Question about Dakrest hour - Casualties

[ewphoenix123]

Then if there are serious reasons behind that can you tell them to us please? Currently there is neither logic or reason to be so stubborn.

Nothing to do with being stubborn, most of the team actually pushed for the implementation.

The problem was/is that there are concrete plans to do some improvements on the way land brigades work, like userdefinable types and perhabs some other nice things. *g* (no idea when this will be added but it's in the pipeline)
Once this is in, the whole process of creating the loss statistics for landunits would have to be reworked from scratch again, especially as it's no to clear yet how it will finally look,
So adding the loss statistics before this feature is in, would be a wasted week.

 

[seattle]

Can't answer that question. I've never played it (or seen it played, looked at the AoD forums, etc.)

This is how casualty stats should look like:

With that screen I can tell that I have shot down 33.000 enemy bombers which means, my AA is pretty effective. I also have sunk 2600 convoys which is nice. Comparing the "losses" and "inflicted losses" screens I get a very accurate picture of my effectiveness. If I lose 2 mio. soldiers and inflict 5.6 mio. upon my enemies, then I must being doing quite well.

There are 3 major reasons that make this feature so vital:
1. immerson
2. narrative (AARs will love it)
3. analysis -> conclusion -> improved strategy

 

[seattle]

Nothing to do with being stubborn, most of the team actually pushed for the implementation...

So the casualty feature might be implemented once another feature - that you have no idea when it is ready - is finished?

That sounds like we have to wait several months at best. Why not scrap that land brigades thingy and go for the real deal? Nobody ever clamoured for you reworking brigades. A sh*tload of people though want casualty stats.

 

[Kung Zog]

I think changes that affects the general gameplay (brigades) has priority over cosmetic changes (statistics). I hope for both though.

 

[seattle]

cosmetic changes (statistics)

Have you ever played a soccer manager game? If so, can you be successful without analyzing stats? No, you can't.
Stats are not cosmetic, they are a vital tool for deep strategic planning. They're not about jacking off over who caused the most mayhem.

 

[Kung Zog]

Have you ever played a soccer manager game? If so, can you be successful without analyzing stats? No, you can't.
Stats are not cosmetic, they are a vital tool for deep strategic planning. They're not about jacking off over who caused the most mayhem.

yea I know. but this ain't a soccer management game. I've been able to develop strategies without casualty stats for a long time. Sure, it would be nice, but so would a lot of things

 

[BeardedHoplite]

Everybody sounds like they want all these Arsenal of Deomcracy features, just go buy/play AoD then!

 

[ARA Belgrano]

I am for the statistics screen too. And seriously, can't see the problem implementing it.

The community wants it? ---> YES (badly)
You know how to do it? ----> YES (for sure)

So, what's the big deal? Did you have other plans beforehand? Can't you scratch that and go for something new as requested by popular demand?



... maybe you are just jealous of AoD?

 

[K W]

OK, lets look at it this way. (And remember, these are just MY opinions). Country A uses infantry divisions of 12,000 men (not counting non-combat support units), while Country B uses infantry divisions of 14,000. In the game both cost 10 MP. So is 1 MP in losses 833 men (country A) or is it 714 men (country B)?
What about a battle with 3 or more countries, all of which use a different standard division size (let us say Country C uses a 10,000 man division)? Now you have a single battle with 3 different values for losses.

Your logic appears to be inconsequent. If you argue that the statistics will be flawed due to differing division sizes per country, than the concept of MP that is currently in this game must be flawed, too. If the divisions of Country A consist of 12,000 men, and the divisions of Country B consist of 14,000 men, it would be, according to your argumentation, only consequent that Country A must use 12 MP and Country B 14 MP to build a single division. However, as far as I understood, every country will use 10 MP to build a division, although the absolute number of men in a division differs, depending on the country you play. That seems to be a little bit absurd, as the only logical explanation for such an inconsistency would be that 1 MP in Country A represents 1,200 men, while in Country B 1 MP represents 1,400 men, which makes the MP of Country B more worth than the MP of Country A.

Especially in the 1936 scenario a slight misrepresentation of the actual division sizes is not a tragedy, as the whole division setup of a country will become ahistorical due to the player and AI actions within months or even weeks. To say, for the sake of simplicity, that one infrantry division equals 10,000 men and they equal 10 MP is, in my opinion, totally valid for a game. I'm pretty sure that in the 1914 scenario you also had to abstract the positions of divisions and brigades and their actual strength, too, and that we won't see an exact and perfect division setup of all military units in the world as of June 27, 1914 that totally corresponds with history.

 

[Cybvep]

As long as lost MP is counted, not just lost STR, then it should work fine even in mods which have country-based div types.

 

[dvandyke]

A glaring mistake by the developers. It is vital to have at least a rough estimate of causlties in war.
Even a rough estimate based on uniform sized divisions would have been a million times better than nothing.

 

[Easy1]

OK, lets look at it this way. (And remember, these are just MY opinions). Country A uses infantry divisions of 12,000 men (not counting non-combat support units), while Country B uses infantry divisions of 14,000. In the game both cost 10 MP. So is 1 MP in losses 833 men (country A) or is it 714 men (country B)?
What about a battle with 3 or more countries, all of which use a different standard division size (let us say Country C uses a 10,000 man division)? Now you have a single battle with 3 different values for losses.

Your logic is that German manpower is composed of more men than US manpower. You assume that 1 German mp is worth more than 1 US mp. I think your intpretation of the game here, and war in general, is wrong. You are thinking of a typical macro-concept with micro conceptual glasses, this premise spoils all forms of qaulitative and quanitiative comparison between the combatants.

You should also remember that once a war starts, most fighting division will have sustained some losses. This means these divisions no longer are a force of the initial number 10 MP - whetjer this means 10 000 or 30 000 men. The supply of potential soldiers in addition to sustained losses, was on of the reasons divisions among the combatants were composed of a different number of men.

Whether 30 000 soldiers are orginazed in one, two or three divisions is really a organizational matter. And if these 30 000 soldiers meet an opponent on the battlefield, the MAIN focus is on their numerical quantity and technological quality, not if they are organized in four, five or six divisions.

In HOI, the commom assumption is that the developers have organized all division into a force of 10 mp, equal to a set and universal number somewhere between 10 000 - 30 000 men - for ALL countries. Hence the need for loss statistics

Your logic appears to be inconsequent. If you argue that the statistics will be flawed due to differing division sizes per country, than the concept of MP that is currently in this game must be flawed, too. If the divisions of Country A consist of 12,000 men, and the divisions of Country B consist of 14,000 men, it would be, according to your argumentation, only consequent that Country A must use 12 MP and Country B 14 MP to build a single division. However, as far as I understood, every country will use 10 MP to build a division, although the absolute number of men in a division differs, depending on the country you play. That seems to be a little bit absurd, as the only logical explanation for such an inconsistency would be that 1 MP in Country A represents 1,200 men, while in Country B 1 MP represents 1,400 men, which makes the MP of Country B more worth than the MP of Country A.

Especially in the 1936 scenario a slight misrepresentation of the actual division sizes is not a tragedy, as the whole division setup of a country will become ahistorical due to the player and AI actions within months or even weeks. To say, for the sake of simplicity, that one infrantry division equals 10,000 men and they equal 10 MP is, in my opinion, totally valid for a game. I'm pretty sure that in the 1914 scenario you also had to abstract the positions of divisions and brigades and their actual strength, too, and that we won't see an exact and perfect division setup of all military units in the world as of June 27, 1914 that totally corresponds with history.

Did not see this post at first. This point exactly is mine too.

 

[jose1357]

Frankly, the only reason I bought AoD was for the casualty counter, and now that I've tasted it I can't go back...

 

[xtfoster]

This is how casualty stats should look like:

With that screen I can tell that I have shot down 33.000 enemy bombers which means, my AA is pretty effective. I also have sunk 2600 convoys which is nice. Comparing the "losses" and "inflicted losses" screens I get a very accurate picture of my effectiveness. If I lose 2 mio. soldiers and inflict 5.6 mio. upon my enemies, then I must being doing quite well.

There are 3 major reasons that make this feature so vital:
1. immerson
2. narrative (AARs will love it)
3. analysis -> conclusion -> improved strategy

1) You haven't shot down 33.9999 enemy bombers, you have done damage to enemy bombers that is equivalent to 33.9999 enemy bombers
2) How big is a bomber division (25 planes, 50 planes, 100 planes)?
3) What different types of planes count as bombers? (Tacs, Strats, and Navs . . . but are M-R fighters or bombers, what about CAS?)

 

[Radu]

People, DH had one programmer working on it, just like AoD did. There's only so much one man can do, of course DH does some things AoD doesn't and the other way around. Implementing a battle statistics system isn't trivial.

So take it easy and enjoy the game.

P.S. : And if it bothers you so much, keep pestering Paradox about a "best of both worlds" AoD/DH project Mind you, I get a brain seizure just thinking about how much work merging would be,but then again, the customer is (usually ) right. Keep asking for it,who knows.

But enough of this. This is the DH Team's moment to shine. Congratulate them instead of nitpicking. For the available resources they had, DH is an excellent effort.

 

[xtfoster]

Your logic appears to be inconsequent. If you argue that the statistics will be flawed due to differing division sizes per country, than the concept of MP that is currently in this game must be flawed, too. If the divisions of Country A consist of 12,000 men, and the divisions of Country B consist of 14,000 men, it would be, according to your argumentation, only consequent that Country A must use 12 MP and Country B 14 MP to build a single division. However, as far as I understood, every country will use 10 MP to build a division, although the absolute number of men in a division differs, depending on the country you play. That seems to be a little bit absurd, as the only logical explanation for such an inconsistency would be that 1 MP in Country A represents 1,200 men, while in Country B 1 MP represents 1,400 men, which makes the MP of Country B more worth than the MP of Country A.

Especially in the 1936 scenario a slight misrepresentation of the actual division sizes is not a tragedy, as the whole division setup of a country will become ahistorical due to the player and AI actions within months or even weeks. To say, for the sake of simplicity, that one infrantry division equals 10,000 men and they equal 10 MP is, in my opinion, totally valid for a game. I'm pretty sure that in the 1914 scenario you also had to abstract the positions of divisions and brigades and their actual strength, too, and that we won't see an exact and perfect division setup of all military units in the world as of June 27, 1914 that totally corresponds with history.

My opinions have been 100% consistent. I don't see the point of statistics if they are just made up anyway. No one has ever answered my question. How many people is an MP? It is generally assumed that an MP is 1000 combat soldiers, but that is only true if we assume that every country uses the same sized division, and that the divisions within that country are the same size. If not, what is the point of making up stats? Even if there are country specific divisions, and every division within that country actually was the same size, what do you do about the "trickle-back"? Do you count those soldiers who were healed and returned to duty (that's what trickle-back is) as casualties?

As to your example of 1,200 man MP for country A and 1,400 man MP for country B, it actually makes the MP worth the same. You get the same exact effect out of the 1,200 man MP of country A and the 1,400 man MP of country B (but each "man" from country B is then worth less than on from country A).

So again, you want statistics that are made up. For you, as a gamer I can almost understand why someone would want to just pull numbers out of a hat, but I am not the kind of person who likes to look at statistics that say "in this war 50,000 soldiers died" when if fact that is only true if we assume that every division in that battle is made up of divisions made from your magical 1,000-man MP.

OK, enough for my high horse. I will leave this discussion to those of you who like statistics that are meaningless.

 

[seattle]

1) You haven't shot down 33.9999 enemy bombers, you have done damage to enemy bombers that is equivalent to 33.9999 enemy bombers
2) How big is a bomber division (25 planes, 50 planes, 100 planes)?
3) What different types of planes count as bombers? (Tacs, Strats, and Navs . . . but are M-R fighters or bombers, what about CAS?)

I don't care! The numbers are immersive and useful at the same time.
In one game I neglected air defence and maybe shot down 10k bombers. In this game I heavily invested in air defence and shot down 34k. That tells me, my air defence was 3.4 times more effective than in the other game.
The numbers help you understand what's going on and learn from them, regardless of how accurate they are. I don't care if I have shot down 34k bombers or caused the equivalent damage of 34k bombers. What difference does it make? The number simply tells you how effective you are.

What type of planes are counted as bombers? Jesus, simply define that. AoD didn't have a problem doing so. If you ask them politely I'm sure they'll tell you. Again, nobody had a problem with that.

How big is a bomber division? Make up a number. Does it matter that much? Take the manpower number. As Germany I have killed 5.6 million enemy soldiers, at least AoD tells me. That might be fairly accurate. I constantly check that number when I'm in a major campaign. Two weeks into Barbarossa with some encirclements completed? Check the number, you might have just inflicted 800k casualties (apparently prisoners are taken into account). It is fairly accurate in AoD.

Nobody ever complained about the lack of accuracy in AoD, nobody! On the contrary, it seems that this feature is the most popular of the entire game. Since I do feel DH will be the vastly superior product, I am so keen on getting this feature. DH + casualty stats = perfection.

 

[Easy1]

1) You haven't shot down 33.9999 enemy bombers, you have done damage to enemy bombers that is equivalent to 33.9999 enemy bombers
2) How big is a bomber division (25 planes, 50 planes, 100 planes)?
3) What different types of planes count as bombers? (Tacs, Strats, and Navs . . . but are M-R fighters or bombers, what about CAS?)

1) Should be an easy fix to determine how many desimals?
2) An inflicted loss of 40 000 bombers is not unrealistic at all
3) "Bombers" can of course be further divided into CAS,Tacs, Strats, and Navs

My opinions have been 100% consistent. I don't see the point of statistics if they are just made up anyway. No one has ever answered my question. How many people is an MP? It is generally assumed that an MP is 1000 combat soldiers, but that is only true if we assume that every country uses the same sized division, and that the divisions within that country are the same size. If not, what is the point of making up stats? Even if there are country specific divisions, and every division within that country actually was the same size, what do you do about the "trickle-back"? Do you count those soldiers who were healed and returned to duty (that's what trickle-back is) as casualties?

As to your example of 1,200 man MP for country A and 1,400 man MP for country B, it actually makes the MP worth the same. You get the same exact effect out of the 1,200 man MP of country A and the 1,400 man MP of country B (but each "man" from country B is then worth less than on from country A).

So again, you want statistics that are made up. For you, as a gamer I can almost understand why someone would want to just pull numbers out of a hat, but I am not the kind of person who likes to look at statistics that say "in this war 50,000 soldiers died" when if fact that is only true if we assume that every division in that battle is made up of divisions made from your magical 1,000-man MP.

OK, enough for my high horse. I will leave this discussion to those of you who like statistics that are meaningless.

How many people is one MP? That is for you guys to decide. I suggest you find a number that generate historic and "realistic" loss statistics. You don't understand. Most players assume that every country uses the SAME SIZED division, and that the divisions within that country are the SAME SIZE. Without such a premise, making a war strategy game will be a very very complex process

 

[safferli]

In one game I neglected air defence and maybe shot down 10k bombers. In this game I heavily invested in air defence and shot down 34k. That tells me, my air defence was 3.4 times more effective than in the other game.

Sigh... every time someone abuses statistics, God kills a kitten.

For your example, it does not mean that your AA was 3.4 times as effective. Your AA could be just as effective as in the last game, but the AI just threw 3.4 times as many bombers your way. You'll need proper counterfactual statistical methods to be able to disentangle the effects.

 

[Easy1]

Sigh... every time someone abuses statistics, God kills a kitten.

For your example, it does not mean that your AA was 3.4 times as effective. Your AA could be just as effective as in the last game, but the AI just threw 3.4 times as many bombers your way. You'll need proper counterfactual statistical methods to be able to disentangle the effects.

The whole point was that the AA made his air defence more effective, this fact he can interpret thanks to statistics. If god has any mercy, he will let the cat live this time