Matrix Games Forums

The economic model is wrong in some fundamental way or these countries would not be fielding to large of an army. Scaling that is done right address that issue. It adjusts the economy and while in effect it may limit armies it does it through the economic model not some arbitrary force limit.

Twotribes, this economy modell was implemented to minimalize micromanagement. We didn't want to copy solutions from Hearts of Iron (or our Bitter Glory), we just wanted to make it simple as it should be for board game so PP represents food, oil, manpower, resources etc.

Of course we can come to conlusion it is beter to leave it as it is, but we can also find a solution which will lead to playability improvement.

Twotribes is actually agreeing with you, as far as I can tell. [8D]

Oh.
It's really possible he agreed.
Dodn't get the context.

Scaling upkeep is possible, especially since the game is moddable.  Players can rearrange production to their preference and adjust upkeep.  Sounds like a nice alternative.  You can then make certain resources, like Ploesti, worth more than normal representing oil.
 
Thats a simple idea that balances the game.  I like it.
 
BTW I am almost done with my OOB.  I will post it tomorrow.  I have included ALL countrys in europe and some asian just for kicks.

BTW I am almost done with my OOB. I will post it tomorrow. I have included ALL countrys in europe and some asian just for kicks.

looks like we have start to think about our wiki

I really don't like that whacky "improving upkeep" idea, it has no semblance of reality... A Romanian soldier (or any other) was not marginally more expensive than the previous one [:'(], but the number of possible Romanian soldier was limited, comma.
If things are to be "complexified", a manpower limit is the only good solution, as it's the only realistic one.

I still don't have the game, and will still hold...

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

I really don't like that whacky "improving upkeep" idea, it has no semblance of reality... A Romanian soldier (or any other) was not marginally more expensive than the previous one [:'(], but the number of possible Romanian soldier was limited, comma.
If things are to be "complexified", a manpower limit is the only good solution, as it's the only realistic one.

I still don't have the game, and will still hold...

The more troops you have under arms the more infrastructure you need to support them. Scaling provides for that.

However people are forgetting that Rumania provided a fairly large unit count Army, and reformed it once during the war.

The other thing you have to remember about economies is that they need to be planned and anticipating what will be needed. Otherwise all sorts of bottlenecks will occur in areas where your war effort will least expect it. You simply do not pump out X amount of rifles because you have X amount of draft-elgible people in your population. Everytime you take able-bodied people into the armed forces, you have will have to deal with the consequences of taking skilled and unskilled labor out of the very industries needed to support those soldiers. You have to weigh the consequences of taking butter from the non-combatants to give guns to the military. And you have to deal with the law of dimishing returns.

And while the Romanians fielded a large army, you have to consider what effect it had on their economy - and does this game impose those consequences.

I like the idea of scaling up the costs of maintaining/building extra units over the historical OB's. I think it is an easy and elegant decision.

Realistically the moment Germany declared war on Russia they lost the war. At best case they could stalemate them. Realistically if the German's did EVERYTHING right they still lose the war with the allies to the a-bomb at worst case.

[font="Times New Roman"]winky51:

I agree with you that it would have been very difficult (though not quite impossible) for Germany to have won the war, but I think this should be reflected in the game. A realistic victory condition would be that if Germany survives until the end of 1946 it should count as a decisive German victory. Otherwise the game becomes too ahistorical and much less fun. A game with reasonably accurate production levels allows both sides to play both sweeping offensives and desperate defense, while exercising the skill of judging when the "hinge of fate" (as Churchill called it) will swing, and deciding how to prepare for it. I do believe that the game should have a good deal of latitude in allowing realistic historical "what if's", but not to the point where it becomes too implausible. I don't mind if Germany is able to conquer the U.S.S.R. on rare occasions but, in my opinion, it should be very unusual.

That said, I apologize (slighty [;)]) for jumping into this thread to preach from my soapbox on a topic that I already discussed in another thread. For what it's worth, I agree that scaling upkeep sounds like an elegant way to limit production to reasonably history levels, and I hope it gets implemented. With that, I will now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion. [:D][/font]

Thats what I was saying jeffrey.  its a wargame, not a historical recreation.  But historical things are needed to give a feel of the war while keeping it within the realm of reasonableness and fun.

its a wargame, not a historical recreation. But historical things are needed to give a feel of the war while keeping it within the realm of reasonableness and fun.

[font="Times New Roman"]winky51:

I concur entirely, and apologize if I misunderstood your comments.[/font]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

I really don't like that whacky "improving upkeep" idea, it has no semblance of reality... A Romanian soldier (or any other) was not marginally more expensive than the previous one [:'(], but the number of possible Romanian soldier was limited, comma.
If things are to be "complexified", a manpower limit is the only good solution, as it's the only realistic one.

I still don't have the game, and will still hold...

The more troops you have under arms the more infrastructure you need to support them. Scaling provides for that.

However people are forgetting that Rumania provided a fairly large unit count Army, and reformed it once during the war.

Ok, I discarded a bit too fast the "scaling" problem you mention, but this is in addition to the hard limit imposed by manpower, and to me really secondary. Look at what the Soviet did, they send guys to the front at Stalingrad even without guns, and no training !
There was indeed many Romanian units (but they really were piss-poor in combat), but this doesn't invalidate the point. Read anything about it, the real limits to a WW2 army were manpower and ammo/gun production.