OOB Question

[Michael T]

I am looking thru the German reinforcement list and I cannot see LSSAH listed. Can anyone confirm for me if this unit is actually in the game as a Division or otherwise?

[lancer]

Hi Michael,

The Reinforcement lists in the briefing tab have had a lot of changes and may not be fully up to date. Coming with the patch.

LSSAH arrives from round 6 onwards (8th July) in AGS with a 40% probability of turning up each round.

There's a specific mention about it in the manual designer notes that you may have read (under the German OOB notes).

Cheers,
Cameron

[lancer]

Hi,

For those who aren't overly excited by our TOE and who would prefer a more detailed experience in this area the option is there to mod these details to suit your tastes.

This requires a heads up on how to do it and some surgical aptitude.

I'll put a guide together on the weekend, all going well, and you can don gloves.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Panzeh]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Queeg and Panzeh: Funny how what you write reflects your avatars. Not sure why you guys play war games, but for me its about using the exact (as can be per available information) tools that were available at the time. I'm guessing that concept probably comes as a shock to both of you.

Well, wargames aren't particularly realistic depictions of war- they're games with a certain set of assumptions and mechanics, often kept out of a tradition. Take, say, WiF, the source of your avatar- in that game, they assign a rather arbitrary "combat factor" to land units, based on someone's perception of a unit's strength. There's nothing exact about that at all, but it keeps things moving and makes it easy to tabulate strengths for combat, since you'll end up calculating odds a lot in that game.

I'll let you guys in on a secret- the DC engine doesn't actually count all those thousands of troops or tens of tanks- the engine has a smaller number of units that it considers- then it multiplies them by a number to give you a roughly realistic division strength for immersive purposes. You can see this in the combat results window. Also this game abstracts out a lot of obsolete tank types into German Panzer IIs and Soviet T-26s. I imagine an enterprising modder could change this but keep in mind going over 8 sub-types in a division results in a less good looking list.

Yes, the Soviet tank divisions had often wildly varying strengths at the beginning of the campaign but they're normalized here for, I think(I can't speak for Vic or Cameron), clarity. If you have to go in and click on every single tank division to see whether it has 10 or 100, that rapidly becomes an exercise in tedium, which is something Vic has worked to avoid. In any case, the effect is fairly minimal- these tank divisions are massively hindered in their operations by the Soviet system and they will rarely survive the first few turns.

[morvael]

What is interesting is that WitE OOB although more detailed than DC series OOB is still not as accurate as is possible. Just check Barbarossa books by Nigel Askey. I wonder if his idea to make Barbarossa simulation on a 2.5km map and daily turns will happen. I hope it will. Adding to that game human factor from DC3 would make the perfect game for me

[Aurelian]

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

[Michael T]

@Cameron

Thanks I read the OOB notes in the manual re the LSSAH but could not see it in the in game list.

I very much like the idea of a more detailed OOB. If someone did that would it be possible to play it PBEM++ for those so inclined?

A choice between the generic OOB and a more detailed one for the like minded would keep all happy I suspect.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Yes, that's what I was talking about. I have all books that were published to date.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I very much like the idea of a more detailed OOB. If someone did that would it be possible to play it PBEM++ for those so inclined?

A choice between the generic OOB and a more detailed one for the like minded would keep all happy I suspect.

Isn't there a limit of only 8-10 possible "elements" in a unit OOB, so that detailed OOBs (in unit, not above) cannot be recreated. WitE has a limit of 32 "slots" and even this is not enough to handle some bigger formations, or even smaller ones when there is a mix of equipment used in the same role.

Or do you mean OOB above unit (counter) level?

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Queeg and Panzeh: Funny how what you write reflects your avatars. Not sure why you guys play war games, but for me its about using the exact (as can be per available information) tools that were available at the time. I'm guessing that concept probably comes as a shock to both of you.

I play war games, first and foremost, as games. And all games - no matter how "realistic" they claim to be - are built around a set of abstractions. Even with an OOB perfect down to the last cartridge, there still must be rules for movement, supply, combat resolution and a dozen other real-world factors that can be modeled only abstractly. In my experience, what separates an outstanding game from a merely average one is less the depth of its detail than the quality of its abstractions.

We already have plenty of games that try to model the Eastern Front in detail. I'm excited to see a game that takes a different approach - indeed, one that models real-world factors that the other games completely ignore. That different approach doesn't make it any less of a war game.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
We already have plenty of games that try to model the Eastern Front in detail. I'm excited to see a game that takes a different approach - indeed, one that models real-world factors that the other games completely ignore. That different approach doesn't make it any less of a war game.

[Michael T]

I am not talking anything like WITE detail. Spare me. I just want something that gets the correct number of Tanks-Type/guns/troops in each Pz/Mot/Mech/Tank Division.

[zakblood]

I play war games, first and foremost, as games. And all games - no matter how "realistic" they claim to be - are built around a set of abstractions. Even with an OOB perfect down to the last cartridge, there still must be rules for movement, supply, combat resolution and a dozen other real-world factors that can be modeled only abstractly. In my experience, what separates an outstanding game from a merely average one is less the depth of its detail than the quality of its abstractions.

We already have plenty of games that try to model the Eastern Front in detail. I'm excited to see a game that takes a different approach - indeed, one that models real-world factors that the other games completely ignore. That different approach doesn't make it any less of a war game.

well said and wrote Queeg,

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: morvael

ORIGINAL: Queeg
We already have plenty of games that try to model the Eastern Front in detail. I'm excited to see a game that takes a different approach - indeed, one that models real-world factors that the other games completely ignore. That different approach doesn't make it any less of a war game.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL:

I'll let you guys in on a secret- the DC engine doesn't actually count all those thousands of troops or tens of tanks....

Faux realism has been the bane of war games for years. People applauded TOAW for its uber-detailed combat resolution stats - "1 x tent, 3 x typewriter, 3 x GI underwear (soiled)" - when all that was really happening under the hood was that the unit's combat value dropped from 10 to 9. In the end, it's the abstractions that make the game - the details are just a veneer.

[amatteucci]

ORIGINAL: Panzeh
I'll let you guys in on a secret- the DC engine doesn't actually count all those thousands of troops or tens of tanks- the engine has a smaller number of units that it considers- then it multiplies them by a number to give you a roughly realistic division strength for immersive purposes. You can see this in the combat results window.

I knew about this "secret" since the days of DC2. Anyway, it does not mean that strength numbers are irrelevant in combat resolution. A division with 300 T-34 will perform way better than a division with no modern tank, even if the engine will not simulate separately the fire of every single vehicle.

Also this game abstracts out a lot of obsolete tank types into German Panzer IIs and Soviet T-26s. I imagine an enterprising modder could change this but keep in mind going over 8 sub-types in a division results in a less good looking list.

As I wrote, I understand that all Soviet obsolete tanks are abstracted under the T-26 label, all Soviet new tanks are abstracted under the T-34 label, all German/Axis light tanks are abstracted under the Panzer II label and so on. I already said that I can live with it. Given the "granularity" of combat resolution, there would be no point in having different entries for, say, a T-26 and a BT-5 since, in game terms, their stats would be the same.
I'm not asking for unnecessary detail.

Yes, the Soviet tank divisions had often wildly varying strengths at the beginning of the campaign but they're normalized here for, I think(I can't speak for Vic or Cameron), clarity. If you have to go in and click on every single tank division to see whether it has 10 or 100, that rapidly becomes an exercise in tedium, which is something Vic has worked to avoid. In any case, the effect is fairly minimal- these tank divisions are massively hindered in their operations by the Soviet system and they will rarely survive the first few turns.

An exercise in tedium? Really?
For me knowing where are my best units and where are my worst units is an exercise in operational and strategic command and not a nuisance. I like this aspect of the game and, I think, every wargamer does.

Moreover, even if all divisions were created the same, after the first turns their casualties level, their fatigue, their level of entrenchment etc. etc. will be different anyway, so every player will be compelled to check his units stats to see whether they are a spent hulk or a fresh full strength division etc. So this supposed exercise in tedium is unavoidable in the game.

ORIGINAL: Queeg
I play war games, first and foremost, as games. And all games - no matter how "realistic" they claim to be - are built around a set of abstractions. Even with an OOB perfect down to the last cartridge, there still must be rules for movement, supply, combat resolution and a dozen other real-world factors that can be modeled only abstractly. In my experience, what separates an outstanding game from a merely average one is less the depth of its detail than the quality of its abstractions.

I agree that the quality of the game abstraction is the prime indicator of the validity of a game but cannot understand why one would refrain by having better detail. This is not a situation where you cannot have them both.

We already have plenty of games that try to model the Eastern Front in detail. I'm excited to see a game that takes a different approach - indeed, one that models real-world factors that the other games completely ignore. That different approach doesn't make it any less of a war game.

I too am excited to see a game than models real-world factor that other games ignore but I do belive that there is no point in ignoring other factors that the other games doesn't ignore.

As I already wrote, WitE has problems in spite of its detailed OoB, not because of it. If here we can easily have the best of both worlds/approaches, why would we renounce this possibility?

P.S. If what I wrote does not make sense, please refer to the previous posts by Michael T and 76mm, they said what I meant to say in a more coincise and clear manner! [:D]

[Jagdtiger14]

Thank you amatteucci! I don't think these two (and maybe a few others) get it. The main point is that the developers have heard us and are interested in improving the aspects we are concerned about.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Thank you amatteucci! I don't think these two (and maybe a few others) get it. The main point is that the developers have heard us and are interested in improving the aspects we are concerned about.

It's not that the folks who disagree with you don't "get it." It's that they have a different set of priorities. In a world of limited development time and budget, I'd rather the designers here focus on enhancing the things that make this game so unique instead of trying to mimic the things other games already do well. I "get" it: it's just that the "it" I want from this game is different from what I already get from those other games I already own.

But as you say, it's good that they are looking into your concerns. Hopefully, you'll like what they do. We'll see.

[Kronolog]

On the subject of OOB: All German panzer divisions seem to be fully equipped with half-tracks, instead of mainly having trucks, as was the case historically.