Why aren't there any railroads/highways in this game??? Can anybody explain?

[Shaka of Carthage]

(Vicky have visible railways albeit really this was just a visualisation of the five-level rail infra level).

And maybe here you have a possible simple solution in HoI4. When Infrastructure reaches a certain level, the province shows railroad lines. Then players can "see" the rail net.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

So do you mean it's perfectly fine that the roads and railroads really are EVERYWHERE? That you can strat redeploy ANYWHERE, ANYTIME? The influence is negligable. at best. HOI4 is all about modern warfare. Real armies plan operations taking into account impassable terrain and control over sparse major transport links is the key to victory. I don't care if I can see it or not, I just want it to be meanigfully present, instead that magical railways through Himalayas.

Depends on the level of infrastructure. Lower levels would not have railroads, higher levels would. Lower levels would have minor roads, higher levels major ones. As stated above by others, the level of infrastructure effects speed of movement.

The game has impassable terrain. Whether or not certain areas are not shown as impassable is a different issue,.

 

[1 Star General]

And maybe here you have a possible simple solution in HoI4. When Infrastructure reaches a certain level, the province shows railroad lines. Then players can "see" the rail net.

As I've mentioned before, I don't really care if it's visible or not. What I care about is for it to work in a meaningful way. So that strat redeployment is impossible in central New Guinea when I invade it as Japan, and the conquest is an actual trouble. So that I can't magically teleport all my army from Ukraine and Bealrus to a new,tidy, continous front stretching from Tajikistan to Vladivostok, in a matter of 2 weeks as Soviet Union, so that I'd actually care about keeping adequate garrisons in different parts of the country, like Stalin did. So that invading the SU as Germany I'd actually face similar obstacles as their 3 army groups did, finding it diffcult to communicate laterally due to lack of North-South linking infrastructure. So that I can't f#$% up The Raj in 2 -3 weeks as China by attacking from the north - through Himalayas. I could go on. The way the 'magic infrastructure warp field' works in the game ATM is silly and the reason I'm making fuss is that it's fairly easy to fix it.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

reason I'm making fuss is that it's fairly easy to fix it.

Then please explain the fairly easy fix.

 

[1 Star General]

Depends on the level of infrastructure. Lower levels would not have railroads, higher levels would. Lower levels would have minor roads, higher levels major ones. As stated above by others, the level of infrastructure effects speed of movement.

The game has impassable terrain. Whether or not certain areas are not shown as impassable is a different issue,.

Yes - the effects are implemented. Are they meaningful in any way? No. The only reason I sometimes check the infra level in enemy territory is supplies, not speed of advance. Do you? I'm seriously asking). Does it affect your planning? Do you find it sensible that strat deployment works in jungles of SE Asia? Wouldn't it be enriching and adding a strategic layer, if Soviet player had to take into account having only one railway through Siberia to the Far East?

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Yes - the effects are implemented. Are they meaningful in any way? No.

Ahhh... So you argument isn't that the highways and railroads don't exist, your argument is with how they are implemented.

No, the base game effects are not harsh enough. Same with weather and terrain. I've concluded that they are not realistic enough because Paradox doesn't want to alienate the majority of their player base, who don't really care about such things. I have issues with many other things in the base game as well. So I play with mods that change those things.

 

[1 Star General]

Then please explain the fairly easy fix.

Simply add a very limited number of major highways and railways, roughly (no need for perfect accuracy) aiming at distribution among different parts of the world that would correspond with historical reality. Western Europe denser, but 2 lines through Benelux and a skeletal centrally oriented (towards Paris) network in France would hardly clutter the map, but make a world of change for the German invasion strat. Soviet Union - horizontal lines towards Kiev and Moscow in the West, sparse all around, one major like through Siberia. Nothing in Western China, New Guinea and other lovely medieval stuck places. Would make a world of difference. Don't touch supply system, don't change terrain modifiers, just add speed for units moving along the line, make strat redeployment possible only along the line. + some minor details, for example, allow tanks to avoid mud if moving on the highway. not hard, not a massive change. It would really change the playstyle, imho for the better, but it's not a massive systemic rework.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Simply add a very limited number of major highways and railways, roughly (no need for perfect accuracy) aiming at distribution among different parts of the world that would correspond with historical reality. Western Europe denser, but 2 lines through Benelux and a skeletal centrally oriented (towards Paris) network in France would hardly clutter the map, but make a world of change for the German invasion strat. Soviet Union - horizontal lines towards Kiev and Moscow in the West, sparse all around, one major like through Siberia. Nothing in Western China, New Guinea and other lovely medieval stuck places. Would make a world of difference.

And my point is that this already exists. The provinces along the proposed routes are (or should be) high infrastructure levels. If you examine '36 maps showing railroads in those countries, you'll see the Western European nations are covered in rail lines. The Soviets, not so much.

Don't touch supply system, don't change terrain modifiers, just add speed for units moving along the line, make strat redeployment possible only along the line. + some minor details, for example, allow tanks to avoid mud if moving on the highway. not hard, not a massive change.

Here we have a suggestion to increase the strat speed. And by implication, reduce it for the lower level infrastructures. Pretty sure the increase can already be done by changing the values in the define file. Not sure about the decrease.

The above are simply changes to the base game, something modders have already done.

 

[1 Star General]

And my point is that this already exists. The provinces along the proposed routes are (or should be) high infrastructure levels. If you examine '36 maps showing railroads in those countries, you'll see the Western European nations are covered in rail lines. The Soviets, not so much.

Overally, I agree that it's fixable with even more less invasive changes than the one's I suggested, if that's your point. But what you're suggesting isn't really solving much.
Taking into account the length of planning, preparing and building major infastructural projects IRL, and , on the other hand, relatively short time span of the game, laying some basic hard infastructure down at the start of the game and making it a base which a player can only slightly enhance, but not alter, would be, in my opinion, reasonable
.Even if you modify the values, so it gets more important, you won't be able to simulate the difficulty (or impossibility) of bulding and maintaining the infra in different parts of the world. Yes, yes, countires have different numbers of civilian factories to build it. But building a railway through dampened land in Siberia, Karakorum or through jungle in Vietnam is really a completely different story than laying it out through American midwest. . And the overall development of the country is not the only determinant of the transportation network density. SU had a massive industry, but there were other factors beyond economics at play, making infrastructure sparse. Or how about infrastructure through Himalayas? Barely possible to this day. Yet in game fixable in no time. So you invest some civs for a while and here you go, you still can strat teleport through Himalayas, even though you modified the values you mentioned. My last campaign as Japan, I had no trouble at all strat redeploying a huge army from central China to Egypt when the US army showed up. Yes, it took a while in game's terms. But seriosuly, IRL it's just impossible. Japan in the Middle East? That ought to mean a permanent dominant presence of Navy in the Indian Ocean. But I was busy in the Pacific, so just took the magic rail through the Himalayas. Come on...
Another point, in present state it plays no role whatsoever in war planning (mobility, not supply wise). If you do know the mod, that forces you to look at your enemies infastructure network when planning an invasion and influences your operational decisions (axis of attack, target priority and so on...), in other words simulates this crucial aspect of modern warfare to any meaningful degree, PLEASE, do recommend it to me. I'd appreciate that.

 

[praftd]

How do you implement these things in a fun and meaningful way that adds more to the game than infrastructure currently does? How do these changes mesh with out in-game systems? How easy is it to implement? What are the performance costs? How long will this feature take? What is the priority? Is this feature in high demand? Are there other features that take precedence?

There are lots of reasons why it isn't in the game.

 

[1 Star General]

How do you implement these things in a fun and meaningful way that adds more to the game than infrastructure currently does? How do these changes mesh with out in-game systems? How easy is it to implement? What are the performance costs? How long will this feature take? What is the priority? Is this feature in high demand? Are there other features that take precedence?

There are lots of reasons why it isn't in the game.

As HOI4 is primarily a war strategy game, I think the changes that would cause players to take into account things I described in the previous post, namely -
"make you take a look at your enemies infastructure network when planning an invasion and influence your operational decisions (axis of attack, target priority and so on...), in other words simulating this crucial aspect of modern warfare that infastructure is, to any meaningful degree"
- would really enrich the game in its most important layer - war fighting strategy, therefore make it more fun. I don't think anyone playing HOI4 is averse to a bit of complexity, ppl liking simple games tend to play Risk.
As for the complexity of implementation - the changes I described above are really simple. There are no performance costs. They're simple enough to mesh with the game seamlessly. Hope answered all the questions.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

laying some basic hard infastructure down at the start of the game and making it a base which a player can only slightly enhance, but not alter, would be, in my opinion, reasonable

Agree, handled by increasing the current infrastructure cost.

Or how about infrastructure through Himalayas?

Areas like that should be impassable.

Another point, in present state it plays no role whatsoever in war planning. If you do know the mod, that forces you to look at your enemies infastructure network when planning an invasion and influences your operational decision (axis of attack, target priority and so on...), in other words simulates this crucial aspect of modern warfare to any meaningful degree, PLEASE, do recommend it to me. I'd appreciate that.

You'll need to search the Steam Workshop for relevant mods and then try them out yourself. Most that focus just on infrastructure I tried and rejected for various reasons. A lot of the multiplayer mods have infrastructure changes to make it more WWII "realistic". The mod Secret Master plays (?IMHOP?) and Waltzing Matilda come to mind. Sure there are many others.

Lastly, I don't think WWII qualifies as modern warfare anymore. 20th century, yes.

 

[GSP Jr]

As HOI4 is primarily a war strategy game, I think the changes that would cause players to take into account things I described in the previous post, namely -
"make you take a look at your enemies infastructure network when planning an invasion and influence your operational decisions (axis of attack, target priority and so on...), in other words simulating this crucial aspect of modern warfare that infastructure is, to any meaningful degree"
- would really enrich the game in its most important layer - war fighting strategy, therefore make it more fun. I don't think anyone playing HOI4 is averse to a bit of complexity, ppl liking simple games tend to play Risk.
As for the complexity of implementation - the changes I described above are really simple. There are no performance costs. They're simple enough to mesh with the game seamlessly. Hope answered all the questions.

You said it yourself - "war strategy game", but your examples of why we need to have visuals of infrastructure are all TACTICAL examples.
Smart players already do take enemy infrastructure into account, simply from a Supreme Commander, not a Regimental Commander.
In this game, you are attacking states and provinces with Armies, not towns and villages with Regiments.
To quote Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
Besides, look closely at the current map - they don't even have accurate rivers and coastlines, I'd hate to see the mess that railroads and highways would be.

 

[1 Star General]

Agree, handled by increasing the current infrastructure cost.

If you remodeled the way it's layed out at the start of the game to represent major transportation routes - yes. The remaining issue, if you do it like this, is the way the supply system is meshed with infra system. Changes could lead to unintended consequences, opening a whole can of worms. Therefore to keep it as simple and non-invasive as possible, I'd prefere to add really only few major roads/railroads routes on maps, tied to the strat redeployment, without touching infra system or supply.

Areas like that should be impassable.

Himalays? Agree. But not central New Guinea. Or Bajkal country. I mean, there's a lot of fairly passable terrain lacking infastructure for various reasons - population density, economics, politics.

You'll need to search the Steam Workshop for relevant mods and then try them out yourself. Most that focus just on infrastructure I tried and rejected for various reasons. A lot of the multiplayer mods have infrastructure changes to make it more WWII "realistic". The mod Secret Master plays (?IMHOP?) and Waltzing Matilda come to mind. Sure there are many others.

Thanks for suggestions. What I tried so far doesn't solve any problems.

Lastly, I don't think WWII qualifies as modern warfare anymore. 20th century, yes.

Sure, agree, not in the XXI century sense. But wide introduction of motorized elements, influence of air power and the decisive importance of technological, industrial and logistical aspects made it distinctively different and much more reminiscent of present day warfare than anything before it. I meant modern in that sense.

 

[1 Star General]

You said it yourself - "war strategy game", but your examples of why we need to have visuals of infrastructure are all TACTICAL examples.
Smart players already do take enemy infrastructure into account, simply from a Supreme Commander, not a Regimental Commander.
In this game, you are attacking states and provinces with Armies, not towns and villages with Regiments.
To quote Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
Besides, look closely at the current map - they don't even have accurate rivers and coastlines, I'd hate to see the mess that railroads and highways would be.

All the examples I'm using are on the OPERATIONAL (e.g. cooperation between German army groups during Barbarossa) and STRATEGIC (e.g. deployment of whole armies from China to Egypt) level. Not tactical. Please do specify any example where I was refering to tactical level...? ...? Tactical is like squad, batallion, regiment, you might argue division level, hope that is clear to you. If so, I'm sure Sunzi would be proud

Smart players already do take enemy infrastructure into account, simply from a Supreme Commander, not a Regimental Commander.

Please do give me an example when you really took infrastructure into account during war, for mobility, not supply reasons? You'd be a rare bird if you do, I've spoke to many players about this and have to yet find one who bothers. The terrain is decisive when it comes to movement speed, not infra. That's why I used that example of the highway Minsk-Smolensk-Moscow. It had a crucial strategic importance and was a decisive factor shaping both the German plan for Barbarossa and its subsequent excecution. That is strategic level btw. The posibility and timing of detours to the South and North were influenced by this assymetry in the development of Soviet infrastructure between East-West and North-South. And all military planners since the time of the Commonwealth - Muscovite wars attacked along this route. But in HOI4, no matter if you build the infra there to full, you'll still be faster taking a detour I described. Simply because the infra is not that important (for mobility).

Besides, look closely at the current map - they don't even have accurate rivers and coastlines, I'd hate to see the mess that railroads and highways would be.

As stated before, they don't have to be visible. Just meaningful. Cheers.

 

[Secret Master]

Moreover, it has 0 influence on the way you wage war.

In the MP game we just completed, infrastructure had a huge impact on how we waged the war. There were at least three theaters where either damage to infrastructure or just poor starting infrastructure regulated the war to a large degree. Despite facing a determined opponent in the form of Germany and the Luftwaffe, Britain (me) had to keep spending CIC on infrastructure upgrades in a couple of crucial areas so we could maintain the fight in Sudan. I'd have much rather spent more CIC on more factories, but we needed the infrastructure.

My last MP game as the Soviets, infrastructure played a crucial part in two different counter-offensives against the Germans. Not only that, but in almost every game as the Soviets, whether I win or lose, damage to infrastructure (and who has the right to repair it in any particular state) regulates a substantial part of the logistics side of the war. I can't count the number of times I'm looking at the logistics screen trying to figure out a way to eek out another 1-2 supply in a region so I can squeeze in another division or wing of planes. Upgrading infrastructure (in the areas the logistics map tells me are bottlenecks) is a part of that.

I'd also like to note that infrastructure level dictates the speed at which you strategically redeploy. Doing it in a high infrastructure state is faster than doing it in a low infrastructure state.

I won't say that the system couldn't use improvement (in our MP mod, we changed some stuff to make attrition harsher across the board and make certain weather/climate much harsher), but I will say this: supply grace masks a lot of the depth in the supply system and just how important infrastructure is.

When facing the AI or a substantially inferior opponent, supply grace lets you do amazing things. You can make an initial breakthrough, encircle 1.5 million Red Army troops, and wipe them before your supply kills your offensive. You can make an initial breakthrough and seize VPs (which generate local supply) to keep the momentum of your offensive going. When facing a competent opponent, this kind of thing is much harder to pull off. And if you can't complete massive offensives before supply grace runs out, suddenly infrastructure matters a whole lot more.

Hell, we've been talking about nerfing the FM supply ability in our MP mod due to how much impact it can have in certain cases. That's how important supply, infrastructure, and logistics can be.

I will also say something else: units in HOI4 tend to move pretty damn fast regardless of how you feel about strategic redeployment. We ended up just slowing everything down in terms of division movement, and it made for what we consider better gameplay. (We also nerfed the impact from air superiority as well to prevent stunlocking.)

 

[Rommel 459]

you seem to keep using the fact that people aren't taking infrastructure into account for its effect on movement speed as an argument as to why your changes are needed, but every major advance i've ever made, the infrastructure is reduced to 0 through combat damage, rendering that a moot difference.
where the infrastructure does affect my advance, is when i've pushed far enough to outrun my supply lines.
which is in line with what happened historically, both with the allied drive into Germany from France, and the German advance into the USSR.
and i'm not certain as my eastern fronts knowledge isn't as in depth as my western powers knowledge, i suspect the soviet advances into Germany and Japanese advance into china would have this factor as well.

but you're completely dismissing this historically accurate aspect, because you keep discounting having to check infrastructure for supply lines.

 

[1 Star General]

In the MP game we just completed, infrastructure had a huge impact on how we waged the war. There were at least three theaters where either damage to infrastructure or just poor starting infrastructure regulated the war to a large degree. Despite facing a determined opponent in the form of Germany and the Luftwaffe, Britain (me) had to keep spending CIC on infrastructure upgrades in a couple of crucial areas so we could maintain the fight in Sudan. I'd have much rather spent more CIC on more factories, but we needed the infrastructure.

My last MP game as the Soviets, infrastructure played a crucial part in two different counter-offensives against the Germans. Not only that, but in almost every game as the Soviets, whether I win or lose, damage to infrastructure (and who has the right to repair it in any particular state) regulates a substantial part of the logistics side of the war. I can't count the number of times I'm looking at the logistics screen trying to figure out a way to eek out another 1-2 supply in a region so I can squeeze in another division or wing of planes. Upgrading infrastructure (in the areas the logistics map tells me are bottlenecks) is a part of that.

I'd also like to note that infrastructure level dictates the speed at which you strategically redeploy. Doing it in a high infrastructure state is faster than doing it in a low infrastructure state.

I won't say that the system couldn't use improvement (in our MP mod, we changed some stuff to make attrition harsher across the board and make certain weather/climate much harsher), but I will say this: supply grace masks a lot of the depth in the supply system and just how important infrastructure is.

When facing the AI or a substantially inferior opponent, supply grace lets you do amazing things. You can make an initial breakthrough, encircle 1.5 million Red Army troops, and wipe them before your supply kills your offensive. You can make an initial breakthrough and seize VPs (which generate local supply) to keep the momentum of your offensive going. When facing a competent opponent, this kind of thing is much harder to pull off. And if you can't complete massive offensives before supply grace runs out, suddenly infrastructure matters a whole lot more.

Hell, we've been talking about nerfing the FM supply ability in our MP mod due to how much impact it can have in certain cases. That's how important supply, infrastructure, and logistics can be.

I will also say something else: units in HOI4 tend to move pretty damn fast regardless of how you feel about strategic redeployment. We ended up just slowing everything down in terms of division movement, and it made for what we consider better gameplay. (We also nerfed the impact from air superiority as well to prevent stunlocking.)

I should specify this point in the initial post, but I expained myslef in the following ones - my issue is with mobility, not supply. Not to mean that I'm in love with the supply system as it is, but that's a complex system, and substantial rework would classify as a massive change. Whereas what I'm suggesting is really simple and non invasive (I only suggested MAJOR routes, not a road from every single town), and yet would enrich the game.
The difference in speed of strat redeployment based on infra level is really inconsequential. The units move so fast it barely ever makes any difference. Almost straight lines from point A to point B are the default and the rule.
Full agreement on the point of units moving to fast in general. But I do understand many players would find it to boring to wait too long. But the strat deployment in its present form completely deforms the way the war is represented in the game at the highest possible strategic level, examples of which I gave plenty. Putting more stress on the relationship between mobility and infrastructure, even in such a basic and skeletal form I suggested in my post above, would really make a positive difference, add an interesting strategic layer and prevent some of the obvious absurds, that are not a rarity in this game.

 

[1 Star General]

you seem to keep using the fact that people aren't taking infrastructure into account for its effect on movement speed as an argument as to why your changes are needed, but every major advance i've ever made, the infrastructure is reduced to 0 through combat damage, rendering that a moot difference.
where the infrastructure does affect my advance, is when i've pushed far enough to outrun my supply lines.
which is in line with what happened historically, both with the allied drive into Germany from France, and the German advance into the USSR.
and i'm not certain as my eastern fronts knowledge isn't as in depth as my western powers knowledge, i suspect the soviet advances into Germany and Japanese advance into china would have this factor as well.

but you're completely dismissing this historically accurate aspect, because you keep discounting having to check infrastructure for supply lines.

As per previous post, I'm not dismissing the logistical/supply aspect of the war. You're right it was crucial. But so was mobility and the whole thrust (focus) of my post is directed at that part. The mobility constraints shaped all the planning and execution of campaigns. You're right - so did logistics - they were intertwined. But since supply system is a complex feature of the game, one that is hard to crack and design well, I understand it's not perfect and have to wait long for a possible rework. Mobility on the other hand, the way as it currently is represented, is something that is far from being that complex and could be reworked with much less work and fit right into the gameplay without getting into conflict with other features. And the benfit would be a much more historically accurate war representation and elimination of many absurd scenarios that frequently happen in game currently. It would also give the player something more to consider and fight for than just victory points. It'd would matter how you plan and conduct your operations much more, admiteddly constraining you a bit more. But so constrained were the generals fighting this war. The tanks went were they could move, not wherever the commander wanted them to be. And there was no effective land route from Asia to Europe other than the Trans-Siberian railway - and that's one of the reasons the navy and control of the sea routes were so vital.

 

[Jays298]

I don't think the map has the scale to show different types of infrastructure.

Were there some kinds of infrastruture that had huge strategic importance during WWII? definitely (thinking of the Burma road and the various rail ways) But they are reflected in game in a simple infrastructure number.

If the map was as huge as Imperator (probably 1.5 times the number of tiles), they could probably do road networks, rail roads, etc.

For instance in Imperator there's 5 tiles from Syracuse to Messina in Sicily. In Hoi 4, theres, only two tiles, one for Syracuse, one for Messina. Obviously magnified everywhere else.

I guess I wish HOI had a bigger map but you'd never teach an AI how to think strategically or tactically, or how to cut off a rail road, which would reduce the infrastructure off all other near by tiles.