Resistance casualties totally insane

[Secret Master]

Fun fact; super heavy tanks are good at suppression

I mean, the Maus can't drive over most bridges anyway, so...

 

[Alexs220]

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.



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.



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.



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.

But what all of you are not getting is that manpower laws and recruitment, as well as human casualties are greatly simplified in this game. Germany in this game never suffers from the lack of manpower, as they did historically, in the game you just go to the next manpower law and bang, problem solved. In HOI4 Germany is able to field huge armies, far beyond what it historicaly had. So i dont find it entirely ridickulous that you have lost so many men, especially considering you have annexed USSR up to the Urals.

I agree that this DLC needs to be tuned further, for example they could reduce amount of armor you loose to partisns, or reduce amount of troops and equipment required to garrison a province, but for now it is a decent system meant to keep Grmany in check. IMO i would just worsen the supply in areas with high resistance and decrease division speed there. Because now in order to get this debuff you need 90% resistance which almost never happens.

 

[Alexs220]

Yeah, that sounds pretty unrealistic to me.

Exactly. He conquered all of Europe with mere 133 000 casualties and the thing he is surprised by is garrison losses. We should accept already that population/manpower mechanic in this game is greatly simplified.

 

[smackamack]

Puppets, reichkomisariats, puppet manpower, harder occupation laws, spies. You put civil occupation on the soviets who have ways to buff their resistance. Ouch. Because compliance tops out civil occupation isn’t necessarily the end all answer. To reduce resistance you must increase troop levels. McNamara was told they needed lots of troops to subdue Vietnam and he refused to ask for those troops. You sound like McNamara during Vietnam. If you don’t have the troops to occupy it right (I.e. single digit resistance), than release and puppet. That’s the answer that prevents Germany from getting 1000 military factories.

 

[Reman]

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.

What poor suppression values are you talking about? Medium SPAA has 2 suppression per battalion just like cav and AC...

 

[Reman]

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

Isn't the hardness bonus for garrisons capped at 90%? If it is, then there's no reason to pay a premium for superheavies when normal heavy tanks (or medium TDs) would get you to the 90% threshold.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"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.

No, the response was to OP complaining about the scale of casualties, not that casualties happen. So quoted response does not make sense.

But what all of you are not getting is that manpower laws and recruitment, as well as human casualties are greatly simplified in this game. Germany in this game never suffers from the lack of manpower, as they did historically, in the game you just go to the next manpower law and bang, problem solved. In HOI4 Germany is able to field huge armies, far beyond what it historicaly had. So i dont find it entirely ridickulous that you have lost so many men, especially considering you have annexed USSR up to the Urals.

Some self-consistency in presenting arguments would be nice. It's not coherent to claim that the game should be historical but also that it can't be historical and flounder between these two points as convenient.

 

[Delpheus]

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.

So basically you're saying that buying the DLC is a requirement and the only solution to get casualties to a realistic number is with armored cars :\
What if we don't buy the DLC? The manpower lost to resistance is absolutely insane.

 

[Riftwalker]

Just feel like mentioning, give garrisons high priority or they may have equipment shortfalls that cause more casualties and increase resistance piercing

Also the supression indirectly effects casualties, as you'll need less men to Garrison the same area. If you don't have the exp, you probably need cav + mech or tanks with mp.

 

[CraniumMuppet]

What poor suppression values are you talking about? Medium SPAA has 2 suppression per battalion just like cav and AC...

A light tank 1 costs 8 ic and 2 steel. A 34 AC cposts 4 and 2 steel(I think). Thats just for the first light tank

I was joking about the super heavy

 

[Reman]

A light tank 1 costs 8 ic and 2 steel. A 34 AC cposts 4 and 2 steel(I think). Thats just for the first light tank

'39 medium SPAA are cheaper per-battalion than armored cars. If tungsten is an issue, '34 light SPAA are also much cheaper than armored cars while using the same resources.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Light SPAA has 50% hardness, what's the marginal difference in casualties using that vs alternatives?

 

[CraniumMuppet]

'39 medium SPAA are cheaper per-battalion than armored cars. If tungsten is an issue, '34 light SPAA are also much cheaper than armored cars while using the same resources.

Thats fair enough, although it has less suppression and you need more steel and potentially tungsten, and slightly less hardness on light I think? As Germany that shouldnt be a major hurdle tho. I gotta try it ^^

But whatever works, its fun to see people experimenting

 

[CraniumMuppet]

So basically you're saying that buying the DLC is a requirement and the only solution to get casualties to a realistic number is with armored cars :\
What if we don't buy the DLC? The manpower lost to resistance is absolutely insane.

Try what Reman said, SPAA. Also if u have the advisor to reduce garrison losses, pick it

 

[amocpower]

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.

Do Maintenance (or any another Support companies like Field Hospital) has any impact for Garnison troops?

 

[sekelsenmat]

A light tank 1 costs 8 ic and 2 steel. A 34 AC cposts 4 and 2 steel(I think). Thats just for the first light tank

I was joking about the super heavy

I think that garrison hardness should be capped at 65% (so that Armoured Cars are not affected), because tanks historically didn't help garrisoning and the SPAA meta for supression is absurd...

To decrease a little casualties Field Hospital could be taken into account. Right now tests show it isn't taken into account.

 

[Meglok]

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.

Umm, the OP did note he does not have the DLC, just the patch, so he is not using ACs and is using LA.

 

[CraniumMuppet]

Umm, the OP did note he does not have the DLC, just the patch, so he is not using ACs and is using LA.

I wrote it as a general strategy for everyone who might read it. Otherwise use light tanks if you wanna get some hardness. The other tips still applies.

 

[Eisscrat]

Additions

Prince of Terror came after the Fall of France to reduce losses.

My garrison template was 10 LSPAA and 15 CAV+MP.

I have no shortages of LSPAA so Garrisonstroops were everytime well equipt.

The casualties dont came from soviet resistance. In the last six month when i overun SU i take the lowest losses.

The numbers are direct after capitulation.
After this i get 2 million Manpower from the Russian Empire which is my puppet.
They guard now.

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.

I am open to suggestions to get only a fraction of the losses.

 

[CraniumMuppet]

Additions

Prince of Terror came after the Fall of France to reduce losses.

My garrison template was 10 LSPAA and 15 CAV+MP.

I have no shortages of LSPAA so Garrisonstroops were everytime well equipt.

The casualties dont came from soviet resistance. In the last six month when i overun SU i take the lowest losses.

The numbers are direct after capitulation.
After this i get 2 million Manpower from the Russian Empire which is my puppet.
They guard now.




I am open to suggestions to get only a fraction of the losses.

Maybe remove the horsie bois to increase hardness if you have the equipment for it? There is no real need for horses if you have a better alternative and it reduces your hardness and drives up casualties