Matrix Games Forums

I sometimes question whether production is way too elevated in the 'normal' game.

Take a look at the Eastern Front setup in the Clash of Titans scenario, which starts in Summer'42. The devs made an effort to have a historical setup, with generally historical troop strengths.

Now instead play the game from the Barbarossa scenario, which also starts off with a historical setup. Play it through to Summer of '42. Both the Germans and the Soviets will end up with much, much bigger forces than the Clash of Titans setup would suggest is proper historically.

Doesn't that suggest that PPs on both sides, for 'normal' settings, are way way too high?

Not sure if the unit cost is too cheap or the PPs are too high. I have yet to play as far and as much as you. So far it seems like you can build a lot of units, way too many...

And way too quickly. Your typical DD should take at least 76 weeks at the beginning of the war ... down to around half that by 44 ... bigger ships took longer, 3 years or more for the biggies at start. Even Subs took longer ... and German subs took just as long until mid to late 1944 ... not at start as in the game.

Phil

or maybe the game does not bleed pp for rebuilding/builing forces, or they last too long..
not just combat kills troops, there should be some attrition, but one could argue attritioin is covered by upkeep...if so upkeep shold varry depending on nerness to front, frontline troops cost more to up keep that uin the rear area resting and refiting troops.. [:-]I always chuckle when
I say; " in the rear area" call it a Beavis moment [X(][X(]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
I sometimes question whether production is way too elevated in the 'normal' game.

Take a look at the Eastern Front setup in the Clash of Titans scenario, which starts in Summer'42. The devs made an effort to have a historical setup, with generally historical troop strengths.

Now instead play the game from the Barbarossa scenario, which also starts off with a historical setup. Play it through to Summer of '42. Both the Germans and the Soviets will end up with much, much bigger forces than the Clash of Titans setup would suggest is proper historically.

Doesn't that suggest that PPs on both sides, for 'normal' settings, are way way too high?

Not having got deeply into either of these scenarios, first thoughts are that if the scenarios play out differently, that's OK, variation must be good and it is 'Clash of the Titans' so it's a bigger game. I can live with that.

Want to avoid one size fits all, as long as we know the variation is there, so you know which scenario to use.[:)]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
And way too quickly. Your typical DD should take at least 76 weeks at the beginning of the war ... down to around half that by 44 ... bigger ships took longer, 3 years or more for the biggies at start. Even Subs took longer ... and German subs took just as long until mid to late 1944 ... not at start as in the game.

Phil

You are quite correct, but the game cannot represent the huge development and building programs that both sides had, on another tread we commented on the 10,000s of tanks which were produced and the same applies to aircraft.

The way I look at it, there are ships building, aircraft in manufacture, etc. and with my purchasing decisions the High Command is saying, OK we will take those 5 subs - 6 destroyers - 250 bombers - whatever else: now get them ready, which will take X weeks to complete, prepare crews, training, equipping, etc.. Like so much of this game it's abstracted, foreshortened, but the alternative is to make a painfully realistic game which takes years to play.

So much goes on in a war economy, which the High Command does not have hands on control, just makes the grand strategic and deployment decisions, which I find acceptable. [:)]

totally agree

They are two different scenarios and the player doesn't follow the exact path as in history in the Grand Campaign so it is very hard to make a valid comparison.

Well, in that case, I would suggest ... seriously suggest ... that any non-infantry unit should be, given the other threads at the moment on how there are probably way too many PPs ... FAR more costly than they are to represent the actual training and construction time required for these sorts of units to be created from scratch ...

Or, as some other posters have suggested, have actual build limits for each type of unit based on what was actually historically feasible for each nation to build coupled with increased PP costs and building times.

Or allow the build limits to be exceeded, but a massively increased PP costs and build times to represent the massive diversion of resources that this would require, and the completely ahistorical and probably impossible allocation of resources. Or tie the number of non-leg infantry units (that is, all armour, mech, air, naval units) directly to the number of resource points a player controls ...

There should be several ways you could allow non-historical players who want fantasy games to have what they want and at least give the historical players a nod as well [;)]

At least as an option for those of us who want something resembling reality.

YMMV of course!

[:D] [;)] [:D]

Phil

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
There should be several ways you could allow non-historical players who want fantasy games to have what they want and at least give the historical players a nod as well

At least as an option for those of us who want something resembling reality.

In all of these discussions I am always for as many options as can be provided, I am not so much asking for things to be taken out of the game, but for new ideas to be added as extras.

The problem in deciding a nation's absolute resources (PPs) is the huge wastage that occurred. It was necessary to build 50,000 tanks just to keep a few thousand in the front line. Many projects - aircraft, vehicles and ships - never made it to the front line, resources were expended (more resources than visible in the actual OOB), but other designs were chosen, or priorities changed and these items were cancelled, or relegated to training use, which the game does not represent.

I seem to remember a comment that, in 1945 there was more equipment in the US supply system, than had been used in the war up to that time. The wastage was huge and the equipment that each nation actually deployed is no indication of total potential.

My point is that, desirable as it may be, getting absolute resource figures to be any way near realistic/historical, is going to be very difficult.

One of the main features in the game is the choices it requires, subs or tanks, aircraft or ships, mechanised or infantry. Whether a realistic resources/production model could be developed is problematic, because as soon as you start a game you are probably moving away from the historical timeline. Historical production figures are skewed by the changes of emphasis the player makes and the large areas of production the game does not include.

Huge production improvements could have been obtained with better management (you and me), the British had 1000's of 3.7in AAA guns with similar ballistics to the '88'. They remained resoluteness pointed skywards, it only needed better command, not PPs, to obtain a potentialy capable anti-tank gun. The Germans, with the chaotic Nazi management system, wasted a lot of resources, which could have been better spent(of course, without that system, there may not have been a war and no ToF).

I am not too worried about build times as very few projects started from scratch, many were adaptions of existing designs, or designs that had already been started without specific approval and presented in an advanced state. I am not saying that the is no room for adjustment, but it's just not a big issue for me. There are huge resources in basic training, providing a pool of men and equipment ready to be called forward. Whether they join the front line as tankmen, infantry, etc. is your decision. When creating a unit a lot of time and resources (PP) have already been spent, by the time the decision is made to form any specific formations.

The introduction of new models, developed from scratch is partially covered in upgrades, where units are initially formed with Level 1, or 2, equipment, usually in production before the war started, therefore no development time. The unit upgrades represent newer equipment, which depending on your lab expenditure, takes a much longer much more realistic time to become available.

I haven't enough experience in different scenarios, or late war situations, to have an opinion and GWGardner will know more than most of us, but I am wary of the desire to mimic the historical record, because I expect to be making alternative strategic decisions, which you would expect could result in different outcomes.

I want historically plausible and realistic national and unit capabilities, not fantasy, but above all playable. This is a big ask, but so far, ToF is well on the way. [:)]

50,000 tanks.

Yes. The Germans built about that many armoured fighting vehicles - Tanks, Self Propelled Guns - over the years 1934-1945. The most, by far, around 18000, in 1944.

Could they have built 18000 tanks in 1934? Or 1939? Or 1941?

Not even close. It took five years of intensive effort to ramp their production up to the 1944 level (and there are reasons, solid ones, to suspect that the 1944 figures are significantly overstated due to deliberate double counting and outright lies perpetrated by Speer).

And, of course, if you look at the absolute strength of the German Panzer units over the war years, they always constituted around 15% of the total manpower of the Heer ... and the maximum size of the German army never exceeded (this is off the top of my head, so excuse me if it's not exactly so) around 300 Divisions (and that's counting even nominal divisions that were nowhere near full strength as a "division" the same as the Herman Goering Parachute Panzer Division which was really the size of two, possibly three, divisions).

You can't just decree an increase in production overnight ... and the hugely excessive number of PPs available to all the major powers, the excessively short production times and the ridiculously low PP costs of units as they all currently stand mean that you end up with plain weird, and historically unjustifiable, results.

Moreover, as others have suggested, the discrepancy with reality becomes so gross over a couple of years of game time as to render the game, as it stands, as realistic a wargame as Risk.

As a historical gamer I'd like to see something more realistic ... but I seriously wonder if even the pseudo-historical games get much of a thrill as things in the game become more and more divorced from reality.

I dunno, but the bones seem solid, there seem to be ways that you can work around things, if only the Editor worked better [X(]

Just keep us historical gamers at least in the back of your mind when doing patches [;)]

Phil

As for build times, forget weapons systems ... the real delay for most things was training the operational units that would use the weapons at the coalface.

It took around 2 years to get a division up from scratch to combat ready ... and there are some excellent studies that show the consequences of not allowing that sort of time for training on the actual combat effectiveness of said divisions ... the US managed to get 90 divisions (and the equivalent of 90 divisions more in non-divisional combat units) up and running with a modest start in 1940 with the pre-Pearl Harbour OHIO plan, but the last divisions trained rushed things so much that they were the ones that, arguably, fell apart during the initial stages of the Battle of the Bulge (though there have been arguments that they were hit with such overwhelming force ... UberPanzers obviously ... that they did as well as could be expected).

The Germans found about the same.

Now, granted, the Germans, fighting more continuously, had to adapt in ways that the Brits and US never really had to (though they were getting there in late 44) ... by rebuilding Cadre/Shadow units ... just like all sides in WW1 did ... and this is represented by paying PP to rebuild depleted units in the game.

The point is, the Germans managed to field around 300 divisions, about 30 of which were Armour/Mechanised, and no more ... the US, around 180 Division Equivalents, the UK ... dunno offhand, but proportionally about the same as the US based on their lesser population and so on.

Could they have fielded more?

Well, the US looked into this in 1940, and decided that they could field those 180 Motor/Mech/Armour Division Equivalents (and there were enough transport assets at Corps and Army Level to make even a Parachute Division motorised, in effect) with an avergae strength of around 12-14000 men, or they could field 450-500 German Style Leg-Infantry divisions with an average strength of 7-8000 men.

They decided that the equipment intensive divisions were the way to go. Could they have produced the straight Leg Infantry divisions quicker ... somewhat ... but not by all that much, as, as I noted, the bottleneck was training, not equipment.

Oh well, YMMV I guess.

Phil

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Oh well, YMMV I guess.
Phil

I am not necessarily disagreeing with your comments and have said :

I haven't enough experience in different scenarios, or late war situations, to have an opinion and GWGardner will know more than most of us, but I am wary of the desire to mimic the historical record, because I expect to be making alternative strategic decisions, which you would expect could result in different outcomes.

I am just wondering where the boundary between historical accuracy and 'fantasy' is ?

Could they have built 18000 tanks in 1934? Or 1939? Or 1941? No, but what level of build can be allowed, before it is considered fantasy.

I am not trying to provide the answers, became I don't know them, but I would not want the game to be constrained into the pattern of, this is the way it was historically and that's the way it must be. I would like to allow for some plausible changes of strategy that opens the game up to opportunities of different outcomes.

The game is not perfect and my 'big issue' is supply and railway repair, I am having to self impose rail restrictions, otherwise I would be romping to Moscow in the snow.

I also count myself as an historical gamer and am just as interested in historical accuracy, but I also want an enjoyable game that doesn't take forever to play. If that needs compromise, then so be it.

I don't think that we have a conflict, as the game is so readily modded I would hope that we can all get what we want.

Sometimes a little fantasy is good, other times a more serious game is required, we could have both. [:)]

One of the main features in the game is the choices it requires, subs or tanks, aircraft or ships, mechanised or infantry. Whether a realistic resources/production model could be developed is problematic, because as soon as you start a game you are probably moving away from the historical timeline. Historical production figures are skewed by the changes of emphasis the player makes and the large areas of production the game does not include.

^ That was said very well. ^

We have already implemented a limit on army's in patch 1.01.

Now, I can see people complaining about it's restriction because they control more country's/territory, so therefore they should be allowed to have a larger army than historical.

Anyhow, I was always thinking about increasing the cost of the units or training time again. Wait until after the patch to formulate another opinion.

At this point in time there really is no need to comment on this for 1.0 as the patch will be out soon.

limit on armies?

ok
stated there is a " forces over historical " cost more upkeep, why not just add upkeep to those in the front.. and those in the rear cost less, it would penelize poor play and reward using fewer forces to do more.. just  a thought ..
thanks Razz, any idea how long "M" will be playing with the "P" b4 releasing it to us?

The key is "plausible changes" ...

As I pointed out, there's a lot of good evidence available as to what the constraints were that limited, for example, the Germans to about 300 divisions, maximum, the US to about 180 motorised divisions, maximum, and the USSR to about the number of men under arms she had, maximum (division counting for the USSR, as you can find in "When Titans Clashed", is problematic as TO&Es were theoretical except for those few units at the spearheads ... your typical Rifle Division was normally at way less than 50% of TO&E value) ...

So, by all means allow the Germans to fiddle with the mix of units they purchase within that 300 division (approximately) cap ... allow them to build more than 15% of their total strength as Armour/Mech/Motorised units, but at a severe cost penalty in time and PPs once the 15% cap is achieved to represent the actual cost of attempting to do so.

Or limit the number of German motorised units (Army, Airforce and Navy) by the amount of oil they have access to ... which would be at least as historical ... or allow them to pay more PP to invest in expanding their synthetic fuel production capacity (probably best represented either by an overall cost increase for additional motorised units beyond a specific cap ... a very steep increase ... or by an overall PP reduction on a per city basis to represent the additional investment required) ...

There are fairly obvious ways that you could handle this issue that would not prevent a player from doing ahistorical things, but which would make them aware that those ahistorical things were not actually done because, in effect, the cost of doing so outweighed the benefits of doing what was historically done ...

Or at least allow for the option.

Phil

you are looking and using the past history as what  could be done  and this is problomatic for me

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

The key is "plausible changes" ...

As I pointed out, there's a lot of good evidence available as to what the constraints were that limited, for example, the Germans to about 300 divisions, maximum, the US to about 180 motorised divisions, maximum, and the USSR to about the number of men under arms she had, maximum (division counting for the USSR, as you can find in "When Titans Clashed", is problematic as TO&Es were theoretical except for those few units at the spearheads ... your typical Rifle Division was normally at way less than 50% of TO&E value) ...

So, by all means allow the Germans to fiddle with the mix of units they purchase within that 300 division (approximately) cap ... allow them to build more than 15% of their total strength as Armour/Mech/Motorised units, but at a severe cost penalty in time and PPs once the 15% cap is achieved to represent the actual cost of attempting to do so.

Or limit the number of German motorised units (Army, Airforce and Navy) by the amount of oil they have access to ... which would be at least as historical ... or allow them to pay more PP to invest in expanding their synthetic fuel production capacity (probably best represented either by an overall cost increase for additional motorised units beyond a specific cap ... a very steep increase ... or by an overall PP reduction on a per city basis to represent the additional investment required) ...

There are fairly obvious ways that you could handle this issue that would not prevent a player from doing ahistorical things, but which would make them aware that those ahistorical things were not actually done because, in effect, the cost of doing so outweighed the benefits of doing what was historically done ...

Or at least allow for the option.

Phil

If you want some pretty good numbers you can check out my post #36 in this thread

tm.asp?m=2995243&mpage=2

And you are looking at things that simply were not possible *at all* as if they were.

That is problematic for me.

So?

Phil