Subs are amazing units. I argue hacing about 40% of your IPCs in subs as US. Volume is vastly underrated.
US IPC Breakdown
-
Ah, I didn’t look at the NOs closely… yes, you’re right, those 2 are rarely accomplished early game. Well, 72 IPCs is better. Gosh, America is so lame in this game :lol: well, the game is well balanced somehow and Larry did a good job, so who am I to complain.
-
cool, well I guess thats one of the main things about the game, axis needs to keep the US out as long as they can I guess.
-
Thank youuuuuuuuuuu
-
The US used to be the aresenal of democracy in OOB
Now they’ve morphed into “just another power” like they were in revised.I used to be getting 100 IPCs as America and be able to put Japan and Germany on the defensive. (50 IPCs in each theatre)
Now I make 70. Thant brings me down to 35 IPCs in each theatre. A 15 IPC boost for the axis in each theatre basicly.Over 4 turns thats 60 IPCs the US is down from what it was. in each theatre
Game turns 3-7 usually. Then the US is out of steam.Larry took away all that cash, gave the axis more bonuses, and gave the US +3 mech infantry……wooo :roll:
USA should start with like 4 more regular infantry and a 2nd bomber.
The US must transport every unit to the theatre, and starts with 4 infantry on the mainland?
The draft was on by 1940.
USA starts with less infantry in the continetnal US than ANZAC has at setup. -
I understand your annoyance with the US limitations, but they are IMHO a bit better than they were IRL. Remember that Pearl Harbor is “equal,” whereas IRL the Japs had massive levels of surprise. Also US and USSR are advantaged by the knowledge that EVENTUALLY they will be fighting the Axis.
I haven’t gotten to the point where US NO’s are really tested, but I like them. A bit more “control your area” as opposed to “don’t let Japan take YOU over”
-
The US used to be the aresenal of democracy in OOB
Now they’ve morphed into “just another power” like they were in revised.I used to be getting 100 IPCs as America and be able to put Japan and Germany on the defensive. (50 IPCs in each theatre)
Now I make 70. Thant brings me down to 35 IPCs in each theatre. A 15 IPC boost for the axis in each theatre basicly.Not for nothing, but I believe the only national objective in OOB that the US collected in the Global game was the 30 IPC wartime bump - the most the US could reasonably make each turn was 80 (no phil) plus captured territories. So, 100 is just a bit of hyperbole (or you were cheating) - it was more often 80 (no phil). Even if the Pacific objectives were included (I don’t believe they were, and I know the 40 ipc bump in west US wasn’t), that would mean 5 for phil and 5 for okinawa - neither of which were often collected assuming japan was still in the game.
So now, without phil, it’s 70, and the US actually needs to care about its island holdings or they drop to 65 minus lost territories. Realistically, depending on how it captures territory, the US is probably only making 10 to 15 less each turn, not 30.
-
It was 52 + 30
-2 for Phillipines +2 for BrazilSo 82.
In a game where the US takes Java & Celebs, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisa, and Lybia. You are now at 93.
I would usually be at least into some of these territories as the US by round 6-7.I suppose it is a bit outlandish to claim the US would be making a steady 100. But a steady 90 is not out of the question.
I really wish Germany, Italy and Japan all got slight bumps, and the US got a bump to represent its massive millitary moblization…instead of the scrap fleets of DD & TR that sail out of the East and West Coast.
US boats cost a lot, and each infantry needs a transport. It should be excuseable for the US to start with a handful more infantry, considering France starts with a larger domestic army than the US. -
US taking the DEI? Umm…that seems unlikely by R7.
-
US taking the DEI? Umm…that seems unlikely by R7.
It out of box, im guessin it was not too unlikely.
-
It should be excuseable for the US to start with a handful more infantry, considering France starts with a larger domestic army than the US.
I may be mistaken , but I’m pretty sure that the French did have a larger military before the US entered…definitely per capita. They were at war for goodness sake!
-
I agree with Spitfire38; IIRC hearing on a Pearl Harbor show that if Japan had landed in San Fran. we wouldn’t have been able to resist until they reached Chicago. So yeah, I think the US starts out with too large an army. Just IMHO.
-
Frankly, Larry and Krieg have done a fantastic job of creating this game and maintaining a fairly good balance…even though I complain about the US, one side really doesn’t win a lot more than the other. So I’m going to take whats given, historical inaccuracies and all. A historically accurate WWII wouldn’t make the game any fun…we all know what happens! :wink:
-
In 1940 US Navy was 2nd largest in the world by a good margin. Close to the UK in Naval power, but the Brits still held that title. Japan was 3rd, and Italy the 4th. Germany was marginal in naval force, but was threatening with submarines. Historically wouldn’t be fair. US would have a larger navy than Japan.
-
It should be excuseable for the US to start with a handful more infantry, considering France starts with a larger domestic army than the US.
I may be mistaken , but I’m pretty sure that the French did have a larger military before the US entered…definitely per capita. They were at war for goodness sake!
Yeah, back then the US standing army was something like 176,000 men which was smaller than Romania’s standing army of 200,000.
-
Yes, we were 16th in the world directly behind Romania and Turkey.
We’ve definitely been put up so there’s no chance of a direct invasion of the US.
-
In 1940 US Navy was 2nd largest in the world by a good margin. Close to the UK in Naval power, but the Brits still held that title. Japan was 3rd, and Italy the 4th. Germany was marginal in naval force, but was threatening with submarines. Historically wouldn’t be fair. US would have a larger navy than Japan.
We had a large navy, but the ship stock was obsolete compared to the Japanese or British I believe. As I recall, the majority of US battleships, cruisers and destroyers were WW1 era, and the Japanese carrier capability outstripped the US until the battle of Midway. US torpedo technology lagged behind in the first few years of the war. Japan and Germany had been building new ships, sometimes not so secretly violating the treaties dictating displacement & armament, so while their navies may have been smaller, they were technologically ahead at the outset of the war.
The Hood was a WWI era battleship after all. It’s not as if it was just a lucky shot from the Bismark.
-
Well, if you complain about the US starting pieces, take a look at Italy: The 4th largest fleet in the world is outclassed by the Germans after G1 when they buy the usual Carrier. Also you usually get sunk during UK1 2/3 of your fleet.
And if you consider how small is Italy as a country compared to the other 3 “naval empires” (UK, Japan, US), having the 4th largest fleet JUST for the medi should be quite more represented!
And yeah, Italians didn’t did much during ww2, but as a game I’d like to change history having around the same resources.
-
you know what should be changed? WTF does the US start with so many mech inf?
Can you think of a more useless unit for the Americans, and they have 4 of them! Does Larry mean to honor the historical contribution of GMC, or what?
-
The US was a mechanized force, and those mechs can be useful in N. Africa, but I do agree that the value of mech is much lower than in the real war.
Suggested Topics
