Production

[MagnusOlsson]

Here's the new thread
Fabio; you are right about the issues Clark raises in the Barbarossa book. I think the production during the early years is a tad too high, but if it is to be lower in the game, you need to change the West invasion check. I would prioritize units in the east in 41 and 42 over West, draining the West front of material and shipping it east. The threat of an invasion cannot be said to exist in 41 and 42, it was rather a question of would the Germans invade Britain than the reverse.
One main issue for the russians was the use of only two chassis, KV and T34. A larger number of repaired units in the pool could reflect this. That would increase the need to force russian tank units to SURRENDER, not SHATTER. Also, gaining the ground (and thus be able to salvage wrecks) should be rewarded with more tanks to repair.
The germans was notoriously bad at repairing and providing spares.

[Patris]

OOPS!
Also I have posted a new thread...
You can see there my opinions.
Anyway, I think (as you will see in my post) that there is no great problem in keeping the West and South in good shape even draining valuable resources from them.

[Mist]

Some statistical data that may be usefull:
Germany WAR Production
.........Aircraft Tanks/SPG/etc
1941.....11030......3806
1942.....14470......6189
1943*.. ~26000......~9000

* approximation of production during of furst half of year

It is easy to roughly calculate German production in WiR and compare with historical numbers. For example approximation for June 22'41 gives ~4500 AFV's per year which is not so far from historical. Another problem is that production steadily grows until it reaches ~15. So, it seems no matter what you produce, 4500 TigerB's or PZ-II.

[ June 06, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

[Patris]

Yes, effectively I don't understand the influence of the production cost: I also don't see difference in production form PzII and Tiger II if the factory has the same value. Perhaps the Tiger factory employs more time to reach the same production level of the PzII?

[Patris]

To Mist:
BTW, your production numbers are correct if you don't take in consideration the growth of the factories until december, otherwise the total is much greater than 4,500.
I think the values of the factories at start should be much smaller for compensate the rapid growth (in the order of 3-4 PZIII and 0-1 PZIV per factory, for reaching the historical annual value).
Furthemore, I'm Italian and can guarantee you that 15 (just for begin!) M13 per week is fantastic! In only an year you have more M13 than total war production! The same is true for the air, I know that producing a single MC200 required about ten times a Me109 (no real aircraft industry in that period here, only artigian work). The losses to the Italian aircraft should be almost impossible to replace.
Now I use the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force) as B17 against Moscow!

Anyway, my problem with production is more towards playability than history: too high production makes the decisions on the field less decisive, you can always attack and receive staggering losses, they are quickly replaced, so why bother? I often attack almost anywhere just too see if the enemy has a weak point. In the precedent version (2.1) with the russians I didn't fall back in any point, even if encircled I attacked aggressively, to inflict casualties and make exeperience. When destroyed, the units returned back next turn with strenght only slightly inferior and much greater experience than before!
Limited resources make good play at a premium.

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Fabio:
Yes, effectively I don't understand the influence of the production cost: I also don't see difference in production form PzII and Tiger II if the factory has the same value. Perhaps the Tiger factory employs more time to reach the same production level of the PzII?

The "cost" of equipment only effects the growth rate of the factories producing it, as you guessed here. Basically, there is a check between the cost and the total heavy industry and if the check is passed the factory grows. For factories under 15, the odds of passing are much higher than when the factory is at 15 or higher, which is why any factory will grow fairly quickly to the 15 level, compared to growth for any factory after that point.

[Mist]

Originally posted by Fabio:
To Mist:
BTW, your production numbers are correct if you don't take in consideration the growth of the factories until december, otherwise the total is much greater than 4,500.
I think the values of the factories at start should be much smaller for compensate the rapid growth (in the order of 3-4 PZIII and 0-1 PZIV per factory, for reaching the historical annual value).
Furthemore, I'm Italian and can guarantee you that 15 (just for begin!) M13 per week is fantastic! In only an year you have more M13 than total war production! The same is true for the air, I know that producing a single MC200 required about ten times a Me109 (no real aircraft industry in that period here, only artigian work). The losses to the Italian aircraft should be almost impossible to replace.
Now I use the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force) as B17 against Moscow!

Fabio: Total Axis tank production(WiR) is realy greater than 4500 in 1941, because it is greater than 4300 only for first half of year. But it does not mean that initial production set is wrong. May be production grows too rapidly.
Do you have any data on Italian war production?

[Patris]

Sorry but my only real, compact source of italian tank production is the manual of Advanced Squad Leader (if you don't know it it's a tactical wargame of the Avalon Hill).
I have read hard data on production in many books written by Italian writers, which substantially confirm that in ASL, but are bits of information scattered here and there.
It's very difficult obtain hard numbers, the historians tend more towards telling the flow of history.
Anyway, my books are inclined to lowering production figures even more, because all agree on this: a very high percentage of production (even 40%) was wasted because the hardware when given to the units resulted too unreliable for active duty, especially the air units.
The Piaggio industry produced a very good strategic bomber (P108 if I remember well) but for delays in production and mechanical defects, never more then 8 (!) of them were available at same time, even if on paper their production was counted in hundreds.
For example, our torpedo-bombers were without altimeter, which is essential for evaluate the moment of release of the torpedo. For some months (!) nothing happened... Eventually it was mounted, but in the back of the pilots! They had to borrow small mirrors from their girlfriends to see it...
When the battle of Britain began, Mussolini insisted for sending 40 G50 fighters in France: 15 of them (if remember well) were not able to arrive for mechanical problems and crashes. Those which arrived were not employed by the Luftwaffe for a while because they lacked radios and the pilots were totally unprepared to flying in formation...
Our artillery was almost all of WWI vintage and in 4 years of war resulted impossible replace it with newer equipment: the elite airborne division Folgore at El Alamein used the 47mm AT guns as divisional artillery because nothing else was available!
I might go on ad infinitum. As you see, the whole picture is that the italian contribute to the air war in the east was negligible, even with maximum effort.

[Patris]

I forget to say a thing:
I agree with you that initial production is probably OK, my suggestion of reducing it was only for compensate for the too rapid growth, as you guessed. Even for the Germans, the production rate began to grow rapidly only with Speer.

[Mist]

Fabio et all! I am digging into the German AFV production data. Comparing it with WiR production. You can find this interesting:

........DATA1*....DATA2**...WiR
1941....5870......3639......6912***
1942....10750.....5156......7964
1943....24840.....9589......9453
1944....32794.....15307.....15483****
1945....5713......2591......22500****


comments:
* total number of historicaly produced afv's including everything that may be called AFV
** total number of historicaly produced German panzers that are present in WiR
*** approximation of half-year production, so actual number produced in WiR is 3456
**** this is what WiR produced without allied bombings. Thanx Ed for wirhack.exe!

You see, '43 and '44 look pretty good, but '41 and '42 too much high.

The data are taken from achtungpanzer website. There is quite huge archive on German AFV's, so anyone can check my calculations.

Another couple of tables for comparison are for aircraft production. Statistical data on WWII production are taken from World War 1939-1945, Appendix, Table 2 which was writen in cooperation with a group of German generals and published in the West.

GERMAN AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

.........1941..1942..1943..1944..1945..total
bombers..3373..4337..4649..2287..0.....14646
fighters.3744..5515..10898.25285.4936..50378
fghtbmbs.507...1249..3266..5496..1104..11622
trnsp....1461..745.....442.....111.....8........2767
jtplanes.0........0........0........1041..947...1988
total....9085.11846.19255.34220.6995..81401



GERMAN AIRCRAFT PRODUCED IN WiR
.........1941*..1942..1943..1944****.1945****.total
bombers..2604...3525..3197..4846.....5226.....19398
fghters..3320...4081..6651..6782.....11224....32058
fghtbmbs.588....822...1264..2163.....2366.....7203
transprt.562......790...232....935......988.......3507
jtplanes.0.........0........0........62.......372......434
total....7074...9218..11344.14788....20176....62600


It's hard to comment. But general tendency is that aircraft production is too downed for later war period(when it becomes so important for German survival) and tank production upped in early war period(when it is essential for German victory) in comparison with historical data.

[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

[Patris]

Yes, this is the same conclusion I had reached.
My idea of reducing (for game purposes) initial production works only for the first year, in '42 the factories have growth already too much.
The simplest solution that I can think is: instead of reducing the output of the factories at start, which reach equally max production in short time, would be better reduce the number of factories itself with starting high production for compensate.
I say, the problem is that 4 factories producing 5 each at start at the end of the year will produce 15 for a total of 60, while a factory producing 20 remains at 20!

To simulate the great increase in production by '43 on, we can simply make the other factories begin production in '43!
I think this is a viable simple solution, very easy to implement, that should go well with the increase in rail conversion and diminished blizzard effects: the Axis should do better in '41, but if he is careless in winter will be difficult to come back in strenght.
What do you think?

[Mist]

Originally posted by Fabio:
Yes, this is the same conclusion I had reached.
My idea of reducing (for game purposes) initial production works only for the first year, in '42 the factories have growth already too much.
The simplest solution that I can think is: instead of reducing the output of the factories at start, which reach equally max production in short time, would be better reduce the number of factories itself with starting high production for compensate.
I say, the problem is that 4 factories producing 5 each at start at the end of the year will produce 15 for a total of 60, while a factory producing 20 remains at 20!

To simulate the great increase in production by '43 on, we can simply make the other factories begin production in '43!
I think this is a viable simple solution, very easy to implement, that should go well with the increase in rail conversion and diminished blizzard effects: the Axis should do better in '41, but if he is careless in winter will be difficult to come back in strenght.
What do you think?

Me and Barbos are doing major research on this subject now. It includes Soviet tank/aircraft production also. The idea about number of factories reduction had come to my mind already, but I am going to implement historical growth factor for both sides also.
As far as I understand it now, cost changed also will be needed in this case. Everything must be done very carefull, since it will be major change in game balance. The point is that beta-testing team efforts are mostly dirrected on creating of balanced game. So alternative scenario setup has a certain chance to be unbalanced and so unplayable. But I am not going to shelve this idea yet because I am not satisfied neither by production rates nor by equipment costs(which is too abstract right now). Hope we will manage to make it and place it on the web along with comparison tables of actual, official WiR setup and alternative WiR setup production.
Fabio, I've already asked you about Italian military production. Could you possibly share this data with me?

[ June 11, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

[Patris]

Hi Mist

I have collected the information on italian aircraft production:
1940: 3250
1941: 3500
1942: 2800
1943: 1000+(?)
These numbers are comprehensive of all types, included those never used in battle because too obsolete/unreliable, such as a fighter totally of wood construction(!).

For the aircraft used in WIR:
MC200/MC202: 1700
G50/G55: 500 (almost all G50, a very unreliable airplane, similar to the I-16)
BR20: 600
SM79/81: 1300

Only less than 100 MC200 were send to Russia, no bomber.

In the mixed category we can include:
CR42: 1800 (fighter biplane, just for fun)
CA313+: 2000 (various types of bombers, all very unreliable even for italian standard)

If the weather was bad (even just raining) almost all of these planes were grounded for total absence of adequate instruments.
I would recommend no italian air group to have more than 50 points of experience ever (and generally much less), not for inability of the pilots, but for the deficiencies in organization and unreliability of the planes, which no battle experience could overcome.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mist:
I am not going to shelve this idea yet because I am not satisfied neither by production rates nor by equipment costs(which is too abstract right now).

Mist, the equipment cost variable is *supposed* to be abstract, as Gary intended it to be. Personallu I would have liked to see more info, like durability, cost in financial and material categories, etc. Nothing like this is going to happen anytime soon. Arnaud added a durability rating but removed it later as using it would require changing every combat formula in the game, probably causing a major imbalance. We're stuck with a single abstract cost variable.

What you're after is probably a change to the formula that controls how fast factories increase production. Arnuad may have to tweak that some, if you show him the numbers you have, but don't expect anything more than that. Actually when you bring this up, ask if the formula could count the *number* of heavy industries as just as important as their actual total value. This would make Axis production go up in '43 when the new heavy industries come on line, which would be more realistic.

If you would like, put down your argument in writing and send it to me and I'll make it an 'entry' for the issues list, so if Arnaud doesn't want to do anything now, it'll stay on the radar screen for the future.

[Svar]

When talking about German production you have to consider the effect of Allied bombing. The production model in the game is very simple. To equate the model to the reality of history is very complex. There has to be a balance between how factories are brought on line, increase in capacity and are damaged by the typical Allied bombing to compare to historical numbers produced. The typical Allied bombing damage is the huge variable. How does one run a test to duplicate the typical damage done by Allied bombing to verify the numbers people are comparing.
In my experience with the game, if given the chance, USAAF bombing will quickly reduce the German heavy industry to dust before it starts destroying other factories. Try seeing how fast a damaged factory will rebuild if the German heavy industry is reduced by 75%. This is a game that is trying to duplicate history and admittedly the production model is not perfect but getting an accurate test could be very difficult. You can't use historical bombing results for a test you have to use the game results and those could vary widely.

Svar

[ June 12, 2001: Message edited by: Svar ]

[Mist]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Svar:
When talking about German production you have to consider the effect of Allied bombing. The production model in the game is very simple. To equate the model to the reality of history is very complex. There has to be a balance between how factories are brought on line, increase in capacity and are damaged by the typical Allied bombing to compare to historical numbers produced.
That's the point Svar. German factories increase their capacity too fast in 1941-1942. So, probably heavy industry must be reduced for this period of time. You know, they were increasing capacity relatively slow
until Speer came.

The typical Allied bombing damage is the huge variable. How does one run a test to duplicate the typical damage done by Allied bombing to verify the numbers people are comparing.

Well, first of all I think that Allied bombings effect can realy be ignored until mid-43 in terms of production growing rate. Second, I run a test using Ed's WirHack.exe which disables them to save my time.
And third, German fighters production is somewhat 1.5-3 times lower in WiR than it was historicaly:
.....1941....1942....1943....1944
hist.3744....5515...10898..25285
WiR..2752....3798....5801.....8526

Note 1944? And that's without strategic bombings. I accept the arguement that German losses in aircraft on western front were high and it is not reflected in WiR. But it does not help to explain such a big difference.

In my experience with the game, if given the chance, USAAF bombing will quickly reduce the German heavy industry to dust before it starts destroying other factories. Try seeing how fast a damaged factory will rebuild if the German heavy industry is reduced by 75%.

4 times slower! right?

This is a game that is trying to duplicate history and admittedly the production model is not perfect but getting an accurate test could be very difficult. You can't use historical bombing results for a test you have to use the game results and those could vary widely.

see above

[Mist]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Mist, the equipment cost variable is *supposed* to be abstract, as Gary intended it to be. Personallu I would have liked to see more info, like durability, cost in financial and material categories, etc. Nothing like this is going to happen anytime soon. Arnaud added a durability rating but removed it later as using it would require changing every combat formula in the game, probably causing a major imbalance. We're stuck with a single abstract cost variable.

What you're after is probably a change to the formula that controls how fast factories increase production. Arnuad may have to tweak that some, if you show him the numbers you have, but don't expect anything more than that. Actually when you bring this up, ask if the formula could count the *number* of heavy industries as just as important as their actual total value. This would make Axis production go up in '43 when the new heavy industries come on line, which would be more realistic.

If you would like, put down your argument in writing and send it to me and I'll make it an 'entry' for the issues list, so if Arnaud doesn't want to do anything now, it'll stay on the radar screen for the future.[/b]

Ed, I agree with the cost determining how fast factory can increase its capacity. The only thing that annoys me that cost is used to balance the game. While it is heavy industry and resources(and willingness to use them for war purposes) what determined
growing rate of German production. And I would never agree that 11 tonn turretless Marder II costs the same 4 points as 25 tonn PzIIIj does. Decrease German heavy industry, limit Marder II factories or whatever. But why have they equal costs?
Answering your question about number of heavy industries, I can tell that growing rate seems to depend only on total. There is also certain multiplier for heavy industry which is used in growing formula which is the same throughout all the war. It also can be used to slower German industry growth in the first two years.
I will send you excel worksheet with tables comparing historical panzer/aircraft production and game production.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mist:

The only thing that annoys me that cost is used to balance the game.

Now as far as I know it's not being used for game balance, It is simply an abstract mechanism that can't stand up to close scrutiny. Considering the number of special readiness penalties, like the 60/40/20 for Soviets in 41/42/43, I think Gary used readiness penalties and length of blitzkreig supply to balance the game.

And I would never agree that 11 tonn turretless Marder II costs the same 4 points as 25 tonn PzIIIj does.

No one expects you to agree to it. But you will have to accept that the abstract production system is going to be with us for quite some time.

Decrease German heavy industry, limit Marder II factories or whatever. But why have they equal costs?

The same question, the same answer: The equipment cost variable is abstract in that it represents multiple variables.

Answering your question about number of heavy industries, I can tell that growing rate seems to depend only on total.

Yes I know.

There is also certain multiplier for heavy industry which is used in growing formula which is the same throughout all the war. It also can be used to slower German industry growth in the first two years.

How did you discover this multiplier?

I will send you excel worksheet with tables comparing historical panzer/aircraft production and game production.

Don't send it to me, I can't use it. It may suprise you to learn that not everyone has Microsoft Office. Send it to the list.

[Mist]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Don't send it to me, I can't use it. It may suprise you to learn that not everyone has Microsoft Office. Send it to the list.

Luckily for me StarOffice can read em, right? How much place in memory does this beast require?

Now as far as I know it's not being used for game balance, It is simply an abstract mechanism that can't stand up to close scrutiny. Considering the number of special readiness penalties, like the 60/40/20 for Soviets in 41/42/43, I think Gary used readiness penalties and length of blitzkreig supply to balance the game.
Agree... I am trying to say that its heavy industry and available resources must determine how much equipment can be produced so resources must be used for production and there should be a limit of production determined by available resources. Limit can be different each year because Germans were not trying too much to increase their production in the begining. Oh..well.. it is a minor issue. The major one is that Germans produce too much panzers in the beginig and too little fighters during all the war if compared with historical amounts. It can be fixed without redefining costs table.
Just by factories and heavy industry editing.
I don't mean to strain Arnaud with this. I hope that I'll be able to do it myself in my alternative(un-official) scenario.
No one expects you to agree to it. But you will have to accept that the abstract production system is going to be with us for quite some time.
I accept abstract cost system. I just humbly propose the way to improve it and make game to produce more historicaly.

Answering your question about number of heavy industries, I can tell that growing rate seems to depend only on total.

Yes I know.
I know that you know. You had probably meant whether is it possible to make production growing rate dependent on number of heavy industries? This question is hard to answer. I don't know. So what did you mean?
How did you discover this multiplier?
It wasn't hard after staring during one and half hour into the very very long text file. So probability that factory will increase its capacity by one is

P={heavy/(50*cost)} if capacity is below 15
P={heavy/(1000*cost)} if capacity is not below 15.

There's also very minor modifier which nature still remains mysterious for me.

[ June 15, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mist:
How much place in memory does this beast require?

Its not memory, just the proprietary MS Excel format, which is not emulated well enough in other word processors. I could read your stuff in the Star Office spreadsheet program, but I can't look at Rich's spreadsheet-based game editor because SO can't show it correctly.

The major one is that Germans produce too much panzers in the beginig and too little fighters during all the war if compared with historical amounts. It can be fixed without redefining costs table, just by factories and heavy industry editing.

You want to decrease panzer production but increase aircraft production at the same time. I don't see how you can do this unless you hardwire aircraft factories to produce more than the normal limit of 15-20, and/or hardwire tank factories to produce less. In other words, I don't know of a way to modify the production system to get an increase in one category and at the same time get a decrease in another category.

I accept abstract cost system. I just humbly propose the way to improve it and make game to produce more historicaly.

Heck there are a bunch of ways to get improvement, and the best one is to throw the the whole damn thing out the window and start fresh. I'm not disagreeing with your assesment Mist, the production system sucks, but realistically all we can hope is for Arnaud to make it suck less sometime in the future.

You had probably meant whether is it possible to make production growing rate dependent on number of heavy industries? This question is hard to answer. I don't know. So what did you mean?

We've added to the game some new heavy industry factories that start in '43 to represent the switch to German total war, but these factories have a limited impact early on because they start at 1 and they have to get to 10 or better to start making a difference, and the difference is marginal. However if one of the variables used to determine production rate of factories was the number of HI factories in addition to their total HI value, then German production would start to increase by late '43, which makes a lot of sense. Someone mentioned factories are increasing their speed so something in the formula may have changed since I last watched production through a full game.

It wasn't hard after staring during one and half hour into the very very long text file. So probability that factory will increase its capacity by one is

P={heavy/(50*cost)} if capacity is below 15
P={heavy/(1000*cost)} if capacity is not below 15.

There's also very minor modifier which nature still remains mysterious for me.

Damn, you got more free time on your hands than I do. Have you considered a career in hacking the exe file? I'm still looking for the infantry replacements modifier, and could use all the help I can get.

[ June 16, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]