RE: Why not free production?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Why not free production?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Why not free production?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Why not free production? - 8/21/2009 6:35:32 AM

Kiith

Posts: 28
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Well I know the die has been cast on this one but I for one am disappointed that production and the freedom to upgrade the units of your choice have been removed in this incarnation of the game.

Yes I can accept that it might be more realistic if the gamer was trying to be in the shoes of the generals. But ultimately for me it has removed 2 key fun factors that were in Second Front and WiR. I'm still interested in the title but my feelings for it are a little flat after finding out these two things will be missing.

(in reply to TPM)

Post #: 91

RE: Why not free production? - 8/21/2009 7:45:45 AM

kafka

Posts: 159
Joined: 6/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I view production choices as something that is administrative and truly not that interesting... I don't believe any front commander had much to control over what was produced. Guderian did later in the war but he no longer was in command of any troops.

well, the decision has been made and won't change, and on my side the game has gone a bit down in my priority list. Anyway this sort of argumantation for not including any production control by the player is not convincing at all. First of all it is a game - its something all historical purits do seem to regularly forget - and on the other side, even when following this logic: I really do not believe that a supreme commander responsible of a so a vast and important front like this would historically not have been the slightest influence on whatever he received to accomplish his mission as I would think he was the one who knew best what he needed for.
In the game this supreme commander put in command of a all the trrops fighting has no control at all, and this is in my eyes absolutely unrealistic. Actually, I would like to have both options: Playing the game without having to care of the production stuff (not for reasons of historical purity, which ist not very realistic both for fun), but playing it with the production control on of would be interesting and fun too. So people lets be a bit less dogmatic.

So this is my last comment I have made on this topic

(in reply to Kiith)

Post #: 92

RE: Why not free production? - 8/21/2009 10:19:38 AM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Ok, they take a decission, we cant change it at least until they made the full game with production (if they think do it their arguments to no add production to WItE are false, the true argument is no more time and can sold 2 games not one).

Oooo you say that the game put you on the role of a commander ok, but production has an important role, do you remember the Kursk+Panther=launch the attack later??? well, i see produccion changing tactical situation... or not??? if the game put you in the role of a commander... who give you your orders??? because Zhukov needs Stalin�s Ok same for germans

(in reply to kafka)

Post #: 93

RE: Why not free production? - 8/21/2009 11:00:21 AM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Check out the discussion about "production-doctrine" in the other thread. It may be something to address control v. no control of industry, R&D and upgrades.

Germany was extremely reactive in its R&D - in 1940, Hitler put a hold on all research on Aircraft or other projects that wouldn't produce a working model by 1942 (when the war was supposed to end). Of course, once it was discovered that the war was going to last longer, there was a mad rush to upgrade and research to get new weapons into production (which actually produced a huge amount of waste - as time and effort was spent on ridiculous projects like the Maus, Ratte, and Sanger's Antipodal Bomber).

So, as the player - if you're winning the war (trouncing the Russians - based on captured cities, losses inflicted, etc) you'll won't see Tigers or Panthers as early as historically, but as you start losing (if you do, again, based on conditions on the ground, with some pressure from the other Fronts of the War) the production doctrine can change and the upgrades come a little faster.

Of course, this could be a two-edged sword, because rushing equipment into the field could result in less reliable equipment (is there a model for equipment & vehicle breakdown? See the Panther D for example)

I don't know how doable this could be, but it could create a more flexible industrial model - with a minimal of control by the player, but influenced by the pace of the game.

< Message edited by paullus99 -- 8/21/2009 11:01:42 AM >

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 94

RE: Why not free production? - 8/21/2009 10:57:20 PM

TPM

Posts: 349
Joined: 2/8/2007
Status: offline

I totally agree with this...makes a lot of sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Check out the discussion about "production-doctrine" in the other thread. It may be something to address control v. no control of industry, R&D and upgrades.

Germany was extremely reactive in its R&D - in 1940, Hitler put a hold on all research on Aircraft or other projects that wouldn't produce a working model by 1942 (when the war was supposed to end). Of course, once it was discovered that the war was going to last longer, there was a mad rush to upgrade and research to get new weapons into production (which actually produced a huge amount of waste - as time and effort was spent on ridiculous projects like the Maus, Ratte, and Sanger's Antipodal Bomber).

So, as the player - if you're winning the war (trouncing the Russians - based on captured cities, losses inflicted, etc) you'll won't see Tigers or Panthers as early as historically, but as you start losing (if you do, again, based on conditions on the ground, with some pressure from the other Fronts of the War) the production doctrine can change and the upgrades come a little faster.

Of course, this could be a two-edged sword, because rushing equipment into the field could result in less reliable equipment (is there a model for equipment & vehicle breakdown? See the Panther D for example)

I don't know how doable this could be, but it could create a more flexible industrial model - with a minimal of control by the player, but influenced by the pace of the game.

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 95

RE: Why not free production? - 8/22/2009 12:11:05 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

One further thought - I'm sure the system takes into account that complexity of upgrades/new equipment. It was possible for Germany to make 2 or 3 PzIV for every Panther or Tiger - just because of the increased resources necessary to build those more complex tanks.

So, be careful what you ask for - you will probably be producing "less" the further along the upgrade path you go.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to TPM)

Post #: 96

RE: Why not free production? - 8/23/2009 1:17:59 AM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

I wouldn't see the point of allowing any production options that were unhistorical. I appreciate the views of those wanting control, I've enjoyed tinkering in WITP myself, but for the Germans in particular, there isn't much wiggle room.

For example, the Germans made about as much oil and fuel as they could. They never had enough, to the point the Luftwaffe were sending up pilots with very few hours training in the air as replacements in 1944. Cranking up German fuel production therefore relies on someone assuming someone German developed a new method of creating it out of thin air. What's the point?

Secondly, as has been pointed out, the Panther was largely reactive. To get it in 1942 actually assumes that the Germans came across the T-34 in the summer of 1941 and had the War's best tank all done and dusted within 12 months. It just isn't real. To get Tigers any earlier actually requires you to tinker with procurement decisions in the late thirties when the Germans first looked at the question of a heavy breakthrough tank.

Some might like the idea of improving German chances during mobile operations by equipping more motorised infantry formations. Given the Germans never produced enough rubber to keep the vehicle park they had even remotely well shod with tyres, then this option again falls victim to the law of historical impossibility.

These things aren't solved by having a "Total war in 1940 option" because tripling the number of workers and production lines doesn't provide you with three times as many vehicles if the raw materials and war time experiences necessary to produce them do not exist. In terms of total overall tonnage, the German Panzer Arm's size and rate of expansion was limited by deficiency in German coal production. You can't produce more coal by turning off domestic fridge production.

The other issue I have concerns the huge trough of hindsight that would drive many player production decisions. The Elephant was a crock, I'll build another 20 panthers is hindsight. The HE-177 wasn't ready early enough, give me another 400 He-111s is hopelessly unrealistic given the He-177 development started before the war in the east actually began. At every turn (production wise) you're making decisions a Commander would not have been able to make unless they were somewhat mystic.

Similiarly with ammunition. Cranking up production is not as simple as simply working the factories round the clock.

Then there is the unintended effects. When the Germans cranked up Tank production, the Luftwaffe struggled to get hold of vital engine parts because somewhere further back in the chain, nobody had cranked up engine crank shaft production. I think they've done the right thing in so much as putting parameters on this would be an exercise in wet finger in air waving.

To my mind, about the best that should be offered would be limited ability to switch between types. However, turning off IIs and IIIs in favour of more IVs or Vs assumes that the places making IIs and IIIs were large enough to retool to make Vs. I'd probably only favour the ability to produce 130% extra Stugs by turning off PZ III productions for example.

The battle of the Ruhr and lack of raw materials handcuffed German production. A total war option is not the holy Grail everyone thinks it is.

regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 97

RE: Why not free production? - 8/23/2009 11:08:55 AM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

Well, allway the same... you say free production is no historical... well, ok but operationals games arent historical because you dont do the same that they do in the real life, and i say it again, cant control at least a doctrine system (more medium tanks, investigate new medium tanks, investigate heavy tanks....) made you playing against enemy and situation because historical producction is static but your situation not, for example if i want fight with PzIV and StugIII no panthers and a little Tiger % because i want try to defeat URRS before end of 1942 cant do it i need try to win the war with the material that game give to me... ok it could be a challenge but after a time you start to think "ummm if i change this can do it better???".

Oooo you say that germans can have panthers in 1942 ummm do you know something called event trigger??? if you find in battlefield T-34 you can activate the investigation of new medium tank and a new proyect needs maaaaaany resourcers, you can select if you want expend it in a new tank, plane or exotic weapon. And for producttion... in WItP you have resources, no resources no production, is easy and prevents a non historical uberproduction.

PD: an operational game with no production decisions is a Panzer General (you only have the material that AI give you) but with no campaigns system and i have a question, battlefield results influence in the static production??? if is true the historical production is dead but you is the AI that have the power, not you and you can see the AI sending armored AAA when you need AT weapons.

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 98

RE: Why not free production? - 8/23/2009 3:05:52 PM

Stryder

Posts: 188
Joined: 10/13/2003
Status: offline

this debate will never end... it seems to have entered the realm of religous like debate..

let's all agree this game looks awesome and will be fun to play and get along

_____________________________

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 99

RE: Why not free production? - 8/23/2009 4:11:51 PM

thackaray

Posts: 50
Joined: 1/24/2006
Status: offline

99th post of the topic........

(in reply to Stryder)

Post #: 100

RE: Why not free production? - 8/23/2009 4:12:39 PM

thackaray

Posts: 50
Joined: 1/24/2006
Status: offline

WOoooooo hoooooooo!!!!

I've got the 100th post

Continue normal service chaps!

(in reply to thackaray)

Post #: 101

RE: Why not free production? - 8/23/2009 5:03:54 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

�Nothing like having a dream to keep people inspired. Kind of like the Power Ball,�people keep buying even though�they know their chances are almost zero.

< Message edited by Kid -- 8/23/2009 5:04:07 PM >

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to thackaray)

Post #: 102

RE: Why not free production? - 8/23/2009 11:16:06 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Well, allway the same... you say free production is no historical... well, ok but operationals games arent historical because you dont do the same that they do in the real life,

No argument but it was at least historically possible for the Germans to strike at Moscow in 1942 rather than the Caucasus. It was not possible for them to magic another million tonnes of coal and a new factory out of thin air so they could produce 1000 extra tanks. Operational games have always allowed you to make historically possible alternate decisions. Panthers in 1942 is not historically possible.

quote:

and i say it again, cant control at least a doctrine system (more medium tanks, investigate new medium tanks, investigate heavy tanks....)

But the Germans were always investigating new tank types. From Panzer IV to Panther, From Tiger to King Tiger, the results of their investigations are all there in the game.

quote:

made you playing against enemy and situation because historical producction is static but your situation not, for example if i want fight with PzIV and StugIII no panthers and a little Tiger % because i want try to defeat URRS before end of 1942 cant do it i need try to win the war with the material that game give to me... ok it could be a challenge but after a time you start to think "ummm if i change this can do it better???".

But I don't see how flicking a switch which says no Panthers or Tigers development, give me more Panzer IVs in 1942 actually works. Tiger production was very low, the Panther wasn't produced in 1942. I don't see how preventing Panther development or shutting down Tiger production allows you to win in 1942.

quote:

Oooo you say that germans can have panthers in 1942 ummm do you know something called event trigger??? if you find in battlefield T-34 you can activate the investigation of new medium tank and a new proyect needs maaaaaany resourcers, you can select if you want expend it in a new tank, plane or exotic weapon. And for producttion... in WItP you have resources, no resources no production, is easy and prevents a non historical uberproduction.

I don't get your point, I actually said the Germans couldn't have gotten the Panther in 1942. The historical event trigger came in the summer of 1941, so how does having a game event trigger pulled in the summer of 1941 the first time the Germans encounter a T-34 equipped Russian unit actually change anything? If you are suggesting that players should have the right to refuse to research the Panther, my response would be "fine, can you actually give me any historical examples of anyone coming across superior weaponry and not looking for a solution?"

If you decide you want to avoid Panther production and have twice as many Panzer IVs, my question would be what do you do with the excess vehicles? If your answer is "create new Panzer Divisions", I'd ask "where do you get the trucks and soft skinned vehickles from?" If the answer is "stop producing 88s, HE-111s and surrender in North Africa so I can strip Rommel of his trucks", my answer would be "where is the fuel going to come from to support an increased vehcile park with few trucks to resupply them?"

I'd also ask how quickly do you want production decisions to take effect? German tanks tended to be built in specific factories. Cranking up production of a given model was therefore not as easy as downing tools at the Panzer IV factory and starting on Panther production the following day. It didn't work that way.

What you want is a degree of control that is unrealistic.

There is a very easy way to have more Tanks in 1942 than the Germans had without any form of production system being necessary. You simply avoid losing as many in 1941 as they did. That is what operational games are all about.

Regards,
ID

< Message edited by IronDuke -- 8/23/2009 11:20:15 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 103

RE: Why not free production? - 8/24/2009 7:56:10 AM

Muzrub

Posts: 1780
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
Status: offline

quote:

It was not possible for them to magic another million tonnes of coal and a new factory out of thin air so they could produce 1000 extra tanks.

Hmmm, just because a player wishes to control what is produced to a varying degree, does not mean that the player can build outside of the historical parameters concerning resources. Resources should be, and would be controlled by historical events and production of steel, or mining of coal, fuel etc etc.
What some of us are asking for is the ability to choose how we use those finite resources.
If a player chooses Tigers, he would for one:
Produce less due to limitations set by resources and time (involving complication of the build) of construction.

Simply, building something bigger takes more effort and time- building something smaller and less complicated takes less effort and less time.
ie If I choose to produce Panzer I's I could produce more, faster and using less resources than I could in choosing to produce King Tigers.
Hence thousands, and thousands of Panzer I's and bugger all King Tigers in comparison, all set within the boundaries of resources available

As for changing factories, its simple the game has or should have a set build system, planes, guns and tanks- you would not be able to switch from one type to another, but you could change the type produced, ie 109's could change to Fw 190, and after some re-tooling they could be produced at whatever the resource cost applicable.

_____________________________

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.

Matrix Axis of Evil

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 104

RE: Why not free production? - 8/24/2009 12:56:33 PM

Hexagon

Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline

We never be in the same ship in the production question, for me operational and production are like a married couple�

Oooo with the new tanks i dont create new divisions, i change PzIII quickly and can leave before the PzIII chasis production to the StugIII, think that panzerjager is a solution temporal waiting for more Stugs but never arrive to battlefield because production of Panthers/Tigers consume many resources.

Tiger for me is the only "new" tank that can be in the german forces because is a desing of pre-war you need only the final test in battlefield and produce it, i think if you want to win as german change PzIII for PzIVg (or modern models) and increase Stug pruduction to change provisional Panzerjagers is the key to victory because the german problem in 1942 was the no reserves in tanks because they dont produce in mass the PzIV because they want a new tank (panther), as german i try to win before end of 1942 because i think that west events start to destroy your ofensive options (Kursk needs maaaaaaaany time to be ready and wait new tanks dont help) isn�t historical but i want to try it with my armies not with the AI armies.

PD: and if they talk about another game with production i think that they have the same idea but dont want or can do it in this game, the historical excuse is a little....

< Message edited by Hexagon -- 8/24/2009 12:57:45 PM >

(in reply to Muzrub)

Post #: 105

RE: Why not free production? - 8/24/2009 1:44:06 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

IronDuke is correct that there were limits to what the Germans "could" have done with their production capacity. But, there was also an awful lot of waste built into the system as well - quite a few weapons were reseached and put into production that shouldn't have (or were needlessly delayed by changes in specs).

There is always the possibility of steamlining some production, concentrating on more general weapons-systems (like the Russian concentration on the T34), but there is a ceiling limit to what could be done (fuel & transportation being the greatest limiters).

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 106

RE: Why not free production? - 8/24/2009 9:55:26 PM

itsjustme

Posts: 171
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

quote:

It was not possible for them to magic another million tonnes of coal and a new factory out of thin air so they could produce 1000 extra tanks.

Hmmm, just because a player wishes to control what is produced to a varying degree, does not mean that the player can build outside of the historical parameters concerning resources. Resources should be, and would be controlled by historical events and production of steel, or mining of coal, fuel etc etc.
What some of us are asking for is the ability to choose how we use those finite resources.
If a player chooses Tigers, he would for one:
Produce less due to limitations set by resources and time (involving complication of the build) of construction.

Simply, building something bigger takes more effort and time- building something smaller and less complicated takes less effort and less time.
ie If I choose to produce Panzer I's I could produce more, faster and using less resources than I could in choosing to produce King Tigers.
Hence thousands, and thousands of Panzer I's and bugger all King Tigers in comparison, all set within the boundaries of resources available

As for changing factories, its simple the game has or should have a set build system, planes, guns and tanks- you would not be able to switch from one type to another, but you could change the type produced, ie 109's could change to Fw 190, and after some re-tooling they could be produced at whatever the resource cost applicable.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to respond to the nonsense about production being advocated by those against a production model in this game as Muzrub has done it for me.

On the other hand, I don't think I can stop myself. . . . Controlling production doesn't mean wielding a wand, it means making decisions about the allocation of resources. To some extent that involves R&D, but no one is suggesting that you get Panthers in 1939. However, we can all agree that the T-34s were first seen in action in the fall of 1941. So, if you decide to contribute more to R&D, could you get Panthers rolling off the line by 8 or 9/42 (the first prototypes were operational in 11/42)? Sure. Would that make a difference? Maybe. Would it cost you resources that could be spent to build many more PzIII's? Sure. Would you prefer to have fewer fully complemented divisions totally outfitted with Panthers? Maybe. That's the beauty of a production. You make the point about tank crews not being out there. Not true. Perhaps well trained tank crews were not available, but you can put that into operation by decreasing experience of the additional crews. Everything has an effect, but don't suggest that Panther's couldn't have been available a couple of months earlier or the like.

We aren't talking about creating things out of whole cloth, rather deciding what to do with the resources that are available. If I capture more resources than were historically captured, and the rail gauges catch up to those resource rich areas, will I have more resources to produce more tanks? Yep, but not because I just flipped a switch. The other point that was well made in this thread was streamlining. Germany made huge production mistakes because of political influence by the various armaments manufacturer and the Third Reich meddling. Some equipment was obsolete the day it rolled off the production line and should have been canceled, but wasn't because of Third Reich politics.

Again, if you want to play historically as it relates to production, fine. No one is stopping you. But to suggest that those who want to play with production have no historical position for arguing that production could not have been changed, streamlined and increased is flat false.

(in reply to Muzrub)

Post #: 107

RE: Why not free production? - 8/24/2009 11:16:31 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

It was not possible for them to magic another million tonnes of coal and a new factory out of thin air so they could produce 1000 extra tanks.

quote:

Hmmm, just because a player wishes to control what is produced to a varying degree, does not mean that the player can build outside of the historical parameters concerning resources.

OK, we can then agree (I assume) that it should be physically impossible for the Germans to produce a tank tonnage that is higher than they produced historically.

quote:

Resources should be, and would be controlled by historical events and production of steel, or mining of coal, fuel etc etc.
What some of us are asking for is the ability to choose how we use those finite resources.

If a player chooses Tigers, he would for one:
Produce less due to limitations set by resources and time (involving complication of the build) of construction.

But Tiger production was small beer. I'd also make the point that a whole sub component industry lies behind tank production, so when someone says "Build no Tigers, build extra PZ IIs" what they are actually saying is build thousands more obselete engines, build thousands more 2 CM cannon etc etc etc. This requires further reductions in other programmes because these sorts of things were not being produced as the PZ IIs were phased out in anything like the required numbers.

Also, Tigers were produced at Kassel which was hit hard in October 1943 during bombing, an event which disrupted Tiger production for months. Therefore, putting all your eggs into the Tiger basket should effectively rob you of any tank production during early 1943 as your enlarged facilities have been destroyed and your workforce dehoused.

quote:

Simply, building something bigger takes more effort and time- building something smaller and less complicated takes less effort and less time.
ie If I choose to produce Panzer I's I could produce more, faster and using less resources than I could in choosing to produce King Tigers.
Hence thousands, and thousands of Panzer I's and bugger all King Tigers in comparison, all set within the boundaries of resources available

Again, KTs were even smaller beer than Tigers. The resources released by KT production would last about a month if you were pumping out a few hundred PZIIs instead. What do these facilities do then?

Secondly, as I keep pointing out. What are you going to do with the extra vehicles if you don't have the formations to house them, the fuel to power them, the spare parts to keep them going or the auxiliary vehicles to resupply them, not mentioning the trained crews to man them.

quote:

As for changing factories, its simple the game has or should have a set build system, planes, guns and tanks- you would not be able to switch from one type to another, but you could change the type produced, ie 109's could change to Fw 190, and after some re-tooling they could be produced at whatever the resource cost applicable.

But again, it was never this simple. It was actually suggested in 1943 that the Germans build nothing but Tigers and Panthers, until Guderian pointed out that would reduce German tank deliveries to 25 Tigers a month whilst the Panther was rebuilt. There was no talk of switching factories from one to the other over a couple of weeks. Orders and production schedules were set months if not years before.

The factories where weapons systems were produced were generally owned by the designing company. There was an entire subcomponents industry sat behind production. It would take months to successfully switch a firm from producing one model to another.

Besides, what would you do with this new found power? By 1941, the Germans were phasing out the Is and IIs and attempting to upgrade to the IIIs and IVs. I'll take any argument that suggests the Germans would stop III and IV production and produce Is and IIs as merely illustrative not a real suggestion, since you couldn't fuel all the extra vehicles, nor cope with the Army mutiny when you told them you were going to downgrade in the face of the T34 and KV1.....

You could argue that you could increase production slightly if you didn't keep upgrading these weapons (at the cost of combat effectiveness) but the only big decision to my mind is switching off IVs and switching production to Vs, but you couldn't do this before January 1944 arguably and then I don't see the point since the Germans couldn't produce enough vehicles to keep two battalion mixed Panzer Divisions fully equipped. That situation gets worse if you are only producing Panthers.

However I look at this, it just looks like a heavy dose of hindsight fueling a bout of pointless tinkering.

Respect and regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________

(in reply to Muzrub)

Post #: 108

RE: Why not free production? - 8/25/2009 5:15:38 AM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

�Iron Duke is right- besides the game is already afoot. They cannot do a major coding change atthis point- so like Generals all through history- you fight with what you have.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 109

RE: Why not free production? - 8/25/2009 5:50:58 AM

Muzrub

Posts: 1780
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
Status: offline

quote:

OK, we can then agree (I assume) that it should be physically impossible for the Germans to produce a tank tonnage that is higher than they produced historically.

I have no issue with that at all- unless the game allows for the influence of leaders on production.

quote:

But Tiger production was small beer. I'd also make the point that a whole sub component industry lies behind tank production, so when someone says "Build no Tigers, build extra PZ IIs" what they are actually saying is build thousands more obselete engines, build thousands more 2 CM cannon etc etc etc. This requires further reductions in other programmes because these sorts of things were not being produced as the PZ IIs were phased out in anything like the required numbers.

Also, Tigers were produced at Kassel which was hit hard in October 1943 during bombing, an event which disrupted Tiger production for months. Therefore, putting all your eggs into the Tiger basket should effectively rob you of any tank production during early 1943 as your enlarged facilities have been destroyed and your workforce dehoused.

..........I was going to go through point by point- but your not going to change your mind are you?

So I'll ask you this:

If the Americans decided to produce numerous different variants of tanks (self propelled guns etc etc), on the same level as the Germans did would they have produced the same amount of vehicles as they historically did?

and

Would the Germans have benefited from building one basic tank (a few variants), which could have been massed produced on a grand scale- simplifying spares, training and fuel needs? And would they have produced more within the same historical period?

< Message edited by Muzrub -- 8/25/2009 5:51:50 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hexagon)

Post #: 110

RE: Why not free production? - 8/25/2009 8:15:13 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Also, Tigers were produced at Kassel which was hit hard in October 1943 during bombing, an event which disrupted Tiger production for months. Therefore, putting all your eggs into the Tiger basket should effectively rob you of any tank production during early 1943 as your enlarged facilities have been destroyed and your workforce dehoused.

I repect your well thought out positions however I found myself thinking that a random event knocking out factory production to some extent, (say random % loss) could also make an interesting component of a production model. In that sense, (or at least in my on view on things) you've made an interesting case for production modelling in your own rebuttal.

Just a thought.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 111

RE: Why not free production? - 8/25/2009 8:46:44 PM

Stryder

Posts: 188
Joined: 10/13/2003
Status: offline

fascinating that the thread with the most comments and hits is about something that has absolutely zero chance to be in the game...

some good debates and discussions going on but all theoretical... or perhaps rhetorical?

_____________________________

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 112

RE: Why not free production? - 8/25/2009 11:08:31 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsjustme

Fortunately for me, I don't have to respond to the nonsense about production being advocated by those against a production model in this game as Muzrub has done it for me.

Whatever...

quote:

On the other hand, I don't think I can stop myself. . . .

Shame.

quote:

Controlling production doesn't mean wielding a wand, it means making decisions about the allocation of resources. To some extent that involves R&D, but no one is suggesting that you get Panthers in 1939. However, we can all agree that the T-34s were first seen in action in the fall of 1941. So, if you decide to contribute more to R&D, could you get Panthers rolling off the line by 8 or 9/42 (the first prototypes were operational in 11/42)?

No, because when the Germans were on the verge of rolling the first prototype off the production line, they were busy congratulating themselves on having brought the tank from conception to prototype in around a year. That was well under half the time it took to get the PZ III going.

You seem to want to take a personal best and create the circumstances to allow the Germans to smash it. I don't see how this is remotely realistic. Also, what does putting more into R&D here actually mean? The Germans did this quickly, Hitler took a direct personal interest, there was no lack of effort put into the R&D process for this model.

I have no objection to the Panther being available in August 1942, as long as its main armament is an MG34. The 75 mm weapons were not available in any numbers before December and the gunsight production did not begin until December 1942. Additionally, I'd want a "Panther testing rule" which stipulates that "any Panther deployed before May 1943 shall not work" and a rule which only makes these weapons fully effective from January 1944 when the second phase of rebuilding was done.

The reason these machines were so buggy when introduced was that a desire to cut corners (or in game terms, accelerate R&D to get the Big Cats in 1942) meant it was completely untested and the numerous issues took till January 1944 to fully resolve.

quote:

Sure. Would that make a difference?

No because the weapons wouldn't work. I'd have been surprised if any Panthers built in 1942 had been able to get out of the factory gate before blowing something.

quote:

Maybe. Would it cost you resources that could be spent to build many more PzIII's? Sure. Would you prefer to have fewer fully complemented divisions totally outfitted with Panthers? Maybe. That's the beauty of a production. You make the point about tank crews not being out there. Not true. Perhaps well trained tank crews were not available, but you can put that into operation by decreasing experience of the additional crews. Everything has an effect, but don't suggest that Panther's couldn't have been available a couple of months earlier or the like.

A couple of months earlier than when? January 1944 when they actually started working reliably? It was someone demanding they get them in 1942 that gave them such a sticky start operationally. R&D is generally about a small team of specialists from the firm that won the contract working through the problems. I don't see that giving them more "R&D points" actually makes a difference. What are you going to do? Shut down V2 development and get Von Braun and the German rocket engineer fraternity working on the Panther? How much quicker is that going to make the prototypes?

The Germans set M.A.N. stiff targets at every step of the way, and reality intruded every time. Even Hitler's demands re production targets never got met. Now, if an evil man capable of murdering millions couldn't get Panthers made any quicker, what makes you think any of the nice folks in this forum would be able to?

quote:

We aren't talking about creating things out of whole cloth, rather deciding what to do with the resources that are available. If I capture more resources than were historically captured, and the rail gauges catch up to those resource rich areas, will I have more resources to produce more tanks? Yep, but not because I just flipped a switch. The other point that was well made in this thread was streamlining. Germany made huge production mistakes because of political influence by the various armaments manufacturer and the Third Reich meddling. Some equipment was obsolete the day it rolled off the production line and should have been canceled, but wasn't because of Third Reich politics.

I'd need examples. Or rather, I'd want examples of stuff that was widely known beforehand to be nonsense. I find the idea that we should be allowed to cancel programs that turned out to be duds only after battlefield employment to be a joke. How realistic is it for us to pick and choose what we build based on hindsight?

As for production mistakes, you are now not just reallocating resources but re-organising the Reich. It's okay to say "if only they'ed done it like Ford, production would have been 40% higher" but exactly how do you implement into a game a "Speer visits Ford production line in Detroit mid war and returns with lots of ideas" option?

quote:

Again, if you want to play historically as it relates to production, fine. No one is stopping you. But to suggest that those who want to play with production have no historical position for arguing that production could not have been changed, streamlined and increased is flat false.

I diasagree. I contend that the idea Third Reich production was something that could be easily altered by use of a slider bar to be misinformed and ill judged.

I could live with scenario designers fiddling with the figures. A "Sealion successful" variant of the main campaign (apart from being a bit of a fantasy) would (to my mind) allow the Germans more forces and greater resources to be deployed in the east throughout the war.

With fewer withdrawls, a few extra units, greater refit rates, larger Luftwaffe deployments and serious increases in production since there is no Allied bomber offensive, this option might give the more even fight people seem to crave. Outside of that, I think we're getting into a situation where we are being asked to model an incredibly chaotic situation into a couple of variables with a slider bar. For the likely gains if this sort of activity was remotely realistic, I don't see the point at this scale and at this operational level.

Regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________

(in reply to itsjustme)

Post #: 113

RE: Why not free production? - 8/26/2009 10:34:39 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
OK, we can then agree (I assume) that it should be physically impossible for the Germans to produce a tank tonnage that is higher than they produced historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke
I have no issue with that at all- unless the game allows for the influence of leaders on production.

Lets hope not, this isn't Hearts of Iron.

quote:

But Tiger production was small beer. I'd also make the point that a whole sub component industry lies behind tank production, so when someone says "Build no Tigers, build extra PZ IIs" what they are actually saying is build thousands more obselete engines, build thousands more 2 CM cannon etc etc etc. This requires further reductions in other programmes because these sorts of things were not being produced as the PZ IIs were phased out in anything like the required numbers.

Also, Tigers were produced at Kassel which was hit hard in October 1943 during bombing, an event which disrupted Tiger production for months. Therefore, putting all your eggs into the Tiger basket should effectively rob you of any tank production during early 1943 as your enlarged facilities have been destroyed and your workforce dehoused.

quote:

..........I was going to go through point by point- but your not going to change your mind are you?

If presented with a convincing case, I'd be happy to. Are you going to change your mind?

quote:

So I'll ask you this:

If the Americans decided to produce numerous different variants of tanks (self propelled guns etc etc), on the same level as the Germans did would they have produced the same amount of vehicles as they historically did?

Yes. The Americans didn't really do the Assault Gun concept. Quite what feats they would have been capable of from a production standpoint, had they not had to add a turret onto the Sherman we can only speculate.

There is also an important point here re development. The Americans led the world industrially, in industrial methodology and produciton methods, yet the history of the R&D into a heavy tank is a mess. For all sorts of reasons, the most powerful industrial Giant on the planet couldn't field a decent heavy tank capable of matching the German Cats until the war was all but over.

This illustrates more than anything else that the the various inputs into R&D and production defy a slider bar approach.

quote:

and

Would the Germans have benefited from building one basic tank (a few variants), which could have been massed produced on a grand scale- simplifying spares, training and fuel needs? And would they have produced more within the same historical period?

Firstly, your basic problem is that you are searching so hard for ways to increase the size of the German Tank park that you are not stopping to consider whether any of the changes you want to introduce were actually possible.

Mass production (which is a rather vague phase, but lets say it means trebling their actual output) was never a possibility as they lacked the coal and steel to build that many vehicles, whether they had the actual factory floor space (which they didn't) or not. Had they surmounted this particular obstacle, the next one was how do we fuel three times as many tanks when we find it hard enough to keep the tanks we do have operationally mobile?

Exactly how mass production of one vehicle "simplifies" (as you put it) fuel needs escapes me. It may mean that only one type of gasoline/petrol/diesel may be needed (although I don't recall the Germans ever having this sort of issue) but this only simplifies it if you have enough of the chosen fuel in the first place. The Germans didn't, never did, and never would of.

Thirdly, what are you going to do with all those Tanks? Since the soft skinned vehicles to support such an increase didn't exist, all you could have done would have been to perhaps retain the 1940 TOEs and run the divisions at a reduced effectiveness. Excess tanks would have sat in great tank parks behind the lines acting as replacements.

The second aspect of this issue is combat effectiveness. Concentrating on mass production of the Panzer IV in this scenario is somewhat problematical given this tank was obselete by 1942 and it was only the several variants which extended its service life and enabled it to operate as a reasonably effective MBT into 1944/45. Cut out the variants and by 1943 your armoured Force is a sitting duck.

Concentrating on anything else presents even bigger problems. Whatever numbers you chose to manufacture the Panther in, its teething troubles held it back, and since it isn't available until mid 1943, what do you do before it arrives?

As for the Tiger, this was so highly engineered, and so relatively static that mass producing it essentially restricts the sorts of mobile operations you can undertake. A tank park pf 10000 Tigers in 1943 might have got them through the Kursk salient but a fresh advance into the dusty, arid, sandy Caucasus would have been an interesting campaign with vehicles that required high maintenance and lots of TLC from their engineers in the best of conditions.

Spare parts is an interesting question, but even when the Germans had phased out Czech and French weapons in the east, spare parts remained an issue for the more uniform tank parks of 1943/44. The issue was they didn't produce enough and getting what was produced to the front was not easy when logistics were limited and ammo took top priority.

Ultimately, the reasons the Germans lost in the east were systemic (shortcomings within the Wehrmacht and Senior Command) and Geo-political. Tinkering with production will not address those issues.

IMHO, only scenario designers armed with a what if mindset can deliver what I think everyone is really after when they talk about playing with production, which is a more even battle with chances for both sides in 1943/44.

Regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________

(in reply to Muzrub)

Post #: 114

RE: Why not free production? - 8/26/2009 10:43:57 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Also, Tigers were produced at Kassel which was hit hard in October 1943 during bombing, an event which disrupted Tiger production for months. Therefore, putting all your eggs into the Tiger basket should effectively rob you of any tank production during early 1943 as your enlarged facilities have been destroyed and your workforce dehoused.

I repect your well thought out positions however I found myself thinking that a random event knocking out factory production to some extent, (say random % loss) could also make an interesting component of a production model. In that sense, (or at least in my on view on things) you've made an interesting case for production modelling in your own rebuttal.

Just a thought.

I suspect that any player who put all their eggs into one basket from a produciton standpoint and then saw a random event knock out the factory would throw the software in the bin. This sort of random event has to be carefully managed in games where you expect big PBEM take up.

Besides, you can have this sort of event within static historical production, indeed if the numbers of vehicles added to the pool each month are based on actual output figures, then the game already has modelled this since presumably Tiger production takes a hit in late 42/early 44, and all production suffers during the battle of the Ruhr in 1943.

Regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 115

RE: Why not free production? - 8/26/2009 11:18:39 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

You guys kill me.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 116

RE: Why not free production? - 8/26/2009 11:46:56 PM

JMass

Posts: 2364
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Italy
Status: offline

.

_____________________________

"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!"Generaloberst Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

My boardgames collection: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/JMass?own=1&subtype=boardgame&ff=1

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 117

RE: Why not free production? - 8/27/2009 1:28:27 AM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

You guys kill me.

May I ask why?

If this isn't a fit discussion for the forum then I'll happily disappear elsewhere and wait for the welcome announcement in the news section about the release.

_____________________________

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 118

RE: Why not free production? - 8/27/2009 2:11:03 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

You guys kill me.

May I ask why?

If this isn't a fit discussion for the forum then I'll happily disappear elsewhere and wait for the welcome announcement in the news section about the release.

No, don't get me wrong. It's as good a place as any. I just get the impression that some think it's still a possibility that's all.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 119

RE: Why not free production? - 8/28/2009 6:55:07 PM

Stryder

Posts: 188
Joined: 10/13/2003
Status: offline

I want to produce winter clothing, better oil and lubricants and build heated hangars, for the Germans in 41...

and nothing but T-34 tanks and Lavochkin La7s as the Russians

actually, my opinion is that no one ever had as much control as this game gives you.... no one had complete control of the entire front.... and in truth the more control Hitler took of the army, the worse it fared; while the more control Stalin gradually ceded the better the USSR fared .. I have no interest in controlling the production and would have the AI run it if that was an option.

To make the game closer to what any general faced, I wouldn't mind (I know it will not happen) having the player forced to have missions; defend certain cities; capture certain points, etc.... almost no modern General operates without political interference, allies sensibilities, economic considerations, morale of the populace, etc.... as the player not facing any of these considerations, you run the war far differently than a real world commander...

_____________________________

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 120