OOB Question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

OOB Question

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] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> OOB Question

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

OOB Question - 11/24/2015 9:43:18 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Can someone post a screenie of the composition of an SS Mot division and Regular Mot Inf Division please.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: OOB Question - 11/24/2015 10:42:57 PM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

I'm assuming you're looking for a difference. I think within the scope of this game, some compositional differences are abstracted into other factors, such as in this case morale and starting experience.

lancer could perhaps provide a better answer.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by gwgardner -- 11/24/2015 11:44:51 PM >

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 2

RE: OOB Question - 11/24/2015 11:26:57 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

It is a fact that the 3 SS Mot Inf Divisions that started Barbarossa had 3 INF Regiments as opposed to the Regular Mot Inf Division having only 2 Inf Regiments each. I, and others have pointed this out before. I am not sure why Vic ignores this fact.

I can not think of any other serious East Front game, either board or PC that does not reflect the larger SS formations in the OOB.

Case Blue was wrong. Now even after having it pointed out, DC3 is wrong.

It really makes me wonder about the accuracy of the OOB.

Shame, I was looking forward to this.

_____________________________

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 3

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 12:02:14 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Ballpark: The SS Mot Divisions were 150% the strength of the Wehrmacht Mot Divisions.

Please fix this.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 4

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 12:03:04 AM

governato

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

It is a fact that the 3 SS Mot Inf Divisions that started Barbarossa had 3 INF Regiments as opposed to the Regular Mot Inf Division having only 2 Inf Regiments each. I, and others have pointed this out before. I am not sure why Vic ignores this fact.

I can not think of any other serious East Front game, either board or PC that does not reflect the larger SS formations in the OOB.

Case Blue was wrong. Now even after having it pointed out, DC3 is wrong.

It really makes me wonder about the accuracy of the OOB.

Shame, I was looking forward to this.

and the 1st Panzer division started with two battalions with 251/1 SdKfz in its OOB (or was it the 10th? and which one was the one that started with very few tanks because a transport ship sank coming back from North Africa oh well ) ...

...but did it matter at all after two weeks into the campaign what the starting OOB was? I bet not. I think that some degree of abstraction is great and welcome for an operationally focused game. The real test is if the game actually has a chance to behave as anything resembling the real campaign. I am glad the designers consciously spent their time on that aspect of the engine. So in my book no shame, but praise!

There is always GWITE for the hardcore bean counting, and one can judge the results of that approach by himself.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 5

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 12:17:32 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

You must be joking. This is not a nit pick. It's a major mistake in the OOB.

3 Divisions missing 50% of their strength.... come on.

This has even been acknowledged by Vic in the DC2 forum in the past.

I want this game to be the best.

_____________________________

(in reply to governato)

Post #: 6

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 12:22:20 AM

governato

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I want this game to be the best.

Michael, on this we surely agree! I just think there are other priorities (and probably bigger unknown unknowns)... at least for now.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 7

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 12:27:59 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

This one should be easy to fix.

First they need to acknowledge it.

I will be buying the game as soon as I get home regardless.

Part of the joy is seeing what your units are made up from, strengths, weaknesses, differences.

This error is pretty fundamental in terms of German 1941 OOB's.

_____________________________

(in reply to governato)

Post #: 8

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 2:46:38 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

check the last bullet point on pg 530 and the table on pg 531.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6u8GBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA531&lpg=PA531&dq=ss+motor+divisions+toe&source=bl&ots=KsQVTPWbyT&sig=5YDsOKCrLfuKT6MFI3qDXxWK2rg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEuunLrqrJAhXFIKYKHT1KALIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=ss%20motor%20divisions%20toe&f=false

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 9

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 3:10:18 AM

gwgardner

Posts: 6722
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

Any differences between the makeup of a regular infantry regiment and an SS infantry regiment, in terms of size and equipment? Are three SS infantry regiments definitely greater in strength than two regular infantry regiments?

I'm guessing that in actuality, there were differences in the quantities and qualities making up all infantry regiments, to the point that no two were exactly the same once they got into the field and away from the home bases.

I don't know. Just asking. But if there are differences, then this is the kind of thing that can be abstracted in a game at this level.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 10

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 3:24:40 AM

Jagdtiger14

Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline

Michael T: I share your concerns and agree this needs to be corrected. I had an issue as well and its been addressed (or will be). Its important to be extremely accurate and realistic, and I do not see this as being very difficult to do in any way.

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 11

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 4:19:17 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

@gw

All other things being equal the SS Mot Divisions in question here had roughly 50% more men and equipment than the regular Mot Divisions.

To be honest I am very surprised that I need to convince anyone about this. It's a well known fact, cited in many references and reproduced in any serious game on the subject.

I am dumbfounded that such a basic error could be made.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)

Post #: 12

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 4:46:49 AM

lancer

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline

Hi Micheal,

The OOB has had a lot of man hours by a number of people put into it.

However the game is primarily about Operational Command, not whether a particular Division has an extra bicycle battalion, for example.

Past a certain point there is a deliberate level of abstraction. There are other games out there that provide super detailed OOB's with all the nuts and bolts.

With regards to the SS Motorised Div's you'll note from the screenshots that they have SS Heavy Inf rather than standard Wehrmacht issue which are better equipped and a lot more capable.

Your point on the extra men and equipment is noted and we'll double check.

Keep in mind that there is no definitive guide to the '41 OOB anywhere, only different versions of what the author perceived them to be. Opinions can differ markedly. Judgement calls have to be made.

There's a lengthy exposition in the manual on the design and composition of the OOB and why it's as it is.

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 13

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 5:06:21 AM

Aurelian

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

As someone said. "It's a game. Allowances have to be made."

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to lancer)

Post #: 14

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 5:40:52 AM

Jagdtiger14

Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline

Another issue. Not important to the game at all, but kind of different:

The symbols for Motorized units and for Mechanized units. I have not seen enough screen shots, but from what I have seen, I see the MECH symbol with the unit labeled as motorized. I'm used to motorized unit symbols as an infantry box with two wheels on the bottom. Are there any MECH units in the game?

_____________________________

(in reply to lancer)

Post #: 15

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 5:45:29 AM

zakblood

Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

one

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by zakblood -- 11/25/2015 6:46:02 AM >

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)

Post #: 16

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 5:46:09 AM

zakblood

Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

two

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by zakblood -- 11/25/2015 6:48:05 AM >

(in reply to zakblood)

Post #: 17

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 7:03:30 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Err, this is not super detail. If a Regular Mot Inf Division has 7000 men the SS should be 10,000 to 10,500. Its a big difference. Its also common knowledge and to be honest I am somewhat stunned by the lack of knowledge displayed here.

Look in to it. You will find I am right. I hope you fix it. I reiterate. This is not a nit pick but a major oversight by your OOB people.

Maybe I am wrong about my perception of this game?

I am not a OOB nut, what I am seeking is a reasonable level of accuracy.

Telling me the SS Mot Divisions were not 50% larger than the Regular units is absurd to say the least.

_____________________________

(in reply to zakblood)

Post #: 18

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 7:13:33 AM

zakblood

Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

quote:

Hi Micheal,

The OOB has had a lot of man hours by a number of people put into it.

However the game is primarily about Operational Command, not whether a particular Division has an extra bicycle battalion, for example.

Past a certain point there is a deliberate level of abstraction. There are other games out there that provide super detailed OOB's with all the nuts and bolts.

With regards to the SS Motorised Div's you'll note from the screenshots that they have SS Heavy Inf rather than standard Wehrmacht issue which are better equipped and a lot more capable.

Your point on the extra men and equipment is noted and we'll double check.

Keep in mind that there is no definitive guide to the '41 OOB anywhere, only different versions of what the author perceived them to be. Opinions can differ markedly. Judgement calls have to be made.

There's a lengthy exposition in the manual on the design and composition of the OOB and why it's as it is.

it's in the manual, also a developer reply, and abstraction is the key to some for the level of re playability for both side, it's not a history lesson, but you can follow it if you like to almost mimic history, that's you're call and depends on settings and play style...

quote:

Maybe I am wrong about my perception of this game?

sorry but yes i think you may have, or not as it depends on a view, but not to worry as all comments are more than welcome here so please carry on as a debate and comments is feedback all the same and will get replies from all i'd guess, i'm only a tester, have no views on the rights or wrongs either, as it's a game to enjoy, i don't go into the depth and see if a gun fires the right bullet fast enough etc etc as i don't have the knowledge to either, just like something that plays well and is enjoyable and a challenge.

quote:

I'm assuming you're looking for a difference. I think within the scope of this game, some compositional differences are abstracted into other factors, such as in this case morale and starting experience.

lancer could perhaps provide a better answer.

again a good point as it's been mentioned enough times, it's abstracted and while some will like that, pure grogheads may or may not, but to not try it first before making a decision either way is or can be a mute point.

one it's a game, two, it's a great game, and 3 if i thought it was cr@p, id post it, as i'm a member like all of you, aren't selling it, have no links to the developers either way, test good, bad and awful games tbh as it makes no difference to me in the grand scale of things, it's more enjoyable if i do like them, and this is one of them better and good ones tbh.

with abstraction you can alter a given battle and make it flow, for me, take away some things and it makes it less micro managements and more about pure fighting skills and fun to play, with the AI doing some of the work for you, while some say no air or arty, i say use you're ability cards to focus air support onto a given army, when they say no separate extra artillery again i say use your focus cards to set which army gets what, so you do get air units and artillery but not in the sense some are used to, so are abstracted same as divisions etc etc, hope it clears some points up, if not carry on and others will chip in,as no one is right or wrong, it's opinions, we all have them. so no one is right and also no one is wrong

oh and btw Michael, wish i was in Oz atm as it's freezing in the UK atm

more like the Russian steps here

< Message edited by zakblood -- 11/25/2015 8:28:01 AM >

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 19

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 8:15:10 AM

amatteucci

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

I think that the point Michael is trying to raise is not that there should be no abstraction in the OOB/TOE but that game data should be consistent with the level of abstraction the designers themselves set.

To make an example: I'm fine if in the game there's no distiction between a PzKpfw III and a PzKpfw 35(t) or between a T-34 and a KV, because the difference between the types cannot be appreciated given the "resolution" of the game engine (although I would have preferred a different approach in the way information is presented in the game).

But, is it consistent to have all German Panzer divisions and (worse) all Soviet Tank divisions to be xerox copies one of the other? Why should the 10th TD (that had 318 tanks on 22 June) and the 8th TD (that had zero tanks on 22 June) both have a complement of 100 T-26s and 5 T-34s each? If differences in tens or hundreds of tanks or other AFVs are considered not relevant, why bother counting tanks at all?

(in reply to zakblood)

Post #: 20

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 9:07:34 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Yep +1

I wanted this game, but when I am shouted down by the fanboys and glossed over by the developer for pointing out an obvious error then it has put the brakes on it for me.

I was set to buy this but I am waiting for further reviews now.

@amatteucci -

quote:

Why should the 10th TD (that had 318 tanks on 22 June) and the 8th TD (that had zero tanks on 22 June) both have a complement of 100 T-26s and 5 T-34s each?

Is this the actual case in the game?

If so then the accuracy of the OOB really is questionable.

_____________________________

(in reply to amatteucci)

Post #: 21

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 10:03:01 AM

zakblood

Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

thanks for the fanboy comment Michael T, if it was aimed at me that is, aged 48 i really like the boy comment thanks, if not

maybe me next time

most comments atm have come from game testers, with over 20+ years of testing myself, and with others even more, we form an impression and opinion based over months of testing, not one shot, one screen print, not one fact or error, but over time and stand by it on release, anything else gets mentioned in alpha and beta testing and then if needed gets altered after release, anyone is free to apply for testing duty, it takes time as is a privilege to be on any team, if that makes anyone of us fanboys, then that maybe because most if not all are happy once it's out of testing with the way it's gone, there's always room for improvement so like it's been said above, all feedback is welcomed and listened to, but it's the developers call to alter, not testers. now it's released it's for game buyers to make comments, or everyone else to go one way or another, positive or negative makes no difference to me as for one it's a game that same as all, will develop more over time with even more feedback.

i would never shoot you down or make comments saying your right or wrong, as i don't have the right, waiting for more reviews always makes sense, but nobody here is selling it to anyone either, i'm not that is for sure, while i'm more than happy with it, if anyone's comments aren't to your liking, then report them, but with all forum comments in a open forum, when someone posts, others reply, so while some agree with one post or impression, others won't, that's life and all add's to keeping a section open and interesting imo, so keep posting, looking and enjoying the site, game or reviews either way, and never stop the comments coming, as like i said, it's all feedback

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 22

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 10:21:19 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

From the product page...

quote:

Take charge of a solidly researched Historical OOB

_____________________________

(in reply to zakblood)

Post #: 23

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 11:33:50 AM

LowlyUSMCgrunt

Posts: 10
Joined: 11/25/2015
From: Florida
Status: offline

If you are looking for every bean,bullet,bandage,nose-hair,pimple,and case
of clap in such and such regiment....your going to be sadly disappointed.

Just my $0.02

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 24

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 11:51:09 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LowlyUSMCgrunt
If you are looking for every bean,bullet,bandage,nose-hair,pimple,and case
of clap in such and such regiment....your going to be sadly disappointed.

I don't really think that asking that units in-game reflect actual (well-known) historical OOBs is asking for every bean, bullet and bandage.

If it's just an oversight with the SS units it's one thing, but if amatteucci is saying that all Soviet tank divisions are treated the same (when in fact their equipment/strength varied wildly), it doesn't give much confidence that the game is well-grounded in reality.

(in reply to LowlyUSMCgrunt)

Post #: 25

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 12:10:25 PM

MechFO

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

The OOB points are valid, beginning Barbarossa has the most, and most accurate, OOB information available of any point throughout the war. Information about tank numbers, unit composition etc. are readily available, in many cases even for free on the net. As such a certain level of accuracy can be expected if it chooses to model the elements.

That said, I really think the game doesn't suffer because of the inaccuracies. It would have been just as good by assigning a (more) abstract strength point model and going from there. The real meat is in the command/logistics model.

@Michael
It niggles but I really wouldn't make it the deciding criteria.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 26

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 9:00:40 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

They most certainly are valid MechFO. I am still on the fence with this ATM. Maybe the editor will allow the OOB to be brought up to a better standard?

_____________________________

(in reply to MechFO)

Post #: 27

RE: OOB Question - 11/25/2015 9:08:41 PM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

Interesting discussion on the OOB. I'm not an expert but I trust you guys are pointing out some errors and indeed, it should get some attention and be fixed if possible.

Just to put everything perspective: WitE had excellent researched starting OOB.. How much of that mattered after turn 1? Big pockets anyone?

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 28

RE: OOB Question - 11/26/2015 3:41:30 AM

lancer

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline

Hi Micheal,

We've taken a look at this and while there a references to exactly what you indicate there are also reputable (nafziger) sources indicating a different viewpoint.

However the general consensus appears to be that they were overspecced to a degree so we'll take a middle of the road position and increase their heavy infantry complement and associated transport, enough to make them stand out from a normal Wehrmacht motorised Div.

Thanks for raising the matter.

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 29

RE: OOB Question - 11/26/2015 4:23:20 AM

governato

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

IF you go down this slippery slope..:) you should do it for both sides and modify the initial composition of the individual red army tank divisions. As mentioned on this thread they had a wildy different number and types of assigned tanks and amount of manpower. There is *a lot* more soviet tank divisions that SS divisions....

A quick grab of Glantz's 'Stumbling Colossus'table 8.6 page 232 gives:

125 tanks and 1797 men to the 44th tank division
3 tanks and 3518 men to the 19th tank division

both were part of the SW front.

(in reply to lancer)

Post #: 30