USA Too many IPCs? Too much Power?

[dadler12]

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.

[FieldMarshalGames]

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.

[dadler12]

@FieldMarshalGames:

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.

[Karl7]

While it’s pure speculation, I think that if the UK/US had never set foot in Europe but just kept bombing and supplying the USSR, the USSR would have eventually overwhelmed Germany and its allies, if over a longer period and at a much higher cost.  Even if Germany had been able to, for whatever reason, deploy most, if not all, of its divisions from the west to the east in 43, 44, or 45, I don’t this it would have allowed them to gain any long term strategic or operational advantage over the numerically superior Soviet forces.  Not to mention, the Red Army of 44, 45 was no longer the stumbling giant of 41, 42, and was only gaining in operational effectiveness.

[FieldMarshalGames]

@Karl7:

While it’s pure speculation, I think that if the UK/US had never set foot in Europe but just kept bombing and supplying the USSR, the USSR would have eventually overwhelmed Germany and its allies, if over a longer period and at a much higher cost.  Even if Germany had been able to, for whatever reason, deploy most, if not all, of its divisions from the west to the east in 43, 44, or 45, I don’t this it would have allowed them to gain any long term strategic or operational advantage over the numerically superior Soviet forces.  Not to mention, the Red Army of 44, 45 was no longer the stumbling giant of 41, 42, and was only gaining in operational effectiveness.

I agree.  The Germans lost the war in 41-42.  That was their last chance to Defeat the Soviets.  The USSR won SO BIG in fact that they became our enemy even before the Defeat of Germany.

I 110% agree that the UK would have been defeated without US aid even before Pearl Harbor.  But I think the Aid the USSR received from both UK and US is over rated these days.  It seemed like a lot to the Allies at the time, but on the Russian scale it was small…  and didn’t even start getting through regularly until late war when the tide was already turned against Germany.

US Aid to the Allies and the eventual might of their armies and Fleets did indeed turn the tide.  But the hard fought victory was won by every combatant…  A truly unique and GRAND ALLIANCE in History.

[Flashman]

Can’t the US can be restricted to a maximum number of each unit until at war?  This reflects the lack of conscription in the country, unlike continental Europe (it’s also why the UK had such a small standing army in '39).

Any surplus income can be assumed to have been wasted on the frivolous and decadent American lifestyle.  :evil:

Certainly, the number of infantry units raised should be limited, restricting the impact of early US intervention which usually relies heavily on infantry.

[domicron]

I like that we can’t go a post or two without getting into the same hackneyed nationalist pissing match.

Back on topic, I think it’s too early to make a call on USA’s power.  Need to get a few games in using LH’s alpha setup.

[deadbunny]

I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.

[FieldMarshalGames]

@domicron:

Back on topic, I think it’s too early to make a call on USA’s power.  Need to get a few games in using LH’s alpha setup.

I discussed this with a friend over a game of AA50 today…  and  I agree.  This was only my first impression.  We are going to play a few more and see what happens.

[Blitchga]

@dadler12:

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 BCATP was another massive contribution put forward by the commonwealth forces. I am not saying they won the war by any means but I feel that no single nation won the war. The BCATP put out tens of thousands of pilots a year and supplied the pilot training for almost the entire Allied air effort. The program was so successful that they actually had to slow it down as it was training more pilots than even the US could build planes.

As for Dieppe, horribly planned raid I couldn’t agree more. Many historians have tried to give reason to it but it was a terrible plan and logistically a disaster with nothing working in conjunction with one another. However, the US was no better when examining their first landings in the Pacific. Some of the atols that the US took had greater losses than all of D-day combined.

As per the navy, I hate to break it to all of you but the Canadian navy really was the biggest one around. It had so many small escort ships to patrol and escort the convoys across the Atlantic that no other nation could outmatch it.

When it came to Allied Victory I strongly feel that no nation deserves more glory than the next. They all had massive contributions in their own way and none were the savior that any of them claimed to be.

[Blitchga]

@deadbunny:

I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.

I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.

As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Blitchga:

@dadler12:

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 BCATP was another massive contribution put forward by the commonwealth forces. I am not saying they won the war by any means but I feel that no single nation won the war. The BCATP put out tens of thousands of pilots a year and supplied the pilot training for almost the entire Allied air effort. The program was so successful that they actually had to slow it down as it was training more pilots than even the US could build planes.

As for Dieppe, horribly planned raid I couldn’t agree more. Many historians have tried to give reason to it but it was a terrible plan and logistically a disaster with nothing working in conjunction with one another. However, the US was no better when examining their first landings in the Pacific. Some of the atols that the US took had greater losses than all of D-day combined.

As per the navy, I hate to break it to all of you but the Canadian navy really was the biggest one around. It had so many small escort ships to patrol and escort the convoys across the Atlantic that no other nation could outmatch it.

When it came to Allied Victory I strongly feel that no nation deserves more glory than the next. They all had massive contributions in their own way and none were the savior that any of them claimed to be.

If one country has 10 escort ships and another has 1 carrier, that doesn’t mean that the one with the escort ships is “bigger”

[knp7765]

@Blitchga:

@deadbunny:

I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.

I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.

As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!

In a way, you could say that Russia was really an enemy of the Western Allies before WW2 even started, as far back as the Russian Revolution.  Many of the Western Powers, including America, Britain, France and Japan, had limited forces in Russia advising and backing the White armies against the Reds.  Unfortunately, the White armies suffered from corrupt and incompetant leaders and ill-disciplined soldiers while the Reds had very organized leadership and pretty much pasted the Whites on all fronts, thus bringing Communist rule to the Soviet Union.  I’m sure that Lenin, and later Stalin, never forgot that.

As for the US involvement in WW2, does anyone wonder what the outcome would have been if Pearl Harbor never happened?  Or, if Germany and Italy didn’t hold up their end of the tri-partite pact by declaring war on America?  Before Pearl Harbor, American Public opinion was still 80% in favor of America staying neutral.  Even with Pearl Harbor, America was only technically at war with Japan, NOT with Germany or Italy.  What might have happend if America had only went to war in the Pacific?  Or not at all?

[spectre_04]

In interesting discussion here!  I didn’t read every sentence of every post, but I get the picture.

I tend to agree with the opinion that, the US is supposed to start slow, but grow to dominate.
The Axis have a narrow window to either all out win it, or climb to a high enough status to compete for victory, if they do not achieve this in time, then the game will be much like the war.

As far as historical accuracy is concerned, the soviet union should probably be earning around 60-70 by turn 8-10, as should Germany, Japan around 50.  the USA, if the game was REALISTIC would earn around 200-250 IPC per turn easy, we outproduced everybody and your momma.
That being said, it wouldn’t be much of a game if the USA earned what they REALISTICALLY earned no would it?  The axis never had a chance once our production got in gear, not a chance in hell.

[Fort]

@Blitchga:

@dadler12:

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),

Not true.

they could not effectively figure out how to move goods across the Atlantic

False

and had to rely on Canadian escort.

Only partially true, the US and IK decided to use canadian escorts to free up US and UK escort for other tasks.

Should I also mention that Canada had a bigger navy at the end of the war then the US?

THis statement is laughable. The US produced more ships during WWII than any other nation…by far. THe Canadian navy had a total of 400 hulls at war’s end, the US had more than that just counting DD’s…the US had over 145 Carriers alone (22 fleet carriers) at wars end.

The USA did take part in D-day but to a lesser extent than the British and Canadians,

“On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.”

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).

This is not true either. The US and Britian combined produced more tanks than the Soviets. The US produced more trucks than the rest of the world combined that’s a fact.

I could go on but I think everyone is getting the idea.

The idea that you are virulently anti-American.

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.

There is so much incorrect information i

[Fort]

@Blitchga:

@deadbunny:

I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.

I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.

As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!

The Canadian Navy was no where near the size of the US Destroyer fleet alone….

[domicron]

History is irrelevant.

We are trying to balance a board game.

Sooner everyone can accept that, the better off we’ll all be.

[dadler12]

@domicron:

History is irrelevant.

We are trying to balance a board game.

Sooner everyone can accept that, the better off we’ll all be.

How can history be irrelevant to balancing a historical military board game?

[FieldMarshalGames]

:?  Seems the purpose of my thread is completely lost…

Oh, well.  interesting and funny to read

[knp7765]

Jeremy’s right.  We’ve all kind of gotten off topic here.  It’s not about how much American involvement affected the outcome in the ACTUAL war.

This is supposed to be about whether or not USA is too powerful economically in the Global game of Axis & Allies and if there are any solutions to solve this problem.  I think that the gradual income increase suggested by leddux is VERY good.  It not only gives the game a little better balance, it also reflects the historical unpreparedness of the USA for war at that time.  I think I will try that in my next game.

By the way, any thoughts on Sea Zone 101 being serviced by the Major ICs of both Eastern US and Central US?  I still think there should be another sea zone in the Gulf of Mexico so land units built in Central US couldn’t just immediately board transports built by the IC in Eastern US.  Or, the US couldn’t just build 20 ships all in the same sea zone.  That’s just too much.