Casualties in HOI IV are way off

[macegee]

I agree with OP. Wanted to report this but had no time and did not know where exactly to post such info.

My losses compared to AI are insanely low. Over the course of my Pacific, African and N.Spanish campaigns I've had only a couple battles with heavy casualties on my side, and they could've been easily avioded, I was sloppy, and chose wrong units for naval invasions. Other than that, my casualties were always 0 or below 100, while enemy was losing manpower by hundreds and thousands. And these were only direct engagemenets, no encirclement. I'll do a proper report some other day, but for now I'll give you these screens.

Spoiler

I play as US (Superior Firepower doctrine) and use 20w infantry divisions (9x Inf Bn, 1x M. Tank Bn) and, what are they, 18w? tank divisions (2x L.Tank Bn, 2x M.Tank Bn, 4x Mech. Inf Bn, 1x M. SP Arty), both templates with the same support companies (Artillery, Recon, Engineers, Hospital, Maintenance).

Regardless of what type of divisions I use to attack with, casualties are as low as hell, something is definitely wrong with this. Devs, please, look at it!

 

[stjern]

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.

Now you are just grasping at straws! Why do you keep defending casualties dynamics even though you admit you have not done the testing yourself! You just disregard all the proof that something is wrong (you try to deflect in a clearly biased way) by wild speculation. "-oh, but probalby only your logistics team had lost strength". Really? Do you think that will somehow make us all forget this topic and start praising the game again like you do?

NO! The percentage of infantry equipment lost was not lower than the other equipment lost. "-I never cast a judgement about game mechanics" Thats what you just did!

People need to understand that the casualties are WAY higher than they appear in the reported count... I'm gonna speculate that this might be because it would just seem ridiculous and disillusion the casual player if Soviet AI lost 2 million men first 2 months of fighting, the player would then have no doubt something is fundamentaly broken with the ai.

I agree with OP. Wanted to report this but had no time and did not know where exactly to post such info.

My losses compared to AI are insanely low. Over the course of my Pacific, African and N.Spanish campaigns I've had only a couple battles with heavy casualties on my side, and they could've been easily avioded, I was sloppy, and chose wrong units for naval invasions. Other than that, my casualties were always 0 or below 100, while enemy was losing manpower by hundreds and thousands. And these were only direct engagemenets, no encirclement. I'll do a proper report some other day, but for now I'll give you these screens.

Spoiler

View attachment 234292 View attachment 234293 View attachment 234294 View attachment 234295 View attachment 234296

I play as US (Superior Firepower doctrine) and use 20w infantry divisions (9x Inf Bn, 1x M. Tank Bn) and, what are they, 18w? tank divisions (2x L.Tank Bn, 2x M.Tank Bn, 4x Mech. Inf Bn, 1x M. SP Arty), both templates with the same support companies (Artillery, Recon, Engineers, Hospital, Maintenance).

Regardless of what type of divisions I use to attack with, casualties are as low as hell, something is definitely wrong with this. Devs, please, look at it!

The problem is that you play vanilla where the AI units will be hollow shells, attacking them will be like cutting through paper. There are mods that address this and then the true nature of the casualty reporting can be seen.

 

[DóD Budulín]

The problem is that you play vanilla where the AI units will be hollow shells, attacking them will be like cutting through paper. There are mods that address this and then the true nature of the casualty reporting can be seen.

True, but player should not be "punished" for playing vanilla, should he? I mean, game should be fun and at least little bit challenging in original form. Now I know that everybody is expecting something different, but many players are saying that this game is easy (and in my opinion even little bit dull). If nothing else this game is just a frame for the mods and that is not good thing,

 

[Secret Master]

People need to understand that the casualties are WAY higher than they appear in the reported count... I'm gonna speculate that this might be because it would just seem ridiculous and disillusion the casual player if Soviet AI lost 2 million men first 2 months of fighting, the player would then have no doubt something is fundamentaly broken with the ai.

No, I don't think so.

Given that the average gamer loves to run up the score, and given that WWII history buffs know just how bad things were for the Soviets at various points, I suspect the weird casualty counts are a part of some sort of voodoo manpower accounting. (The locked manpower totals, I think.)

 

[ringhloth]

Now you are just grasping at straws! Why do you keep defending casualties dynamics even though you admit you have not done the testing yourself! You just disregard all the proof that something is wrong (you try to deflect in a clearly biased way) by wild speculation. "-oh, but probalby only your logistics team had lost strength". Really? Do you think that will somehow make us all forget this topic and start praising the game again like you do?

NO! The percentage of infantry equipment lost was not lower than the other equipment lost. "-I never cast a judgement about game mechanics" Thats what you just did!

People need to understand that the casualties are WAY higher than they appear in the reported count... I'm gonna speculate that this might be because it would just seem ridiculous and disillusion the casual player if Soviet AI lost 2 million men first 2 months of fighting, the player would then have no doubt something is fundamentaly broken with the ai.

Okay, you are being really hostile for absolutely no reason. I am not disagreeing with you. I am not saying "the casualty count is being calculated correctly." I don't think the casualty count is being calculated correctly, as it doesn't take into account manpower that is not lost permanently, such as when a division is encircled or overrun. And no one has actually shown any proof in this thread that this incorrect calculation extends to battles. They've said "This is how I think things work, and I think that's bad!"

Also, when I've talked about losing strength, I'm not talking about specific examples, I'm just talking about theoretical examples. As for why it might happen, attrition is the biggest offender, which doesn't take manpower away. Again, nothing I've said is wrong, to the best of my knowledge. Strength is not about manpower, it's about the average amount of equipment for each needed piece of equipment. While manpower and equipment lost might have a casual link, it probably isn't direct. Hell, it shouldn't be direct. If you have two unit types, one with much lower health, lower required manpower, and lower required equipment, when that lower health unit takes damage, it should greatly affect the strength, without changing the manpower much. Though, I'm not sure how damage is assigned in combat.

 

[gendalv]

Probably because attrition in hoi4 only affects equipment, bombing only affects infrastructure, so the number only represents the actual military kills in face-to-face battles. No civilian collateral kills, no deaths due to attrition of soldiers or civilians , no genocide, no deaths by 'instant justice' or terror - commies and fascists practiced it a lot.

 

[Secret Master]

And this is why we don't post in threads that are months old. We end up debating mechanics from several patches ago.

Don't engage in thread necromancy. Thread closed.