Question about Dakrest hour - Casualties

[safferli]

Even more when a demi-moderator was... shall I say demi-(im)partial.

I don't know if you're talking about me, but I'd like to take the opportunity to make things clear:

1) I am not a mod here on these subforums. This means, I am here purely as a player.

2) I do not know what features AoD has; I have never played the game, and have never followed the development process. So, I wouldn't know where a dismissive attitude for AoD can possibly come from. Yes, I do dislike the statistics thing, and people here have said that it's the "best thing" of AoD. Funnily enough, more than half of those that did say that they were important and the best thing of AoD did not have AoD registered.

So, if you were talking about me, I would like to apologise in advance for any hurt feelings I may have provoked. It was all definitely not on purpose, as I don't even know what AoD can/cannot do.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

2) I do not know what features AoD has; I have never played the game, and have never followed the development process. So, I wouldn't know where a dismissive attitude for AoD can possibly come from. Yes, I do dislike the statistics thing, and people here have said that it's the "best thing" of AoD. Funnily enough, more than half of those that did say that they were important and the best thing of AoD did not have AoD registered.

What is so funny about it? As hard as I try I still cannot find any possible connection between having AoD registered and liking the casualties charts. Despite being a man who "never played the game" you probably still have a good insight to know that people eventually realize the nonsense of casualty tables once they register their game...wait - is that really what you were implying or were you just trying to dismiss their voices?

Unlike you, I think that most people just find this feature fun and useful. Observing manpower losses is vital and many experienced players did their own over-the-thumb calculations in HoI2 to improve their skills, especially in multiplayer.

 

[safferli]

What is so funny about it? As hard as I try I still cannot find any possible connection between having AoD registered and liking the casualties charts. Despite being a man who "never played the game" you probably still have a good insight to know that people eventually realize the nonsense of casualty tables once they register their game...wait - is that really what you were implying or were you just trying to dismiss their voices?

I'm not saying the statistics charts might not be useful. But, judging from game registrations, they cannot be such an "uberfeature" that makes people buy AoD. So, from a sales point of view, spending dev time on adding the statistics might not be the best idea.

Again, I don't know, but I don't have to make the decisions on where to allocate dev time to get more customers.

 

[gradenko_2000]

If the argument against casualty statistics is the inaccuracy of the conversion from points of STR of an infantry division down to points of manpower, then down to counts of individual men, how about giving us abstracted casualties?

That is, if we manage to knock a German Infantry unit down to 50% STR, don't try to tell us how many men is equivalent to 50 points of STR, just tell us we've killed off 50 STR worth of infantry.

Over the course of an entire campaign, if we've killed off 1,000 STR worth of infantry by 1941, then that still gives us a comparative measurement of performance relative to the last game where we only managed 750 STR worth of infantry by the same date.

Same applies to AA shooting down air units - if the player is trying to find out how effective his fighter defenses are in protecting the Fatherland, giving him a report on 300 points of Strat Bombers lost should be just as effective as saying 2,000 individual bombers lost, except now you don't have to apply a real life metric of how many planes is represented by a single Strat Bomber unit.

 

[ToMaShiTo03]

So, from a sales point of view, spending dev time on adding the statistics might not be the best idea.

I tought it was a game "for the fans by the fans"... not just a merely commercial sales game... (perhaps I'm missing the whole idea ?? )


also, I don't understand the connection between registering AoD with being able to talk about it.. (the forum is open to everyone, having the game registered or not)...


and last: I enjoyed that feature a lot. if u don't like it, it won't affect your gameplay, it's just there (if u don't like it don't watch it)... but it will affect mine, since I check it once every month... so I don't know why u have such a problem on implementing it....

this feature will make the game even better from which it already is (It's just my opinion trying to make a better game for the fans)

 

[^_AC_^]

Just to clarify, we never said we were not going to implement it.
But since it is not easy, we don't want to make promises about it.

 

[seattle]

Hmm... so if none of us reports any bugs, we increase our chance to get that feature asap
On the difficulty note: How can it be that difficult? You managed to display detailled naval loss charts. Shouldn't that be of similar magnitude?

 

[MartinBG]

And to be more precise the question is not are we going to implement more detailed stats, but when.
I don't have the answer on that question yet, but you got the idea

 

[MartinBG]

Hmm... so if none of us reports any bugs, we increase our chance to get that feature asap
On the difficulty note: How can it be that difficult? You managed to display detailled naval loss charts. Shouldn't that be of similar magnitude?

There is a slight difference.
Ships are individual units, so there is no problem to count losses (including who sunk what) and display them.
For land and Air units we have to make-up those numbers and eventually keep track on who inflicted the hit.
Then imagine a combats with many units from different countries.
And then ensure all of that data is sent correctly to all clients in MP games.

And finally implement it in a way that do not hit game performance.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

Thanks for taking this into consideration!

 

[seattle]

And to be more precise the question is not are we going to implement more detailed stats, but when.
I don't have the answer on that question yet, but you got the idea

I will so quote you on that one! That are brilliant news, mate.

About the implementation: Just hack the AoD code and steal it keep trying.

 

[PanzerMan7]

i always thought 1 MP = 1,000 men and that 1 inf division = 10,000 men therefore. to keep it simple. sure russian divisions were smaller but without a division designer, this was the best system

 

[seattle]

i always thought 1 MP = 1,000 men and that 1 inf division = 10,000 men therefore. to keep it simple. sure russian divisions were smaller but without a division designer, this was the best system

Sure it's the best system, but then you got the nerds who insist on a German division consisting of 17k, later in the war 14k and in the end even lower. Obviously that has to be factored in cause realism is so much more important than gameplay.

 

[Easy1]

Sure it's the best system, but then you got the nerds who insist on a German division consisting of 17k, later in the war 14k and in the end even lower. Obviously that has to be factored in cause realism is so much more important than gameplay.

That level of complexety for all countries the HOI engine is not able to refelct. They anyways fail to understand that reflecting such complexity for al countries will not lead to a more realistic game, unless they can argue that this little micro aspect affected the otcome of battles.

 

[seattle]

That level of complexety for all countries the HOI engine is not able to refelct. They anyways fail to understand that reflecting such complexity for al countries will not lead to a more realistic game, unless they can argue that this little micro aspect affected the otcome of battles.

I'm pretty sure some mod (Core probably) did the different division size thingy, even with the size change via later techs. Why do I think of HoI 1? Was it back then? You could research "1944 infantry" as Germany and it would have reduced manpower compared to earlier models.

Anyways, while that indeed is dandy, I'd rather have 10k soldiers per division for every nation and then the strength loss should be easy to track.

 

[seattle]

Please don't be too picky about the stats. "Bombers" and "Fighters" are sufficient categories. Don't mess it up by distinguishing between interceptors, fighters, multi-role, escorts, rocket, jet etc.
Stats can be overdone, don't do it!