Resistance casualties totally insane

[Eisscrat]

Im now nearly over with my first round with Germany in Feb 42.

Soviet union has fallen and gets annexed to the urals.

I conquered all of Europe besides of Italy and Switzerland and Finnland.
I choose the lightest occupation law (civilian oversight) to get compliance fast and don't have too send lots of men to protect the countries.

I dont pay 20 bucks for the DLC cause i dont care of spys in a wargame.
Also i have to use light AAtanks for garrison instead of armoured cars.

I lost in this wars ~133.000 Soldiers and ~590 light tanks and light SPGs also around 160 medium tanks and SPGs in battle also 1366 light tanks and light SPGs to attrition.

altogether
133.000 Men
1953 light tanks/SPGs

to resistancefighters i loose from Aug39-Feb42
265.000 Men
2300 lightAAtanks

How the Hell is this possible?
I lost more tanks to partisans then to the enemys armys. Even with the insane attrition.
This are nearly 9000 Men and 80 AAtanks in a month for all the 30 month
Its only slow down after 2 years of occupation. In the last 6 month i only loose 35.000 men and 371 AAtanks.

First Year Aug39-Aug40 i loose
101.000 soldiers out of 405.000 Garrisontroops
908 AA tanks out of 1839 AAtanks

From Aug40-Aug41
120.000 soldiers out of 218.000 Garrisontroops
1023AA tanks out of 1587AAtanks

From Aug41-Feb42
35.000 soldiers out of 341.000 Garrisontroops
371tanks out of 2400AAtanks


This is absolute insane!

So in the first year the death rate of the Garrisons were a quarter of all men!
And half of the AA tanks were blown up by partisans without AT weapons!

In the second year
Over half of the men were killed!!!
And two third of the AA tanks were blown to pieces!!!

In this two years every month
over 9000 men ant 80 AAtanks were wiped out.
Thats a division every month gets slaughtered by partisans.

Who approve that?
Who tested this and says it is working as intended?

So i trained a lot in the game to win the wars with as low casualties as possible and then lost over the double in occupation and are not able to do something else against it because i have no control. Even i used the lowest harsh law.

Also the garrisontroops dont care if you set there equipment to not use the best weapons.
They take the newest stuff out of the storage. So you cant give them the old FT17 tanks and they take away lots of new produced infantry equipment while al lot of old weapons in storage. This also is annoying.
This worked with the old garrisonsystem. Now its broken.


"Paradox what you've done... Is one of the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever played. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent update, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this game is now dumber for having played it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

[currylambchop]

Soviet Union was fighting a war for survival. If it had fallen, do you not think the people would have resisted to their last breath?

 

[sekelsenmat]

Soviet union has fallen and gets annexed to the urals.

Release everything non-essential as puppets. In diplomacy screen for the puppet there is an option "Request manpower for garrison". Now your puppet's man will garrison the parts you don't want to puppet because you want for yourself. Problem solved.

 

[Dan1109]

"Paradox what you've done... Is one of the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever played. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent update, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this game is now dumber for having played it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

He won't have mercy on you either with a comment like that.

 

[sekelsenmat]

He won't have mercy on you either with a comment like that.

Ironically I'd expect people to be smarter after playing 1.9 and learning that Bhutan would never be able to deal with the resistance caused by their world conquest.

Besides when reading the OP I imagine Kennedy phoning someone: That guerilla in Vietnam is OP!

Or Bush calling: Please nerf the resistance in Iraq! They are destroying my Abrahams tanks! Totally OP!

 

[Simon_9732495]

The Patch and the DLC are about resistance.
No surprise it has become more realistic. Annexing countries now comes at a price.

 

[Captured Joe]

Soviet union has fallen and gets annexed to the urals.

Here's your problem.

 

[Eisscrat]

Here's your problem.

No.
Resistance in ex Soviet territory has not even startet. They just capitulated.

Besides when reading the OP I imagine Kennedy phoning someone: That guerilla in Vietnam is OP!

Or Bush calling: Please nerf the resistance in Iraq! They are destroying my Abrahams tanks! Totally OP!

The US loose 58.000 men in about 8 years against regular troops from a enemy country and support from the Soviets.
"My" Partisans have no help from outside whatsoever.

How many M1 tanks where destroyed? hundreds? Thousands?
And again the same. Iraqi Terrorist get a lot of help from outside.

I searched for real sums from WW2 but find very few information. One mentions about 2000 killed soldiers by resistance in France. mostly in 1944 after the invasion.
If you had additional numbers i am glad to read them.

 

[Captured Joe]

Well this is what I found for the Balkans alone:

Consolidated reports on German losses in the Balkans from April 1941 to May 1945 may also be found. One states that casualties in the Balkans from the invasion of Yugoslavia to the end of the war included 24,267 KIA, and 12,050 MIA. Another (found in the same document) states that casualties in OB Southeast (i.e., the Balkans including Greece) were 19,235 KIA, 55,069 WIA, and 14,805 MIA for a total of 89,109. No reason was given for the discrepancy between these two figures. However, the Heeresartz made a more precise count, reporting that as of 20 April 1945, a total of 22,370 KIA, 70,064 WIA, and 24,620 MIA (a total of 117,054) had been lost in OB Southeast. That would mean that the 43,422 casualties incurred by the Second Panzer Army from 1 September 1943 to 30 November 1944 accounted for 34 percent of all of the casualties incurred by OB Southeast for the entire war.

From: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=126080

EDIT:
German casualty numbers for just Yugoslavia, 1941-44: http://www.vojska.net/eng/world-war-2/germany/casualties/
The April 1941 operations were the initial conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece, the rest is guerrilla warfare.

 

[Funki83]

i agree that casualties are pretty high. Just think the resistance could not launch operations 24/7.
they had to wait for a good chance, always in their mind the Germans will hardly punish their attack.

Resistance is good, but its…. i would not call it OP , but it should be de-buffed .

Partisans never launched attacks 24/7, they had to collect weapons and ammunition. They had to prepare their strikes sometimes in combination with foreign intelligence.
And they knew the about the consequences, for example Destruction f a whole town including the population by SS ...etc.
so both ways are not historical , u cant annex without resistance. And u cant "resistance around" without consequences.

Might PDX should at a kinda Cooldown for resistance. Maybe partisans just strikes when resistance lvl is above 50%, if they strike it might loose 10 or 20% to simulate punishment by occupier.

Dont get me wrong, but no Occupier would let his garrisons get slaughtered without any punishment.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Soviet Union was fighting a war for survival. If it had fallen, do you not think the people would have resisted to their last breath?

Non-sequitur response.

OP's complaints are valid from *both* historical and gameplay perspectives. It's ridiculous to take *way more* troop casualties from garrison duty than from actual combat offensives. In terms of history it's a fantasy mechanic...nothing even remotely on this scale happened. In terms of gameplay, especially the AI takes heavy casualties from itself, basically. Human players can limit the casualties with specific setups, making alternative choices false choices. Which is bad.

Besides when reading the OP I imagine Kennedy phoning someone: That guerilla in Vietnam is OP!

Or Bush calling: Please nerf the resistance in Iraq! They are destroying my Abrahams tanks! Totally OP!

The losses OP describes from an abstracted "resistance" alone are roughly equivalent to all sources of casualties inflicted on military personnel by North Vietnam combined. Using historical realism as an attempt to refute the OP's complaint is disingenuous.

No surprise it has become more realistic.

If by "realistic" you mean "orders of magnitude outside the realm of any historical example ever" then sure. It's "realistic". But that's not what "realistic" actually means.

The April 1941 operations were the initial conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece, the rest is guerrilla warfare.

This doesn't exactly support a refutation of OP's complaint, to put it mildly.

If we wanted to make this more sane casualties would be tuned way down and damage to factories/productivity and infrastructure would be increased to compensate. This allows for a constraint on productivity of occupied lands consistent with history, without inflicting la la land fantasy casualty rates while pretending the justification is historical. You could obviously still have country rise up if it gets too high.

 

[Secret Master]

You need to create garrisons that use a good template. I can get casualties from occupied Europe plus 100% of the Soviet Union two years after capitulation to a fraction of what the OP is experiencing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You need to create garrisons that use a good template. I can get casualties from occupied Europe plus 100% of the Soviet Union two years after capitulation to a fraction of what the OP is experiencing.

Yes, but I hold the variance in casualties is too extreme and what is at risk should be something else (productive capability). By its very nature resistance tends to avoid pitched/open battles with garrisons, because that tends to quell potential for more resistance. Sometimes their hand is forced regardless.

 

[Martynios]

They are destroying my Abrahams tanks!

did they though

 

[CraniumMuppet]

A pretty ok strategy is going AC, (just set around 5 mils after getting the basic production going, increase as needed but before you need it, not after or you will get a shortfall). Hardness reduces losses and I think that ACs have more hardness than light tanks

In high resistance areas you might wanna do local police force, let compliance build up then switch to civilian as needed. Get the advisor which reduces garrison damage if needed.

Late game where you are at you should have enough xp to slap on a big template and a mp support unit. Losses should be much more managable. I dont get close to those numbers unless I go full brutal oppression horsie bois.

Tanks are probably not the best in the long term for suppression.

 

[Foogsie]

Do you have a Prince of Terror? Also Local Police Force is much better than Civilian Oversight if you're trying to mitigate losses. Most places should give you way more production and even manpower to an extent than they siphon with garrison attrition if you set up for it.

 

[Secret Master]

Tanks are probably not the best in the long term for suppression.

No, they aren't in most cases. The cost for the hardness they provide (LARM) is not that great. And non-LARM have poor suppression values.

In some cases, if you have LARM you simply can't use, you can add it to the garrison template on the assumption that you might as well expend that ordnance.

 

[Simon_9732495]

If by "realistic" you mean "orders of magnitude outside the realm of any historical example ever" then sure. It's "realistic". But that's not what "realistic" actually means.

"Realistic" means, that occupying so many countries can be without consequencs. It has to hurt. The pain comes ingame from
a) having to prepare good garrison troops and using IC therefore, using collaboration, spies, advisors
b) losing a significant amount of manpower and equipment to resistance.

 

[CraniumMuppet]

No, they aren't in most cases. The cost for the hardness they provide (LARM) is not that great. And non-LARM have poor suppression values.

In some cases, if you have LARM you simply can't use, you can add it to the garrison template on the assumption that you might as well expend that ordnance.

Yeah, as long as you have tanks over you might as well chuck them in there. Just keep an eye for when they run out.

Fun fact; super heavy tanks are good at suppression but impossible to produce enough of. That hardness tho

 

[Emren]

Soviet union has fallen and gets annexed to the urals.

I conquered all of Europe besides of Italy and Switzerland and Finnland.

I lost in this wars altogether
133.000 Men
1953 light tanks

How the Hell is this possible?

Yeah, that sounds pretty unrealistic to me.