Casualties in HOI IV are way off

[Sam the Slayer]

After some good 400 hours on HOI4, there is one thing that annoys me which I haven't found a mod for: The casualties for each war is way off. Why does the spanish civil war often result in less than 50 000 casualties combined, when in reality it cost 500 000? Why does the eastern front never claim more than 2-3 million, when in reality it claimed more than 15? It also ruins the point of the newly added feature of looking at casualties from individual battles: Now I can check and see that the battle for Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, each took less than 30 000 casualties, when irl they took (or would have taken) more than a million each.

These are things that ruin the immersion for me. It feels like a series of border skirmishes, not like a world war where every country is fighting to the death for their existence. And perhaps more importantly, it makes the game far too easy, because you can conquer the world as Germany and still swim in manpower (10 million plus in reserves). Basically, I want to change the way combat works, so that the casualties add up to a more historical sum.

I have tried simply increasing offensive attack values for all equipment, which sort of has the desired effect, but it in turn makes the combat way too fast paced (divisions retreat too quickly).

TL;DR:
Does anyone know how to change the game values so that there is increased (realistic/historical) casualties from combat, without changing the general pace or balancing of the game?

 

[Alex_brunius]

TL;DR:
Does anyone know how to change the game values so that there is increased (realistic/historical) casualties from combat, without changing the general pace or balancing of the game?

Increase the manpower everywhere by the desired amount should be one way to do it. ( For example triple what % you get from laws and triple how much each battalion needs = triple manpower casualties ).


One of the big issues here is that manpower from overruns and encirclement are not properly counted, but only registers a fraction of the manpower in the divisions destroyed. See this thread for more details:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ons-dont-add-up-where-did-they-all-go.987037/

I don't think this issue is possible to fix by modding.


And welcome to your first post on the forum Ser Piggy

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Welcome to forums! And gongrats, on your first post me as well as others have already pressed "agree"

 

[mackau]

I played one game as the soviets where the war started in 1938 with Japan attacking me, followed by the Germans and every other nation in Europe (who turned Fascist and joined Axis) in 1939. The Allies didn't join until 1941, and the USA did nothing the entire time.

By the time it ended it was 1951 and I'd lost 36 million troops.

 

[Colonel Chris]

There are so few losses, cause the AI is too bad.

Just move the sliders to improve USSR to the middle or max and spend (use the console-commands) the USSR tons of equipment, so the AI will build an army with +700 divisions.
And last but not least, try an AI-mod.

Not a very nice solution but I don't have a better idea.

 

[DóD Budulín]

The main reason, why you think there is very few casualties, is, that there is just very few soldiers. In 1939 Wehrmacht had around 4,75M serving soldiers. But in the game (when you start in 1939), Germany have just 1,3M in army (land, sea and air combined) and 2,3 in manpower pool. So basically Germany have 4x less soldiers in active duty then in reality.

Exact numbers are ---.

Edit: link removed

 

[FrancescoT]

@DóD Budulín direct link to external sites with forum are not allowed here. Please remove it from your post asap or I'll have to delete the whole post.

 

[Secret Master]

There are so few losses, cause the AI is too bad.

Not really. With a bad AI, I should be able to do inflict even more casualties against the Soviets when I play Germany.

But Alex is right. With overruns and encirclements not counted correctly, I can wipe half the Red Army in the first three months of Barbarossa, and still not even come close to the losses the Soviets sustained historically.

I wiped out the actual manpower, but it's not counting in the manpower lost tooltip.

 

[Master11388]

Id like to see Overruns and encirclements shown in the Casulties Tab, too. And even if its just a mod, it just doesnt feel right. (If anyone knows a way how to mod it please tell pm me)

 

[stjern]

This is not some AI problem, the values displayed are infact calculated wrong. I did tests where I kept track of all my 10 units of 15k manpower each that I attacked with as an experiment, I had them drop Downs to average 75% strength which should mean that 0,25*15000*10= 37500 should be the correct number. Then after some time the casualties number is updated and it only shows 14000 Lost! I had no field hospital in the units.

Notice that no units were encircled and still the number is WAY off.

I can recall paradox mentioning that the value Will be off if a unit is attacked from more than one direction, I will need to test that.

 

[joreri508]

After some good 400 hours on HOI4, there is one thing that annoys me which I haven't found a mod for: The casualties for each war is way off. Why does the spanish civil war often result in less than 50 000 casualties combined, when in reality it cost 500 000? Why does the eastern front never claim more than 2-3 million, when in reality it claimed more than 15? It also ruins the point of the newly added feature of looking at casualties from individual battles: Now I can check and see that the battle for Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad, each took less than 30 000 casualties, when irl they took (or would have taken) more than a million each.

Very true, and I suggested some weeks ago to @SteelVolt to implement the battlefield judgment model described in this book by Trevor Dupuy in the battlefield logic. It is well tested algorithms which are used by the real armies of the world in their war-games. I used them in computer war-game models developed for the Swedish army in the 1990s. Hopefully Paradox will replace the current algorithms with something tested and scientific.

 

[ringhloth]

First, casualties in HoI4 only count dead. Captured - overrun or surrounded - definitely doesn't count, and I don't think trickleback does either. Attrition also doesn't caSecond, if you just look at one battle as being THE battle of Stalingrad, then, yes, it's going to be low. Stalingrad wouldn't be one battle in game. It'd be multiple offenses from both sides, even trading the city once or twice. Third, the AI is not great at this game. If you have a tough, prolonged campaign against a player, I've seen millions of dead within half a year.

This is not some AI problem, the values displayed are infact calculated wrong. I did tests where I kept track of all my 10 units of 15k manpower each that I attacked with as an experiment, I had them drop Downs to average 75% strength which should mean that 0,25*15000*10= 37500 should be the correct number. Then after some time the casualties number is updated and it only shows 14000 Lost! I had no field hospital in the units.

Notice that no units were encircled and still the number is WAY off.

I can recall paradox mentioning that the value Will be off if a unit is attacked from more than one direction, I will need to test that.

Strength is equipment, and it is not a direct percentage of equipment. It is the average of the percent of types of equipment you have. If you need 1000 guns and 10 support equipment, and have only 1000 guns, you have 50% strength. Attrition, I think, hits equipment, not manpower, but I don't remember for sure.

 

[ringhloth]

The main reason, why you think there is very few casualties, is, that there is just very few soldiers. In 1939 Wehrmacht had around 4,75M serving soldiers. But in the game (when you start in 1939), Germany have just 1,3M in army (land, sea and air combined) and 2,3 in manpower pool. So basically Germany have 4x less soldiers in active duty then in reality.

Exact numbers are ---.

Edit: link removed

I don't think that's really true. While the German army was certainly larger, it didn't have 5 million serving soldiers. They had around 100 full divisions, and the 20 extra divisions that HoI4 throws in there are probably close enough for all the smaller, independent units. Assuming your link was correct, since I can't view it anymore, it was likely 5 million people were employed by the army, navy, and airforce. So, including everything from higher up officers and aides and the logistical backbone, which aren't represented by manpower, all of those people aren't counted. The inclusion of those probably would inflate the casualties slightly, but not significantly without also including surrounded in casualties. It's also possible that more pilots and seamen were in existence than there are in HoI4 (not sure, just saying it's possible) but those can't die in HoI4, but also probably wouldn't cause a significant amount of casualties either, when we're talking about casualties in the tens of millions.

 

[DóD Budulín]

I don't think that's really true. While the German army was certainly larger, it didn't have 5 million serving soldiers. They had around 100 full divisions, and the 20 extra divisions that HoI4 throws in there are probably close enough for all the smaller, independent units. Assuming your link was correct, since I can't view it anymore, it was likely 5 million people were employed by the army, navy, and airforce. So, including everything from higher up officers and aides and the logistical backbone, which aren't represented by manpower, all of those people aren't counted. The inclusion of those probably would inflate the casualties slightly, but not significantly without also including surrounded in casualties. It's also possible that more pilots and seamen were in existence than there are in HoI4 (not sure, just saying it's possible) but those can't die in HoI4, but also probably wouldn't cause a significant amount of casualties either, when we're talking about casualties in the tens of millions.

It is research site, which is online since 1996. Now I know that doesn't mean that these numbers are necessary true, but you can verify these information in different sources.
I will copy the main numbers from that site:

In 1939
In Wehrmacht Service: 4,722,000+ (meaning everybody)

In Heer Service: 3,737,000+ (land)
In Luftwaffe Service: 400,000+ (air)
In Kriegsmarine Service: 50,000+ (sea)
----------------
4,187,000+ -> So yeah, I made my work easier there, but 600K isn´t that of a difference (not counting Waffen-SS though).

If you are also interested in total man served and casualties:
Total in Wehrmacht Service 1939-1945: 17,893,200
Total Wehmacht KIA 1939-1945: 2,230,324
Total Wehmacht MIA 1939-1945: 2,870,404
Total Wehrmacht WIA 1939-1944: 5,240,000
Total Wehrmacht Casualties 1939-1945: 10,340,728

Edit: Also it is just Germany. If I call correctly, Red Army had around 35M of soldiers and lost around 8,5M.

 

[Louella]

In a game I was playing earlier today. France took 600k casualties in 2 months when Germany attacked, and in the counter-attack, Germany took 750k casualties in 3 months. Both AI countries.

that's the losses as reported in the war score chart.

 

[The Requimen]

The main reason, why you think there is very few casualties, is, that there is just very few soldiers. In 1939 Wehrmacht had around 4,75M serving soldiers. But in the game (when you start in 1939), Germany have just 1,3M in army (land, sea and air combined) and 2,3 in manpower pool. So basically Germany have 4x less soldiers in active duty then in reality.

It is all about the, "Tooth to Tail" ratio. More than half of those numbers for the Heer anyway would not be on the front line in a division.

Having said that, I do think there should be a tooth to tail mechanic in the game. Something like, you have 15000 men in a division, and a equal number to that is taken out of the manpower pool and put in a "support" category. This would not only be a good historical and gameplay feature, but would do a great deal in helping to cut down in division spam, both player and AI.

 

[Secret Master]

Having said that, I do think there should be a tooth to tail mechanic in the game. Something like, you have 15000 men in a division, and a equal number to that is taken out of the manpower pool and put in a "support" category.

I wouldn't mind a manpower "tax" for logistics.

Instead of having NFs or doctrines that give extra manpower, you could have NFs or doctrines that change the ratio (with a corresponding effect on other aspects of gameplay).

 

[stjern]

First, casualties in HoI4 only count dead. Captured - overrun or surrounded - definitely doesn't count, and I don't think trickleback does either. Attrition also doesn't caSecond, if you just look at one battle as being THE battle of Stalingrad, then, yes, it's going to be low. Stalingrad wouldn't be one battle in game. It'd be multiple offenses from both sides, even trading the city once or twice. Third, the AI is not great at this game. If you have a tough, prolonged campaign against a player, I've seen millions of dead within half a year.
Strength is equipment, and it is not a direct percentage of equipment. It is the average of the percent of types of equipment you have. If you need 1000 guns and 10 support equipment, and have only 1000 guns, you have 50% strength. Attrition, I think, hits equipment, not manpower, but I don't remember for sure.

Sorry but you are wrong and what you say doesn't make much sense in a ww2 simulator.

Can you please elaborate on why a unit division dropping down to 0 strength should not add all its manpower to casualties? (Assuming no hospitals)

It's also obvious if you do basic testing that the manpower lost is not added to casualties properly even without any units overrun. Your free manpower can drop much faster in that case than the casualties increase.

 

[The Requimen]

I wouldn't mind a manpower "tax" for logistics.

Instead of having NFs or doctrines that give extra manpower, you could have NFs or doctrines that change the ratio (with a corresponding effect on other aspects of gameplay).

Indeed, and I might suggest it could be a bit more custom, or dynamic. Nations with limited manpower could opt for more teeth than tail, but suffer great supply and organization recovery penalties, while nations like the US for example might have no choice but to have some high ratio of men in the support service, due to oversea deployments. A system like that could help create diversity in operations tempo between nations.

 

[ringhloth]

Sorry but you are wrong and what you say doesn't make much sense in a ww2 simulator.

Can you please elaborate on why a unit division dropping down to 0 strength should not add all its manpower to casualties? (Assuming no hospitals)

It's also obvious if you do basic testing that the manpower lost is not added to casualties properly even without any units overrun. Your free manpower can drop much faster in that case than the casualties increase.

Uh. I mean, I'm not wrong. Strength is just looking at equipment. I'm also rather sure it's also not looking at your effective strength. You might have 50% strength, but be at basically full fighting power, because what you're missing is support equipment for a logistics team. Your logistics isn't doing its job, but your division can otherwise fight just why.

As for why a unit should not add all its manpower to casualties, I never cast a judgement about game mechanics, besides that people are underestimating the casualties that you can wrack up. I don't really have an opinion whether or not a unit that loses all its equipment should also lose all its manpower.

As for why manpower might not be subtracting correctly, I have some ideas (perhaps not all of the dead in a battle die, but instead are removed from the manpower pool, then put back into the states, "double dipping" on your manpower laws), but I'd need to see this easy testing one can do, and the results it gives.