Equipment attrition

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Again I know that this is not the final version of the game, but I feel that equipment ( especially infantry one ) is too fragile in terms of attrition. In the last WWW even before Daniel attacked USSR and winter kicked in he was barely managing to produce slightly more than was being broken. After he started his attack everything just seemed to break VERY rapidly ( I know that winter has +100% modifier ), even having 3 fully geared production lines didn't do the trick.

So my question is it going to be possible to have mechanized or even motorized infantry with support companies at this rate? Because ATM it seems that it would be too straining even for industry of German caliber.

 

[fabius]

Game is still Alpha- I'm sure it will be reasonably balanced by release candidate.

 

[Duritz]

I think the German player suffered from having different players in the chair and some poor planning. Jakob, Daniel and the other guy (sorry, can't remember his name) all had very different ideas of how to play and were also doing stuff to show us the system rather than maximise their gameplay.

ButI think the biggest mistake was switching from infantry one to infantry two rather than phasing over time. It may have used a few more factories but even a reduced inf weapons one at full gearing would have improved the flow of weapons to the troops during the early months of the war.

It was during the change over that Jakob launched his western attacks, which he admits lacked finesse, and he basically bashed his way through the French. This cost him big and forced the panic decision to switch several lines to weapons one, but at the cost of artillery, support and motorised equipment.

Then Daniel launched a winter war in Sweden as well as a winter war against the Soviets before he'd dealt with the crisis and while his weapons two lines hadn't fully caught up. If he'd waited till June 1941, and avoided the extra effort of taking Switzerland and Sweden, I'm sure he'd have fared far better in terms of equipment in the first few months of Barbarossa.

I see lots of areas for efficiency in what I've seen and although I plan to play France first up, I'm loving the whole WWW experience.

Cheers,
Dury.

 

[Raptor83]

IMO, part of the problem is, that we dont know, how much was lost to combat and how much to attrition.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

Yeah, it was pretty hard to tell from the videos how badly beaten up specific divisions were getting, and where the losses were coming from (combat or attrition). There were a lot of German-player decisions that added unnecessary losses and lowered production. I also wonder if a lot of the running around back and forth along the line contributes substantially to attrition.

 

[Mannstien]

Probably from attacking the Maginot Line LOL

 

[bkuepers]

ButI think the biggest mistake was switching from infantry one to infantry two rather than phasing over time. It may have used a few more factories but even a reduced inf weapons one at full gearing would have improved the flow of weapons to the troops during the early months of the war.

This is exactly correct. Way too much switching of the production lines to be efficient. At times completely different lines were changed and all gearing was lost. IE changing a motorized line to infantry equip or support, etc. Also, he needed to keep producing infantry weapons I until the newer lines were a bit more efficient. Especially with over 100 divisions and the way he attacked the Maginot line.

 

[LostinSpice]

Some ideas to reduce losses:

1. As manpower losses have an effect on equipment it would be sensible to invest in field hospitals and maintenance companies.
2. Use good tactics! Having several German players didn't help.
3. Use those idle XP to make variants that at the very least have 5 reliability. 500 XP just sat there is a waste.
4. Phase in newer kit.
5. Reduce the amount of equipment swapping on production lines.

 

[Modestus]

We have normal wear and tear on a Division but we also have losses from the use of fuel so if a Panzer Division is moving it must use up fuel which means it must lose equipment even when in good supply.


In addition as it starts to move into areas of low Supply which is to a certain extent the job of a PZ Division (strike deep into the enemies territory) the amount of equipment loss will steadily increase and the ability to replace equipment will steadily decrease which means that your PZ Division is gradually becoming a very small infantry Division as it runs out of tanks.


In real life your tanks could run out of fuel but even cannibalization of parts and prioritizing what equipment should have fuel would not destroy them whereas in HOI IV they must be destroyed (used up as fuel).


We could put this another way and say that a PZ Division in HOI III that is out of fuel is not capable of attacking because it cannot move whereas in HOI IV it can move but because it has no equipment it cannot attack, both lose there combat effectiveness but for different reasons.


Does this make a difference?


I think that it does, in HOI IV your destroying your equipment no matter what you do, every action will cost equipment even moving unopposed will drain your forces of their equipment and I think this is partly what your seeing in the WWW.


This has some major consequences for both the player but particularly the AI, moving up and down like a yo yo which the AI has a tendency to do will cost it a fortune in equipment and if this equipment is not replaced effectively its Divisions unlike those in HOI III will be stripped of their equipment and not be able to withstand any type of attack.


For the player AI control (Battle Plans) can cause the same effect striping Divisions of their equipment needlessly.

 

[No idea]

We have normal wear and tear on a Division but we also have losses from the use of fuel so if a Panzer Division is moving it must use up fuel which means it must lose equipment even when in good supply.


In addition as it starts to move into areas of low Supply which is to a certain extent the job of a PZ Division (strike deep into the enemies territory) the amount of equipment loss will steadily increase and the ability to replace equipment will steadily decrease which means that your PZ Division is gradually becoming a very small infantry Division as it runs out of tanks.


In real life your tanks could run out of fuel but even cannibalization of parts and prioritizing what equipment should have fuel would not destroy them whereas in HOI IV they must be destroyed (used up as fuel).


We could put this another way and say that a PZ Division in HOI III that is out of fuel is not capable of attacking because it cannot move whereas in HOI IV it can move but because it has no equipment it cannot attack, both lose there combat effectiveness but for different reasons.


Does this make a difference?


I think that it does, in HOI IV your destroying your equipment no matter what you do, every action will cost equipment even moving unopposed will drain your forces of their equipment and I think this is partly what your seeing in the WWW.


This has some major consequences for both the player but particularly the AI, moving up and down like a yo yo which the AI has a tendency to do will cost it a fortune in equipment and if this equipment is not replaced effectively its Divisions unlike those in HOI III will be stripped of their equipment and not be able to withstand any type of attack.


For the player AI control (Battle Plans) can cause the same effect striping Divisions of their equipment needlessly.

I agree with your post, but, what is the "excuse" for infantry to get its equipment destroyed when it is not winter in deep Russia or locked in combat? Unrealistic levels of attrition makes your armoured divisions pay for fuel, but what do infantry divisions pay for?

 

[Modestus]

I agree with your post, but, what is the "excuse" for infantry to get its equipment destroyed when it is not winter in deep Russia or locked in combat? Unrealistic levels of attrition makes your armoured divisions pay for fuel, but what do infantry divisions pay for?

I am not quite sure but infantry lose equipment even when training, at first I thought that this was a good idea but now I am now beginning to wonder, why would you loose equipment during training ? Obviously you would use up bullets and the occasional truck would get damaged but not to the level that equipment would be irretrievably lost.


For tanks your using fuel so even in training it will cost you equipment but that only highlights the problem of using equipment as fuel since training should not really cost you the irretrievable loss of a tank unless you blew one up by accident.

 

[griffor]

I am not quite sure but infantry lose equipment even when training, at first I thought that this was a good idea but now I am now beginning to wonder, why would you loose equipment during training ? Obviously you would use up bullets and the occasional truck would get damaged but not to the level that equipment would be irretrievably lost.


For tanks your using fuel so even in training it will cost you equipment but that only highlights the problem of using equipment as fuel since training should not really cost you the irretrievable loss of a tank unless you blew one up by accident.

i think it might have to do with a balencing mechanic because of the infantry training you get better divisons than those that don't train and you get army exp that you can use to help out your tanks, although i do agree it does seem pretty high, but again this is alpha beta is where balenceing comes into effect.

 

[Wraith11B]

I am not quite sure but infantry lose equipment even when training, at first I thought that this was a good idea but now I am now beginning to wonder, why would you loose equipment during training ? Obviously you would use up bullets and the occasional truck would get damaged but not to the level that equipment would be irretrievably lost.

Speaking as an infantryman, yeah. Suffice it to say, kit will get lost in the field. Stuff breaks during training. We were going to a range in Iraq, and this one dude left his carbine in the door of his MRAP and then closed the door on it, bending the barrel. I was with a bridging unit for awhile and one of the bridges basically only worked in ideal conditions... winter not being one of them, and therefore it broke. Trust the average Joe to break or lose anything and everything he's handed.

 

[griffor]

Speaking as an infantryman, yeah. Suffice it to say, kit will get lost in the field. Stuff breaks during training. We were going to a range in Iraq, and this one dude left his carbine in the door of his MRAP and then closed the door on it, bending the barrel. I was with a bridging unit for awhile and one of the bridges basically only worked in ideal conditions... winter not being one of them, and therefore it broke. Trust the average Joe to break or lose anything and everything he's handed.

don't forget the saying "there is only 1 thief in the marine corps everyone else is just trying to get their stuff back."

 

[Wraith11B]

Yuuuuuuuup.

 

[Modestus]

Speaking as an infantryman, yeah. Suffice it to say, kit will get lost in the field. Stuff breaks during training. We were going to a range in Iraq, and this one dude left his carbine in the door of his MRAP and then closed the door on it, bending the barrel. I was with a bridging unit for awhile and one of the bridges basically only worked in ideal conditions... winter not being one of them, and therefore it broke. Trust the average Joe to break or lose anything and everything he's handed.

How many Abrams do you catch in a door during training?

 

[Wraith11B]

None, but I've seen people roll MRAPs. Nearly had one roll me over while I was trying to drive it on some serious mud in Baghdad... I have seen this, however:

 

[Modestus]

None, but I've seen people roll MRAPs. Nearly had one roll me over while I was trying to drive it on some serious mud in Baghdad... I have seen this, however:

Ha well there you go.


Anyhow on a less serious note once you have enough equipment you can place a Division on the map and start doing push-ups should this then start to cost you extra equipment and how minuscule should that cost be ?

 

[LostinSpice]

None, but I've seen people roll MRAPs. Nearly had one roll me over while I was trying to drive it on some serious mud in Baghdad... I have seen this, however:

Ouch! Kit does get broken during training and sadly (especially within the time frame of HOI4) men get injured and even killed. But I take the point this needs to be balanced into this game to not make it too damaging to units. Attrition to combat, attacking movement into poorer supply lines and weather are massive variables and until I play the game I'm not too sure if they are coreect/ balanced.

 

[No idea]

Speaking as an infantryman, yeah. Suffice it to say, kit will get lost in the field. Stuff breaks during training. We were going to a range in Iraq, and this one dude left his carbine in the door of his MRAP and then closed the door on it, bending the barrel. I was with a bridging unit for awhile and one of the bridges basically only worked in ideal conditions... winter not being one of them, and therefore it broke. Trust the average Joe to break or lose anything and everything he's handed.

The thing is not that stuff shouldnt break during training. I guess some stuff should break (something which is treated as attrition). The thing is which should be the attrition levels, because they seem to be unrealistically high now. In the case of armoured units, it makes sense in the end, because it is a way of making armoured units to "pay" for the fuel they dont need to use in this game (a pity, but that is the way the logistic supply system has been made), but in the case of infantry units, it is not clear at all why they should "pay" such unrealistically high attrition cost.