RE: Will there be any change to 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: Will there be any change to 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: Will there be any change to production?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/4/2012 11:06:22 PM

Gandalf

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

There isn't anything close to this as a computer game that fights the Eastern Front. Just enjoy playing it.

Wrong.

Though dated, Schwerpunkt Games' Russo-German War 41-44 does a pretty good job fighting the East Front on a similar scale and does a far more equitable job of treating both sides the same design wise, even if it does lack an in depth production system.

see: http://schwerpunkt.wargamer.com/

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 61

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/4/2012 11:08:39 PM

Baelfiin

Posts: 2978
Joined: 6/7/2006
Status: offline

No offense to the boys of scwerpunkt but that game is severely lacking.

_____________________________

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

(in reply to Gandalf)

Post #: 62

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/4/2012 11:20:39 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

This whole national morale debate is a meaningless sidetrack started by Pelton and taken up as a cause. It could have been better handled in the model, I agree, but despite everyone jumping up and down no one has really explained how it radically alters the game to be ahistoric. it seems to me that it just boils down to 'the russian get so tough by the end and the germans are fragile' well, perhaps that is because THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. At least there was one player who actually did some testing and gave some meaningful feedback, and the results seem to be.... meh, not a huge issue.

Now if a German player wanted to think about making the Soviets standfast a bit more, maybe they should think about the old thread about railing out factories. Not that rail-cap is too high for russians, because i think it was shown that this was not true. but if they could gather some production data from several LATE WAR games it is possible that they could show that the Russians are producing much more than historical. I am guessing this because the benchmark I believe was 50% evacuation to equal historical production. But I think it is very rare for the Soviet player to get less than 90% evacuation. But I don't know for sure, because I only have my games and a few AARs to go by. But seriously, a bit of real data gathering and constructive conversatioin could maybe go a long way to helping craft a solution.

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 63

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/4/2012 11:36:42 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

I can't undestand all this mess

1941 is about right. Ok, no catastrophic losses but the Germans grab more things than in the real thing. Not to mention that NO German player really sticks to the original German plan (aka Barbarossa) and yet they want to force the Soviets to stick to history (aka send the lambs to slaughter aka mega-pockets everywhere and every turn)...

1942: the Germans seem to be strong. Right again.

Later we really can't tell. But I suspect Tarhunnas (active AAR) should be winning (at least on my book). And he is playing the German side... Soooo I really don't get it

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 64

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/4/2012 11:40:19 PM

Great_Ajax

Posts: 4774
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline

In my opinion, national morale for the German represents both the decreasing quality of replacements due to the need of short cutting training to get the maximum number of replacements into units and the the gradually losing of the cream of your soldiers through sustained fighting. The Germans are at the peak of combat efficiency when Barbarossa begins and the only place to go is down. The Soviets are almost at the floor in terms of combat efficiency and they can only improve.

National morale is not "fighting spirit" but the quality of replacements and newly raised formations. The longer that soldiers stay in service (less casualties), the less you have to scrape the barrel to get replacements. Thus, it should not be affected at all by the loss and gain of territory. I'm not a fan of fixed national morale myself and think it should be based on casualties with the the historical losses being the median or the current NM settings. If the Germans suffer fewer casualties, then their NM could be in a little bit better shape but the same should go for the Soviets as well.

Trey

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to Baelfiin)

Post #: 65

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/4/2012 11:42:52 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

Production is not my biggest concern. The number one concern is moral. Moral increases or decreases should be dependent on lost or gained cities and not predetermined. This is clear bias. Not accusations no insults just a plain fact. That system is indefensible. How important is moral in this game?

As has been explained a few times by those who know, national morale is actually a proficiency rating. It has nothing what so ever to do with territory or cities won or lost.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's agree that National morale is a proficiency rating... What affects German proficiency over time? Obviously, it's the steady wear and tear of the war effort over the period depicted assuming the West Front conditions proceed historically with an abstracted allied war effort which includes strategic bombing. Now, we return to this game and the East Front itself. What effects Soviet proficiency or better stated, the limitation of it's improvement within the game system? Absolutely nothing. No matter what the German player accomplishes he cannot really affect the Soviet proficiency AND he cannot alter his own production to compensate for his own decreasing proficiency whereas the Soviet player can alter his production priorities as he sees fit knowing his proficiency is going to increase year over year even if he loses a heck of a lot more cities/territory than happened historically.

And no matter what he does the Soviet player can not alter Axis proficiency. Cities and territory have nothing to do with how well a unit fights. Nor can the Sovs alter production as they see fit. (I don't want T-34s. I want KVs. So how can I change production?).

To use Flav's example, should the Free French be worse than the 1940 Army? Afterall, they lost all of mainland France. Could the Red Army been any worse? They lost what in US terms would equal the distance from the East Coast to Topeka Kansas.

And yet, they didn't collaspe. They didn't get worse. They got better. Despite all the territory lost.

How?

(in reply to Gandalf)

Post #: 66

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/4/2012 11:51:24 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

In my opinion, national morale for the German represents both the decreasing quality of replacements due to the need of short cutting training to get the maximum number of replacements into units and the the gradually losing of the cream of your soldiers through sustained fighting. The Germans are at the peak of combat efficiency when Barbarossa begins and the only place to go is down. The Soviets are almost at the floor in terms of combat efficiency and they can only improve.

I am pretty certain it's much more than that. It's all the variables that in the end make a fighting unit: military doctrine, plans, organization, armaments, will to fight, training, tactics, efficient personnel (soldiers and top leaders), mobilized population, war industry etc etc. In short, it's the whole thing: the units backed by the whole country industry, technology, science, morale etc etc.

In the Soviet case it only can increase. As noted, the Red Army cannot get any worse

At least that's what Pavel more or less said, if I remember correctly.

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 1/4/2012 11:56:07 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 67

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/4/2012 11:51:38 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

TD, you are right on. It is the really frustrating thing about many of these complaints. Ok, there are some that are really about problems with the way things are implemented, like the airbase attack problem which was fixed, or the 2:1 attack rule (good idea, bad implementation). So much of the focus is on the early war period. I suspect it is because many of these players are what we called 'panzer pushers' in europa. they think the war as a whole was barbarrossa and case blue. But in reality those were a very small part of the entire conflct. the war ends when BERLIN IS CAPTURED. play it to that point and then lets see what the problems are. the incessant complaining about 41/42 is starting to sound just churlish.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 68

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 12:38:00 AM

Mentor

Posts: 51
Joined: 12/8/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I would also add that the hysterical and ill-defined complaints are not without broader impacts. I know 3 people in just my little wargame circle that have not bought this game because they got the impression from the forum that it was broken. I pointed out that it is basically just the same 2-3 people with a small chorus of supporters who just repeat the whine of the day, but the number of threads that get spammed about percieved problems in the game have put them off.

For sure there are some good points made by these folks occasionally, but for the most part the complaints are just that Germany can't win in the way they think they should. There is a lack of historical operational knowledge and most damning a lack of testing. Really at this point there should be more playing and less complaining. It is the same process that WitP went through, but there the community worked to weed out cancerous forum members as well as game-play bugs. There are people with expectations about this game that will not be met, for instance Heliodorus. It is at heart an historical game, which means the Germans are screwed. It takes a Soviet player as incompetant as Stalin to give you the game you would want.

So lets focus on mechanics that need some work, such as aspects of the air war, high ROF weapons, etc and do it with some meaningful testing and respectful comments in a collegial atmosphere. Heliodorus, you think the game is a way for the game designers to become fabulously wealthy at your expense, that is your right. Please feel free to leave the forum and be bitter. Pelton, you think the game designers are a bunch of rednecks who don't appreciate the awesome magesty that was the Wehrmact, ok, you should move on to greener pastures. Otherwise, why dont you make more constructive input.

+1

Excellent post.

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 69

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 12:44:12 AM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

Ok, morale again�there is one thing that I do not understand yet.

Why do the Germans have a high proficiency (NationalMorale=75) in June 1941? In theory, because they were battle-hardened veterans. Back in 1938 the German Army performed rather poorly during Otto, the military walk into Austria, and in November 1939, after the Polish campaign, von Brauchitsch wrote a memorandum to Hitler explaining the shortcomings in the performance of the German Army.We can deduce that their improvement was indeed due mostly to their battle experience, and not training alone. After Poland there were campaigns in Norway, Denmark, Low Countries, France , Yugoslavia. None of those campaigns were really long, or incredibly difficult, but supposedly the Germans acquired in the process the summit of military perfection.

Then, how is it that after two years of constant fighting the Soviet proficiency is set at 50 in June 1943? I understand it in terms of balance and playability, but, then, how can those morale settings be considered horribly biased in favor of the Soviets? Unless we assume that the Russians are somewhat retarded and cannot reach the zenith of military performance as quickly as the Germans, what I see here is a mechanism to improve the chances of the Axis of reaching Autumn 1944 deep in Russia, not the other way round.

(in reply to Mentor)

Post #: 70

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 1:10:35 AM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

This is just my opinion on National Morale and why it makes sense for the Germans to consistantly be a bit ahead. For me, it really represents the tactical level proficiency of a formation. If you look at the level it is applied at, the manuever element, it seems to me that it really reflects the general effectiveness of the NCO and junior/unit level officers and the military culture to maximize that effectiveness. Most players focus on the difference in generalship between the armies, but in my opinion it was at the small unit leader level where the German army most consistantly had its advantage. Not only better leaders, but a doctrine that allowed those leaders to operationalize their initiative and insight into battlefield results. The red army had, by war's end, an effective NCO cadre and capable junior officers, but even then was rigid in its small unit doctrine which did not allow them the same latitude for tactical problem solving that the German army had. Because I see NM as representing this, I think it makes sense that the Germans have a higher default level. But like I said, it is something of a mishmash concept

< Message edited by darbymcd -- 1/5/2012 1:13:06 AM >

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 71

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 1:36:18 AM

alfonso

Posts: 470
Joined: 10/22/2001
From: Palma de Mallorca
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

This is just my opinion on National Morale and why it makes sense for the Germans to consistantly be a bit ahead. For me, it really represents the tactical level proficiency of a formation. If you look at the level it is applied at, the manuever element, it seems to me that it really reflects the general effectiveness of the NCO and junior/unit level officers and the military culture to maximize that effectiveness. Most players focus on the difference in generalship between the armies, but in my opinion it was at the small unit leader level where the German army most consistantly had its advantage. Not only better leaders, but a doctrine that allowed those leaders to operationalize their initiative and insight into battlefield results. The red army had, by war's end, an effective NCO cadre and capable junior officers, but even then was rigid in its small unit doctrine which did not allow them the same latitude for tactical problem solving that the German army had. Because I see NM as representing this, I think it makes sense that the Germans have a higher default level. But like I said, it is something of a mishmash concept

Thanks, I understand your explanation, and it seems plausible to me (although I do not know if it is correct, in Stalingrad the Soviet side arguably adapted better to street tactical fighting...). But for those forum members that are critical of morale being tied to historical timeline, history could not be invoked to explain the gap between Germans and Russians.

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 72

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 1:47:56 AM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso

Why do the Germans have a high proficiency (NationalMorale=75) in June 1941? In theory, because they were battle-hardened veterans. Back in 1938 the German Army performed rather poorly during Otto, the military walk into Austria, and in November 1939, after the Polish campaign, von Brauchitsch wrote a memorandum to Hitler explaining the shortcomings in the performance of the German Army.We can deduce that their improvement was indeed due mostly to their battle experience, and not training alone. After Poland there were campaigns in Norway, Denmark, Low Countries, France , Yugoslavia. None of those campaigns were really long, or incredibly difficult, but supposedly the Germans acquired in the process the summit of military perfection.

In fact after the Polish campaign the German High Command had concluded the 1914 German infantry was superior to their 1939 counterparts.

Let's never forget that the armored forces (a really small fraction of the land forces) did most of the job. The infantry had not really been tested. And this was true in 1940 and in fact in 1941 in the USSR.

The German infantry �ber supermen is a myth. Hardened veterans, ok, but not some sort of Death Star some people want us to believe

In case people are missing this, the Wehrmacht had grown way too fast (the Versailles Treaty restrictions). As a result, this army was NOT that efficient (inevitable structural problems). The thing is most people only see the rutilant fa�ade: the mighty panzers. The infantry marched behind with the horses...

And sorry if I am pissing in someone's pocket

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 73

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 2:02:50 AM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

In fact look at the advance in the AGS during Barbarossa. Here NO panzers to really create a big mess

German infantry vs Red Army... we all know the advance here was much MORE difficult... and again, Panzers were called (from the AGC) to do -again- the job: Kiev pocket...

But German infantry alone...

And above all, I guess the German High Command knows better than any of us armchair generals. Which makes me of course conclude the offensive CVs of German infantry -on the game- are way too high

If you want it (weak soviets), you'll have it (realistic German infantry)!

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 74

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 2:36:23 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Tullius, that was just Brauschitsch popping off to Hitler for his own reasons. He grossly exaggerated the deficiencies of German infantry after the Polish campaign mostly to curb Hitler's appetite for further offensive actions. (Hitler wanted to attack France much earlier than May of 40 despite the weather.) The case against such an early attack was completely justifiable on other more objective grounds.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 75

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 2:50:42 AM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

The comparison was perfectly valid, evident Flavius. The 1914 army had a lot of time to learn (decades). The one in 1939 did not. It was a new army. And this was of no little consequences (like evertyhing, too fast is not the best thing to do: Czech tanks in panzer units)

It is indeed a fact that the Panzers did most of the job and therefore saved the German infantry from proving its real value. The Germans were lucky that their western enemies (British and French) were incompetent (WWI mentality) and of course the clown in the east (Stalin).

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 76

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 2:55:30 AM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

In 1939 the 50% of the men (Wehrmacht) were born before 1901. Rather old. 19.400 officers in 1939, but only 4.000 in 1933...

Too fast. Too messy. And too old

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 77

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 2:57:00 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Um, the landsers were using the same infantry doctrine from 1939-45 as they ended WWI with, stosstruppen tactics, etc.

And point in fact, the 1914 German infantry was actually worse in this regard -- those tactics evolved later in WWI.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 78

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 3:02:34 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

In fact look at the advance in the AGS during Barbarossa. Here NO panzers to really create a big mess

German infantry vs Red Army... we all know the advance here was much MORE difficult... and again, Panzers were called (from the AGC) to do -again- the job: Kiev pocket...

Don't forget thst they also faced the strongest Russian concentrations.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 79

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 3:08:53 AM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

In fact look at the advance in the AGS during Barbarossa. Here NO panzers to really create a big mess

German infantry vs Red Army... we all know the advance here was much MORE difficult... and again, Panzers were called (from the AGC) to do -again- the job: Kiev pocket...

Don't forget thst they also faced the strongest Russian concentrations.

Sure, but had they been the supermen some people believe they were (and on top of that the Soviets utter incompetent) they should have vaporized anything on their path... I mean, why would they bring the panzers in the first place? That's for sissies

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 80

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 3:16:27 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

In fact look at the advance in the AGS during Barbarossa. Here NO panzers to really create a big mess

German infantry vs Red Army... we all know the advance here was much MORE difficult... and again, Panzers were called (from the AGC) to do -again- the job: Kiev pocket...

Don't forget thst they also faced the strongest Russian concentrations.

Sure, but had they been the supermen some people believe they were (and on top of that the Soviets utter incompetent) they should have vaporized anything on their path... I mean, why would they bring the panzers in the first place? That's for sissies

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 81

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 4:29:50 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

How the hell did this become about National morale?? Some kind of slight of hand?

I started the thread because i wish to be able to get armor that is not being used but is much needed out of my pools. I think NM or whatever you want to call it works tolerably well, and i have stated i don't mind losing as the axis. I just want to have a bit more fun doing it is all, by giving the Germans a bit of flexability.

But Oh No! Instead i get told nothing is wrong, then, that if i can't win i want to pick up my toys and go home, and finally the topic is changed to make it look like what i'm asking for are the ravings of a Nazi or a madman.(probably both)

This game has the potential to be the best East front game ever, but instead of looking at reasonable requests, they are simply shot down.

I know sometimes tempers flare but i think there are some things that could be done to increase the Germans enjoyment factor.

Once again this is about small production adjustment, not national morale or CV not displying what people think it should or other such nonsense. Just let me get the armor that i need out of my pools. Thank you.

< Message edited by Wild -- 1/5/2012 4:34:40 AM >

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 82

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 4:48:59 AM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

You say 'production adjustment', but do you really mean that you want the ability to build your own units?

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 83

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 4:54:43 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

You say 'production adjustment', but do you really mean that you want the ability to build your own units?

Ethier the ability to build some support units or the ability to change armor within specified types like we already can with aircraft, like i have said before. (Although i was ignored and will most likely be so again)

To me it doesn't really seem like such a Nazi loving, earth-shaking request but obviously i must be mad.

< Message edited by Wild -- 1/5/2012 4:58:21 AM >

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 84

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 5:05:56 AM

koiosworks

Posts: 813
Joined: 6/20/2004
Status: offline

I think the fundamental problem is that some players want a historical simulation while others simply want a simulation. Unfortunately, WitE seems to be splitting the baby with its design.

To be a historical simulation the game must not allow the player to be Hitler or Stalin. The player should certainly not be able to micromanage production or even major war goals. Army group center would not be able to send panzers down south for turn 1 etc. the problem with a historical simulation is that it really must contrain the player - and many players resent that. In WitE such contraints show up as national morale (regardless as to real losses/battlefield conditions, Fins attack line, no building units as German etc.). Of course, the players who want to change history or do things different from Hitler then complain.

However, to be a simulation removes the contraints but then puts in crazy unhistorical "gamey" tactics. Things like having 4 deep (40 mile deep) tiny division just to ZOC lock enemy breakthroughs or having crazy openings like the Lvov pocket or never-will-be-ever used in real world odd defenses like checkerboards. All of which then set off the historical simulation crowd who can't stand gamey tactics and things like endless runaway defenses etc.

All in all, a hard nutt to crack, but my preference would be to firmly be in one camp or the other - like Hearts Of Iron, it is a simulation, after day one, history is totally rewitten. No pretense to be within the realm of 'what really happened'. I think WitE should move one way or the other - as it is, both camps seem to be a bit unhappy.

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 85

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 8:20:25 AM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

Wild, you are right. Your post was resonable and did get a bit drowned out in the cacophony. I was a part of that so, sorry. For what it is worth, I agree with you that it would make the game better to allow the german player to create SU, and really even divisions, just like the soviet player. if the production figures are historical, i can't understand what the problem would be with allowing the player to decide how to allocate those elements. but i don't really see it happening in this iteration of the game. probably it will exist in a europe-wide game which i think is the eventual goal of the series. until, then, we suffer what we must.

(in reply to koiosworks)

Post #: 86

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 9:58:23 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: koiosworks
I think the fundamental problem is that some players want a historical simulation while others simply want a simulation. Unfortunately, WitE seems to be splitting the baby with its design.

To be a historical simulation the game must not allow the player to be Hitler or Stalin. The player should certainly not be able to micromanage production or even major war goals. Army group center would not be able to send panzers down south for turn 1 etc. the problem with a historical simulation is that it really must contrain the player - and many players resent that. In WitE such contraints show up as national morale (regardless as to real losses/battlefield conditions, Fins attack line, no building units as German etc.). Of course, the players who want to change history or do things different from Hitler then complain.

The differentiation is a lot more fluid. Any level of constraints, from none at all besides accounting for realism (basic physics and engineering, etc.; i.e. allowing only what could have happened IRL, but not allow a 2.5t truck to carry supply of 5t one, or allow the production of a late war equipemnt before the experiences with the early war predecessor lead to ideas for improvement), to highest constraints such as forcing players to move units along fixed paths at fixed time and fighting predetermined battles would still all be simulations.

(in reply to koiosworks)

Post #: 87

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 10:16:04 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alfonso
Why do the Germans have a high proficiency (NationalMorale=75) in June 1941? In theory, because they were battle-hardened veterans. Back in 1938 the German Army performed rather poorly during Otto, the military walk into Austria, and in November 1939, after the Polish campaign, von Brauchitsch wrote a memorandum to Hitler explaining the shortcomings in the performance of the German Army.We can deduce that their improvement was indeed due mostly to their battle experience, and not training alone. After Poland there were campaigns in Norway, Denmark, Low Countries, France , Yugoslavia. None of those campaigns were really long, or incredibly difficult, but supposedly the Germans acquired in the process the summit of military perfection.

Then, how is it that after two years of constant fighting the Soviet proficiency is set at 50 in June 1943?

I think your logic is nearly the same I would see. And Tullius wrote it up there - the German army was very good at its time, but they were not all excellent supermen. And the French or Russians did also enter with a certain level of proficiency.

I would, however, say that a typical army, going thru an average evolution in terms of training its soldiers, NCOs, officers and developing new doctrines (air-land, blitzkrieg, defensive ones etc) and learning the advantages of its particular equipment, would correspond to an average rate of "proficiency/combat experience/training" gain, i.e. national morale. Probably the learning speeds are similar. Say maybe 10 NM points can be gained per year for a nation.

Then the remaining question is the choice of starting NM for both sides, which determines, how after a few years (assuming no high losses and consequent shortening of training times for replacements occur) the proficiency rating compare.
Say the Stalinist cleansing prior to the war urt the state of the Russian army a lot and, hence, accounts for a lower starting NM in 1941 then the German Army had. Then there must be difference remaining if both sides learn similarly fast. Now factor in that the Germans had to shorten their training times in the Ersatzheer subsequently as the need for replacements grew worse over time, but Soviets basically started to create a proper training during 41, the former proficiency has become diluted, while the latter should not. It should go up after typical training times, i.e. after 42 (hence the dip in NM in 1942) when the first really trained recruits reach Soviet units. I suppose that is how national morale should be read. It doesn't have much, perhaps nothing to do with will to fight.

(in reply to alfonso)

Post #: 88

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 10:26:06 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe
In my opinion, national morale for the German represents both the decreasing quality of replacements due to the need of short cutting training to get the maximum number of replacements into units and the the gradually losing of the cream of your soldiers through sustained fighting. The Germans are at the peak of combat efficiency when Barbarossa begins and the only place to go is down. The Soviets are almost at the floor in terms of combat efficiency and they can only improve.

National morale is not "fighting spirit" but the quality of replacements and newly raised formations. The longer that soldiers stay in service (less casualties), the less you have to scrape the barrel to get replacements. Thus, it should not be affected at all by the loss and gain of territory. I'm not a fan of fixed national morale myself and think it should be based on casualties with the the historical losses being the median or the current NM settings. If the Germans suffer fewer casualties, then their NM could be in a little bit better shape but the same should go for the Soviets as well.
Trey

I guess that sums it up. A neat solution would have been similar to the one employed for pilot training in WitP, i.e. pools representing recruits with 3, 6 etc. months training time, and corresponding experience gains. Once the highly trained pools would get emptied by replacement demands, less trained pools would be used and hence lower-experience replacements entering units would drop their "combat proficiency, experience, morale".

It would be nice if Gary or Joe could really give an explanation of what has truly been factored into the parameter called "national moral". And it would probably be worth renaming this parameter in a patch.
It is really too unclear and cause for too many discussions. It would be hilarious from a simulation perspective if the experience/proficiency of your whole Army, or a division at the far edge of the map would rise because some other unit a thousand miles away entered an enemy city. Or even worse, that all your soldiers on the map loose combat experience because some distant city was voluntarily given up. For both sides. If the game had something like a true and independently modeled "will to fight/discipline", however much one would design its potential to influence things like combat, this coupling to successes would make sense and be a nice target to fight for.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 89

RE: Will there be any change to production? - 1/5/2012 10:32:48 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild
I started the thread because i wish to be able to get armor that is not being used but is much needed out of my pools.

In my opinion you first need to change the production model, if the initially accumulating pools are a concern to you. This could be really the origin of the problem. Later on, when your true in-game losses are indeed so much lower than the historical ones that influenced how historically production of certain equipment was increased or changed due to historical needs, and you accumulate excess equipment, it would be nice to be allowed to build some units, even only support ones. Having influence on ToE slots would be neat, and worth something, but not having it isn't really a problem.

Average production rates are misleading, however. They should follow some real curves, slow at the start for the first couple of month, and growing until peaking or plateauing before phased out. I consider those initially accumulating tanks just an artifact that shouldn't be there (and I shouldn't be able to use, hence), and ignore them. Later on, when the average production rates will be lower than the true peaking behavior IRL, these virtual tanks will bump up the numbers.

< Message edited by janh -- 1/5/2012 10:33:32 AM >

(in reply to Wild)

Post #: 90