Let the "Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt" (AI) do Production?

[Romdanzer]

Hi Everyone,

After all this debate about why not a production system ...... I wanted to make a constructive suggestion for a production system controlled for example by the “Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt” (AI)!? - Instead of, or complementing, the purely historic oriented production system currently being implemented. (i.e. for a later expansion or sequel to “War in the East”)

The point is the weapons that where actually produced by Germany in WW2 where indeed to a certain extent controlled by OKW / OKH / OKL. And of course also produced occording to the battlefield results of the time. And not in complete ignorance of how the war was going.

Currently in my opinion a purely historical oriented production system will not take into account the fact that the battlefield results can differ quite significantly, in either direction, from what happened historically. That’s the whole point of the game….. And if the player represents OKW/OKH/OKL then he should indeed have some, at least indirect, influence in what is produced. The structure of how the armaments economy was controlled in Germany in WW2 supports this view:

(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Steu ... schaft.svg - SEE BELOW)

The “Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt” (In English: “Defense/War Economy and Armaments bureau”) was organized directly under, got orders from, and reported to OKW and was responsible for the coordination of the production of arms according to these wishes and directives of OKW. The "Heereswaffenamt" (Army ordinance bureau) was organized directly under the OKH and the "Generalluftzeugmeister" (General Air Arms Master) under the OKL. In game these 3 bureaus would be represented by the AI. The production of arms would then orient itself according to historic technological timelines with input of Battlefield analysis.

This battlefield analysis would not have to be performed by the AI itself but come from the player; with for example bi-annual input from the Player. i.e. twice a year the player would get a report/questionaire from the “Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt” (AI) requesting his input/view on the current situation of the Battlefield and what is required in arms for the forces. He would have 3 priority choices for the Heer and 3 priority choices for the Luftwaffe on what arms, weapons or units should be produced. These priority choices would be given to him in form of drop-down menus listing the arms and weapons according to the technology available / on the immediate horizon being currently developed.

The player would NOT have any influence on how exactly these choices are implemented, or which factories are geared in which fashion, nor how well these choices are actually implemented. Simply put: the more unrealistic the choice (with respect to what is available technology-wise and how the factories can be geared) – the less it is actually realized. Realistic choices on the other hand can be implemented fairly well. Gamey results could be completely avoided.

After these bi-annual choices the player then gets monthly “Production-reports” on what weapons actually are produced and sent to his hands for distribution.

At the moment I have the feeling that the current purely historic driven production system is going to be rather very heavy-handed towards a kind of historic-reenactment atmosphere – not what I expect of a game of where I want to test “what-if” situations.

Currently it will not be possible for the player to say:

”It is Febuary 1942 and the war is going quite well, we do not need to develop and produce Tigers in 1942 – we just need to focus on mass-producing PzKpfw IVF2's / PzKpfw IVG's and we will be able to defeat the sovjets at the end of this summer campaign”… (!!)

Finally with this type of production control the current system would not necessarily have to be altered in a large way - depending of course on the details I don't know yet - but it could be possible to use the same system albeit with slightly different inputs - instead of the "exact historical data" this battlefield analysis input by the player; i.e. take the currently being developed system, and alter it's inputs.

Romdanzer

[Helpless]

Hmm, interesting idea. Sort of production doctrine settings...

[paullus99]

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. If Germany is winning, there is less pressure on R&D - so you get upgrades later than you would normally.

If Germany is losing, the upgrades come a little faster.

That's a concept that could be very, very interesting.

[PyleDriver]

Hum...When we go to Beta, we may want to add these 2 guys...

[Romdanzer]

Hi Guys,

Well glad to hear that you like the idea. [:)]

To further elaborate on this - it may not seem obvious, but such a system has several interesting fundamental aspects:

1) With such production priority (doctrine) system the player will have to make very important yet difficult trade-off decisions since he cannot control everything, but can control a bit ..... for example this system could be organized in the following fashion (just an example for arguments sake):

The list of choices he has in the drop-down menu lists weapons and items/units of all choices and also one item called "other". The first prority he chooses will be covered by apporximately 35% of production capacity. The second will be covered by 25% the third by 15% - Total 75%. The rest of the 25% he cannot control and automatically goes to "other" as directed by the Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt.

The item "other" are all the rest of weapons/items/units (maybe even supply trucks) which have not been choosen by the player. So after he has made his choices - the produciton capacity for all other items is totalled by all items directed to "other" - and always at least 25%. More if the player chooses to attribute some of his production capacity choice towards it.

The end-effect is:
The player needs to balance how much he wants to put where. He cannot neglect the other items otherwise his general ability to wage War will be severelly hampered. If for example he only chooses "Heavy Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Heavy Tanks" only 25% of all production capacity will be directed to everything else. A more smart choice could be "Other, Infantry, Tanks" - i.e. 25% of Production capacity goes to Infantry, 15% to Tanks, 60% to everything else.

2) Even after the player makes production choices - WHAT IS GEARED and HOW MUCH can be geared is completely out of his control. It would be possible to intregrate production maximums driven by industrial gearing limits in the production calculation by the AI . For example only 20% of total production capacity can ever be attributed to heavy tank production. If the player ever chooses production choices which result in production capacity being attributed over this maximum possible. Only the maximum is attributed and the rest defaults to "other". In the Player-choice example above with "Heavy Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Heavy Tanks" this for example would result in 20% production capacity attributed to heavy tank production, 80% to everything else - "other" (by default). The player in this case is wasting his ability to make choices....not smart (!!!). And he cannot manipulate this - i.e. no gamey results....The player only sees in his monthly report by the Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt: "Sorry Sir, but we couldn't realize your production wishes, our Industry just doesn't have the capacity to make that many Heavy Tanks....we therefore redirected the rest of production to other items"

3) It also as a nice side effect could create more a simulation immersion feeling of being OKW - with nice historic-looking paper with Wehrmacht stamps as art for the bi-annual questionaire and monthly reports... [;)]

All this is of course in addition to things like - if new or difficult items should be developed and produced or not. Or if production should be concentrated on mass-producing items where are already in the pipline and proved to work. Many, many choices - with only 3 drop down items available the trade-offs become IMMENSE.

How well this could be implemented i.e. with just changes to the current system or if the production would have to be completely re-coded I don't know.

Romdanzer

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Romdanzer
This battlefield analysis would not have to be performed by the AI itself but come from the player; with for example bi-annual input from the Player. i.e. twice a year the player would get a report/questionaire from the “Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt” (AI) requesting his input/view on the current situation of the Battlefield and what is required in arms for the forces. He would have 3 priority choices for the Heer and 3 priority choices for the Luftwaffe on what arms, weapons or units should be produced. These priority choices would be given to him in form of drop-down menus listing the arms and weapons according to the technology available / on the immediate horizon being currently developed.

But the Heer were operating hundreds of different vehicles and weapon systems in each year of the conflict. What no one has actually explained is how "I want more Panzer IVs" in 1942 is actually physically achieved. Shutting down Tiger production would have had no effect. Also, even if you did increase Panzer IV production, what are you going to do with them if the war is going well and you actually have relatively high inventories already?

The player would NOT have any influence on how exactly these choices are implemented, or which factories are geared in which fashion, nor how well these choices are actually implemented. Simply put: the more unrealistic the choice (with respect to what is available technology-wise and how the factories can be geared) – the less it is actually realized. Realistic choices on the other hand can be implemented fairly well. Gamey results could be completely avoided.

Cue two years of arguments about what realistic choices actually are...[;)]

Currently it will not be possible for the player to say:

”It is Febuary 1942 and the war is going quite well, we do not need to develop and produce Tigers in 1942 – we just need to focus on mass-producing PzKpfw IVF2's / PzKpfw IVG's and we will be able to defeat the sovjets at the end of this summer campaign”… (!!)

But how exactly does shutting down Tiger production allow you to increase Panzer IV production? Tiger development began years before, you can't shut down development that begins in 1938. If the war is going well, presumably there are lots of healthy Panzer IVs floating about, what will you do with the extra? Create new formations? Where will the trucks come from, the machine guns, the half tracks, the fuel bowsers, the trained crews and infantry etc etc etc.

Regards,
ID

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: Romdanzer

Hi Guys,

Well glad to hear that you like the idea. [:)]

To further elaborate on this - it may not seem obvious, but such a system has several interesting fundamental aspects:

1) With such production priority (doctrine) system the player will have to make very important yet difficult trade-off decisions since he cannot control everything, but can control a bit ..... for example this system could be organized in the following fashion (just an example for arguments sake):

The list of choices he has in the drop-down menu lists weapons and items/units of all choices and also one item called "other". The first prority he chooses will be covered by apporximately 35% of production capacity. The second will be covered by 25% the third by 15% - Total 75%. The rest of the 25% he cannot control and automatically goes to "other" as directed by the Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt.

The item "other" are all the rest of weapons/items/units (maybe even supply trucks) which have not been choosen by the player. So after he has made his choices - the produciton capacity for all other items is totalled by all items directed to "other" - and always at least 25%. More if the player chooses to attribute some of his production capacity choice towards it.

But there is no point having more tanks if you haven't got proportionate amounts of the "other". Other includes ammo. Tanks stop when there are not enough trucks to transport fuel to them etc etc.

The end-effect is:
The player needs to balance how much he wants to put where. He cannot neglect the other items otherwise his general ability to wage War will be severelly hampered. If for example he only chooses "Heavy Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Heavy Tanks" only 25% of all production capacity will be directed to everything else. A more smart choice could be "Other, Infantry, Tanks" - i.e. 25% of Production capacity goes to Infantry, 15% to Tanks, 60% to everything else

.

But if a player chose "Heavy Tanks, Heavy Tanks, other" then he increases German tank production nine fold. What are you going to do with these vehicles? How exactly (given the mass expansion in the Tank programme the Germans initiated anway in 1942) going to get another 9 times as much production capacity.

If you are allowed to do this, where is the steel coming from? Deciding not to produce 10000 trucks doesn't mean you have the raw materials for 5000 new tanks.

2) Even after the player makes production choices - WHAT IS GEARED and HOW MUCH can be geared is completely out of his control. It would be possible to intregrate production maximums driven by industrial gearing limits in the production calculation by the AI . For example only 20% of total production capacity can ever be attributed to heavy tank production. If the player ever cho

But this is the point. Properly programmed, the AI would not allow a significant increase in German tank production, because to increase the way they did involved several new mass production facilities and a superhuman effort to produce the necessary steel.

oses production choices which result in production capacity being attributed over this maximum possible. Only the maximum is attributed and the rest defaults to "other". In the Player-choice example above with "Heavy Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Heavy Tanks" this for example would result in 20% production capacity attributed to heavy tank production, 80% to everything else - "other" (by default). The player in this case is wasting his ability to make choices....not smart (!!!). And he cannot manipulate this - i.e. no gamey results....The player only sees in his monthly report by the Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt: "Sorry Sir, but we couldn't realize your production wishes, our Industry just doesn't have the capacity to make that many Heavy Tanks....we therefore redirected the rest of production to other items"

Absolutely, but my point is that pretty much any sort of amendment to what happened would see the system saying...

Wehrwirtschafts- und Rüstungsamt: "Sorry Sir, but we couldn't realize your production wishes, our Industry just doesn't have the capacity to make that many Heavy Tanks....we therefore redirected the rest of production to other items

The problem of all the wannabe production controllers is that if the production amounts being delivered are currently historical, the Germans put in a superhuman effort (they initiated the Adolf Hitler Panzer programme in 1942) in order to crank up tank production to what it was. It wasn't feasible to crank it up any further for all sorts of reasons, because if it was, they would have done it.....

Tanks get made in tank factories, trucks in truck factories and ammo in ammunition shops. You can't turn off truck production and automatically switch the production to more tanks. Your truck factory doesn't have the right equipment, the requesite size nor the necessary skills in the workforce and the state doesn't have the necessary raw materials. The Germans moved heaven and earth to try and increase tank production, so pervasive was the effort that devious Luftwaffe procurement offices started stamping aircrat parts as "Adolf Hitler Panzer programme" in order to get them shipped about the network with any kind of priority.

How exactly do you crank up Tank production further when the Germans had to bust a gut to get it to what it was? German tank production was constrained by raw materials and logistical issues you simply don't solve by deciding to produce less ammo, or fewer trucks.

Ultimately, this all tends to boil down to Panzers. People want to get the Panther early or produce more IVs. My advice would be "don't lose so many in the first place". [;)]

Respect and regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. If Germany is winning, there is less pressure on R&D - so you get upgrades later than you would normally.

If Germany is losing, the upgrades come a little faster.

That's a concept that could be very, very interesting.

I don't see this works if Germany is losing since R&D takes years and is initiated long before something hits the battlefield. A player would have chance to do both badly and better in the time it took an upgrade.

There is a valid point here, though, in that Germany's position within the war does have a practical impact. Mainly on reinforcements, though.

If the reinforcement schedule is historically accurate, then numerous formations (classic examples are post Uranus and post Bagration) turn up because of a historical battlefield reverse that may not have occurred within the game.

Take 1944, for example, numerous Panzer Brigades get created in response to Bagration. Do any of these show if the Russians don't defeat Army Group Centre within the game?

Likewise the formations shifted into the south after the Stalingrad encirclement. 6th Panzer was diverted from a mission in Southern France to go east. Does it still arrive in Russia if the Russians don't bag a Germany Army in the south?

Regards,
ID

[knilli]

i keep it simple: if i would like to have r&d i will buy games like hoi, making history or the titles matrix has to offer and not WITE. i see WITE in the same kategory as WIR. i do not want to see PG features in here.
YES, i am a fan of influencing production (skipping Me 109 for the Fw190, getting rid of the Me 110 or not producing the Pz II after the Pz III is available as examples), but only in a way, that i can choose to build what (historical) model is available. i do not want fiction in the frame work of this game, i do not want any model earlier or later, i would like (want) it at the same time it was historically available. i do not care if the Ruestungsamt did things or would have been able to do things. i am looking forward to get a game that has the dates of the different equipment types right, that also has the seasonal dates right (beginning of the mud season, blizzard seasons, etc.). and i definitely do not want to see too many (actually any) of the Sturmtigers, Maus or what other small amount Sd.Kfz. they had.
if i am after fiction, i can create the fiction myself, because the way we will play, will differ from history because we know what worked or did not work out. (or buy another game)

[Jison]

Well said, knilli - I agree completely!
 
Jison

[Helpless]

Likewise the formations shifted into the south after the Stalingrad encirclement. 6th Panzer was diverted from a mission in Southern France to go east. Does it still arrive in Russia if the Russians don't bag a Germany Army in the south?

Yes, 6PzD was on the move to the East before the 19th November 1942.

[Capt Cliff]

I like the concept of having a quarterly or bi-annual request for more equipment. You'd have three choices; 1) tanks, 2) aircraft and 3) Mech equipment (trucks and the like). Each quarter you select for the flllowing quarter.

[Romdanzer]

Ironduke - I do not completely agree entirely with your evaluation about the fact that everything the Germans produced during WW2 was set in stone and other choices could not have been possible. You are mainly thinking about only one direction going from simple to complicated - which indeed is quite difficult I agree - but I am mainly thinking the opposite. Going from complicated to simple. WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF TOTAL RESOURCES....nowhere am I talking about giving Germany new total amounts of basic resources.

Therefore the main point I am making is not so much more numbers of difficult and complicated weapons, like the Tiger, but the other way around. More of simpler and cheaper weapons INSTEAD of complicated weapons. Again with the same total amount of resources.

Henschel in Kassel who assembled the Tiger did indeed have the ability to have been able to assemble and produce PzKpw IV's had there been a decision to do so. Using the same amount of steel for 1 Tiger use it for whatever that can make in PzKpw IV's...by sheer tonnage about 2. The Tiger weighs slightly more than 2 PzKpw IV's. But for simplicity sakes lets say 2.....So I am not talking about producing more steel. I am talking about using the same amount of steel for different weapon choices so to speak - in very simple terms. In addition many minor items in the production of the Tiger where complicated and over-sophisticated increasing the cost of the tank in detail with respect to manpower time invested. Again - I am talking going from the complicated to the simple with the same total amount of overall resources. That's the main point I am making.

Case in point: There are indeed some examples in German WW2 production where simplification of a weapons-systems resulted in more numbers being built of the same type with the same amount of resources. All it takes is engineering in detail and the motivation to go for numbers instead of "Mercedes-designs" - mainly with respect to how something is constructed and manufactured. The most famous is the difference in manufacturing of the MG 34 vs. MG 42. (this being an example of the simpler design even having BETTER functionality - that was rare...but it goes to show you how much potential is in simple manufacturing simplification) The others less famous examples in simplification for better production are like the change in designs from the PzKpW F2 vs. PzKpW G. The most obvious is the example of the Germans to step up the production of the Sturmgeschütze  Stug III in lieu of producing more PzKpw III's. Not only because the PzKpw III's where becoming less capable but also due to motivation to have more numbers... One can arque the Germans simply did not go through with this principle "numbers instead of not-necessary-super-over-quality" enough in all areas. Producing Heavy Tanks was simply not the best of ideas. And the resources as well as manpower used for them could maybe have been invested smarter in other items.

Yes this is in Hindsight. But if you are not allowed to use hindsight all you are doing is doing Historic reenactment. That can also be interesting - but only once - we here are in the end still talking about a game where we want to allow "what if" situations. By neccesity that means allowing hindsight.

Therefore to ask the question - what if the German High Command had kept it's cool despite their negativ expieriences and gone for more PzKpw IV's to be produced by Henschel & Sohn instead of insisting on the Tiger? - Or what if 1941 operations had gone much better for the Germans and OKW hadn't seen the necessity to Produce the Tiger? This is quite valid in my oppinion.


Romdanzer

[itsjustme]

Romdanzer is spot on here.   Its about allocation of resources.

[IronDuke_slith]

I'll reply more fully tomorrow, but a quick point before bed...

ORIGINAL: Romdanzer

Henschel in Kassel who assembled the Tiger did indeed have the ability to have been able to assemble and produce PzKpw IV's had there been a decision to do so. Using the same amount of steel for 1 Tiger use it for whatever that can make in PzKpw IV's...by sheer tonnage about 2. The Tiger weighs slightly more than 2 PzKpw IV's. But for simplicity sakes lets say 2.....So I am not talking about producing more steel. I am talking about using the same amount of steel for different weapon choices so to speak - in very simple terms. In addition many minor items in the production of the Tiger where complicated and over-sophisticated increasing the cost of the tank in detail with respect to manpower time invested. Again - I am talking going from the complicated to the simple with the same total amount of overall resources. That's the main point I am making.

On rough calcs, this particular example would give you about a net gain of 50 tanks a month between mid 42 and mid 44. Take about 200 off the total as the plant retools for a couple of months and this additionally assumes of course all sorts of other things, such as availability of extra 75mm guns, and lets not get into the issue of whether these vehicles could have been fuelled. These 50 vehicles have to serve as replacements since you don't have the soft skinned vehicles to raise extra Panzer formations. The best you could do would be to raise independent Panzer IV Regiments along the Tiger Battalion concept. However, why anyone would do this when such vehicles have no particular advantage over the opposition is a stiff question.

Looking at the relative lethality of the two weapon systems, my guess is you'd probably destroy fewer enemy tanks in doing this. Some sources suggest the Tiger got 15-1. I have my doubts for various reasons but it would certainly have had a kill/exchange rate in excess of twice that of the PZ IV meaning twice as many Panzer IVs still kills less than its equivalent weight in Tigers.

Besides, the PZ IV was far more vulnerable which means you lose more per engagement than you would with the Tigers, and you actually lose your 1700 extra PZ IV before you would have lost your 1350 Tigers (roughly speaking).

So, you have more Tanks but are killing fewer enemy vehicles and losing more than you would have done historically.

What's the point?

This looks like an operational level game. Operationally, if you can't significantly raise the number of Tanks and formations in existence, it isn't going to make a difference.

The Germans produced (off the top of my head very roughly) about 25000 tanks and Assault Guns in the mid 42 to mid 44 period. Ditching Tigers gives you (statistically) about a 5% increase in the number of AFVs fielded assuming you get two PZ IVs for every Tiger not produced.

I'm sorry but I just feel this game is won by how you employ what you have, not by tinkering with the percentages for these sorts of minor gains.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Doc o War]

Iron D is right.  Besides the game setup decisions are already made here- there will be no tinkering with production- it will be on historic levels and the players on both sides will be the OKH and Stavka General staff.  Hitler and Stalin- and the systems they controlled- give you the General the resources you will get.  That is what this game is going to do. It is alot to bite off- I used to play the old board game Drang Nach Osten- Just commanding a huge front on this scale will take everything you have- Like all Generals through all time- you will make do with what you get.

Though we can waste a whole lot more time on this matter as the game isn't out in our hands yet. But trying to influence a major structural change at this point is not even remotely possible.


Dukla Pass battle Monument

[Muzrub]

Regardless of resources, tank type, fuel- crews whatever etc etc.
I believe what many people are saying is this- they want options.
The fact is I would get bored playing a game that only changes operationally- sure lets go for Moscow in '42 instead of the oil down south etc etc.
But is that it?
Now in how many games both board game or computer have we all done that before? The war has been played to hell.
Simply its 2009, and we have the technology!

So why cant I tinker?

Why cant I look under the hood, and make a few basic modifications- maybe even tackle some basic, and I mean basic tech exploration and build options?
Hell!
I can go even more basic, how about just changing one plant (factory) from producing PIV's to Tigers at my own discretion?
I'd like that option.

Maybe the best option is (or an option that should have been taken) this:

If you don't like tinkering, and seeing whats under the hood leave the game on auto resources and lets it all roll on out, historically. But for the rest of us- give us the option of un-ticking the auto box!

[kafka]

Regardless of resources, tank type, fuel- crews whatever etc etc.
I believe what many people are saying is this- they want options.

 
indeed, thats the basic issue, gameplay being the most important aspect of a game, even of an history based one, and not if it allows to recreate history according to a strictly deterministic concept of history

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: Romdanzer


Yes this is in Hindsight. But if you are not allowed to use hindsight all you are doing is doing Historic reenactment. That can also be interesting - but only once - we here are in the end still talking about a game where we want to allow "what if" situations. By neccesity that means allowing hindsight.

To me this is the core issue, gameplay, enjoyment beyond reenactment and replayability give games like this real legs to stand on and be fun for many many replays. That makes a better value proposition at purchase.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

ORIGINAL: Romdanzer

Yes this is in Hindsight. But if you are not allowed to use hindsight all you are doing is doing Historic reenactment. That can also be interesting - but only once - we here are in the end still talking about a game where we want to allow "what if" situations. By neccesity that means allowing hindsight.

To me this is the core issue, gameplay, enjoyment beyond reenactment and replayability give games like this real legs to stand on and be fun for many many replays. That makes a better value proposition at purchase.

Gimme! Gimme!!

[:)]