Objection to the current design

[Lanconic]

I want to go on record as disliking the idea of no German production.
The Soviets will be able to optimize, and the Germans will be stuck w historical.

Even HOI has production in it.

Plus no one has accurate figures for East Front replacement usage.
So we are at the mercy of what the designers feel is 'historical' and that word is a myth.
Guesswork is a better word.

In 1985 Gary published War in Russia and BOTH sides had production.
This is a giant step backward

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

I want to go on record as disliking the idea of no German production.
The Soviets will be able to optimize, and the Germans will be stuck w historical.

Even HOI has production in it.

Plus no one has accurate figures for East Front replacement usage.
So we are at the mercy of what the designers feel is 'historical' and that word is a myth.
Guesswork is a better word.

In 1985 Gary published War in Russia and BOTH sides had production.
This is a giant step backward

You are misunderstanding how the production system works. The only thing that is fixed (historical) in production (and this is true for both sides) is the production of aircraft and AFVs. All other production is on demand based on the difference between the current strength of your units and the strength they require based on their Tables of Organization and Equipment (TOE) for that particular time period. The "on demand" production is limited by the size of a country's population (manpower) and the size of its war economy (factories). If losses exceed your production resources then your units won't be able to build back up to their TOE size. If however losses are low, then only the fixed production (aircraft & AFVs) will build up in the production pool. The on demand production is not produced when it is not needed by the units in the field.

The only difference between the Soviet player and the Axis player is that the Soviet player can create some (not all) of his own units (brigades & divisions) while the Axis player is confined to the units that were historically committed to the Eastern Front. The degree to which this allows the Soviet player to "optimize" his forces is debatable. For example, he could produce more tank brigades than the Russians did historically but he can't produce more tanks so his brigades would have trouble maintaining their strength. Also whenever the Russian player creates a new unit he must remember that he is increasing the demand for supplies (fuel, ammo, general supply) in addition to tanks, guns, trucks, riflemen etc.

Finally, both players have the ability to disband units if they discover that they cannot maintain all the units they currently have in the field. If disbanding Luftwaffe Field divisions to more effectively utilize their weapons and manpower isn't "optimizing" I don't know what is.

[USSLockwood]

Hi Jaw;
I read with interest your reply and was especially interested in your example of the Luftwaffe field divisions.  Given their relatively poor performance historically, it might be attractive to the
German player to disband those formations.  What would happen to the men and material of the disbanded divisions?

[B455]

Personally I don't have that much interest managing production/economy. I rather move the armies on the map. I don't think it's going backwards, it's just a question about focus and scope of the game. Production etc opens up a new game in itself.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: doktor

Hi Jaw;
I read with interest your reply and was especially interested in your example of the Luftwaffe field divisions.  Given their relatively poor performance historically, it might be attractive to the
German player to disband those formations.  What would happen to the men and material of the disbanded divisions?

They are returned to the pool although I can't re-call if there is a little attrition suffered in the process.

[oldman45]

While its nice to tune the German production, I know I did in WIR, its not a game breaker for me. I would rather see little things like the hatred between Hungarians and Romanians. If I recall the first Hungarian ace got there by shooting down Romanians. That would be interesting to deal with. I would like to see options to allow more activity by the Finland, or arm the Ukrainians when certain conditions are met. If its a game where once late 42 rolls around and all that happens is the Germans just start getting their butts kicked till the end game well I am not sure what the point of the game is.

Reading the AAR has gotten me interested in the game and I will be watching for how the victory conditions are set up and how the game continues to develop!

[Muzrub]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

I want to go on record as disliking the idea of no German production.
The Soviets will be able to optimize, and the Germans will be stuck w historical.

Even HOI has production in it.

Plus no one has accurate figures for East Front replacement usage.
So we are at the mercy of what the designers feel is 'historical' and that word is a myth.
Guesswork is a better word.

In 1985 Gary published War in Russia and BOTH sides had production.
This is a giant step backward

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Production should have been optional- if people want production included they should have the right to check or uncheck a box.

It would take more work to implement, but we're paying the dollars anyhow.

[freeboy]

yep.. we can it appears fro mearlier posts do some tinkeringwith the editor...
add some forces and do a what if? I plan too

[Sentinel Six]

I would like to see player controlled production included as an option, but realise to implement it realistically (resources etc) would require a lot of work, so can understand the arguement for not including it.
 
What I do have a problem with is not including the Arctic Front (Murmansk, Karelia etc). Much is made of the game being historically accurate (units forced to withdraw as in real life etc) but how can this be taken seriously when a large section of the front line is missing. The only reason I can see for excluding it is so the map is a uniform shape. Vast tracts of the Soviet Union (Urals) are included and they are unlikely to ever be fought over in most games, where as the Arctic Front was active (albeit as a secondary theatre in real life) from the start of Barbarossa.

[wodin]

I say thank god for no production....puts me right off any wargame...I wouldnt buy it if it was included.

[Balou]

Production should have been optional- if people want production included they should have the right to check or uncheck a box.

Unfortunatly it seems it's too late for production to be an option. But I just wonder. Production has been a great deal in WitP with zillions of posts, which raises the question: why did we had production control in WitP ? I recall that some players ended up with non-historical "hordes of Tonys" and the like. Is WitE with just "on demand production" the designers answer to that ?

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: Balou

Production should have been optional- if people want production included they should have the right to check or uncheck a box.

Unfortunatly it seems it's too late for production to be an option. But I just wonder. Production has been a great deal in WitP with zillions of posts, which raises the question: why did we had production control in WitP ? I recall that some players ended up with non-historical "hordes of Tonys" and the like. Is WitE with just "on demand production" the designers answer to that ?

The problem with WitP and such production, is that it is not ALL EMBRACING.
Meaning....The Japs get control and the USA does not,
In my opinion Gary himself realizes this type of error, he didnt make that mistake with PacWar.

In any game where one side is allowed to optimize production, and the other is not,
you will see such distortions.

In WitP if you gave control to the USA, I would suspect you would see Japan surrender in late 43.

Same type of distortion in 'Bombing of the Reich'. A game that I like, actually.
However...by ignoring the reality of US production, and locking the player into perceived 'historical'
norms, you allow such foolishness as the 8th airforce being driven from the sky.
In reality the USA would simply have sent more and more and more, whatever it needed to get the job done.

It is exactly this situation that my first post is directed at. A static target is easy to hit.

[Zort]

I for one support the no production approach. Since this is not the full war then the decisions for production should not be in the commander's hands. But if we did have production then we would need to include fuel in the equation, since we all know that there was no way the Germans were going to be able to fully mobilize their forces. Since most games do not consider this then hundreds of extra tanks are built and driven like there were no fuel issues. A production model is very hard to do since there are so many variables. Determining the supply issues for this front is a major task. Most gamers feel that logistics is not sexy so they don't want to worry about it. And it isn't sexy but if the poor fuel tanker doesn't find the tanks to refuel then they don't move.

I like the fact that you can select who should get priority on repl/reinfs is nice. So you can pick that lead panzer div to get more while the one behind sits and rests and gets less.

[pompack]

I would rather have the game without full production than NOT have the game with full production.

If they choose to release the game and then go back and design the Feldwebel's Edition, I would certainly buy it again. But I would prefer to have the basic game in my hands while they go off and spend two or three years on enhancements.

[Smirfy]

I don't think quoting HOI is revelant it is after all a "sandbox" wheras GGWITE is a wargame. I think if you read Panzer Leader page 282 you will see the difficulty off attempting deviate from historical production when faced with the realities of war on the Russian front

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


I don't think quoting HOI is revelant it is after all a "sandbox" wheras GGWITE is a wargame. I think if you read Panzer Leader page 282 you will see the difficulty off attempting deviate from historical production when faced with the realities of war on the Russian front

Ok lets try the authors earlier efforts?
the 1985 version of War in Russia
and the the next version which you can download here at matrix. BOTH had production.

I dont have Panzer Leader page 282 so I can read nothing

[PyleDriver]

Whats funny is you bring up tanks and aircraft, in 42 all I wish for is more trucks...But as said its set, so in 42 you have to set your goals and pull those trucks from area to area to force the action where you want. It really makes the game very interresting...I really hate the "Case Blue" idea, I've tested it and it comes out pretty much the same, aside from Stalingrad end, hindsite helps... I go with the OKH plan and focus on the destruction of Red Army and Moscow in 42...Trust me guys you love the "what ifs" in the game...

[Muzrub]

ORIGINAL: Zort

I for one support the no production approach. Since this is not the full war then the decisions for production should not be in the commander's hands. But if we did have production then we would need to include fuel in the equation, since we all know that there was no way the Germans were going to be able to fully mobilize their forces. Since most games do not consider this then hundreds of extra tanks are built and driven like there were no fuel issues. A production model is very hard to do since there are so many variables. Determining the supply issues for this front is a major task. Most gamers feel that logistics is not sexy so they don't want to worry about it. And it isn't sexy but if the poor fuel tanker doesn't find the tanks to refuel then they don't move.

I like the fact that you can select who should get priority on repl/reinfs is nice. So you can pick that lead panzer div to get more while the one behind sits and rests and gets less.

Fuel can be an issue if your producing new units.....Which the player would not be doing.

But creating enough replacements (or the variety of) would be my priority, and with fuel becoming an issue as the game goes on (it should anyhow) why not allow it to factor in from the start.

Simply just because a player chooses to build mainly say; Panzer IV's- that doesn't mean he has the ability to produce thousands upon thousands of them (or create new units), the ability to construct vehicles is dependent upon other factors than just the players wishes.

But building Panzer IV's would:

Allow for a saving in fuel (Tigers and the like)
Allow for an increase in production by simplifying production (if the resources allow)
Allow Tankers to maintain experience with the vehicle
Allow for more replacement vehicles (not create new units)
Allow for more replacement parts (if the game considers that)

Saying the game would not be historical due to production is a cop out.

Players already prepare for the extreme weather conditions- soviet players already prepare an in depth defense of Moscow and try to avoid encirclement at great lengths.



We worry about the what power the commander really has- then why not:

Institute a no retreat policy in winter hardcoded.
Institute a hard coded offensive for AGS in '42.
Institute a hard coded resupply of surrounded units.
Institute a hard coded siege of Leningrad to save casualties from street fighting.

[Zort]

All your statements are true. Wasn't that Guedarian's arguement when Hitler wanted to stop PvIV production? So how would you determine the time factor for changing factories over to new production. If I remember correctly the Czech's didn't stop producing the R35? for a new tank since it would take too long to convert the factory. If they had done so there would not be any tanks coming out for the assault on russia.

Hinesight is better then 20/20 so as you say the players now plan for mud, winter etc. If we have production then why not fix the trains before 41 so they can operate in a colder climate, move winter cloths up instead of other supplies to winterize the troops. The what if's have to stop at some point.

Now maybe in a total war in europe game production could be modeled and players could have options. Maybe just a game on WW2 production?

It seems the game does have some hard coded rules,ie Finn stop line. Why have it when there are no Hitler/Stalin orders? I don't see any real issues with not having it, if the axis player expends the few Finn resources there are then the Sovs kick their butts. But not having a stop line forces the sov player to put forces up there to hold back any attacks vice just units to hold space.

[Muzrub]

ORIGINAL: Zort

All your statements are true. Wasn't that Guedarian's arguement when Hitler wanted to stop PvIV production? So how would you determine the time factor for changing factories over to new production. If I remember correctly the Czech's didn't stop producing the R35? for a new tank since it would take too long to convert the factory. If they had done so there would not be any tanks coming out for the assault on russia.

Hinesight is better then 20/20 so as you say the players now plan for mud, winter etc. If we have production then why not fix the trains before 41 so they can operate in a colder climate, move winter cloths up instead of other supplies to winterize the troops. The what if's have to stop at some point.

Now maybe in a total war in europe game production could be modeled and players could have options. Maybe just a game on WW2 production?

It seems the game does have some hard coded rules,ie Finn stop line. Why have it when there are no Hitler/Stalin orders? I don't see any real issues with not having it, if the axis player expends the few Finn resources there are then the Sovs kick their butts. But not having a stop line forces the sov player to put forces up there to hold back any attacks vice just units to hold space.

Cheers for the reply,

Retooling is an issue no doubt- but a phased retool or the creation of new factories would have been on the cards anyhow for Germany once new types of vehicles came along.
But options such as P IV's or StuG's wouldn't so much have to be retooled, more so the player may choose not to employ new factories or retool old factories for the production of new equipment ie Tigers.
Of course the restrictions of resources and of building new units would be applied.

As for hindsight- it has been shown after an event to have been proven infallible [:)] .
So with the game being, not truly historical- with players basing decisions on hindsight and in no way fearing a trip to the end of a piece of piano wire- I see no reason that in 2010 there should have been no production option added.
And if it is added later at a price I would have to view that as double dipping.