no one else in Europe could rule over a vast area.

 

[Titanius Puffin]

I might find a youtube guide on the supply system in HOI4...
I'm not inclined to love HOI4 more broadly, but I don't really know what an logistics simulation looks like.
Maybe in EU5... or 'next year in Jerusalem' .

 

[cetvrtak]

@OP: Never noticed this in 1k hrs of EU4. Thanks for sharing.

Me neither, with tens of thousands of hours. At first I thought it was the Maritime ideas that I extremely rarely take, but I had to take to expand my English fleet. But no, it's an Exploration - Quality combo which I imagine I've used quite a lot.

View attachment 663753

Holy Roman Empire doesn't count. I do admit, I never viewed Castile as big as France, my bad.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Holy Roman Empire doesn't count. I do admit, I never viewed Castile as big as France, my bad.

Yeah, the argument was not about the HRE, but about Castile/Spain, and not only in regards to size (otherwise i would have used the much larger Russia or the PLC as an example), but most importantly in regards to holding overseas lands, such as Belgium, Milan and Naples, which have no land connection with the Castilian Metropole and even have an hostile France in between.

 

[Canute VII]

Yeah, the argument was not about the HRE, but about Castile/Spain, and not only in regards to size (otherwise i would have used the much larger Russia or the PLC as an example), but most importantly in regards to holding overseas lands, such as Belgium, Milan and Naples, which have no land connection with the Castilian Metropole and even have an hostile France in between.

...and they lost it all, by the way.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

...and they lost it all, by the way.

So? The Roman Empire also lost it all, the British Empire lost 95% of it.
All empires eventually colapse, but the argument was "no one could rule over a vast area in Europe" but Spain literally did.

If you want to argue that holding on to your territories is too easy, then i would agree. Once you start blobbing, there is no stopping you. However the blobing community is too large, so i don't see paradox making it harder to keep your empire from imploding anytime soon.

You could also make the argument that it was mostly logistical problems made it much harder for Castile to crush the rebelions in Netherlands, which i would also agree, logistics and supply are fundamental aspects of warfare that are completely absent from the game. While we are never going to have a fully realistic supply system in Eu4, I believe there is still room for improvement and I also belive there will be a patch/dlc that will improve this in the near future.

 

[cetvrtak]

Yeah, the argument was not about the HRE, but about Castile/Spain, and not only in regards to size (otherwise i would have used the much larger Russia or the PLC as an example), but most importantly in regards to holding overseas lands, such as Belgium, Milan and Naples, which have no land connection with the Castilian Metropole and even have an hostile France in between.

Russia, Plc nor Spain exist at the game start. You could argue that Aragon held territory in Italy, but I'm not sure Naples was all that integrated.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Russia, Plc nor Spain exist at the game start. You could argue that Aragon held territory in Italy, but I'm not sure Naples was all that integrated.

So you are talking about only up to 1444?
Lithuania and Muscovy were both bigger than France.

 

[love sweden]

So? The Roman Empire also lost it all, the British Empire lost 95% of it.
All empires eventually colapse, but the argument was "no one could rule over a vast area in Europe" but Spain literally did.

If you want to argue that holding on to your territories is too easy, then i would agree. Once you start blobbing, there is no stopping you. However the blobing community is too large, so i don't see paradox making it harder to keep your empire from imploding anytime soon.

You could also make the argument that it was mostly logistical problems made it much harder for Castile to crush the rebelions in Netherlands, which i would also agree, logistics and supply are fundamental aspects of warfare that are completely absent from the game. While we are never going to have a fully realistic supply system in Eu4, I believe there is still room for improvement and I also belive there will be a patch/dlc that will improve this in the near future.

You do realise the Ottomans kept the majority of its conquest in EU4s timeframe until the first Balkan war and WW1 if you wanna talk so much about keeping territories being too easy.

 

[cetvrtak]

So you are talking about only up to 1444?
Lithuania and Muscovy were both bigger than France.

What I was trying to say was that in 1444 logistics would have been a more important limiting factor to expansion by conquest than it is depicted in eu4.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

You do realise the Ottomans kept the majority of its conquest in EU4s timeframe until the first Balkan war and WW1 if you wanna talk so much about keeping territories being too easy.

Yes, keeping territories is too easy, every single great Empire colapsed partially or completely, sooner or later, the fact that the Ottomans collapsed mostly after 1820 doesn't make change the reality that keeping your empire together and prosperous and expanding throughout the whole game is far too easy.

What I was trying to say was that in 1444 logistics would have been a more important limiting factor to expansion by conquest than it is depicted in eu4.

I don't understand... Are you talking up to 1444 or after 1444?
Because at first i thought you were talking after 1444, but then you excluded my examples of Russia, Spain and the PLC as non-existent in 1444, which leads to the assumption you were talking about 1444 only, and if that is the case, then the limiting factors in Eu4 are completely irrelevant, and we should be discussing Ck3 instead.

 

[cetvrtak]

Yes, keeping territories is too easy, every single great Empire colapsed partially or completely, sooner or later, the fact that the Ottomans collapsed mostly after 1820 doesn't make change the reality that keeping your empire together and prosperous and expanding throughout the whole game is far too easy.


I don't understand... Are you talking up to 1444 or after 1444?
Because at first i thought you were talking after 1444, but then you excluded my examples of Russia, Spain and the PLC as non-existent in 1444, which leads to the assumption you were talking about 1444 only, and if that is the case, then the limiting factors in Eu4 are completely irrelevant, and we should be discussing Ck3 instead.

Just 11th November 1444.

 

[love sweden]

Yes, keeping territories is too easy, every single great Empire colapsed partially or completely, sooner or later, the fact that the Ottomans collapsed mostly after 1820 doesn't make change the reality that keeping your empire together and prosperous and expanding throughout the whole game is far too easy.

The Ottomans outlived EU4s period and only lost territorys due to losing wars and not cause holding onto territory was hard. If you wanna say not losing wars is too easy then blame your brain for making you better at the game and not the game not punishing you for becoming a better player.

 

[wielkiciensteam]

HoI3 had the best logistics simulator. Never understood it.