Will there be any change to production?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

In fact look at the advance in the AGS during Barbarossa. Here NO panzers to really create a big mess [;)]

German infantry vs Red Army... we all know the advance here was much MORE difficult... and again, Panzers were called (from the AGC) to do -again- the job: Kiev pocket...

Don't forget thst they also faced the strongest Russian concentrations.

Sure, but had they been the supermen some people believe they were (and on top of that the Soviets utter incompetent) they should have vaporized anything on their path... I mean, why would they bring the panzers in the first place? That's for sissies [8D]

[:D][:D]

[Wild]

How the hell did this become about National morale?? Some kind of slight of hand?

I started the thread because i wish to be able to get armor that is not being used but is much needed out of my pools. I think NM or whatever you want to call it works tolerably well, and i have stated i don't mind losing as the axis. I just want to have a bit more fun doing it is all, by giving the Germans a bit of flexability.

But Oh No! Instead i get told nothing is wrong, then, that if i can't win i want to pick up my toys and go home, and finally the topic is changed to make it look like what i'm asking for are the ravings of a Nazi or a madman.(probably both)

This game has the potential to be the best East front game ever, but instead of looking at reasonable requests, they are simply shot down.

I know sometimes tempers flare but i think there are some things that could be done to increase the Germans enjoyment factor.

Once again this is about small production adjustment, not national morale or CV not displying what people think it should or other such nonsense. Just let me get the armor that i need out of my pools. Thank you.

[randallw]

You say 'production adjustment', but do you really mean that you want the ability to build your own units?

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: randallw

You say 'production adjustment', but do you really mean that you want the ability to build your own units?

Ethier the ability to build some support units or the ability to change armor within specified types like we already can with aircraft, like i have said before. (Although i was ignored and will most likely be so again)

To me it doesn't really seem like such a Nazi loving, earth-shaking request but obviously i must be mad.

[koiosworks]

I think the fundamental problem is that some players want a historical simulation while others simply want a simulation. Unfortunately, WitE seems to be splitting the baby with its design.

To be a historical simulation the game must not allow the player to be Hitler or Stalin. The player should certainly not be able to micromanage production or even major war goals. Army group center would not be able to send panzers down south for turn 1 etc. the problem with a historical simulation is that it really must contrain the player - and many players resent that. In WitE such contraints show up as national morale (regardless as to real losses/battlefield conditions, Fins attack line, no building units as German etc.). Of course, the players who want to change history or do things different from Hitler then complain.

However, to be a simulation removes the contraints but then puts in crazy unhistorical "gamey" tactics. Things like having 4 deep (40 mile deep) tiny division just to ZOC lock enemy breakthroughs or having crazy openings like the Lvov pocket or never-will-be-ever used in real world odd defenses like checkerboards. All of which then set off the historical simulation crowd who can't stand gamey tactics and things like endless runaway defenses etc.

All in all, a hard nutt to crack, but my preference would be to firmly be in one camp or the other - like Hearts Of Iron, it is a simulation, after day one, history is totally rewitten. No pretense to be within the realm of 'what really happened'. I think WitE should move one way or the other - as it is, both camps seem to be a bit unhappy.

[darbycmcd]

Wild, you are right. Your post was resonable and did get a bit drowned out in the cacophony. I was a part of that so, sorry. For what it is worth, I agree with you that it would make the game better to allow the german player to create SU, and really even divisions, just like the soviet player. if the production figures are historical, i can't understand what the problem would be with allowing the player to decide how to allocate those elements. but i don't really see it happening in this iteration of the game. probably it will exist in a europe-wide game which i think is the eventual goal of the series. until, then, we suffer what we must.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: koiosworks
I think the fundamental problem is that some players want a historical simulation while others simply want a simulation. Unfortunately, WitE seems to be splitting the baby with its design.

To be a historical simulation the game must not allow the player to be Hitler or Stalin. The player should certainly not be able to micromanage production or even major war goals. Army group center would not be able to send panzers down south for turn 1 etc. the problem with a historical simulation is that it really must contrain the player - and many players resent that. In WitE such contraints show up as national morale (regardless as to real losses/battlefield conditions, Fins attack line, no building units as German etc.). Of course, the players who want to change history or do things different from Hitler then complain.

The differentiation is a lot more fluid. Any level of constraints, from none at all besides accounting for realism (basic physics and engineering, etc.; i.e. allowing only what could have happened IRL, but not allow a 2.5t truck to carry supply of 5t one, or allow the production of a late war equipemnt before the experiences with the early war predecessor lead to ideas for improvement), to highest constraints such as forcing players to move units along fixed paths at fixed time and fighting predetermined battles would still all be simulations.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: alfonso
Why do the Germans have a high proficiency (NationalMorale=75) in June 1941? In theory, because they were battle-hardened veterans. Back in 1938 the German Army performed rather poorly during Otto, the military walk into Austria, and in November 1939, after the Polish campaign, von Brauchitsch wrote a memorandum to Hitler explaining the shortcomings in the performance of the German Army.We can deduce that their improvement was indeed due mostly to their battle experience, and not training alone. After Poland there were campaigns in Norway, Denmark, Low Countries, France , Yugoslavia. None of those campaigns were really long, or incredibly difficult, but supposedly the Germans acquired in the process the summit of military perfection.

Then, how is it that after two years of constant fighting the Soviet proficiency is set at 50 in June 1943?

I think your logic is nearly the same I would see. And Tullius wrote it up there - the German army was very good at its time, but they were not all excellent supermen. And the French or Russians did also enter with a certain level of proficiency.

I would, however, say that a typical army, going thru an average evolution in terms of training its soldiers, NCOs, officers and developing new doctrines (air-land, blitzkrieg, defensive ones etc) and learning the advantages of its particular equipment, would correspond to an average rate of "proficiency/combat experience/training" gain, i.e. national morale. Probably the learning speeds are similar. Say maybe 10 NM points can be gained per year for a nation.

Then the remaining question is the choice of starting NM for both sides, which determines, how after a few years (assuming no high losses and consequent shortening of training times for replacements occur) the proficiency rating compare.
Say the Stalinist cleansing prior to the war urt the state of the Russian army a lot and, hence, accounts for a lower starting NM in 1941 then the German Army had. Then there must be difference remaining if both sides learn similarly fast. Now factor in that the Germans had to shorten their training times in the Ersatzheer subsequently as the need for replacements grew worse over time, but Soviets basically started to create a proper training during 41, the former proficiency has become diluted, while the latter should not. It should go up after typical training times, i.e. after 42 (hence the dip in NM in 1942) when the first really trained recruits reach Soviet units. I suppose that is how national morale should be read. It doesn't have much, perhaps nothing to do with will to fight.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: el hefe
In my opinion, national morale for the German represents both the decreasing quality of replacements due to the need of short cutting training to get the maximum number of replacements into units and the the gradually losing of the cream of your soldiers through sustained fighting. The Germans are at the peak of combat efficiency when Barbarossa begins and the only place to go is down. The Soviets are almost at the floor in terms of combat efficiency and they can only improve.

National morale is not "fighting spirit" but the quality of replacements and newly raised formations. The longer that soldiers stay in service (less casualties), the less you have to scrape the barrel to get replacements. Thus, it should not be affected at all by the loss and gain of territory. I'm not a fan of fixed national morale myself and think it should be based on casualties with the the historical losses being the median or the current NM settings. If the Germans suffer fewer casualties, then their NM could be in a little bit better shape but the same should go for the Soviets as well.
Trey

I guess that sums it up. A neat solution would have been similar to the one employed for pilot training in WitP, i.e. pools representing recruits with 3, 6 etc. months training time, and corresponding experience gains. Once the highly trained pools would get emptied by replacement demands, less trained pools would be used and hence lower-experience replacements entering units would drop their "combat proficiency, experience, morale".

It would be nice if Gary or Joe could really give an explanation of what has truly been factored into the parameter called "national moral". And it would probably be worth renaming this parameter in a patch.
It is really too unclear and cause for too many discussions. It would be hilarious from a simulation perspective if the experience/proficiency of your whole Army, or a division at the far edge of the map would rise because some other unit a thousand miles away entered an enemy city. Or even worse, that all your soldiers on the map loose combat experience because some distant city was voluntarily given up. For both sides. If the game had something like a true and independently modeled "will to fight/discipline", however much one would design its potential to influence things like combat, this coupling to successes would make sense and be a nice target to fight for.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Wild
I started the thread because i wish to be able to get armor that is not being used but is much needed out of my pools.

In my opinion you first need to change the production model, if the initially accumulating pools are a concern to you. This could be really the origin of the problem. Later on, when your true in-game losses are indeed so much lower than the historical ones that influenced how historically production of certain equipment was increased or changed due to historical needs, and you accumulate excess equipment, it would be nice to be allowed to build some units, even only support ones. Having influence on ToE slots would be neat, and worth something, but not having it isn't really a problem.

Average production rates are misleading, however. They should follow some real curves, slow at the start for the first couple of month, and growing until peaking or plateauing before phased out. I consider those initially accumulating tanks just an artifact that shouldn't be there (and I shouldn't be able to use, hence), and ignore them. Later on, when the average production rates will be lower than the true peaking behavior IRL, these virtual tanks will bump up the numbers.

[karonagames]

I speak as an ex-tester, and not as a representative of 2by3, Matrix etc.

The design philosophy behind the asymmetrical production systems was discussed, debated and explained well before the game was released. Subsequent to release, the strengths and weaknesses of the design decision have been exposed, discussed and debated to the point that 2by3 have been personally insulted in this thread and others.

If I was 2by3 I would be asking whether the weaknesses of the current production system are such that they are game-breakers or chrome that needs "polishing".

In testing I spotted an issue with PZIIIn which were classified as CS tanks, and as such were out of sync with the TOEs and so 300+ were sitting in the pool. It took several months but the TOEs were changed to make PZIIIn's more usable, and they no longer sit in the pool. Did my game experience change much between the games I played with 300 sitting in the pool compared to more recent games where the pools are empty? Can't say I really noticed.

I don't know how much coding would be needed to have the same replacement ability as aircraft, but if it is done, it will add another level of micro-management, but again you have to ask if the results will be real game changers - hence threads like this one

I can see the case for allowing more flexibility in using AFV pools, as the pools can only be formed if the Axis are doing better than historically and are not losing as many AFVs as they did historically, so having some form of flexibility to reflect this success seems reasonable. If I was a tester I think lobbying for the axis to form JPZ, StG and possiblly PZ SU's based on the size of available pools would be reasonable, but would I put it ahead of fixing the Air Model and re-appraising the Victory Conditions? Probably not.

[Wild]

Thanks for the response.

This will be my last post on the matter.

I would just say giving the Germans a little something else to tinker with helps keep fun and intrest in the game, more so for people who like micromanagement like me but i bet there is a lot out there.

It would give people less to complain about, be percieved as being more fair and help to create more interst in upcoming titles. but after all this i'm not sure if a really care enough to play the game anymore or not.

signing off.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: Wild

Thanks for the response.

This will be my last post on the matter.

I would just say giving the Germans a little something else to tinker with helps keep fun and intrest in the game, more so for people who like micromanagement like me but i bet there is a lot out there.

It would give people less to complain about, be percieved as being more fair and help to create more interst in upcoming titles. but after all this i'm not sure if a really care enough to play the game anymore or not.

signing off.

Wild, I find your post reasonable.
I think the game should give the possibility to Axis at least to create SU (maybe as an optional rule).
I have no idea if it is easy or not to code or if it change the game balance too much towards Axis side.
I'd still prefer fixed replacement for both sides (less exploit from the players) but the optional SU creation could be a nice toy for some Axis players, if they want more micromanagement.

PS
However it's typical of 2by3 games having a side that has more control over some aspect of the game (eg production) and the other that has fixed historical replacement.
Eg:
WITP (Japan has total control over production, Allies have fixed replacement)
GG:EDBTR (Germany can choose what aircraft to produce)

So nothing new with WITE...

Bye

[jzardos]

I think what players like Wild are asking for is very sensible and is in line with a historical representation of the war in the east. If I remember corrected that seems to be the baseline behind this game? Also, it's a 'game' and thus the 'fun' and playability factors must not be disregarding for any silly rigid systems that people want to put in place regrading production for the axis.

The ability for the axis (Germans) to create some support units(within reason) for AP expenditures to utilize surplus equipment in the pools. Adding this feature will boost historical realism, playability, and the fun factors (well for axis side for sure). [8D]

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Wild
or the ability to change armor within specified types like we already can with aircraft, like i have said before. (Although i was ignored and will most likely be so again)

To me it doesn't really seem like such a Nazi loving, earth-shaking request but obviously i must be mad.

I've advocated for this since the day the game was released. It still doesn't make sense why the game allows manual aircraft changes, but not AFVs, and the developers have never explained this difference. It was in WIR 20 years ago, so it's not like it's difficult to program. A couple restrictions so that you can't fill a divisions with Tigers or JSIIIs and away we go. Your beef is with production pools filling up, my beef is with Panthers going to Motorized Divisions while some Panzer Divisions are still running around with Pz38s! Either way, an optional function to allow for manual AFV changes a would go a long way to adding to the replayability of the game.

However, a long time ago I was told that the developers were not planning on adding such a function, so we shouldn't hold our breath. And now that they've moved on to WitW, development of WitE has stopped. I really appreciate the time they've put into fixing most of the major bugs, it's just unfortunate that apparently no more effort is being made to fine tune the chrome and re-playability of the game. But that's just my opinion.

[randallw]

Was the current production model ( monthly output based on an average ) put in place just to simplify how production is handled?

[Ron]

Wow what a lot of emotional diatribe, prejudice and just plain hyperbole to muddy the waters. No one is asking for an 'I win' button or is under any confusion as to who won the war lol. What people want is a more historical journey from Point A to Point B. The fact is for a game portraying itself as a historical simulation it is anything but. For all its quirks, the Russo_German War does a better job, it is just more work.

To pick one example in WitE(out of several noted here), I may not know how many aircraft the VVS had available at 8am May 3, 1942 - I do know they were not capable of decimating the Luftwaffe at that date nor would they have greater skilled/experienced squadrons than the Germans. So when players see the handicaps the Germans have to operate under yet the extreme flexibility or capability their Russian counterparts have, it's not a stretch to hear cries of foul. Granted some of this may be simply due to the limitations of the engine, I don't know. However, something is definitely rotten in Denmark.

[Tentpeg]

Ron;

I thought Matrix was located in America. [&:]

I agree the number of handicaps placed on the German player are bothersome and frustrating. So answer me this, why haven't we gone over to the red side? Could it be the game is still fun?

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

Ron;

I thought Matrix was located in America. [&:]

Education time... see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... of+denmark

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Ron

Wow what a lot of emotional diatribe, prejudice and just plain hyperbole to muddy the waters. No one is asking for an 'I win' button or is under any confusion as to who won the war lol. What people want is a more historical journey from Point A to Point B. The fact is for a game portraying itself as a historical simulation it is anything but. For all its quirks, the Russo_German War does a better job, it is just more work.

I disgagree on RGW.

But it is a constant refrain by a few disgruntled idgits that because they can't win the way they want, or the game doesn't act the way they want, (why then don't they either pool some money and pay someone to do a game the way they want.) the game is broken and favors one side because that's the way some Russian loving rednecks want it.

Now I can't speak for 2by3, the testers, or anyone else. But it would not surprise me if they just tuned them out. The constant anti 2by3 barrage serves no purpose other than to antagonize both them and other players. Even if they have valid points, it's drowned out by the nonsensical vitirol.

Really now. If one doesn't like the product, stop playing it. And if you don't like the company that makes it, don't buy from them.