Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they?

[lancer]

Hi amaatteucci,

One of the reasons the number of different tank models were kept to a workable number was the amount of data that's tracked for each Division.

There are around 50 different datapoints that are recorded for each and the fast divisions require additional data for two types of mileage. The mechanical failure routines are pretty detailed and they operate on a matrix of individual tank types and accumulated mileages.

Ramping up the number of tank models portrayed in the game isn't just a case of adding a few extra models into the libraries and TO&E's, it'd also involve expanding the code base to accommodate the new types.

In the end the effort involved in doing this didn't justify a change that, on the scale of the game, is largely cosmetic. I understand that this isn't to everybody's liking.

It's a trade-off. One one hand there are a few near-equivalent tank types that got left on the reserve bench but on the other there is a very detailed model that lets you explore the non-combat limitations of how far you can push your Panzer Divisions.

I haven't played WiTE but if you took a Panzer unit and moved it across an empty map to Moscow what would happen?

Cheers,
Cameron

[Templer_12]

It is often argued in the way, that you do not have to use each cartridge caliber in an operational scale.
I would agree.

But about the Pz 35 (t) and Pz 38 (t) issue I stay dissatisfied.
These tanks count about 35% of all types of tanks of the Wehrmacht when they attacked the Soviet Union
Operative scale, different caliber cartridges, custom shoe sizes, all well and good. But I still say, cutting more than 33% of a TOE from a game is a bad decision.
15 - 20% is a 'number' I could accept.

[ernieschwitz]

Honestly, how do you KNOW that toothpaste wasn't the reason the Germans didn't get to Moscow. Might as well have been the deciding factor. Similarily how do you KNOW that the inclusion of Pz 38(t) would make this game better, compared to have them part of some other formation type. To be completely honest, you don't KNOW.

[morvael]

That's why there are proponents of counting every screw, nail, boot, lamp etc to achieve "historical" results (because omission of even one factor can end with ahistorical results, than have to be fudged to go back to what the designer percieves as normal). Say "you do not have to use each cartridge caliber in an operational scale" to the troops that lack AP ammo for their AT guns, while having plenty of mortar rounds... Have you read what impact had the introduction of HEAT ammo for StuGs in early 1942 near Leningrad? By this time Soviet KV-1s were bold, because they new that at 1000m nothing the Germans have can stop them, so they drove to the front and fired on German lines unpunished. Suddenly they lost many KVs, and had to alter their tactics

[DerGrenadier]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

Honestly, how do you KNOW that toothpaste wasn't the reason the Germans didn't get to Moscow. Might as well have been the deciding factor. Similarily how do you KNOW that the inclusion of Pz 38(t) would make this game better, compared to have them part of some other formation type. To be completely honest, you don't KNOW.

Iam with Templer here. For me its a bad design decision. This game wants to recreate history. So I want the same conditions that prevailed on 22.06.41. Maybe the inclusion of the Czech tanks doesnt make a difference but I want “immersion“ when playing historical games otherwise I would prefer playing phantasie games, which I btw dont. To be honest this is one of the reasons why I regretted that I bought DCB.

[Gettysburg]

1+

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

So the game doesn't have Pz 38(t)s. Nor any of the other czech types. I am sure that it doesn't have a complete list of the men that participated in each division either, nor does it account for how many handgrenades this division had pr. man, compared to any other division. Some things need to be simplified, because realism is simply too complex. It is the designers choice to decide what is important and what is not. What can be approximated, and what can not. In the end what really matters is:

1). Is it playable
2). Does the game achieve what it has tried to

In this case you have a game that is centered around command decisions. Not OOBs. If that is not your taste, leave some kind words, and a suggestion to make an improvement. Don't say, oh this is bad because it omitted the type of toothpaste the germans used (did they use any btw).

I definitely agree with the overall approach the designers have taken here. The emphasis on operational decisions over individual unit detail is what makes this game special.

Having said that, there is a sameness about the units that removes a bit of "personality" from the game as you play it. After awhile, the units just become a "purple infantry" and a "green infantry," and you don't really care if one is destroyed over another.

Some variety already occurs dynamically (over the course of the campaign, units change in relative strength and experience) and the SS units certainly offer aditional variety (which the beta patch expands upon), but I think it would be nice to see a bit more individuality among certain units.

I don't care whether the OOB is completely "realistic" - there's really no such thing anyway - but I do think the designers should look for ways to add some additional flavor elements to help distinguish at least some of the units. Elements to make you really care when a particularly valuable or distinctive unit is in play.

But I do agree that's a secondary consideration to the operational focus of the game.

[Templer_12]

More than 33% of a TOE were cut.

It's Christmas. You donate?
How much of your wealth you donate?
33% and more?

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

Honestly, how do you KNOW that toothpaste wasn't the reason the Germans didn't get to Moscow. Might as well have been the deciding factor. Similarily how do you KNOW that the inclusion of Pz 38(t) would make this game better, compared to have them part of some other formation type. To be completely honest, you don't KNOW.

You're right - whether toothpaste or tank type, we can't KNOW what might have made a decisive difference historically. So the question then becomes what type of game are you making - one that focuses on tanks and toothpaste or one that focuses on some of the other factors that might have been decisive, such as operational decisions and hierarchical rivalries.

We already have tank and toothpaste games. I own them. What we don't have is another game like this one.

[Templer_12]

So why different types at all?
Let's go with light, medium and heavy and kiss goodbye.

[amatteucci]

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi amaatteucci,

One of the reasons the number of different tank models were kept to a workable number was the amount of data that's tracked for each Division.

There are around 50 different datapoints that are recorded for each and the fast divisions require additional data for two types of mileage. The mechanical failure routines are pretty detailed and they operate on a matrix of individual tank types and accumulated mileages.

Ramping up the number of tank models portrayed in the game isn't just a case of adding a few extra models into the libraries and TO&E's, it'd also involve expanding the code base to accommodate the new types.

In the end the effort involved in doing this didn't justify a change that, on the scale of the game, is largely cosmetic. I understand that this isn't to everybody's liking.

It's a trade-off. One one hand there are a few near-equivalent tank types that got left on the reserve bench but on the other there is a very detailed model that lets you explore the non-combat limitations of how far you can push your Panzer Divisions.

I haven't played WiTE but if you took a Panzer unit and moved it across an empty map to Moscow what would happen?

Cheers,
Cameron

Dear Cameron,

I appreciate your explaination of the rationale behind the decision of limiting the overall tank types in the game's TOEs. In fact I agree with what you say. I'm not advocating the introduction of every and each type of hardware.

I was more underlining the necessity (IMHO) to better reflect the numbers, rather than the types, of the AFVs available at the start of Barbarossa.

That is: is perfectly fine with me to model the PzKpfw 38(t) with the same data of a light PzKpfw II, as the manual suggests. I'd simply like to have this choice actually reflected in the game.

My requests about improving the OoB of DC:B is not to be intended as a blanket statement on the quality of the game itself. I do appreciate your effort in modelling some aspects that are rarely depicted in a strategical/operational wargame, yet are fundamental to every campaign.

I do really like the fact that (just to make a couple examples that ruined somehow the immersion experience in WitE, for me) you cannot just shift Panzer Groups between Army Groups without regard for what Hitler, or the AGs commanders themselves, will say. Neither may you just do a Soviet "Sir Robin" with a dozen armies, when faulty communications hampers you and Stalin will likely demand the head of any Army commander that refuses to stubbornly defend that doomed city.
There are also many other features that I appreciate for their ingenuity and their realism.

I don't want a more refined OoB at the cost of dumbing down the intricacies of the C3I and "political" modelling. I just would like to have them both! [:D]

Kind regards,

Amedeo

[Gettysburg]

The Pz 38 (t) with his 37mm gun is roughly equivalent to the Pz III.
The older and smaller The Pz 35 (t) is more equivalent to the Pz II, the 6 Pz Division possed 155 of them

[Speedysteve]

Just to add my 2p to this topic now I own, have seen and am beginning to play the game:

I personally believe (as some have said above) that as a minimum panzer and tank division afv numbers should be accurate. The numbers exist out there and I think they should be added to reflect the true starting dispositions of the respective forces rather than any great quibble over more tank types. I've been an avid player of wite in the past and don't think a dramatic expansion of afv types would be the right way to go as its not that kind of game.

Historical starting afv numbers I would argue and support though.

[Alchenar]

I think the obvious point is that WitE does claim to 'model' this stuff, but the combat model revolves entirely around achieving a 2:1 force ratio so in practice the detail is utterly irrelevant.

Far better to acknowledge from the start that equivalent equipment can be largely abstracted together and then focus on making sure that the actual game plays out well.

[Speedysteve]

Don't disagree with that Alchenar - the right and accurate model and operational eleents is key here to DC3 but at least have the right number of AFV's present maybe?[:)]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar
I think the obvious point is that WitE does claim to 'model' this stuff, but the combat model revolves entirely around achieving a 2:1 force ratio so in practice the detail is utterly irrelevant.

Shhhhh! Don't you know you're never supposed to pull back the curtain?

[morvael]

As WitE is mix of classic board game mechanisms and some ideas revolving around the ability of the computer to calculate thousands of formulas in seconds, the detail you say is irrelevant is used in "fire combat", that is to find out which elements will be destroyed and which will survive the battle. Then, the number of elements that survived is used to calculate the final force ratio and here indeed that detail is not used.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: morvael

As WitE is mix of classic board game mechanisms and some ideas revolving around the ability of the computer to calculate thousands of formulas in seconds, the detail you say is irrelevant is used in "fire combat", that is to find out which elements will be destroyed and which will survive the battle. Then, the number of elements that survived is used to calculate the final force ratio and here indeed that detail is not used.

If you flip a coin a thousand times your results will average out to 50-50. It's the same with rolling ten thousand times for rifle squads shooting at each other - aside from the odd outlier your overall result is going to trend towards the statistically likely result for any one combat.

That's why in a wargame there's a point at which directly simulating more detail adds nothing to your game except CPU cycles and you are better off spending your time on things that actually make the game better. It's also why in an operational level all that really matters is that a light tank is a light tank.


e: I mean this is a key thing to grasp because knowing what to abstract and what not to abstract is key to good game design. CMANO abstracts very little because the game is all about second-by-second combat operations. DC is all about controlling the entire Eastern Front for just over half a year, so it abstracts up to the level of information that an officer at your level would need to care about.

WitE is a showcase for really bad design because enormous amount of detail and resources were pumped into a level of fidelity in describing formations that's utterly pointless because the combat model does not in any way reflect reality and the designers had to throw in special rules on the ratios needed to win attacks just to get something that vaguely reflected reality.

[morvael]

That's why in my dream game I'd go with a system like Dupuy's QJM, where physical qualities of equipment matter, but are reduced to a single number. Just like in the Operation Barbarossa books where one Pz 38(t) is worth 0.56 of a Pz III with 50mm gun. Because IRL one light tank may not be equal to other light tank. Speed, protection, guns, optics, communications all vary between different models. WitE achieves the same by doing a lot of calculations on the go, using equipment parameters as specified in the database. Of course this will average with many die rolls to the mean value, but that doesn't make those numbers irrelevant. Heavy tanks will kill more light tanks on average than the other way round, and that's all that matters.

[gunnergoz]

Numbers, gun calibers, tank varieties are not enough to tell the story of how tanks function on a battlefield. There is also the issue of training ("Can they drive at night?",) doctrine (Can they fight independently?"), communications ("Do they even have radios?",) design ("What, the tank commander is also the gunner?" plus a thousand other historical variables ad infinitum. As the designer of a game, to the degree possible you try to bring all these factors into the combat equations in an operational level game, however you reach a point of abstraction where the small factors have less and less impact, simply because you are "zoomed out" so far that the alterations the minor details make tend to wash out. Example: it is a fact that one solitary Soviet KV-2 held up an entire German corps at one point early in Barbarossa; but in the game this is simulated as mere action point attrition against the Germans that goes away after a couple of turns. So while it is nice to ponder all these fine tank specific details and ask what is their relative importance, it is how well the game simulates historical reality that is the real measure of its accuracy and validity. So far as I am seeing in my game play so far, DC3 is doing a stellar job of that.