OOB Question

VR designs has been reinforced with designer Cameron Harris and the result is a revolutionary new operational war game 'Barbarossa' that plays like none other. It blends an advanced counter pushing engine with deep narrative, people management and in-depth semi-randomized decision systems.

Moderators: Vic, lancer

User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

OOB Question

Post by Michael T »

Can someone post a screenie of the composition of an SS Mot division and Regular Mot Inf Division please.
gwgardner
Posts: 6909
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:23 pm

RE: OOB Question

Post by gwgardner »

I'm assuming you're looking for a difference. I think within the scope of this game, some compositional differences are abstracted into other factors, such as in this case morale and starting experience.

lancer could perhaps provide a better answer.

Image
Attachments
Untitled.jpg
Untitled.jpg (128.35 KiB) Viewed 477 times

User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: OOB Question

Post by Michael T »

It is a fact that the 3 SS Mot Inf Divisions that started Barbarossa had 3 INF Regiments as opposed to the Regular Mot Inf Division having only 2 Inf Regiments each. I, and others have pointed this out before. I am not sure why Vic ignores this fact.

I can not think of any other serious East Front game, either board or PC that does not reflect the larger SS formations in the OOB.

Case Blue was wrong. Now even after having it pointed out, DC3 is wrong.

It really makes me wonder about the accuracy of the OOB.

Shame, I was looking forward to this.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: OOB Question

Post by Michael T »

Ballpark: The SS Mot Divisions were 150% the strength of the Wehrmacht Mot Divisions.

Please fix this.
governato
Posts: 1318
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:35 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

RE: OOB Question

Post by governato »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

It is a fact that the 3 SS Mot Inf Divisions that started Barbarossa had 3 INF Regiments as opposed to the Regular Mot Inf Division having only 2 Inf Regiments each. I, and others have pointed this out before. I am not sure why Vic ignores this fact.

I can not think of any other serious East Front game, either board or PC that does not reflect the larger SS formations in the OOB.

Case Blue was wrong. Now even after having it pointed out, DC3 is wrong.

It really makes me wonder about the accuracy of the OOB.

Shame, I was looking forward to this.

and the 1st Panzer division started with two battalions with 251/1 SdKfz in its OOB (or was it the 10th? and which one was the one that started with very few tanks because a transport ship sank coming back from North Africa oh well ) ...

...but did it matter at all after two weeks into the campaign what the starting OOB was? I bet not. I think that some degree of abstraction is great and welcome for an operationally focused game. The real test is if the game actually has a chance to behave as anything resembling the real campaign. I am glad the designers consciously spent their time on that aspect of the engine. So in my book no shame, but praise!

There is always GWITE for the hardcore bean counting, and one can judge the results of that approach by himself.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: OOB Question

Post by Michael T »

You must be joking. This is not a nit pick. It's a major mistake in the OOB.

3 Divisions missing 50% of their strength.... come on.


This has even been acknowledged by Vic in the DC2 forum in the past.

I want this game to be the best.
governato
Posts: 1318
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:35 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

RE: OOB Question

Post by governato »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I want this game to be the best.

Michael, on this we surely agree! I just think there are other priorities (and probably bigger unknown unknowns)... at least for now.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: OOB Question

Post by Michael T »

This one should be easy to fix.

First they need to acknowledge it.

I will be buying the game as soon as I get home regardless.

Part of the joy is seeing what your units are made up from, strengths, weaknesses, differences.

This error is pretty fundamental in terms of German 1941 OOB's.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: OOB Question

Post by Michael T »

check the last bullet point on pg 530 and the table on pg 531.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6u ... oe&f=false

gwgardner
Posts: 6909
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:23 pm

RE: OOB Question

Post by gwgardner »

Any differences between the makeup of a regular infantry regiment and an SS infantry regiment, in terms of size and equipment? Are three SS infantry regiments definitely greater in strength than two regular infantry regiments?

I'm guessing that in actuality, there were differences in the quantities and qualities making up all infantry regiments, to the point that no two were exactly the same once they got into the field and away from the home bases.

I don't know. Just asking. But if there are differences, then this is the kind of thing that can be abstracted in a game at this level.

User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: OOB Question

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

Michael T: I share your concerns and agree this needs to be corrected. I had an issue as well and its been addressed (or will be). Its important to be extremely accurate and realistic, and I do not see this as being very difficult to do in any way.
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: OOB Question

Post by Michael T »

@gw

All other things being equal the SS Mot Divisions in question here had roughly 50% more men and equipment than the regular Mot Divisions.

To be honest I am very surprised that I need to convince anyone about this. It's a well known fact, cited in many references and reproduced in any serious game on the subject.

I am dumbfounded that such a basic error could be made.
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

RE: OOB Question

Post by lancer »

Hi Micheal,

The OOB has had a lot of man hours by a number of people put into it.

However the game is primarily about Operational Command, not whether a particular Division has an extra bicycle battalion, for example.

Past a certain point there is a deliberate level of abstraction. There are other games out there that provide super detailed OOB's with all the nuts and bolts.

With regards to the SS Motorised Div's you'll note from the screenshots that they have SS Heavy Inf rather than standard Wehrmacht issue which are better equipped and a lot more capable.

Your point on the extra men and equipment is noted and we'll double check.

Keep in mind that there is no definitive guide to the '41 OOB anywhere, only different versions of what the author perceived them to be. Opinions can differ markedly. Judgement calls have to be made.

There's a lengthy exposition in the manual on the design and composition of the OOB and why it's as it is.

Cheers,
Cameron
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: OOB Question

Post by Aurelian »

As someone said. "It's a game. Allowances have to be made."

[;)]


Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: OOB Question

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

Another issue. Not important to the game at all, but kind of different:

The symbols for Motorized units and for Mechanized units. I have not seen enough screen shots, but from what I have seen, I see the MECH symbol with the unit labeled as motorized. I'm used to motorized unit symbols as an infantry box with two wheels on the bottom. Are there any MECH units in the game?
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
zakblood
Posts: 22722
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:19 am

RE: OOB Question

Post by zakblood »

one


Image
Attachments
Untitled.jpg
Untitled.jpg (193.23 KiB) Viewed 477 times
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
User avatar
zakblood
Posts: 22722
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:19 am

RE: OOB Question

Post by zakblood »

two

Image
Attachments
Untitled.jpg
Untitled.jpg (195.59 KiB) Viewed 477 times
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: OOB Question

Post by Michael T »

Err, this is not super detail. If a Regular Mot Inf Division has 7000 men the SS should be 10,000 to 10,500. Its a big difference. Its also common knowledge and to be honest I am somewhat stunned by the lack of knowledge displayed here.

Look in to it. You will find I am right. I hope you fix it. I reiterate. This is not a nit pick but a major oversight by your OOB people.

Maybe I am wrong about my perception of this game?

I am not a OOB nut, what I am seeking is a reasonable level of accuracy.

Telling me the SS Mot Divisions were not 50% larger than the Regular units is absurd to say the least.
User avatar
zakblood
Posts: 22722
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:19 am

RE: OOB Question

Post by zakblood »

Hi Micheal,

The OOB has had a lot of man hours by a number of people put into it.

However the game is primarily about Operational Command, not whether a particular Division has an extra bicycle battalion, for example.

Past a certain point there is a deliberate level of abstraction. There are other games out there that provide super detailed OOB's with all the nuts and bolts.

With regards to the SS Motorised Div's you'll note from the screenshots that they have SS Heavy Inf rather than standard Wehrmacht issue which are better equipped and a lot more capable.

Your point on the extra men and equipment is noted and we'll double check.

Keep in mind that there is no definitive guide to the '41 OOB anywhere, only different versions of what the author perceived them to be. Opinions can differ markedly. Judgement calls have to be made.

There's a lengthy exposition in the manual on the design and composition of the OOB and why it's as it is.

it's in the manual, also a developer reply, and abstraction is the key to some for the level of re playability for both side, it's not a history lesson, but you can follow it if you like to almost mimic history, that's you're call and depends on settings and play style...
Maybe I am wrong about my perception of this game?
sorry but yes i think you may have, or not as it depends on a view, but not to worry as all comments are more than welcome here so please carry on as a debate and comments is feedback all the same and will get replies from all i'd guess, i'm only a tester, have no views on the rights or wrongs either, as it's a game to enjoy, i don't go into the depth and see if a gun fires the right bullet fast enough etc etc as i don't have the knowledge to either, just like something that plays well and is enjoyable and a challenge.
I'm assuming you're looking for a difference. I think within the scope of this game, some compositional differences are abstracted into other factors, such as in this case morale and starting experience.

lancer could perhaps provide a better answer.
again a good point as it's been mentioned enough times, it's abstracted and while some will like that, pure grogheads may or may not, but to not try it first before making a decision either way is or can be a mute point.

one it's a game, two, it's a great game, and 3 if i thought it was cr@p, id post it, as i'm a member like all of you, aren't selling it, have no links to the developers either way, test good, bad and awful games tbh as it makes no difference to me in the grand scale of things, it's more enjoyable if i do like them, and this is one of them better and good ones tbh.

with abstraction you can alter a given battle and make it flow, for me, take away some things and it makes it less micro managements and more about pure fighting skills and fun to play, with the AI doing some of the work for you, while some say no air or arty, i say use you're ability cards to focus air support onto a given army, when they say no separate extra artillery again i say use your focus cards to set which army gets what, so you do get air units and artillery but not in the sense some are used to, so are abstracted same as divisions etc etc, hope it clears some points up, if not carry on and others will chip in,as no one is right or wrong, it's opinions, we all have them. so no one is right and also no one is wrong[8|][;)]

oh and btw Michael, wish i was in Oz atm as it's freezing in the UK atm[:D] more like the Russian steps here[;)]
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
amatteucci
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
Location: ITALY

RE: OOB Question

Post by amatteucci »

I think that the point Michael is trying to raise is not that there should be no abstraction in the OOB/TOE but that game data should be consistent with the level of abstraction the designers themselves set.

To make an example: I'm fine if in the game there's no distiction between a PzKpfw III and a PzKpfw 35(t) or between a T-34 and a KV, because the difference between the types cannot be appreciated given the "resolution" of the game engine (although I would have preferred a different approach in the way information is presented in the game).

But, is it consistent to have all German Panzer divisions and (worse) all Soviet Tank divisions to be xerox copies one of the other? Why should the 10th TD (that had 318 tanks on 22 June) and the 8th TD (that had zero tanks on 22 June) both have a complement of 100 T-26s and 5 T-34s each? If differences in tens or hundreds of tanks or other AFVs are considered not relevant, why bother counting tanks at all?
Post Reply

Return to “Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa”