ORIGINAL: IronDuke
But this entirely depends on how flexible you want it.
This is true, "on how flexible you want". Since this kind of "PDU on" game mode would surely not please those that would like to stick to simulating historical production and availabilties under the condition that e.g. the air war against germany is always entirely unaffected by developments on the Easter Front, the designers would have to determine their "flexibility", or ask for the customers wish on that.
Given that most WitP:AE games seem to use flexible R&D and production rules, though, I would not be surprised if in the Axis theater also that would become the norm if it were available. The AE system works quite well, surely could be transferred in some manner.
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
To me, I have no issue making upgrades user controlled. Giving the Panther to the most experienced units you have first seems reasonable etc, but Germany didn't lose because of Hitler's meddling in production or scant resources being wasted on V weapons design. As such, playing with production essentially becomes a bit of chrome, and one that would be difficult to implement with any accuracy.
Like in AE's historical setup "scenario 1", even toying with R&D and production is probably only chrome, but for the underdog player who will get beaten on for many long turns by Allied with all their fancy new planes, ground units and ships, it is a source of motivation and perhaps hope -- not to change the outcome, therefore it is too limited in possibilities (R&D advances by hardly a few months, never years, and production limited by resources and on deployment, supply), but hope to inflict some stingy little counterstrikes that are just bold and noteworthy gameplay, rather and make a big difference.
In fact, the limits on the Japanese production are so tricky, that starting players are recommended to play with fixed production since it is easy to derail the economy on the first try with to aggressive expansion plans, or too much focus on certain platforms (like switching all production over to Me262, Panthers or Tigers probably could lead to here).
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
It isn't that easy for a tank factory to re-tool to start making other AFVs, never mind start making aircraft, or artillery pieces.
Good point. So there ought to be distinguishment/penalties for factories to retool from one production line to a very different equipement. I possibly would not allow ground vehicle factories to modify to anything but ground vehicle factories. But perhaps within limits, new builds of factories could be allowed (using some kind of total worker pool or such things).
Factories that just continue along the development of one type (say PzIV series or T-34 series, instead of switching to SPWs, Panthers or KVs) should suffer lower decreases of production rate when switching models. In AE that is modelled by loss of production on switching models too drastically, and it is very time and resource consuming to rebuild (retool) the factories. Factories that are "new builds" and require new machinery anyway, not retooling, are time and resources anyway. Sound like the AE model could be indeed applicable?
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
However, you hit problems with any of this stuff. Of 1400 ME262s produced, only a couple of hundred saw active service because of fuel and maintenance issues. Therefore, if someone wants this option, fine, but remember these things had engines that required scarce raw materials and the engines lasted about ten hours each. Therefore, if you want them in 1943, be prepared to see the fleet attrit to nothing by mid 1944.
True, and I hope to recognize that in a good model. We already have operational losses and that links to supply needs for keeping stuff operational. If supply and fuel would be more limited pools also in WitE, and influence who often and who far players can move their tank/mot. divisions, or how many squadrons to keep active at the front, things like a big fleet of 262 interceptors or divisions of Tiger IIs would be impossible to sustain in a very realistic manner.
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Also for research, stopping research into the Maus doesn't mean you're going to get the ME262 any earlier by diverting R&D points to it. No engineer working on the Maus would ever have been useful to the V2 program, or the 262 program.
Fully agree, an R&D facility for ground vehicles should remain one. One switching type lines should also reduce the R&D output much more than continuing development on the R&D of that type.
If you consider that often development cycles were lenghtend by researching or engineering in the wrong direction for some while (like the gear box issues with the Tigers, or the Me-262 being too late being recognized as a superior interceptor by the decision makers rather than pushing it as a fast level-bomber), adding some more "heads" added to the development teams might bring in "new ideas" and change this direction, or fill "reseacher-hour" deficits for some "routine" design issues, thus, reduce the delay in the availability. But that mechanic could also work the other way, so and kind of R&D progress could also be further delayed if you bring in the wrong ideas. So perhaps there could be a dice roll also for further delay, not only for an acceleration?
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Where you take your assumptions from that never having seen a Panther (meaning people in your game wouldn't even know about it or its performance), and focusing on the advanced Panzer IVH,G,J series, which could cope sufficiently with the T-34s, should translate into a 10 point NM loss, is not clear. There is no unambiguous reason for that.
I disagree. The Panzerwaffe were shocked by the KV and T34. By 1944 they were facing the IS, T34/85 and a series of monster SP guns. Asking them to do that with long barrelled MKIVs when better designs were available to produce would have hit morale hard. You only have to look at the evidence from Normandy to see what a perceived disparity in equipment can have on morale.
What I meant here was to assume that in your game (alternate pathway) the Panther was perhaps never introduced of you didn't decide to build it, or may not even research it. Then the front line troops could still get pounded by the Soviet T34 and KVs, and suffer more defeats and resultant moral losses. But they would never have drop from not having available a piece of equipement they never knew existed, or that never had proven superior qualities in the field. It could be different if you shelved the Panther after using him a few month with great success in your game, though? But maybe that kind of detail and rule would be too much while other things seem to be more pressing. Here I could live with a lot of abstraction, since the "PDU" rule already requires some more flexibilty for the sake of more fun.
Regarding what to do if you build say 150% PzIV rates at he cost of shutting down the PzV programm before it launches, well again, would people wish to be allowed to build extra Panzer Divisions, or extra support units with them, but within the limits of their manpower and truck pools? And at the risk of running those down?
I'd say "why not", although the latter will limit the whole effect to "chrome and fun" again.
With PDU, I would make sense to allow the ToEs to be modified within reason: Not only switching out older models of the same category, but you could also allow for e.g. Stugs to be replaced by tanks or tank destroyers as happend in a few cases, or you could allow to switch out a light tank slot against another tank type, if your pools are fuller of that.
People could also come up with an "enhanced Iron Man" scenario with greater resources for the Axis, just for fun like in AE, in which production changes also have bigger impacts.
It could be even more fun if WiEurope one day arrives, and with the opening of Polish campaign in a "PDU" game you can start to tune up the German war economy, pilot training etc. like you essentially do in AE. Since it would be GCs started under the mutual agreement of "PDU" and neglect of fixed producion, it could be just fine and to me, certainly sounds like big fun and much increased replay-value.
But great comments, ID! I can clearly see why GG and team didn't introduce this already -- sizable chunk of developement time, debugging and closing loopholes, I guess. I still hope they start to introduce something like that stepwise until a WiEurope arrives that is on par with AE in this respect.
Jan
