Question about Dakrest hour - Casualties

[Hickz]

Are we going to see this kind of information displayed?

This was one of the big reasons I played AOD and enjoyed it.

It was a huge immersing factor for me.

I found a thread that said some "losses" will be taken into account but I have yet to see an actual confirmation of a man for man casualty list.

Would love to hear any kind of info on this since it will prob be the deciding factor for my purchasing the game.

 

[unmerged(256852)]

not to open another thread:
will there be like in AoD option to speed up production for a lot of IC as cost??

 

[MartinBG]

No, there are no MP casualties logger and no production speed-up in Darkest Hour 1.00

 

[Hickz]

Any plans on adding them in?

 

[xtfoster]

Any plans on adding them in?

Just my opinions.
For the second, probably not. We did everything we could to make sure building times were as accurate as we could make them. Why mess with that.
For the first, no clue, but I have been against it from the beginning. Historically, no two nations (or divisions within a nation for that matter) used divisions of the same exact size, so what basis would you use to decide what 1 MP of losses was?

 

[Bummy]

Why should it be absolutely correct? They just add lots of fun when you can compare losses you have inflicted against ones you have suffered. One manpower could be anything, 800 to 1500 man, it doesn't matter. Or they could be just marked with how many MP was lost as divisions of every nation probably costs same MP to build.

I still hope that this will be introduced to game sooner or later. Comparing losses in singleplayer and multiplayer is great. Also statistics about convoys being sunk. Maybe it's just that I love numbers but still.

 

[seattle]

Frankly, does it really matter what an individual thinks? The customers are very passionate about an AoD-style casualty screen. How many topics and comments have been made about this very topic? It seems that this feature is the most wanted of all! I for one will buy the game once it is implemented, not one second earlier.

I am convinced that DH is better than AoD, but the casualty stats alone make me wanna play AoD more. It doesn't have to be perfectly accurate. Maybe it's best it isn't, real life stats aren't accurate either. Nobody's bitchin' about that! Stats do give a tendency and an idea what goes on.

In AoD for instance, I would measure the effectiveness of my AA by monitoring enemy bomber losses. Easy as pie! How is the naval warfare going? Just look at the stats. Am I fighting a winning war of attrition on the western front in WW1? I don't know... what can I do? Oh, why not look at the casualty stats??? France roughly lost 500k men this year, I lost 450k. Looks like this won't be over soon. If instead my tech, tactics and forts shift that number vastly in my favour, I know that I will win the attrition. How can I tell in vanilla or DH? I can't.

Listen to your customers, please!!!!
We want the stat screen and we want it as detailled as AoD has it. What's the harm???? You could even add it as DLC for 2 quid. I will happily pay whatever you want for it.

And please: Don't close this thread! The topic will come up anyways, you might as well leave one thread open for good. It's much easier on you and us this way.

 

[MartinBG]

Comparing losses in singleplayer and multiplayer is great. Also statistics about convoys being sunk.

Ships and convoy losses are logged by type and displayed on 2 stat. page (Inflicted and Taken losses)

 

[PSJK]

Casualty losses adds tons of immersion, so yeah those should be added.

 

[Cybvep]

Nobody really cared about the fact that those losses were arbitrary. They were there to compare the effectiveness of your armies.

 

[seattle]

Casualty losses adds tons of immersion, so yeah those should be added.

That and it's a vital tool for warfare!
Think baseball without stats. No American would enjoy watching baseball without studying the myriad of stats available to analyze the game. Stats serve a purpose beyond immersion. No business can exist without stats and a wargame without detailled AoD-style stats is rather shallow by default.

The biggest problem is that Fernando Torres promised this feature some time ago and got us all pumped for it. Nobody ever demanded accurate stats. Everybody was perfectly happy with AoD's stats. Just promise us that you'll include the stats in a near-future patch and we'll all be happy campers.

 

[MartinBG]

Of course more statistics are going to be added later.
Correct implementation of this (by the standards of Darkest Hour at least) is not a one day tasks, especially as that interfere with other changes we're going to introduce in the future, so we decided to leave that for now and focus on other and more important for the game play features.

 

[the_legion]

I wouldn't like statistics that tell me I've lost 15732 men and 352 tanks.
In WW2-Era, noboby had statistics of that accuracy.

"You've lost aproximately 15000 men and 350 tanks,
Your enemy has lost ..."
would be perfect.

The non-plus-ultra would be campaign-stats (In your war against Poland you've lost X men, and poland lost Y).

 

[oribiasi]

Nobody really cared about the fact that those losses were arbitrary. They were there to compare the effectiveness of your armies.

I cared; I mean, if you know your divisions are of a certain MP amount then it makes a difference. One of the (few) reasons I like HoI3 is that you know the brigade amounts so you can craft your own "kinds" of divisions which is awesome.

That said, if this isn't included then so be it; I also am alright with the abstract nature of HoI2 in this regard.

 

[oribiasi]

I wouldn't like statistics that tell me I've lost 15732 men and 352 tanks.
In WW2-Era, noboby had statistics of that accuracy.

"You've lost aproximately 15000 men and 350 tanks,
Your enemy has lost ..."
would be perfect.

The non-plus-ultra would be campaign-stats (In your war against Poland you've lost X men, and poland lost Y).

Some nations were WAY more accurate than others; democracies in WW2 usually got it very close to correct. The USSR had so many conscripts that I am guessing they were far from accurate, not to mention that they always said they lost less/ore than they actually did for political reasons.

 

[Easy1]

Just my opinions.
For the second, probably not. We did everything we could to make sure building times were as accurate as we could make them. Why mess with that.
For the first, no clue, but I have been against it from the beginning. Historically, no two nations (or divisions within a nation for that matter) used divisions of the same exact size, so what basis would you use to decide what 1 MP of losses was?

Divisions already cost the same amount of manpower in DH, so that is not really a relevant problem. The different number of men in each dicvision for the combatants did not really affect the loss statistics. The total number of men on the battlefield is what conts, how these are organized divison-wise doesn't really matter

I truly, madly, deeply want casualty statistics!

 

[Cybvep]

The total number of men on the battlefield is what conts, how these are organized divison-wise doesn't really matter

What? Are you saying that the whole military hierarchy is of no significance?

 

[Solo?]

Divisions already cost the same amount of manpower in DH, so that is not really a relevant problem. The different number of men in each dicvision for the combatants did not really affect the loss statistics. The total number of men on the battlefield is what conts, how these are organized divison-wise doesn't really matter

I truly, madly, deeply want casualty statistics!

I was about to post the same response. I can't believe this won't be added. It adds so much immersion. I have hours of nerdy fun comparing my current game casualties with the actual historic casualties at certain points in my campaigns in AoD+IC. I wish it was possible to only show casualties for specific dates e.g. only showing casualties of opposing sides during your Operation Fall Weiss or the first month of Barbarossa. I think the majority of us are aware of how inaccurate and unreliable such statistics will be, but damn it, I want them!

 

[the_legion]

Some nations were WAY more accurate than others; democracies in WW2 usually got it very close to correct. The USSR had so many conscripts that I am guessing they were far from accurate, not to mention that they always said they lost less/ore than they actually did for political reasons.

The USSR had better things to do then counting and of course they had much more to count if you compare to US for example.
Counting 25million is a harder task then counting 250k... and the USSR had semi-regular and irregular troups which are sometimes counted
and sometimes not which the US hadn't. So it's not just a democracy<>totalitarian thing.
Just wanted to say that it doesn't matter if you lost 1 or 2 additional men (I'm talking like a dictator now ^^). It's the trend that matters for a DH-Player.

 

[Mario78]

Me, too. I hope casualties will be included asap. Otherwise I will have to go back to my old habits of trying to calculate them on my own, which is, of course, cumbersome, boring and much less accurate. We all realize that these statistics will NEVER be accurate, but as there is a way to know how many men are in the three armed forces at any given time and how many are needed for having your divisions at full strength, it should not be so terribly difficult to have some sort of rough estimate of men, tanks, and planes lost