Any buff to atack is just walk in circles:
Germany AI will stomp everything again and win eastern front in 42.
Germany AI will stomp everything again and win eastern front in 42.
- 1
I see the issue and I agree.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.
View attachment 957633View attachment 957634View attachment 957636
Germany should be able to stomp everything, to some degree. The USSR took 4.5m casualties in only 6 months during Operation Barbarossa. The main problem with the eastern front is how ahistorically weak the USSR is, and how they have 0 ability to recover after taking losses. In hoi4, it's easy to completely beat the USSR while inflicting less than 4.5m casualties on them in the entire war.Any buff to atack is just walk in circles:
Germany AI will stomp everything again and win eastern front in 42.
I see the issue and I agree.
However to achieve 30:1 you had much better templates and air superiority I guess, while AI was blindly attacking with worse and worse units. It would just feel bad if such behaviour would not result in high losses.
It would be nice to see how the loss ratio behaves in less min/maxed scenarios. Wouldn't take bad AI behavior as the baseline.
I like the idea in this thread of having two layers of units the AI uses, defensive and offensive ones. However, for sure it would only solve part of the problem.
And I know it is a big issue that turtling is just the outright best strategy for this game, as it leads players to avoid a lot of stuff this game actually has to offer. Anyway, I just don't see making stupid attacks as the solution, sry. This will just shift the game to other cheesing strategies...
Based on what? The survivorship bias of historical battles?but shouldn't this ratio be smaller?
Just to be clear, are you saying that you believe this result, 28 to 1 casualties, with air superiority, is a realistic outcome?Based on what? The survivorship bias of historical battles?
The strength damage would hardly change across the board but mostly situationally.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.
Actually AI templates was set by human (modder), and template is not the cause of very high kill loss other than infantry die more than tank. The high ratio was caused by a 20w division continued to attack 80w fortified line.Simple thing and often suggest idea would be that AI makes good templates.
I'm not going to say its 'realistic', because the conditions which are producing that ratio in game are also pretty unrealistic. The reason I'm not really comfortable putting a cap on how extreme this can be is the same reason I mentioned survivorship bias. We aren't getting the casualty ratios of all the battles that didn't happen, because the people involved knew how absolutely insane it would be to attack under a variety of unfavourable conditions. The AI is all too happy to commit to a full front offensive infested with unfavourable conditions, and so I don't know if we could reliably measure how bad things really could be getting.Just to be clear, are you saying that you believe this result, 28 to 1 casualties, with air superiority, is a realistic outcome?
This is why I still think the idea of a small amount of recovery applying inside combat would probably at the very least be interesting to play around with.As a very basic example, if the same amount of strength damage is spread out over ten times the duration, it will likely affect org less, right?
Something that could be done with this idea could be this:This is why I still think the idea of a small amount of recovery applying inside combat would probably at the very least be interesting to play around with.
My mind goes to the way that naval damage perhaps works, where org damage is modified by your current/desired level of strength. A unit with more strength will lose less org, a unit with very little strength would de-org rapidly.
But I can already see some problems with the AI with either of those ideas. With the first, they would probably leave the low strength divisions in the combat and just grind them into pieces when if they left, a fresh reserve could take their place and they could go replenish. The second, is the problem the AI has with constantly forcing low strength templates against the enemy, when it hasn't worked the last hundred times they got sent.
You mean by grinding AI until it ran out of manpower or equipment (something that I specifically mentioned)? That is not a damage problem, it's AI problem (something that has been pointed out repeatedly since game launch, which was replied by the devs along the lines of "it's better than WW1 stalemate"). While there were improvements over the years (it used to be possible to throw Italians out of Ethiopia with two volunteer divisions, for example), AI is still hardly in the good place when it comes to division control.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.
I think it is important to remember the big change in combat from HOI1-3 to HOI4. Prior to HOI4 the optimal tactical behaviour was to attack with all of your divisions all of the time because attack was actually stronger than defence. It wasn't until HOI4 that I ever fought a defensive battle. This is why it was hard to win as a country on the strategic defensive in previous HOI versions. In HOI4 Paradox solved the problem of the AI actually being able to launch any sort of proper offensive even against another AI. Now we have defensive bonuses that make defending a suitable strategy.I remember Hoi2-- it was difficult to win as France
This is the core of the whole issue. The AI makes bad decisions and ultimately the issue being discussed in this thread could only be fully solved by developing a much more effective battle AI. This is likely to be extremely challenging.But what I believe to be the root of the problem as you describe things... is that the AI is bad.
Really? I was under the impression that "planning bonus" is the main new thing. Before we had entrenchment and terrain adjusters, but nothing to help the offensive in a similar way (unless you count deathstacking your entire army in a single tile, but combat width got rid of that). Or do you simply mean that defensive bonuses can now be stacked to a ridiculous degree?I think it is important to remember the big change in combat from HOI1-3 to HOI4. Prior to HOI4 the optimal tactical behaviour was to attack with all of your divisions all of the time because attack was actually stronger than defence. It wasn't until HOI4 that I ever fought a defensive battle. This is why it was hard to win as a country on the strategic defensive in previous HOI versions. In HOI4 Paradox solved the problem of the AI actually being able to launch any sort of proper offensive even against another AI. Now we have defensive bonuses that make defending a suitable strategy.
This. At least for me personally the battle planer with all of its issues contributes a lot to the impression the OP describes.i guess one might start by fixing the battleplanner. that would first require acknowledging just how truly bad is has been broken, since 2016. but it's possible to do. it's meme tier terrible, and since the ai uses it, the ai is by extension as well. even if you use more complex plans than the ai uses, it doesn't work properly on multiple levels. i could go into another big rant about it, but i think for the moment is suffices to say that the battleplanner is completely pathetic and altering mechanics because it doesn't work is absolutely the wrong way to go about improving hoi 4
That's an easy mistake to make. The planning bonus is clearly a key part of the fix. Prior to HOI4 defensive bonuses weren't sufficient to overcome the advantage of making sure all your units were engaged AND there were issues with the multiple combat penalty being inadequate. You ended up with the optimum combat strategy for a theatre was to maximise the combat engagement of all your units whilst trying to minimise the enemy's combat engagement. HOI4 saw increased defensive bonuses balanced by the planning bonus. In HOI1 and HOI2 this was an absolute rule and in HOI3 a bit more subtle but still your best theatre strategy was maximise the ratio of divisional combat days between your units and the enemy's units. HOI4 brought in a situation where a theatre pure defensive strategy was viable.Really? I was under the impression that "planning bonus" is the main new thing. Before we had entrenchment and terrain adjusters, but nothing to help the offensive in a similar way (unless you count death stacking your entire army in a single tile, but combat width got rid of that). Or do you simply mean that defensive bonuses can now be stacked to a ridiculous degree?
This is (generally)a good thing for German AI though, because their CAS do stupid amounts of org damage, which lets them push so effectively without giving the enemy time to breath.Speaking of planning bonuses, I reckon they're another thing the AI basically ignores. I frequently see AI Germany just constantly attacking over and over, when they'd do much better to build up their planning bonus between attacks.
ai doesn't ignore it entirely, i will see it sometimes wait then attack with full bonus (unless that's reduced through espionage etc). i think this is a function of that battle plan evaluation thing the game has. if it's green the ai will go regardless of planning bonus, but if it's red it will build up first. something like that. it's rudimentary but it isn't quite as bad as "always attack no matter what".Speaking of planning bonuses, I reckon they're another thing the AI basically ignores. I frequently see AI Germany just constantly attacking over and over, when they'd do much better to build up their planning bonus between attacks.
lots of places for ai to put planes, lots of chances to do something stupid.I have no idea where Britains airforce ever is. I love being an Ally trying to hold Germany back, and Britains enormous pile of planes is nowhere to be seen.
spearheads will also participate in pinning attacks (which amazingly, somehow, a few here didn't consider bugged despite it being objectively bugged in the english language).I love creating a spearhead in one direction, and then the battle planner will still decide to attack a city over a river 90 degrees to the right of where I want them to head, so my division has huge combat disadvantages. Just exhilarating.