Hi Player
Yea, after you lose your capital you can’t collect any dough until it’s liberated.
USA Too many IPCs? Too much Power?
-
Some ideas to make a more representative image of pre-war US
-
The US is restricted from technology development until at war.
-
US Major factories produce as if they were minor factories until at war.
-
Split income… bonus can be spent on either side.
- US collects income on a percentage scale unitle at war
Turn 1 25%
Turn 2 50%
Turn 3 75%
Turn 4 Money like they had their own priniting press :-D -
-
Some ideas to make a more representative image of pre-war US
-
The US is restricted from technology development until at war.
-
US Major factories produce as if they were minor factories until at war.
-
Split income… bonus can be spent on either side.
- US collects income on a percentage scale unitle at war
Turn 1 25%
Turn 2 50%
Turn 3 75%
Turn 4 Money like they had their own priniting press :-DSplit income is not historical. WUS money is easily used in EUS due to good communications between the coasts
-
-
I dunno. With the USA spending 80% of each turn’s IPCs in the Pacific, I still could not crack Japan’s Navy, or take any of Japan’s major islands- they simply have too much of a head start on the US in terms on Naval and Air power. Maybe they don’t make enough money?
I think they make enough… Just TO MUCH during their Neutrality phase.
-
I dunno. With the USA spending 80% of each turn’s IPCs in the Pacific, I still could not crack Japan’s Navy, or take any of Japan’s major islands- they simply have too much of a head start on the US in terms on Naval and Air power. Maybe they don’t make enough money?
No, Japan has too many planes. This is fixed with Larry’s alpha setp
-
Some ideas to make a more representative image of pre-war US
-
The US is restricted from technology development until at war.
-
US Major factories produce as if they were minor factories until at war.
-
Split income… bonus can be spent on either side.
- US collects income on a percentage scale unitle at war
Turn 1 25%
Turn 2 50%
Turn 3 75%
Turn 4 Money like they had their own priniting press :-DI think this is a starting point for a really GOOD House Rule. It gives the US a “gear up for war” income. They would get FULL income if they were attacked.
-
-
This is fixed with Larry’s alpha setp
I keep hearing about this Alpha Set-up??? Where is it posted? Can it be made a sticky in this forum?
-
This is fixed with Larry’s alpha setp
I keep hearing about this Alpha Set-up??? Where is it posted? Can it be made a sticky in this forum?
Here: http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=2568
-
I dunno. With the USA spending 80% of each turn’s IPCs in the Pacific, I still could not crack Japan’s Navy, or take any of Japan’s major islands- they simply have too much of a head start on the US in terms on Naval and Air power. Maybe they don’t make enough money?
I think they make enough… Just TO MUCH during their Neutrality phase.
You are probably correct about their neutrality turns. I just started ILs 1939 game today and the U.S. prewar income is only 20 IPCs. Then it increases by 5 IPCs each turn up to a maximum of 60. Of course the prewar setups are different than A&AG1940. You can check out the setup for 1939 on House Rules in my post today.
-
Historically the US was “the sleeping giant.” Yes it was still struggling from the depression pre-war, but it still had the highest industrial capacity on Earth. The US helped bankroll almost every allied power pre-war and throughout the war (Lets not forget that America became one of the banks of the world after WW1 and had been heavily involved in lending European countries money since the treaty Versailles). Once the US entered the war it was able to outproduce almost all the other powers combined. The US possessed almost every resource needed for the war, and those it did not have in great quantity (ex. rubber) it could import from it’s sphere of influence within South and Central America. Yes the war was won by the allies, but it was won with US dollars, weapons, and ordinance (except maybe Soviet Russia although it did receive massive amounts of lend-lease weapons early-war and copied American technology whenever it could late-war). Russia may have survived without the US, but not for long. England would’ve fallen as easily as France without lend-lease or if Hitler wasn’t intent on invading Russia. The US defeated Japan almost on it’s own and all while fighting a war on another front. By the end of the war the US fielded more aircraft carriers than all nations combined. The US conducted (with the British) the largest amphibious invasion EVER. The US dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs. Game play wise, the US needs to build a transport (7 IPC) for every 2 land units (assuming at least one is infantry). So in essence, it pays double what Germany or Russia has to spend on land units. In the Pacific, it is dealing with a monster (Japan) that no other power can fend off unless the US is involved in 30+ IPC per turn builds. Let’s not forget that after turn one Germany makes 70 IPC and around 50-60 IPC per turn after, and by round 3 latest Japan has 50+ IPC. Not to mention the US starts out with very few units compared to the other major powers. Almost every build the US makes (minus air units) will take at least 2 rounds to reach the front. I think the US is represented fairly in-game and fairly historically. If the US is not a beast, it cannot fight a war in the Pacific and Atlantic and the Axis will run all over the board. In fact in most of my games the Allies can only win by playing defense until the US gets involved (just like in real life!) and smart Axis players can knock out both UK capitals by turn 3 and whittle the USSR to 30ish IPC. The Axis needs to wait until turn 3 or 4 to bring the US into the war. When they have in my games, they have won.
Patriot much? I hate to burst your bubble but while the USA was immensely powerful they did not single handedly win the war. The US did not train the majority of your pilots (The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan or BCATP did), they could not effectively figure out how to move goods across the Atlantic and had to rely on Canadian escort. Should I also mention that Canada had a bigger navy at the end of the war then the US? The USA did take part in D-day but to a lesser extent than the British and Canadians, the Russians contributed immensely in every way to the European war effort and made it to Berlin before the USA. The Russians produced more tanks than ALL Allied nations combined (Yes that means more than the USA AND ALL OTHER ALLIES combined, actually the Russians LOST almost as many tanks as the other allies produced). I could go on but I think everyone is getting the idea.
As for the game itself, I believe that the representation is just fine. The one problem if anything is that the USA should have a slightly bigger economy and NOT be able to reach the European or Pacific fronts in a single turn. It should take at least an extra turn to get into combat. I can assume that this was done for playability as apposed to historical accuracy.
As Gargantua and Calvin (I think it was the two of them) said the axis have to think ahead and prepare for plans to delay and push the US troops back if the US comes in without adequate protection on their landing forces.
-
Canada had over 5 aircraft carriers? Or are you just saying the Canadian Navy exceeded the US ATLANTIC Navy?
-
I’m not as much a patriot as a history nut. And I don’t think you can argue that without the US on the side of the allies the axis would have won the war. There is no way Canada had a more powerful navy than the US postwar. I agree that Russia fought the bulk of the European theatre, but without US led invasions in both Italy and Normandy diverting German resources and troops, that front would probably have ended in stalemate. The USSR and the UK depended on US supplies and money early war and throughout. I could continue but I think it’s common knowledge that the US’s industrial and economic power was the deciding factor of WW2. I was simply providing reasons for why the US is so powerful in Global 40.
-
Canada had over 5 aircraft carriers? Or are you just saying the Canadian Navy exceeded the US ATLANTIC Navy?
No but Canada did have a larger navy than any other country post war. It was quickly sold off and disassembled but Canada was the driving force behind getting those supplies to Europe. It was Canadian ports, escort convoys and logistics that took those supplies to Europe to be used in the Allied war effort.
@dadler12link=topic=20427.msg687645#msg687644:
I’m not as much a patriot as a history nut. And I don’t think you can argue that without the US on the side of the allies the axis would have won the war. There is no way Canada had a more powerful navy than the US postwar. I agree that Russia fought the bulk of the European theatre, but without US led invasions in both Italy and Normandy diverting German resources and troops, that front would probably have ended in stalemate. The USSR and the UK depended on US supplies and money early war and throughout. I could continue but I think it’s common knowledge that the US’s industrial and economic power was the deciding factor of WW2. I was simply providing reasons for why the US is so powerful in Global 40.
Again I am not saying that the Canadian navy had been more powerful but that it was quite simply larger. As for the US, I apologize but no single nation in WWII was the deciding factor behind the Allied victory. The USA was needed just as much as Russia, Britain, the Commonwealth or any other ally. Even French resistance played its part. I agree that the allies could not have won without the US, however I also stand by the claim that they could not have won without the Commonwealth countries, Russia, Britain or any other allied nation.
The US economic might was tremendous but not the sole deciding factor in victory, instead it was a large contributing factor in a group of many factors that all led to an allied victory.
I would love to point out that the further you go into the history of WWII the more it can be realized that the allies were in serious trouble if not for the incredibly long list of mistakes that the axis made. In many respects the axis powers shot themselves in the foot and lost the war on their own. I wont go into all of those details but many of them are incredibly interesting to study. Please do not get me wrong, I by no means am nostalgic for any other outcome than the one that happened.
I also want to add a personal apology to you dadler12 if I in any way offended you. I know that when it comes to this topic I can tend to be quite devoted. As an accomplished History student and fledgling historian and professor it tends to drive me mad when US Propaganda continues to dominate the history surrounding WWII. Yes they were key and I would never want to belittle that fact. I do however find it insulting to the rest of the world to say that the US was the sole reason for victory. They were no more or less important than any other major allied power.
-
“but without US led invasions in both Italy and Normandy diverting German resources and troops, that front would probably have ended in stalemate.”
The Germans had lost at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk by the time of the landing in Italy. There was no coming back from that.
Now Stalin was begging for a second front for good reason.
Who knows how long his populace would have had a taste for war to the finish on the scale they were fighting it.
Who knows when the Germans would have figured out the atomic bomb.
I find it interesting in the game. When the Germans win Sea Lion it puts them soo far behind the Russians. In real life they feinted at it when the opportunity to land did not present itself.
-
“but without US led invasions in both Italy and Normandy diverting German resources and troops, that front would probably have ended in stalemate.”
Stalemate ?
No thats not likely b/c the west was nearly abandoned by the germans.Since Winter 1942/1943 (after the defeat @ stalingrad) Germany has lost the war in the east (most of the Oberkommando der Heeresleitung knew that - Assassination Attempt on Hitler 1944, only fanatics believed to the “Endsieg”) and was only reatreating and defending (with exception of some counter offensives like Operation Zitadelle). The Invasions of Italy and France came September 1943 & June 1944, at this time most of the German troops were orderd east to fight the russians. The Germans had far more fear of the Russian soldiers than of the western allies (many reasons for that).
Btw. how many US Soldiers were involved in Europes invasion from D-day to V-day ?
I think maybe a total of 100.000 - 300.000 men.
How many Russians ?
I think of 20.000.000-40.000.000 Soldiers…… form 1941-1945.
Germany had had about 35 milion armed soldiers from 1939-145 if I am remember right.
On Bararossa 6 million German Soldiers crossed the border to invade Russia.Btw. If I remember right, the Luftwaffe Defense Aircraft for whole France was about 30 planes (ridiculous but true) when D-Day took place. 3 Years before Germans lost an average of 100 planes a day by raiding UK for about 180 days. So over 18.000 planes & pilots lost in 1940 - never recovered from that.
Just my 2 cents :wink:
The Germans had lost at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk by the time of the landing in Italy.
Actually Stalingrad and Moscow were lost more than 6 month before the first invasion took place.
Now Stalin was begging for a second front for good reason.
Begging ? LOL
At wich Conference did he do so ?
Casablanca Conference he wasn´t there and Jalta Conference in 1944 he wants the biggest part of the cake b/c in his opinion the russians fought harder and got far more looses than other allies.Who knows how long his populace would have had a taste for war to the finish on the scale they were fighting it.
Hmm you mean Russians , Germans , Americans or Brits ?
This sentence could go to all involved nations :-DWho knows when the Germans would have figured out the atomic bomb.
Never, thats for sure….
Penemünde was the Secret Weapon Base of the 3rd Reich
and there was many stuff but no A-Bomb.
Germany could simply never invest (while at war but also before)
so much resources in just one Single bomb like the US did.
Btw. were should the GErmans get the Uranium or Plutonim ?
We dont have it here in our soil… So no A Bomb Never :lol:Canada had over 5 aircraft carriers? Or are you just saying the Canadian Navy exceeded the US ATLANTIC Navy?
I agree, think they only outnumbered the US Atlantic Fleet.
How “big” the navy is, would be count by weight if I am right.
So you can have fewer ships but the “bigger” navy. -
Historically the US was “the sleeping giant.” Yes it was still struggling from the depression pre-war, but it still had the highest industrial capacity on Earth. The US helped bankroll almost every allied power pre-war and throughout the war (Lets not forget that America became one of the banks of the world after WW1 and had been heavily involved in lending European countries money since the treaty Versailles). Once the US entered the war it was able to outproduce almost all the other powers combined. The US possessed almost every resource needed for the war, and those it did not have in great quantity (ex. rubber) it could import from it’s sphere of influence within South and Central America. Yes the war was won by the allies, but it was won with US dollars, weapons, and ordinance (except maybe Soviet Russia although it did receive massive amounts of lend-lease weapons early-war and copied American technology whenever it could late-war). Russia may have survived without the US, but not for long. England would’ve fallen as easily as France without lend-lease or if Hitler wasn’t intent on invading Russia. The US defeated Japan almost on it’s own and all while fighting a war on another front. By the end of the war the US fielded more aircraft carriers than all nations combined. The US conducted (with the British) the largest amphibious invasion EVER. The US dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs. Game play wise, the US needs to build a transport (7 IPC) for every 2 land units (assuming at least one is infantry). So in essence, it pays double what Germany or Russia has to spend on land units. In the Pacific, it is dealing with a monster (Japan) that no other power can fend off unless the US is involved in 30+ IPC per turn builds. Let’s not forget that after turn one Germany makes 70 IPC and around 50-60 IPC per turn after, and by round 3 latest Japan has 50+ IPC. Not to mention the US starts out with very few units compared to the other major powers. Almost every build the US makes (minus air units) will take at least 2 rounds to reach the front. I think the US is represented fairly in-game and fairly historically. If the US is not a beast, it cannot fight a war in the Pacific and Atlantic and the Axis will run all over the board. In fact in most of my games the Allies can only win by playing defense until the US gets involved (just like in real life!) and smart Axis players can knock out both UK capitals by turn 3 and whittle the USSR to 30ish IPC. The Axis needs to wait until turn 3 or 4 to bring the US into the war. When they have in my games, they have won.
Patriot much? I hate to burst your bubble but while the USA was immensely powerful they did not single handedly win the war. The US did not train the majority of your pilots (The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan or BCATP did), they could not effectively figure out how to move goods across the Atlantic and had to rely on Canadian escort. Should I also mention that Canada had a bigger navy at the end of the war then the US? The USA did take part in D-day but to a lesser extent than the British and Canadians, the Russians contributed immensely in every way to the European war effort and made it to Berlin before the USA. The Russians produced more tanks than ALL Allied nations combined (Yes that means more than the USA AND ALL OTHER ALLIES combined, actually the Russians LOST almost as many tanks as the other allies produced). I could go on but I think everyone is getting the idea.
As for the game itself, I believe that the representation is just fine. The one problem if anything is that the USA should have a slightly bigger economy and NOT be able to reach the European or Pacific fronts in a single turn. It should take at least an extra turn to get into combat. I can assume that this was done for playability as apposed to historical accuracy.
As Gargantua and Calvin (I think it was the two of them) said the axis have to think ahead and prepare for plans to delay and push the US troops back if the US comes in without adequate protection on their landing forces.
OK pilgrim what have you been smoking?
-
I agree that the USA IPC level before they are at war is too high. If they stay neutral for the full 3 rounds, they can build up a heck of a lot of equipment and troops and really be ready to go on round 4, even if they split between two fronts. If they put it all on one side or the other, that Axis power will be doomed. I don’t think they should be able to build quite so much before they are even in the war.
I also have a problem with how the map is drawn for USA, specifically Sea Zone 101. The US has 2 Major ICs that can service that sea zone. So, they could use the Eastern US IC to build 5 transports plus warships for escort and the Central US IC for 10 land units and the whole force will be ready to move all together on the next turn. I don’t think that is right for realism or gameplay. I think an extra sea zone should be created in the Gulf of Mexico with a line drawn from the tip of Florida to the line that separates SZ 89 from SZ 101.
-
It gives the US a “gear up for war” income. They would get FULL income if they were attacked
That was exactly what my thought was as well. Even if you don’t use the split income concept the other ideas prevent the idea of instant armada without being at war.
-
I apologize if I demeaned the other allied nations contributions. The Russians fought about 80% of German forces. I was simply stating that no other nation had as much industrial and economic power as the US and that the US was able to engage in, and win, both theatres in WW2 (Europe and Pacific), while every other nation (exception is the UK although apart from fighting in Burma and SE Asia they didn’t do much in the Pacific) was fighting a one theatre war. Russia declared war on Japan once the war was over! Germany would have defeated the Russians had it not been for Hitler’s interference, so I do think that front eventually would have ended in stalemate had the US not been able to lead invasions. The commonwealth was important but in reality was the junior partner in the US/UK alliance, I’m sorry but that’s how it was. Do you honestly think the Canadians and Brits could have invaded Europe alone (remember Dieppe)? And if the Canadian fleet having more transports and escorts make it “bigger” than the US navy I used the wrong choice of words, no navy could expect to defeat the US on the seas in 1945 with all their aircraft carriers. I steer clear of US propaganda, but you can’t argue the fact that they were the deciding factor of WW2. Yes Egypt, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow were major turning points the US had little to do with (short of supplying tanks to UK in Egypt and tanks and supplies to the Soviets). But without the US the UK would have eventually tired of a war it couldn’t win and elected another Chamberlain to negotiate a peace with Germany, in my opinion. And the Germans beat themselves out East via Hitler’s poor decisions such as diverting forces from Moscow.
-
The British Empire had more troops in the African theater and in the Italian campaign than the US… this is Historical fact. The USA was tied up in the Pacific and in preparation for the real “second front”. Remember British General Alexander was Supreme Allied Commander in the Mediterranean theater (Not Ike). US and other Allied forces (Canadian/Polish/French etc) in North Africa and Italy were always under British High Command.
In fact, the British Empire had more troops facing the enemy on all fronts than the Americans until June 1944 (This is well represented in AAA)
The Allies would have lost the war without any one of the BIG THREE, but lets give the other two the due respect they deserve.
The AXIS would have won if:
The USSR was not attacked OR was beaten in 41-42
The British Empire did not Hold out while the other two sat and watched
The USA stayed Neutral and did not assist their allies with their industrial might.For any ONE Nation to claim they “won the war” is just silly.
-
The British Empire had more troops in the African theater and in the Italian campaign than the US… this is Historical fact. The USA was tied up in the Pacific and in preparation for the real “second front”. Remember British General Alexander was Supreme Allied Commander in the Mediterranean theater (Not Ike). US and other Allied forces (Canadian/Polish/French etc) in North Africa and Italy were always under British High Command.
In fact, the British Empire had more troops facing the enemy on all fronts than the Americans until June 1944 (This is well represented in AAA)
The Allies would have lost the war without any one of the BIG THREE, but lets give the other two the due respect they deserve.
The AXIS would have won if:
The USSR was not attacked OR was beaten in 41-42
The British Empire did not Hold out while the other two sat and watched
The USA stayed Neutral and did not assist their allies with their industrial might.For any ONE Nation to claim they “won the war” is just silly.
Good points but may I add that the Allies in the Med were not able to take all of Italy (they stalled out and stayed there the remainder of the war), they would not have cleared Africa as soon had the US not landed in Africa (and although they got whipped at Kassarine they created a second front so as to force the Germans/Italians to defend both), and they probably would not have even have attempted an invasion in Italy without the US involved. Also, no one has been able to refute my point that the UK and Soviets depended heavily on US aid, vehicles, ordinance, and technology where (as far as I know but please correct me if I am mistaken) the only thing things those nations helped the US with was that the British provided some technology (ex radar, bomb designs, aircraft engines). Addressing your three Axis win points, the UK would not have survived without US aid. Period. Churchill knew this and that is why he pressed FDR so hard to join or at least give massive amounts of aid, both economic and military.
Suggested Topics
