Question about Artillery 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

Question about Artillery 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 2 >> Question about Artillery Production

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question about Artillery Production - 3/26/2021 6:10:28 AM

jlbhung

Posts: 280
Joined: 3/10/2021
Status: offline

From the Editor, I note that some artillery are/can be? imported from others. For example, in the Sov 76.2mm ZiS AT Gun entry, it says import from element 727 (which is 76.2mm ZiS Field Gun) with Max Imports of 9150. The AT Gun also has a build limit of 50 (per turn I guess). I wonder which one of the following is the actual production process -

(a) similar to the case of AFV importing chasis - i.e. to produce this AT Gun, the production system will produce a 76.2mm Field Gun FIRST (and in the process paying the cost of it). Then the system imports the Field gun to produce an AT Gun (and paying the cost again); or

(b) the AT Gun is produced based on need independent of the Field Gun, subject to a max. of 50/turn. The "import" are just in case there are excess Field Gun in the pool, then some can be imported as AT Gun depending on need without additional cost. And this "import" is in addition to the per turn production limit, subject to a total max of 9150.

Lastly, the turn weeks in production figure for this entry does not appear to be correct. Possibly a bug.

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Question about Artillery Production - 3/28/2021 10:35:51 AM

jaw

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

The system creates the 76.2mm ATG by importing 76.2mm Field Guns from the production pool at a maximum rate of 50 guns per turn provided the field guns are available in the pool.

The production cost of a ground element or airplane is its production cost less the cost of any thing imported to produce it. Therefore the cost of a tank would be its production cost less the cost of its chassis. In the case of the 76.2mm ATG gun, the production cost of the ATG is actually less than the production cost of the field gun so production points are actually saved rather than expended when the field gun is converted into an anti-tank gun.

jaw

(in reply to jlbhung)

Post #: 2

RE: Question about Artillery Production - 3/28/2021 11:45:27 AM

jlbhung

Posts: 280
Joined: 3/10/2021
Status: offline

quote:

The production cost of a ground element or airplane is its production cost less the cost of any thing imported to produce it. Therefore the cost of a tank would be its production cost less the cost of its chassis. In the case of the 76.2mm ATG gun, the production cost of the ATG is actually less than the production cost of the field gun so production points are actually saved rather than expended when the field gun is converted into an anti-tank gun.

According to 28.4.1 of the Manual , the production of AFV is different from other ground elements. Supply points are used in the production of chassis and armament points are used in the actual import and production of the AFV. There is no deduction of cost of AFV chassis.

After further study of the data in Editor, I found that the use of Sov equipment by Ger and Axis Allies and the use of Ger equipment by Axis Allies are also handled by import. These equipment are mostly imported with a nominal/much lower cost. It can't be the intention that when Axis countries use a Sov equipment, addition "production points" (I guess they are supplies in the game model) will be generated for Axis to use. I would speculate that in most of the non-AFV cases where import is involved, the cost shown have already deducted the cost of pre-existing items, hence the nominal/very low cost. However in a few incidents, such as in the case of the 76.2mm ZiS AT gun, the cost have not been adjusted to reflect the lower cost in conversion compared to building a new one.

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 3