[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [WarInEur] Question on WIE Allied production

Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Question on WIE Allied production
From: "ian raine"
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:44:11 +1000
"Allegedly", and I say that in quotes because someone once convinced me of the truth of the following with a spreadsheet, if you put all the common unit production over to the US once in the war (although note in later years the CW runs out of men, not production points), and you count up how many AP are new as opposed to rebuilds - and assume some of the early ones are in fact rebuilds as well - you get about a 50/50 ratio. So factor that in across the board, i.e. don't put all the new builds up front.
Then take away the Suez sourced units.
There was a part of this exercise which involved BGs and Repl points as opposed to in production rebuilds - something along the lines of an assumption the designer took some pps away to allow for the fact that the Allied player would put BGs and/or 3-10s through production instead of building Repl, and therefore allowing for the mps/pps cost of building up the home army by production instead of allowing the cost of the equivalent number of  Repl and mech Repl. Query also designing for effect in the sense of recognising that a smart Allied player will have a much larger proportion of armoured divisions given the scarcity of manpower relative to production points, and further adjusting PP downwards to discourage this. Or maybe that last bit didn't feature.  I forget.
Whether Greg actually did what is alleged in the preceding paragraph is something I doubt. My understanding is he adopted a model from the package provided by the late Hank Meyer, who had in turn been supplied with it from another source, and the spreadsheet was actually building in some intuitive assumptions about that model which may or may not have been correct. I have a copy of that package somewhere and could identify the source but can't see the point now.
The spreadsheet assumed "historical" U boat builds, which I think was defined to mean enough to put them in the middle of the one to the left of middle column at all times with some gradual adjustments when the table shifted gears, and also had an inbuilt assumption in respect of an historical rate of attrition, meaning the mean result of the vanilla attrition die roll for the columns as applicable based on the first set of assumptions. It took into account that the game seems to assume the Allied player will get ahead, substantially, after US entry, as to which note where the pre Overlord reinforcements start out. ( 6 plus months worth of extra A results spread over 31 cycles was about 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 double cycle lots IIRC)
Clear as mud.
The air point and U-boat aspects seemed irresistibly logical but the concept of penalising sensible play, when there was already an inherent penalty (the units disappear off the map for lengthy periods) is, with the benefit of historical hindsight, not in the same category. I remember this being discussed on this list when it was being implemented, but can't remember if we actually got to number crunching.
My suggestion is that if you think something needs to be added back to account for any shortfall (and depending on what assumptions you make, you can calculate one) add it to the reinforcement track (which still exists even with Allied production) with the editor. EG, 10 Repl, or 10 AP or whatever. You may have to add it the turn before something the same built in 0/10/39 arrives at the latest, or maybe not, some experimentation may be required. I am not sure if the game "clears" the track except for the pre war builds when allied production is selected, so it may need to be added after turn 1. (or after 1/10/39 perhaps.)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 1:56 AM
Subject: [WarInEur] Question on WIE Allied production

In the new versions of WIE (both computer and the new board game) there is the option for Allied production. I have noticed that using the Allied production schedule with an average U-boat result there is no way to even come close to reproducing the ?historical? unit entry schedule in the non-Allied-production game. I have been told that it is the difference between building new Air units verses re-building destroyed Air units but my analysis is based on ? at least in the early war ? using all the available British pilots whether for building or rebuilding. The equation gets more complicated when the US gets into the act (particularly having to split the production of common Allied units) but it is still short.


Any one have any thoughts on this?





WarInEur mailing list
[email protected]
WarInEur mailing list
[email protected]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>