Is defense overpowered?

[TheMeInTeam]

However, in-game we are de-facto cheesing it since the AI tends to attack with minimal or no Artillery in their divisions, often with them putting the divisions back onto the attack once Org permits.

the implications if one uses this standard of "cheesing" self-consistently are hilarious

however, normally players make a distinction between playing the game at all and cheesing. cheesing doesn't mean anything if everyone supposedly cheeses

 

[Kanitatlan]

I've noticed that if you operate a well organised efficient defence that is able to hold its position against enemy attack but is weak enough that the enemy does attack then the AI will take heavy casualties. If you are dug in with maximum stacking behind a river but heavily out numbered you can get sustained attacks over a long period that show you a pattern in the casualties. Typically the initial casualty ratio is nowhere near the 30:1 mentioned. On current versions of HOI4 I see a typical starting ratio of 10:1. What seems to happen is the attack stops attacking with units when they get to low org but once org recovers they throw them back in. Since heavy casualties are occurring this tends to lead to a lot of attacks by badly understrength units. At this stage of a defensive campaign the attacking AI's casualty rate tends to rise dramatically. The real problem here is that understrength units are heavily penalised because they still consume the same frontage but have significantly lower statistics. The AI doesn't seem to give up until what amounts to national exhaustion. Typically when the attacks finally die down it is possible to launch a counter-offensive of your own that is essentially unstoppable.

 

[The_Tim]

the implications if one uses this standard of "cheesing" self-consistently are hilarious

however, normally players make a distinction between playing the game at all and cheesing. cheesing doesn't mean anything if everyone supposedly cheeses

I more say cheesing if one plans around the AI committing what is basically ritual suicide on the scale of millions upon your Trenchlines. Also, I said de-facto cheesing, that meaning that its basically cheesing(because the player is able to deal with a vastly greater amount of industrial investment and manpower that they really shouldn't) even though it isn't typically considered cheesing

 

[bitmode]

I suggest making attacks more lethal to strength, but not to organization.

Why is no one addressing this part of the question

 

[Xerberous]

I don’t think that the offensive vs. defensive mechanics of the present game is the problem. Even the very recent history shows that offensive operations without high-mobility encirclements are horribly painful for the attacker. The problem is the AI which just throws millions into the players well established defense lines instead of concentration on few meaningful breakthroughs.

 

[Cavalry]

The problem is Defense is not overpowerred but AI attack is not good. If the defense is overpowerred then it is quite easy to fix. EAI have reduce it but it helps human in attack too.

But it is right that AI and human should not use the same rules. The AI should have some bonus to fix some things that developer cannot fix. For example if AI move troop too often then give them +50% entrenchment speed bonus. AI soaks his tanks in mud so give them -50% attrition.

 

[FlinzP]

I don’t think that the offensive vs. defensive mechanics of the present game is the problem. Even the very recent history shows that offensive operations without high-mobility encirclements are horribly painful for the attacker. The problem is the AI which just throws millions into the players well established defense lines instead of concentration on few meaningful breakthroughs.

The problem is Defense is not overpowerred but AI attack is not good. If the defense is overpowerred then it is quite easy to fix. EAI have reduce it but it helps human in attack too.

But it is right that AI and human should not use the same rules. The AI should have some bonus to fix some things that developer cannot fix. For example if AI move troop too often then give them +50% entrenchment speed bonus. AI soaks his tanks in mud so give them -50% attrition.

You are right mostly. Simple thing and often suggest idea would be that AI makes good templates. AI templates could be weaker on easier difficulties if that is issue.

Still, making defending more fun was listed as future plan for this game. Current system works but it would be great if there was some more to it. Not always just single front you wish to hold with high trenches and forts. It should be that you want to have all kind of assets to us for both attacking and defending. Defending ofc should always be an advantage but you should still feel threat of the attack operations and prepare for different back up situations. Rivers and cities should be massive holds and attacking side should try to find way to get through it. You don't simply drive standard medium tanks to victory there.

 

[Terracos]

I suggested it before, but here it is again: The AI needs a two layered approach, and the Tools are all already there. They need to create 2 Theaters from the start. A defensive theater and an offensive theater (that cover the same geographical area). Then the AI needs defensive and offensive templates. The AI should train 80% defensive unit templates and 20% offensive unit templates.

The goal is simple: Units trained with defensive templates go into the defensive theater filling front lines and they do not do anything else than defend. The 20% other units get moved into offensive armies that are attacking. The difference here is, that these units have short front lines not longer than 4 border provinces and attack from there. This way the computer can also pull off concentrated attacks, but will not suicide his whole army on the whole frontline.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Why is no one addressing this part of the question

Because, barring edge cases of abusing AI and designers, manpower losses seem within believable range? Of course, if you want to have a go at it from realism perspective, then we'll need some sources presenting average casualty % that shatters division to the point where it has to fall back and reorganize to be a viable fighting force, and compare those figures to what we get in the game.

 

[MacroWarrior]

The art of offensive is using 3:1 to attack. The art of defense is manage to throw more troops to reinforcement, so the enemy don't have 3:1.

If you attack with 3:1 and still trouble with defense, then come again and complain.

The issue is not unsuccessful offensive attempts but rather even if you have like beat the basic infantry enemies with heavy tanks, you kill much less enemy soldier than in reality، as far as I understand. In cases other than overrun.

 

[Gort11]

I'd say the issue is that tanks are basically the only efficient attacking unit, and the AI doesn't build enough of them or use them in a coordinated manner. They just go into the big mess of AI units along with the marines, garrisons, cavalry, and standard infantry divisions.

 

[Harin]

I think @Kanitatlan has the best explanation of the problem. Specifically, when the AI is on the attack and has a success, it then moves its forces to help the other attacks that are not succeeding, instead of pushing through where the success happened. If the AI did stop the failing attacks and reinforce the one that succeeded, then the AI's loss ratio would drop dramatically as it encircles or unwinds the player's front line.

As far as comparing the 30 to 1 losses in game, this may be evidence of the problem Kanitatlan has described. In real life, a human general would call off failed attacks that are trading so badly. Sure, for short periods of time 30 to 1 trades can happen, but they are stopped before they become an operational problem. In the game the AI does not stop these bad trades. As Kanitatlan said, instead the AI stops the attack that succeeded and reinforces all those attacks that are trading badly. If a human general did this over and over for years, he would most likely suffer the same bad trades.

So, do we fix the AI creating its own problem of 30 to 1 trades, or do we create a combat system that rewards such horrible tactics?

As for the OP's idea of keeping org damage the same, but possibly increasing damage to strength, that is an idea that could use more discussion. My first thought of strength is that reinforcement of strength happens so fast, that it can feel like we are not fighting the equipment of the divisions in the battle, but the inventory of all equipment in storage. For the AI especially, it comes down to a world wide equipment grind it cannot win, unless it is outproducing the player by a larger ratio than it is losing equipment.

Maybe the strength reinforcement can be slowed down so the attacker has a chance to take advantage of the local losses of equipment. It would make three to one fights more 'real' as more and more defenders and attackers see their orange strength bars go down and the side that started with more divisions has an advantage as that side will have full strength divisions still to attack with as the other side runs out of full strength divisions.

But it would take more than that. The loss of strength also may need to reflect in the stats of the divisions. From what I understand now, loss of strength does not immediately reduce the stats of divisions in combat. If this is correct, and I may be wrong, then this would need to be fixed or we are right back to just grinding each other's storage of equipment down, instead of the divisions in the battle.

Addressing strength and how fast it is reinforced could make reserves important, which is another thing the AI will need to learn.

I hope someone can gives us better insights on the issue than I can give. This is an interesting discussion.

 

[Cavalry]

Most of the loss happen when AI is outnumberred at the end of attack but don't stop right away. As defender, we can also try avoid this big loss by withdraw all at one, not waiting to be kicked one by one, if no reinforcement comes.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Why is no one addressing this part of the question

Going from 30 kills to 1 dead, to 120 kills and 4 dead, is still a 30:1 ratio. Increasing strength damage suffered per hit doesn't really 'solve the problem' of getting ratio'd. If anything, that being coupled with the worsened damage modifier the more damage you take means you'd probably be shifting through the brackets faster and having an even worse ratio.

I think that such loss rates for equipment would mean that we'd have to be focusing that much more on efficiently managing production. You wouldn't be able to get away with some of the less efficient options anymore. Though I guess this would mean that hospitals and maintenance companies would be more popular?

I'd also like to question the manner in which most of the historical examples of attacks are being performed, and how those compare to the conditions in game. People know that you would like to have at least a 3:1 advantage when you're attacking, but the width limitations and the cheapness of infantry makes that very difficult to accomplish.

 

[American Traveler]

I suggested it before, but here it is again: The AI needs a two layered approach, and the Tools are all already there. They need to create 2 Theaters from the start. A defensive theater and an offensive theater (that cover the same geographical area). Then the AI needs defensive and offensive templates. The AI should train 80% defensive unit templates and 20% offensive unit templates.

The goal is simple: Units trained with defensive templates go into the defensive theater filling front lines and they do not do anything else than defend. The 20% other units get moved into offensive armies that are attacking. The difference here is, that these units have short front lines not longer than 4 border provinces and attack from there. This way the computer can also pull off concentrated attacks, but will not suicide his whole army on the whole frontline.

This is really interseting idea that could solve a lot of the problems with the AI at the same time.

 

[American Traveler]

Because, barring edge cases of abusing AI and designers, manpower losses seem within believable range? Of course, if you want to have a go at it from realism perspective, then we'll need some sources presenting average casualty % that shatters division to the point where it has to fall back and reorganize to be a viable fighting force, and compare those figures to what we get in the game.

I feel like we aren't playing the same game. I have never played a single play-through where "manpower losses seem within believable range." Check out the screenshots here. This occurs every game I play. As you can see, as France, I captured Berlin and Rome easily because of the problem described in this thread. German casualties from France: 3.2 million. French casualties from Germany: 110k. Just about 30 to 1.

Had this number been 10 to 1, I would have suffered 300k casualties, which would have made me change my conscription law with valuable early game PP, and would have resulted in considerable equipment loses, reducing the number of divisions I could field.

I want the game to be extremely challenging in single player. I remember Hoi2-- it was difficult to win as France, and you certainly weren't capturing Rome and Berlin in 1940.

If the devs made attacks cause more manpower and equipment losses, would the single player experience improve? This is the question I'm hoping to will attract further debate. I believe that it might. I also don't see how making the change will hurt multi-player. If anyone has any specific reasons why the change would damage the multi-player experience, I'd appreciate hearing these reasons.

 

[American Traveler]

Going from 30 kills to 1 dead, to 120 kills and 4 dead, is still a 30:1 ratio. Increasing strength damage suffered per hit doesn't really 'solve the problem' of getting ratio'd. If anything, that being coupled with the worsened damage modifier the more damage you take means you'd probably be shifting through the brackets faster and having an even worse ratio.

I think that such loss rates for equipment would mean that we'd have to be focusing that much more on efficiently managing production. You wouldn't be able to get away with some of the less efficient options anymore. Though I guess this would mean that hospitals and maintenance companies would be more popular?

I'd also like to question the manner in which most of the historical examples of attacks are being performed, and how those compare to the conditions in game. People know that you would like to have at least a 3:1 advantage when you're attacking, but the width limitations and the cheapness of infantry makes that very difficult to accomplish.

I'm suggesting changing the attack strength while attacking only, and leaving damage dealt when defending as is. I'm not sure how to code this or I'd create a mod and do it myself. I don't believe anyone is questioning whether or not such a change is possible, though.

 

[Corpse Fool]

I'm suggesting changing the attack strength while attacking only, and leaving damage dealt when defending as is. I'm not sure how to code this or I'd create a mod and do it myself. I don't believe anyone is questioning whether or not such a change is possible, though.

I have no doubt that the devs, or a mod, could make an asymmetrical damage sort of thing. But I don't think that such a change would even be desirable.

Piling special rules and exceptions on top of more special rules and exceptions tends to just make the whole thing a bigger and more complicated mess than it needs to be. Especially when we already have stuff like the targeting/coordination that is completely invisible through the game itself, where would you be planning to stick the tooltip letting players know about this?

I wouldn't want to use a special exception other than as a last resort. And we have so many other things we could be looking at before we get to that point. We could lessen the terrain penalties for attackers. We could rebalance the stats more towards attackers. We could rework combat width to allow the attackers to actually get a numerical superiority in the zone. But what I believe to be the root of the problem as you describe things... is that the AI is bad.

 

[American Traveler]

I have no doubt that the devs, or a mod, could make an asymmetrical damage sort of thing. But I don't think that such a change would even be desirable.

Piling special rules and exceptions on top of more special rules and exceptions tends to just make the whole thing a bigger and more complicated mess than it needs to be. Especially when we already have stuff like the targeting/coordination that is completely invisible through the game itself, where would you be planning to stick the tooltip letting players know about this?

I wouldn't want to use a special exception other than as a last resort. And we have so many other things we could be looking at before we get to that point. We could lessen the terrain penalties for attackers. We could rebalance the stats more towards attackers. We could rework combat width to allow the attackers to actually get a numerical superiority in the zone. But what I believe to be the root of the problem as you describe things... is that the AI is bad.

I agree with you. It just doesn't seem like the AI is going to get "fixed." Though I did like the suggestion above, regarding two different types of battle planners for the AI, a defensive planner and an offensive planner. Defensive lines could only attack under rare circumstances, where the AI can detect a huge chance of success. Offensive lines could be manned by divisions with higher hardness and breakthrough, and would only be allowed to form fronts of no more than 3 or 4 provinces.

 

[Harin]

But what I believe to be the root of the problem as you describe things... is that the AI is bad.

I believe Corpse Fool nails it here. This is the root of this complaint and every complaint players have about the AI. To understate the issue, it could be better.

In my opinion, the primary reason the AI can run up 30 to 1 losses is primarily two reasons. First, the AI's attack plan is to attack everywhere and continue attacking long after a human player would have stopped. Then when the AI has a success, instead of exploiting it, it takes the winning divisions and sends them to help its losing divisions. This produces insane losses. Second, the AI's defense plan is to defend everywhere, and then to evenly place its divisions, no matter the type, along all the fronts, leaving nothing in reserve for the fronts, or the nation. This makes it a simple process to break through and encircle the AI, which again produces insane losses.

I would suggest fixing the AI. From what I understand, even small improvements in the AI can cause a lot of work, especially in the testing and rebalancing of everything that has been done in the past to dance around this, and other, issues.