GroupNorth
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by GroupNorth
-
-
Hitler had the most fabulous army ever fielded in Fall 1940. He didn't want to see half of it drown.
JJ's correct, though, a rapid Crete-like adventure right after the fall of France might have worked.
Historically, however, both Hitler and the German High Command still could not believe their good fortune by beating their #1 enemy, the hated French. Essentially, they believed the war was all but complete. The UK merely had to be bombed to the peace table. Besides, there was some secret mutual admiration between the two so-called Teutonic cousins. Many German elites believed that the English, while deluded by democracy and Yankee commercialism, were still noble enough to have a seat in the new Aryan hegemony.
Of course, there was Napoleon and his Gallic hegemony too. The Brits survived his nonsense as well.
-
What would be fantastic for SC2 is to see real (self-interested) departments in a belligerent's armed forces.
Here's what I've been thinking about. Every major belligerent would have Industrial Points dedicated SIMULTANEOUSLY to several branches of the military.
ARMY
NAVY
AIRFORCE
Other ideas include INDUSTRY, INTELLIGENCE, and RESEARCH. And perhaps even DOMESTIC ECONOMICS.
Anyway, belligerents start the game with funds going to each of the aforementioned branches. There is a slider, ranging from 1-10, for each of the branches.
For instance, taking a wild guess, Germany in 1939 had fund allocations like this:
ARMY: 9
AIRFORCE: 4 (and growing)
NAVY: 2 (and growing)
Britain's might look like this (total guess):
ARMY: 3
AIRFORCE: 4
NAVY: 10
Cost/speed of unit production is influenced by how much tradition and funding each department gets (the ratings above).
According to this model, a belligerent can work on producing units simultaneously. However, it also means that a unit might take more than 1 turn to be finished. Ships of course will always take at least 6 turns, sometimes up to 12.
Example: It might take Britain many turns to produce 1 Army. But it would take the Germans maybe even only 1 turn.
With INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT into infrastructure and ressearch, a player can increase a notch on a slider (for Army, Navy, or Airforce, for example).
Or, this model can also act in a zero-sum manner. Funding can be starved from the Army for a few turns to augment the Navy or Airforce. So if a player wants to increase 1 department, he has the option of diverting funds from others.
The idea of showing DOMESTIC ECONOMICS is a realistic one. While Germany was busy conquering the world in the early phases, its economy was still was not a modern war economy. Most economic acitivity was non-military. This of course switched in 1943 when Goebbels announced the Total War economy.
Whereas in Soviet Russia, after 1941, the entire economy was militarized, liberating funds in defense of the nation.
So there could be a slider for Domestic Economy. Eventually, a belligerent will seek to lower the amount of domestic economic activity in order to liberate it for the war economy. The Russians will have the lowest rating, while America's will have the highest.
I have much more and this, but must skadoodle!
-
Thanks, you are right. Simplicity is important. Perhaps the term 'stockpiles' can be traded in for the more generic 'supplies'.
SC does a nice job of abstracting many of these concerns. However, it would also be cool to see an undersupplied Italian navy, for instance. Or a highly supplied 8th Army. Or wolfpacks that sink 100,000 tonnes of munitions, fuel, etc..
We've only scratched the surface really, and I'm surprised there hasn't been more suggestions for SCII.
-
My readings suggestion that the Wehrmacht's only available plan for a possible Sea Lion was to tug the majority of their forces by very slow moving barges.
Lighter sea vessels, some merchant freighters, and liners would help for transport of men without equipment. Commandos and German 'marines' would also try to secure harbours. The Luftwaffe would attempt complete air superiority. Etc. Etc.
Point #1 is, sinking one nearly static barge could amount to a 100% kill on an entire battalion. Torpedo bombers away! Or imagine seeing 30 Panzers and 50 halftracks suddenly go under the waves, after a BB salvo?
#2 Bad weather also was a sincere consideration.
#3 The RAF and RN were disrupting every concentration of barges and other craft, on the French and Belgian coastlines.
The Germans could have landed, but they would have paid an enormous price, having no amphibious training/traditions, no naval superiority, and an air superiority that could be punctured due to lack of radar and longer distances to fly.
It is also conceivable that Roosevelt would have pushed the USA much closer to war, before Pearl Harbour, if Sea Lion were attempted in Fall 1940. A USN taskforce probably would have steamed to the Channel to wait to be fired upon (thus sparking the USA's 'unprovoked' entry into the European war). After all, Roosevelt wanted war, one way or another.
[ January 02, 2003, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: GroupNorth ]
-
In SC2, there should be other options to mirror the real-life problems the Axis and Allies had. In game scenarios, with this option on, various units would be considered DISRUPTED. Somehow weakened and immobile.
Several capital ships in the Italian navy simply would not leave port. After suffering a wild divebombing attack lauched by the Royal Navy, the Italian fleet did very little during the course of the war. As another poster mentioned (JJ?), Mussolini wanted his capital fleet to survive after an armistice with Britain.
The French Fleet was mostly disrupted as well, during and after the Fall of France. Units in Vichy Algeria and Lebanon were in no condition to fight either.
Soviet units deployed in Western Russia during 1941 (or conceivably in 1940) were also considered disrupted.
Trying to think of others.
-
Oops, my bad. The USA did not send 100ks of vehicles. I believe they sent somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 trucks (mostly studas?). That's my attempt to remember a lecture on a Monday morning, 5 years ago.
SEA LION?
Rommel and 1 million Germans landing in England for a 1941 Sea Lion? Well, anyone's guess is good about the outcome. Call me an anglophile, but I think:
1. The Royal Navy and the RAF would have inflicted ghastly losses on a German amphibious assault, undoubtedly much much worse than the D-Day landings. I'm thinking 50% casualty rate in the first week, which is unthinkable.
2. The Wehrmacht believed that 10 divisions (with 2 Panzer?) would be suitable for establishing strong beachheads. The problem was, the Wehrmacht had no confidence in such an amphibious gamble. They were masters of land warfare, not this.
3. Horrible intelligence reports in late 1940 claimed that Britain had several home divisions when really they only had 2 or 3 understrength divisions left and some militia. Britain would have lost all conventional battles inland, if only the Germans could secure beachheads first.
4. The Kriegsmarine thought Sea Lion was a grim possibility, but wisely contended that the RN would sink troop barges and improvised ships by the score. Divebombers and Spitfires would wreak total chaos, despite Luftwaffe numbers. But they did warm to the hype of Sea Lion, because of course it gave them more funding for the future Z-plan.
5. As embryonic plans for Sea Lion were initiated in late 1940, the Kriegsmarine's anxious counsel proved true. Any concentrations of landing craft assembled in French ports (mostly slow barges) were quickly acquired and raided hard by UK fliers. The Brits were all too aware of what was going on, with recon planes and spies.
6. Of course, Hitler had 2 alternative gambles by the end of 1940. And he took the crazier one. Thank God he didn't listen to Admiral Raeder, who wanted Hitler to seize the Canary Islands, all of the Mediterranean, as well as Egypt and Iraq. It would have brought the UK to a conditional surrender, allowing for an all-out Barbarossa in 1942-43.
-
The amount of French colloboration was shamefully high. There were many Fascists already in France, and many people happily handed over every Jew and other 'bad person' right to the Nazis. French resistance existed in the countryside and spies lurked in the cities, but it was somewhat pathetic in comparison to other conquered nations, which resisted hard.I would have executed a few million people for creating Vichy and for letting the Germans win so easily!French apologists say France simply had no choice. Others disagree, sometimes sharply. Ultraconservative Vichy was not simply a Nazi creation. It allowed the old guard in France to settle a lot old scores on their own countrymen; and to restructure France in colder, meaner ways. The Vichyians strangely believed that France would be a great new partner in the Aryan hegemony. Of course, as France was looted and its workers kidnapped, these sentiments slowly vanished.
England rightfully had little confidence in France, right from day 1, or day -1000. It might have been a different story if the English were given supreme Allied control in 1939. At least they'd organize a large strategic reserve, which obviously to their peril, the French insisted they did not need.
-
SC combat is streamlined and precise, but I imagine the sequel might have new combat outcomes and some abstracted 'tactical effects', so to speak.
Suggestions:
1. RETREAT. Often, a unit is struck in such a way that it is knocked back; or it attacks in all the wrong spots and is repulsed. A good commander would signal a momentary retreat to allow for reorg against a bad situation. This would be a new common effect. However, German units in Russia would be immune to this effect due to Hitler's strict orders.
2. BREAKTHROUGH. An attack is so fortuitous that individual enemy battalions/regiments are sliced from each other, isolated, and/or outflanked, allowing for the attacker to push forward confidently. The attacked unit (Corps, army) sustains more damage than normal and must retreat; while the attacking unit has the option to move forward, if action points allow.
3. DISRUPTION. Aside from damaging the unit, the attack strips away some of the enemy's action points and stockpiles. Unit cannot be reinforced very well.
Various units, in the historical setup, are considered disrupted in the scenarios (1939, 1940, 1941, etc..) For instance, many Soviet units were considered disrupted in Summer 1941. They were mobilized haphazardly and given bad orders.
4. SKIRMISH/PROBE. The AI checks factors and randomizes that not much happens due to mutual lack of stockpiles, command, etc...
Various other effects are simulated by starving a unit of an HQ, stockpiles, reinforcements, etc...
Research could also yield new tactical outcomes, ala Clash of Steel: Kampfgruppe, mobile defence, etc..
Speaking of COS, I'd like to see units expend action points with something like that system.
Cumulative expenditures:
Attack: +2 points
Move through clear hex: +1
Move through contested hex: +2
Hill, forest, swamp, river hex: +1
Winter hex (in Russia, from Dec-Mar): +1
Depending on how many action points a land unit has, influenced by its lack or abundance of stockpiles, a unit can conceivably be confined to doing little or doing a lot, such as press far forward and attacking more than once.
-
This is a very simple concept that could be implemented in a streamlined game like SC.
Stockpiles, in this abstract, constitute large concentrations of fuel and ammo (and various miscellaneous items regarded as 'equipment'). They are not Industrial Points, but the two are related somewhat.
1. At the start of the game, each belligerent has an abstract national pool of unassigned stockpiles. For instance, Germany in 1939 had '51' surplus stockpiles, enough for a highly intense war (using their new Panzers and Stukas) but lasting only for about 6 months.
2. Every unit, if not strengthened with extra stockpiles, is considered to be at 'normal' readiness. Such a unit, if not over-strengthened, cannot perform much offensive action.
3. Before each operational turn, stockpiles are 'allocated' to select units which will supposedly launch major actions. For instance, when the Germans invaded France and the Low Countries, they over-strengthened key units. This gave various infantry and armour units more 'action points' and more opportunities to intensify their thrusts. Realistically it allowed for river crossing, forest penetration, outflanking, encirclement, and intense, intricate attacks and barrages.
4. Nazi Germany gambled almost all their national stockpiles within a short period (2-3 game turns?), placing them in a focused areas, in order to knock out the Allies.
Whereas the Allies, on the defensive, spread their stockpiles quite evenly to units from the Maginot to Holland. Plus the Allies did not expect a very short campaign, so many stockpiles are still considered unallocated. These Allied units were also considered to be somewhat 'Confused', but I'll talk about that later.
I have to figure out the basics of the rules.
1. Each active unit (corp, army, tank, airfleet, etc) automatically drains 1 stockpile point. The computer AI drains these from the pool every turn. If the unit can't get the minimum amount of 1, then it really suffers in terms of action points, strength, etc.. and it cannot attack or move far, or move much at all.
2. Once the AI allocates minimum stockpiles, excess stockpiles are used to overstrengthen selected units. This is done by the player. Only land units can be overstrengthened, and the extra stockpile number can never be more than 2.
3. Air and sea units, while they cannot be overstrengthened, still require a higher number of minimum stockpiles compared to land units.
4. A nation's economy produces an arbitrary 'x' number of stockpiles, each turn, in addition to Industrial Points. For instance, Germany produces 285 Industrial Points and 17 Stockpiles per turn. IPs can be converted to extra Stockpiles. Or longterm investment of IPs permanently raises the monthly income of Stockpiles (i.e. an investment of 50 IPs increases Stockpile production by 1 per month).
5. A conquered nation is looted of Stockpiles. Germany of course looted France of many stockpiles which were used in the Balkans and Russia. The Allies loot half as many.
6. Strategic Bombing can destroy IPs, stockpiles, or a combination thereof.
7. Submarine warfare and maritime air superiority has the same effect, although the emphasis is more on stockpiles.
8. A player may intervene in the AI's automatic of allocation of minimum stockpiles. He can designate units as being garrisoned (static and nonintensive). These units are considered only semi-active, and drain zero stockpiles. As such, they cannot move or attack.
9. Land and air units ONLY with HQs can be over-strengthened. Naval units are exempt from this rule.
Here's my flying guess of how much it costs to 'normally' supply eachrespective unit. The AI would do this, and stockpile deficits would be randomly meted to unlucky units:
1. Corps, Engineer: requires 2 points
2. Army, Airborne: 3 points
3. Armour, Airfleet, Strategic Bomber: 4 points
Many Italian, Polish, Spanish, Yugoslav, and Russian regulars would be considered to have 1 or even 0 points at times in the game. While, in their zenith, the Germans and the Anglo-Americans occasionally overstrengthened many units by as much as 2 points.
I'll work on this idea more. It approximates real logistics without being too cerebral.
-
Great discussion!
There's so many truths here, and they can co-exist and mingle.
#1 A conservative estimate says the Russians killed 10 million out of the 13 million 'combat-related' Germans killed in WWII, however alternative estimates are no doubt higher.
#2 Without the Allied supplies and war operations from 1943-45, the Soviets would NOT have broken the back of the Third Reich so thoroughly. It might devolved into a semi-static war of attrition in Poland, mutual exhaustion possibly leading to a conditional peace in Russia's favour.
#3 The Archangel supplies were important, perhaps more diplomatically than anything. However, my readings tell me that the massive shipments via Iran gave the USSR the majority of their war imports.
Hundreds of thousands of American vehicles and American spam turned the Red Army into a mobile force that could echelon very well.
#4 Some argue that Allied Strategic bombing was useless, mainly diplomatic to appease Stalin. I totally disagree. Allied bombing, while being mostly inaccurate, still dealt Germany a horrendous economic blow. Even though German production was on the rise, it is completely evident that German production would have spiked far higher had no such bombing occurred.
A vast amount of resources was dedicated to fight the bombing campaign. Too much, it seems. Factories had to be rebuilt, then eventually placed underground with costly bunkering. Workers' homes and stores were flattened. Morale eventually fizzled as entire German cities literally disappeared in flames. Many squadrons of Luftwaffe were pinned down in the Reich. Thousands of AA batteries and millions of shells were likewise diverted away from the Russian Front. Something like 1 million (conservative estimate) German combatants were dedicated to fighting the Bombers and repairing the damage.
-
Damn, I forget the man's name, but years ago we had a visiting Canadian professor make a surprise lecture regarding his tour in Italy, Normandy, and the Low Countries.
His company was assaulted by elements of one of the Hitler Jungen SS divisions in Normandy, and he told a wild story about how some of his mates, after being captured and stripped to their underwear, overpowered (all fists flying) some of these heavily armed teenagers. Many of them were already vets from Russia.
Crazy, crazy stuff.
-
Stalin's captured nephew spilled the beans? What?
There has been a (conspiracy) theory resurfacing over the years that Stalin, indeed, was planning for an eventual attack on Germany in the mid 40s.
One Russian pseudo-scholar tooted this theory with a gob of unsubstantiated evidence. He claimed that Russia was building a massive paratroop/armour force for operations in Germany. It was all circumstantial hogwash, and nearly universally dismissed.
The basis of this conspiracy theory goes back as far as 1918-19, when Soviet spies WERE actually financing communist radicals during the instability and uprest after WWI. The Soviets gambled to Sovietize Germany on the cheap. The Freikorps were contracted to deal with the agents and uprest mercilessly. Soviet agents continued to operate in Germany for long after, but mostly for esponiage purposes.
Much later, in 1945, several surviving Nazi elites swore that Operation Barbarossa was a preventative war against a global conspiracy vs international Communism and Stalinist expansionism, as well as Jewry. Doenitz apparently went to his grave believing that the Germans were doing the good work of what the Allies should have been doing: containing, squeezing, and destroying Communism/Russia. Sounds silly to me. After all, the Germans spent the first part of the war assisting the Soviets and hammering the anti-communist West.
Of course, this all clashes with the more sinister multi-goal Ostpolitick, which was simmering in Germany before Hitler ever penned it in Mein Kampf. Hitler himself had many reasons for violent eastward expansion. But in Dec 1940, when he put plans for the Barbarossa contingency into motion, he did so mostly with the angry aim of removing the sneaky Soviet chess piece, so he could finally scare Britain into a conditional peace, or pursue the war unmolested with his east flank secure. Also, what crystallized his fateful decision was that the Soviets, in Poker-like secret meetings, told Ribbentrop they wanted to extend their sphere ridiculously far and wide, while Germany did all the fighting vs the West to facilitate this 'free' Soviet expansion (as witnessed in the Baltic states and Poland).
Anyway (breath). Has anyone read of some real history that seriously uncovers the 'supposed' Stalinist aim of the USSR getting Germany, before Germany got the USSR? I've only read the one book and it's garbage.
-
I don't know how much of a pain it would be to add an extra forum exclusively for SC2, but if it's not a big deal, I'd appreciate it muchly.
Got mucho ideas for SC2 and need a place to unload. Thanks. And Happy New Year!
-
I'd very much like to brainstorm some ideas for SC2 naval warfare. I believe the best compromise is to develop an alternative combat system for ships and especially subs. This system would be directly influenced by a more diversified, cost effective techtree.
In fact, I'm overflowing with ideas for just about everything to do with SC2! Modern wargames. Gotta like it!
My first paper and dice game was 'Divine Right' published by TSR. It was hardly a real wargame, but it was fun and steered me into the ways of the hex.
-
That's why the combat system in Clash of Steel was so loved. A player expended a unit's action points on movement and attack. Seeing that Armour in COS has 7 points, very high, it could accomplish a lot. Rommel could penetrate, attack, redirect to another flank and attack again. Each atction steadily ate the 7 points.
Whereas an infantry or HQ (4, 3, or 2 points) could often only move once, then attack, or simply expend all its points to move through a contested hex.
COS was brilliant in that regard.
-
Maybe we can translate 'Green Beret' into the Commando, or Airborne, unit. Crack infantry, with special abilities. Every major nation had them.
-
Dear Brad,
You are correct. Canada's forces, by war's end, were very large, even enormous if judged through a per capita basis. We were perhaps the most militarized Western nation in the world, per capita by 1945.
However, through 1939 to 1942, Canada's committment was not yet so substantial as seen in 1944 and 1945. PM King opted for a minimal war effort at first. In 1940, our commitment was to help guard and feed Britain, assume control of warships on lend, and begin plans for buying/making a modern navy/airforce. Many Canadian servicemen were integrated, initially, into the UK structure. Only by 1943 we were really standing out as an individual power to be reckoned with, sinking Uboats, slugging hard in Italy, and bombing Germany.
All the same, I still think in SC, Halifax should produce even more income, perhaps on a rising compound basis.
-
Thank you very much. Nice to see so many good threads and posts on this site. Yes, I'm Canadian.Group North (Canada?)Very good suggestions, you've put alot of time into your forum note. Many of us have implied the same items, but your list is the best itemized list I've seen, are you an Engineer?
Wish I was an engineer. I'm just a History BA. Like many of you, I love testing games and offering constructive feedback for games that are already good (Who cares about the bad games?).PS... Airborne ala 'Clash of Steel' would be cool beans. But that sounds like SC2 time.
-
Yes, I say decrease AND follow through with my other suggestions regarding the weakening of their power to reflect the new cost efficiency. I noted that clashes of airpower drain far too many planes and drain far too much money when you reinforce them."Decrease the cost for fighters/bombers?"Absolutely not. They are underpriced as it is,
tho the new devalued industrial tech doesn't make
them the bargain they were before 1.06 (if you
got IT cranked up to level 5).
In 1940, how can Germany organize a Barbarossa invasion force when they have to pay huge sums to reinforce their airpower after a Battle of Britain? In fact, after buying a Strat Bomber and sending air fleets to Britain and her navy, Germany essentially is throwing her production away, given the current game values and numbers.
-
SC:ET is a great game, and I was glad to see that the developer is really devoted to making it better.
I'm new so forgive any suggestions you guys already posted.
GENERAL SUGGESTIONS:
1. Air Fleets and Strat Bombers should inflict and receive slightly less damage. Not cool to see an entire Bomber unit (strength 10) die in 1 mission.
2. Air Fleets, Strategic Bombers, and HQs should be very slightly reduced in price. 10% or 15% reduction?
3. Airpower units should never totally destroy an enemy land unit, and should leave a damaged unit with a minimum of 1 strength.
4. Special rules for subs. All units should inflict less damage to them, and subs in turn should do less damage to other naval units. That way there can be an actual Battle of the Atlantic, and the Germans would be tempted to throw money at sub production with some confidence.
5. Subs should dive more often.
6. With increased sub research, a player can reinforce his subs at sea by a maximum of 1 per turn, due to innovative 'supply' subs.
7. Research points should cost 175 each. Spending 250 on research can often be suicidal.
8. The south edge of the map should be extended by one hex down, right across, to allow for a real battle of the Sahara.
9. All naval units IN PORT should automatically regenerate by 1 point per turn, since in reality crews and local tradesmen could work wonders without serious national input. Also, ships are such huge investments. It's not fun to see them all nearly destroyed by endgame.
10. Subs should inflict more damage to an enemy's maritime economy. +50% more at least?
11. Capitol cities may be fortified at a cost of 375 points.
12. Should normal airfleets be 'forbidden' from attacking naval units? When it comes to airpower, how about only bombers and ACCs can get at ships? Or maybe breakthroughs in Longrange aircraft can eventually allow for land-based longrange divebombers.
Specific changes especially for the 1940 scenario (the one I love):
GERMANY
* Gains one Strategic bomber around Essen.
* Gains 2 HQs away in Germany, but their strength is 1 or 2 each.
* Various German units should get a tad more experience.
* They start with better sub research.
* Place the Bismarck at Kiel with a strength of 4 (not ready to sail, in abstract).
* Graf Spee in South Atlantic, strength 7 (not quite a heavy battleship).
* German Luftwaffe in Norway, strength 5.
* Germany has slightly better AT research to reflect the excellent improvisation of the 88mm. (Sure, Rommel discovered it after 1940, but who cares?)
AMERICA
* Tad more research, especially in bombers, air, production.
* One HQ already in place, but strength 3. Bradley, Eisenhower or Patton?
* Gains 1 Strat Bomber, strength 5.
* Somehow give America more money income. They should in fact be receiving around 1100, but nonetheless at least a bit more is good.
* UK should receive more money income from Canada ($50 more?) to represent the enormous amount of lend-lease material flowing from the USA and Canada, through Halifax, to the UK.
FRANCE
* Gains 1 HQ, strength 5.
* Gains 2 Corps, strength 6, around Marseilles.
* Gains 1 Armour, around Paris.
UK
*With the changes to Airpower and subs, Britain should thankfully get more ships to balance things out and become more historical. Add 4 ships, place one of them (Cruiser) outside Halifax.
* 1st Canadian Army is in the UK by mid 1940.
* UK gains two HQs, 1 in England (strength 2) and 1 in Egypt (strength 5). Was the Egypt one Wavell first or Alexander?
* UK gains 1 armour in Egypt.
* Dutch forces should be weaker in strength values.
ITALY
* Two HQs should already be in place, 1 in Torino and 1 in Tripotanio. Both with strength 3.
* Add 1 Corps to Africa (strength 5).
* Add 1 Airfleet to Italy (strength 3).
SOVIET UNION
* Add 2 HQs, one near the front. Both are Strength 4 to reflect their disrupted state and the bad orders they received. Zhukov is not one of them.
* Add 2 Airfleets, placed somewhat near the front. Both are strength 4 (unprepared).
* Add 1 Corps and 1 Armour, not too far from Moscow and Smolensk.
* Already possess an extra point or two in certain research areas.
THANKS. Please, keep patching SC:ET. It's worth it!
SC2: War production
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
Some Miscellaneous Facts on historical war production. Go to the end for the big stats.
Aircraft Production by country and year:
_______1934__1935__1936__1937__1938__1939
France--600---785---890---743--1382--3163
German-1968--3183--5112--5606--5235--8295
Italy---750--1000--1000--1500--1850--2000
UK------740--1140--1877--2153--2827--7940
USA-----437---459--1141---949--1800--2195
USSR---2595--3578--3578--3578--7500-10382
NOTE: Some went for quality, while others, like Russia, went for quantity. So they might have more, but less advanced.
Share of World Manufacturing Output in per cent:
_____________1937_________1938
USA----------35.1%--------28.7%
USSR---------14.1%--------17.6%
Germany------11.4%--------13.2%
UK------------9.4%---------9.2%
France--------4.5%---------4.5%
Italy---------2.7%---------2.9%
1937 National Income, and percentage on Defense:
USA_____________$68b________1.5%
Brit Empire_____$22b________5.7%
France__________$10b________9.1%
Germany_________$17b________23.5%
Italy____________$6b________14.5%
USSR____________$19b________26.4%
Relative War Potential in 1937 (I assume this is a loose measurement of the world's share of arms each country could put forward in a major war.)
USA________41.7%
Germany____14.4%
USSR_______14%
UK_________10.2%
France______4.2%
Italy_______2.5%
Tank Production in 1944:
Germany_____________17,800
Russia______________29,000
Britain______________5,000
USA_________________17,500 (29,500 in 1943)
Aircraft Production, 1940 - 44
_________1940___1941___1942___1943___1944
German--10247--11776--15409--24807--39807
Italy----1800---2400--2400----1600
USA-----12804--26277--47836--85898--96318
UK------15049--20094--23672--26263--24461
USSR----10565--15735--25436--34900--40300
ARMAMENTS PRODUCTION (in 1944 US billions)
___________________1940____1941______1943
Britain------------$3.5----$6.5------$11.1
USSR---------------$5.0----$8.5------$13.5
USA----------------$1.5----$4.5------$37.5
Germany------------$6.0----$6.0------$13.8
Italy--------------$0.75---$1.0------
SOURCE: Kennedy, Paul. 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers'. London: Fontana Press. 1988. Pages 419 - 458.
I hope all this info can help shape the war production models for SC2.