Matrix Games Forums

So to a large extent you get the resources allocated to you.

except you shouldn't get those resources if they don't exist. Why have limits on weapons then? You should be able to produce as many as you wish, after all, the goal is to get them to the front.

ORIGINAL: panzer51

So to a large extent you get the resources allocated to you.

except you shouldn't get those resources if they don't exist. Why have limits on weapons then? You should be able to produce as many as you wish, after all, the goal is to get them to the front.

all I am trying to do is to explain how it works - if its not to your taste there is a sub-forum for game suggestions, so at some stage those who don't want the current production system probably really should make your alternative proposals there?

I am not sure I get this. I understand now that the axis player cannot run out of fuel no matter what. But the why does the game even model oil production on the map and conversion into fuel? Why is it presenting the metrics for fuel and oil then? It looks to me like a work in progress then. I have no issues with the production system as such. But if you model oil in the Kaukasus, every player will think, that it means something in game to win or lose it.

ORIGINAL: mikael333

I am not sure I get this. I understand now that the axis player cannot run out of fuel no matter what. But the why does the game even model oil production on the map and conversion into fuel? Why is it presenting the metrics for fuel and oil then? It looks to me like a work in progress then. I have no issues with the production system as such. But if you model oil in the Kaukasus, every player will think, that it means something in game to win or lose it.

Exactly this. If i do not have to worry about fuel/oil why do i even have stats about it? If it is not used at all for anything and is just an abstraction - then remove it.

Now i wonder about fabrics in cities. Lets say Axis take Kharkov. Will it impact production of t34 or it is also just an abstraction?

Now i wonder about fabrics in cities. Lets say Axis take Kharkov. Will it impact production of t34 or it is also just an abstraction?

Kharkov plant is evacuated and then recreated somewhere in the Urals. So no, there is no impact. Also even if you take Kharkov before scheduled evacuation, the plant will still be evacuated.

If you evacuate manually or Kharkov is taken before scheduled evacuation the damage is higher ergo less T34 will be produced. So it does have impact but not huge one. Bigger flaw in my opinion is that factories without evacuation date set can't be evacuated at all.

but it gets a hell lot of damage if Kharkov is occupied earlier than historically thus you'll lose T-34 production

That is nice. While we are discussing different production things and not to create a new topic there is one more thing: I don't know if Murmansk can be taken, but if it is taken - will it affect the amount of lend-lease Soviets get?

ORIGINAL: Stamb

That is nice. While we are discussing different production things and not to create a new topic there is one more thing: I don't know if Murmansk can be taken, but if it is taken - will it affect the amount of lend-lease Soviets get?

No, lend-lease comes from off-map hexes so it's always there

ORIGINAL: mikael333

I am not sure I get this. I understand now that the axis player cannot run out of fuel no matter what. But the why does the game even model oil production on the map and conversion into fuel? Why is it presenting the metrics for fuel and oil then? It looks to me like a work in progress then. I have no issues with the production system as such. But if you model oil in the Kaukasus, every player will think, that it means something in game to win or lose it.

ORIGINAL: Stamb

That is nice. While we are discussing different production things and not to create a new topic there is one more thing: I don't know if Murmansk can be taken, but if it is taken - will it affect the amount of lend-lease Soviets get?

these 2 are similar points

The key to the industrial side of the game is that neither power could affect the opponent. We know the Soviet industrial sector proved to be incredibly robust (even if by late 1944 it was worn out) and German production hit its war time peak in late 1944. So the game gives you some variables, forced or early factory evac does more damage than if it goes as planned, but generally you get the resources that the two sides generated historically.

What the value of this might be varies according to the on-map situation.

This is also where its worth making the point that the VP system isn't an add on, its a core part of the game design. In effect it bounds the game into historical plus a bit in terms of games before the game is ended by the VP system.

So, no, you can't actually take Murmansk (as it is in a Theatre Box) at the moment. If we get either a Continuation War Finland scenario or Finland released to the map, then I presume so. But at the moment the LL values are hard-wired. because, if the axis player starts to snip the connections then, by the VP system, they have won.

So the game isn't designed to explore some German fantasy version where the Heer sets up camp on the line of the Urals. The game is designed to end at the point where the Germans have won a reasonably decisive victory in the terrain west of the Volga (ok that simplifies but not by much). So what happens if that win escalates, really isn't WiTE2.

On the other side, the Soviets are not going to reach the Rhine but they may well set up a post-war division of Germany well to the west of the historical lines.

I am playing without an early end as i do not want to be forced to capture city X or i lose because i miss N points. But i appreciate all of the answers. Thanks.

Loki, much more interesting than the fuel pool graph would be the actual fuel consumption by factories and units after the sharp bend in your graph. Of course, the currently produced fuel is still available, but fuel consumption should drop by the weekly amount previously taken from the pool each week.

That doesn't mean that the economy and army suddenly collapse, it just means that maybe something like 60% oder 70% of the previously available fuel is available from then on. The specific effect of that is probably hard to pinpoint.

ORIGINAL: AngularMan

Loki, much more interesting than the fuel pool graph would be the actual fuel consumption by factories and units after the sharp bend in your graph. Of course, the currently produced fuel is still available, but fuel consumption should drop by the weekly amount previously taken from the pool each week.

That doesn't mean that the economy and army suddenly collapse, it just means that maybe something like 60% oder 70% of the previously available fuel is available from then on. The specific effect of that is probably hard to pinpoint.

problem is that graph is not part of the available set, but here are the production charts, logistics log and a cool picture of Stromness (I'll leave people to work out which is which). The in-game images are for the last turn in December 1944.









Roger

It seems some of us are on the wrong frequency. The lesson to learn IMO is getting the stuff from A to B. The NSS is a dump box. Trying to empty it is the trick. When it comes to items not capped like fuel, ammo and supplies it is all about the rail and railyards. The rest of that stuff is mumbo jumbo nonsense. You want to impact the economy capture an NSS and see what happens. Loki100 is right. Read his posts again without the blinders.

This is some historical context, maybe of value?

They are the data tables used to produce the figures found in the USSBS Oil Division Final Report and the BBSU report The Strategic Air War Against Germany 1939-1945. Some of the data are also found in those reports as annualized data, but these tables are rarely reproduced in full.

Thanks Loki for providing the numbers I wanted. Could you maybe add the mystical civilian consumption levels? I think these could be interesting, although probably useless.

And while I agree that this game is all about supplying the land units right now and not about production, it would still be sad if even viable and realistic strategies like bombing Ploesti have no effect whatsoever.

for the same game turn:

ORIGINAL: AngularMan

it would still be sad if even viable and realistic strategies like bombing Ploesti have no effect whatsoever.

Historically, that would be devastating to Germany. IIRC, as much as 33% of Germany's oil consumption came from Romania.

In fact, one of the factors involved with going to war with the Soviet Union stemmed from Soviet aggression toward Romania (i.e. Bessarabia) and the need to secure oil supplies from Romania.

Don't believe there ever was a completely effective bombing mission of the Ploesti Oil Fields. I believe Romania capitulated before that could occur. But it would be devastating to the German economy if it could be pulled off.

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
In fact, one of the factors involved with going to war with the Soviet Union stemmed from Soviet aggression toward Romania (i.e. Bessarabia) and the need to secure oil supplies from Romania.

So the secret part of Soviet-German Treaty of Non-Aggression (aka Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) just a myth ...
Also how about that Germany before the war received an oil from USSR?

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
In fact, one of the factors involved with going to war with the Soviet Union stemmed from Soviet aggression toward Romania (i.e. Bessarabia) and the need to secure oil supplies from Romania.

So the secret part of Soviet-German Treaty of Non-Aggression (aka Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) just a myth ...
Also how about that Germany before the war received an oil from USSR?

1. The Soviet ultimatum to Romania actually caught Germans by surprise

2. USSR consumed most of the oil that it produced, so the amount of oil available for export was minimal. The amount of oil sent to Germany was 606,600 tons in 1940 and 267,500 tons in 1941. For example, prior to WW2 US alone sent about 1,200,000 tons of oil to Germany annually.