Peacetime attrition

[Talar]

Is it possible to set different attrition values for peace and war?

I have no problems with the attrition rates during wartime, but I think there should be a difference in peacetime because it is simply unreasonable having such high losses. In peacetime troops are typically not (permanently) stationed out in trenches and having a large number of soldiers freeze to death would cause some public uproar. A prime example is northern Sweden, troops stationed in Lulea peacetime should simply not freeze/starve to death there regardless of weather.

 

[Tuscan]

Is it possible to set different attrition values for peace and war?

I have no problems with the attrition rates during wartime, but I think there should be a difference in peacetime because it is simply unreasonable having such high losses. In peacetime troops are typically not (permanently) stationed out in trenches and having a large number of soldiers freeze to death would cause some public uproar. A prime example is northern Sweden, troops stationed in Lulea peacetime should simply not freeze/starve to death there regardless of weather.

Not sure how to change it, but I do concur. Peacetime attrition should atleast be considerably lower than wartime. There should just be a very small peacetime attrition to allow for accidents, sickness etc, unless you go sending a massive army into a low infra desert or something.

 

[Amallric]

Rather than peacetime/wartime, attrition must take in account whether the unit is dug in or not I think(since you can dug in in peacetime now). If the unit is dug-in completely(20), attrition should be almost disabled since it represents that the unit has some kinds of quarters or permanent accomodations for its troops. It does not make much sense that army units are dying out in places with permanent, often sizeable population. Those soldiers should be able to accomodate themselves al least as good as the local population.

 

[vitality]

Attrition should be lowered when the armies are in provinces they own and almost disabled when those provinces are cores.

 

[Tegetthoff]

On the one hand:

You freeze to death when its cold and you catch malaria when you are in a swamp, regardless of how good the legal title of your country to this stretch of territory is.

On the other hand:

Yes, attrition seems to be pretty high at the moment. There is a value in misc.txt where you can tune it down, but only overall and not for peace/war or anything else.

 

[sam73]

Didn't attrition in AoD includ normal turn over? This would be higher in peacetime than in wartime.

 

[Amallric]

You freeze to death when its cold and you catch malaria when you are in a swamp, regardless of how good the legal title of your country to this stretch of territory is.

You freeze more when you have to sleep in the open than when you have built some at least semi-permanent shelter.

 

[Talar]

Didn't attrition in AoD include normal turn over? This would be higher in peacetime than in wartime.

But in that case we would also see attrition on units stationed in highinfra provinces so I don't buy that. Now peacetime attrition is so high that it makes sense to pull in units from places where they were historically stationed and put them all in the capital until -39 to have no attrition at all, that just feels wrong.

 

[Balesir]

What sort of attrition rates are you seeing? Even in peacetime, in an army of tens of thousands of combatants, people are getting hurt by accidents and falling ill all the time. Units are seldom actually based in deserts or jungles because the accident and illness rate there tends to be higher. Trickleback means that by no means all the casualties are "dying" (or leaving the service permanently) - they are just spending time in hospital. On top of that there is equipment wear and tear - which is most definitely high from normal operations in deserts, jungles and mountains.

In wartime, attrition should not be going up all over the place simply because it is wartime. It will certainly increase at the front, since there is an attrition modifier for being adjacent to an enemy unit, but troops at home, well away from the front should not be affected more than in peacetime. I can't remember if we activated a partisan level modifier as well - that would certainly make sense.

 

[Amallric]

Well in the current situation I've seen several units simply dying out. They were stationed in areas where millions of people live IRL. And we're not speaking about "normal operations" but rather of units with dug-in 20, that is completely stationary.

The problem is not that there is attrition but that its rate is extremely high in areas considered as "inhospitable", which does not make sense if the unit is staying there long enough to make those areas at least at some extent "hospitable", which is possible and has been done, while the same attrition is nil in the capital and nearby high infra provinces, which leads to an unhistorical dislocation of the whole army to the capital.

 

[Talar]

My last game as Sweden I lost 11% strength from a unit in Lulea around the winters of of 38-39. The attrition rate was usually listed as 0.86%. For Kiruna it was much worse. This was with the CORE mod which I guess can change the rate, but I remember seeing similar results also in standard AoD.

I will take notes more carefully for my next game to get exact data.

Yes, there should be equipment wear etc. even in peacetime, but is this not reflected by supply usage that also increases with low infra? For some random accidents, natural rotation etc. the difference against my units in Stockholm (0 attrition) is just too big. The polar bears in northern Sweden is just a myth you know

 

[Fulmen]

My last game as Sweden I lost 11% strength from a unit in Lulea around the winters of of 38-39. The attrition rate was usually listed as 0.86%. For Kiruna it was much worse. This was with the CORE mod which I guess can change the rate, but I remember seeing similar results also in standard AoD.

I'm getting similar results with Finland in CORE. Throughout the first months of 1936 a division in Petsamo has 1,03% attrition, which is just ridiculous especially when considering that Finns were leading experts in the world regarding operating in a subarctic or extremely cold environment. Initially elsewhere the attrition was between 0,00% and 0,15%, but around February the attrition in Oulu, Kajaani, Joensuu and Sortavala jump to a whopping range of 1,62-1,99%. Military spending is at 100%, which it historically definitely wasn't, yet I'm getting enormous figures like these. Something is definitely wrong here, the figures should be non-existant or very small (0,00-0,01%) throughout the country, especially in peace-time.

Mind you the above are all CORE figures. But if AoD figures are similar, then they need changing too.

 

[dark_melancholy]

But if AoD figures are similar, then they need changing too.

They are. Peacetime attrition in arctic areas needs to be reduced. It's especially problematic for Finland, with their small manpower pool compared to the SU.

 

[Commander666]

Weather report from Ocha, Russia

Date: January 01, 1953
Ground condition - frozen
Wind speed - speed propellor frozen
Temperature - thermometer frozen
Barometric Pressure - frozen.

Additional Notes:
Troops complaining because they are enduring 6.13% attrition. Viewing them I agree that the now turned yellow attrition icon looks bad, but as I have seen some in other areas displaying a sickly greenish icon I told them "Cheer up, things could get worse". They cheered up, and things got worse!. Now they at only 62% strength and winter not even half over yet. END REPORT

AoD 1.05 has the worst attrition rates imaginable. It is so bad it is a challenge to repair aircraft or ships in the winter on account of all the manpower going into dying ground troops. However, put on a Winter Logistics leader and that 6.13% rate reduces to only 0.63%. Just one problem, don't have many Winter Logistics guys. A just Logistics guy (have quite a few) are pretty good to use, but a strictly Winter Specialist (got a lot more of them) suck at lowering winter attrition compared to Logistics specialist.

Ocha is on the island north of Japan which Japan owns the bottom half of (Toyohara). It can be worse than 6.13% (yellow attrition icon) in other locations, other years. Has anybody else seen the greenish attrition icon? Looks like gangrene. Can't get figure... guess they died.

EDIT: A newly deployed unit (zero org, deployed to Soviet Far East in January) initially suffers 35.0% weekly attrition. How's that for spectacular rates?

It's especially problematic for Finland, with their small manpower pool compared to the SU.

NO, it is especially problematic for the Soviets cause I got a lot more guys dying than Fulmen got. I could easily defeat Finland using just my ghost army!

Throughout the first months of 1936 a division in Petsamo has 1,03% attrition, which is just ridiculous especially when considering that Finns were leading experts in the world regarding operating in a subarctic or extremely cold environment.

You should be using "Soviet trained Finns". My Finn infantry in Murmansk (ground frozen, Jan 1953) next door to Petsamo is only suffering 0.58% attrition (icon is still white) because his leader is a Logistics Expert. We annexed Finland years ago and taught them how to live in their country - which is a tropical paradise compared to Siberia. Stop your whining and go chop some more firewood.

My last game as Sweden I lost 11% strength from a unit in Lulea around the winters of of 38-39. The attrition rate was usually listed as 0.86%. For Kiruna it was much worse.

If you like, Talar, we'll come to Sweden and teach you same. :rofl: