Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer

But all that said, you can't honestly say the idea of an SS Panzer Division filled out with 200 Tigers doesn't make your barrel elevate. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I wish I had more control over creating units, keeping units versus withdrawl or better yet, having the ability to upgrade or not upgrade to next TOE change. I could have 1/2 divisions at 45 TOE and the other 1/2 at 42 TOE if I wanted them to be.

I am very glad this level of control is NOT available. Quite simply, it allows the player way too much ability to optimize, while ignoring the real life reasons such things were not done.

There is a reason units have TO&E, and it has to do with much more than just economics and logistics. It also has to do with consistent doctrine, tactics, and employment of resources. The German military of WW2 was already incredibly inefficient in these factors, with specialized units all over the place with varying TO&E, and it hurt them in many ways. There was no consistency in capability, supply needs, spare parts, etc., etc. between what should have been similar units.

Allowing the player to "tweak" this even more would just give the players even more ability to ignore the real life limitations. You know what would happen - players would just optimize the fighting formations at the expense of the more static formations. That isn't a bad thing in theory (lord knows the Germans and Russians did just that) but I don't think it should be allowed to be done anymore than was actually done. JMO of course.

quote:

Not to mention that the TOEs changed due to losses. Hard to have a division with a 1941 authorized strength of 10,000 if by 1945 you don't have the troops to give it more than 5,000.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Not to mention that the TOEs changed due to losses. Hard to have a division with a 1941 authorized strength of 10,000 if by 1945 you don't have the troops to give it more than 5,000.

Russians had the same problem. Many divisions in 45 were down to 2,000 men.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

No, those pools are specifically for the Eastern Front and Jim would have to give you the specifics on the production model. My point is that it is difficult to first of all figure out exactly how many units of x went to Russia. Anybody have the exact number of 105mm Howitzers or the number of Bf-109G6s that were sent to Russia as replacements during the entire war? We know about how many total were produced during the war and then we have to strip out the number of units were shipped with reinforcing units and thus leaving us with a rough number of units that were shipped as replacements. Then we say that x % were shipped East and then we average that number over the number of months of the conflict. This doesn't model any production that increases or decreases over time as it is just an average so it would be a lofty goal to make a production model that is dynamic enough to model the complexities of historical production. Not being defensive here but production is a tough one and compromises were made to make a game. There is so much information that is hard to obtain that you end up making educated guesses. Try figuring out the German manpower situation in 1941. Thats a fun on too.

Trey

Using average numbers for production probably made the game easier to design and to code. So it was the right decision to take.

OTH, fixed average production numbers don’t represent German weapon allocation for the Eastern front, which was not very steady during the war. Tanks were held back to equip new units instead of strenghtening those up front. The decision maker’s strategic outlook about a quick victory in the East in 1941 influenced weapon allocation in the Führer state considerably, as well as changing the strategic Schwerpunkt towards Western Europe in late 1943. So, for the East replacements there were considerable ups and downs from month to month. No fixed replacement percentage for the 1941-1945 time span possibly could represent this. Arguably, the percentage of East replacements out of the total German production pool, could have reached its peak in 1942 and 1943, after the sure bet Barbarossa was fought with older use-w/o-replacement-weapons (Verbrauchsgerät) and before the strategic reorientation.

But collecting valid data about East-only weapons allocation IS a royal pain. FREX, apparently valid allcation numbers for field and AT guns in 1941 just don’t exist. Until Oct. 1941 those (well known) losses more or less were made up from general-quartermaster’s pool plus by transfers from Commander Ersatzheer and from Quartermaster West. From then to the end of the year losses simply weren’t made up, because it was planned to repatriate most Ostdivisions after the expected victory without their heavy equipment and their heavy weapons. This material was to make up losses in the occupational forces remaining in the East. Bottom line: No exact numbers for 105 mm howitzer replacements for 1941.

Sources:
Bernhard R. Kroener, Die personellen Ressourcen des Dritten Reiches im Spannungsfeld zwischen Wehrmacht, Bürokratie und Kriegswirtschaft 1939-42 [Third Reich’s personnel ressources between Wehrmacht, bureaucracy and war economy], in: Deutschland und der Zweite Weltkrieg, vol. 5.1, pp. 693-1001, esp. p. 867.
Ibd., p. 868. Rolf-Dieter Müller, Das Scheitern der wirtschaftlichen "Blitzkriegstrategie" [The failed economic Blitzkrieg strategy], in: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Vol. 4, Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion, pp. 936-1078, see pp. 974-975. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2684171&mpage=1&key=�


As for German manpower situation in 1941:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2696271&mpage=1&key=?

Regards

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

Here are the Tiger I production figures.

[image][/image]

The argument over these 200 Tiger I's being historical or not is irrelevant, the game is only historical in the sense that the Divisions etc that were on the Eastern Front are on the whole on the Eastern Front. As soon as you start playing the game it becomes 'ahistorical', why do I say that? Well the German divisions are tied to the games defined TOE, you have no control over individual Pz Abt, your Pz divs' are what they are until the TOE changes when they all change at once and this is once again just plain 'ahistorical'.

Allow to explain further, the TOE's do not take into account that some Pz Divs' had 3 Pz Abt whilst the rest had 2, it also doesn't take into account that from mid 1943 onwards most Pz Divs' fighting on the Eastern Front fought with only a single Pz Abt as the other one would either be refitting(usually in France) with Panthers, or detached to another Pz div' or to act as HeeresTruppen.

Talking of units re-equipping with Panthers, in game they all appear to re-equip with the introduction of the March '44 TOE and yet some Pz Abt. received them in September/October 1943 whilst some even later(than March 44) e.g. July 1944.

In terms of the fixed TOE it has the advantage that at times units will be stronger than they actually were, but at the same time it has the disadvantage that units may be weaker than they actually were, one example is the 101st Pz Brigade which arrives in August 44 and is never withdrawn, when in reality it was disbanded and integrated into the 20. Pz division in October 1944.

Personally I hate the fixed TOE concept, If I'm doing historically better in say late 1944- early 1945 and I have the required stocks, e.g. 3000 Pzkpfw IV & 2000 Panthers, and relatively no fuel or transport problems why on earth would I choose in real life to change to the '45 Pz Div TOE, and after losses, give each Pz Div just 20 of each tank. The same can be said for any period though, if you have the required stocks you should be able to either bring forward or more importantly delay/not implement a later TOE if it is detrimental to your forces..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

man, it is clear from that table that the Wehrmacht had just given up there at the end.

The goal for August of '44 was only 9? Pathetic! What was Speer thinking???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

I would pay real money for the Devs to add the Maus to the production schedule. Say 3 per month or so.

Don't ever let them get into a unit of course. Just let them sit there gathering dust...that should drive everyone absolutely insane.

ZOMG I COULD WIN TEH WOR!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Not to mention that the TOEs changed due to losses. Hard to have a division with a 1941 authorized strength of 10,000 if by 1945 you don't have the troops to give it more than 5,000.

Russians had the same problem. Many divisions in 45 were down to 2,000 men.

Indeed. Both sides realized that while the 10k man division might be ideal, a division at 50% strength of a 19k division was NOT ideal, and you were better off designing for the smaller size, rather than having a 10k TOE at 50% strength.

In other words, a division designed to be 6000 men at full strength is better than a division designed to be 10,000 men at 60% strength.

The germans did this a LOT with their Panzer divisions. By the end of the war the "Panzer" division TOE was what, half the number of tanks? And less in reality?

I remember noting that a typical US infantry division in late 1944 had more AFVs directly attached to it than most Panzer divisions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baron von Beer

As far as the 105mm AA in the pool, that is a TO&E issue (not saying bug/mistake, simply the cause). You start the game with 400 assigned to the heavy/city based FLAK regiments. However, the TO&E of those regiments does not include the 105mm AA, so they eventually leak back into the pool and no unit in the game appears to utilize this piece of equipment. 

Just assume Herman took his toys West, and doesn't like to share.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

Not to mention that the TOEs changed due to losses. Hard to have a division with a 1941 authorized strength of 10,000 if by 1945 you don't have the troops to give it more than 5,000.

Ummm... the TOE's for Infantry Divisions do change each year, and you can adjust the max. TOE of each individual unit to a minimum of 50%

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Derfel

The basic problem is that there is only so many "shells" that can hold Tigers in the game.

Well, no - the basic problem is that the games production system averages out production over the production life of the item, rather than tracking ACTUAL production which almost certainly varied greatly, and likely (at least for something like a Tiger) was heavily weighted toward the middle and end of the production life cycle.

So you end up with more Tigers being produced early in its production life than were actually produced, and hence some overbuild, with the surplus sitting in the pool until the shells come into the game that can hold them.

What is funny about the claim that this is a travesty because it is ever so historically inaccurate to have the number "200" in a pool that doesn't effect the game in any way whatsoever, is that the "solution" being demanded is that the user should be allowed to use them in combat units. Which most certainly WOULD be historically inaccurate!

Which is more historically accurate - 200 Tigers that never existed running around blowing up T-34s, or the number "200" sitting on a page somewhere that has zero effect on the game at all, and represents Tigers that were not actually built yet, but will be in the future...you know, when they were actually built?

The production system is a system that combines an somewhat abstract production model with nominally historical arrival dates for the units that use that production. The problem is that people are looking at just a portion of the system, the production model, ignoring the other part of the system, the historical arrival dates of the units that consume what is produced, and then deciding that there is some terrible injustice because there are some bits and pieces produced that they cannot use RIGHT NOW.

Those Tigers don't exist yet. Ignore them. Be happy when you get the units that use them. Until then, it doesn't mean anything that they are "in the pool".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Not to mention that the TOEs changed due to losses. Hard to have a division with a 1941 authorized strength of 10,000 if by 1945 you don't have the troops to give it more than 5,000.

Russians had the same problem. Many divisions in 45 were down to 2,000 men.

Indeed. Both sides realized that while the 10k man division might be ideal, a division at 50% strength of a 19k division was NOT ideal, and you were better off designing for the smaller size, rather than having a 10k TOE at 50% strength.

In other words, a division designed to be 6000 men at full strength is better than a division designed to be 10,000 men at 60% strength.

The germans did this a LOT with their Panzer divisions. By the end of the war the "Panzer" division TOE was what, half the number of tanks? And less in reality?

I remember noting that a typical US infantry division in late 1944 had more AFVs directly attached to it than most Panzer divisions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

Here are the Tiger I production figures.

[image][/image]

The argument over these 200 Tiger I's being historical or not is irrelevant, the game is only historical in the sense that the Divisions etc that were on the Eastern Front are on the whole on the Eastern Front. As soon as you start playing the game it becomes 'ahistorical', why do I say that? Well the German divisions are tied to the games defined TOE, you have no control over individual Pz Abt, your Pz divs' are what they are until the TOE changes when they all change at once and this is once again just plain 'ahistorical'.

Allow to explain further, the TOE's do not take into account that some Pz Divs' had 3 Pz Abt whilst the rest had 2, it also doesn't take into account that from mid 1943 onwards most Pz Divs' fighting on the Eastern Front fought with only a single Pz Abt as the other one would either be refitting(usually in France) with Panthers, or detached to another Pz div' or to act as HeeresTruppen.

Talking of units re-equipping with Panthers, in game they all appear to re-equip with the introduction of the March '44 TOE and yet some Pz Abt. received them in September/October 1943 whilst some even later(than March 44) e.g. July 1944.

In terms of the fixed TOE it has the advantage that at times units will be stronger than they actually were, but at the same time it has the disadvantage that units may be weaker than they actually were, one example is the 101st Pz Brigade which arrives in August 44 and is never withdrawn, when in reality it was disbanded and integrated into the 20. Pz division in October 1944.

Personally I hate the fixed TOE concept, If I'm doing historically better in say late 1944- early 1945 and I have the required stocks, e.g. 3000 Pzkpfw IV & 2000 Panthers, and relatively no fuel or transport problems why on earth would I choose in real life to change to the '45 Pz Div TOE, and after losses, give each Pz Div just 20 of each tank. The same can be said for any period though, if you have the required stocks you should be able to either bring forward or more importantly delay/not implement a later TOE if it is detrimental to your forces..

quote:

If you have the equipment/manpower then you should be able to use it.