WWW Supply and Tactical

[Count Drew]

I really got to see the tactical break down of infra and lack of supply in this mornings match. The issue the Japanese had kept from a major collapse of the front for China. This is a good thing as imagine like North Africa part of the reason why the Japanese never totally took over China was due to the fact they had issues getting supplies to the front lines. Not that taking down a Massive nation shouldn't be possible with very little rail/road in comparison with some other nations of the day. Though it should be a huge factor in slowing down things. People talk about it being impossible to build up Industry well it was just as hard to build up Infrastructure to a degree in the time period. Remember the Burma... They made movies about that!

Of course, we are also in a game and total realism will destroy the ability to do anything so some fantasy has to be in place. I think you make things too real and you destroy tactics and strategies. I like the game as it goes and I think we all would love to see it through. Also the level of which is represented! Very detailed and informative. Like a manual even(could be a sticky manual even)

 

[Number 7]

even though the chinese are taking horrendous, horrendous losses and their long term defeat is assured, its interesting seeing china actually hold out for the amount of time that they have. i dont know if preparing until 1937 would have truly resulted in a much faster war with prepared japanese forces landing at multiple locations as well as an overall larger japanese army, but as is it could take daniel 1.5 to 2 years to get the chinese to concede defeat, or at the very least a bit over a year (from when he declared the war in 1936 that is)

im just glad to see china become more and more of a road block for the japanese rather than being a 3 month speed bump you cruise over for more industry and resources. historically it was a big time and manpower and equipment drain, so far we've got the time and equipment, it just wont drain daniels manpower all that much.

I can easily see this being the best china in any hearts of iron and even improve it more with national focuses and such, like the chinese getting lend lease as part of their NF tree letting them resist the japanese with modern equipment donated by sympathetic majors (not that supply from the US could get through daniel's navy patrols though...)

 

[LordOfWar16]

If japan had increased the infrastructure in korea that would already have helped quiet a bit, actually. It is very nice that you cant simple do a sledgehammer tactic and overwhelm the enemy within a few months as you can do in HoI III.

 

[Denkt]

I think he could also build more ports closer to the front as supply points can be transported over sea which is probably more efficient then over land.

 

[DazKaz]

One of my concerns about supply, was when Daniel made the linkup with his main invasion force from the north, being supplied from the port of Tianjin, and his secondary amphibious landing supplied from Quindao.

It looked to me as if the supply that was coming through the ports to the north, suddenly switched to the port of the smaller force from his secondary amphibious landing at Quindao.
This move by the AI supply mechanics suddenly forced the supply to the north to go through low infra zones from Quindao creating a bottleneck.

This was a major problem in HOI3 where the AI decided on the supplying port not the player, and was later rectified by the ability of the player to bring supply into the ports of their choosing via a patch.

Can someone verify that the player will have control over which ports supply will come through?

relevant section starts at: 20:40

 

[Number 7]

i think it was still coming in both, because the areas were yellow and not red like the really out of supply regions were. but if it was trying to route ALL of it through that low infra zone then invasions will have to be planned quite carefully to minimise that interaction

 

[DazKaz]

The problem is its unrealistic that the supply source will suddenly shift like this, and will lead to the same problem we had in HOI3, where I was afraid to link up my amphibious invasion forces that were being happily supplied from the local port, to the greater network being supplied from many zones away, or vice versa.

Linking two ports or two separate supply sources, shouldn't suddenly shift supply from one to the other, but continue to trickle from both.

I was kind of hoping that this wouldn't be a problem with the new supply mechanics.

 

[ringhloth]

His supply isn't any better at the start of the stream, though. There's a very quick moment where you can see that, before the two lines link up, his supply is 11 for the land one. Later on, when they merge, it's 12, and then goes down to 11 later (I assume because of damage, or some recalculation or something).

 

[gamedude]

The problem is its unrealistic that the supply source will suddenly shift like this, and will lead to the same problem we had in HOI3, where I was afraid to link up my amphibious invasion forces that were being happily supplied from the local port, to the greater network being supplied from many zones away, or vice versa.

Linking two ports or two separate supply sources, shouldn't suddenly shift supply from one to the other, but continue to trickle from both.

I was kind of hoping that this wouldn't be a problem with the new supply mechanics.

Supply path-finding. It takes the shortest route as far as i see. IMO, should be a manual way to create a supply route.

 

[Count Drew]

Supply Pathways may be a bit complex but I am sure there is a game feature to show precisely how your units are being fed. I cannot believe a game this complex doesn't have some method to let you choose. If you fear for instance that your troops in one sector will be surrounded and you want to keep a longer safer supply depot(that should definitely be chose by the player) Without this I can see gamy little methods to eat an amphibious/or land based invasion combo.

Supply path-finding. It takes the shortest route as far as i see. IMO, should be a manual way to create a supply route.

 

[alexchau]

even though the chinese are taking horrendous, horrendous losses and their long term defeat is assured, its interesting seeing china actually hold out for the amount of time that they have. i dont know if preparing until 1937 would have truly resulted in a much faster war with prepared japanese forces landing at multiple locations as well as an overall larger japanese army, but as is it could take daniel 1.5 to 2 years to get the chinese to concede defeat, or at the very least a bit over a year (from when he declared the war in 1936 that is)

im just glad to see china become more and more of a road block for the japanese rather than being a 3 month speed bump you cruise over for more industry and resources. historically it was a big time and manpower and equipment drain, so far we've got the time and equipment, it just wont drain daniels manpower all that much.

I can easily see this being the best china in any hearts of iron and even improve it more with national focuses and such, like the chinese getting lend lease as part of their NF tree letting them resist the japanese with modern equipment donated by sympathetic majors (not that supply from the US could get through daniel's navy patrols though...)

I think the problem is that once Daniel executed his plan, he made the push only small part of the state, which enemy can still use their resources and supplies of that state and cause him to reply on supplies from homeland.

 

[fabius]

Supply path-finding. It takes the shortest route as far as i see. IMO, should be a manual way to create a supply route.

Yep. Some official comment on this would be welcome.

 

[Count Drew]

Interesting, this game sort of puts supply and other such issues in the backyard so to speak. I do think that that steers away from Earlier incarnations of the series of HOI.

Perhaps the option to have advanced supply or simplified would suite two types of gamers ?

(China seemed a little too easily supplied for the Japanese, I think the Japanese would have lost more ten to disease than Chinese troops)

Yep. Some official comment on this would be welcome.

 

[Number 7]

(China seemed a little too easily supplied for the Japanese, I think the Japanese would have lost more ten to disease than Chinese troops)

it seemed harder to supply than HOI3, this was a china that held out 1936 to 1938 against the most experienced HOI4 player paradox has due to supply issues due to fighting and due to partisans as well as lower supply caps.

in hoi3 japan could take china out in 2 months, not 2 years.

 

[sons of Bordoms]

I am sad to see how little attention to terrain and weather is needed right now. He took china in 6 month with very few units, no encirclements, no deployment of special troops like marines or mountaineers. He just made a couple of circles and press a button, bang, he conquered china. Cant stand the constant reference to him being good at hoi, what exactly does it entail to be "good"? What does he actually do? He haphazardly clicks on the map, attacking randomly where he can. He attacked through the mountain chains in northern china with basic infantry and took zero attrition, zero loss due to combat. He took the communist stronghold in a month, in an area where moving troops in non combat condition would take the same time if not more. Again air combat did not require any thoughts or decisions. How can one be bad at hoi4?

What can we take for the game's current state?

-Terrain does not matter.
Why have it then?

-Air combat is marginal
The single most deciding thing in wwII was airpower. But here it is of marginal importance, in the playthroughs they have hardly even looked at their air forces. As germany,
Daniel didn't even bother to move his air force in russia after the initial setup.

-Supplies is marginal,
Set to repair and it's not a problem, even with minus 50% do to partisan activity. Again, in the playthroughs they spend next to zero time looking at the supplies system and infrastructure, but what is more important, there are no decisions to be made about it. it's almost entirely done afk.

One a more general point, i can't for the life of me see how combat is different than that of say eu4 or vic2. Daniel takes a bunch unit and click on the enemy province without looking at any information what so ever, he never even looked at the chinese units. Oh skip that, in eu4 and vic2 terrain matters!

 

[Number 7]

I am sad to see how little attention to terrain and weather is needed right now. He took china in 6 month with very few units, no encirclements, no deployment of special troops like marines or mountaineers. He just made a couple of circles and press a button, bang, he conquered china. Cant stand the constant reference to him being good at hoi, what exactly does it entail to be "good"? What does he actually do? He haphazardly clicks on the map, attacking randomly where he can. He attacked through the mountain chains in northern china with basic infantry and took zero attrition, zero loss due to combat. He took the communist stronghold in a month, in an area where moving troops in non combat condition would take the same time if not more. Again air combat did not require any thoughts or decisions. How can one be bad at hoi4?

What can we take for the game's current state?

-Terrain does not matter.
Why have it then?

-Air combat is marginal
The single most deciding thing in wwII was airpower. But here it is of marginal importance, in the playthroughs they have hardly even looked at their air forces. As germany,
Daniel didn't even bother to move his air force in russia after the initial setup.

-Supplies is marginal,
Set to repair and it's not a problem, even with minus 50% do to partisan activity. Again, in the playthroughs they spend next to zero time looking at the supplies system and infrastructure, but what is more important, there are no decisions to be made about it. it's almost entirely done afk.

One a more general point, i can't for the life of me see how combat is different than that of say eu4 or vic2. Daniel takes a bunch unit and click on the enemy province without looking at any information what so ever, he never even looked at the chinese units. Oh skip that, in eu4 and vic2 terrain matters!

6 months? he declared in 1936 and it lasted to 1938... but i guess if you want to make t hings up to panic about the state of a game you havent even played go ahead

 

[sons of Bordoms]

6 months? he declared in 1936 and it lasted to 1938... but i guess if you want to make t hings up to panic about the state of a game you havent even played go ahead

Okay, then let's say 14 months. But what is the point of previews if we cant draw conclusions on gameplay from them. So we can't say anything, good or bad, about a " game you havent even played". Then what is the the point of this thread? Your argument, or lack her off, is nil.

 

[Number 7]

Okay, then let's say 14 months. But what is the point of previews if we cant draw conclusions on gameplay from them. So we can't say anything, good or bad, about a " game you havent even played". Then what is the the point of this thread? Your argument, or lack her off, is nil.

It speaks volumes about the quality of your argument, or lack thereof, that you speak of drawing conclusions from gameplay, but then pull an arbitrary length for the war out of thin air and judge your conclusions on daniel winning in 6 months, and then when called on it go and pull a second arbitrary, still low balled number out of nowhere and still try to hold the same position

the war began late may 1936 and concluded early january 1938. say it started june 1st and ended january 1st because its close enough. that means the war lasted for 18 months. there is how long it lasted, evidenced from part 1 and part 4. no made up numbers from fantasy land

now lets draw some actual conclusions from this instead of your nonsense of claiming that terrain matters even less than in eu4 and vic2:

1) Daniel was held up in northern china for considerable amounts of time due to supply problems, and this was even though many of his divisions comprised solely of infantry with support battalions. he did not have any artillery, and he only had a single motorised division so that isnt a factor. there are plenty of times where he had the strength to push forward but not the supplies

2) the war in china lasted a considerable amount of time compared to HOI3. this is partly due to the supply situation. the chinese soldiers had no equipment to speak of, and barely any ORG to begin with. Daniel basically caught them at the worst case time for the chinese and his advance was still slow. is this not an improvement over HOI3 where supply issues for japanese forces simply did not exist as a few good infantry and mountain troops could deliver you all of china within a MUCH quicker window?

3) Daniel had to spend a considerable amount of time post war just repairing his infrastructure and factories, meaning even after the initial 18 month war he still wasn't immediately benefiting from his conquest.

So we have a china that fights harder than hoi3, that presents more supply issues than HOI3 china, and that is an overall better representation of the drain on japan's resources for a longer amount of time rather than a speed bump you knock over to gain more factories and resources, but something you fight for.

I would also remind you that in HOI3 mountaineers and marines were by no means required to take china.

So my argument as evidenced by the above is that HOI4 is on the right track as an improvement across the board and i think your statements are baseless, uninformed and are just panicking over something you haven't played with yet, and i would take those random numbers you pulled as the length of the war as evidence on how close you were actually watching.

 

[Mannstien]

They still haven't changed the terrain modifiers which is disappointing from the MP stream as Daniel used his normal infantry up into Scandinavia and down through the Caucasus with no problem. Now we see that they go through the various terrain types in China with little to no problem, so why bother building Mountaineer's? Worse case scenario just add engineers to your infantry divisions and tally ho...(I haven't seen Marines go up against a really fortified port or invasion area or Jungle I don't think so they are a "will see")

 

[sons of Bordoms]

It speaks volumes about the quality of your argument, or lack thereof, that you speak of drawing conclusions from gameplay, but then pull an arbitrary length for the war out of thin air and judge your conclusions on daniel winning in 6 months, and then when called on it go and pull a second arbitrary, still low balled number out of nowhere and still try to hold the same position

the war began late may 1936 and concluded early january 1938. say it started june 1st and ended january 1st because its close enough. that means the war lasted for 18 months. there is how long it lasted, evidenced from part 1 and part 4. no made up numbers from fantasy land

now lets draw some actual conclusions from this instead of your nonsense of claiming that terrain matters even less than in eu4 and vic2:

1) Daniel was held up in northern china for considerable amounts of time due to supply problems, and this was even though many of his divisions comprised solely of infantry with support battalions. he did not have any artillery, and he only had a single motorised division so that isnt a factor. there are plenty of times where he had the strength to push forward but not the supplies

2) the war in china lasted a considerable amount of time compared to HOI3. this is partly due to the supply situation. the chinese soldiers had no equipment to speak of, and barely any ORG to begin with. Daniel basically caught them at the worst case time for the chinese and his advance was still slow. is this not an improvement over HOI3 where supply issues for japanese forces simply did not exist as?

3) Daniel had to spend a considerable amount of time post war just repairing his infrastructure and factories, meaning even after the initial 18 month war he still wasn't immediately benefiting from his conquest.

So we have a china that fights harder than hoi3, that presents more supply issues than HOI3 china, and that is an overall better representation of the drain on japan's resources for a longer amount of time rather than a speed bump you knock over to gain more factories and resources, but something you fight for.

I would also remind you that in HOI3 mountaineers and marines were by no means required to take china.

So my argument as evidenced by the above is that HOI4 is on the right track as an improvement across the board and i think your statements are baseless, uninformed and are just panicking over something you haven't played with yet, and i would take those random numbers you pulled as the length of the war as evidence on how close you were actually watching.

Talking about arbitrary, "the war in china lasted a considerable amount of time compared to HOI3" how can u assert that? Again selective focusing on your part begs the question: why do they have terrain and special units when none of it is relevant for success. Daniel made 2 lines and press go and he won. He spent around 20 seconds in total on the battleplan, paying no attention to terrain, his own unit types or the enemy's forces. We can conclude that currently mountain troops are not needed and attrition/terrain is of no relevance.

Further, your constant reference to hoi 3 is baffling. Hoi3 had massive problems and comparing what we want from hoi4 with what we got back in 2009, is idiotic. Just because you perceive it to be a bit better than hoi3 do not make it good. If you insist on comparing them, we should expect that hoi4 should solve the issues there was in hoi3.
" I would also remind you that in HOI3 mountaineers and marines were by no means required to take china" and neither were they here, so zero improvement.
"a few good infantry and mountain troops could deliver you all of china within a MUCH quicker window" daniel took all of china in 18 month with a few bad infantry, no mountain troops and no planning whatsoever, zero improvement.

Again, i don't have a problem whit the war being short as long as it requires meticulous planing and executing, cavalry spear attacks through plains to isolate and encircle. But he did nothing of the sort, just plowing through so called "difficult terrain" losing less than 50 k in casualties during the entire conflict.