SC2 - Proposed Options for USA Neutral and Active

[Edwin P.]

Neutral USA

I would like to see a Neutral USA able to allocate lend lease support between the UK and USSR:

Option1: UK 50 MPP, USSR 0

Option2: UK 25 MPP, USSR 25

Option3: UK 0 MPP, USSR 50

Of course, the USSR option would not be available until the USSR enters the war and only if Germany does not control Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Active USA

I would like to see an option where upon the entry of the US into the War the Allied player can influence the timing of the Siberian transfer by selecting the American Strategy for fighting WWII:

Example:

US Selects one of 3 American strategies upon entering the War:

1. Europe First - No change to Siberian Transfer.

2. Peace with Japan - No Siberian Transfer, US Production Doubles

-- With the US abandoning the Pacific to the Japanese the Russian forces must remain in Siberia to deter any Japanese invasion of Eastern Russia. Meanwhile the strength of US forces aimed for Europe grow rapidly unburdened by the need to wage war against the Japanese.

3. Japan First - US Production reduced by 50% for 1 year, Early Siberian Transfer.

---Russian commanders feel confident in summoning their forces from Siberia as Japanese forces struggle to hold back the American onslaught. The strength of US forces available for aiding its European Allies is limited for a time as the Americans focus on defeating Japan before turning their attention to Europe.

Active USA - A Bit of Chrome

If USA entry into the war is Dec 7,1941 or later I would like to see it announced by a pop-up box that declares

"Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, USA prepares for war"

Neutral USA

The USA should not enter the war as long as the the Allies control France and England and Spain & Turkey are Neutral.

[ March 31, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Liam]

Well, I'll indorse this one. Plus Worldwide more affordabe Tech/Industrial Tech... As America would've produced many of these for the Allied powers who didn't have the capability but the money. And tech would've overrun into the Friendly Democracies, naturally... When US Joins so does much of the Americas which even at the time were a very huge portion of the World's Natural Resources and Industry.

On the flipside, if Russia Falls the Germans should get a bonus from Japanese Technology and Resource Aide. The Japanese would've definitely aided their Axis Partners at such a point where they were so "well-to-do" and no USA threat nor USSR<Japan would've DOWed Russia and occuppied Far East>, who wants to see the Uber Colonials back in Asia again?

Sadly most of the Iron used to build the Japanese Navy probably came from the USA.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin P

And what would you do with the existing "lend lease" that is already built into the UK and Russian production?

[Edwin P.]

Shaka of Carthage

I would allow the Allied player a choice in how to allocate it.

Example:

Option 1: 100% UK, 0% USSR

Option 2: 70% UK, 30% USSR

Option 3: 50% UK, 50% USSR

Option 4: 30% UK, 70% USSR

Option 5: 0% UK, 100% USSR

Of course this option could make the war for the Atlantic more important for the Axis as the Allies might decide to devote all Lend Lease resources to Russia (most historically unlikely), of course this would severely weaken the UK while strengthing Russia.

[Skanvak]

Why not just have the possibility to set the level of Lend Lease?

[Shaka of Carthage]

Ok then, lets think this through. While I did the exact calculations awhile back (and they are posted if someone wants to look up "economic comparisions") I'm doing this from what I remember.

UK production will be reduced by about 40 MPPs.

Russ production will be reduced by about 180 MPPs.

US will go from 180 MPPs to 400 MPPs.

Campaign game that starts in '39, would have UK with about 75 MPPs, Russ around 180 MPPs. Germanies 120 MPPs is ok, but Frances 115 MPPs is way too much. But worry about France another time. US has 400, which would please the "Go USA! USA!" crowed, but can't use any of its MPPs until a little later, say somewhere in '40.

Typical game, Germany does its thing and by early '40, has 300 or more MPPs. US activates, and gets to decide where to spend 220 MPPs as Lend Lease.

Germany has no reason to delay a '41 Barborossa, unless it is mopping up some neutrals or trying to take the Middle East (if it hasn't already). But we now have a strange condition. Sealion sure looks attractive, especially because UK is on a tight budget, and hasn't had enough MPPs to replace the losses its sufferred so far. So Germany launches Sealion and unlike the historical one, it is almost a guaranteed success because Air is the dominant factor in SC. Spain now joins the Axis, if it hasn't been invaded already. Then Germany turns its attention towards Russia.

And despite how many MPPs US Lend Leases to Russia, its over.

Thats the kind of game you want?

What I was trying to point out, with what Mr H has done in the economic design of SC and its MPP allocations, is that the game is geared for a big showdown in Russia (like it was in real life). So Russia, the US and UK MPPs are all based on playability, not reality. So you can't give the player control over Lend Lease, because it destroys the design, which destroys the playability.

And while you could give the player control over small MPP amounts, allowing them to be transferred back and forth and calling it Lend Lease, its what designers call "chrome". It may be pretty, but it does nothing. Mr H decided to not bother with it (which also reduced the amount of software code he had to write).

So while SC2 may add "Lend Lease", I doubt the amounts are going change the playability balance between the various nations. And bloated software does no one any good.

[Edwin P.]

Excellent analysis.

[jon_j_rambo]

Screw the Lend Lease. Here's a better option: After the Fall of Berlin, let Patton take over supreme command of Allied forces in Europe & drive the commies back to the Urals.

[Skanvak]

I don't understand why the UK income should be diminish.

Anyway, the UK income is too weak. UK's world wide empire is not well represented, and from invasion of LC, it get acces to the NEI ressources that are huge at this time. Until Japan actually attackk all UK ressources where used against germany. Which mean that in the early stage of Barbarossa it was the UK that help the Russian.

So in a LL option UK income should be increased no decreased IMO.

Rambo,

That will require 3 (or more) players. But why not, that would be interesting.

[JerseyJohn]

Skanvak

Those are a lot of excellent points. UKs main problem was just finding enough able bodied young men to serve in it's army -- by 1944 they were really hurting in this regard.

The had a lot of imports, you're right, from Belgian, Dutch, Danish and French colonies. Their main manufacturing problems were in u-boats not only sinking ships with incoming goods, but other ships with export goods that were often supposed to be turned into a final product and returned to Britain. In short, the more ships were sunk in either direction the more it hurt the UK war effort.

It would be pretty hard to reflect this in game tems especially as the Battle of the Atlantic is one of the weak points. In an odd way the low UK MPP production reflects the losses never achieved through U-boats in the actual game.

[Skanvak]

JJ,

I agree, the battle of the atlantics is not well depicted. That could be improved.

[JerseyJohn]

Slanvak

One of the big areas we've discussed many, many times. I'm anticipating Hubert will have done a lot in that area and also in better reflecting the effects of weather (Russian Winter, Amphibious Landings only in warm months etc. ...). I think we'll be pretty surprised when SC2 comes out -- of course if none of those things have been improved that will also be a surprise, of sorts! :eek:

[Edwin P.]

I am hoping that in SC2 that Germany can decide (at the start of Turn 1) which major European pro-axis power will join the Axis (instead of Italy);

1. Italy - the strongest possible ally for Germany and the historical one.

2. Spain (lead by Franco's Fascist government) - You gain access to Gibraltar but its production is less than Italy's and it has no naval units to speak of. Selecting Spain makes any invasion of Egypt or Iraq almost impossible.

3. Turkey (still smarting over the loss of territory after WWI)- interesting option that opens up Southern Russia & Iraq to invasion but it is isolated from Germany until the Axis minors join and lacks Italy's industrial production and strong navy.

I know that Spain and Turkey did not join the Axis, but in a game of What-Ifs it would be most interesting to see what would have happened if Germany had devoted its diplomatic muscle to drawing one of those two into an alliance instead of Italy.

[ April 03, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn is exactly right as to why the UK MPPs should not be increased because of the Commonwealth.

[JerseyJohn]

Appreciated Shaka -- a lot of what Hubert set into this game makes more and more sense to me -- I even get frightening thoughts that he was right about most of it all along! :eek: :eek: