Axis: Tiger tank pool

[Omat]

Hello

Should be tank production or tanks send to the eastern front considered?

Tiger I send to the eastern front:
1942: 9
1943: 434
1944: 507
1945: 11

Jentz: Tiger I & II: Kampf und Technik, S. 132 und 157

Omat

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Jakerson,

I understand the mechanics of how this works in WitE. I'm not sure if you're responding to me or just making some random statements about how production works.

Once again I think I just need to make my question to people and the forum T)rue or F)alse.

1)Soviets have the ability to produce more artillery (sappers, etc) then they actually had year to year historically?

2)Axis are confined to a ceiling of tanks, artillery, pioneers, etc. that can be in the field based on units TOE that are on fixed entry and withdraw schedule?

3) Axis players that do well in terms of lighter than historical loses to tanks (let's say) will accumulate the historical tank production that was utilized on the eastern front in pools. These tanks will never be release for use on the map unless unit TOEs fall below 100% for said tank type.

4)Based on #3, Axis players that do better than historical will never be able to utilize the historical production.

5) Soviet players that do better than historical will be able to utilize their production (i.e. more manpower centers under control, more factories moved to safety)? (given the Soviet player creates proper units to use production pools).

Let me know if I need to clarify any of these questions.
[;)]

I would love to see your data?

Historically Soviet produced about 175 000 artillery pieces and mortars eatch year of war. About 720 000 total during war.

While Germany was only able to produce about 60 000 artillery pieces and mortars eatch year of the war. About 240 000 total during war.

No matter what it is historical fact that Soviet outproduced Germany about 4 to 1 in artillery 2 to 1 in machine guns and almoust 2 to 1 in tanks. In planes it was more even but even there Soviet produced 50 000 planes more than Germans during war.

My Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_p ... rld_War_II

This is total production in reality material difference in the Eastern front was even more staggering to the Germans becouse Soviet side could send almoust everything they produce against German while German had to send large partition of equipment to other fronts 42 (africa), 43 (italy), 44 (italy and france) and 45 (Western Border of Germany).

If you reduce what German send to other fronts from their total production Soviet side should be easily have 8 times more artillery 3 times more tanks and 4 time more machine guns at eastern front in the late years this is historical fact. Opening of new fronts during late year of war takes away large partition of german equipments away from easter front.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

FYI: I suspect Tiger production might be a tad higher than historical, but that's not my concern ATM since most players will probably end the game with Tigers in the pool anyways.

I did double check Tiger production versus the latest 41 campaign game and it could be between 100 and 200 Tigers too high depending on how you count the weeks of production. I don't think that is materially significant in a war where tanks were produced in the 10s of thousands but I will review reducing the build limit to 7 with Gary and Joel to get closer to historical production.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Jakerson,

I understand the mechanics of how this works in WitE. I'm not sure if you're responding to me or just making some random statements about how production works.

Once again I think I just need to make my question to people and the forum T)rue or F)alse.

1)Soviets have the ability to produce more artillery (sappers, etc) then they actually had year to year historically?

2)Axis are confined to a ceiling of tanks, artillery, pioneers, etc. that can be in the field based on units TOE that are on fixed entry and withdraw schedule?

3) Axis players that do well in terms of lighter than historical loses to tanks (let's say) will accumulate the historical tank production that was utilized on the eastern front in pools. These tanks will never be release for use on the map unless unit TOEs fall below 100% for said tank type.

4)Based on #3, Axis players that do better than historical will never be able to utilize the historical production.

5) Soviet players that do better than historical will be able to utilize their production (i.e. more manpower centers under control, more factories moved to safety)? (given the Soviet player creates proper units to use production pools).

Let me know if I need to clarify any of these questions.
[;)]

1) Only if the Soviet player outperforms history which means he has won even sooner - start a new game.

2) True, as a theater Commander (which is essentially your role in the game) you can't create new units. Read Eisenhower's Lieutenants if you think that is only a German problem.

3) As in 1 above it means you have significantly outperformed history and have probably won - start a new game.

4) Victory conditions aside, once it is clear you have won the game, you don't have to keep playing it - this isn't poker.

5) Since the Soviets historically won the War even with the enormous losses they suffered then anything better that historical means they win even faster; their ability to build more units is irrelevant if they have a stronger army than historical without them. As the Axis player anytime I don't achieve at least historical performance I know I have lost and concede the game. If I can maintain at least historical performance then the extra flexibility of the Red Army with respect to new formations will be of less consequence. As the Axis player once you have fallen behind the historical curve of performance there is little chance of recovery. The Soviet Union's greater resources give the Soviet player a better chance of coming back from behind but if you're so far behind that the Axis player is accumulating men and equipment it is pretty much over.

To summarize, if both players play like their historical counterparts and go all out to win (which BTW means doing things like late fall German offensives in 1941 or Soviet counterattacks in the summer of 1942) then excess men and equipment shouldn't be a significant issue. If in contrast players always do the safe thing and try to "game" their way around all the historical pitfalls their real life counterparts stumbled over then they will have a very unsatisfying game.

[PyleDriver]

Well Jim I'm in a 42 GC and as of 12-25-43 It says I produced 380 Tigers, its wrong, as 77 weeks x8 should be 616 minus the expansion...Heres my math. 108 are in my pool, 395 in 11 units and 112 destroyed, which is 615...So the total produced is way off...

[jaw]

Jon,

I agree with you; there is definitely something wrong with the production display. I've noticed the same thing with other equipment - the amount produced seems way too low for the production rate. I'll mention it to Gary and see if he or Pavel can check it out.

I just remembered while shaving to ask you if your calculations took into account the Tigers that come with the units when they arrive that could account for at least some of the discrepancy?

[Jakerson]

btw. I noticed today that large partition of equipment marked in pool is actually in transition. What this means? In default pool in show all pools mode witch show all equipment even those witch are in transition. But when you click pool transiotion mode large amonth of pool equipment is actually in transiotion.

[ComradeP]

It's equipment that was damaged at some point and will be returned to on-map units after a delay, usually of several turns. The active pool is entirely available and usually represents a real surplus if there is anything in it.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jaw

Jon,

I agree with you; there is definitely something wrong with the production display. I've noticed the same thing with other equipment - the amount produced seems way too low for the production rate. I'll mention it to Gary and see if he or Pavel can check it out.

Jim please post this in developer's forum (bug subforum) so that Pavel can see it and look into it (I think he is fully back today or on Monday)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[jaw]

Leo,

If I post it to the developer's forum I'm going to need some definitive examples so that will take some research. In the meantime I have to talk to Gary on another issue so I just mention it in passing.

[Helpless]

If I post it to the developer's forum I'm going to need some definitive examples

Yes, because I don't see any anomalies with production display.

[Tarhunnas]

I have noted som oddities in my veichle pool as well. This is from my game against gids, and the date is April 22 1943.

As you can see, I have the Tiger thing as well. In addition, there are hordes of Panzer IIIn, and enormous amounts of halftracks in the pool. The Pz III n is only used by the heavy tank battalions, so that is not so surprising assuming they work like the Tigers, but the halftracks? There are lots of units using them. And if the slots for just MG carriers are filled, shouldn't they be used to create more panzer grenadier squads?

[Tarhunnas]

Don't know if this is normal, but when I look some more at production I seem to have thousands of rifle squads in the pool. And over 6000 support squads (off the view). I would very much like those squads to reach the front, but maybe it is due to delays in getting there?

[Helpless]

Watch active pools. It seems you are short on manpower.

[Joel Billings]

Jon, the built column shows what was built and sent to the Eastern Front, not total built. Plus, many tanks come in as part of reinforcement units and are not subtracted from the pool. Thus, it is very possible that you built only 380 Tigers, but actually had 615 on the Eastern Front (380 via production and 235 via reinforcement units). There could be a bug somewhere in the accounting of damaged/destroyed tanks, but your analysis needs to take into account how the game displays built and brings in "free" reinforcements not in the build column.