German HQ OOB 1943-1945 campaign ?

[tm1]

Hi
just upgraded to the official 100.11 patch and noticed a few interesting reinforcement dates for some of the German Armee HQs.
Firstly Panzer Group West is not listed at all in the Game, it became active on Jan 24th 1944 later being renamed 5th Pz Armee on July 2nd.
It appears in the reinforcement schedule of the game on Sept 30th as 5th (Pz Grp West) Panzer Army (why the dual name if I might ask).

2. 25th Armee became active on the 10th of Nov 1944 the game has it as a reinforcement arriving on the 6th Jan 1945.

3. East Prussia Armee is listed in the game as reinforcement for the 10th March 1945 however I read it became active from the 7th April 1945.

4. 11th Armee has 2 entries as a reinforcement in 1945 in the game, I'm assuming this HQ is in fact 11th SS Pz Armee or SS Panzer-Armeeoberkommando 11 which was formed between Nov 1944 and Feb 1945.

5. 12th Armee is completely missing from the reinforcement list altogether, 12th Armee was reconstituted on the Eastern Front on April 10 1945 but surrendered in the West.

Now I'm no expert on the German order of battle from 1939-45 the information came from wikipedia and its only a cosmetic thing but I like to be historical.

On another cosmetic question about both WITE and WITW why are the German HQ formations written and worded as Army/corps and not Armee/Pz Armee and Armeekorps/Panzerkorps.

regards

[AnonK2]

Good points tm1.
I tried to mentioned similar things earlier, but there was no response.

1. Minor issue: Grand Campaign typos:

Bra(n missing)denburg Fallschirmjaeger Regiment
Grossdeut(s missing)chland Panzer Corps

2. Major issue: There is a weird language mix up inconsistency. As German speaking player it is everytime again confusing, when playing this awesome game. Either it is totally in English or claims to be more historical accurate and uses the right language for each nation. I would vote in favor for the historical language option, the current state is just a mess.

Example:
818th Gebirgs (German) Pionier (German) Btl
48th Mountain (English) Panzerjaeger (German) Btl
124th Mountain (English) Gun (English) Btl

I would propose to stick to:
Panzer (German) Lehr(German) Division

That would mean to rename for example:

Gun = Geschütz
Howitzer = Haubitzen
Mountain = Gebirgs
Airlanding = Luftlande
Corps = Korps
Battalion = Batallion
Army = Armee
Vienna = Wien
Cologne = Köln
1st = 1.
Kar 98k Rifle = Karabiner 98k (Logic - Karabiner + Rifle is like if you would say Rifle + Rifle what makes no sense)
etc

Things that could be optimized to enhance immersion:

TOE
Names
Equipment
Unit Names
City / Airports

There is also an issue with the ITA air wings. Some have an a (example 53a) behind and some have a small o.

I already finished 80% of the German language fix Mod version for the Grand Campaign, just to demonstrate what i mean. Hope to upload it tomorrow for 13beta.
If some could do the Rumanian, Finnish, Italian, Slovakian or Italian part then it would be great.
Using the editor i just change to more correct names, not touching the game mechanics.

I know this is pure cosmetical, but the changes can be done quite quick (several hours) and would enhance the user experience and historical accuracy.

[Gettysburg]

Fantastic!!!!![:)][:)][:)]

[morvael]

I hope the AI and game rules are no longer expecting English names (at least when it comes to unit size). Your mod would break that.

[Nico165b165]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I hope the AI and game rules are no longer expecting English names (at least when it comes to unit size). Your mod would break that.

It did not change.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3794025

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

1. You can edit existing TOEs but as you have found out names are often used to control the AI. AI Scripts are only valid for T1 - after that it's hard coding set by Gary. The script uses slot numbers so adding a unit will cause problems. Re-scripting is not too difficult. Not sure why you are losing shipping points.

[pz501]

Sadly, it's all hard coded, so we're more or less out of luck.

I do agree that allowing more accurate OOB's when it comes to names, abbreviations, and naming conventions would make the immersion factor even greater. Problem is it would take a serious amount of re-coding to achieve that now, and I don't think it's any sort of priority.

Maybe in the future Gary and Joel might consider enlisting the aid of people like us, who are really into OOB accuracy? I don't mean as play testers, but as OOB editors so to speak. I don't think there's much chance of that, but you never know...I'd certainly jump at the chance to offer my services.

[RedLancer]

I understand the frustration but any design is a compromise although we are always open to constructive criticism.

Were things even more historical there would be plenty more TOEs to allow for all the different variations between Divisions. As I understand the system was never ever designed for that construct - it's not that we don't know the OOBs are wrong but the line has to be drawn somewhere. A good example is 21 Pz Div in the D-Day scenario. You can mod the OOB to add in all the captured tanks with exact numbers but on the first logistic phase the game engine will swap them out. With the names space is a big issue - both that available for the full name and the code for the abbreviated version that can be seen in some areas.

We do our very best but we do sometimes make mistakes - if all we've managed to do is spell Brandenburg incorrectly that's OK. As for mixing languages then you can please some people some of the time.... as not all of us are bilingual - ich kann Deutsch lesen and sprechen - but my Russian, Hungarian and Romanian is a bit ropy - should we only translate the German? As I said at the start it's a compromise - most people know what a Panzer is hence its usage.

[pz501]

John,

All points well taken. I do understand you're not working from a blank sheet of paper, and that the code is an evolution of War in The East (and probably even earlier designs).

If I were in charge and had to choose between the game as it is right now, or calling a halt just to re-tool things for some name changes, I'd go ahead with things as they are in order to move the entire system forward. So long as the bugs keep getting stomped, and the system continues to grow, I'll be happy with that.

It's the game play that counts, and the chrome is something that's nice to have. Maybe next time.

Keep up the good work.

[Great_Ajax]

John stole most of my comments in his well articulated response. The intent of the naming conventions used in the game, established in WitE and continuing through WitW, has always been to generally use all English except for a bit of German "flavor". Flavor being defined as commonly accepted German words that most wargamers would understand. Even amongst the development team, there are some of these naming conventions that are out of sync. An example is the "Gebirgs" or Mountain designation. I have been using 'Gebirgs' in the Armies, Corps and support units. Jim, on the other hand, set up the division default names to be 'Mountain' and so we have a sync issue. Now, early on in the WiTE development, Gary used unit slot numbers to program his AI. Once I started taking over the scenario work to free up Gary and Pavel to concentrate on programming, I promptly de-railed the AI by changing the slots with a bunch of additions and subtractions. Gary then changed the AI to work off of unit names instead of slots. So, you can see that renaming the divisions to 'Gebirgs', which I happen to like, will likely break the AI. What I will need to do on the next update is rename all of those units back to "Mountain" to maintain consistency.

One of the other things that I did upon starting the scenario work was to rename all of the SS divisions to include their honorific titles. Pavel then informed me that those huge names were causing display issues in the unit windows and the commander's report. Reluctantly, I went back and abbreviated them back to what you see now.

Our OOB/Data team is highly professional and the number and detail of the units, in my opinion, is exceptional although me and Jim really aren't interested in getting into the nit picky level of detail. It obviously isn't perfect but with almost 10,000 ground units and nearly 2,000 airgroups, there are going to be errors. I think the team has been highly responsive in fixing OOB errors that have been identified and verified and we will continue to do so. However, with thousands of units in almost two dozen scenarios and campaigns, I could easily spend the rest of my adult life making tweaks and so I have to take a hard look at what changes are really necessary. If anyone is interested in joining the beta team, you are more than welcome to and provide feedback on our development forum.

So on to the OOB issues ...

1. Panzer Group West - It is in the game as 5th (Pz Grp West) Panzer Army. It is set up this way because unit name changes require programming fixes. Otherwise, Panzer Group West would have to be withdrawn in August 1944 and be replaced with a brand new 5th Panzer Army unit that would show up well away from the front with all of its units assignments cleared. What you have in game is a compromise.

2. 25th Army - Yes, that is an error and I will absolutely correct the arrival date.

3. East Prussia Army - Agreed. 7 April is a better date.

4. 11th Army. Many units have double entries in the unit database that arrive (or are blocked from arriving) based on whether the EF Box Option is used or not. I have this particular entry marked improperly so I will fix it.

5. 12th Army. This one is questionable since its deployment was based on the proximity of the Russian and American advances on Berlin. I will think about it.

Trey

[pz501]

Trey,

Thanks for elaborating more on what's already been said.

I can remember many years back, when you and I were talking about working on a super-duper detailed NATO-WP scenario for TOAW, when it was still a new release. We never did complete it, but did have some good conversations.

Your post just reminded me of that, and the fact that you are a stickler for detail when needed. I have nothing but respect for what you have achieved so far with this system, and can appreciate the fact that everything has it's limits...TOAW in it's infancy sure did.

Between you and John, I've personally gotten all of the explanation that I need, and I'll not be commenting again on the issue. I hope to see some really good add-on scenarios in the future from you.

Tom

[Great_Ajax]

Haha. That is awesome! I loved those WP-NATO scenarios and I just got my fix from the new Combat Mission Black Sea that came out on Friday. About a year ago, I got into trying to mod WitW to do some WP-NATO scenarios but in the end, decided that the time scale just wouldn't work.

By all means, if you guys see issues, let us know so we can fix them. I can always use QA on my scenarios and I want them to be correct.

Me and John got some good scenarios cooking too. I can promise that you won't be disappointed. Joel will have news sometime in the near future on where our new direction is going and they have some cool ideas.

Trey

ORIGINAL: pz501

Trey,

Thanks for elaborating more on what's already been said.

I can remember many years back, when you and I were talking about working on a super-duper detailed NATO-WP scenario for TOAW, when it was still a new release. We never did complete it, but did have some good conversations.

Your post just reminded me of that, and the fact that you are a stickler for detail when needed. I have nothing but respect for what you have achieved so far with this system, and can appreciate the fact that everything has it's limits...TOAW in it's infancy sure did.

Between you and John, I've personally gotten all of the explanation that I need, and I'll not be commenting again on the issue. I hope to see some really good add-on scenarios in the future from you.

Tom