Equipment Transition

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But for the rest of the war that wouldn't be much of an issue.

No?

In March of 1942, 25 of Ausf F1s were later converted to Ausf F2s.
...Large number of [PzKpfw III] Ausf M was converted to either Sturmgeschütz III or Ausf N.
From February of 1943 to April of 1943, 100 Ausf M tanks produced by MIAG in Braunsweig (chassis numbers 77609-77708) were converted by Wegmann in Kassel to Flammpanzer - flame-thrower tanks.

And so on. Vehicles which were judged to be obsolete regularly get withdrawn from the front line and used for something else. This isn't during quiet periods, either.

But perhaps it could be addressed via a TO that would give the player with extra tanks a suite of emply tank units that could be filled with the excess. I haven't tried it, but in theory...

Well and again, in a great many campaigns both sides were supplying everything they could supply up at the front. What one needs is a mechanism whereby the maximum force is fixed- but if anything is available in excess, it's the better stuff which goes up to the units, and the old equipment gets left behind.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


But perhaps it could be addressed via a TO that would give the player with extra tanks a suite of emply tank units that could be filled with the excess. I haven't tried it, but in theory...

This at least seems to assume that all that's needed for another tank unit are more tanks. The limitations of such theories were explored both by the Russians in 1941 and by the Germans in 1945.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

But for the rest of the war that wouldn't be much of an issue.

No?

In March of 1942, 25 of Ausf F1s were later converted to Ausf F2s.
...Large number of [PzKpfw III] Ausf M was converted to either Sturmgeschütz III or Ausf N.
From February of 1943 to April of 1943, 100 Ausf M tanks produced by MIAG in Braunsweig (chassis numbers 77609-77708) were converted by Wegmann in Kassel to Flammpanzer - flame-thrower tanks.

And so on. Vehicles which were judged to be obsolete regularly get withdrawn from the front line and used for something else. This isn't during quiet periods, either.

But insignificant compared to tank losses for those periods. And many of those conversions had actually been pulled out earlier. 1939-1940 were unique.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


But perhaps it could be addressed via a TO that would give the player with extra tanks a suite of emply tank units that could be filled with the excess. I haven't tried it, but in theory...

This at least seems to assume that all that's needed for another tank unit are more tanks. The limitations of such theories were explored both by the Russians in 1941 and by the Germans in 1945.

No it doesn't. It assumes that if losses are far below historical and tanks are stacking up in the rear, then there will be excess support stuff stacking up too, same as tanks. Clearly, in that situation, extra-historical tank units could have been created.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


But perhaps it could be addressed via a TO that would give the player with extra tanks a suite of emply tank units that could be filled with the excess. I haven't tried it, but in theory...

This at least seems to assume that all that's needed for another tank unit are more tanks. The limitations of such theories were explored both by the Russians in 1941 and by the Germans in 1945.

No it doesn't. It assumes that if losses are far below historical and tanks are stacking up in the rear, then there will be excess support stuff stacking up too, same as tanks. Clearly, in that situation, extra-historical tank units could have been created.

On the other hand, with the possible exception of the US Army in 1944-45, when was there a combatant with this particular problem?

In aid of advocating your own pet solution, you seem to be positing a need to simulate something that rarely or never happened.

In any case, it actually takes a while to work up a unit of the size OPART generally deals with. After all, it needs to be a unit, not merely an armed mob. Even in the case of the Russian army, one will generally find a gap of a few months between when the unit is formed and when it is sent into action. There were exceptions, but they usually didn't pan out very well.

So merely happening to have a hundred surplus tank crews and a hundred surplus Panthers (not that this was too common a problem) doesn't mean an armored regiment can pop up.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

On the other hand, with the possible exception of the US Army in 1944-45, when was there a combatant with this particular problem?

In aid of advocating your own pet solution, you seem to be positing a need to simulate something that rarely or never happened.

In any case, it actually takes a while to work up a unit of the size OPART generally deals with. After all, it needs to be a unit, not merely an armed mob. Even in the case of the Russian army, one will generally find a gap of a few months between when the unit is formed and when it is sent into action. There were exceptions, but they usually didn't pan out very well.

So merely happening to have a hundred surplus tank crews and a hundred surplus Panthers (not that this was too common a problem) doesn't mean an armored regiment can pop up.

You're seriously suggesting that if we replayed WWII with a production system that exactly the same units would be produced?

Production would deviate wildly from history depending upon how the action sorted itself out. Well, TOAW doesn't have a production system (yet). Overstocking serves as a crude alternative. The alternative is to have situations where vast stockpiles of tanks languish in the pools - even in excess of what's in the field. That's not historical.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

On the other hand, with the possible exception of the US Army in 1944-45, when was there a combatant with this particular problem?

In aid of advocating your own pet solution, you seem to be positing a need to simulate something that rarely or never happened.

In any case, it actually takes a while to work up a unit of the size OPART generally deals with. After all, it needs to be a unit, not merely an armed mob. Even in the case of the Russian army, one will generally find a gap of a few months between when the unit is formed and when it is sent into action. There were exceptions, but they usually didn't pan out very well.

So merely happening to have a hundred surplus tank crews and a hundred surplus Panthers (not that this was too common a problem) doesn't mean an armored regiment can pop up.

You're seriously suggesting that if we replayed WWII with a production system that exactly the same units would be produced?

Production would deviate wildly from history depending upon how the action sorted itself out. Well, TOAW doesn't have a production system (yet). Overstocking serves as a crude alternative. The alternative is to have situations where vast stockpiles of tanks languish in the pools - even in excess of what's in the field. That's not historical.

No -- and given that tank oversupply wasn't exactly an endemic problem among the combatants, should such a situation arise, it would suggest bad scenario design.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

No -- and given that tank oversupply wasn't exactly an endemic problem among the combatants, ...

Because they had production systems. So if tank losses were lower than historical, new units would have been created. If they were higher than normal, some historical units wouldn't have been made, to maintain minimum replacement levels.

should such a situation arise, it would suggest bad scenario design.

Rubbish! How can the designer control how aggressively or passively the players play?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

No -- and given that tank oversupply wasn't exactly an endemic problem among the combatants, ...

Because they had production systems. So if tank losses were lower than historical, new units would have been created. If they were higher than normal, some historical units wouldn't have been made, to maintain minimum replacement levels.

Okay -- so find some examples of units being created because a tank surplus arose. First step.

That is how I at least think about this, you know. The game is supposed to reflect historical probability. I'm not interested in what would have happened if there had been a tank surplus, because there wasn't.

should such a situation arise, it would suggest bad scenario design.

Rubbish! How can the designer control how aggressively or passively the players play?

No...if a tank surplus commonly arises in a scenario, since such things didn't happen, it would suggest bad design. I'll grant wanky play could also produce such results, but the purpose of the design isn't to account for every possible anomaly weird play might create -- just to make sure it won't result in a win. However, should players in a historical scenario following a reasonable line of play commonly find themselves with tanks spilling out of their pool, then the inference is that the design is flawed. And why? Because this didn't happen.

Look at the historical facts (just for a refreshing change of pace). Russian units were famously understrength most of the time. The British had 'tank divisions' without tanks right through at least 1943 and for all I know thereafter. The Germans weren't up to strength at any point after the summer of 1941.

The only exception I'm aware of would be the Americans -- I wouldn't be surprised if they were usually up to and even sometimes slightly over strength. However, even they weren't whipping up new tank divisions when someone noticed four hundred Shermans with crews sitting around Leige.

It's not something that happened. So why are you bent on modeling it?

[ColinWright]

Worse -- and in a fashion so typical of what happens when Curtis takes a hand -- we're no longer discussing a mechanism to deal with the actual problem of 15.Pz transitioning from Mk III's to a mix of Panthers and Mk.IV's or 7th Armoured going over from Crusaders to Grants. We're arguing about some utterly irrelevant and academic mechanism for replicating something that never happened.

And why? Because Curtis thought of it. Modeling wadis versus rivers runs afoul of Curtis' fine idea that wadis are like trenches. Discussing the admittedly challenging problems of volume based supply crashes into Curtis' assertion that no such thing is needed at all. Considering how to model flak comes a cropper when Curtis insists it should work by shooting down planes and only by shooting down planes.

This happens over and over. It's like having a Biblical literalist turning up at the dinosaur dig. We can't get anywhere.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Because they had production systems. So if tank losses were lower than historical, new units would have been created. If they were higher than normal, some historical units wouldn't have been made, to maintain minimum replacement levels.

Okay -- so find some examples of units being created because a tank surplus arose. First step.

I just explained why no such surplus would occur: They had production systems. Make an effort to understand. TOAW doesn't have production systems. Overstocking serves as a crude substitute.

No...if a tank surplus commonly arises in a scenario, since such things didn't happen, it would suggest bad design. I'll grant wanky play could also produce such results, but the purpose of the design isn't to account for every possible anomaly weird play might create -- just to make sure it won't result in a win. However, should players in a historical scenario following a reasonable line of play commonly find themselves with tanks spilling out of their pool, then the inference is that the design is flawed. And why? Because this didn't happen.

Actually, forcing the historical results on players would be a good definition of bad design. Especially in a campaign-length scenario.

Regardless, if you truely believe such can never happen, then what's the issue? No overstocked units would ever occur.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Because they had production systems. So if tank losses were lower than historical, new units would have been created. If they were higher than normal, some historical units wouldn't have been made, to maintain minimum replacement levels.

Okay -- so find some examples of units being created because a tank surplus arose. First step.

I just explained why no such surplus would occur: They had production systems. Make an effort to understand. TOAW doesn't have production systems. Overstocking serves as a crude substitute.

No...if a tank surplus commonly arises in a scenario, since such things didn't happen, it would suggest bad design. I'll grant wanky play could also produce such results, but the purpose of the design isn't to account for every possible anomaly weird play might create -- just to make sure it won't result in a win. However, should players in a historical scenario following a reasonable line of play commonly find themselves with tanks spilling out of their pool, then the inference is that the design is flawed. And why? Because this didn't happen.

Actually, forcing the historical results on players would be a good definition of bad design. Especially in a campaign-length scenario.

Regardless, if you truely believe such can never happen, then what's the issue? No overstocked units would ever occur.

Congratulations, Curtis. You have turned a potentially useful conversation about how to handle an actual issue into a meaningless dispute over semantics. I'm not going to dignify this with a response.

Call it a win. Give yourself another pat on the back.