A needed fix for allied production

[kitridge]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Original: Kitridge
Hey Sarge,

Does deviating from the historical Luftwaffe production with the new research penalties make research a much less favourable strategy to just leaving the AI in charge of production and letting it upgrade everything mostly historically? Is it possible to effectively play ahistorically with these production and research changes?

oh, you should be able to make changes, go after what you want, with no major issues, just, don't expect to get late war, after war planes in Jan 44

and as Harley said, the closer you are to having the plane come online, the easier it is, to "push" it some, to get it a little earlier

like the 262, you can push to try and get it earlier, but don't expect to be able to bring it in, in 43

I quite enjoy the sandbox aspects of this game and I hope the production changes don't make it unfeasible to play ahistorically. It really doesn't interest me to re-play the same mistakes the Germans made historically enforced through restricted production controls. If it takes me 500 turns to start seeing the results of my research (I don't gut my production like the people you worry about here just to get TA152's out in a few months; I keep putting my valuable pilots in death traps because I'm a great leader), I don't know how my interest will be maintained... Research and playing 'what-if' is a large part of my gaming experience in BTR.

I don't play PBEM tho, so this concern is simply for my own enjoyment over 700 turns, which, considering the time allotment for 700 turns, is quite important to me.

For those of us who enjoy playing against the AI, would it be possible to add an option for accelerated production so we can keep these sandbox elements intact?

[TechSgt]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

The allies are locked into historical replacement rates.
That is unfair, because the German is NOT.

The truth is that the allies could have easily quadrupled ALL their plane production.
They didnt need to. So they didnt.

The game should allow the players to boost their production.

OK! Now I've thought about this a little more.

First: IMHO, way to many words are being wasted on this.
Second: There really is nothing wrong with people wanting to play a "What if?" game. We ALL do it! It is just a matter of degree.
Third: Is it truly possible to produce a simulation that can also be a game?

This is revolving around around the "what-can-be-done vs. what-should-be-done". That is an answer for each individual to decide on their own.

Two extreme "What IF'ers" can play against each and probably have a wonderful time. Just as likely two "Simmers" can simulate to their hearts' content and also be pleased with the results.

This is the characteristic I use to gauge a quality product.

That BS out of the way! I view Bombing the Reich to be a quality product. I have not played enough of Eagle's Day to make that same statement, but since it is now the same engine, I pretty much guess that it too is a quality product.

"The allies are locked into historical replacement rates."
NO, they are not. It is "possible" to flood the European theater with any aircraft after it's introduction date and to have pilots to staff them.

Yes, I have done it in Twelve O'Clock High. I have also won the "game" prior to D-day. It can be GAMED! So playing that way against Lanconic's method would probably be entertaining for two individuals. The outcome of who is going to win will be sometime around Jan - Feb '44. In no way does this represent a simulation, since all other variables are being factored out. But, this quality product allows us to "game" just such ideas.

CURRENTLY, I'm enjoying watching KayBayRay "studying" how to do night bombing. It is a very entertaining read. It is like an insight into what the early commanders went through. This quality product is allowing that to happen, also.

Lanconic;
... Go forth and see if you can win just producing Me-262's & De.520's if you want to! Have fun gaming.

TechSgt

[JeffroK]

This question would be resolved with an editor, openly let the player mod the game for his AI ventures (??60-75% of sales??)

What if?

The Allies fell behind so put ?10%? more effort into the Meteor or P80, or the P51H or P47N or the Hawker Fury were available in time.

If the Allies concentrated on "Germany First" and kept Pacific distractions to a minimum, at a major penalty in VP of course.

Equally the Axis has a myriad of what-ifs.

Some call it gamey to manipulate the Axis Production, either make it impossible or make it too expensive in VP to try, not jump on those who have found strategies which the game allows, some have said the Ta152/He219 plan flawed, well lets see it in action and make our minds up. We have been presented with the Devs view of the period, what ia to say there aren't others views.

Again, TOAW & WITP/WITPAE are made superb by the provision of an editor, EDBTR needs it too, FAST!

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

This question would be resolved with an editor, openly let the player mod the game for his AI ventures (??60-75% of sales??)

What if?

The Allies fell behind so put ?10%? more effort into the Meteor or P80, or the P51H or P47N or the Hawker Fury were available in time.

If the Allies concentrated on "Germany First" and kept Pacific distractions to a minimum, at a major penalty in VP of course.

Equally the Axis has a myriad of what-ifs.

Some call it gamey to manipulate the Axis Production, either make it impossible or make it too expensive in VP to try, not jump on those who have found strategies which the game allows, some have said the Ta152/He219 plan flawed, well lets see it in action and make our minds up. We have been presented with the Devs view of the period, what ia to say there aren't others views.

Again, TOAW & WITP/WITPAE are made superb by the provision of an editor, EDBTR needs it too, FAST!

I agree
Or lacking an editor they could simply unscramble the database
I am good enough to edit my own

[Nikademus]

Will the Axis enconomy run itself if not messed with too much?

[Lanconic]

I find it amusing that I am called a 'Axis Fanboy' when I am asking that the Allies be strengthened.

It is nice that I have not seen the computer AI cheat on strafing, at least not yet.

It would not even slow me down as the Axis to have to research all the FW190 types
I would simply do just that.

HS claims its a death trap. I have not seen it. I HAVE seen ME109-whatevers get chewed
to bits by Escorts.

The FW190-A5 so far swaps even up with the early P47s and makes hash out of the
early Lightnings. That is 'my' observation.

The reality is that of course only a ruthless dictatorship could 'force' a conversion to
only two types. But isnt that what we all claim the Nazi's were?
Or was that merely hype and PR?

It seems to me that flak is a bigger killer in the long run. I notice that production
of new flak seems to be toned down.

I simply evacuate existing flak from areas that I dont care about in such cases.

I notice that the AI loves to hit Berlin, no matter how expensive it is.


I do enjoy the speculative Luftwaffe types, but seriously, you cant depend on the
jets. They simply dont have the same abilities of the late-model inline props.

Maybe if we had guided ATA missiles....but that is sheer fantasy.

I also notice that German losses in trp attacks are greater than in the original.
I routinely give the Gustav guys in excess of 300+ flak guns of various types.

The FB seem to simply churn thru them with moderate loss.

[Golden Bear]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

The reality is that of course only a ruthless dictatorship could 'force' a conversion to
only two types. But isnt that what we all claim the Nazi's were?
Or was that merely hype and PR?

Certainly not the reality if you read the many accounts of the 3rd Reich and its operations. It was a ruthless dictatorship run by a ruthless dictator who encouraged development of multiple overlapping agencies/bureaucracies to compete against each other. Resources were not effieciently handed out but grabbed by whichever group could get them and hold onto them. All decisions could be over ruled at the top by whoever had the Fuhrer's ear at the moment. If you fell out of disfavor, then plans you had been nurturing for years suddenly were trumped by someone elses. It happened to Galland among many others. Books that I base this upon include Spandau Diary, Albert Speer, his Battle with Truth, Milch's book - Rise and Fall of the LW?, Evan's three volume set that culminates with The Third Reich in Power. Among several others. The ineffieciencies of the dictatorship are well documented.

I understand the desire to play a game without these constraints as the ultimate "what if?" I also understand a desire to play with a more "realistic" production/development process to see if you could "beat" the Allies even while suffering under the weight of the muddle of German decision making during the war. The latter appeals more to my nature but may not for everybody.

A "sudden death" for the Axis player along with variable and unknown aircraft properties for future planes both would help calm down some of the gamespersonship. Without the Allied sudden death I could simply sit back and do nothing until the Russians and Western Allies start occupying factories. You cannot win the game anyway until this happens and then the game becomes on of "how fast" can I win.

An Axis production system with uncertainty built into it might actually prod me into trying it out.

I don't know if the game can altered to allow both full nerfing of the production system for some players and a more muddled system based upon historical examples in order to please both sorts of players.

I appreciate responses that are thoughtful, respectful and not rude.

Carl

[KenchiSulla]

The way the game works the player can calculate exactly how many planes he needs "research build" before it will enter production. In reality it wouldnt work that way. You would be guessing on when it would be possible to enter production, now matter how many resources put into the research! It would be nice to be able to simulate "setbacks" and possible overruns in research although it will probably not be possible with this game engine.

Just my two cents.

ps: Looking at the Nazi hierarchy never stops to suprise me. A government system so perverted and screwed up.... Scary shit.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

The way the game works the player can calculate exactly how many planes he needs "research build" before it will enter production. In reality it wouldnt work that way. You would be guessing on when it would be possible to enter production, now matter how many resources put into the research! It would be nice to be able to simulate "setbacks" and possible overruns in research although it will probably not be possible with this game engine.

Just my two cents.

well, you will never really know exactly, to much/many maybes are tossed in, I would say you may be able to get a best quess idea, but never a 100%, if I do A, I got B

ps: Looking at the Nazi hierarchy never stops to suprise me. A government system so perverted and screwed up.... Scary shit.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

The reality is that of course only a ruthless dictatorship could 'force' a conversion to
only two types. But isnt that what we all claim the Nazi's were?
Or was that merely hype and PR?

Hitler was ruthless to political enemies but he let his arms manufacturers and bankers do pretty much whatever they wanted.

I'm forming a mental picture of Wily Messerschmidt weeping in front of his factory as Kurt Tank and the FW guys march in with an order from Hitler to shut it down and start researching Ta-152s. Doesn't really work for me.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

The reality is that of course only a ruthless dictatorship could 'force' a conversion to
only two types. But isnt that what we all claim the Nazi's were?
Or was that merely hype and PR?

The reality i'm aware of is that Hitler employed a divide and conquor methodology, keeping everyone at odds with everyone else in order to maintain power. This was not conducive to economic or political efficiency, but it did help him maintain control.

[von Shagmeister]

Personally I'm all for player control of production and R&D. If someone doesn't want to touch it they can leave the AI control it.
 
On the question of advancement of late war types into service through R&D it is far to easy to get aircraft into service ahead of the historical time frame. Perhaps a mechanism could be introduced whereby instead of at present 100 research aircraft built automatically advancing the inservice date by one month, a test would be done to see if after the pre-requisite number of research aircraft are built if the R&D was successful and the inservice date moves forward. If the test fails the inservice date stays the same, when the next batch of research aircraft are built the test is repeated. In this way the more production allocated to research the more chance of bringing forward the in service date but with no garauntee.
 
One variable that could be used in determining if a R&D project advances the inservice date is the difference between present game date and actual real life date the type entered service, further way the actual type entered service the less chance of advancement. As the actual inservice date approaches the game date the chance of success could increase.
 
von Shagmeister
 

[Nikademus]

so will the Axis economy run itself if there is minimal to no input? (outside of reaction to bomb damage)

[wernerpruckner]

yes....if you like to use some odd aircraft

[von Shagmeister]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

so will the Axis economy run itself if there is minimal to no input? (outside of reaction to bomb damage)

At present the AI makes a real mess of aircraft production (maybe it based on the competing interests that exised in Germany during the war!), but I believe Harley is overhauling the system so that it makes logical decisions based on usage and stockpiles etc.

von Shagmeister

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: kitridge


I quite enjoy the sandbox aspects of this game and I hope the production changes don't make it unfeasible to play ahistorically. It really doesn't interest me to re-play the same mistakes the Germans made historically enforced through restricted production controls. If it takes me 500 turns to start seeing the results of my research (I don't gut my production like the people you worry about here just to get TA152's out in a few months; I keep putting my valuable pilots in death traps because I'm a great leader), I don't know how my interest will be maintained... Research and playing 'what-if' is a large part of my gaming experience in BTR.

I don't play PBEM tho, so this concern is simply for my own enjoyment over 700 turns, which, considering the time allotment for 700 turns, is quite important to me.

For those of us who enjoy playing against the AI, would it be possible to add an option for accelerated production so we can keep these sandbox elements intact?

I'd have to say that I'm in this camp, at least this is an important part of the buying/not buying equation for me. I like the suggestion of a toggled ahistorical mode.

[TechSgt]

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister

Personally I'm all for player control of production and R&D. If someone doesn't want to touch it they can leave the AI control it.

On the question of advancement of late war types into service through R&D it is far to easy to get aircraft into service ahead of the historical time frame. Perhaps a mechanism could be introduced whereby instead of at present 100 research aircraft built automatically advancing the inservice date by one month, a test would be done to see if after the pre-requisite number of research aircraft are built if the R&D was successful and the inservice date moves forward. If the test fails the inservice date stays the same, when the next batch of research aircraft are built the test is repeated. In this way the more production allocated to research the more chance of bringing forward the in service date but with no garauntee.

One variable that could be used in determining if a R&D project advances the inservice date is the difference between present game date and actual real life date the type entered service, further way the actual type entered service the less chance of advancement. As the actual inservice date approaches the game date the chance of success could increase.

von Shagmeister

Combined with Carl's earlier question this is an interesting idea. Say 1% per day for failure? But this would pretty much rule out anything appearing sooner than 3 months prior to the historical date.

But, what if it never advances the entry date -- a possibility?

TS

[von Shagmeister]

ORIGINAL: TechSgt

Combined with Carl's earlier question this is an interesting idea. Say 1% per day for failure? But this would pretty much rule out anything appearing sooner than 3 months prior to the historical date.

But, what if it never advances the entry date -- a possibility?

TS

Can you explain the first part, I don't follow.

I was thinking something like base chance of advancement is 40% - 1% for every month before it was available in real life.

ie when 100 research a/c are built the chance of advancement for an a/c that in real life entered service in 12 months time would be 28% (40-12), and the advance need not be a month it could be a week.

As for not advancing the entry date, that's the chance you take, all the extra production capacity that was allocated to R&D was wasted and the aircraft comes in on the actual real life date.

von Shagmeister

[TechSgt]

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister

ORIGINAL: TechSgt

Combined with Carl's earlier question this is an interesting idea. Say 1% per day for failure? But this would pretty much rule out anything appearing sooner than 3 months prior to the historical date.

But, what if it never advances the entry date -- a possibility?

TS

Can you explain the first part, I don't follow.

I was thinking something like base chance of advancement is 40% - 1% for every month before it was available in real life.

ie when 100 research a/c are built the chance of advancement for an a/c that in real life entered service in 12 months time would be 28% (40-12), and the advance need not be a month it could be a week.

As for not advancing the entry date, that's the chance you take, all the extra production capacity that was allocated to R&D was wasted and the aircraft comes in on the actual real life date.

von Shagmeister

Sorry, it was early morning at work when I was typing.

What your saying is pretty much the same idea.

In addition to your idea, how about "maintainablity"? Could early series, both Axis and Allies have poor maintenance, that improves with age?

TS

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: kaybayray

My thoughts on this topic...

Yeah I was a bit surprised in the original game that the Allies were not able to control production in the same way the Axis is. However the Allies do have some ability to modify the Aircraft of squadrons. You can change the Airframe of any squadron to fill it with that of your choice. But then you are limited by the quantities being produced and deposited into the pool. So you cant really build the Air Force from the Allied perspective that you can from that of the Axis.

I didnt realize that WITP was modeled the same way. I don't really understand that. It seem intuitive that both sides of a Strategic game would have overall similar capabilities with respect to control of Economy, Production, R&D and Force building. Unless of course that was the major point of the game that a particular side had to overcome a particular set of constraints. Perhaps this was the mindset of the original developers. The idea that the Allies overall production plan with Mandatory Targeting constraints was the obstical that had to be overcome to defeat the Axis.

But I dont know....

Later,
KayBay

I have had a views on this topic for quite a while as it closely parallels the WITP/AE debate.

I think that most people totally miss the point of having axis production as an in-game function. One vocal fan boy advocate even went so far as to state that having Japanese (Axis) production on map where it was vulnerable to Allied action was to "PUNISH" the Axis player.

I believe GG put production on the map to allow the Allied player to attack and gradually erode the Axis's ability to wage war. As in the real war, axis war effort can be directly affected by attacks on the factories or by the denial of resources necessary for the war effort. This is not only the cornerstone of Allied strategy but central of any analysis of the conflict!!!

The reason Allied production is fixed off map is that the Ford plant at Willow Run will produce 428 aircraft per month (Aug'44) regardless of what the Axis player does. However the Mitsubishi/Messerschmidt plant output is very dependent on the in-game actions of the Allied player. I think the ability of the Axis player to adjust their factories/economy is quite consistent with this concept and allows the player to adjust and re-balance to minimise the impact of the Allied incursions.

However, the one thing I vehemently object to is the ability of the Axis player to use this flexibility to crank up production to ahistorical levels which I believe is tantamount to an exploit of the game system. If the Axis player is on track to a decisive victory, the best he should ever be able to hope for should be to maintain the current levels (I was going to say historical levels but historically they were in a downward spiral). There should be no way possible for the Axis to be increasing output to 600% of starting figures as reported in some AARs. I suspect this is possible by the economy model ignoring real world constraints that were there for a reason (probably not good ones) but are not reflected in the game.

Edit: Reading a few more posts above, I must agree with the sediment that being able to specialise on one or two aircraft types (the best in 'game' terms) is another case of ignoring the constraints of reality for the very reasons they cite.

Just my 2c [/rant off]