Casualties and Operational Attrition

[ggm]

artillery and mud

I remember from reading guy sejer's memoirs the forgotten soldier (le soldat oublier) the fact that retreating troops on the russian front during the mud periods lost a disproportionate amount of their heavy equipment and artillery due to lack of mobility. while manpower was saved by retreat, trucks became bogged down, and had to be abandonned. this might be cause to have each brigade have its own org and equip levels as combat movement and weather all take their toll on the division in different ways.

just a thought.

ggm

 

[Naga Niome]

It's good evidence for supporting IC as a divisions equivalent to Equipment, and Manpower as another bar but your post and book is represented by the Attrition and Organization effects in bad weather already in-game.

 

[ggm]

ic and manpower

your right naga, that attrition and org losses are modelled in the game, but they could be modelled better. long drawn out battles result in manpower losses with little heavy equipment losses, were as for example blitzkrieg tank penetrations result in enemy support unit losses even when penetrations were on a local scale. as the game is modelled now it is almost impossible to destroy a unit short of encirclement. gary grisbies war in russia model units being destroyed by overrun or shock. Thus each brigade should have an organisation, equipment and manpower (and experience and supply) level to represent its status. after a certain level of losses in one area or another the unit should dissolve from shock.

ggm

 

[Rocket88]

Time taken for reinforcements

Casualties and Operational Attrition

The first part of the solution is quite simple. Instead of global manpower reinforcement and IC reinforcement values there should be separate values for each unit reflecting the internal dynamics. By making losses to armoured units cost less manpower but more IC we can accurately simulate the impact of combat losses. We can simulate different levels of material and personnel in the rump 0% part of the division.

Neat solution which I heartily approve of! Am wondering whether a logical further development is making a distinction between the time taken for the reinforcements to arrive and - in game terms - your strength bar to rise. Planes / tanks etc could potentially arrive in hours from the factory / depot / repair shop - giving a rapid increase in strength - whereas reinforcing the manpower would involve more variables (training, health, morale??).

Obviously location and distance from the source of reinforcements is a big factor - could the reinforcement speed be adjusted by your current TC - or linked to any logistics developments (!).

If I understand current game mechanics correctly there is a uniform rate of reinforcement over time - this seems realistic for repairs such as naval vessels - but less so for the hardware replacements you have identifed.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Casualties and Operational Attrition

The first part of the solution is quite simple. Instead of global manpower reinforcement and IC reinforcement values there should be separate values for each unit reflecting the internal dynamics. By making losses to armoured units cost less manpower but more IC we can accurately simulate the impact of combat losses. We can simulate different levels of material and personnel in the rump 0% part of the division.

Neat solution which I heartily approve of! Am wondering whether a logical further development is making a distinction between the time taken for the reinforcements to arrive and - in game terms - your strength bar to rise. Planes / tanks etc could potentially arrive in hours from the factory / depot / repair shop - giving a rapid increase in strength - whereas reinforcing the manpower would involve more variables (training, health, morale??).

Obviously location and distance from the source of reinforcements is a big factor - could the reinforcement speed be adjusted by your current TC - or linked to any logistics developments (!).

If I understand current game mechanics correctly there is a uniform rate of reinforcement over time - this seems realistic for repairs such as naval vessels - but less so for the hardware replacements you have identifed.

precisely. For the US to replace a M4 Sherman in France, the tank must travel from the factory, to a port in the US, across the Atlantic to a port in France, then it must be moved (not driven) from that port to the unit that it is going to. Now - I don't think that HOI 3 should simulate EACH part of this, but, I believe that the distance from the supply point of origin should directly impact material resupply. The distance from the supply point of origin (into theater) to the unit should directly impact ESE. A great example of course being the Allied advance across France, but also the SU advance into Germany. As soldiers move faster (many wounded would be transported to a hospital in theater and then back to the line), the personnel piece should move faster.

Bottom line, I believe that the above argument strengthens the need for a double set of strength.

 

[unmerged(39808)]

precisely. For the US to replace a M4 Sherman in France, the tank must travel from the factory, to a port in the US, across the Atlantic to a port in France, then it must be moved (not driven) from that port to the unit that it is going to. Now - I don't think that HOI 3 should simulate EACH part of this, but, I believe that the distance from the supply point of origin should directly impact material resupply. The distance from the supply point of origin (into theater) to the unit should directly impact ESE. A great example of course being the Allied advance across France, but also the SU advance into Germany. As soldiers move faster (many wounded would be transported to a hospital in theater and then back to the line), the personnel piece should move faster.

Bottom line, I believe that the above argument strengthens the need for a double set of strength.

Why couldn't you just transport that tank into your supply center in France and keep it until it will be needed im unit?

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Why couldn't you just transport that tank into your supply center in France and keep it until it will be needed im unit?

you could, and it was done. Then the game would have to model equipment depots in addition to supply depots. Perhaps a combination of the two. I would keep it as generic "equipment" though.

edit - The distance from the supply point to the supplied unit is key. German units, supplied from Berlin, that are deep in Asia should not NOT have supply issues. I realize ESE covers this, but that is determined only by the province the unit physically occupies. (also by TC load, but that is manageable in a different manner). Simply put, supply lines that are thousands of miles long should reflect that on the pointy end.