Production : Streamlined vs Flexible

[mursolini]

Besides, the game balance stays the same as it is because what I am advocating would just enable a gameplay closer to simulating German production rather than a buff, as it is as Germany would have to play Soviet and US style with fewer modifications until 1943 at which time it can chose to continue to play Soviet and US style or switch to German style.

Please, Soviets and USA having "few" modifications in nothing more than a myth.

If you actually do count modifications, T-34 would be ahead of Pz4 in that department. It went through at least 3 turret redesigns, 4 different guns (ok, 1 was an unsuccessful side-variant that was terminated after a hundred vehicles or so) 2 different engines, and plenty of other improvements. Not to mention SU-85, Su-100, SU-122 which were for all intends and purposes similar to German Stug4, Jagdpanzer4 and Brumbar.

Sherman, also had huge amount of variants, including several rearmaments, up-armoring, and interior redesigns.

German production was inefficient due to totally different things, namely lack of resources, lack of capacity and political BS.

 

[Shade205]

The "theory" of using "tracked vehicles" and "tractors" as prime-movers (which benefited them a lot, despite the cost) vs the Western allied theory of TRUCKS also was in place.

What's the advantage of tracked over wheeled? This is not me doubting you, just genuine curiosity.

 

[kalauer]

I was a bit surprised by what these techs actually did. I expected one to give faster growth in efficiency/ less loss when changing and the other to give a higher cap. That way it actually offers a choice between more equipment and higher tech stuff.

Exactly what I think. The way i understand the current mechanics, both of them kind of reduce the impact of switching lines. Whether I regain faster or lose less... small difference to me, so as someone else said before, it will be about doing the math.

Your proposal suits the intended(?) behavior much better: Sticking to one model means maybe a max of 125% efficiency, using the flexibility-option makes you suffer less from switching (be it faster regain or less loss).

Is there a known reason this is done the way it is and not like this?

 

[Zaku]

What's the advantage of tracked over wheeled? This is not me doubting you, just genuine curiosity.

Tracked pros: better cross country speed, better traction, better slope/obstacle climbing ability, better turning radius, better carrying capacity, sturdier.
Wheeled pros: cheaper, more economical on roads, better on road speed, lots of civilian designs to chose from.

 

[shri]

What's the advantage of tracked over wheeled? This is not me doubting you, just genuine curiosity.

Well, @Zaku ; has already given a good summary.

Let me explain it a bit more-
In conditions, where you have good roads (all weather metaled roads) a truck will move faster and will move cheaper. BUT- in conditions like the "Eastern Front" you definitely need your "prime movers and tracked vehicles".

Why? One Word : RASPUTITSA.
Arguably the 1941 one is the best recognised, because of the delay it meant in advancing on Moscow.
It ALSO happened in other winter wars

The corresponding term in Finnish is rospuutto, denoting "roadlessness". Most non-paved roads in Finland turn into mud.The winter of 1943 in Italy was legendary for its mud and mudslides, and I've read at least one anecdote that "Flemish mud" (Belgium!) was famous.
There are indeed hints that the rasputitsa of 1941 started earlier than normal - MUCH earlier! In "Stephen Fritz' Frontsoldaten: The German Soldier in World War II" there are a number of anecdotes that serious rains and storms began as early as mid-July that year, and was persistently stormy by the end of the month. It seems that the weather then picked up - to the arid, dusty conditions of August 1941 - but was back again in full seasonal spate by late September 1941, and by late October was at its worst...but at least starting to freeze each night, to rethaw each day.

In fact, "AXIS history forum" had some 500 odd replies (not visited for some time, may have increased) on the effects of Rasputitsa on Guderian's advance on Kiev, Smolensk and Moscow.
You can find some pics here-
(i did not post as some of them may have the "banned" items)
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=r...=y3HEVtvKD9GPuATS37OQCA#imgrc=JHJ6zHC1gg-tBM:

Going on another track: years ago, there was a game called - Panzer General and its newer version- Panzer Corps, where - Opel Blitz (the main trucks of the Wehrmacht) could travel 8 hexes on road in one turn, 6 hexes in plains areas, 3 in forests and hills and 2 in mud and snow.
But, Sdkfz (infantry carrier or artillery carrier) could travel 6 on roads and plains, 5 in forests and hills and 4 in mud, snow etc.
(Gives a good picture of why "Tracked vehicles" and "prime movers" for Artillery were so important to the Wehrmacht).

Also in RL - The Sdkfz had better defensive abilities due to being tougher and thus - aerial bombing and artillery shrapnel affected it lesser as compared to the trucks.

 

[Shatterfury]

Please, Soviets and USA having "few" modifications in nothing more than a myth.

If you actually do count modifications, T-34 would be ahead of Pz4 in that department. It went through at least 3 turret redesigns, 4 different guns (ok, 1 was an unsuccessful side-variant that was terminated after a hundred vehicles or so) 2 different engines, and plenty of other improvements. Not to mention SU-85, Su-100, SU-122 which were for all intends and purposes similar to German Stug4, Jagdpanzer4 and Brumbar.

Sherman, also had huge amount of variants, including several rearmaments, up-armoring, and interior redesigns.

German production was inefficient due to totally different things, namely lack of resources, lack of capacity and political BS.

I didn`t say that the others didn`t do modifications.

Second of all I talking about a game feature and how it can be modified to make the game more unique.

Even if Germany has the ability to make more modifications it doesn`t mean that the others can`t.

----

Now back to the main point.

I think that the upgrade should come up early so that the player can make use of it.

So the upgrade should be part of the 1937 and 1939 slot.

1937 - flexible production - 25% less loss of efficiency when changing production and 25% less loss of efficiency when lacking strategic resources (I`m thinking - tungsten chromium)

1937 - streamlined production - 10% more production efficiency

1939 - flexible production - 25% less loss of efficiency when changing production and 25% less loss of efficiency when lacking strategic resources - for a total of 50% for both

1939 - streamlined production - 10% more production efficiency - for a total 20% over flexible production


So this means that the nation going with streamlined would have the ability to produce 5 units for every 4 units produced by the nation who went with flexible.

Flexible on the other hand, even if is 20% less efficient would be allowed to upgrade it`s units more often because they lose only 50% of the efficiency normally lost and the production reduction if leaking goods like tungsten and chromium is halved.

Flexible would be great for the Axis who are lacking resources and while they will be outproduced by the Allies and USSR they would make better use of their resources and would be hit less if they lack resources, especially things like tungsten and chromium.

 

[mursolini]

I didn`t say that the others didn`t do modifications.

Second of all I talking about a game feature and how it can be modified to make the game more unique.

Even if Germany has the ability to make more modifications it doesn`t mean that the others can`t.

Your point was that German amount of variants was somehow "special" and unusually large. That, is a lie.

Based on that lie you claim that somehow the game limits Germany to play in "Soviet style" with few variants. So, you main point, is pointless.

Now back to the main point.

I think that the upgrade should come up early so that the player can make use of it.

So the upgrade should be part of the 1937 and 1939 slot.

1937 - flexible production - 25% less loss of efficiency when changing production and 25% less loss of efficiency when lacking strategic resources (I`m thinking - tungsten chromium)

1937 - streamlined production - 10% more production efficiency

1939 - flexible production - 25% less loss of efficiency when changing production and 25% less loss of efficiency when lacking strategic resources - for a total of 50% for both

1939 - streamlined production - 10% more production efficiency - for a total 20% over flexible production


So this means that the nation going with streamlined would have the ability to produce 5 units for every 4 units produced by the nation who went with flexible.

Flexible on the other hand, even if is 20% less efficient would be allowed to upgrade it`s units more often because they lose only 50% of the efficiency normally lost and the production reduction if leaking goods like tungsten and chromium is halved.

Flexible would be great for the Axis who are lacking resources and while they will be outproduced by the Allies and USSR they would make better use of their resources and would be hit less if they lack resources, especially things like tungsten and chromium.

Axis really didn`t make "greater use" of their resources, nor did it managed to push a lot of modern equipment. Germany still largely relied on BF109 and Pz4 in 1944-1945. Introduction of Tiger and Panther went very poorly. So was the situation with artillery, and infantry weapons. Aside from Jet fighter and V2, both of which were produced in very small numbers, German army equipment was severely dated by late stages of war.

Japan, for it`s part was also quite conservative, keeping Zero in production far longer than it should have and not really having "new" infantry equipment to speak of, to the end of war.

USSR, and US, on the other hand, were far more succesful in introducing new equipment and producing it in great quantities. US introduced Sherman, Chaffy and Pershing in just 4 years, and produced them in great quantities. US didn`t rely on early war fighters, intoducing a wave of new designs, P-47, P-51, Corsair, and producing them in great numbers.

USSR introduced IS series heavy tanks, which were far more succesfull and produced in greater numbers, La series of fighters, plenty of new artillery and actually filled the ranks with it.


It`s not really a mystery. US and USSR simply had larger and more modern industry, beating Germans both in introducing new, quality equipment and in delivering it in great numbers.

 

[Shatterfury]

Your point was that German amount of variants was somehow "special" and unusually large. That, is a lie.

Based on that lie you claim that somehow the game limits Germany to play in "Soviet style" with few variants. So, you main point, is pointless.

Axis really didn`t make "greater use" of their resources, nor did it managed to push a lot of modern equipment. Germany still largely relied on BF109 and Pz4 in 1944-1945. Introduction of Tiger and Panther went very poorly. So was the situation with artillery, and infantry weapons. Aside from Jet fighter and V2, both of which were produced in very small numbers, German army equipment was severely dated by late stages of war.

Japan, for it`s part was also quite conservative, keeping Zero in production far longer than it should have and not really having "new" infantry equipment to speak of, to the end of war.

USSR, and US, on the other hand, were far more succesful in introducing new equipment and producing it in great quantities. US introduced Sherman, Chaffy and Pershing in just 4 years, and produced them in great quantities. US didn`t rely on early war fighters, intoducing a wave of new designs, P-47, P-51, Corsair, and producing them in great numbers.

USSR introduced IS series heavy tanks, which were far more succesfull and produced in greater numbers, La series of fighters, plenty of new artillery and actually filled the ranks with it.


It`s not really a mystery. US and USSR simply had larger and more modern industry, beating Germans both in introducing new, quality equipment and in delivering it in great numbers.

Dude, it`s already in game, I`m just putting ideas forward to make it more unique.

Your Germanophobia is showing, you might want not to wave it in here.

 

[mursolini]

Your Germanophobia is showing, you might want not to wave it in here.

Baseless acusations are not good, might want to quit using them. I stated facts, they have nothing to do with phobias.

 

[Shatterfury]

Baseless acusations are not good, might want to quit using them. I stated facts, they have nothing to do with phobias.

Your point was that German amount of variants was somehow "special" and unusually large. That, is a lie.

Based on that lie you claim that somehow the game limits Germany to play in "Soviet style" with few variants. So, you main point, is pointless.

Axis really didn`t make "greater use" of their resources, nor did it managed to push a lot of modern equipment. Germany still largely relied on BF109 and Pz4 in 1944-1945. Introduction of Tiger and Panther went very poorly. So was the situation with artillery, and infantry weapons. Aside from Jet fighter and V2, both of which were produced in very small numbers, German army equipment was severely dated by late stages of war.

Japan, for it`s part was also quite conservative, keeping Zero in production far longer than it should have and not really having "new" infantry equipment to speak of, to the end of war.

USSR, and US, on the other hand, were far more succesful in introducing new equipment and producing it in great quantities. US introduced Sherman, Chaffy and Pershing in just 4 years, and produced them in great quantities. US didn`t rely on early war fighters, intoducing a wave of new designs, P-47, P-51, Corsair, and producing them in great numbers.

USSR introduced IS series heavy tanks, which were far more succesfull and produced in greater numbers, La series of fighters, plenty of new artillery and actually filled the ranks with it.


It`s not really a mystery. US and USSR simply had larger and more modern industry, beating Germans both in introducing new, quality equipment and in delivering it in great numbers.

Bye, it was nice knowing you.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Bye, it was nice knowing you.

I'm really looking hard through his posts but I cant find any 'germanophobia', unless you consider critiquing nazi Germany's weapons industry germanophobia.

 

[Shatterfury]

I'm really looking hard through his posts but I cant find any 'germanophobia', unless you consider critiquing nazi Germany's weapons industry germanophobia.

Really, the remarks about how rubbish almost everything Germany and the Axis made and how awesome and perfect were the products of US and USSR in comparison. The debate was well until mister came along and completely ignored that the debate is not about the quality of anything manufactured but a discussion on how flexible production and streamlined production can be implemented into the game.
At which point he yet again ignored me saying that it`s about a game feature and he ignored my entire suggestion and he continued praising US and USSR equipment at the detriment of Axis equipment, which is not the topic at hand.

Got any thoughts about the actual topic ? How do you find my idea ?

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Got any thoughts about the actual topic ? How do you find my idea ?

It's not a bad idea and I definitely get where you're coming from, but I'm guessing changing a tech from 1943 to 1937 might require a bit of balancing, and besides streamlined and flexible aren't the only production techs, there's quite a few before them. I wont really know if it's necessary or not until I actually get a chance to play the game to see how it works.

 

[mursolini]

Really, the remarks about how rubbish almost everything Germany and the Axis made and how awesome and perfect were the products of US and USSR in comparison.

Quit your emoutional exagerations, and learn facts. German army was equiped with old, underperforming models in 1944-1945. That, is just plain fact. The amount of new stuff laged behind US and USSR both quantitatively, and as a % of force. (The rubbish-awsome&perfect gap is just your own emotion)

Your argument that German production was flexible and quickly and efficiently switched to new, better models simply doesn`t hold any truth.

The debate was well until mister came along and completely ignored that the debate is not about the quality of anything manufactured but a discussion on how flexible production and streamlined production can be implemented into the game.

The debade went well, until my arguments were proven wrong, at which point, the debate was ruined.

Your argument how US and USSR had little models, and how putting the tech to 1943 forces Germany into ahistorical buildup is just plain wrong, since, well, Germany was the onle prodicing the least of new models, prefering to upgrade old ones. You still haven`t managed to ellaborate on it.

At which point he yet again ignored me saying that it`s about a game feature and he ignored my entire suggestion and he continued praising US and USSR equipment at the detriment of Axis equipment, which is not the topic at hand.

Got any thoughts about the actual topic ? How do you find my idea ?

Your idea is not based on reality, sadly.

 

[Shatterfury]

It's not a bad idea and I definitely get where you're coming from, but I'm guessing changing a tech from 1943 to 1937 might require a bit of balancing, and besides streamlined and flexible aren't the only production techs, there's quite a few before them. I wont really know if it's necessary or not until I actually get a chance to play the game to see how it works.

Well, those two are exclusive and impact directly the efficiency of production. The concentrated or dispersed affect the output and the damage received from bombing rather than production efficiency.
Flexible might give flexibility and a reduction in strategic resources needed but on the other hand streamlined get`s a nice 20% production efficiency.

As it is in game now flxible 50% less loss of efficiency and streamlined 25% faster recovery rate - flexible wins hands down. Flexible has only to recover two times less until it peaks again, streamlined on the other hand is recovering 25% faster but has to recover double compared to flexible.

 

[Overestimate]

Please, Soviets and USA having "few" modifications in nothing more than a myth.

If you actually do count modifications, T-34 would be ahead of Pz4 in that department. It went through at least 3 turret redesigns, 4 different guns (ok, 1 was an unsuccessful side-variant that was terminated after a hundred vehicles or so) 2 different engines, and plenty of other improvements. Not to mention SU-85, Su-100, SU-122 which were for all intends and purposes similar to German Stug4, Jagdpanzer4 and Brumbar.

Sherman, also had huge amount of variants, including several rearmaments, up-armoring, and interior redesigns.

German production was inefficient due to totally different things, namely lack of resources, lack of capacity and political BS.

I think it's nonetheless important to distinguish between changes to simplify production and changes to improve the tank. The t34 modifications are to significant degree the former except for t34/85) while panzer iv was constantly being tweaked and improved pretty much until the j model. So it's not really the # of modifications, but why those were made and what was achieved.

 

[FarEast]

Streamline and Flexible, I want to know how penalty to change production. Oh, In DD5 " If you change to a modified version of the same equipment (for example, the same tank but with a larger gun) you keep most of your Efficiency. If you switch to another variant of the same chassis (e.g. you switch from Pz IIIs to StuG IIIs) you keep half your Efficiency. And if you switch within the same family (e.g. Basic Medium Tank to Improved Medium Tank) you keep a small part of your Efficiency.", so from PzIII to PzIV will be one forth of the production, I think so.
Then some production lines will be PzIII without change and other production lines will be PzIV by change. That rate will be key point.

 

[Shatterfury]

Quit your emoutional exagerations, and learn facts. German army was equiped with old, underperforming models in 1944-1945. That, is just plain fact. The amount of new stuff laged behind US and USSR both quantitatively, and as a % of force. (The rubbish-awsome&perfect gap is just your own emotion)

Your argument that German production was flexible and quickly and efficiently switched to new, better models simply doesn`t hold any truth.

The debade went well, until my arguments were proven wrong, at which point, the debate was ruined.

Your argument how US and USSR had little models, and how putting the tech to 1943 forces Germany into ahistorical buildup is just plain wrong, since, well, Germany was the onle prodicing the least of new models, prefering to upgrade old ones. You still haven`t managed to ellaborate on it.

Your idea is not based on reality, sadly.

Except I said that Germany might be the inspiration for such an upgrade, anyone can go flexible or streamlined that is way I`m talking about those two as features.
Flexible is not exclusive to Germany and streamlined to everyone else, everyone can pick which one they want.

Why would Germany be the inspiration ? Maybe because they went through 3 chassis that were used as their main tank - Panzer III, Panzer IV and Panther while USA stuck with Sherman and SU with T-34.

USSR:
T-34 was produced in more than 57.000 units
SU-76 was the second most vehicle with more than 12.000 built but it`s a SPG

USA:
M4 Sherman was produced in more than 48.000 exemplars.
M3 was the second most produced vehicle with almost 14.000 exemplars but M3 is a light tank.

Germany:
Most produced unit was the StuG III with more than 10.000 - SPG
Panzer III was produced in around 5.000 units - production peaked in 1942 with more than 2.500 built, less than 500 in 1943
Panzer IV was produced in around 8.200 units - production of over 3.000 in 1943 and over 3.100 in 1944.
Panzer V - Panter was manufactured in more than 6.100 units. - over 1.800 in 1943 and more than 3.700 in 1944 other taking Panzer IV in total numbers produced in 1944 thus confirming the switch.

Germany made the transition from Panzer III to Panzer IV to Panzer V - Panter, USA AND USSR stayed with T-34 and USA with M4.
USSR`s and USA`s main battle tanks were T-34 and M4, those two didn`t deviate from the model they entered the war with.
Germany deviated having 3 different main tanks.

Panzer III the most produced in 1940, 1941 and 1942.
Panzer IV the most produced in 1943.
Panzer V - Panter the most produced in 1944

But this is still off topic, I`m just discussion a feature that is in game and how to better use it, a feature that is NOT exclusive to any faction.

Streamline and Flexible, I want to know how penalty to change production. Oh, In DD5 " If you change to a modified version of the same equipment (for example, the same tank but with a larger gun) you keep most of your Efficiency. If you switch to another variant of the same chassis (e.g. you switch from Pz IIIs to StuG IIIs) you keep half your Efficiency. And if you switch within the same family (e.g. Basic Medium Tank to Improved Medium Tank) you keep a small part of your Efficiency.", so from PzIII to PzIV will be one forth of the production, I think so.
Then some production lines will be PzIII without change and other production lines will be PzIV by change. That rate will be key point.

If I understand you correctly you want to know the efficiency loss ?

For example to modify the same tank T-34 to make it better you lose 25%.

You build a variant of vehicle based on the same chassis that was used earlier - switching from Panzer III to StuG III - you lose 50%.

You switch to a different chassis but within the same family - Panzer III - Panzer IV you lose 75%.

As it is in game with flexible you lose only 50% thus you halve all those so they become 12.5% , 25% and 37.5%
With streamlined you get a 25% boost to recovery rate thus you recover efficiency 25% faster.

As it is flexible is superior because you have to recover 50% less even if you do it 25% slower compared to streamlined.

 

[FarEast]

If I understand you correctly you want to know the efficiency loss ?

For example to modify the same tank T-34 to make it better you lose 25%.

You build a variant of vehicle based on the same chassis that was used earlier - switching from Panzer III to StuG III - you lose 50%.

You switch to a different chassis but within the same family - Panzer III - Panzer IV you lose 75%.

As it is in game with flexible you lose only 50% thus you halve all those so they become 12.5% , 25% and 37.5%
With streamlined you get a 25% boost to recovery rate thus you recover efficiency 25% faster.

As it is flexible is superior because you have to recover 50% less even if you do it 25% slower compared to streamlined.

Thanks for your rate. I will simulate that timing.

 

[Shatterfury]

Thanks for your rate. I will simulate that timing.

Please do, it would be nice to have accurate data.

Have a simulation with the recovery rate at 50% for streamlined, at this level they should be more or less matched.