Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

and where is this money coming from that we will be getting ? (I get to tell people I was a Alpha/Beta tester, and they will look at me and ask what is that)

I think you need to reread what I did say, I said he was able to say it nicer then I could, maybe nicer was the wrong word ? maybe better, or more to the point

and, what makes you think, that only you people are the ones who are asking about production ?

we are telling you what we got, not what we want or think should be, but what we got

I think hard sarge- that you're taking some comments that have been made on a personal level.

Now I am sure that you know that would not have been or ever was my intention.
I am also well aware that the testers fought for free production being in the game- I dont really think there is anything that needs re-reading.

What I have said, and have said before- and now getting tired of saying it myself- is that I think no free production was an error, a grave error for it not, to have been included- I beileve it is very short sighted.
But most of all!
If free production does appear in a future Generals edition, that we have to pay for (more money) then its a rip off. It should have been included in the original- and not be made a selling point for a later and more comprehensive game.
The game company is not a charity- its a business, and its in the business of making money- so I am confused as to why you wouldn't put your best product forward (regardless of how great this current release will be).

ORIGINAL: jshan

I am totally comfortable with the decision made to leave production out of this game. If it comes in an upgrade, I'll enjoy it then. For now, I trust the game will be another of GG's excellent simulations.

WJS

Are you willing to buy the game again for that upgrade?

Or should it be a free DLC?

If players of War in the Pacific could do with only a very limited aspect of the total production fo all sides involved in the conflict (namely only the Japanese) being included in the product, or the players of War Plan Orange who basically didn't get to manage any production at all, why do some people here seem to keep saying over and over that free production is pretty much a life or death matter?

TOAW didn't have any free production either, and War in the East is much more similar to TOAW than to the above mentioned recent titles, so why can't a part of the fanbase active here take no for an answer?

Well, the problem with no free production start when somebody says "no free production because this is a historical game"... ok, but then somebody says that they are working in a historical  game with free production??? sorry man but i think that you try to sold the same game 2 times and dont add a production option is a mixture of lack of time and try to sold 2 times the same game.

I dont want a production where i can select the type of turret of a tank, i only want have the power, when my troops meets the T-34/76 and KV-1/2, to say "hey, i want accelerate the change of rol in PzC IV from support to main battle tank start to stop PzIII production because i see more future in the StugIII series"

PD: if the game is historical... why we can elaborate strategies??? if i dont have bad memory germans and soviets obey orders from Stalin and Hitler, has the game implemented some like "Stalin orders attack Kharkov in may 1942"??? if you dont have the political presure i dont see soviets launching a total counterattack from end 1941 to the middle of 1942 and of course i dont see the german race to Kiev in Barbarrossa a Hitler´s decision not a commanders choice.

EDIT: decide between PzIV and PzV in 1941 is an important question because in 1943 germans have more tanks and dont have the "new material problems", a german player can try to win in 1943 the war with better options or early if he has good luck, remember that East Front was an open front not like West where all was decided, only in the D-Day germans have a choice after all is decided.

The key to almost every wargame is: the beginning is often historical, the rest is up to you.

It's actually quite unlikely that you can repeat history completely, with the historical battles at the historical moment in the historical area with the historical forces involved.

Giving people control over production would make especially the German side unbalanced. You could go to full war production in 1941 and roll over the Soviets with superior equipment.

Also, the gamers don't have Hitler or Stalin messing with their orders. That would make the game nearly impossible for the Soviets at the start and simply impossible for the Germans after Stalingrad, although even Hitler had doubts about operation Zitadelle.

As long as the rest of the game works, production should not be an issue. I again refer to TOAW as a succesful wargame game on a similar scale without free production (although you could disband worthless formations to get their equipment, but that counted as losing those formations).

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The key to almost every wargame is: the beginning is often historical, the rest is up to you.

It's actually quite unlikely that you can repeat history completely, with the historical battles at the historical moment in the historical area with the historical forces involved.

Giving people control over production would make especially the German side unbalanced. You could go to full war production in 1941 and roll over the Soviets with superior equipment.

Also, the gamers don't have Hitler or Stalin messing with their orders. That would make the game nearly impossible for the Soviets at the start and simply impossible for the Germans after Stalingrad, although even Hitler had doubts about operation Zitadelle.

As long as the rest of the game works, production should not be an issue. I again refer to TOAW as a succesful wargame game on a similar scale without free production (although you could disband worthless formations to get their equipment, but that counted as losing those formations).

Not at all- it wouldn't be a case of building Panthers in 1941- the historical timeliness would still exist as a guide.
Mind you none of this effected WIR- in fact it enhanced the game.
The only thing that made that game unbalanced was the blizzards of 1941.

I do think that it speaks volumes that this is the thread with the most views and the second most posts.

Has anybody considered that maybe War in Russia was wrong to allow such changes in production in such a short time?? That WIR was wrong!!!

The M-26 Pershing started developement in late 42 and was not fielded until February 45, and in limited qualtiies. Now that's the US ecomomy at full "balls to wall" production, like an A-Bomb in the same amount of time.

Could you do anything with the Germany ecomony or production from June 41? First of all your argonant Germans, we are winning ... ergo why change it if it ain't broke. More beer for everyone!!! But by 43 it was evident that "Berlin I think we have a problem ..." But then it was too late you don't have enough time to tweak your production to have any impact. You all are working with a known historical outcome. This game keeps the out come as an unknown ... That's the challenge ... What you do know is beat the Red's before 43 or it's all over but the shouting and it's off to Siberia for the loser.

War in Russia is also a pretty old game at its core.

I could also say that my SSI Great Naval Battles in the North Atlantic title has more options for ship control than, say, War in the Pacific, but that wouldn't make the game less old and some of its features way outdated.

War in Russia was and still is fun, but it could use some serious modernization efforts.

War in the East won't be "War in Russia+" but it will bridge a gap between a game like TOAW and War in Russia.

Perhaps we'll get a detailed game like War in the Pacific for the war in Europe at one point, but it won't be this game.

Ok..my turn to chime in. Please read thru all my ramblings [:)]
 
First off..player control of production is very limited..it wasn't due to short sightedness on anyone's part, it was intended as such for a number of reasons. Time and resources are probably the biggest problem when creating any software. Coders have schedules they must meet and regardless of how many features everyone wants to see in the game (and believe me we are pushing for all we can get), time and resources only allow for so much.
 
What would you be willing to sacrifice in order to get full player production...hmmm..uhhh...nada..and that comes from someone who likes to micromanage economics and production. Maybe in the years to come someone will get ahold of the code and do what was done with WitP, but for now we have what we have.
 
In this game the Ai is going to handle it for you so you can focus your attention on what the Field Marshalls and Generals did..and that is to fight and win the battles. This game has much more land and air combat detail than any other game I know of at this level and with 200 turns in the 1941 campaign game it is going to take a long time to finish the game against the Ai let alone pbem.
 
Right now, the player can relocate factories as the Soviet player, both players can bomb each others factories and some factory and resource types can be captured. You can also capture and repair rail lines that can hinder or assist in the distribution of equipment and supplies. That is about the extent to what you can influence and frankly that's about all the Field marshalls and Generals could do. Yea..I know Guderian had a big hand in influencing German tank design and production..but he is such a good General I would prefer to keep him near the front.
 
From the production perspective though, let's look a little more in depth at what the Ai is doing for you. Based on the number of factories you own of a given type, it produces those vehicles, aircraft, and assorted equipment needed to equip your forces. Of course you must have adequate resources, so here again the Ai correlates all this to provide pools of material. The Ai also automatically upgrades factories and units from one type of eguipment to another currently based on historical dates. The Ai also ships all this stuff for you to the various Hq's and units..along with needed fuel, ammo, and supplies to keep your armies on the move. 
 
The Ai is capable of even more though, and this is where us testers are pushing the edge to try and get as much as we can for all of you (and us) here [:)]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thanks, that was a very good explaination. It was much better than my outside looking in attempt.

Ok, i know, but no free production == historical [:-] is all i say because the game dont have political intromisions in military area and this is more historical for me (not invade England, dont select Moscow as main objetive...).

For Barbarrossa and the Panther in Moscow i only say that could be fixed tech (for example the 75mmL70 because if i dont have bad memory was a plan to use a longer 50mm in Panther before the new 75mm was ready), time to adapt factories to new type when start production or time to have ready the prototypes... and of course, production points, you dont need the same effort to produce a PzIV (Ford of german tanks) than Panther/Tiger (Rolls Royce).

Of course games are only historical the 1st turn. Is only a game a it have the options that it have.

PD: change a little the german tank production can give a choice to germans to survive a Stalingrad because they can have reserves, with... 400 or 500 PzIV in reserve...

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Ok, i know, but no free production == historical [:-] is all i say because the game dont have political intromisions in military area and this is more historical for me (not invade England, dont select Moscow as main objetive...).

For Barbarrossa and the Panther in Moscow i only say that could be fixed tech (for example the 75mmL70 because if i dont have bad memory was a plan to use a longer 50mm in Panther before the new 75mm was ready), time to adapt factories to new type when start production or time to have ready the prototypes... and of course, production points, you dont need the same effort to produce a PzIV (Ford of german tanks) than Panther/Tiger (Rolls Royce).

Of course games are only historical the 1st turn. Is only a game a it have the options that it have.

PD: change a little the german tank production can give a choice to germans to survive a Stalingrad because they can have reserves, with... 400 or 500 PzIV in reserve...

I believe you missed Sabre's point. As Field Marshal or General you can not influence whether you install a 50mm on a Panther just to field it early then up gun it later. That concept is because you already know one historical outcome. The Germans thought the 50mm PZIII would work. When they couldn't kill T-34's with the PZIII easily then they decided on the Panther or actually the Tiger, but wasn't the Tiger a reaction to the KV's? Any oo all of your changes in production would be from the lesson's learned by the German on the eastern front in WWII!! That would be like having a replay option on all battles, keep replaying until you win!! Whoopie!! NOT!! This also applies to up gunning the PZIV to the L48 gun or shifting PZIII production to PZIV, which would require a massive out lay of material for retooling that factory. Didn't PZIII factories stayed open to make Wespe's and Nashhorns and all those special tracked SP platforms?

I still say the modelling for WIR was way off to allow such change to the German arament industry. So forget.

Absolutely - German industry was doing the best (well, sort of) it could, with what it had at the time. It was inefficient to close down the PzIII production lines, so they started making Marders, Stugs & other upgraded SPGs instead. They didn't have the capacity to just build wholesale new production lines, willy-nilly.

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

ORIGINAL: jshan

I am totally comfortable with the decision made to leave production out of this game. If it comes in an upgrade, I'll enjoy it then. For now, I trust the game will be another of GG's excellent simulations.

WJS

Are you willing to buy the game again for that upgrade?

Or should it be a free DLC?



IMHO,

Matrix is entitled to charge for an upgrade. It depends on how much is added that should drive the price.

WJS

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Maybe in the years to come someone will get ahold of the code and do what was done with WitP, but for now we have what we have.

No, exactly wrong. WITP came with full player controlled production on the Japanese side out of the box. It was in the original release. It also came with player defined upgrades (is that an option here?). It didn't come with production management for the Allies, because essentially you didn't need it, they have all they can use of almost everything. So, we know that a game the scale and complexity of WitE has previously contained player controlled production. The upgrades to WitP in the Admirals Edition were way way beyond just production.

Separately, with the capturing of resources and factories, does it increase the volume of equipment being produced or are the resources simply "added to the pile" for use at the pre-defined pace.

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Absolutely - German industry was doing the best (well, sort of) it could, with what it had at the time. It was inefficient to close down the PzIII production lines, so they started making Marders, Stugs & other upgraded SPGs instead. They didn't have the capacity to just build wholesale new production lines, willy-nilly.

c'mon Paulus. That's not accurate. The German economy wasn't put on a war footing until late 42/early 43. Had they been put on a war footing, production would have been through the roof. Look at the numbers in 43 and early 44 even while the Allies are bombing the heart out of the Reich, production was climbing.

ORIGINAL: itsjustme


It also came with player defined upgrades (is that an option here?).

To be correct, Player Defined Upgrades (PDUs) were not included in the initial release. They were added as a new feature in I believe the 3rd or 4th patch.

IMO, I think it would be a horrible idea to add production for only one side. So down the road I hope they add it for both or none.

Well, i think that build StugIII is faster and easier than PzIII but in all production change the first months are important but after them all works again and as say itsjustme the problem with germans wastn the production, was the idea of war that they have and this is easy to represent with an event called "Total War", after a great disaster or after a time limit (end of 1942) you can receive full control over producction and receive more industrial points.

The problem with historical production is that in a PBEM game URSS player have all choices to win because he can evade the great defeats in the initial barbarrossa, can do a better use of reserves at the end of 1941 and in the middle 1942 and after 1942 he can play with the advantage of an axis army sending troops to west and start to have manpower problems.

Germans can evade their main mistakes but soviets can do it and in 1942 a dead point is a soviet victory, germans needs try to win in the first year, somesimilar to japanese situation in WITP, you can change production all you want but it dont change the enemy situation except that in east front have 400-500 PzIV in reserve because you dont expend resources and time in a new tank could stop a soviet break and you can gain... 3-4 months and you can elaborate an alternative strategie.

EDIT: field commanders cant select the tank cannon but they can say what they need in the battlefield. Oooo another question is that for example Hitler prefers send Panthers to the west but... if you can change it... this is the great part of production/deployment decisions [&o]

If Germany had gone to full war production a year or two earlier, well you would have ended up with more PzIII & early PzIVs that still couldn't have dealt with T-34s & KV1s. I'm also coming back around to the idea that just because Germany could have built more, doesn't mean that could have:

A) Moved them from the factories to the front without further straining supply lines & the rail network.

B) Provided fuel - both strategically and tactically (to the front lines) to use more tanks/vehicles than they had historically.

One important item we need to remember - none of this would be occuring in isolation. If Germany made different decisions regarding the war, so would have the Allies reacted to those decisions to adapt & overcome. The Allies could have very easily changed their bombing strategy to go after Germany's electrical network (during the war, it was thought that the German power grid was extremely flexible & redundant, so the decision was made not to make it a priority for the Strategic Bombing campaign).

This was fortunate for the Germans, as post-war studies showed that by targeting the two dozen largest German power plants, it would have reduced overall electric production by over 40% & caused widespread disruptions of the entire economic & industrial sectors of the economy - perhaps even ending the war early.

So, it is always a give-and-take - just because you can change one or two facets of the war (either tactics or production) doesn't meant that you won't get an equal and opposite reaction from the other side - rendering whatever changes were made to be moot. Despite what we may liken our historical counterparts to be, they aren't just a series of lock-step generals, who happily throw their troops into our waiting guns, but dangerous and adaptable adversaries that can and will change tactics, strategy, and logistics to defeat their opponents.