Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
scotsman

New TOE and costing

30 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, madrebel said:

That does help Scotsman, however, in 42 the man hour and individual cost for the ‘tier 2’ f4 was lower than the initial production run in mid 41, around 4000 hours according to Messerschmidt reports. This is the same for all planes, axis or allied. New stuff takes a minute to learn to build. In 45 K4s were even lower, etc. 

I wasn’t looking at any single side bias, however you seem to focus on the German rejection rate and skip past the early spitV quality control issues. I wasn’t going there and was mostly concerned with the largest performance gap in the ww2 timeline, the post QC SpitVb vs the >2/42 F4. Outside of jets vs pistons this matchup along with the A3/4 190s in the same time frame represents a really dark time for the brits that this game needs to avoid - along with such dark times as the 20:1 odds in the air late war.

i wasn’t expecting a side biased acquisition as part of your reply ... interesting.

 

p.s. For those that care the rejection rate Scotsman seems to think is a big deal relates to an acceptance criteria of performance within +/-5% of what Messerschmidt promised. As an example, they committed to 570kph for 109Es, if a plane  wasn’t at least 541.5kph at rated altitude, it was rejected. This is all well documented. Care to comment on allied QC issues or are we just going to be biased against the Germans while cherry picking best case for allied?

There was >>no defect or reliability penalty imposed anywhere<<. The data is there but there is no imposition of reliability or production quality on anyone. I'm not skipping anything that I am aware of. The cost basis changes every year gents and is based on the number being produced and the learning curve. Again using a US example....that 60K 1941 P-40 was 44k by 1944. That's the historic example number. Not sure of the point you are trying to make but if you're going make any accusation with regards to side bias you'll have to have another crack at it, as what you suggested isn't the case. All sides have equal budget and there is no instance of quality or reliability influence imposed anywhere. 

What I said was that you could, on either side, alter the prices based on data present but not included in the price model. In short changing the price to reflect that stuff. That was not done. What I also said is that public domain pricing may not reflect the real cost of the aircraft in a combat ready condition. I gave several examples of that...and why you have to be cautious about quoting prices without knowing the underlying data. 

As for which cost is used that's up CRS, it can cost average or use the specific annual price. Not my call.

Again - the ultimate composition of the TOE is up to CRS...the historic production data for each aircraft data is in there along with the price data from the model AND the documented historical price. Those two are not the same for the reasons already laid out. Everyone has to be costed on an equal basis of learning curve and labor force...

What I would care to do is point out that quality and reliability is an issue for both sides, but not part of the game's assumptions. 

 

Edited by scotsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are capital expenditures on plants, tooling and machinery...made not just to increase production rate and improve quality, but also to utilize materials more efficiently and/or decrease  labor...handled in the cost comparisons?

Particularly capital expenditures that encompassed multiple weapon programs.

Some national combatants were more fiscally able to make such capital expenditures than others, and had the requisite engineering resources and construction capabilities.

Certainly the unit cost of US medium tank and tank destroyer programs would have been higher without the construction of Fisher/Grand Blanc Tank Arsenal and Chrysler/Warren-Detroit Tank Arsenal, to name two of many. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jwilly said:

How are capital expenditures on plants, tooling and machinery...made not just to increase production rate and improve quality, but also to utilize materials more efficiently and/or decrease  labor...handled in the cost comparisons?

Particularly capital expenditures that encompassed multiple weapon programs.

Some national combatants were more fiscally able to make such capital expenditures than others, and had the requisite engineering resources and construction capabilities.

Certainly the unit cost of US medium tank and tank destroyer programs would have been higher without the construction of Fisher/Grand Blanc Tank Arsenal and Chrysler/Warren-Detroit Tank Arsenal, to name two of many. 

They aren't. The budget for each TOE and weapon pool is equal without connection to any physical plant or factory. That could be changed - that was the original design of the game - but it was never fully realized or implemented. The labor forces and labor rates are standardized, as is the production learning curve. None of that is constrained by the presence or lack of physical plant. In that sense it's no different than the current TOE concept. What IS different is that every weapon of every nation in WWII was part of the cost estimation database, and the resulting cost model. It's not a guess on a dev's part as to the value of any unit vs any other unit. It's hard economic data. 

Could it be grown to a full economic model? Yes but that's not the intended use of the tool. The data is there to include factory floor space calculations.  It was designed to allow weapons and systems trades within a equal budget among the TOE types of the combatants....and get those TOEs to more closely resemble the weapons mixes employed in each year. The national budget(s) should reflect player population and can be scaled up or down increasing the size of the spawn pools without altering the underlying data. It allows for the easy introduction of new equipment (say panther or a new aircraft) without having to redo everything and rebalance it. 

It could be used to make the spawn pools dynamic based on population rather than static...but that's not an intended use when it was built. 

Id love to do a full economic model with attackable supplies..even if it was only the tactical supply to begin with. I have the various consumption rates, supply volumes etc, for each TOE. 

Higher on the list though (my own personal list) would be audited fuel burn rates for everything. That's how you stop mechanized forces or attack with them.. fuel is the biggest single tactical constraint with ammunition much lower in terms of logistics demand, (unless we are talking non-mechanized forces which can live under a lower fuel burn)  if we had a better fuel model and attackable resources (POL ppo?) then fuel state begins to matter. You can't attack without fuel even if you have an acceptable equipment state. 

in summary I'd think it better use of time to focus on gameplay and a better tactical environment than constructing the full economic model. 

Edited by scotsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the minutiae of detail and calculation is fascinating/interesting we should not forget that the end result of this is to have folks battling each other in kit of reasonable supply. We don’t want to limit fun or punish anyone: beside balance (or balanced imbalance if you will) we want to create challenge and purpose. The spawn lists are a vital component in directing/structuring battle and instrumental in capturing the WW2 geist. When we let all things free, as in intermission, we see a slump in interest and depreciation of that geist, not connected to people blowing off steam or taking a break. Thus, variety to give national character, and item rarity to give cause for combat and preservation, is the end product of the above discussion.

We can do a lot with our tools but then again we can’t factor in the greatest unknown: human interaction. Sometimes, quite often really, the suckiest kit will prevail because it was employed with other much more significant advantages than mechanical superiority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2019 at 1:13 AM, scotsman said:

Higher on the list though (my own personal list) would be audited fuel burn rates for everything. That's how you stop mechanized forces or attack with them.. fuel is the biggest single tactical constraint with ammunition much lower in terms of logistics demand, (unless we are talking non-mechanized forces which can live under a lower fuel burn)  if we had a better fuel model and attackable resources (POL ppo?) then fuel state begins to matter. You can't attack without fuel even if you have an acceptable equipment state.

Already gave you the stupid simple way to do fuel rate effects- dividing a brigade's total asset value (to include existing gear, replacement tickets and overstock) by the truck/ht carrying capacity in that brigade.

 

Higher the ratio of equipment value to truck carry, the slower it is.  More trucks destroyed, slower it is.  More overstock, slower brigade.  More trucks overstocked, the faster it goes.

 

Course, we are moving away from all brigades to mostly town supply, so maybe you do the same principle for another variable on resupp ticket timers. Players want faster ticket timers?  They overstock the trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.