Will it be possible to mod supply trucks and trains to use manpower and fuel?
- Thread starter Fulmen
- Start date
-
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.
My guess would be that it's hard coded, but that's just speculation. It would seem to me like there would be some major game play rebalancing that would need to happen if the new logistics system were to require fuel. Note that I'm not objecting to the idea, I just think that there would be some tricky issues to resolve in terms of balance.
- 4
will-it-be-possible-to-mod-supply-trucks-and-trains-to-use-manpower-and-fuel.
And for convoys as well.
And for convoys as well.
- 4
I think currently that is already hardcoded (which doesn't bode well for the moddability of supply trucks and trains), but we can hope.
- 1
Judging from modding access to garrison mechanic, the answer is a big no
- 1
Certainly hope so. Wouldn't be an Eastern Front without fuel-related logistical issues.
- 1
That's exactly why I don't mind it not being in the base game. Just seems like it would be *yet another* force multiplier for those who have air superiority.. and why do we need more of that?
It would seem to be pretty unbalanced without there being more counter-measures once can take against enemy fighters. Right now the only actual solution is to outproduce the enemy, which isn't possible when you're on the back foot. There's no ground based solution to even thinning out fighters even a little bit. Ground based AA shouldn't be too effective at taking out enemy aircraft, but with the growing power of having air superiority, it seems like it might be necessary.
Currently having air superiority:
1. Gives your divisions combat bonuses and enemy divisions combat penalties
2. Lets you bomb enemy divisions with full efficiency, although it is mitigated by divisional AA
3. Now will let you bomb their supply lines with impunity, potentially putting enemy divisions out of supply without needing to encircle them.
This seems like a bit much now, if you're losing the air war there's nothing you can really do to thin out enemy fighters even a little bit without generally outproducing them. It already is the case that it's quite difficult to rebound from losing the air war. Now I think the advantages for the winner of the air war will be multiplied, perhaps too much.
If you have complete air superiority, then you aren't going to be losing any fighters to anything other than accidents. It seems like a bit too much, too generous to the side that has the edge. Should it really be the case that fighter aircraft that are operating on the front lines are totally immune to ground based AA so far as being shot down goes?
I think a bit of nomeclature clarity is beneficial, both divisional and fixed or static AA sites are ground based. So it can be confusing to say divisional and ground based. *ends nitpick*
It's hardcoded.
On a related note, there was a thread not long ago that complained about how cheap and easy it is to motorise one's logistics. In that thread someone asked whether PDX was considering if trucks could use manpower and fuel to help balance them a bit, and one of the devs, I think @Arheo, replied that they're looking into it, though I think he specifically meant looking into them using fuel, not manpower. PDX has made no promises though, and I suspect that even if they do make the motorisation of logistics consume fuel, the system will remain hardcoded and thus unmoddable.
Personally I'd like to see the logistics network use manpower when in use to supply divisions, though I don't think it's possible to differentiate the network on this level. As I understand, all supply hubs everywhere constantly distribute supplies, no matter whether there are units there to consume them or not. Thus to make logistics use manpower would mean the entire network uses manpower all the time.
Making the motorisation of the network consume fuel should be less problematic though, as you'll generally want to motorise only those hubs that are in use by your units.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
That is true, but the reliance of Germany on Coal in the production of synthetic fuel, caused significant bottlenecks in both fuels.
Coal is also a type of fuel, though yes, the title is somewhat badly worded and in any case the fuel I meant is specifically petrol and diesel. Also I just blanked in my post yesterday and totally forgot that most locomotives then were steam locomotives. Was thinking of diesel-electric locomotives, probably on account of seeing them in a lend-lease list recently, but of course those were far less common. Thanks for noting this, I'll edit both the title and the post.
EDIT: Actually I left the title as it is. Can't make it too long and anyway everyone understands the question as it is.
Also, this thread has already served its purpose as we know the answer to the question.
Last edited:
That does not change the fact that trains should draw on coal!production, not refined petrol. Manstein in his memoirs mentions that there are different grades of coal, not all of which are suitable for coming steel. I have no idea. As far as I know most coal will fuel steam engines but I could be wrong.
If you go down that route of detail (coal quality), there's also grades of steel. One kind is good for ships and railroads, and the other kind is good for guns and tanks.
Also different kinds of purity of iron ore use up different amounts of coal - Germany paid for much of Swedish iron ore with coal, but it was still a net profit for them coal-wise since the Swedish ore used so much less coal to make usable.
I am not suggesting it should be modeled in the game.
- 1
Use the "supplies remaining in state" number. That is, calculate your manpower draw based on the supply that is consumed (the difference between maximum and remaining), not that which is available.
Hubs create that pretty heat map of potential supply, but there aren't any supplies constantly distributed if there's no one there to consume them. The colors are the strength of the supply field, as it were, not a measure of crates being heedlessly dumped in the middle of nowhere each day. The supply current doesn't really flow until you complete the circuit with a supply consumer. (Now my analogy is wandering around out of control, so I'll stop before it gets any worse.)
As the armies move around, so will your hub workers (which is presumably what you want anyway). If you want to account for having a lone Maytag repairman manning a remote station even though no one calls, add a fixed overhead cost per hub, or hub level.
- 1
Well that's unfortunate. That's something that definitely should be moddable because likely many mods would use it.
- 1
Great thread Fulmen A big +1 from me for having fuel/manpower costs. My 2 cents would be:
A big +1 from me for having fuel/manpower costs. My 2 cents would be:- fuel/manpower cost for trucks in use - with a fixed and toggleable trucks pool, this should hopefully be pretty easy to show in the UI and to calculate;
- manpower cost for supply hub "capacity used" - so if a supply hub was 2/15 capacity, the manpower use would be based on the "2". Theoretically, this shouldn't bounce about too much, it would just be a case of supply switching between hubs. It might be worth having some "inertia" in these figures though, for divs moving off (partially or fully) the network, or variance in the total supply load covered by state suppy;
- it might be worth excluding ships as long as ships at sea don't use supply, as otherwise everytime ships go into port there'll be a strike (strike forces possibly causing fairly large ones). Longer-term, some kind of ongoing supply use for ships at sea (assuming I haven't missed it - I've mostly been focussing on land units to-date in terms of getting my head around the supply network) would be a good thing.
- and MP and fuel for convoys in use (slightly off-topic, but throwing it in here as well, as others have)
- 3