Why not free production?

[thackaray]

Dear Mr Joel Billings and Mr Gary Grigsby,

I have a proposal for you both to consider to appease those wanting a free production system.

Why not create a new game based solely on Production, where the player can produced whatever they want.  I'm sure those who want a Second World War tactical game, maybe disappointed by the lack of an option to be an arm chair General.  But you could always add the arm chair General option in later as an expansion pack.

Yours, successfully taking the p*ss !

thackaray

[Hexagon]

Hahaha good idea thackaray [&o]

Now a little more serious, WiTE is an operational game, in operational games you take decisions not only over the frontline, factories is the other battlefield, for example, if Hitler (allies secret weapon hehehe) leave the ME-236 as pure fighter air combat over Germany could be soooooooooooooo different and east front could asume more classic planes as ME-109 or FW-190, only with a plane allies work could be more difficult in the 2 fronts.

I dont want a producction system where i can select if Panther has 4 of 5 men in the crew but at least want decide if i play with big cats or leave the hard work to the worker class (PzIV+StugIII) in some periods it can save the day [;)]

[Jison]

ORIGINAL: thackaray

Dear Mr Joel Billings and Mr Gary Grigsby,

I have a proposal for you both to consider to appease those wanting a free production system.

Why not create a new game based solely on Production, where the player can produced whatever they want.  I'm sure those who want a Second World War tactical game, maybe disappointed by the lack of an option to be an arm chair General.  But you could always add the arm chair General option in later as an expansion pack.

Yours, successfully taking the p*ss !

thackaray

[:D]

[PDiFolco]

Well, imho the problem with "historical" production is that it is ... historical, that is, dictated by the event flow that occured in real history, and as such can be totally off in a game where history takes a different path.
For example, the Soviets drafted all they could to defend Moscow, but won't have done that if the war went better for them by end 41. OTOH the Germans didn't have to raise many troops before they were bled in Winter'41. If they'd survived better there would have been less troops raised too...

So I'm rather for a "partially free" production, letting the player assess their needs rather than getting troops seemingly randomly, as the production will not make sense anymore in the game "alternate history". The challenge is then to still constraint the player and not letting him choose only what is seen now as the "best" units, but that were not seen as such at the time, and were in limited number because of the production system (ie you can't switch PzIII factories to PzV in a week).
There's also a twist in allocating production on one front without playing the other (west), that could have gone another way too, but at least it can be considered outside of game scope and thus "set in stone".

[Richrd]

You have to leave something for War in the East- Feldmarshalls Edition.

[Hexagon]

My vote is for War in the East - General´s (German) Edition, WiTE GA (it can be the east from version of WiTP Allied edition [:D]).

[MaraTheFinn]

ORIGINAL: itsjustme

While I certainly respect the developers' decisions, those insisting that they want to play a historical game are totally, utterly and completely missing the point.  If you want to play a historical game, don't change the production settings.  Viola, historical game.  It really is just that simple.  Find an opponent who wants a historical game, I am sure that there are plenty and you can replay history all you like.   That particular argument against production changes doesn't hold an ounce of water.    [:-]

Based on testers and developers comments, I suspect that we are going to ultimately see that this game is a prelude expanding/reworking the game to reflect the full European conflict  in which production is incorporated.  Not unlike UV being a prelude (uber beta test?) for WITP.  I just sincerely hope that matrix will continue with their quality customer service and discount that game to those who purchase this game and essentially fund the creation of the larger game...

I agree all those who want to play historical production can ALWAYS do it! Those who don't cannot. This is silly!

Give at least some freedon in production for those who want!

I just read the manual Gary's War in the Rusia game. It states on page 44: "Don't try to optimize your production. You can't." I did and I could. Next game War in the West did not even have production. Why someone hates production alterations? Give at least same kind of freedom in production as in War in Russia! That can be a chosen option during new game start.

By the way when Feldmarshal's edition appears (2015?) I have ended my WITP game.

[kafka]

By the way when Feldmarshal's edition appears (2015?) I have ended my WITP game.

LOL! I too bought WITP AE but I'm afraid I won't ever have the time to start the war LOL

[TPM]

This seems to be a good explanation of the intent of the game; thanks!

ORIGINAL: benpark

Here's my take on it (as an informed alpha tester rather than speaking for the developers)-

Think of this game as putting you in charge of STAVKA or OKH, with no possibility of replacement by the two crazies in charge. You put the forces in place and run the offensive and defensive plays, down to divisional levels (and some below). The game is (and I'll invent a phrase here) "massive-operational" rather than strategic. They (and other departments) run the economics.

I get the need to control all aspects of the war, but you are going to be stunned by the amount you can do each turn if you wish with deciding where to put sub-units within armies, corps and divisions and figuring out where you need to be allocating your scant resources to deal with the land mass you will be attacking and defending.

[TPM]

I agree...as said in some earlier posts, the role you are to play in this game is commander of military forces, not production leader. Now, whether or not you like it, that's another issue, but I don't think the argument can be made that somehow these production issues have a direct link to the tactical situation for the commander on the front, in the sense that the commander has a direct influence on them (the production issues). Yes, the drive to the Caucasus was for the oil, but I don't think the generals on the front had much to do with this decision except for the basic fact that they probably complained that they needed more oil...which isn't something Hitler or Speer needed to be told.

In any event, it's clear what the intent of the game is, and that makes sense to me. You have to think of yourself not as one top commander, but several...you are all the army (or army group) commanders out there, making operational decisions, working with what you have, making requests for units, sometimes getting them, sometimes not. In other words, you are not Hitler in this game.

ORIGINAL: jfarber

Hex, I am not sure what you are driving at?

The game will not have production choices, political choices, industrial prioritization--subs, flak, air, tanks, etc.... those items will follow the historical options.... there are a huge variety of items that could be discussed or wished for in the game... but they will not be in this game. Choices have to be made in any endeavor and they already have been made for WitE.

I view production choices as something that is administrative and truly not that interesting... I don't believe any front commander had much to control over what was produced. Guderian did later in the war but he no longer was in command of any troops.

[Kiith]

Well I know the die has been cast on this one but I for one am disappointed that production and the freedom to upgrade the units of your choice have been removed in this incarnation of the game.

Yes I can accept that it might be more realistic if the gamer was trying to be in the shoes of the generals. But ultimately for me it has removed 2 key fun factors that were in Second Front and WiR. I'm still interested in the title but my feelings for it are a little flat after finding out these two things will be missing.

[kafka]

I view production choices as something that is administrative and truly not that interesting... I don't believe any front commander had much to control over what was produced. Guderian did later in the war but he no longer was in command of any troops.

well, the decision has been made and won't change, and on my side the game has gone a bit down in my priority list. Anyway this sort of argumantation for not including any production control by the player is not convincing at all. First of all it is a game - its something all historical purits do seem to regularly forget - and on the other side, even when following this logic: I really do not believe that a supreme commander responsible of a so a vast and important front like this would historically not have been the slightest influence on whatever he received to accomplish his mission as I would think he was the one who knew best what he needed for.
In the game this supreme commander put in command of a all the trrops fighting has no control at all, and this is in my eyes absolutely unrealistic. Actually, I would like to have both options: Playing the game without having to care of the production stuff (not for reasons of historical purity, which ist not very realistic both for fun), but playing it with the production control on of would be interesting and fun too. So people lets be a bit less dogmatic.[:)]
So this is my last comment I have made on this topic

[Hexagon]

Ok, they take a decission, we cant change it at least until they made the full game with production (if they think do it their arguments to no add production to WItE are false, the true argument is no more time and can sold 2 games not one).

Oooo you say that the game put you on the role of a commander ok, but production has an important role, do you remember the Kursk+Panther=launch the attack later??? well, i see produccion changing tactical situation... or not??? if the game put you in the role of a commander... who give you your orders??? because Zhukov needs Stalin´s Ok same for germans [8|]

[paullus99]

Check out the discussion about "production-doctrine" in the other thread. It may be something to address control v. no control of industry, R&D and upgrades.

Germany was extremely reactive in its R&D - in 1940, Hitler put a hold on all research on Aircraft or other projects that wouldn't produce a working model by 1942 (when the war was supposed to end). Of course, once it was discovered that the war was going to last longer, there was a mad rush to upgrade and research to get new weapons into production (which actually produced a huge amount of waste - as time and effort was spent on ridiculous projects like the Maus, Ratte, and Sanger's Antipodal Bomber).

So, as the player - if you're winning the war (trouncing the Russians - based on captured cities, losses inflicted, etc) you'll won't see Tigers or Panthers as early as historically, but as you start losing (if you do, again, based on conditions on the ground, with some pressure from the other Fronts of the War) the production doctrine can change and the upgrades come a little faster.

Of course, this could be a two-edged sword, because rushing equipment into the field could result in less reliable equipment (is there a model for equipment & vehicle breakdown? See the Panther D for example)

I don't know how doable this could be, but it could create a more flexible industrial model - with a minimal of control by the player, but influenced by the pace of the game.

[TPM]

I totally agree with this...makes a lot of sense.

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Check out the discussion about "production-doctrine" in the other thread. It may be something to address control v. no control of industry, R&D and upgrades.

Germany was extremely reactive in its R&D - in 1940, Hitler put a hold on all research on Aircraft or other projects that wouldn't produce a working model by 1942 (when the war was supposed to end). Of course, once it was discovered that the war was going to last longer, there was a mad rush to upgrade and research to get new weapons into production (which actually produced a huge amount of waste - as time and effort was spent on ridiculous projects like the Maus, Ratte, and Sanger's Antipodal Bomber).

So, as the player - if you're winning the war (trouncing the Russians - based on captured cities, losses inflicted, etc) you'll won't see Tigers or Panthers as early as historically, but as you start losing (if you do, again, based on conditions on the ground, with some pressure from the other Fronts of the War) the production doctrine can change and the upgrades come a little faster.

Of course, this could be a two-edged sword, because rushing equipment into the field could result in less reliable equipment (is there a model for equipment & vehicle breakdown? See the Panther D for example)

I don't know how doable this could be, but it could create a more flexible industrial model - with a minimal of control by the player, but influenced by the pace of the game.

[paullus99]

One further thought - I'm sure the system takes into account that complexity of upgrades/new equipment. It was possible for Germany to make 2 or 3 PzIV for every Panther or Tiger - just because of the increased resources necessary to build those more complex tanks.

So, be careful what you ask for - you will probably be producing "less" the further along the upgrade path you go.

[IronDuke_slith]

I wouldn't see the point of allowing any production options that were unhistorical. I appreciate the views of those wanting control, I've enjoyed tinkering in WITP myself, but for the Germans in particular, there isn't much wiggle room.

For example, the Germans made about as much oil and fuel as they could. They never had enough, to the point the Luftwaffe were sending up pilots with very few hours training in the air as replacements in 1944. Cranking up German fuel production therefore relies on someone assuming someone German developed a new method of creating it out of thin air. What's the point?

Secondly, as has been pointed out, the Panther was largely reactive. To get it in 1942 actually assumes that the Germans came across the T-34 in the summer of 1941 and had the War's best tank all done and dusted within 12 months. It just isn't real. To get Tigers any earlier actually requires you to tinker with procurement decisions in the late thirties when the Germans first looked at the question of a heavy breakthrough tank.

Some might like the idea of improving German chances during mobile operations by equipping more motorised infantry formations. Given the Germans never produced enough rubber to keep the vehicle park they had even remotely well shod with tyres, then this option again falls victim to the law of historical impossibility.

These things aren't solved by having a "Total war in 1940 option" because tripling the number of workers and production lines doesn't provide you with three times as many vehicles if the raw materials and war time experiences necessary to produce them do not exist. In terms of total overall tonnage, the German Panzer Arm's size and rate of expansion was limited by deficiency in German coal production. You can't produce more coal by turning off domestic fridge production.

The other issue I have concerns the huge trough of hindsight that would drive many player production decisions. The Elephant was a crock, I'll build another 20 panthers is hindsight. The HE-177 wasn't ready early enough, give me another 400 He-111s is hopelessly unrealistic given the He-177 development started before the war in the east actually began. At every turn (production wise) you're making decisions a Commander would not have been able to make unless they were somewhat mystic.

Similiarly with ammunition. Cranking up production is not as simple as simply working the factories round the clock.

Then there is the unintended effects. When the Germans cranked up Tank production, the Luftwaffe struggled to get hold of vital engine parts because somewhere further back in the chain, nobody had cranked up engine crank shaft production. I think they've done the right thing in so much as putting parameters on this would be an exercise in wet finger in air waving.

To my mind, about the best that should be offered would be limited ability to switch between types. However, turning off IIs and IIIs in favour of more IVs or Vs assumes that the places making IIs and IIIs were large enough to retool to make Vs. I'd probably only favour the ability to produce 130% extra Stugs by turning off PZ III productions for example.

The battle of the Ruhr and lack of raw materials handcuffed German production. A total war option is not the holy Grail everyone thinks it is.

regards,
IronDuke

[Hexagon]

Well, allway the same... you say free production is no historical... well, ok but operationals games arent historical because you dont do the same that they do in the real life, and i say it again, cant control at least a doctrine system (more medium tanks, investigate new medium tanks, investigate heavy tanks....) made you playing against enemy and situation because historical producction is static but your situation not, for example if i want fight with PzIV and StugIII no panthers and a little Tiger % because i want try to defeat URRS before end of 1942 cant do it i need try to win the war with the material that game give to me... ok it could be a challenge but after a time you start to think "ummm if i change this can do it better???".

Oooo you say that germans can have panthers in 1942 ummm do you know something called event trigger??? if you find in battlefield T-34 you can activate the investigation of new medium tank and a new proyect needs maaaaaany resourcers, you can select if you want expend it in a new tank, plane or exotic weapon. And for producttion... in WItP you have resources, no resources no production, is easy and prevents a non historical uberproduction.

PD: an operational game with no production decisions is a Panzer General (you only have the material that AI give you) but with no campaigns system and i have a question, battlefield results influence in the static production??? if is true the historical production is dead but you is the AI that have the power, not you and you can see the AI sending armored AAA when you need AT weapons.

[Stryder]

[>:]   this debate will never end...         it seems to have entered the realm of religous like debate..

let's all agree this game looks awesome and will be fun to play and get along   

[thackaray]

99th post of the topic........