A needed fix for allied production

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
that would be fine, but then we could also cut the production numbers by 1/3-1/2
since that is already being taken into account for

You make it sound like that would be a problem - of course the production should be pared down if necessary to get historical results.

And thank you for pointing out how inaccurate it is now, for if one does not invest in research, there is more production capacity than historical - a lot more. And after all, no research is necessary to bring in planes at their historical data. So in game terms it might be best to eliminate all research and use all that unrealistically high production capacity to produce tons of reasonably good aircraft.

Guys, attempting to tweak a system which is porked from the beginning is only going to produce crappy results. Needs to be rethought and rebuilt from the ground up *if* producing an historical simulation is important. If having a fun game is your goal, then you can stay on your course.

Have a nice day! [:)]

[joliverlay]

As someone that loves this game 'm not happy with the direction of this discussion. Lets ruin the game because of a few problems? Please no.

We do NOT need to reduce german production. In 1944 during a very successful bombing campaign that wrecked lots of the production facilities the Axis managed to produce approximately 36 Me109s per day every day (1300 units). If the bombing campaing had not been successful and hit the intended targets that capacity would have been much higher. Likewise the historcal apperance dates for the ME109H, TA-152 and some other aircraft ASSUME successful raids that the allied player may not actually complete. In that case the historical date is late.

If the allied player wants to reduce german production to historical numbers he should bomb the heck out of it. Otherwise production should be very high. Also, I do not belive that excess production for research is actually included in the game, except for the at start R&D (limited) and several unbuilt factories.

The problem is that when HS and Harley fixed up the old program they broke the big factories into smaller ones so the Axis player could make changes more easily and quickly. In doing so they introduced (I assume this is how it happened) an error that allowed non-functional factories to produce. After that is fixed folks wont be able to produce the TA152 in 3 weeks. Lets see how that works. If folks want to make R&D harder by scaling it back a little, that also fine, but don't force the Axis player to build historical units and then allow the allied player to bomb whatever he wants. He might just ignore aircraft production entirely.

The Germans could have consolidated production quite a bit. They could have developed some of their aircraft more quickly. Just as the Allies could have converted medium bomber units to heavies and coordinated all of the AFs on selected targets. For example, the day and night bombing campigns were not well coordinated. Both sides are given the power of a supreme leader and allowed to do things that did not happen, but could have. This aspect of the game should be continued, and is why I play. Take away the pure fantasy if you like, but leave the rest alone.

I personally have decided to convert most French and all Italian aircraft productin to 109G6a. The minor change made by HS nudged me into a strategy that was not used, but could have been. This would have been more efficent than producting different kinds of aircraft, and been politically correct (making German designs). I convert excess Dornier production and some French projection to 190D to use excess production that I have, which could also have been done. I change 2-4 ME109G6s factories to ME109H. That was also done IRL to some extent. I just change priorities a little bit. will convert all Axis Allied to 210, 109Ga, and IAR. I will speed production of the 190D and the 109H (rather than the 109AS series units). If the Allied wants to stop that, bomb the factories with your airforce, a change in the program code is not the solution, please.

[killroyishere]

As someone that loves this game 'm not happy with the direction of this discussion. Lets ruin the game because of a few problems? Please no.

We do NOT need to reduce german production.

I agree this game shouldn't be some historical recreation it should be as games are intended to be and that is whatif's. If the allies don't bomb the industries that would hurt them most then they should have to deal with the loss. It should be a wargame not a history book. So listen to joliverlay and not the historical moaners as they moan all the time about this or that isn't as it was. Big deal most don't care anyway as long as the game is fun and the ai is challenging.

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: killroyishere

As someone that loves this game 'm not happy with the direction of this discussion. Lets ruin the game because of a few problems? Please no.

We do NOT need to reduce german production.

I agree this game shouldn't be some historical recreation it should be as games are intended to be and that is whatif's. If the allies don't bomb the industries that would hurt them most then they should have to deal with the loss. It should be a wargame not a history book. So listen to joliverlay and not the historical moaners as they moan all the time about this or that isn't as it was. Big deal most don't care anyway as long as the game is fun and the ai is challenging.

You cant. In fact if you try, the big factories become lots of little factories, making conversion easier.

Any raid past the Ruhr will get slaughtered.

[harley]

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

As someone that loves this game 'm not happy with the direction of this discussion. Lets ruin the game because of a few problems? Please no.

If the Allied wants to stop that, bomb the factories with your airforce, a change in the program code is not the solution, please.

Don't worry. It's not changing. There will always be tweaks, but the basic premise is choose between all-out production, or divert some resources to research. Do nothing and you will have more planes available, do research and you might (will) get a better plane earlier. The only real thing that might change at this point is the "might (will)" may become "might".

[killroyishere]

ORIGINAL: harley

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

As someone that loves this game 'm not happy with the direction of this discussion. Lets ruin the game because of a few problems? Please no.

If the Allied wants to stop that, bomb the factories with your airforce, a change in the program code is not the solution, please.

Don't worry. It's not changing. There will always be tweaks, but the basic premise is choose between all-out production, or divert some resources to research. Do nothing and you will have more planes available, do research and you might (will) get a better plane earlier. The only real thing that might change at this point is the "might (will)" may become "might".

Great that's what I like to read. I enjoy the whatif's a lot more and tend to buy more games that have it instead of historical remakes.

[Nicholas Bell]

I enjoy the whatif's a lot more and tend to buy more games that have it instead of historical remakes.

Well that's just your opinion - it does not speak for everyone, nor is it necessarily "correct".   Given that Harley is "siding" with the "gamers",  not those interested in simulating history, the point is mout.  However, my point in exposing the historical inaccuracies and obvious Axis slant is not to demand that game be shoe-horned into an historical box.  Rather, the program should be corrected to an historical baseline, so that one can at least reproduce historical results when using historical forces on "real" missions.  Once that is achieved, then the option to explore all the "what-if's" should be there for all.  Such experiments with alternative history have a lot more meaning if they have historical foundation on which they are built.

So please feel free to enjoy the "game" as it is, but acknowledge that it has little to do with history.  It might as well be TIE fighters vs X-Wings.  It is fantasy wrapped in an historical shroud.

[ol][*]German production is about double historical.[*]FlaK guns far exceed historical numbers.[*]The OOB is overblown for the Axis and includes units which were not used for interception (the SG's), units which were disbanded, and units which changed names (resulting in 2 units instead of 1).[*]No account is made for losses on the Russian front taking at least some of the production away.  In fact units which fought primarily on the Russian front and only occasionally made interceptions against the 15th Air Force are in full play as if the Soviet Air Force didn't exist.[/ol]And while the Axis player can use hindsight to "fix" mistakes, the Allied play is locked into not only their production with no opportunity to respond to changes or the ability to increase production.  I may not agree with everything Lanconic states, but he is correct in the fact that the US could have produced far more aircraft if needed and had more pilots that it knew what to do with.  A quick read of RJ Overy's study The Air War 1939-1945 is definitive in answering this question.  But I realize that there are few people here who have the inclination or desire to actually study history or really understand anything beyond "the game".

Which is why I suppose there is no apparent problem with "the gamers" regarding only being able to use hindsight to fix Nazi mistakes with chance of the Allies fixing any of theirs.  These include major errors in getting the correct size drop tanks into the production (the US thought the British were doing it for them!), technical problems with getting planes into service quicker, failure of the US to produce a reliable 20mm cannon, Congressional politics forcing the continued production of inferior aircraft like the P-40 long after it was required - or the B-24 which few pilots and commanders wanted.

I will repeat my earlier comment that although I am critical, this does not mean that I do not appreciate the work that Harley, HS, and Matrix have put into this release.  Nor does it mean that I won't play it despite it's many faults - I do so every day actually, which is why the problems are so evident.

[Deckard777]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

I enjoy the whatif's a lot more and tend to buy more games that have it instead of historical remakes.

[ol][*]German production is about double historical.[*]FlaK guns far exceed historical numbers.[*]The OOB is overblown for the Axis and includes units which were not used for interception (the SG's), units which were disbanded, and units which changed names (resulting in 2 units instead of 1).[*]No account is made for losses on the Russian front taking at least some of the production away.  In fact units which fought primarily on the Russian front and only occasionally made interceptions against the 15th Air Force are in full play as if the Soviet Air Force didn't exist.[/ol]And while the Axis player can use hindsight to "fix" mistakes, the Allied play is locked into not only their production with no opportunity to respond to changes or the ability to increase production.  I may not agree with everything Lanconic states, but he is correct in the fact that the US could have produced far more aircraft if needed and had more pilots that it knew what to do with.  A quick read of RJ Overy's study The Air War 1939-1945 is definitive in answering this question.  But I realize that there are few people here who have the inclination or desire to actually study history or really understand anything beyond "the game".

Which is why I suppose there is no apparent problem with "the gamers" regarding only being able to use hindsight to fix Nazi mistakes with chance of the Allies fixing any of theirs.  These include major errors in getting the correct size drop tanks into the production (the US thought the British were doing it for them!), technical problems with getting planes into service quicker, failure of the US to produce a reliable 20mm cannon, Congressional politics forcing the continued production of inferior aircraft like the P-40 long after it was required - or the B-24 which few pilots and commanders wanted.

I will repeat my earlier comment that although I am critical, this does not mean that I do not appreciate the work that Harley, HS, and Matrix have put into this release.  Nor does it mean that I won't play it despite it's many faults - I do so every day actually, which is why the problems are so evident.

I agree with what you said, Nick. As is, the game is not based on historical numbers. These problems can all be corrected with custom mods to put the game back on a more historical track, but it seems that those who created this remake are against people making custom mods. I just wish they would come out and say it instead of hinting around about it.

Why wasn`t an official editor released? Why all the protectionism? And why even have a modding sub-forum if modding is discouraged? Who knows...

[Hard Sarge]

you can't win, everybody has been calling me a Allied fan boy, now I am a closet Nazi

[joliverlay]

I hear what you are saying HS.

The problem with the complaints above suggesting that only the Axis benefit in this game misses quite a few points.

1. The Allied can equip medium bomber units with Heavy Bombers.
2. The Allied player KNOWS that bombing ball bearing factorys won't do as much as was thought in real life.
3. The Allied player knows that the real weakness in Germany is Fuel.
4. The Allied player knows the German will disperse and restart production.
5. The Allied player can replace obsolete fighters with advanced ones more quickly and in squadrons that did not re-eqiup.
6. The Allied player can use that tactical AFs in close concert with strategic attacks.
7. The Allied player can coordinate day and night attacks. Only done very rarely IRL.

Also, posters above, please don't assume because we don't agree with you we have read less history that you have.

Other than the already noted bugs which are being fixed, I think the main problem with the game is excessive losses. Ive played about 20 turns of the v1.03 mod that doubles bomber durability, lowers weapon accuracy and does a few other things. The mod is extremely interesting. Against Allied AI I can get a 2:1 kill ratio in August 43 if I work for it. The Allied player losses 40-60 bombers in they go deep.....not 100-150. This allows the AI to do some deep raids and actually hit something, then go shallow for a few turns while morale recovers, but the bomber forces are NOT decimated. Since MG fire from the bombers was also reduced, the fighers show fewer losses. ONLY under these conditions do I think Axis production is excessive. With the bloody combat in the unmodded game I think Axis production is about right.

If the official game does not take step to reduce overall losses, I think perhaps one way to balance the game is prevent autovictory from occuring before 3/44. A very reasonable strategy under the current mechanics, after discovering deep raids get butchered, is to stop doing them until you have a really big force and lots of escorts.

Just my 2 cents.

[joliverlay]

One more thing.

The ability of out of fuel Allied fighters to kill Axis returing to base is greatly exagerated in the game. Likewise, they don't seem to be penalized when attacked by fresh Axis fighter units.

In early 1944 I don't think the Germans so many fighters after breaking away (ie 60 miles away from contact) except around the actual landing airfields. It is far to easy for Allied fighters that are out of fuel to decimate Axis units en route to their base. Likewise, I don't think out of fuel Allied (or Axis) units should be as capable in combat in general. I suggest reducing the stats for out of fuel units in some way or at least reduce the likelyhood of a bounce attack if that is possible. You simply can't do the same things in combat when you are almost out of fuel.

[Hard Sarge]

they are not out of fuel

they are just returning to base

[Howard Mitchell]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell
But I realize that there are few people here who have the inclination or desire to actually study history or really understand anything beyond "the game".

Ouch! That's a bit harsh Nick. I for one am certainly interested in history, and I imagine many here are to, or we'd all be playing something with trolls in it.

I think you and others have made many valid points, and I'd like to lob in a few thoughts of my own regarding production:

1. The Allies had a ready source of extra reinforcements available, and quickly, by simpy choking off reinforcements to the Pacific and deploying them to the ETO. This could have included new types such as the B-29, which was not deployed to Europe simply because it was realised there would be little left for it to bomb by the time it arrived.
2. New types of aircraft were sometimes delayed because the exisiting types were already winning. For example, the RAF did not press ahead with the Lancaster IV because the current versions were seen as well able to continue the war into 1944-45. (The Lancaster IV eventually entered service after the war as the Lincoln).
3. If the strategic bomber offensive had run into trouble, there is no guarantee that it would have been written a blank cheque in terms of resources. I am sure they would have been increased, but the Allied aim was to win the war and not win the strategic bombing offensive. Vastly greater demands for aircraft would likely have resulted in a recognition that strategic bombing had failed and the resources would have gone into tactical air power instead.
4. If the luftwaffe had done better at defeating the bombers then Axis production would have switched to bombers, or rather not been diverted from them in the first place, and more aircraft would have gone to face the Russians.

All these mean that if the war in the game departs too far from history, the variables become too great and you'd have a devil of a job creating a production engine which could cope with it for either side.

[Howard Mitchell]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

you can't win, everybody has been calling me a Allied fan boy, now I am a closet Nazi

Does a closet Nazi organise all his wardrobes into regiments to go and invade the book cases next door? [:D]

Seriously Sarge, I think that you have had some difficult issues to ponder, some almost impossible decisions to make, and your work on this game is truly appreciated!

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell
So please feel free to enjoy the "game" as it is, but acknowledge that it has little to do with history. It might as well be TIE fighters vs X-Wings. It is fantasy wrapped in an historical shroud.

I will repeat my earlier comment that although I am critical, this does not mean that I do not appreciate the work that Harley, HS, and Matrix have put into this release. 

There's a difference between being critical, and being disparaging.

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
you can't win, everybody has been calling me a Allied fan boy, now I am a closet Nazi

No one is calling you anything, HS. Focus is on the program and it's faults. [:)]

The problem with the complaints above suggesting that only the Axis benefit in this game misses quite a few points.

All valid points. However, I would counter that the ability to equipment TAC bombers units with heavies is only possible if one in fact has the excess aircraft in the pools to do so. I would also say that some of these "soft" Allied advantages are in effect nullified by the Axis players intelligence and control ability. The Axis player is provided an integrated air defense system which rivals modern AWACS supported systems. I served 8 years in Air Defense in the US Army and never saw anything like this. [:)] Of course it's a game, but the point is that both players have much more control than their counterparts would have in real life.

Also, posters above, please don't assume because we don't agree with you we have read less history that you have.

Well, if you know the history, then why don't you either support or directly contract my assertions? Instead of telling me I have my facts wrong, you present me with mitigating information. What I am (no, was)looking for is answers as to why the historical aspects of the game that are incorrect. Only HS or Harley (or Gary Grisby) can answer those.

All these mean that if the war in the game departs too far from history, the variables become too great and you'd have a devil of a job creating a production engine which could cope with it for either side.

A confirmation from the production team on this would be an acceptable answer to me. But instead we get comments either stating "I don't want to know" or "I won't share that information". Whether I like this or not is irrelevant. The player's are who they are, and are obviously not responding to me.

There's a difference between being critical, and being disparaging.

I find it somewhat humorous coming from you given what you have said over the course of those 20K posts. [;)]

Alas, all of this is moot. I've gone and looked over the Matrix ED-BTR game description page, and found that although the program is called a "simulation", the words historic, accurate or realistic NEVER appear! Shame on me for arguing for such things. Matrix doesn't owe me (us might be a bit too inclusive)a darn thing regarding something they never promised. All these years of waiting while HS and Harley slave away, and me thinking I was going to get something better in regards to history. Stupid me - it's no different than the complaints about the interface. Matrix never said they were going to fix that either.

I'll have to work on keeping my "disparaging" observations more on target. I'm still open for discussions about the historical aspects of the campaign, fully acknowledging it won't change the game.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

I find it somewhat humorous coming from you given what you have said over the course of those 20K posts. [;)]

Feel free to start a new thread about Nikademus' 20K posts. Fact remains your posting actions in this thread contradict your words. That makes your token compliments meaningless.

[Howard Mitchell]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

I would also say that some of these "soft" Allied advantages are in effect nullified by the Axis players intelligence and control ability. The Axis player is provided an integrated air defense system which rivals modern AWACS supported systems. I served 8 years in Air Defense in the US Army and never saw anything like this. [:)] Of course it's a game, but the point is that both players have much more control than their counterparts would have in real life.

Hello Nick, what elements of command and control do you think are over-done? I've played mostly as the Allies so far in BtR so haven't had chance to look at the game from the defending player's point of view, but from my knowledge of history I have not seen anything that seems too unlikely, other than the very detailed messages I get at message level 3.

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: Howard Mitchell
Hello Nick, what elements of command and control do you think are over-done? I've played mostly as the Allies so far in BtR so haven't had chance to look at the game from the defending player's point of view, but from my knowledge of history I have not seen anything that seems too unlikely, other than the very detailed messages I get at message level 3.

In a nutshell the LW system was decentralized - no one control making all the decisions like we do in the game. OPs were controlled at the Fighter Division level, and they had trouble controlling 10-12 units. The fighter control system was constantly changing, with major changes at the end of 1943 and then again in early 1945. It has been said that the German day-fighter control system finally got to the level of the RAF during the BOB only in 1945 (capable of controlling up to 50 friendly units). It's amazing they were able to as much as they did. A lot of this had to do with equipment limitations - lack of proper radio, D/F and IFF equipment in the single seaters. So the bigger problem was knowing both ground command and the fighters flying not knowing exactly where they were specifically and in relation to incoming raids. Something we do not have to deal with.

(Note that the equipment problems were not because the Germans didn't know what they needed, but the equipment production type and allocation priority was to the nightfighters)

The rather small fighter division "sectors" also required manually exchanging them between divisions when either the units or raids passed boundaries. We as players don't have to deal with that, but in real life that often mean a few minutes of lost control. Coupled with the basic location problem (where am I, where are you?) meant a lot of botched intercepts.

As has been mentioned before, the radar coverage was nowhere near as complete because the radars didn't have 360 coverage. The fighters didn't have an equivalent to the RAF Pipsqueak, so when they were out of radar coverage ground control didn't know where they were. We do of course, with extreme accuracy. While the game does include altitude inaccuracies, there apparently is no range inaccuracies (range from radar to target) which would create actual location inaccuracies. Remember they didn't have the PPI radar scopes we all familiar with (round scope with rotating radar line).

Also, the radio intercept service was not controlled by the fighter command, so there were delays in getting that data disseminated. Ground observation was not a specific organization like the Observer Corps, but was done by local FlaK units using their chain of command (and there was constant fighting between the fighter and FlaK commands as to who was going be in control of air defense). Of course this slowed down the flow of information, not to mention that where there where no FlaK units there was no reporting. (Heer units would report but that was for the record, not for immediate use)

So we get real time, near 100% accurate information, with instantaneous compliance with orders without any of the delays caused by the organization or human interaction.

Here's an image of a fighter division control station. Looks like a portion of central Germany, but certainly not everything we look at.

[Nicholas Bell]

Incoming data was collated and actual unit locations were depicted on the map using small lights controlled by the Luftwaffe "helpers". A bit more complicated than the table-top maps used by the RAF.