There is no free lunch.

[Alex_brunius]

In HoI2 you will never lose much manpower (strenght) as long as your units have organization left.

The same is true for air and naval units.

BUT! this indicates that a fighting unit cannot lose large amounts of manpower / strenght until its uncapable of inflicting damage on the enemy. This feels wrong, there are examples on all sides of percistent battles where attack after attack managed to overcome defenses (but at a high manpower prince). In HoI2 this is simply not possible because of how organization and strenght losses work.

Another flaw of the system is that you can carry out huge offensives (Barbarossa for example) with very low manpower and reinforcement costs as long as you halt and recover before your units reach zero org. And why wouldn't you since units with zero org can't fight at all?

Only in the last years (1945 & later) does soft attack values get so high that you can get a more realistic representation of what should have happend already in 1941. Strenght losses start to mount up before org reaches zero. Another flaw is the chinese wars, very bloody and manpower intense but not in HoI2! Here units have so low softattack that they can barely scratch eachoter. Another reason behind this is organization, the chinese troops have org to last only 1/5:th of the time in battle compared to latewar major doctrines and sliders.

So what are my Ideas?

1. Soft attack needs to be balanced to inflict more even strenght casualties all the way from 1936-1948. Defense and Organization values MUST work to limit the impact of rising soft attack.

2. All units should take somewhat higher casualties when they have org left (Im using the middle 1941 inf as base of my argument here since str losses rise alot with each model and org).


ANY major invasion or campain should be very costly in terms of both manpower and reinforcements. This is not the case in HoI2.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

I agree - it always annoyed me. Strenght losses should be significant - I always treated Organization like some kind of cohesion.
Strenght losses should be independent OTOH organization should have impact on their amount.

 

[Wulf145]

Agreed but I think strengh loss should still correlate with the Org of a unit.

 

[oribiasi]

Is this really true, that you never lost manpower in a unit so long as at least one point of organization is left?

 

[unmerged(131221)]

Is this really true, that you never lost manpower in a unit so long as at least one point of organization is left?

In the first half of war I do not have sifgnificant strenght looses even in Russia. Consider 1500K German KIA, WIA and MIA in the first year of combat in Russia and you will see the diference (it wasnt well represented in HoI2). It needs to go high IMO.

 

[Bullfrog]

Is this really true, that you never lost manpower in a unit so long as at least one point of organization is left?

no, mp was lost in combat, but not at nearly the rate as when org was at 0.

 

[oribiasi]

I agree, you should lose more people in combat, but it still should be more if your Org. is high than if it is low. Of course, the more modern your army is, the less you'd lose -- for example, an armored division fighting against an infantry division with no anti-tank units would IMO take very few losses because it is almost impossible to stop them.

Another problem that perhaps, given the specificity I have seen so far in regards to gun size, engine type in the dev. diaries might have been addressed already is the fact that in WWII (and I have asked older veterans about th is) there were times when units went up against each other and one could not even hurt the other.

Case in point -- imagine a ME262 fighting against a P51. The bullet speed of the P51 isn't even fast enough to catch that jet fighter, so it would have to be pure luck that they shot one down. Or, take for instance an anti-tank gun firing against the frontal armor of a Panzer VI/Tiger tank. If it is an earlier-war gun, which I imagine many units still had, it wouldn't even penetrate the armor.

Does anyone thing this is possible in the new game>

 

[Peekee]

I am not sure about this. A lot of the combat especially early in the war was movement and breakthrough rather than attrition. If you fight lots with your units then you will loose (some) manpower and IMO this is ok in HOI2. This seems to increase as tech levels go up and so somewhat fits in with history. (If for the wrong reasons)

The one thing that is a bit weird is that if you have units right next to one another and at war that they do not fight at all. There is no skirmish/bombardment between static units only once one of them starts to move. This is probably an overlooked cause of attrition over time when fighting a long war.

 

[MadlockUK]

I am not sure about this. A lot of the combat especially early in the war was movement and breakthrough rather than attrition. If you fight lots with your units then you will loose (some) manpower and IMO this is ok in HOI2. This seems to increase as tech levels go up and so somewhat fits in with history. (If for the wrong reasons)

The one thing that is a bit weird is that if you have units right next to one another and at war that they do not fight at all. There is no skirmish/bombardment between static units only once one of them starts to move. This is probably an overlooked cause of attrition over time when fighting a long war.

Agreed, espcially since when I've played as Russia or Germany and they start to inevitablly duke it out, I was in such an intense stalemate with the Axis Powers and allies that my manpower was being lost across the board, though I did probably end up having about 21+ stacks in every province after gaining into Europe but I'd have to wait out for manpower to increase so it actually seems all right to me the manpower system they had. I also would lose manpower prior to 0org but it usually had to get pretty low which seems to happen fairly quickly save a HQ in the stack itself.

 

[oribiasi]

You must also remember that there were such things as soliders dying of the flu, various wounds, traffic accidents, self-inflicted wounds, stuff like that. Sometimes snipers would pick off officers (think Stalingrad, of course). These losses are small, sure, but also not represented. Losing three Colonels in a fight and having to promote some Majors might hurt the day to day operations of the army, as well as the attack efficiency.

But don't you think that better armed/armored units would not take as many significant manpower losses than their lesser armed counterparts?

And aren't better airplanes/faster airplanes more prone to not losing as many pilots? How does that not make sense?

 

[unmerged(34050)]

I don't know...

In the air, bombers when intercepted can lose over 1/2 their strength in one combat--which is totally unrealistic for large formations (if one air unit = 50-100 a/c)--losses of 10% were considered very high!

(It is true that small formations could be massacred, like a dozen Blenheims attacking Kiel in daylight, but that's not HOIs scale.)

And, I've always found it rather fascinating how relatively low the casualty levels were compared to the forces involved in some campaigns, such as the Yugo/Greek invasions...

 

[oribiasi]

I don't know...

In the air, bombers when intercepted can lose over 1/2 their strength in one combat--which is totally unrealistic for large formations (if one air unit = 50-100 a/c)--losses of 10% were considered very high!

(It is true that small formations could be massacred, like a dozen Blenheims attacking Kiel in daylight, but that's not HOIs scale.)

And, I've always found it rather fascinating how relatively low the casualty levels were compared to the forces involved in some campaigns, such as the Yugo/Greek invasions...

I think everyone admits that air combat has never been well represented in HoI series. Stacking is silly, and you're right, the losses are overwhelming when compared to real life. I mean, if a raid of 500 bombers comesback with 450 they thought it was outrageously too high. I don't know how/if they will be able to fix this, but we shall see.

But about the ground casualties, ever read "Slaughterhouse-5" by Kurt Vonnegut? He was on the front lines during the Battle of the Bulge, and he never saw a gun fired! Their (German) armor advanced so quickly and decisively that he suddenly found himself behind enemy lines...and hence, was quickly captured. So it is possible for a huge loss of life but a lot of people rounded up/captured...which brings me to POWs, but I feel like the designers are not allowed to code for that/make that in the game for political reasons, which might explain the higher loss of life to compensate.

Make sense?

 

[Myth]

Loss of strength is not equivalent to loss of life. Loss of strength is loss of life and loss to capture, MIA, etc. Non-crippling WIA are loss of strength that return to your manpower pool through trickleback and can be employed again whereas those WIA who were crippled/whatnot don't return--a loss of strength (but not loss of life).

 

[TheLand]

no, mp was lost in combat, but not at nearly the rate as when org was at 0.

This is because, ever since HOI1, the Org damage of a hit calculated in land combat was greater than the Str damage. If I remember rightly an armored division in HOI1, according to the Manual, was doing 5-15% Org damage vs only 1-3% Str damage.

At Org =0 Org damage is received as Str damage.

This was indeed somewhat artificial. There are many occasions in 20th C history when a unit has taken 50%-70% casualties in a short period of time but has retained cohesion and remained an effective fighting unit (at least long enough to be relieved). Intelligence, leadership and preparation were all important in doing so...

In HOI3 of course we have a new mechanic for very low Org situations with the 'shattering' of divisions...

 

[oribiasi]

In HOI3 of course we have a new mechanic for very low Org situations with the 'shattering' of divisions...

Ah yes...shattering, I am still sort of unsure about what that means, aside from the fact that the division re-appears at your capital eventually.

 

[Rocket88]

I agree with the comments about manpower losses - but surely in HOI2 terms loss of strength also represents equipment as well?
I've always assumed the heavier strength losses for air units are trying to model a high proportion of shot-up a/c which limp home but are never going to be available for the next sortie.

 

[TheLand]

Ah yes...shattering, I am still sort of unsure about what that means, aside from the fact that the division re-appears at your capital eventually.

was dealt with at length around the relevant dev diary!

A low-org (and perhaps low-str? don't recall) unit can shatter.

A 'remnant' division around 5% strength reappears in the capital and can, over time, be rebuilt into a fighting formation. Much of the unit experience is retained.

The rest of the manpower embodied in the 'shattered' unit is lost (can't remember if a fraction trickles back into the manpower pool or not)

So in gameplay terms, low-Org units suffer a very big sudden Str loss - rather than the HOI2 phenomenon of gradually being wiped out...

 

[Neomann]

was dealt with at length around the relevant dev diary!

A low-org (and perhaps low-str? don't recall) unit can shatter.

A 'remnant' division around 5% strength reappears in the capital and can, over time, be rebuilt into a fighting formation. Much of the unit experience is retained.

The rest of the manpower embodied in the 'shattered' unit is lost (can't remember if a fraction trickles back into the manpower pool or not)

So in gameplay terms, low-Org units suffer a very big sudden Str loss - rather than the HOI2 phenomenon of gradually being wiped out...

I like this idea, it will make the game more realistic on combat casualties... No more "lost organisation"-> withdraw.... I had to made allways encirclement with germany to hope to beat Russia...

 

[Alex_brunius]

What Im against is that you usually take at least 5 times more strenght (and therefor also manpower & reinforcement) losses when your on the losing side. I would accept if you took 25, 50 or even 100% more losses when org is depleated, but not 250-500% more losses.

Both Germany and Soviet lost huge amount of troops when they were winning/advancing too, but in HoI2 thats not the case once you learn how to not group infantry with tanks. In an (historical) HoI2 Barbarossa Germany will have very low losses before Stalingrad and Soviet will have very low losses after 43. If you check the real numbers thats not true at all. Losses were much more consistent and high even if you were winning.

Part of this will be aleviated by the retreating side taking somewhat less losses with divisions retreating individually.

But IMO something is needed to make offensives reinforcement and manpower costly too.

In some respect tech is not as important as many people want to have it. The me262 is faster then a bullet? You can still shoot it down in a head on engagement and when comming up behind it in a dive, its your airplanes relative speed that needs to be compared to that of the bullet, not the me262 speed relative to ground. The Tiger tank got impenetrable armor? Not from above(air/artillery), below(mines) or behind(flanked). And there will always be ways to inflict casualties to the 95% of the armored division thats not Tiger tanks.

This is proven by history. Large scale attacks are very costly also when advancing and winning. There is no free lunch.

Perhaps this entire argument is useless and they have made it so no unit keeps fighting when org is zero. That solution might work too as long as soft attack is balanced.

If you look at soft attack from a larger historical perspective it makes little sense to have WW1 tech units almost unable to damage eachother. I think we all can agree that WW1 tech divisions are proved to be able to annihilate eachother just as much as 1945 vs 1945 tech units are if not even more.

 

[unmerged(94655)]

Try playing wif for hoi2. the combat system is modified so that battles last days and weeks instead of just hours. by the end of a battle ive had units severely under strength and while i can quickly reinforce them it uses up a lot of mp sometimes more than 100mp after a major battle. it makes fighting russia quite tough as you have to encircle them which is not as easy in wif as they have so many divs that they can keep feeding them into the battle forcing germany into a battle of attrition it just cant win.

this is the sort of combat mechanism i would like to see in hoi3 i.e. long drawn out battles which force you to think not just use a super stack of infantry to win. though the new frontage system should do this