Shouldn't there be a slow drip of manpower attrition for both sides when units are entrenched across from each other?

[Prairie_Doggin]

Even if there isn't an active offensive operation happening, there would surely still be raids, sniper fire, artillery barrages, scouting and disease... Seems like a slow loss of manpower when you have two static defensive lines opposing each other makes a lot of sense logically and historically. Maybe there should also be a couple tech choices to reduce your attrition and/or boost enemy attrition.

Why is something like that not in the game?

 

[DaReal-BurningDeath]

You are absolutly right. I think this should be in the game.

 

[Ilyasviel]

How do you determine which divisions lose what? It feels like it would be unfairly punishing for low pop countries.

 

[Prairie_Doggin]

How do you determine which divisions lose what? It feels like it would be unfairly punishing for low pop countries.

Doctrine, tech, support companies.. take your pick. Each could contribute to the equation.

For example, grand battle plan doctrine with engineer company will take less trench attrition than mobile warfare without engineers.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

this would be horribly unfun to deal with. let attackers choose where and when they attack.

 

[Fulmen]

This was modelled, if not in HoI2, in one or more of its spin-offs (in at least AoD, most likely): divisions neighbouring hostile divisions would suffer an attrition rate of something to the effect of 0.01%. Unfortunately in HoI4 attrition does not directly affect manpower at all.

 

[Findell_HOI]

There should maybe be some bleed off if they have line artillery in the divisions but in ww2 entrenched positions were really quite far apart for infantry units to do anything about.

 

[Prairie_Doggin]

this would be horribly unfun to deal with. let attackers choose where and when they attack.

It’s something real commanders definitely had to consider, so I think having to also consider it as a player would actually be more fun. You do you though.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

the game abstracts stuff like this out

 

[Prairie_Doggin]

the game abstracts stuff like this out

I don’t see anything being abstracted, actually. You can have two hostile armies entrenched for years like ww1 western front with zero casualties. In reality there would be constant small scale engagements.

To me, something like this would change gameplay very little. It’s not going to make or break your campaign.

“Well then what’s the point??”

It would just be a nice little touch for added role play and historical flavor. Why anyone would be opposed to stuff like that is something I guess I don't really understand.

 

[Kanitatlan]

For this to be modelled correctly it would need to operate as a reduced rate of combat based on the existing combat algorithms. It should probably be one round of combat for each side as the attacker and one as the defender with a seriously reduced casualty rate. This would probably be quite realistic but would put a truly excessive load on the game. That's the real problem with it, you just shafted performance to get this into the game. Anything else is likely to be seriously unrealistic.

 

[Prairie_Doggin]

For this to be modelled correctly it would need to operate as a reduced rate of combat based on the existing combat algorithms. It should probably be one round of combat for each side as the attacker and one as the defender with a seriously reduced casualty rate. This would probably be quite realistic but would put a truly excessive load on the game. That's the real problem with it, you just shafted performance to get this into the game. Anything else is likely to be seriously unrealistic.

Honestly, I think you're overthinking it. It would not need to be that complex. When two divisions become entrenched in adjacent provinces, some baseline of hourly attrition starts (a very small amount), and each side has a few modifiers based on what I described above. Much more realistic than the front line being 100% safe unless an offensive starts.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

Honestly, I think you're overthinking it. It would not need to be that complex. When two divisions become entrenched in adjacent provinces, some baseline of hourly attrition starts (a very small amount), and each side has a few modifiers based on what I described above. Much more realistic than the front line being 100% safe unless an offensive starts.

not every pair of neighboring divisions are engaged in trench warfare, though. it just doesn't make sense. my tanks waiting on the frontline to make a pincer attack should not be taking x% losses (on top of normal attrition from terrain) just because the enemy has a 10w militia on the frontline.

 

[LordWahu]

not every pair of neighboring divisions are engaged in trench warfare, though. it just doesn't make sense. my tanks waiting on the frontline to make a pincer attack should not be taking x% losses (on top of normal attrition from terrain) just because the enemy has a 10w militia on the frontline.

I was having a conversation in another thread about having hit-and-runs be more effective, and I feel you accidentally found a way

Having commando units be better at causing attrition in nearby enemies would be a good way to make them more useful, better modeling raids and small unit actions that aren't full battles

 

[pro.gamer.69]

I was having a conversation in another thread about having hit-and-runs be more effective, and I feel you accidentally found a way

Having commando units be better at causing attrition in nearby enemies would be a good way to make them more useful, better modeling raids and small unit actions that aren't full battles

that i agree with but it should be unique to them. and even then there's an issue for all mechanics that apply a flat attrition which is that they don't model the (already very abstract) things which determine how many losses a unit receives in combat. for example a bunch of commandos are going to do less damage against units with more hardness/armor. unfortunately that kind of stuff is mostly below the level of what hoi4 can model.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Honestly, I think you're overthinking it. It would not need to be that complex. When two divisions become entrenched in adjacent provinces, some baseline of hourly attrition starts (a very small amount), and each side has a few modifiers based on what I described above. Much more realistic than the front line being 100% safe unless an offensive starts.

The problem with implementing anything is that it has to reasonably accurately simulate the relative casualties that you would expect to occur. If one side has a strong force deeply entrenched behind a river line then I shouldn't be able to trigger attrition where they take more losses than me by virtue of creeping up with a minimal force that they could easily push back (losing their entrenchment). This means that the attrition must take into account all of the issues that would arise in a normal battle situation. Even then it needs careful thought to avoid potential exploitation. That is the basic problem, balanced and non-exploitable. My concern is that you would be opening a Pandora's box of potential game flaws.

 

[Lamartine]

Leaving aside the question of realism. What would this mean for game play? It's not necessarily good for balance to stack defensive modifiers so that you can bleed the adjacent enemy division down to green veterancy and the nation down to zero manpower without ever entering combat.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

Why should we be bothered by these minituae when e.g. a HoI4 factory and the rest of economy takes exactly 0 manpower to operate? If you want meaningful realism, there are far better ways to start it off than trench attrition.

 

[Findell_HOI]

Why should we be bothered by these minituae when e.g. a HoI4 factory and the rest of economy takes exactly 0 manpower to operate? If you want meaningful realism, there are far better ways to start it off than trench attrition.

Thats because the manpower stat only represents fighting manpower as a % of the people in your country willing to fight.

 

[Prairie_Doggin]

not every pair of neighboring divisions are engaged in trench warfare, though. it just doesn't make sense. my tanks waiting on the frontline to make a pincer attack should not be taking x% losses (on top of normal attrition from terrain) just because the enemy has a 10w militia on the frontline.

If you had an armored division staged for an attack, there would still be scouts and other screening forces operating close to the enemy contact line. I’m not saying you’re bleeding heavy armor, but there would still be skirmishes and some limited casualties.