Highly unrealistic tank production

Highly unrealistic tank production (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided

Message

Jonathan Pollard -> Highly unrealistic tank production (3/25/2007 6:42:30 PM)
I purchased the game recently and have to say that I am seriously disappointed about the blatantly unhistorical production of armor that is present in the 1943 scenario (and possibly in other scenarios that I haven't looked at yet). Historically Germany was approaching its peak of tank production in early 1944, but in the 1943 scenario German tank output will reach zero in winter 1944 regardless of what the German player does in his production phase and even if the Allies do not do any bombing of Germany at all. Similarly, USSR tank production will go down in winter 1944 by at least 50 percent from its 1943 levels regardless of the orders it gives in its production phase. I also find it difficult to understand why it takes longer to produce a tank than it does to produce a submarine. Even in terms of training, I believe that it took much longer to train a submarine crew than it took to train a tank crew.

WanderingHead -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/26/2007 10:24:46 PM)
One thing to be aware of is that as units are damaged they find their way back to the production queue. So Germany could quite well be building (repairing) tank divisions in winter 1944. The way unit build costs are assigned is really quite elegant in its simplicity and effectiveness. The build delays are directly proportional to costs, which does impose some constraints. But it works well in the game. For what it is worth, I am more concerned about transports than subs versus armor. Transport costs (in terms of capabilities, population consumed, build delay, and resources consumed) appear to me to be the most out of balance with reality. But it can't really be adjusted within the confines of the simple system (at least, I've never hit upon a satisfactory way). But again, it is a nice simple system and works well in the game. Give the game a try and see if it is fun! You may well get sucked in ...

PyleDriver -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/26/2007 10:58:21 PM)
Johathan, were not just talking about a tank crew, but an entire Tank Corps vs some 10 to 20 subs...Joel can give you exact number...It also brings in to account all the supporting troops needed to sustain that unit...Were already assuming training is taking place, so the production sprial moves us into how long it would take to produce that much equipment...I agree with Brian, play the game a few times, it sucked us all in... Jon

Avatar47 -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/26/2007 11:57:49 PM)
I prefer to look at the units in this game as abstractual, preferring to place no number or name at all. I really do believe that is what the designers intended. Trying to get super-realistic numbers or production levels is kind of absurd. If you want that, perhaps you're playing the wrong game. If you're thinking of the units in fixed numbers/corps, then I could go on and on about how 'inaccurate' it is. Submarines cost 4 PPs for the Germans and 4 for all the others, where's the logic with that? The logic is, is that the lower production cost encourages the german player to build them. If they were at 4, then there would be less incentive. Besides, each sunken transport has a chance to increase US readiness, so using them early in the war will probably be detrimental to the Axis' efforts on the whole. And later on, when the US is already in, and Germany wants to build a bigger fleet, it won't take as long, only 3 turns as opposed to 4, so they'll be more bang for the buck. Considering how outnumbered Germany usually is later on, I feel that's a fair deal. But all this has little to do with a 'realistic' interpretation of WW2, aside from the timeline. IMO, 1 sub unit could represent 50 subs or it could represent 5.

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/27/2007 2:43:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WanderingHead One thing to be aware of is that as units are damaged they find their way back to the production queue. So Germany could quite well be building (repairing) tank divisions in winter 1944. Yes, if in the game Germany has many more tanks damaged in Fall 1943 (which reappear in Winter 1944) than in Summer 1943 (which reappear in Fall 1943) then German tank output will not drop in Winter 1944. Is there any evidence that historically German tank losses increased dramatically in Fall 1943 as compared to Summer 1943? What I find somewhat hard to swallow is that in game terms, in order for no tanks to be present in the Winter 1944 appearance box when the scenario begins, the German "player" in the hypothetical Spring 1943 production phase prior to the scenario start must have ordered no new tanks produced whatsoever. This despite Hitler giving priority to tank production in early 1943 (In January 1943 Hitler issued a decree directing that all necessary measures be taken immediately to increase the production of panzer vehicles "even if by these measures other important branches of the armament industry are adversely affected for a time.") The only way I can rationalize the way the game is set up is that the German tank industry was only able to keep up with repairing damaged units and not produce new ones. Statistically this does appear to be a potentially valid rationalization because during 1943 Germany was losing more tanks on the battlefield than its industry was able to replace. However, for zero tanks to be present in the winter 1944 box it does require the validity of the assumption that German tank losses will increase dramatically in Fall 1943 as compared to Summer 1943.

Joel Billings -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/27/2007 2:57:37 AM)
Honestly the reality of the 43 scenario is that we didn't put that much thought into the OOB. Few of the testers were interested in playing the late war scenarios as everyone wants to play the entire war. You're right that some tanks should be on the production track at start. You can make that change by altering the data files if you want. I think the system is valid, it was just an oversight in creating that scenario.

06 Maestro -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/27/2007 3:46:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard Yes, if in the game Germany has many more tanks damaged in Fall 1943 (which reappear in Winter 1944) than in Summer 1943 (which reappear in Fall 1943) then German tank output will not drop in Winter 1944. Is there any evidence that historically German tank losses increased dramatically in Fall 1943 as compared to Summer 1943? What I find somewhat hard to swallow is that in game terms, in order for no tanks to be present in the Winter 1944 appearance box when the scenario begins, the German "player" in the hypothetical Spring 1943 production phase prior to the scenario start must have ordered no new tanks produced whatsoever. This despite Hitler giving priority to tank production in early 1943 (In January 1943 Hitler issued a decree directing that all necessary measures be taken immediately to increase the production of panzer vehicles "even if by these measures other important branches of the armament industry are adversely affected for a time.") The only way I can rationalize the way the game is set up is that the German tank industry was only able to keep up with repairing damaged units and not produce new ones. Statistically this does appear to be a potentially valid rationalization because during 1943 Germany was losing more tanks on the battlefield than its industry was able to replace. However, for zero tanks to be present in the winter 1944 box it does require the validity of the assumption that German tank losses will increase dramatically in Fall 1943 as compared to Summer 1943. The assumption of production not keeping up with losses is not quite correct. German tank strength actually increased by 50% between 06/43 and 04/44. It is too bad for them that most of that increased was in repair yards. The numbers of assault guns and armored AT was increasing, even with horrific losses, due to a large increase in production. Something to consider is that the German Army did not withdraw units for refitting until they had fallen to 40% or 20% of established strength. Such units could be considered “damaged”. There were a few new armored units created in ’44, but the number of repaired/refitted units would surely have exceeded the number of new units many times over. The bottom line is that production was largely reserved for rebuilding existing units. That’s the 2 cents from a non WAW owner/player. I’m still checking it out.

PyleDriver -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/28/2007 8:55:40 PM)
Your right Joel, I tested the 42 game a few times, and I don't remember anyone testing later games... Jon

Uncle_Joe -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/28/2007 10:33:49 PM)
I did quick walkthroughs of each scenario to make sure they actually had no showstopper bugs. I didnt really play through them for content like the 39 scenario though. Personally, I think this is a VERY minor issue. The game is already very abstract at the production level and I think this is just one area where gameplay/balance trumps historical build numbers.

christian brown -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/29/2007 8:55:07 AM)
hmmmm, I played the 1943 a few times (very fun scenario, btw) and noticed another, very different issue: Kursk. The Russians cannot encircle Army Group South as they did historically after a major German drive at Kursk. Try it, play both sides competently and you will see......

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/30/2007 2:25:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: christian brown hmmmm, I played the 1943 a few times (very fun scenario, btw) and noticed another, very different issue: Kursk. The Russians cannot encircle Army Group South as they did historically after a major German drive at Kursk. Try it, play both sides competently and you will see...... I was not aware of any major post-Kursk encirclements of Germans prior to 1944. When you say Army Group South was encircled "historically after a major German drive at Kursk" what specifically are you referring to? One thing that did strike me as strange is that the Germans can get a 100 percent probability of taking Kursk if they commit sufficient forces to the attack. In the first AI vs AI game of the '43 scenario that I ran, the Germans took both Kursk and Velikiye Luki in their summer of 1943 turn. However, if the Soviets committed everything to a counterattack, they would get about a 76 percent chance of taking it back. I suppose this is somewhat realistic because if the Soviets did not launch a major counterattack historically against the southern pincer, the Germans would have had a decent chance to take Kursk. IMPORTANT EDIT: I did not take into consideration the fact that the Germans can strategically redeploy sufficient forces from Germany into Kursk immediately after it is taken so that the probability of success of a Soviet counterattack is reduced to 0. Therefore, the Germans have a 100% probability of taking and holding Kursk should they desire to do so.

Uncle_Joe -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (3/30/2007 8:44:07 PM)
I think if your goal is to be able to accurately 100% recreate what actually happened in WW2, you are going to be disappointed by this game. Its a lot more abstract than that and some liberties were taken for the sake of playability. Generally when playing other humans, history is likely to go out the window in the first few turns. The game is more centered on things that COULD have happened rather than exactly on what DID happen.

GalacticOrigins -> RE: Highly unrealistic tank production (4/27/2007 1:27:03 AM)
Actually, if you take into account that when a nation increases the technology of an armor unit, MANY new tanks need to be produced to 'upgrade' the unit. If you have, say 14-15 tank units on the map, wow! that is a lot of new tanks! Remember, this game is strategic in scope, and these 'upgrade builds' are considered to be built in to the ecomonics. Players are not bothered with Reinforcements of this sort. Once built, a unit exists, and does not need continuous equipment to keep it up to date in the field. So, if a nation has many tank units, players need to remember that these units are most likely still drawing fresh equipment. It is just that you do not have to bother with this side of logisitics.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.703125