On rough calcs, this particular example would give you about a net gain of 50 tanks a month between mid 42 and mid 44. Take about 200 off the total as the plant retools for a couple of months and this additionally assumes of course all sorts of other things, such as availability of extra 75mm guns, and lets not get into the issue of whether these vehicles could have been fuelled. These 50 vehicles have to serve as replacements since you don't have the soft skinned vehicles to raise extra Panzer formations. The best you could do would be to raise independent Panzer IV Regiments along the Tiger Battalion concept. However, why anyone would do this when such vehicles have no particular advantage over the opposition is a stiff question.
ORIGINAL: Romdanzer
So Ironduke you agree that it indeed was fundamentally possible to produce PzKpw IV's instead of Tigers. Thank you!
I haven't agreed, I don't have the data on Kassel to be able to say one way or the other. I merely agreed for argument's sake to do the calcs and point out it didn't matter in the scheme of things anyway.
NOW however you are talking about if this choice, producing X amount of Pzkpw IV's instead of Y amount of Tigers, is sensible or not according to battlefield value considerations. This is now a different line of discussion. In my oppinion this choice should be left to the player instead of forcing it upon him with the game design!
My principal objection remains. If the overall tonnage of the Tank park is not going to change, I see this sort of option having no impact on game play whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. Particularly if any moves could be countered by a Russian player tinkering with his (much bigger) settings.
My secondary objection also remains. It isn't as simple as a slider bar. Allocating more R&D to Panthers is so abstract as to be a nonsense and producing more Panthers in 1943 is equally pointless if 75mm L/70 weapon production and gunsight production for that model can't keep up.
Ah, you might say, we can assume the Germans have increased production of those items. I would respond, how can we? You are making decisions about what you want in the next quarter and expecting all the supporting industries to fall into line with out repercussions at a moment's notice.
If you do not give the player any ability whatsoever to check and see if such a choice is smart or not - how is he supposed to come to the same conclusion as you with playing the game?
That producing PzKpw IV's instead of Tigers is not a smart choice is YOUR oppinion. Other people have different views resulting from different conclusions of the historic analysis. (In particular if the number of X Pzkpw IV's instead of Y Tiger's is X=50 is open for debate in my oppinion - but not the issue here.)
It isn't the issue here but if you want to mass produce tanks in late 43 and early 44 whose main armament is going to struggle against the newer Russian vehucles, then I want to be your first russian opponent if this feature goes in...
This is the unhistorical aspect. No nation deliberately undergunned (with the possible exception of the US for a while). The Brits patched together the Firefly then the 77mm Comet, the US got the 76mm and (too late to matter) 90mm in, The Germans and Russians moved from 50mm, 75mm short; 45mm and 76.2mm calibres to Long 75mm, 88mm, 85mm and eventually 122mm etc.
I would respectfully suggest that any production decision that said no Tigers, more PZ IVs should result in a -2 to the morale die roll in all future combat. How do you sell that one to the troops. British armoured morale in Normandy was seriously hampered by the perceived superiroity of the CATs.
Additionally, as I've said, I don't see the point since the changes to the numbers of vehicles available are largley irrelevant when set against total production figures for both sides. Put another way, having six teaspoons rather than three tablespoons is largely beside the point if you are trying to remove water from the sinking Titanic.
However with set-in-stone production this line of discussion (i.e. battlevalue of PzKpw IV's instead of Tigers) is fruitless since the fundamental decision would then be taken from the player by the game-designer.
I'm not sure that battlefield value really comes into it. This is an operational level game. I'd need a closer look at the combat engine but I sincerely think you are overestimating what could be gained from this.
Not a good basis for game-design in my oppinion. Good game design gives the player choices according to an historic framework within which the smartest choices develop from game play. During the game-play it may very well turn out that what was produced historically was the best and smartest that chould be done. But game-play should prove that - not the fundamental game design.
Again, is it good game design to craft on a huge new production interface when (if it was vaguely historically accurate) it wouldn't change the outcome of the game one bit.
At the moment I have no problem with the current historic production as a result of programming-resource constraints. Just in future I would like to see at least some form of production influence, even if indirect, as I have suggested for example, in a future sequel or 2nd edition; otherwise this game will loose attractiveness for me very rapidly.
This merely illustrates the problems designers have. You won't play without a future addition including production, I'd stop playing if they bought one out that turned the game into a production fantasy.
Who would be a game designer...?
