Matrix Games Forums

in manual i found only section about "upgrading" production - but in "war in russia" we could change similiar productions - and for example focus on armament we prefer in battle

No you cant change factory production

Only as the Russians can you build units and have the production system produce the required items

any informations that it will be changed in future in some path? As i see war in russia had more options and possibilities in some fields than game that pretend to be it's replacement....

ORIGINAL: michal2099

any informations that it will be changed in future in some path? As i see war in russia had more options and possibilities in some fields than game that pretend to be it's replacement....

I guess no core design concepts will ever be changed.

Patches will adress bugs and interface improvements.

This game is marketed as the spirtual remake of the classic boardgames. Not as a War in Russia remake.

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

No you cant change factory production

Only as the Russians can you build units and have the production system produce the required items

That may be a bit misleading because the Russians produce the same number of "items" per turn regardless of what units are out there. For example -- creating a bunch of shell armored units but no infantry units will not cause additional tanks to be produced at the expense of infantry weapons. Then, depending on your overall loss situation you may just end up with a lot of very weak units, rather than having a smaller number of full strength units. As the Germans, your production is so low in the first place that you can't even keep your original armored/mech units up to strength, much less equip new units.

If you are looking to be able to emphasize/de-emphasize individual projects, I do not think that would be realistic, because it would be relying on hindsight. We all know now (or at least think we know) that the Germans should have gone over into a "total war" economic mindset earlier, and focussed on building Panther Gs (but with simplified engineering), FW 190s and ME 262s. Oh -- a durable 4E bomber woulda been nice too. But to be able to project that knowledge back in time does not make a lot of sense to me. I don't mind grand-strategic "what-if" games, but WitE does not seem to lend itself to that.

Yes some of the production is fixed

but armament points are used to produce REQUIRED items outside of tanks, aircraft etc

Such as rifle squads, artillery, enginneers, cavalry

Sorry for not writing an essay and fully explaining the production situation[:D]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

<snip>

If you are looking to be able to emphasize/de-emphasize individual projects, I do not think that would be realistic, because it would be relying on hindsight. We all know now (or at least think we know) that the Germans should have gone over into a "total war" economic mindset earlier, and focussed on building Panther Gs (but with simplified engineering), FW 190s and ME 262s. Oh -- a durable 4E bomber woulda been nice too. But to be able to project that knowledge back in time does not make a lot of sense to me. I don't mind grand-strategic "what-if" games, but WitE does not seem to lend itself to that.

I don't disagree that it would be ahistorical for both either side to have full production controls.

I personally think it'd enhance my enjoyment of the game a great deal though.

Frankly I'd happily pay for the game all over again if the new package included reasonable production controls (for both sides).

I'd be quite happy with WITP's "stay within the lines" production controls e.g. no need to include ahistorical production projects like the ME-264, I'd like to be able to pick which AFV and planes my factories produce though.

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

<snip>

If you are looking to be able to emphasize/de-emphasize individual projects, I do not think that would be realistic, because it would be relying on hindsight. We all know now (or at least think we know) that the Germans should have gone over into a "total war" economic mindset earlier, and focussed on building Panther Gs (but with simplified engineering), FW 190s and ME 262s. Oh -- a durable 4E bomber woulda been nice too. But to be able to project that knowledge back in time does not make a lot of sense to me. I don't mind grand-strategic "what-if" games, but WitE does not seem to lend itself to that.

I don't disagree that it would be ahistorical for both either side to have full production controls.

I personally think it'd enhance my enjoyment of the game a great deal though.

Frankly I'd happily pay for the game all over again if the new package included reasonable production controls (for both sides).

I'd be quite happy with WITP's "stay within the lines" production controls e.g. no need to include ahistorical production projects like the ME-264, I'd like to be able to pick which AFV and planes my factories produce though.

I think this is just a matter of personal preference. To me it is much more important to accurately model the actual historical events, than to add in "what ifs." Also, once the what-ifs get added in, play balancing becomes exponentially more difficult -- you can see from a lot of the comment threads that people are basing their opinions on a handful of games played for 20-30 turns at the most (with a few significantly longer exceptions). It is hard enough to deduce from these experiences where the modelling is off and where it is just a matter of bad luck or bad play. If you start adding in production variabilities, it will be even harder to compare apples to apples.

But that's just me.....[:)]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

<snip>
I think this is just a matter of personal preference. To me it is much more important to accurately model the actual historical events, than to add in "what ifs." Also, once the what-ifs get added in, play balancing becomes exponentially more difficult -- you can see from a lot of the comment threads that people are basing their opinions on a handful of games played for 20-30 turns at the most (with a few significantly longer exceptions). It is hard enough to deduce from these experiences where the modelling is off and where it is just a matter of bad luck or bad play. If you start adding in production variabilities, it will be even harder to compare apples to apples.

But that's just me.....[:)]

Yah, I recognize its a matter of preference, not a question of right/wrong or some such .

For me, my preference is to model historical capabilities and then let the player do whatever they want to with them.

For example I'd allow axis sealift in the baltic since the Germans *could* have done it (they had the shipping).
Of course, historically they *didn't* so if you want a historical game you don't allow that (or other things).

Anyway, I'm enjoying the game as is, just for me this would be even more fun.