Objection to the current design (Full Version)

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



Message

Lanconic -> Objection to the current design (3/4/2010 12:46:11 PM)

I want to go on record as disliking the idea of no German production.
The Soviets will be able to optimize, and the Germans will be stuck w historical.

Even HOI has production in it.

Plus no one has accurate figures for East Front replacement usage.
So we are at the mercy of what the designers feel is 'historical' and that word is a myth.
Guesswork is a better word.

In 1985 Gary published War in Russia and BOTH sides had production.
This is a giant step backward



jaw -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/4/2010 1:16:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

I want to go on record as disliking the idea of no German production.
The Soviets will be able to optimize, and the Germans will be stuck w historical.

Even HOI has production in it.

Plus no one has accurate figures for East Front replacement usage.
So we are at the mercy of what the designers feel is 'historical' and that word is a myth.
Guesswork is a better word.

In 1985 Gary published War in Russia and BOTH sides had production.
This is a giant step backward


You are misunderstanding how the production system works. The only thing that is fixed (historical) in production (and this is true for both sides) is the production of aircraft and AFVs. All other production is on demand based on the difference between the current strength of your units and the strength they require based on their Tables of Organization and Equipment (TOE) for that particular time period. The "on demand" production is limited by the size of a country's population (manpower) and the size of its war economy (factories). If losses exceed your production resources then your units won't be able to build back up to their TOE size. If however losses are low, then only the fixed production (aircraft & AFVs) will build up in the production pool. The on demand production is not produced when it is not needed by the units in the field.

The only difference between the Soviet player and the Axis player is that the Soviet player can create some (not all) of his own units (brigades & divisions) while the Axis player is confined to the units that were historically committed to the Eastern Front. The degree to which this allows the Soviet player to "optimize" his forces is debatable. For example, he could produce more tank brigades than the Russians did historically but he can't produce more tanks so his brigades would have trouble maintaining their strength. Also whenever the Russian player creates a new unit he must remember that he is increasing the demand for supplies (fuel, ammo, general supply) in addition to tanks, guns, trucks, riflemen etc.

Finally, both players have the ability to disband units if they discover that they cannot maintain all the units they currently have in the field. If disbanding Luftwaffe Field divisions to more effectively utilize their weapons and manpower isn't "optimizing" I don't know what is.



USSLockwood -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/4/2010 2:21:29 PM)

Hi Jaw;
I read with interest your reply and was especially interested in your example of the Luftwaffe field divisions.  Given their relatively poor performance historically, it might be attractive to the
German player to disband those formations.  What would happen to the men and material of the disbanded divisions?



B455 -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/4/2010 6:18:02 PM)

Personally I don't have that much interest managing production/economy. I rather move the armies on the map. I don't think it's going backwards, it's just a question about focus and scope of the game. Production etc opens up a new game in itself.



jaw -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/4/2010 7:08:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

Hi Jaw;
I read with interest your reply and was especially interested in your example of the Luftwaffe field divisions.  Given their relatively poor performance historically, it might be attractive to the
German player to disband those formations.  What would happen to the men and material of the disbanded divisions?



They are returned to the pool although I can't re-call if there is a little attrition suffered in the process.



oldman45 -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/4/2010 10:58:59 PM)

While its nice to tune the German production, I know I did in WIR, its not a game breaker for me. I would rather see little things like the hatred between Hungarians and Romanians. If I recall the first Hungarian ace got there by shooting down Romanians. That would be interesting to deal with. I would like to see options to allow more activity by the Finland, or arm the Ukrainians when certain conditions are met. If its a game where once late 42 rolls around and all that happens is the Germans just start getting their butts kicked till the end game well I am not sure what the point of the game is.

Reading the AAR has gotten me interested in the game and I will be watching for how the victory conditions are set up and how the game continues to develop!



Muzrub -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/5/2010 2:37:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

I want to go on record as disliking the idea of no German production.
The Soviets will be able to optimize, and the Germans will be stuck w historical.

Even HOI has production in it.

Plus no one has accurate figures for East Front replacement usage.
So we are at the mercy of what the designers feel is 'historical' and that word is a myth.
Guesswork is a better word.

In 1985 Gary published War in Russia and BOTH sides had production.
This is a giant step backward



I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Production should have been optional- if people want production included they should have the right to check or uncheck a box.

It would take more work to implement, but we're paying the dollars anyhow.



freeboy -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/5/2010 5:13:48 AM)

yep.. we can it appears fro mearlier posts do some tinkeringwith the editor...
add some forces and do a what if? I plan too



Sentinel Six -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/5/2010 11:20:48 AM)

I would like to see player controlled production included as an option, but realise to implement it realistically (resources etc) would require a lot of work, so can understand the arguement for not including it.

What I do have a problem with is not including the Arctic Front (Murmansk, Karelia etc). Much is made of the game being historically accurate (units forced to withdraw as in real life etc) but how can this be taken seriously when a large section of the front line is missing. The only reason I can see for excluding it is so the map is a uniform shape. Vast tracts of the Soviet Union (Urals) are included and they are unlikely to ever be fought over in most games, where as the Arctic Front was active (albeit as a secondary theatre in real life) from the start of Barbarossa.



wodin -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/5/2010 5:29:23 PM)

I say thank god for no production....puts me right off any wargame...I wouldnt buy it if it was included.



Balou -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/5/2010 6:21:23 PM)

quote:

Production should have been optional- if people want production included they should have the right to check or uncheck a box.


Unfortunatly it seems it's too late for production to be an option. But I just wonder. Production has been a great deal in WitP with zillions of posts, which raises the question: why did we had production control in WitP ? I recall that some players ended up with non-historical "hordes of Tonys" and the like. Is WitE with just "on demand production" the designers answer to that ?



Lanconic -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/5/2010 7:14:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Balou

quote:

Production should have been optional- if people want production included they should have the right to check or uncheck a box.


Unfortunatly it seems it's too late for production to be an option. But I just wonder. Production has been a great deal in WitP with zillions of posts, which raises the question: why did we had production control in WitP ? I recall that some players ended up with non-historical "hordes of Tonys" and the like. Is WitE with just "on demand production" the designers answer to that ?


The problem with WitP and such production, is that it is not ALL EMBRACING.
Meaning....The Japs get control and the USA does not,
In my opinion Gary himself realizes this type of error, he didnt make that mistake with PacWar.

In any game where one side is allowed to optimize production, and the other is not,
you will see such distortions.

In WitP if you gave control to the USA, I would suspect you would see Japan surrender in late 43.

Same type of distortion in 'Bombing of the Reich'. A game that I like, actually.
However...by ignoring the reality of US production, and locking the player into perceived 'historical'
norms, you allow such foolishness as the 8th airforce being driven from the sky.
In reality the USA would simply have sent more and more and more, whatever it needed to get the job done.

It is exactly this situation that my first post is directed at. A static target is easy to hit.




Zort -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/5/2010 7:23:50 PM)

I for one support the no production approach. Since this is not the full war then the decisions for production should not be in the commander's hands. But if we did have production then we would need to include fuel in the equation, since we all know that there was no way the Germans were going to be able to fully mobilize their forces. Since most games do not consider this then hundreds of extra tanks are built and driven like there were no fuel issues. A production model is very hard to do since there are so many variables. Determining the supply issues for this front is a major task. Most gamers feel that logistics is not sexy so they don't want to worry about it. And it isn't sexy but if the poor fuel tanker doesn't find the tanks to refuel then they don't move.

I like the fact that you can select who should get priority on repl/reinfs is nice. So you can pick that lead panzer div to get more while the one behind sits and rests and gets less.



pompack -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/5/2010 10:05:32 PM)

I would rather have the game without full production than NOT have the game with full production.

If they choose to release the game and then go back and design the Feldwebel's Edition, I would certainly buy it again. But I would prefer to have the basic game in my hands while they go off and spend two or three years on enhancements.



Smirfy -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/5/2010 11:47:33 PM)


I don't think quoting HOI is revelant it is after all a "sandbox" wheras GGWITE is a wargame. I think if you read Panzer Leader page 282 you will see the difficulty off attempting deviate from historical production when faced with the realities of war on the Russian front



Lanconic -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 12:23:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


I don't think quoting HOI is revelant it is after all a "sandbox" wheras GGWITE is a wargame. I think if you read Panzer Leader page 282 you will see the difficulty off attempting deviate from historical production when faced with the realities of war on the Russian front


Ok lets try the authors earlier efforts?
the 1985 version of War in Russia
and the the next version which you can download here at matrix. BOTH had production.

I dont have Panzer Leader page 282 so I can read nothing



PyleDriver -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 12:35:45 AM)

Whats funny is you bring up tanks and aircraft, in 42 all I wish for is more trucks...But as said its set, so in 42 you have to set your goals and pull those trucks from area to area to force the action where you want. It really makes the game very interresting...I really hate the "Case Blue" idea, I've tested it and it comes out pretty much the same, aside from Stalingrad end, hindsite helps... I go with the OKH plan and focus on the destruction of Red Army and Moscow in 42...Trust me guys you love the "what ifs" in the game...



Muzrub -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 1:54:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

I for one support the no production approach. Since this is not the full war then the decisions for production should not be in the commander's hands. But if we did have production then we would need to include fuel in the equation, since we all know that there was no way the Germans were going to be able to fully mobilize their forces. Since most games do not consider this then hundreds of extra tanks are built and driven like there were no fuel issues. A production model is very hard to do since there are so many variables. Determining the supply issues for this front is a major task. Most gamers feel that logistics is not sexy so they don't want to worry about it. And it isn't sexy but if the poor fuel tanker doesn't find the tanks to refuel then they don't move.

I like the fact that you can select who should get priority on repl/reinfs is nice. So you can pick that lead panzer div to get more while the one behind sits and rests and gets less.



Fuel can be an issue if your producing new units.....Which the player would not be doing.

But creating enough replacements (or the variety of) would be my priority, and with fuel becoming an issue as the game goes on (it should anyhow) why not allow it to factor in from the start.

Simply just because a player chooses to build mainly say; Panzer IV's- that doesn't mean he has the ability to produce thousands upon thousands of them (or create new units), the ability to construct vehicles is dependent upon other factors than just the players wishes.

But building Panzer IV's would:

Allow for a saving in fuel (Tigers and the like)
Allow for an increase in production by simplifying production (if the resources allow)
Allow Tankers to maintain experience with the vehicle
Allow for more replacement vehicles (not create new units)
Allow for more replacement parts (if the game considers that)

Saying the game would not be historical due to production is a cop out.

Players already prepare for the extreme weather conditions- soviet players already prepare an in depth defense of Moscow and try to avoid encirclement at great lengths.



We worry about the what power the commander really has- then why not:

Institute a no retreat policy in winter hardcoded.
Institute a hard coded offensive for AGS in '42.
Institute a hard coded resupply of surrounded units.
Institute a hard coded siege of Leningrad to save casualties from street fighting.









Zort -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 2:25:46 AM)

All your statements are true. Wasn't that Guedarian's arguement when Hitler wanted to stop PvIV production? So how would you determine the time factor for changing factories over to new production. If I remember correctly the Czech's didn't stop producing the R35? for a new tank since it would take too long to convert the factory. If they had done so there would not be any tanks coming out for the assault on russia.

Hinesight is better then 20/20 so as you say the players now plan for mud, winter etc. If we have production then why not fix the trains before 41 so they can operate in a colder climate, move winter cloths up instead of other supplies to winterize the troops. The what if's have to stop at some point.

Now maybe in a total war in europe game production could be modeled and players could have options. Maybe just a game on WW2 production?

It seems the game does have some hard coded rules,ie Finn stop line. Why have it when there are no Hitler/Stalin orders? I don't see any real issues with not having it, if the axis player expends the few Finn resources there are then the Sovs kick their butts. But not having a stop line forces the sov player to put forces up there to hold back any attacks vice just units to hold space.



Muzrub -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 3:09:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zort

All your statements are true. Wasn't that Guedarian's arguement when Hitler wanted to stop PvIV production? So how would you determine the time factor for changing factories over to new production. If I remember correctly the Czech's didn't stop producing the R35? for a new tank since it would take too long to convert the factory. If they had done so there would not be any tanks coming out for the assault on russia.

Hinesight is better then 20/20 so as you say the players now plan for mud, winter etc. If we have production then why not fix the trains before 41 so they can operate in a colder climate, move winter cloths up instead of other supplies to winterize the troops. The what if's have to stop at some point.

Now maybe in a total war in europe game production could be modeled and players could have options. Maybe just a game on WW2 production?

It seems the game does have some hard coded rules,ie Finn stop line. Why have it when there are no Hitler/Stalin orders? I don't see any real issues with not having it, if the axis player expends the few Finn resources there are then the Sovs kick their butts. But not having a stop line forces the sov player to put forces up there to hold back any attacks vice just units to hold space.



Cheers for the reply,

Retooling is an issue no doubt- but a phased retool or the creation of new factories would have been on the cards anyhow for Germany once new types of vehicles came along.
But options such as P IV's or StuG's wouldn't so much have to be retooled, more so the player may choose not to employ new factories or retool old factories for the production of new equipment ie Tigers.
Of course the restrictions of resources and of building new units would be applied.

As for hindsight- it has been shown after an event to have been proven infallible [:)] .
So with the game being, not truly historical- with players basing decisions on hindsight and in no way fearing a trip to the end of a piece of piano wire- I see no reason that in 2010 there should have been no production option added.
And if it is added later at a price I would have to view that as double dipping.




wworld7 -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 3:33:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

I see no reason that in 2010 there should have been no production option added.



I get that you don't like it, but as for seeing it?

The reason behind no production has been explained before by the designers.

So do you mean you don't understand why it is this way or you just wish it were different?



Muzrub -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 3:58:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

I see no reason that in 2010 there should have been no production option added.



I get that you don't like it, but as for seeing it?

The reason behind no production has been explained before by the designers.

So do you mean you don't understand why it is this way or you just wish it were different?




I would rather it was there.



PyleDriver -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 6:34:29 AM)

Well, I wished my wife loved me all the time...Isn't going to happen...So is life, we put up with the little things of each other we hate and we go on....As said before theis grips you guys have voiced I have said also, (blue in the face) however the powers to be have said this is how their vision... It has turned into a very, and I say very, playable game...Nothings perfect, but theres alot of effort here...It will being going into beta soon, but certian things are not going to change...Alot of things have been addressed before, were doing our best to answer. Please if your read the posts, and we didn't give you the answer than ask. Otherwise look through then the answer may be there...



Muzrub -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 9:04:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Well, I wished my wife loved me all the time...Isn't going to happen...So is life, we put up with the little things of each other we hate and we go on....As said before theis grips you guys have voiced I have said also, (blue in the face) however the powers to be have said this is how their vision... It has turned into a very, and I say very, playable game...Nothings perfect, but theres alot of effort here...It will being going into beta soon, but certian things are not going to change...Alot of things have been addressed before, were doing our best to answer. Please if your read the posts, and we didn't give you the answer than ask. Otherwise look through then the answer may be there...



I was asked a question from someone else- I didn't ask you to belittle my answer!

The powers that be- question my friend- who buys the game? The creator or the player?
As for being a lot of effort- man we're paying for that effort, don't go on ringing a bell about it!

I don't see the point of your post man, you've jumped in for no reason and decided to rant a line that we've heard before. Now i am not speaking for anyone but myself, and if other people agree. So be it.
You say the game is playable, so it should be- that is what we will be paying for. But is it wrong to ask for more? To think that the game could have been expanded beyond what it is?
This issue of production has been on going.
Its not a flash in the pan........more so I think with you, I'm wasting my time.



wworld7 -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 10:12:08 AM)

Hey guys, be nice.

I agree with Muzrub, there was no need to make fun of his answer to my question. I really wanted to know if he understood the process or was just not happy. His answer was perfectly acceptable. It is not a crime to wish for something.

That it isn't going to happen is not open to debate, the production issue was decided earlier and we were told why it isn't going to change. Remember, in the end this is all about a game. So please try to be nice to each other.




Muzrub -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/6/2010 11:09:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

Hey guys, be nice.

I agree with Muzrub, there was no need to make fun of his answer to my question. I really wanted to know if he understood the process or was just not happy. His answer was perfectly acceptable. It is not a crime to wish for something.

That it isn't going to happen is not open to debate, the production issue was decided earlier and we were told why it isn't going to change. Remember, in the end this is all about a game. So please try to be nice to each other.





Cheers dude,

People want what they want, other people are happy to settle- or just purely want less (based on personal values- be they right or wrong- hence personal).
The issue with production has been decided- I disagree with the outcome.

I came to matrix, joined matrix because of the new version of close combat- after the collapse of Atomic games. The game they promised (matrix), never appeared- they just rehashed the old Atomic games after 8-10 years.
I stayed because of WIR- A game I have played longer than most modern high school students have been alive- if not more. But we can't replicate the production phase (so its been decided).

When asked a question I answer it- whether people like that answer or not.
Well that's their choice.
But I will say this.
I will speak my mind, answer the best I can- and even though I love this genre- I will be honest in opinion.

Cheers flipper- I raise a toast to you!




Capt Cliff -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/8/2010 7:23:42 PM)

Ok, what does the game don't have and what it does have?

Don't haves;

1) No production changes for equipment! Neglecting that neither society was a mass production type society like the USA where changes could be readily made. GM converted from cars to tanks in a blink of an eye, I don't think the Geramns could do that.
2) No interference from Hitler or Stalin! Big problem for either general staffs and that problem now gone ... a what if!!
3) No northern sector to the map, excludes a backwater area. Perhaps it might have influence.
4) No road movement or road column formation, some what small potato's.
5) No initiative system to balance the IGOUGO system
6) No roads on the map ... not a big deal for large units but smaller units would benifit.
7) ...

Do Haves;

1) Nice large map ...
2) Excellant OOB, so it seems ... some units are not there in name but in spirit.
3) Weather ... random or historical? Option?
4) ...


Anyway ... my put



wiking62 -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/8/2010 8:07:58 PM)

I think you have misunderstood Jon's (PyleDriver's) answer. He was being humurous. He is always very helpful with his answers and advice.

Perhaps this thread should be closed as i really don't see where it is going.



Joel Billings -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/8/2010 8:17:03 PM)

Ojections noted. The basic plan for the game is done. The items that have been discussed are not going to change at this point. If this leaves a game you are not interested in, please save your money. I of course think the games "haves" list is much longer than what's listed above and can be found in the posts and AAR in the forum. I understand this game is not for everyone. There's not need to get upset about it. It's just a game.



PyleDriver -> RE: Objection to the current design (3/8/2010 10:29:46 PM)

Oh boy, you got the principal to respond. Joel is a great guy and guys, most of what you object to we have kicked around. All I can say is this is one fun game So its up to you after you get it to complain...I don't....



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875