US handicapped?

[Logan Hartke]

I played as the Allies and had the US join historically. I was barely able to get enough money to get up the Italian boot by Jan. 1945. I had no money to spend on ships, fighters, heavy bombers, let alone an invasion of N. France, S. France, and Lend Lease. Is it just me, or should America get more MPPs? It just seems odd to me that the USSR earns 3x as many MPPs normally as the US. Look at this...

US economic advantage

I'd agree with this. I think that the US is also way too small in the game. At least stretch the US to IL if not TX. I'd stretch it as far as the Atlantic coastline goes. Also, South American countries helped the Allies a lot in the Atlantic war and in Italy. Brazil was an ally that helped the US greatly. Any one else have thoughts on this?

Logan Hartke

[JerseyJohn]

Yes. The American economy has come up very often and the topic of an invasion of North America was done pretty well in an October Forum called North America , which was started by -- guess who?

Regarding the U. S. being too small (it's size on the map doesn't seem to have any relevance to anything) -- if you mean in terms of military power, you'd have to consider it starts off with major army and air units it hadn't actually raised till long after Pearl Harbor. Presumably they're there to discourage an Axis invasion prior to U. S. entry.

Also, Gross U. S. production would have to include the Pacific War, Liberty Ships, convoy escorts and war goods manufactured for the specific purpose of being shipped to Britain, the U. S. S. R. and China.

Good issues and a good article. Thanks for posting it.

Before adding anything further I'll go back and read those earlier related forums because they were pretty detailed. They're maybe twenty pages and full of info. I'll see if I can find the best ones and list them for you.

[ December 19, 2002, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

I agree with you, The US has a hard time in making any units. I feel that making the US have 300 of MPP's minimum would be more realistic. I have a hard time even winning being the Allies, and they won the war, never winning before 1946.

[Logan Hartke]

Thanks, but no Jersey, I meant in size. I noticed this playing as Germany and building a huge fleet with which to invade the US. They built up a huge stockpile of money (over 1000 MPPs) but had no way to spend it as all available hexes were occupied and I ruled the waves. Although this was the AI, it presented a problem for me; where would I land?!? I had to blast a hole in the coastline w/ about 2 dozen German and Italian carriers just to land one tank division. I love the hex system, but I almost wish that there was an exception to the hex rules in the case of an amphibious invasion on non-urban/harbor hexes.

Logan Hartke

[JerseyJohn]

Exactly. That's one of the things a lot of us have been fighting to change -- having Canada and the U. S. showing in the Atlantic the way they do. It throws everything out of whack. A real map of the area -- which I post in my North Atlantic forum and will transplant to this posting, shows how impossibly far the distances are. Even Hitler realized this and only considered a North American invasion as being feasable after conquering Europe.

That was the only time he'd be able to build the required navy for such an undertaking, and he knew it.

[ December 20, 2002, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[BriantheWise]

I think the game designer intended the US to serve as, what I would call, a tilt factor.

If you are playing the Allies correctly, as soon as the US joins, the following things are ensured: 1) Britain will stand (with all it's research), 2) Russia knows help is coming, 3) The British can begin to invade Irag, or Norway (which is what I used to do).

In theory, though I have not played live against someone to this point in the game, the US can land and take a part of France. Just enough, to drain German resources away from Russia. Then it becomes a counter punch.

Not to be critical, but one of the things I would have liked in this game is that the Neutral/Soon to be allied countries have an opportunity to do peace time activities, like research or army building or lend lease. This has been discussed, probably ad nauseum.

As it is, yes, the US seems weak. But it's a balance. They don't get bombed, don't really need to defend against anything, and can just build. Now, with 1.06, there's beginning research. So the US can send an army or two over to England, if necessary. If not necessary, save for an HQ, and then bonk on France.

Even playing against axis +2, it's not to difficult to beat the Axis. But that's the AI. Can't wait for the tournament.

just my thoughts.

Brian the not very Wise.

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed. To me the U. S. economy as shown is valid if the United States is also fighting in the Pacific. If not, it should be at least doubled. If there's no longer a Japanese Empire to keep track of it should be tripled, but in that case the U. S. would already have huge forces that just finished fighting in the Pacific.

Not that they'd be particularly keen to go on fighting in Europe! In 1945 large numbers of American troops being retrained to fight in the Pacific after Germany's surrender developed extremely low morale. It never came to a head due to the dropping of the A-bombs, Russia's entry, and Japans surrender.

Unfortunately, the way the game is presently set up, if the A. I. has the allies the U. S. is easy meat for a good Axis player. Even if he doesn't invade it (a truly absurd possibility in the actual historical situation) he can still build enough U-boats in France to sink anything between the Bay of Biscay and Ireland, including American ground forces which make a beeline for England. Naturally, a good allied player isn't as easy to manipulate, but it's still rough for him.

I don't think there's any alternative to changing the Atlantic mechanics.

[ December 20, 2002, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer39]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I don't think there's any alternative to changing the Atlantic mechanics.

There is always SC2 All your points are excellent JerseyJohn. I for one hope SC2 will be global so that the player will be able to receive the full weight of US industrial output and be able to decide what resources go where. A Global SC2 would also make the USA harder to invade, open up North Africa to its full potential, and possibly give the Russian Siberian army something to do while they are waiting to be transferred.

[Panzer Cmdr]

I second that Panzer39, to do a true World War 2 strategy game we need the whole world (and good looking/more varied counters to got to war on it).

Hopefully Hubert does not think he gets to have the holidays off, everyone else have a Merry Christams / Happy Holidays.

Ok, Hubert you too...

[Hueristic]

If you are playing the Allies correctly, as soon as the US joins, the following things are ensured: 1) Britain will stand (with all it's research), 2) Russia knows help is coming, 3) The British can begin to invade Irag, or Norway (which is what I used to do).

I'm definately playing them wrong in one of my games then. Because USA has joined but Russia still hasn't. SO tell me how i have played the allies wrong to make this happen?

[SeaWolf_48]

Very true Hueristic.

The late time I play as the allies, Russia didn't join until June '42, and by then Germany had 6 Panzer Armies, and 10 Air Fleets. They slottered the Ruskies. I'm playing ver. 1.06 with Mod campaign for 1939 though.

Has anyone won with ver. 1.06 as the allies? I haven't!

[satchel]

Seawolf, how is your ’39 campaign modded?

I am curious to see a game in which the US joins before the USSR.

[Tommy Joad]

I am currently playing a PBEM game with Rambo in which the U.S. joined before the U.S.S.R. But he had invaded both Portugal and Spain. The U.S. readiness went up rapidly after that but the U.S.S.R.'s was realitivly unaffected. But I agree that the U.S. economy seems a little underpowered (even with the assuption of war in the Pacific).

[ December 20, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Tommy Joad ]

[viper_ss]

I think I'm just an average player but I have found the game pretty balanced. I admit I've only played 1 person and the AI the rest of the time but I have never lost as the Allies. In a matter of fact, I have never gotten past mid-44' with the Allies. I have yet to play +2 against the AI, so I'll try that later.

I think in order to win with the Allies, you cannot follow the historical path. You need to invade Iraq, Portugal, etc. Side strategies help give you the base MPP boost needed to counter the Axis. I could be wrong, but maybe a lot of players are taking too passive a stance as the Allies (waiting for the US, ect.). I think if you play the Allies actively (I don't mean launching monster offensives in 41') with little probes here and there, you will be much more successful.

[Gunslingr3]

I am curious to see a game in which the US joins before the USSR

Last night, playing 1.06 as the Axis in '39 I had the USA jump in two turns before the Soviets.

I rolled Poland, after which France invaded the Low Countries. This kicked U.S. desire for DOW back down to 0%. I then hit Denmark and Norway on successive turns. Once France fell the Italians were in and I turned them on Greece. Germany went with Sea Lion and just before taking Manchester the U.S. jumped in. Russia went Allied just after Spain elected to join the Axis. I let Italy take Yugoslavia once they joined the Allies. Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania stayed out of the conflict. Finland joined once I surrounded Leningrad, but even after the Russians surrendered the other Balkan powers sat out. Settings were for random entry, did they sit out because Italy took Yugoslavia?

[JerseyJohn]

Panzer39 & Panzer Cmndr

Thanks for the good word -- can't take credit for the ideas as it's all really an evolution of numerous forum suggestions, at this point I don't which are really mine, but thanks all the same.

Here's hoping your support of the suggestions, along with things like weather and Russian Winter turn up in SC2.

Agreed also that Hubert has no right to holidays or leisure time unless he does so with a clipboard and a calculator and a map! Which I suspect he does in any case.

If we can't go global, I suggest the abstract suggestions put forward much earlier by Immers Etwas put forward in the -- North Atlantic Forum, concerning the Murmansk Run and Battle of the Atlantic be seriously considered. They were very good ideas and the best part is they appear to be easily adaptable to this game system.

[ December 20, 2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Panzer Cmdr:

Ok, Hubert you too...

Thanks!

Hubert

[Jeff Gilbert]

Granted I have NOT yet read all the November postings on the USA production topic however, at first blush, the impression I get from some of the arguments [discussions] are:

the US production is at its current level due to, "War in the Pacific", "building Liberty ships, convoy escourts and the production and shipping of war goods to the UK & USSR"

Obviously, this all makes sense ... until ...

If the UK is kncoked out of the war and Germany / Italy rule the Atlantic ... all these US materials are being lost [abstractly] due to no one to ship to.

Question 1: Should US production [MMP] be increased if the UK is out of the war?

Question 2: If the US is going to be penalized with low MMPs due to all the "give aways" they did, shouldn't they receive their full MMPs and decide for themselves who to ship it to?

Okay, before anyone gets a chance to shoot too many holes in these questions ... I am now going to go read the prior thread.

[JerseyJohn]

Jeff Gilbert

Right on the money. Makes sense unless . . .!

The U. S. economy isn't flexible. I don't know if it can be within the game mechanics.

No doubt this is a difficult area of the game and Hubert has my sympathies, more so each time I examine these and the myriad of other issues people are discussing so often.

On the one hand he wants to keep it simple but on the other hand, when you have things like Germany and Italy invading America something's got to be changed. If nothing else I'd suggest a one way gate -- if such a thing is possible -- where Axis surface ships and transports can't enter heading west. That would stop all chance of the Axis invading North America and would shut me up on this topic -- I promise, Hubert!

[ December 23, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hubert Cater]

JerseyJohn, Jeff Gilbert, you are both right on the money. The US production issue is an old one, and a tricky one to implement from the game design point of view. This will be something that I will address for SC2, basically to make the economic relationship more clear and flexible, and to deal with the invasion USA issue as well.

Problem is, as you can imagine, that there is only so much that can be genuinely considered during the design phase and all points of view and circumstances are difficult to cover with inevitably some being missed entirely. In general, I think the next release will be much better off based on everyone's feedback from SC1.

Thanks!

Hubert

[JerseyJohn]

Hubert Cater

Thanks for the good word. I'm satisfied and eagerly await the next step. As good as the initial product was I'm sure V 2.0 will result in some really great things!

[ December 23, 2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Jeff Gilbert]

Hubert Cater,

Thanks for the prompt reply.

Go ahead and take a Christmas break, have a few egg-nogs, relax ... come January 2003 ... back to work!

Again, thanks for a very enjoyable game.