I think that quite a serious problem is the complete lack of dependence of the quality of the equipment produced (especially newly created) on the duration of production.
And after all, every new device was susceptible to the so-called. "childhood disease".
This concerned primarily all types of engines, as well as aircraft. And hhis is missing here.
We create a template for new equipment and it already has a quality planned in advance, with which it can be produced right away.
Meanwhile, it would be much more realistic if the designed equipment would initially have a reduced quality value, in addition by a random value, and the amount of this would depend on the degree of complexity of the project (on the number of components used in the project - the more components, the lower the initial quality value).
Over time (here I would also base it on a random factor) the quality of the designed equipment would gradually increase, thus simulating the introduction of only development corrections of this project, without changing the components themselves.
This would give a realistic opportunity to choose whether we start the production of new equipment agreeing to its still poor quality (as it was in reality, e.g. with the German Panther tanks, which had not yet been tested well, it was decided to mass-produce them and throw them into battle near Kursk - hence the 204 sent there, as many as 150 were lost due to numerous technical problems, the vast majority of which concerned drive and engine failures It was no better with the Me-262 jet aircraft, whose engines were still of such low quality when the aircraft entered production that if the pilot landed with both engines working, he was considered lucky...), or are we waiting patiently until the manufacturer, let's call it, refines our project and then we will start its production.
I also miss the possibility of sacrificing quality for the sake of production speed.
Sticking to the Germans, the Fw-190 can be a great example here. The staff demanded that production be increased to 2,000 units per month and the challenge was met. But with high-speed production, the quality of these examples suffered, and was so poor that nearly 60% of them were lost not in combat but to failures.
I think that the introduction of such changes could make the game even more attractive, without complicating it more, because it would give the player more opportunities for strategic decisions that have significant consequences.
And after all, every new device was susceptible to the so-called. "childhood disease".
This concerned primarily all types of engines, as well as aircraft. And hhis is missing here.
We create a template for new equipment and it already has a quality planned in advance, with which it can be produced right away.
Meanwhile, it would be much more realistic if the designed equipment would initially have a reduced quality value, in addition by a random value, and the amount of this would depend on the degree of complexity of the project (on the number of components used in the project - the more components, the lower the initial quality value).
Over time (here I would also base it on a random factor) the quality of the designed equipment would gradually increase, thus simulating the introduction of only development corrections of this project, without changing the components themselves.
This would give a realistic opportunity to choose whether we start the production of new equipment agreeing to its still poor quality (as it was in reality, e.g. with the German Panther tanks, which had not yet been tested well, it was decided to mass-produce them and throw them into battle near Kursk - hence the 204 sent there, as many as 150 were lost due to numerous technical problems, the vast majority of which concerned drive and engine failures It was no better with the Me-262 jet aircraft, whose engines were still of such low quality when the aircraft entered production that if the pilot landed with both engines working, he was considered lucky...), or are we waiting patiently until the manufacturer, let's call it, refines our project and then we will start its production.
I also miss the possibility of sacrificing quality for the sake of production speed.
Sticking to the Germans, the Fw-190 can be a great example here. The staff demanded that production be increased to 2,000 units per month and the challenge was met. But with high-speed production, the quality of these examples suffered, and was so poor that nearly 60% of them were lost not in combat but to failures.
I think that the introduction of such changes could make the game even more attractive, without complicating it more, because it would give the player more opportunities for strategic decisions that have significant consequences.
