Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ram300

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsjustme
The German economy wasn't put on a war footing until late 42/early 43.

I think Adam Tooze does a very good job of dispelling that notion in the Wages of Destruction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SnowBlue88

Meh, seems like most players who want free production only consider the German side of the situation and want a system where they can only do historically better. No one really seems to care how complex such a system has to be or provide an idea that wont screw what was historically possible. Keep in mind that a Soviet player will also have similar options and in the end you are going to end up in situations that would seem atrocious from a historical point of view, like Panther equipped division fighting JSIII and T-44 Tank Corps. Anyways to truly affect production as the 3rd Reich certain drastic changes would have to be made that would seem even more unhistorical, like mobilizing women. 

Some people might want these options but I think having that much change would just seem odd. Why not also include the whole political aspect and allow the Nazi's to recognize Ukraine and the Soviets to abolish commissars right from the beginning?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengCiao



It's hard to keep all the myths straight when it comes to German Production before and during WWII. I've just been reading Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction...it discusses quite a number of myths. Perhaps the spare-parts myth is a mythical echo of the actual subcomponent crisis that followed the attacks of Bomber Command on the Ruhr in 1943.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengCiao



It's hard to keep all the myths straight when it comes to German Production before and during WWII. I've just been reading Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction...it discusses quite a number of myths. Perhaps the spare-parts myth is a mythical echo of the actual subcomponent crisis that followed the attacks of Bomber Command on the Ruhr in 1943.

What is the spare parts myth...?

"Even more important was the problem of field maintenance. In order to be effective, vehicles require a steady supply of spare parts. This was a requirement that German industry completely failed to meet. Burkhart Muller Hildebrand blamed this situation on "some armament production officials". Albert Speer took the more standard course of blaming Adolf Hitler. Whatever the case, the German Army faced an almost continuous shortage of spare parts, a situation made even worse by the profusion of models, which made the ditribution of those spare parts that were produced even more difficult. At times, Army Groups received spare parts for tank models they did not even have."

R L DiNardo "Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII".

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengCiao

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengCiao



It's hard to keep all the myths straight when it comes to German Production before and during WWII. I've just been reading Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction...it discusses quite a number of myths. Perhaps the spare-parts myth is a mythical echo of the actual subcomponent crisis that followed the attacks of Bomber Command on the Ruhr in 1943.

What is the spare parts myth...?

"Even more important was the problem of field maintenance. In order to be effective, vehicles require a steady supply of spare parts. This was a requirement that German industry completely failed to meet. Burkhart Muller Hildebrand blamed this situation on "some armament production officials". Albert Speer took the more standard course of blaming Adolf Hitler. Whatever the case, the German Army faced an almost continuous shortage of spare parts, a situation made even worse by the profusion of models, which made the ditribution of those spare parts that were produced even more difficult. At times, Army Groups received spare parts for tank models they did not even have."

R L DiNardo "Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII".

The myth would be that somehow a lack of spare parts uniquely explains something or other about what the Germans could have done wrong or right.
Note that nobody (certainly not Speer) in the tale of the spare parts has any real idea why there is a spare parts problem. Is it the transport priority assigned to spare parts? Is it a lack of transport in general? Is it a lack of planning? Or is it just one of 9000 other things that go wrong when your economy was never adequate for a major war?

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengCiao

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: MengCiao



It's hard to keep all the myths straight when it comes to German Production before and during WWII. I've just been reading Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction...it discusses quite a number of myths. Perhaps the spare-parts myth is a mythical echo of the actual subcomponent crisis that followed the attacks of Bomber Command on the Ruhr in 1943.

What is the spare parts myth...?

"Even more important was the problem of field maintenance. In order to be effective, vehicles require a steady supply of spare parts. This was a requirement that German industry completely failed to meet. Burkhart Muller Hildebrand blamed this situation on "some armament production officials". Albert Speer took the more standard course of blaming Adolf Hitler. Whatever the case, the German Army faced an almost continuous shortage of spare parts, a situation made even worse by the profusion of models, which made the ditribution of those spare parts that were produced even more difficult. At times, Army Groups received spare parts for tank models they did not even have."

R L DiNardo "Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII".

The myth would be that somehow a lack of spare parts uniquely explains something or other about what the Germans could have done wrong or right.
Note that nobody (certainly not Speer) in the tale of the spare parts has any real idea why there is a spare parts problem. Is it the transport priority assigned to spare parts? Is it a lack of transport in general? Is it a lack of planning? Or is it just one of 9000 other things that go wrong when your economy was never adequate for a major war?

But the supposition was that there was a fundamental failure to provide spare parts to keep the Panzer Arm running in the field. This in part exacerbated production issues because the Germans couldn't maintain the tank park they did have, never mind one several thousand machines larger.

You can't describe it as a myth and then say "note that nobody...has any idea why there is a spare parts problem."

It also isn't a myth if you are the first one to describe it as such. The spare parts issue was fairly straightforward. They didn't produce enough.

Regards,
IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

OK, so you guys are argueing about the issue, but in terms of the game there is an issue for how the game models real life, and the potential that truly existed for things to be very very much worse, or better. I guess you shouls look at the red armys huge problems with supplies... moving supplies with the advances etc. Hopefully the editor will allow us to model different OFF BOARD issues creating a number of WHAT IFS.. good luck guys

quote:

What if Stalin hadn't purged the Red Army?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SnowBlue88

Meh, seems like most players who want free production only consider the German side of the situation and want a system where they can only do historically better. No one really seems to care how complex such a system has to be or provide an idea that wont screw what was historically possible. Keep in mind that a Soviet player will also have similar options and in the end you are going to end up in situations that would seem atrocious from a historical point of view, like Panther equipped division fighting JSIII and T-44 Tank Corps. Anyways to truly affect production as the 3rd Reich certain drastic changes would have to be made that would seem even more unhistorical, like mobilizing women. 

Some people might want these options but I think having that much change would just seem odd. Why not also include the whole political aspect and allow the Nazi's to recognize Ukraine and the Soviets to abolish commissars right from the beginning?

quote:

What effects do moving factories or strategic bombing have on historically based production?
sorry if this has been already asked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

[I understand your principles to put players into the role of OKH/STAVKA and keep everything as historical as possible. I would, however, have much preferred that you make that an optional choice at the beginning of the game, and allow other players to tamper with production, R&D, transfers if they'd like to in much the same, or even enhanced ways compared to WiR. Well, but the decision decision is what it is now. I will surely keep watching the next few month and see how well the AI really does after release, and whether people can mod some of the things that from my point of view are missing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

[I understand your principles to put players into the role of OKH/STAVKA and keep everything as historical as possible. I would, however, have much preferred that you make that an optional choice at the beginning of the game, and allow other players to tamper with production, R&D, transfers if they'd like to in much the same, or even enhanced ways compared to WiR. Well, but the decision decision is what it is now. I will surely keep watching the next few month and see how well the AI really does after release, and whether people can mod some of the things that from my point of view are missing.

It seems that people complaining about the lack of "free production" forget that only aircraft and AFVs are based on historical production in WitE. This is not WitP where aircraft and ships accounted for the greatest portion of your combat capability. Most of the production in WitE goes into things that are not aircraft & AFVs and most of your strength lies in your infantry and artillery. Getting more advanced aircraft or tanks earlier or more of one type of aircraft or tank than historical simply won't matter. There is just too much of everything else out there. The notion that somehow if only there was "free production" the German player could be competitive late into the War is a myth based on a comparatively weak simulation (WIR) of the conflict.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder


Actually what really should be optional in my opinion is not production per se, but rather the ability to change the basic to&e of a formation as war goes on. I think that players should be allowed to choose if for example allow German divisions type 42 turn in type 44. This is especially important since the Russians will get new corps of different kinds over time, while German formations would be progressively weakened. It would be very difficult even for a relatively victorious Wehrmacht to maintain its position if its formations weaken, even though they might be winning in a particular game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neal_MLC

I think beating a dead horse would be more effective

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Jaeger

Having eaten my boots as well (it was really rather chilly), I want to be able influence boot production .  

Actually I find the discussion still quite interesting, even though the decision is made and I agree with it.

Like the Capt, I would still like to see (the option of?) the odd randomly generated mad mullah (eg Grofaz and Uncle Joe) sacking of my best general for authorising an advance to the rear, and perhaps changing victory hexes as 'mad, take Stalingrad at all costs' type instructions.    I know... there are no plans at present!

Beta soon?

Stuart

quote:

ORIGINAL: joliverlay
...The conversion of motorized divisions to panzer was one problem, losses was another, but lack of production was the big one.

The tank shortage was so severe that tank batallions were removed from the panzer divisons wholesale and later some of the remaining ones were replaced with assult guns because they were cheaper to produce. Not as effective for offensive operations, but better than nothing. It is pretty clear that the Germans would have benefited from streamlined production and keeping the TOE at a reasonable level. They might have done as well or better to have produced just the Mark IV in very large numbers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder


Actually what really should be optional in my opinion is not production per se, but rather the ability to change the basic to&e of a formation as war goes on. I think that players should be allowed to choose if for example allow German divisions type 42 turn in type 44. This is especially important since the Russians will get new corps of different kinds over time, while German formations would be progressively weakened. It would be very difficult even for a relatively victorious Wehrmacht to maintain its position if its formations weaken, even though they might be winning in a particular game.

Actually what you are suggesting is a contradiction. The German player can't both be winning and still fighting in the later half of the War. If you are playing the '41 - '45 Campaign game you must win early or not at all. Assuming you fail to win a victory before late 1943, you are going to want that '44 Infantry division TOE to conserve manpower without sacrificing too much firepower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

quote:

What if Stalin hadn't purged the Red Army?

He would have been overthrown.