RE: Why not free production?

RE: Why not free production? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

MengCiao -> RE: Why not free production? (12/3/2009 8:42:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ram300 quote: ORIGINAL: itsjustme The German economy wasn't put on a war footing until late 42/early 43. I think Adam Tooze does a very good job of dispelling that notion in the Wages of Destruction. Exactly. Thanks to Tooze, we now know that if anything Germany mobilized and standardized a bit too early to the extent that the rail system was deteriorating by 1939 and the 109 had to remain as a frontline fighter for the whole war.

MengCiao -> RE: Why not free production? (12/3/2009 8:48:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SnowBlue88 Meh, seems like most players who want free production only consider the German side of the situation and want a system where they can only do historically better. No one really seems to care how complex such a system has to be or provide an idea that wont screw what was historically possible. Keep in mind that a Soviet player will also have similar options and in the end you are going to end up in situations that would seem atrocious from a historical point of view, like Panther equipped division fighting JSIII and T-44 Tank Corps. Anyways to truly affect production as the 3rd Reich certain drastic changes would have to be made that would seem even more unhistorical, like mobilizing women. Some people might want these options but I think having that much change would just seem odd. Why not also include the whole political aspect and allow the Nazi's to recognize Ukraine and the Soviets to abolish commissars right from the beginning? On the political front, the Germans would have the most to gain. If they had, say blown up Hitler and company instead of Todt in Dec 1941, they might have offerred better deals in Eastern Europe in general (they could have had a program of getting Slavs and Jews on their side instead of planning to exterminate most of Eastern Europe. See Tooze The Wages of Destruction for details.

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why not free production? (12/3/2009 9:12:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MengCiao It's hard to keep all the myths straight when it comes to German Production before and during WWII. I've just been reading Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction...it discusses quite a number of myths. Perhaps the spare-parts myth is a mythical echo of the actual subcomponent crisis that followed the attacks of Bomber Command on the Ruhr in 1943. What is the spare parts myth...? "Even more important was the problem of field maintenance. In order to be effective, vehicles require a steady supply of spare parts. This was a requirement that German industry completely failed to meet. Burkhart Muller Hildebrand blamed this situation on "some armament production officials". Albert Speer took the more standard course of blaming Adolf Hitler. Whatever the case, the German Army faced an almost continuous shortage of spare parts, a situation made even worse by the profusion of models, which made the ditribution of those spare parts that were produced even more difficult. At times, Army Groups received spare parts for tank models they did not even have." R L DiNardo "Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII".

MengCiao -> RE: Why not free production? (12/3/2009 9:26:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: MengCiao It's hard to keep all the myths straight when it comes to German Production before and during WWII. I've just been reading Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction...it discusses quite a number of myths. Perhaps the spare-parts myth is a mythical echo of the actual subcomponent crisis that followed the attacks of Bomber Command on the Ruhr in 1943. What is the spare parts myth...? "Even more important was the problem of field maintenance. In order to be effective, vehicles require a steady supply of spare parts. This was a requirement that German industry completely failed to meet. Burkhart Muller Hildebrand blamed this situation on "some armament production officials". Albert Speer took the more standard course of blaming Adolf Hitler. Whatever the case, the German Army faced an almost continuous shortage of spare parts, a situation made even worse by the profusion of models, which made the ditribution of those spare parts that were produced even more difficult. At times, Army Groups received spare parts for tank models they did not even have." R L DiNardo "Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII". The myth would be that somehow a lack of spare parts uniquely explains something or other about what the Germans could have done wrong or right. Note that nobody (certainly not Speer) in the tale of the spare parts has any real idea why there is a spare parts problem. Is it the transport priority assigned to spare parts? Is it a lack of transport in general? Is it a lack of planning? Or is it just one of 9000 other things that go wrong when your economy was never adequate for a major war?

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why not free production? (12/3/2009 11:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MengCiao quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: MengCiao It's hard to keep all the myths straight when it comes to German Production before and during WWII. I've just been reading Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction...it discusses quite a number of myths. Perhaps the spare-parts myth is a mythical echo of the actual subcomponent crisis that followed the attacks of Bomber Command on the Ruhr in 1943. What is the spare parts myth...? "Even more important was the problem of field maintenance. In order to be effective, vehicles require a steady supply of spare parts. This was a requirement that German industry completely failed to meet. Burkhart Muller Hildebrand blamed this situation on "some armament production officials". Albert Speer took the more standard course of blaming Adolf Hitler. Whatever the case, the German Army faced an almost continuous shortage of spare parts, a situation made even worse by the profusion of models, which made the ditribution of those spare parts that were produced even more difficult. At times, Army Groups received spare parts for tank models they did not even have." R L DiNardo "Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII". The myth would be that somehow a lack of spare parts uniquely explains something or other about what the Germans could have done wrong or right. Note that nobody (certainly not Speer) in the tale of the spare parts has any real idea why there is a spare parts problem. Is it the transport priority assigned to spare parts? Is it a lack of transport in general? Is it a lack of planning? Or is it just one of 9000 other things that go wrong when your economy was never adequate for a major war? But the supposition was that there was a fundamental failure to provide spare parts to keep the Panzer Arm running in the field. This in part exacerbated production issues because the Germans couldn't maintain the tank park they did have, never mind one several thousand machines larger. You can't describe it as a myth and then say "note that nobody...has any idea why there is a spare parts problem." It also isn't a myth if you are the first one to describe it as such. The spare parts issue was fairly straightforward. They didn't produce enough. Regards, IronDuke

PyleDriver -> RE: Why not free production? (12/4/2009 1:27:42 AM)
That part is built into the game with the sheer numbers of vehicles and armor that go into repair as time and distance wears on...

Sigurd Jorsalfare -> RE: Why not free production? (12/4/2009 1:10:08 PM)
I have no problem with a fixed production. I`ll rather see efforts being placed in other aspects of the game. [8D]

MengCiao -> RE: Why not free production? (12/4/2009 2:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: MengCiao quote: ORIGINAL: IronDuke quote: ORIGINAL: MengCiao It's hard to keep all the myths straight when it comes to German Production before and during WWII. I've just been reading Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction...it discusses quite a number of myths. Perhaps the spare-parts myth is a mythical echo of the actual subcomponent crisis that followed the attacks of Bomber Command on the Ruhr in 1943. What is the spare parts myth...? "Even more important was the problem of field maintenance. In order to be effective, vehicles require a steady supply of spare parts. This was a requirement that German industry completely failed to meet. Burkhart Muller Hildebrand blamed this situation on "some armament production officials". Albert Speer took the more standard course of blaming Adolf Hitler. Whatever the case, the German Army faced an almost continuous shortage of spare parts, a situation made even worse by the profusion of models, which made the ditribution of those spare parts that were produced even more difficult. At times, Army Groups received spare parts for tank models they did not even have." R L DiNardo "Germany's Panzer Arm in WWII". The myth would be that somehow a lack of spare parts uniquely explains something or other about what the Germans could have done wrong or right. Note that nobody (certainly not Speer) in the tale of the spare parts has any real idea why there is a spare parts problem. Is it the transport priority assigned to spare parts? Is it a lack of transport in general? Is it a lack of planning? Or is it just one of 9000 other things that go wrong when your economy was never adequate for a major war? But the supposition was that there was a fundamental failure to provide spare parts to keep the Panzer Arm running in the field. This in part exacerbated production issues because the Germans couldn't maintain the tank park they did have, never mind one several thousand machines larger. You can't describe it as a myth and then say "note that nobody...has any idea why there is a spare parts problem." It also isn't a myth if you are the first one to describe it as such. The spare parts issue was fairly straightforward. They didn't produce enough. Regards, IronDuke The mythic part would be that this was an isolated problem or that "produce enough" is a simple matter. For example, if you expect most of your tanks to be destroyed pretty quickly, why make any spare parts at all? Or if there isn't enough fuel for them to go very far, why produce spare parts at all? Or if fuel and ammunition is all you are going to transport, why produce spare parts at all? Other possiblities are: if spare parts are prioritized the same as all other subcomponents and there is a cascading subcomponent problem due to bombing then spare parts are part of an entirely different problem. I suspect that the spare part problem is part of one of the strange overproduction problems: too many tanks were produced in relation to the actual ability of the economy to support tanks. Production problems could go the other way as in 1939-1940 when there was an overproduction of artillery ammo.

freeboy -> RE: Why not free production? (12/4/2009 4:55:40 PM)
OK, so you guys are argueing about the issue, but in terms of the game there is an issue for how the game models real life, and the potential that truly existed for things to be very very much worse, or better. I guess you shouls look at the red armys huge problems with supplies... moving supplies with the advances etc. Hopefully the editor will allow us to model different OFF BOARD issues creating a number of WHAT IFS.. good luck guys

MengCiao -> RE: Why not free production? (12/4/2009 5:48:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freeboy OK, so you guys are argueing about the issue, but in terms of the game there is an issue for how the game models real life, and the potential that truly existed for things to be very very much worse, or better. I guess you shouls look at the red armys huge problems with supplies... moving supplies with the advances etc. Hopefully the editor will allow us to model different OFF BOARD issues creating a number of WHAT IFS.. good luck guys There's a lot of interesting what-ifs...unfortunately for the way people have tended to game the war in Russia, they tend to make things go even worse for the Axis and their allies. For example, the Germans built up their armor as fast as they could up til 1941. What if the Russians with the same kind of foreknowledge did the same thing with better tank designs that were easier to produce? What if the Russians quit supplying 70% of Germany's raw materials and food imports? What if the Russians doubled their investment in weapons (which they easily could have done since they were running at 17% GDP into weapons and the Germans were running at 40%). What if Stalin hadn't purged the Red Army? In a game where the Russians are 5-6 times as strong in armor and commanders in 1941, the map would have to cover all of Germany since there would be a good chance that the Russians would attack first. In a realistic range of what-ifs the game could only answer the question: could the Third Reich have survived to the end of 1942?

Skanvak -> RE: Why not free production? (12/5/2009 3:21:19 PM)
quote: What if Stalin hadn't purged the Red Army? He would have been overthrown.

David The Great -> RE: Why not free production? (5/17/2010 2:15:18 PM)
I think the Marshal's edition will bring us what we need ( at a 40 dollar cost )

janh -> RE: Why not free production? (5/18/2010 4:40:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SnowBlue88 Meh, seems like most players who want free production only consider the German side of the situation and want a system where they can only do historically better. No one really seems to care how complex such a system has to be or provide an idea that wont screw what was historically possible. Keep in mind that a Soviet player will also have similar options and in the end you are going to end up in situations that would seem atrocious from a historical point of view, like Panther equipped division fighting JSIII and T-44 Tank Corps. Anyways to truly affect production as the 3rd Reich certain drastic changes would have to be made that would seem even more unhistorical, like mobilizing women. Some people might want these options but I think having that much change would just seem odd. Why not also include the whole political aspect and allow the Nazi's to recognize Ukraine and the Soviets to abolish commissars right from the beginning? Sure, that is the point: To make a fighting as a German interesting beyond 1943, i.e. give it a reasonable prospect of fighting for something beyond knowing that you'll just be overrun by masses and can't do anything about it anyways, you have to add some "features" that allow you to change history. Otherwise playing beyond 1943 is pointless from a German point of few since you just can reduce it to a numbers game. So being able to change production lines, and do different or better than history is crucial for me. I just don't want to simply "replay" history. Manipulating R&D would have been an awesome progress along the lines of WITP that would have been a cherry on the cake, but unfortunately for me a big part of the cake is missing now. Same as with the abstract West and Southern Fronts, which gave you some opportunities to try things that you can't if you just have to do with what you got. I would also have considered it a worthy advancement to enhance those ideas, rather than to remove them. I understand your principles to put players into the role of OKH/STAVKA and keep everything as historical as possible. I would, however, have much preferred that you make that an optional choice at the beginning of the game, and allow other players to tamper with production, R&D, transfers if they'd like to in much the same, or even enhanced ways compared to WiR. Well, but the decision decision is what it is now. I will surely keep watching the next few month and see how well the AI really does after release, and whether people can mod some of the things that from my point of view are missing.

Neal_MLC -> RE: Why not free production? (5/18/2010 5:00:48 PM)
For what it is worth, I vote no free production. That would better left for a War in Europe type but then you would have to do production for everyone and I just don't see that happening either. I do have a question though. What effects do moving factories or strategic bombing have on historically based production? sorry if this has been already asked.

Helpless -> RE: Why not free production? (5/18/2010 6:04:42 PM)
quote: What effects do moving factories or strategic bombing have on historically based production? sorry if this has been already asked. When adjusting historical figures we trying to estimate the impact of factory evacuation and some bombing which took place. It means that in some cases the production can get higher or lower, depending on game events - enemy advances/bombings.

jaw -> RE: Why not free production? (5/18/2010 6:44:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: janh [I understand your principles to put players into the role of OKH/STAVKA and keep everything as historical as possible. I would, however, have much preferred that you make that an optional choice at the beginning of the game, and allow other players to tamper with production, R&D, transfers if they'd like to in much the same, or even enhanced ways compared to WiR. Well, but the decision decision is what it is now. I will surely keep watching the next few month and see how well the AI really does after release, and whether people can mod some of the things that from my point of view are missing. It seems that people complaining about the lack of "free production" forget that only aircraft and AFVs are based on historical production in WitE. This is not WitP where aircraft and ships accounted for the greatest portion of your combat capability. Most of the production in WitE goes into things that are not aircraft & AFVs and most of your strength lies in your infantry and artillery. Getting more advanced aircraft or tanks earlier or more of one type of aircraft or tank than historical simply won't matter. There is just too much of everything else out there. The notion that somehow if only there was "free production" the German player could be competitive late into the War is a myth based on a comparatively weak simulation (WIR) of the conflict.

Capt Cliff -> RE: Why not free production? (5/18/2010 7:01:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: janh [I understand your principles to put players into the role of OKH/STAVKA and keep everything as historical as possible. I would, however, have much preferred that you make that an optional choice at the beginning of the game, and allow other players to tamper with production, R&D, transfers if they'd like to in much the same, or even enhanced ways compared to WiR. Well, but the decision decision is what it is now. I will surely keep watching the next few month and see how well the AI really does after release, and whether people can mod some of the things that from my point of view are missing. It seems that people complaining about the lack of "free production" forget that only aircraft and AFVs are based on historical production in WitE. This is not WitP where aircraft and ships accounted for the greatest portion of your combat capability. Most of the production in WitE goes into things that are not aircraft & AFVs and most of your strength lies in your infantry and artillery. Getting more advanced aircraft or tanks earlier or more of one type of aircraft or tank than historical simply won't matter. There is just too much of everything else out there. The notion that somehow if only there was "free production" the German player could be competitive late into the War is a myth based on a comparatively weak simulation (WIR) of the conflict. I totally agree with jaw!! German industry was not set up to be changed on the fly. It took years to do anything of that proportion. They didn't have a GM retooling their factories every year to make new models. Everything they did was hand built or hand made like camera's and watches, why there was only 1500 Tiger I's and 500 Tiger II's. So hashing out this question of free production is bupkiss, plain and simple. My pet peeve with this game is not having Adolph or Joey bumping my elbow as I try to execute a fancy manuever. But that's for another thread.

Capt Cliff -> RE: Why not free production? (5/18/2010 7:08:27 PM)
Oh, no wait. I changed my mind. Let's have free production. So you can change everything, but when you go to execute your changes you always get a message that reads .." The Fuher Adolph Hitler (or Joesph Stalin) has veto'd your requests, please try again next month." [sm=00000622.gif]

vinnie71 -> RE: Why not free production? (5/18/2010 9:16:16 PM)
Actually one of Germany's biggest problems in WWII was not that it was unable to produce massive amounts of single/standard weapons (look at Me109) but that there were a lot of turf wars going on. Meschersmitt vs everyone else in the aero industry and so on and so forth. All companies were little corporate empires and they constantly curried favour with the powers that be for contracts. They even produced weapons for different branches of the Wehrmacht exclusively (ex light weapons for the Paras were different from the rest including the introduction of a proto assault rifle.) A man like Speer did a lot in cutting through bureaucracy and fences, but even he couldn't really manage to cut down all the waste, especially when one had a leader who just loved bigger toys... in all fairness, Germany only really started a war economy in about early '43 or so (some would actually debate that) and it still was afflicted by a lot political interventions etc from above. Frankly at this point I haven't really understood how production would actually work in all its details, but what is obvious is that one has to wiegh carefully the cost/benefits of each offensive/defensive operation after the initial attacks since one could easily run out of replacements etc, which is realistic, considering the vastness of the theatre and the size of forces involved. I can already imagine that there could be a lot of formations well below their official strengths, exactly reflecting reality on both sides. Actually what really should be optional in my opinion is not production per se, but rather the ability to change the basic to&e of a formation as war goes on. I think that players should be allowed to choose if for example allow German divisions type 42 turn in type 44. This is especially important since the Russians will get new corps of different kinds over time, while German formations would be progressively weakened. It would be very difficult even for a relatively victorious Wehrmacht to maintain its position if its formations weaken, even though they might be winning in a particular game.

jaw -> RE: Why not free production? (5/18/2010 9:51:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Offworlder Actually what really should be optional in my opinion is not production per se, but rather the ability to change the basic to&e of a formation as war goes on. I think that players should be allowed to choose if for example allow German divisions type 42 turn in type 44. This is especially important since the Russians will get new corps of different kinds over time, while German formations would be progressively weakened. It would be very difficult even for a relatively victorious Wehrmacht to maintain its position if its formations weaken, even though they might be winning in a particular game. Actually what you are suggesting is a contradiction. The German player can't both be winning and still fighting in the later half of the War. If you are playing the '41 - '45 Campaign game you must win early or not at all. Assuming you fail to win a victory before late 1943, you are going to want that '44 Infantry division TOE to conserve manpower without sacrificing too much firepower.

PyleDriver -> RE: Why not free production? (5/18/2010 11:29:39 PM)
Guys let dead dogs lie, it won't happen. Hell lets get our boots on and kick this dog...It's dead...Get it yet?

Neal_MLC -> RE: Why not free production? (5/19/2010 7:59:26 AM)
I think beating a dead horse would be more effective[>:]

Capt Cliff -> RE: Why not free production? (5/19/2010 1:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neal_MLC I think beating a dead horse would be more effective[>:] This is Stalingrad January 43' ... we ate the horse so the discussion starts all over again!!

wodin -> RE: Why not free production? (5/19/2010 1:58:12 PM)
hehe... Well I for one am very pleased there is no production....give me the tools to fight and I'm happy....not interested in building this or that...I want the end product to send into battle.

SGHunt -> RE: Why not free production? (5/19/2010 1:58:53 PM)
Having eaten my boots as well (it was really rather chilly), I want to be able influence boot production [;)]. Actually I find the discussion still quite interesting, even though the decision is made and I agree with it. Like the Capt, I would still like to see (the option of?) the odd randomly generated mad mullah (eg Grofaz and Uncle Joe) sacking of my best general for authorising an advance to the rear, and perhaps changing victory hexes as 'mad, take Stalingrad at all costs' type instructions. I know... there are no plans at present! Beta soon? Stuart

Capt Cliff -> RE: Why not free production? (5/19/2010 6:47:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Jaeger Having eaten my boots as well (it was really rather chilly), I want to be able influence boot production [;)]. Actually I find the discussion still quite interesting, even though the decision is made and I agree with it. Like the Capt, I would still like to see (the option of?) the odd randomly generated mad mullah (eg Grofaz and Uncle Joe) sacking of my best general for authorising an advance to the rear, and perhaps changing victory hexes as 'mad, take Stalingrad at all costs' type instructions. I know... there are no plans at present! Beta soon? Stuart Yo Stewie, I am with ya bud!!! Everyone has a boss or stupidvisor or dufuss to deal with at work ... so why shouldn't we playing WitE?? "It's good to be the King!!" Hope ya don't mind calling ya Stewie ... now shut up Meg!! [:D]

Zemke -> RE: Why not free production? (5/19/2010 9:09:16 PM)
I would prefer to control production just to test the "what if's", but I also understand, in order to get the economic model correct would take a LOT of programing or you get WiR issues. I think the secondary effects of increasing production would be hard to model, we cannot even predict what our own economies are going to do today. German was not in a very good position to increase production much, and planned on a short war, frankly Germany had to have a short war to have any chance at winning, read Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze, they cut themselves off from the very resources they needed and were getting from the USSR by invading the USSR, who had been very cooperative providing those resources. German arrogance did not allow them to plan for the long term, as they had no doubts they would win.

janh -> RE: Why not free production? (5/19/2010 9:26:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joliverlay ...The conversion of motorized divisions to panzer was one problem, losses was another, but lack of production was the big one. The tank shortage was so severe that tank batallions were removed from the panzer divisons wholesale and later some of the remaining ones were replaced with assult guns because they were cheaper to produce. Not as effective for offensive operations, but better than nothing. It is pretty clear that the Germans would have benefited from streamlined production and keeping the TOE at a reasonable level. They might have done as well or better to have produced just the Mark IV in very large numbers. Now that is why I liked to have the production system in WiR. Yes, it was crude, and yes, it could be gamey. But at the same time this and other crude features such as the abstracted allied bombing campaign or the West/southern fronts added a lot of potential and fun to the game. Without that, it probably would have been far less successful and maybe only attracted a tiny core of hardcore strategy gamers. And in that case I would guess you guys would today probably not be working on a successor. You could try ideas, and see how it might have changed things or not -- it is a game after all, as this here will also be a game with lots of approximations and abstractions. Anyway, it remains to be seen "whether the new plate will be full enough" to warrant buying this game.

vinnie71 -> RE: Why not free production? (5/20/2010 4:40:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: Offworlder Actually what really should be optional in my opinion is not production per se, but rather the ability to change the basic to&e of a formation as war goes on. I think that players should be allowed to choose if for example allow German divisions type 42 turn in type 44. This is especially important since the Russians will get new corps of different kinds over time, while German formations would be progressively weakened. It would be very difficult even for a relatively victorious Wehrmacht to maintain its position if its formations weaken, even though they might be winning in a particular game. Actually what you are suggesting is a contradiction. The German player can't both be winning and still fighting in the later half of the War. If you are playing the '41 - '45 Campaign game you must win early or not at all. Assuming you fail to win a victory before late 1943, you are going to want that '44 Infantry division TOE to conserve manpower without sacrificing too much firepower. Actually no Jaw. What I'm suggesting is that it is possible that despite huge advances, even the seizure of say Moscow and Leningrad, the Russians could have held the Germans in a bloody stalemate. Their ability to create and recreate units was well known (and from what I can understand its well portrayed in the game), so it can be a possibility... Would it be possible to have a screenshot to compare a '42 and a '44 type German infantry division? As you said, a lot of automatic weapons (and I believe artillery) was actually added in the latter to make up for less boots on the ground. Tnx!

Flaviusx -> RE: Why not free production? (5/20/2010 6:32:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak quote: What if Stalin hadn't purged the Red Army? He would have been overthrown. Most doubtful.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.484375