You think Upkeep Limit will be good for the game?

[PARAfel]

I see in one post the ''improvement'' of placing ''Upkeep Limit'' in the game, but this not seems meta mechanic for the game?

Meta mechanic: mechanic thats have only in the game and doesnt have any similarity in real life.

Let's Get True: The Game is not in the best state but not in the worst, putting upkeep limit seems to me to be an ''Argh, we have been lazy about putting anything that simulates an situation that you have to limit your units'' and instead put an number that is not in real life? C'mon, it seems too much meta for me! I dont want the Paradox to devalue your game only because this will be an ''improvement'', i think about a more realistic way and more beauty, putting roads and lands convoys as some guys says here, it is much realistic and you will see the game managing the supplies until these arrives in the location of the divisions.

Idk anyways, i want your opinions,

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Well we can start with actually having upkeep at all. In HoI2 and 3 you need to make factories produce supplies in addition to training/upgrade/reinforcement. They completely axed supply because they couldn't find a way to stop people from stockpiling 99999 supplies before the war, so HoI4 ended up with no upkeep when units are static.

 

[Volodio]

Well we can start with actually having upkeep at all. In HoI2 and 3 you need to make factories produce supplies in addition to training/upgrade/reinforcement.

Supply also represented ammo, spare parts, etc. Things which have simply been replaced in HoI4 by the detailed production. If you're at war, you will lose massive amount of equipment, even with few casualties. This basically acts as an upkeep the same way supply acted as an upkeep in HoI2/3. If your industry isn't big enough, or your army too large, to replace all the equipment losses, your divisions will have penalties.

The problem with the AI spamming divisions is that it ignores priorities, and will continue to train and produce new divisions even though there are massive equipment shortage in its army. If the recruitment priority was automatically set to low, the number of divisions created by the AI would drastically diminish.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

I still say trains are the way to go. My idea is roughly that based on how high your consumer goods factories are, maybe factoring in infrastructure, you get a certain amount of rolling stock per month. Run out of trains, no supplies, no resources, no reinforcements, no fuel. It would make the race to zero consumer goods less of a no brainer, make infrastructure more important, and since you'd ideally be able to take the trains of the capitulated countries you could end up with situations similar to history where a deficit in rolling stock could be made up by seizing others.

Another thing is that in my idea the amount of trains used at any one time is proportional to the number of divisions in the field, it would act as a soft cap on the number of divisions allowed without being gamey or a historical.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Supply also represented ammo, spare parts, etc. Things which have simply been replaced in HoI4 by the detailed production. If you're at war, you will lose massive amount of equipment, even with few casualties. This basically acts as an upkeep the same way supply acted as an upkeep in HoI2/3. If your industry isn't big enough, or your army too large, to replace all the equipment losses, your divisions will have penalties.

Um, that's exactly why I said it's inadequate? Training/upgrade/reinforcement costs IC in HoI2/3 too, but there's no passive upkeep in HoI4 while you do need to produce supplies in HoI2/3.

 

[Volodio]

Um, that's exactly why I said it's inadequate? Training/upgrade/reinforcement costs IC in HoI2/3 too, but there's no passive upkeep in HoI4 while you do need to produce supplies in HoI2/3.

Because the supplies in HoI4 are partially represented by the equipment. Your infantry equipment represents shells, bullets, uniforms, aid kit, grenades, mines, etc. Not just the rifle. Exactly what the supplies in HoI2/3 represented, minus the food. The reinforcement cost was very low to represent exactly this.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Because the supplies in HoI4 are partially represented by the equipment. Your infantry equipment represents shells, bullets, uniforms, aid kit, grenades, mines, etc. Not just the rifle. Exactly what the supplies in HoI2/3 represented, minus the food. The reinforcement cost was very low to represent exactly this.

Please read my posts again. There's no maintenance cost of units in HoI4 when they are static because they don't lose equipment if they aren't training, moving, or fighting, so it's not represented at all in HoI4

 

[Volodio]

Please read my posts again. There's no maintenance cost of units in HoI4 when they are static because they don't lose equipment if they aren't training, moving, or fighting, so it's not represented at all in HoI4

Exactly what the supplies in HoI2/3 represented, minus the food.

Soldiers wouldn't lose grenades, bullets, shells, mine, etc when they're neither fighting nor training.

 

[Znail]

Soldiers wouldn't lose grenades, bullets, shells, mine, etc when they're neither fighting nor training.

In real life so does soldiers need to do some training just to stay on the same level. It's fine if the lost equipment for a standing army is very small compared to the losses when being active, just that there is some to make having a large standing army not totally free.

On the other hand so is there an issue with most countries not having nearly as much infantry equipment stored at the start of the game as they had historically.

 

[tuppelsson]

Soldiers wouldn't lose grenades, bullets, shells, mine, etc when they're neither fighting nor training.

But they need still maintenance and in Hoi4 you can actually kill million men without losing many (if any). No shells and bullets lost then.. but killing million should need lots of supplies. 3 million man army is very costly even when sitting irl. Thats why game need some cost to field army. And code is already in game but it is set to 0. Defines file: UNIT_UPKEEP_ATTRITION = 0.00,--Constant attrition value applied to armies.

 

[sekelsenmat]

One problem is that when defending you can lose very few man, which means very few equipment. But if equipment are bullets and bullets are supply, then I wonder how they managed to kill so many enemies without firing a single shot. Indiana Jones-style fall traps? Maybe the solution would be a minimum constant attrition of 1% or something for every troop in combat (regardless of defending or attacking). Maybe when moving without strat redeployment too. But not when just sitting idle.

But I don't think this would fix the problem of upkeep/maintenance which manifests itself in the Soviet Union fighting the east front. The Wehrmacht destroyed a full army of soviet troops, but they just trained and deployed an equally sized army quickly. According to the game why wouldn't the soviets deploy all troops before the war? There should be a "supply limit" here not only for a single strategic region, but also for the entire sum of all troops.

 

[karimjebari]

Rather than upkeep limit, think that there should be a need to supply your army. I think that the best (easiest) way to simulate supply is to add a constant attrition rate for all units (perhaps 1-2%), and to add some terrain attrition to plains, forest, hills and urban terrain (say 10%).

 

[Volodio]

But they need still maintenance and in Hoi4 you can actually kill million men without losing many (if any). No shells and bullets lost then.. but killing million should need lots of supplies. 3 million man army is very costly even when sitting irl. Thats why game need some cost to field army. And code is already in game but it is set to 0. Defines file: UNIT_UPKEEP_ATTRITION = 0.00,--Constant attrition value applied to armies.

You can't kill millions without losing equipment. You will lose equipment by simple combat or attrition.

Upkeep would not fix the AI spamming divisions, because the lack of equipment is not a problem for the AI which simply ignores it when making new divisions.

But I don't think this would fix the problem of upkeep/maintenance which manifests itself in the Soviet Union fighting the east front. The Wehrmacht destroyed a full army of soviet troops, but they just trained and deployed an equally sized army quickly. According to the game why wouldn't the soviets deploy all troops before the war? There should be a "supply limit" here not only for a single strategic region, but also for the entire sum of all troops.

These troops were simply mobilized after the war started. It had nothing to do with the inability of the Soviet Union to pay for their upkeep. It's simply represented in the game by a country changing its mobilization law.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Soldiers wouldn't lose grenades, bullets, shells, mine, etc when they're neither fighting nor training.

My point exactly. There's no upkeep of units in HoI4 unlike HoI2/3, where they consume supplies just by being there.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Soldiers wouldn't lose grenades, bullets, shells, mine, etc when they're neither fighting nor training.

I think you have a very mild view on army life here. Stuff gets lost, misplaced, mislabelled, rusty, put out of service all the time.

 

[Volodio]

I think you have a very mild view on army life here. Stuff gets lost, misplaced, mislabelled, rusty, put out of service all the time.

Not enough to matter.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Not enough to matter.

Well, you said "no", so it's more than zero.
Also, soldiers need rations, fuel, clothing, forms, pencils, booze and all the nitty stuff all the time, not only in active Training or combat situation.
Hell, they usually get paid, that's putting some strain on the economy, too.

We probably agree that equipment needs to be used permanently anyways.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

And code is already in game but it is set to 0. Defines file: UNIT_UPKEEP_ATTRITION = 0.00,--Constant attrition value applied to armies.

As already pointed out, the code is already in place. So why not just determine a number and implement it?

 

[Volodio]

We probably agree that equipment needs to be used permanently anyways.

No, I don't agree. That's my point. A permanent attrition would certainly not fix the AI spamming division. It's an useless feature.

 

[PARAfel]

If you gonna to limit the AI divisions, you may consider an optimized and less micro management of this mechanic to be implemented. Not an meta-mechanic or much more micro management, i think the developers may provide this for us.