Increasing casualties during combat

[unmerged(55694)]

I need some help from the 15-lb brains out there who understand the combat engine (like Wobbler from what I hear) . I want to increase (let's say double) the amount of casualties inflicted during combat. I don't mind if the length of combat increases as a result, but shortening combat seems to have the opposite effect. Does anyone know how I can achieve this?

I've already played with organization, defensiveness, toughness, and attack/def values. Raising attack values makes combat too short since organization get hammered and the units retreat more quickly. That doesn't give me the desired effects since they retreat before more casualties can be inflicted.

I've tried raising org values which lengthens combat, but does not seem to produce more casualties. This was unexpected. Perhaps since higher org values lessen damage from hits received? I expected combat to last longer and more damage to be inflicted on divisions due to the higher number of hits sustained due to higher org. Again, this did not seem like the case. Perhaps slightly more casualties were produced, but the increase was neglible (I've developed a fairly in-depth program to track casualties).

Increasing def/toughness (like in TRP) kind of lengthens battles, but the same # of hits are required in combat if attack values remain the same so no more casualties are produced than normal. Concurrently raising attack values again produces undesired effects since units will retreat before adequate casualties are produced.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

 

[Spruce]

what do you mean ? Take out his manpower - or just wipe out divisions ?

Eating away his dvisional strength just has to do with scoring hits. Always make sure your tech levels are high enough - and have good attachments of brigades.

If his army is mostly composed out of soft units - go for artillery attachments and if his army has specialised hard units (like MEC and ARM) attack with AT capability. If he uses a mix - you should also use a mix.

Generals - do a little management on generals. F.e. don't use old guards to lead your monster armies. Try to put a guy there with the right skill and traits.

Use TAC bombers (or CAS) to wipe out his divisions when they are moving (after a defeat - or when they are moving to the battle) - the AI likes to play with single divisions - and if you have big stacks of TAC or CAS - this will help.

summary =

- keep your units on tech level - with a downside to have less units,
- use your generals wisely,
- asses your enemy and use corresponding attachments,
- use TAC and CAS to finish the job,

 

[Manziel]

how about increasing attack values and organisation?
if you double both, the casualties should also be doubled, i think

 

[theokrat]

what do you mean ? Take out his manpower - or just wipe out divisions ?

Eating away his dvisional strength just has to do with scoring hits. Always make sure your tech levels are high enough - and have good attachments of brigades.

If his army is mostly composed out of soft units - go for artillery attachments and if his army has specialised hard units (like MEC and ARM) attack with AT capability. If he uses a mix - you should also use a mix.

Generals - do a little management on generals. F.e. don't use old guards to lead your monster armies. Try to put a guy there with the right skill and traits.

Use TAC bombers (or CAS) to wipe out his divisions when they are moving (after a defeat - or when they are moving to the battle) - the AI likes to play with single divisions - and if you have big stacks of TAC or CAS - this will help.

summary =

- keep your units on tech level - with a downside to have less units,
- use your generals wisely,
- asses your enemy and use corresponding attachments,
- use TAC and CAS to finish the job,

I think its a mod question, not a gameplay one

 

[unmerged(3221)]

My guess would be that this strength vs organization loss is not modifiable. Organization loss in the game engine outpaces strength loss. The only really big strength loss in land battles is when one runs out of organization. The only org mention in \db\misc.txt is about shore bombardment.

BTW I personally think that the game engine has this right. Strength losses of about 10% happen before the automatic retreat kicks in. Historically 10% casualties was considered to be heavy which surprised me when I first read that, but after reading that numerous times in many books, I now accept that as historical fact. Battles like Stalingrad or the suicidial no surrender Japanese tactics were the exception, not the norm, in WW2.

 

[Spruce]

I think its a mod question, not a gameplay one

hm, ok I might have missed the point then - but on the other hand he's not posting in the mod forum.

 

[unmerged(55774)]

what do you mean ? Take out his manpower - or just wipe out divisions ?

Eating away his dvisional strength just has to do with scoring hits. Always make sure your tech levels are high enough - and have good attachments of brigades.

If his army is mostly composed out of soft units - go for artillery attachments and if his army has specialised hard units (like MEC and ARM) attack with AT capability. If he uses a mix - you should also use a mix.

Generals - do a little management on generals. F.e. don't use old guards to lead your monster armies. Try to put a guy there with the right skill and traits.

Use TAC bombers (or CAS) to wipe out his divisions when they are moving (after a defeat - or when they are moving to the battle) - the AI likes to play with single divisions - and if you have big stacks of TAC or CAS - this will help.

summary =

- keep your units on tech level - with a downside to have less units,
- use your generals wisely,
- asses your enemy and use corresponding attachments,
- use TAC and CAS to finish the job,

I have a quick sub question form this form.
I know amour, light amour, and mechanized units are hard targets and to attack effectively using some sort of AT brigade would be the best bet. However, are motorized hard or soft targets?

 

[Kanitatlan]

All so called hard targets are only a certain percentage hard that varies from unit to unit. Armour is a base 70% hard and motorised are a base 18-25% hard (increases with model). Various brigades modify this base hardness level.

For all units the best form of attack is lots of firepower rather than a focus on hard attack. The various discussion threads on brigades are quite harsh about the value of AT brigades and recommend the use of regular artillery instead. The majority of enemy forces will have sufifcient soft elements to make AT a sub-optimal choice.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

...are motorized hard or soft targets?

Methinks they are soft targets. e.g. combine them with tank divisions and there is the combined arms bonus (which requires a mixture).

 

[unmerged(62652)]

If it's not a mod question...

The only way I know that YOU can effect it is bombing your opposing armies once they're broken. How bad the manpower losses in combat are depend on when the enemy breaks off the fight. If all their units drop below 5 ORG at roughly the same time the manpower loss will be relatively small. If, however, they have mixed in a very hard unit with very soft ones, like an armored division with militia, then the armored unit will keep the militia fighting longer ( until it drops ORG ) and they will therefore take more actual casualties.

 

[unmerged(55694)]

My guess would be that this strength vs organization loss is not modifiable. Organization loss in the game engine outpaces strength loss. The only really big strength loss in land battles is when one runs out of organization. The only org mention in \db\misc.txt is about shore bombardment.

BTW I personally think that the game engine has this right. Strength losses of about 10% happen before the automatic retreat kicks in. Historically 10% casualties was considered to be heavy which surprised me when I first read that, but after reading that numerous times in many books, I now accept that as historical fact. Battles like Stalingrad or the suicidial no surrender Japanese tactics were the exception, not the norm, in WW2.

i think you're correct. BTW i'm talking about modding not game play. it seems as though strength losses in combat are constant regardless of org or attack values. the same number of hits seem to be required to force a unit to retreat and therefore it will roughly sustain the same amount of damage per attack regardless of other variables. higher org simply means that the unit will stay in the fight longer. any other ideas?

 

[unmerged(74599)]

I need some help from the 15-lb brains out there who understand the combat engine (like Wobbler from what I hear) . I want to increase (let's say double) the amount of casualties inflicted during combat. I don't mind if the length of combat increases as a result, but shortening combat seems to have the opposite effect. Does anyone know how I can achieve this?

I've already played with organization, defensiveness, toughness, and attack/def values. Raising attack values makes combat too short since organization get hammered and the units retreat more quickly. That doesn't give me the desired effects since they retreat before more casualties can be inflicted.

I've tried raising org values which lengthens combat, but does not seem to produce more casualties. This was unexpected. Perhaps since higher org values lessen damage from hits received? I expected combat to last longer and more damage to be inflicted on divisions due to the higher number of hits sustained due to higher org. Again, this did not seem like the case. Perhaps slightly more casualties were produced, but the increase was neglible (I've developed a fairly in-depth program to track casualties).

Increasing def/toughness (like in TRP) kind of lengthens battles, but the same # of hits are required in combat if attack values remain the same so no more casualties are produced than normal. Concurrently raising attack values again produces undesired effects since units will retreat before adequate casualties are produced.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

The MEM mod basicly triples vanilla ORG, and it really does in MP. Perhaps you just have not noticed. That was my experience of that. But I am not a 15 lb brain...

 

[DesertSnow]

If you want to MOD higher casualties (meaning you have to spent more manpower to reinforce the damaged divisions) JUST change the TRICKLEBACK modifier and the "MANPOWER cost to reinforce" in the MISC files.

Decrease trickleback modifier: more people die than before (to be specific, less people are "just wounded".

Increase manpower cost to reinforce: The default is 0.8, which means that for every man that actually DIES (not "just wounded") you need 0.8 men to replace him (paradox, isn't it?)

That WON'T CHANGE COMBAT MECHANICS but you will need more manpower to bring the damaged division back to strength, so the war will be more costly in terms of human life.

 

[unmerged(55694)]

yep, did that already. i also doubled org modifiers for land units, which seems to create more casualties in battle and modified AI files to allow the AI to spend more IC on replenishing casualties (otherwise the AI lets its units get destroyed before it can rebuild them). thanks.

 

[Poorlaggedman]

Anybody noticed differences in attachements to brigades in causing casualties?

I've heard rumors that artillery inflicts bigger casualties which would make sense. I have yet to run real tests myself

 

[theokrat]

Anybody noticed differences in attachements to brigades in causing casualties?

I've heard rumors that artillery inflicts bigger casualties which would make sense. I have yet to run real tests myself

There is no damage matrix.
However ART is a viable brigade for some situations. It does however carry on the same exact ratio of org and str looses.

 

[unmerged(74599)]

It should be remembered that increased casualties will kill Germany in the grand strategic sense, if there is no concurrent increase in the manpower available.

 

[theokrat]

It should be remembered that increased casualties will kill Germany in the grand strategic sense.

you mean like it did back then?

 

[unmerged(74599)]

I mean, like how in Vanilla the manpower depletion rate is bascily historical I find. Germany is really hurting in 44 45. I imagine if you increase manpower loses too much it will be dying in 42/43.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Here is a quick review of the parameters available for playing with the casualties inflicted in combat.

1. The relationship between org loss and casualties is fixed and therefore casulaties can only be increased by increasing org.

2. It is at least theoretically possible to increase long-term casualties by massive morale increases as this will increase the frequency of combat. I suspect morale is best ignored in this context as the effects might be rather unbalancing due to other org recovery issues.

3. If you double all unit org then you will aproximately double casualties. In truth you should increase org above 5 (ie for org 30 go to 55 for a double) due to the fact that battles are lost at org 5. The effects of this may be rather subtle.

4. If you simply increase org than battle length will increase proportionally. You need to change other parameters if you wish to preserve battle length.

5. If you increase firepower then you will decrease battle length. The same proportion of firepower increase as you apply to org will maintain current battle length (but bear in mind point (3)).

6. You can tamper with the standard ground defence efficiency values in misc.txt; Increasing or decreasing these will adjust battle length on a global basis but if you do adjust them you will need to adjust the Soviet GDE event chain to maintain balance.

7. You can tamper with defensiveness and toughness scores but whilst this may change casualties it will not do so in a balanced way.

Beware of adjusting anything to relatively small values as you will increase the effect of rounding errors.