Way too many PPs, by the numbers

[gwgardner]

Yes, way too many PPs in the Barbarossa scenario, at least. Here's the number of divisions on both sides in my Barbarossa campaign, as of late Oct. '41 (3 div. per corps)

ussr 344
Germany 245

Here's the historical number of divisions as of June '42, per the Clash of Titans scenario OOB:

ussr 226
Germany 237

As can be seen there, by Oct '41 there are already more divs on both sides than were present in June '42. Give the Russians seven more months in my Barbarossa campaign, till June '42, and I'll have 7 mos x 4 weeks each x approx 200 PPs a week = 5600 PPs = a WHOLE BUNCH more divisions, 300 or 400 more at the extreme.

Given that battle will continue, and there will be losses on both sides Impossible to quantify, really, because each player will make different decisions about reinforcing armored units to full strength, how much to invest in navies, air forces. And of course there are upkeep costs.

I don't know, maybe the PP levels are ok, but perhaps the game needs some other limit, such as OOB force limits per unit type? Not necessarily an exact historical limit, but something in the ballpark.

Or maybe not.

[Razz1]

Have you validated the OOB of Titans?

[gwgardner]

no

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Yes, way too many PPs in the Barbarossa scenario, ................... Or maybe not.

That covers it. [;)]

I do't know either, where would the OOB cap be ?

How much should player decisions allow a departure from the historical figures, is there a manpower pool that will cap the production of units, including air and naval. Could you increase, or decrease, the pool by your industrial production decisions. Could the manpower pool be set with city resources. ?[:)]

[Rasputitsa]

Could we have an event - Early declaration of Total War, 'Yes' - for those who want the more generous PP allowance to build up, 'No' - for those who want a more historical production progression, giving less PPs, less unrest, etc.. [:)]

[freeboy]

just my opinion, you all are way overthinking this.. the goal imo is to have a fun workable game set in this context, not a reality checked stat fest..
I am not saying I am right, justthat I am happy

[battlevonwar]

FreeBoy, yeah, History and Balance is a tough feature to add to game play. If you make things too realistic you will never use most of the features of the game.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: freeboy
just my opinion, you all are way overthinking this.. the goal imo is to have a fun workable game set in this context, not a reality checked stat fest..
I am not saying I am right, justthat I am happy

I agree entirely, but this may not be an either/or issue, it may be possible to have both an easy to play fun game, but with rich historical detail. I would not necessarily recommend taking things out, but with modding and adding options, it should be possible to please most people.

I am enjoying this game even in its present state and if it can be made better (we will all have a different view of what 'better' is), then that will be a bonus.

The maps and unit icons/sprites are a good example, the stock choices are many, if you don't like those, then more will be modded. We have been able to adapt the in game info boxes, made them smaller, transparent (see the map better, while you read the combat report). Early days yet, but I expect that a lot of the game workings will be just as flexible.

I am just wary of making significant changes to the game without knowing how it will effect the overall performance and there will be the needs of the solo player, with the AI (me), and those who want a competent game for PBEM.

I got bored with saying on another forum, but this should be a win/win situation.[:)]

[Akmatov]

Fun game yes, but if we are going to set it in the context of historical events, then some similarity to the historical reality must be maintained or it is just silly.  Assuming the OOB figures in the OP are correct, there is no excuse for giving the USSR 150% as many divisions as historical without some ingame rational, i.e. a human Soviet player did something radical.  For me the fun in these type of games is to act within a somewhat historical context to see if I can do better or achieve different, but plausible, outcomes.  For example, rather than increasing the Red Army by 50% to fudge some sort of scenario weakness, why not give them SCUD rockets with tactical nukes - that should address any 'balancing' issues.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov
Fun game yes, but if we are going to set it in the context of historical events, then some similarity to the historical reality must be maintained or it is just silly.  Assuming the OOB figures in the OP are correct, there is no excuse for giving the USSR 150% as many divisions as historical without some ingame rational, i.e. a human Soviet player did something radical.  For me the fun in these type of games is to act within a somewhat historical context to see if I can do better or achieve different, but plausible, outcomes.  For example, rather than increasing the Red Army by 50% to fudge some sort of scenario weakness, why not give them SCUD rockets with tactical nukes - that should address any 'balancing' issues.

I expect to have both an easy to play game and historical versions for those that want it. See the 'Storm' scenario in the modding section, haven't been able to play it yet, but this is just the beginning.

At risk of repetition, this is win/win, within reason, we can all get what we want and no scuds required. [:)]