theusje said:
djees, potski calm down dude, or you won't be able to remember the guys that died in war X tommorow... btw did you also remember the Germans and AH's that have died in WW1? I know I did.
Of course, all of them. I'd been watching a good program on TV that followed the deaths of men from UK, France, US and Germany on the Western Front on 11 Nov 1918 between the actual signing of the armistice early in the morning and the ceasefire at 11:00. Hundreds of men died that morning in the most pointless waste of lives. US Gen. Pershing in particular insisted on his men carrying out full frontal attacks across open ground to try to capture positions that a couple of hours later they could walk into safely. Yet he knew the War was over. The program interviewed people who had lived most of their lives without knowing their fathers who were killed that day.
theusje said:
As Stalin said before: a million deaths a statistic.
Which was why he was a monster.
theusje said:
If I'm correct this is what HOI looks like for you:
a very large paintball game, played over the entire world. Men shooting at each other and when you get hit you raise your arms and walk to a 'safe area' and have a drink. I can only imagine tanks firing buckets of paint at each other, also using and missing to much flak would lead to lead poisoning your own land... do I have to continue?
:rofl: Maybe you should write a HOI3 Paintball AAR, when the game comes out?
theusje said:
HOI for me looks a lot different:
It is a clean war, more like a sport, which means no civilians and pow are harmed in whatever way and PI does a great job on that part. Yes, soldiers die ...
My point is no soldiers die in HOI. It's a game. I doubt I play it any differently to anyone else who knows it's a game.
theusje said:
and I try to get the best possible result in the most effecient way and this is: maximum killing/capturing (read this as lowering the enemy's potential for winning the war) and minimum loss of my own troops. I also feel 'bad' and I curse on myself when I lose some troops in an encirclement fe. My men shouldn't have died, I'm responsble for them.
Also keep in mind that you only have a few ways of comparing how 'good' you are in HOI:
-you captured X land in Y time.
-I defeated army/navy/airforce X with Y casualties
I really can't think of any other way how to measure how 'well' you did in this game. My excuses for my English, it's middle of the night here.
Nothing wrong with your English, your points are well presented.
I have already said that some improvements might be made in terms of the way some of the statistics and information is handled in HOI, to help us all get the best possible result in the most efficient way.
You have a naval battle and are told the result of which ships on both sides have been sunk. Even convoy raiding, which is abstracted, gives pop-ups in the log showing how many transports and escorts were sunk. But, you have an air battle and are just told "You won" or "You lost". It's impossible to tell whether your air wings were very good in that one engagement, nor even a more generalised view over several engagements.
There are no provinces to capture in the air, nor other indications that give you any clear measure of success. I fought a Battle of Britain, over many weeks, but couldn't tell whether I was actually winning or losing. Which was why IRL it was commonplace for both sides to publish claimed figures of planes downed.
I have no problem discussing the merits of the inclusion of much more detailed statistics, even such as those, knowing IRL that a downed plane meant a good chance of there being another airman killed. I can separate the statistics in the game from RL, and accept the points made by others that there is educational and other value in doing so. From a strategic point of view, you need to know whether the battle is worth the resources involved in constantly providing replacements to the units, or whether you are better off employing them elsewhere.
We can discuss AI losses of 50 divisions in a game, and whether the statistics regarding this might be better presented. As it stands you can only extrapolate the losses by noting the total number of divisions a country has immediately before a DoW, then comparing these to the totals later. But you can't tell how many extra units might have been built in the meantime.
It's even difficult to keep track of the effect of combat on your own units, since you can easily end up with so many of them, and can't possibly follow all of the combats on the battle screens. There are no general statistics giving an overview of how much manpower and IC you have used to build replacements, for instance. Nor how many and which types of understrength units you have waiting for repair/replacements at any one time.
So don't get me wrong - we can talk about these issues, and how Paradox might improve the game in this regard.
However, it becomes a bit uncomfortable when losses are then discussed not in some fairly abstract way, in game terms of units/IC/manpower, but to actual numbers of men KIA, etc. And then someone refers specifically to the
historic millions of Soviet war dead, and says they would "love to see how many millions" of casualties they could inflict. Then thinks this is funny.
Paradox have a difficult job to do to ensure that their game is not hijacked by idiots. So maybe they need to just confirm that it's:
1. No terror bombing
2. No death camps
3. No Nazi symbols
4. No POW's, and
5. No casualty figures giving body counts
