OOB Question

[Michael T]

Can someone post a screenie of the composition of an SS Mot division and Regular Mot Inf Division please.

[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.

[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.

[Michael T]

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

Please fix this.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[;)]

[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?

[zakblood]

one

[zakblood]

two

[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.

[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[;)]

[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?