RE: War in the West

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: War in the West

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: War in the West

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 4:12:13 PM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

So having said that I really do not see why a unit destroyed at the real Stalingrad has to be withrawn on the premise that whatever substituted it was later on sent to Italy.

Yes. No unit that was destroyed IRL should be taken from game.

Can we all agree to disagree on this subject? We are NOT going to change the withdrawal schedule to keep those few divisions that were destroyed on the Eastern Front and not returned there to not withdraw. End of discussion on that topic.

When and if we do a War in Europe game withdrawals will be a non-issue and if we do a WitE 2.0 we can revisit this issue then.

Finally let me say again that you have the power with the editor to change or eliminate the withdrawal date of any unit in the game. Ignoring support units which are almost insignificant in the game, how many units are we arguing about here, 5, 10? Even if you have to go back and make this change over and over again with each "official" update, it can't take more than a few minutes to do. I can think of a dozen things I would like to see different in the game but have no control over. Withdrawals are one thing a player can change.

Well I very much regret this answer as this is an actual refusal to deal with a bug. an OOB bug rather than an engine bug, but a bug nonetheless. The manpower pool is the tool that would have to deal with those potential extra 10 or 15 or 20 axis divisions still on the front. if the manpower pool is depleted, these units will slowly melt, as they should. But they shouldn't just vanish for no reason, be it in-game actions of the players or taking account of the other fronts (as the units going there were already being built). I can undestand that is not your priority, but it is still just saying "no we will not deal with this bug".

Regarding the whole TOE/OOB flexibility issue for the axis, I just don't understand why the WITE developpers don't see what was done in WITP/AE and the benefit it has had for the game as a whole, the sales and the community.

Of course no one is talking about turning WITE in "sudden Strike, the eastern front". Keep the historical production numbers, but allow the players (either both of them or giving both players different tools to play with) to use it differently.

If the Axis losses have been more limited in Blizzard 41 or in the battles of 42 and 43, why shouldn't the player be able to use his stocks of equipment and manpower to change the overall outlook of his forces ? He would still be limited by what was historically available, as far as the data is available and implemented (ie be it historically timely accurate data or just mean averages ratios of the historical total).

If the Axis player wants to change the overall outlook of his army to better fit with his "manstein plan" philosophy, with different SU and significant variety in TOEs depending of units role, why can't he ?

If the axis player has tended to retreat before being forced to and therefore avoided massive gun losses through retreat, why couldn't still keep a rich divisionnal artillery TOE or build artillery SUs later in the war ?

It just seems to be a shame to me. As it is WITE is a significantly poorer game than WITP/AE because, being a one front game of homogeneous counterpushing along a specific front, it has consistently less variety than AE where the focus could very well be on the DEI for the whole of 44 or on NOPAC or CENTPAC or Burma for such and such period of the war. Couple that with the far more rigid force composition and disposition settings of the game and the possibilities of the game just shrink.

Now does the desire of some players to expand the possibilities of the game constitute an affront to historical realism ? What many players are asking for is more flexibility within the realm of the plausible... Not a "give me 20 PanzerDivs" button.

I suppose one would have to wait for WITE2 or other games, but this is all very disappointing, for WITE as well as for WITW.

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 181

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 4:58:19 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I think part of the problem with an open German production system is that the proper limitations are not in place, certainly not in WITE.

Take that 29th Mot Div example. While the Germans did have enough to duplicate that unit, what they didn't have was the fuel or logistical capacity to support another Motorized Division. As it was, the Wehrmacht was converting some Motorized units back into infantry, for this reason.

WITE as it stands today has basically unlimited fuel, and ample supply of vehicles for the Germans. The engine could very realitistically support another 30 or so Motorized Divisions, when the real Wehrmacht was stretched to the limit to support what they had in the field.

If there isn't an OOB limitation, there needs to be another limitation somewhere that prevents Germans from fielding unrealistically large number of mobile units. That isn't in the engine as it stands.

I think it's best left for a "War in Europe", where that will have to be addressed

_____________________________

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 182

RE: War in the West - 2/28/2012 9:30:48 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omat

Welcome on my Ignore list

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

If that's uncivil, you might consider adding me to your list of blocked posters, no disrespect intended.

Did that two or three insults back but it doesn't help much because people keep quoting him in their posts!

(in reply to Omat)

Post #: 183

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 12:36:15 AM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

So having said that I really do not see why a unit destroyed at the real Stalingrad has to be withrawn on the premise that whatever substituted it was later on sent to Italy.

Yes. No unit that was destroyed IRL should be taken from game.

Can we all agree to disagree on this subject? We are NOT going to change the withdrawal schedule to keep those few divisions that were destroyed on the Eastern Front and not returned there to not withdraw. End of discussion on that topic.

When and if we do a War in Europe game withdrawals will be a non-issue and if we do a WitE 2.0 we can revisit this issue then.

I hope that at least in future iterations of the game the Yorktown Yorktown and Essex Yorktown example is kept in mind and heeded.

Otherwise we just end up with some variant of the mess we have currently.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 184

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 12:49:21 AM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

If there isn't an OOB limitation, there needs to be another limitation somewhere that prevents Germans from fielding unrealistically large number of mobile units. That isn't in the engine as it stands.

The OOB limitation is in by virtue of the Axis not being able to produce containers. Still no reason, IMO, to arbitrarily reduce their unit count, especially since their real limiter in the end is replacements(=armaments+manpower) and fixed NM.

However the rest of your post does hit the nail on the head, if the right limiters are not in by design, one is tempted to impose arbitrary limiters to compensate, and because they are arebitrary, they inevitably fail any close scrutiny.

The name of the ga..�h..WITE so to say.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 185

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 1:42:02 AM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

Quote["So you don't have one. Which means that OKH didn't make any. Which means that to get what you want would make WiTE a fantasy game. And you are against that.

I believe it was John Paul Jones who said "If we can't have what we like, we have to learn to like what we have.""]

We have a good argument being made and instead of addressing the argument the person is patronized.

It is better to say the game is what it is and no changes will be forthcoming.

Boo hoo. The game *is* what it is. It really isn't going to change. So yeah, learn to like what you have. Or at least stop complaining about things that are *not* going to change. Like Axis getting to make support units in WiTE. (The person keeps bringing it up, with two results. A: It's ignored. B: it's answered, and said person *still* brings it up.)

You think that to keep posting about how one would "love to see SU and unit build list for the Axis" is going to make it happen in WiTE?

It isn't a bug to be fixed. Any more than the lack of production for Alles in WiTP, WiTP-AE, or BTR, or the Germans in ED is.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/29/2012 2:46:05 AM >

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 186

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 3:44:48 AM

RCHarmon

Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

Who are you talking to Aurelian? Are you typing words just to read your own posts? I tried to read your post, but your train of thought is all over the place.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 187

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 7:01:48 AM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

Who are you talking to Aurelian? Are you typing words just to read your own posts? I tried to read your post, but your train of thought is all over the place.

Ummmm, since I quoted you, it would be..........you.

You claim it's a good arguement, but the fact that it is built on a foundation of sand, means it is not. The non ability of Axis players getting to make their own units, of any level, was planned from the start.

To continue to bring it up is folly at best. Trolling about a non issue at worst

I'll explain it again. *You* said it would be better said that the game is what it is. So I said it.

It's been said by those who *know*, that changes, major ones anyway IIRC, will *not* be forthcoming. Bug fixes, yes. They are working on the next game you know.

Since the Axis not getting to build units is WAD, there is *no* reason to fix it. This isn't the first game Gary's done like that. Probably won't be the last.

It's also been stated above that the Axis player is not Hitler. Thus you don't get to make what you want, you get what you're given. (I'd hazard a guess and say that won't be the case with WiEu, except for the Western Allies.)

If that is unacceptable, then as also stated, perhaps then WiTE is not your cup of tea.

As for WiTP, WiTP AE, EDBTR, only one side gets production. Just like WiTE.

So yes, if you can't have what you like, you learn to like what you have. Or find a game that gives you what you like. (ATG comes to mind. WiR also. Or the DW series. And a few not published by Matrix.)

(I played SF/WiR extensively. Enjoyed making nothing but KV-1/Yak-3/IL-4s. Yup, production was a non-historical fantasy. Don't miss it in this WiTE. Almost always played the Axis in SPI's version. And never, not once, complained about it.)

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 2/29/2012 7:30:33 AM >

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 188

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 7:12:28 AM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Actually, I doubt even the western allies will be allowed to build their own units...I believe the Americans in particular finished building their divisions in mid 1943. Not sure about the Brits though.

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 189

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 7:42:22 AM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

You make a good point, LiquidSky - I don't think the Western Allied armies went through the same kind of loss and subsequent metamorphosis that the Red Army did that would justify giving them counter-production capabilities.

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 190

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 9:25:00 AM

randallw

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

I believe the U.S Army was still shipping new divisions across the ocean in 1944. Not sure when the last division was ordered up.

(in reply to gradenko2k)

Post #: 191

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 11:35:15 AM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Well a good compromise would be that all sides get a finite flexibility setup whereby they could build new (call them unhistorical) formations. Example - the Germans used several divisions as cadres for training. These could be activated at a price and after a specific period.

The French army in 1940 seem to have represented the maximum recruitable formations for the metropolitan army - the same seems to have applied for the Dutch and Belgians

Regarding the US, I stand to be corrected, but they had a target number of formations in mind, which were not all raised - maybe that could be the natural limit.

Ex the Italians also had several embryonic formations (ex Centauro) which spent most of the war in garrisons or at home

I guess each power had an upper cieling of recruitment limit which could be found. That would keep a certain perspective in a game.

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 192

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 12:52:52 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

It is not a bug; it is a design decision and since this thread has generate absolutely no response from the producer (Joel) or the scenario designer (Trey) who could change this decision I'm inclined to think they are committed to it.

I have explained the reasoning behind this design decision. If you choose to reject that reasoning that's your choice. I have also told you that YOU can change this decision yourself by merely editing the scenario file. When there are dozens of design decisions in the game that the player cannot change, to continually harp on one that you can change seems rather pointless to me.

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 193

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 1:04:02 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

Can we all agree to disagree on this subject? We are NOT going to change the withdrawal schedule to keep those few divisions that were destroyed on the Eastern Front and not returned there to not withdraw. End of discussion on that topic.

What this means is that the German player always suffers the Stalingrad defeat.

Interesting concept.

By the way, do the Soviets have all the divisions that were destroyed in pockets withdraw? Just curious.

_____________________________

Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 194

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 1:06:49 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

Forget Stalingrad, the rule is if a unit leaves the Eastern Front permanently it is a withdrawal. Not all the divisions lost at Stalingrad were sent to other fronts after being re-constituted.

< Message edited by jaw -- 2/29/2012 1:08:40 PM >

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 195

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 1:13:17 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

For those that were "withdrawn" because they were destroyed and reconstituted elsewhere, why don't you have the units disband instead? That's the solution. That way, the german keeps the manpower and equipment that he "saved" from destruction.

_____________________________

Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 196

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 2:08:33 PM

RCHarmon

Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

Aurelian I don't understand your posts unless it is your intention to incite me. I simply made a post 4 days ago that a good argument was made. I'm not to overly concerned about making my own SUs. I consider that relatively minor. The comments about troop withdraws is a more deserving argument which is also a point that was being made. You also accuse me of trolling. I have communicated with Joel a couple of times by pm about my issues and he never accused me of being a troll or told me to leave the game.

I have come to the realization that the game is what it is and no changes will be made. I'm still here because I have an ongoing game and patches are coming out every 3 days.

I have never told anyone not to play the game, but I have said that the "game" can be fun if played as a "game" (accepting current game design parameters). I have never insulted anyone. I have made some strong posts in the past that if you want to debate we can. Except all those posts, are in general agreement with what both sides have already understood to be game weaknesses, as an example supply is a issue,etc........ The posts that I make about bias I firmly hold to be true and if you want (it isn't going to do any good) we can debate about that.

I have noticed that you seem to target Axis players with intention to incite them. Why?

I'd rather just drop it ,but if you must, lets continue it in private; and please take more time in what you are writing and get your thoughts straight.

< Message edited by RCH -- 2/29/2012 5:01:51 PM >

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 197

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 4:02:58 PM

MechFO

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/1/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

Forget Stalingrad, the rule is if a unit leaves the Eastern Front permanently it is a withdrawal. Not all the divisions lost at Stalingrad were sent to other fronts after being re-constituted.

A design decision is a design decision, but either way one should keep the facts straigt.

In the last 3 pages it has been established that a unit is withdrawn if the name leaves the Eastern Front. The Yorktown Yorktown and the Essex Yorktown being the analogy that the name doesn't necessarily equal the unit.

And bjmorgans point is correct, all historically destroyed divisions which were resurrected by renaming a different, already existing, division are lost automatically and irrevocably. Either by artificial withdrawals or by missing reinforcements.

One of the obvious consequence being, the player always suffers at least one Stalingrad. He can do worse, but not better.

< Message edited by MechFO -- 2/29/2012 4:10:00 PM >

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 198

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 5:37:18 PM

Schmart

Posts: 662
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
What this means is that the German player always suffers the Stalingrad defeat.

Interesting concept.

By the way, do the Soviets have all the divisions that were destroyed in pockets withdraw? Just curious.

The way I see it, is that even if I can avoid a historical Stalingrad, there will be other unhistorical mistakes or surrounded/destroyed divisions that I will suffer throughout a game, but the game dosen't punish me for that, as I get to keep those divisions. I lose some historically destroyed/withdrawn divisions, but keep the un-historically destroyed/withdrawn divisions. In the scheme of things, it more or less cancels out. A difference of 3 or 4 divisions isn't going to change the course of the war.

Even if I can avoid a historical Stalingrad and still avoid any other major loses, THE GAME DOES REWARD ME. I may have a few less containers (to use someone else's analogy), but my containers will be significantly stronger than historical. As I alluded to previously, many if not most AARs (as well as ALL games that I have played) result in a noticeably stronger German army throughout 42-43. +3 miilion men from the spring of 1942 to late 1943 is an UNHISTORICALLY strong German army, due to German players avoiding many of the historical mistakes. This results in a net GAIN to the Germans in men, tanks, and guns, even though they may have lost a couple divisions to withdrawls.

The only realistic solution would be to reverse some of the withdrawls, but at the same time not allow all (or at least most) other destroyed divisions from returning automatically, as those divisions would historically most likely have been withdrawn/re-built in the west, and sent to France or Italy to fight there. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

(in reply to morganbj)

Post #: 199

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 5:56:05 PM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Not every German unit that was destroyed was rebuilt. The 10th Panzer for example was never rebuilt after it surrendered in Tunisia. I am sure there are others.

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 200

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 8:36:33 PM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

Aurelian I don't understand your posts unless it is your intention to incite me. I simply made a post 4 days ago that a good argument was made. I'm not to overly concerned about making my own SUs. I consider that relatively minor. The comments about troop withdraws is a more deserving argument which is also a point that was being made. You also accuse me of trolling. I have communicated with Joel a couple of times by pm about my issues and he never accused me of being a troll or told me to leave the game.

I have come to the realization that the game is what it is and no changes will be made. I'm still here because I have an ongoing game and patches are coming out every 3 days.

I have never told anyone not to play the game, but I have said that the "game" can be fun if played as a "game" (accepting current game design parameters). I have never insulted anyone. I have made some strong posts in the past that if you want to debate we can. Except all those posts, are in general agreement with what both sides have already understood to be game weaknesses, as an example supply is a issue,etc........ The posts that I make about bias I firmly hold to be true and if you want (it isn't going to do any good) we can debate about that.

I have noticed that you seem to target Axis players with intention to incite them. Why?

I'd rather just drop it ,but if you must, lets continue it in private; and please take more time in what you are writing and get your thoughts straight.

I don't understand your willful ignorance, so I'll try once more.

Back in 2009, before the game was released, it was decided that Axis production was not essential to the game. It's a dead horse. It's dead, buried, the bones have been pounded into dust.

Maybe you should go back to the post you made that kicked this all off.

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 201

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 8:41:11 PM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

Actually, I doubt even the western allies will be allowed to build their own units...I believe the Americans in particular finished building their divisions in mid 1943. Not sure about the Brits though.

I don't think they would as they have the other theater to worry about.

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 202

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 8:42:48 PM

RCHarmon

Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

Aurelian,

I would like for you to go back to my original post about production. I have never written a post about production at any time. I have never asked for production control at any time. Can you produce the post where I have?

If you want to talk automatic toe upgrades, or withdraw schedules, or fitting panzer divisions with what is available those were points that another player brought up that are good arguments. I only said that the argument was a good one and you jumped all over that player for it. Is this really so hard for you to understand? I am bored of this conversation and I am sure others are as well.

< Message edited by RCH -- 2/29/2012 8:58:08 PM >

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 203

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 8:56:57 PM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

Quote["So you don't have one. Which means that OKH didn't make any. Which means that to get what you want would make WiTE a fantasy game. And you are against that.

I believe it was John Paul Jones who said "If we can't have what we like, we have to learn to like what we have.""]

We have a good argument being made and instead of addressing the argument the person is patronized.

It is better to say the game is what it is and no changes will be forthcoming.

Here you go.

Now the person you claim was patronized you also claim was making a good arguement. And the use of the word *we* shows that you agree with it.

So, now I'll explain why it is *not*

This was addressed back in 2009. It was posted that Axis production was not essential to the game. Thus, your so called good arguement was dead before you even made it. Even in that thread, people were told it's a dead horse, and it wasn't going to change.

So, why, years after that, and more than a year after the game has been published are the bones of this dead horse being ground into powder?

There are two possibilities. 1: Ignorance of the fact that it' a dead issue. (For which there is no excuse.) 2: Trolling. Which is the most likely excuse.

As for the statement "It is better to say the game is what it is and no changes will be forthcoming." I said it. The people who actualyworked on it have said it, (which is how I know.)

So I fail to see your lack of comprehension.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 204

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 9:11:50 PM

RCHarmon

Posts: 322
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

I believe you need a lesson in English usage and context. I will say it again, I don't want production control and never have. Do I need to repeat myself again? Your only purpose is to incite conflict. I am calling you out on that. You accuse me of a position that I have never held and why to cause conflict. You target Axis players and have now targeted me.

Since you were wrong about any comment that I might have made will I get an apology? No, you will just attack again.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 205

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 10:22:58 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

I am not ignorant of any fact of this game. Last I looked this was a thread about War in the West......any comment I made was intended to try and influence the making of the new game and possibly have it retrofitted back. Since a stated goal was for the games to be linked at some point in time, I am using the only part of the game I have access to as an examples. That would be WITE.

Now you can try and say I am trolling but you would be wrong there. I have been around this site a lot longer than you and the only trolling on Matrix I did looking for a fight were in the old Art of War forum. Now I will comment on any part of a game as I see fit. Any are allowed to agree or disagree. The testers and such that have actually tried to explain things etc, are thanked. I might disagree and even argue the fact with them. But I keep it civil. But you Aurlian make me long for the old days with your sanctimonious attitude. But since you are a nobody, I could care less what you say or think.

As to the fact of the game being out 2 years, yes, I wonder how long WITP was out before we got PDU options? Care to guess? About 2 years. And it was a long hard fight to get it, but we did.

But since I have shelved the game as an versus AI only and no longer a serious PBEM game, it is all a moot point. It still holds great promise, but until major changes are made down the road, it will stay shelved by me for PBEM. It ties the German's hands way too much.

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 206

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 10:24:59 PM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

After doing some simple research, it seems the British as well didnt build new formations after early 1943 as well. Seems like it would be pretty hard to justify any sort of production system for the western allies (for ground units).

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 207

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 10:30:14 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

it was decided that Axis production was not essential to the game.

There are two different things: A: production B: tweaking of production.

The production available matter in every strategic game, not only in this one. The tweaking of production is not necessary if there is a historical limit of Pz.IV, T-34, squads in game, just an example of some equipment, and matters not only for Germans, for Russians too. Ideally the value should be able to fluctuate a little depending on conditions.
Then if there is big attrition maybe some units might appear more depleted than IRL and the player to make them useful might disband and merge the equipment in one. That is doing things right.

(in reply to RCHarmon)

Post #: 208

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 10:46:52 PM

IronDuke_slith

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

After doing some simple research, it seems the British as well didnt build new formations after early 1943 as well. Seems like it would be pretty hard to justify any sort of production system for the western allies (for ground units).

The US intentionally capped the number of Divisions produced at just shy of 90. Britian didn't have the bodies to produce more than they did without adversely impacting home production. Western production is, therefore, absolutely pointless.

You could argue the game should allow the Americans to produce more than 90, but then WITW 43-45 will be a pretty fruitless exercise for the AXIs as it is, without adding another dozen US Infantry divisions to the OOB.

Regards,
ID

_____________________________

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 209

RE: War in the West - 2/29/2012 10:49:57 PM

Aurelian

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

it was decided that Axis production was not essential to the game.

There are two different things: A: production B: tweaking of production.

The production available matter in every strategic game, not only in this one. The tweaking of production is not necessary if there is a historical limit of Pz.IV, T-34, squads in game, just an example of some equipment, and matters not only for Germans, for Russians too. Ideally the value should be able to fluctuate a little depending on conditions.
Then if there is big attrition maybe some units might appear more depleted than IRL and the player to make them useful might disband and merge the equipment in one. That is doing things right.

You can merge depleted units of the same type together IIRC.

But, you can't tweak what you can't change (The Axis production isn't changable, thus untweakable.)

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 210