Jump to content

US Economy needs growth


Recommended Posts

what was the old saying about the War of the Atlantic. We could build more ships then they could sink! Impossible with the current setup...The UK is actually a bit too rich. The US is a bit too poor...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the map can't be changed (at least in SC V1) you could give the US more resources by giving them cities/resources larger than 10 ie 15 or by allowing the value of their resource/city hexes to increae by 1 every six months - 11,12,13,14,15. This would reflect the increasing mobilization of the US war economy.

Of course this would have to be tested for play balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US economy is not understated

A large amount of the US MPPs are already built into the numbers that UK and Russia get. That is why there is no way to transfer MPPs from one nation to another.

Thats why the UK numbers seem "high".

Soviet Union, no way, no how, should have 480 MPPs. Way too much. But, when you add in the "lend-lease" support, the new industries that were being built east of Urals (thats right, "moving" the factories from the west was not as important as we though), and the mobilizing of the economy into war footing, then it comes out about right. It's a couple of years early than it should be.

The only nation that has its MPPs way off is Italy. They should be around 60 to 80 MPPs. But, from what I understand, that number was bumped because of balance purposes.

Lastly, neither the Axis or Allies have an advantage. Thats why the Ladder "bidding" is interesting. Its not based on actual numbers, its based on perceptions. Just like the Stock Market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, it's been laid out dozens of times, the manufacture of leand-lease goods for Britain, USSR and China as well as building huge fleets in both oceans, raising enough troops to fight in both theaters, same with aircraft, pilots and support personnel for two major wars simultaneously etc. & etc..

The Game only shows the net production left over from all those other tasks.

There might even be two or three past Threads devoted to this subject. Anyway, it comes up every few months, like the Hood not really being a cruiser. :D

[ May 18, 2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JJ:

Agreed, it's been discussed. The Hood with all it's sister ships was probably closer to a Battleship being a BattleCruiser then ever a Cruiser... Just say edit it in as a 6 strength battleship and if the UK player decides to up it consider that a technological upgrade.

As far as the Soviet Union lacking in Production. Sure, but they had a Manpower pool that was unsurpassed and in a big front in Soviet Russia what mattered more? She also had great oil reserves and just lacked some modern industrialization. Those 5 years plans just hadn't bumped her up enough.. Even still many say that the lendlease wasn't a significant indicator of Russian victory in the East. I think maybe, a Huge font, with unlimited Manpower, where modern equipment didn't fair so well in rougher terrain with lots of marshes and less infrastructure. All in all, France was pretty modern in comparison. Russia was partially still in the 1800s as were the Balkans though they're ill represented in this game in #s and Production. Ploesti wasn't that rich. Cauc Mnts didn't have that many cities of value but many resources. Spain is a laugh, the French military built up in Fear of it doesn't even get an HQ.

Despite all these factors the USA was the wealthiest nation in the World Industrially and with Natural Resources that were actually utilized<with modern development> yet in this game she's sooooooooo poor it's redicilious. Italy gives her army a run for it's Money. We should just change things around to reflect Reality. Italy should never be a Super Power. A strong nation had she conquored N.Africa but NEVER a super Power. It'd taken a decade for her to come close to that and complete brown nosing of her Germany Ally...

<BTW> if US declares War before Pearl, she wouldn't have deployed the entire fleet in the East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liam

I'd just as soon see the Hood as a full strength Battleship unit. Her sister ships were cancelled before being laid down but Britain did have two other battlecruisers in WW II, Renown and Repulse. They both had fifteen inch guns but were smaller than Hood and a little slower.

On the Lend Lease issue, people are always minimizing the value it had but the Soviets made sure they used everthing that was sent! The trucks were especially useful. It turned out later that many of the Russians at Murmansk and Archangel were sent to gulags because Stalin felt they'd been somehow tainted by the foreign sailors they'd had so much contact with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LONG - Sorry

If I remember the numbers right the pacifc was getting 60% of total produced US goods until after D-day, then they started getting more. We really didn't start sending considerable % of military goods to Russia till mid 1943 (food ect... only through thier eastern ports before then).

So you for game balance the US force's and resources are Nerfed down. She starts with the smallest navy (had the #1,2 or 3 navy in the world depending on what you counted). But has a respectable army (started the war with the smallest major power ground forces).

This was done to stop a quick and easy invasion and give germany a chance in the sub war. The fact is in a histroical account the US should start with 5 chits of R&D and be given the option to put all 5 in IT, this would be as close to historical as we can get with the present system (slow building of the war machine).

The russian and english MPPs are not over stated. The english economy was global and they were reciving goods (and froces you don't get for 'free') from India to Austrilia and Iraq(!). The USSR had moved from a farm based system, to and past, the industrial revalution. In 1920 she produced less iron then germany, france, ect.., less coal, less everything. By 1935 she was producing more iron then France and Germnay combined and the same for coal mining, oil production and everything else, except food. In food russia couldn't feed herself, unlike 1914 and this got even worse when the Ukraine was taken.

The bottom line is to balance the game Hubert had to adjust down someone (USA) and shorten the Map (Alantic and eastern USSR) to give germany a chance. There is no way in this game to show the incompitance of the Russian military after the purges or the hate everyone felt for the german invaders. So what we get is short alantic and the end of russia near Stalingard. This is good but bad, making Stalingard a major battle ground if the axis reach it, but also making it a for gone loss for russia because they can't hid HQs at that point or manovor units behind the city.

There will be no last stand in Staingrad in SC - If germany can reach that far in force - USSR is done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as far as lendlease the movies I've watched and what I've read always showed that the US was pretty good at sending the staples. From what I understand the Russian military would've had a low rated Army itself in the early years<more WW1 based like the rest of the Balkans>. You remeber Enemy at the Gates, "if the man if front of you drops the rifle, the one behind you pick it up!"

USA 1vs1 with Germany with it's 1945 military and Germany's upgraded Military in the same #s. Who would have won? Well, the Americans had better aircraft and the Germans had better tanks... The combat ability??? Give or take with a little more experience on the German side... USA was rich.. Despite everything in this game she's a pawn industrially..The UK is the Major European go between and the US is just a little fist to pounch through france will...Unless you really really wait a long long time.

you need basic staples! She really stood up against the German Giant. I suppose the economic development at the cost of many lives gave her the ability come back. Didn't she rely on UK/US Rubber which is next to steele/oil the most important part of a War Machine. Of course you need coal to run your industry which is fairly abundant in most parts of Europe..especially as sizable as the USSR. West Africa and Southeast Asia excellent places to absorb Rubber... Perhaps Vichy was a backstab and and a half to their former British Allies...

As far as the Hood. It's definitely not a Cruiser!!! at near 42 tons...

[ May 18, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ONE

Iron Ranger is correct:

The UK money is not overstated, as the British still had much of their empire still intact.

Furthermore, they were a mercantile and banking superpower with the resources of Canada, Australia and

India to draw upon.

TWO

Thank you I know the US was also at war with Japan.

If half its resources are going to the Pacific, that still leaves the Americans with less than the Soviets.

THREE

The US didn’t send so much aid to the USSR that its own economy was cut in half.

The aid we sent may have meant a lot to THEM, but it was pocket change for us.

FOUR

If the large Soviet economy truly represents foreign aid, why doesn’t this income revert to the United States after the Soviets lose their cities and mines? Because it doesn’t represent that at all.

FIVE

If this was done for game balance, then it was overdone.

Despite what Shaka of Carthage may believe, this game is weighted to the axis side, at least after the fall of France—hence the bidding.

–we learn from history only that some people do not learn history

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well-Dressed

Of course you knew the United States was also at war with Japan. But you seem to underestimate the cost the United States incurred in sending so many war supplies to ALL it's allies, not just the Soviet Union. The cost in Liberty Ships alone to carry the munitions was staggering, the fact we built entire fleets of ships and ran the Manhattan Project in addition to everything else is amazing.

In the game the United States starts off with four armies which didn't exist in reality when the United States entered the war. How many armies did the U. S. actually field in Europe?

Agreed that the UK MPP total is not overstated. It's actually pretty well understated in the game as no units enter via the Middle East from New Zealand, India, Australia or South Africa as they did in the actual war.

Instead of sayng the U. S. receives too little in this game why not say specifically what you think the U. S. economy ought to be in game terms. How much should the United States be histroically represented as having expended in Europe specifically upon it's own troops, air force and warships?

A few more cities and strategic resources can always be added but at what point does it throw both the game and the historical situation out of whack?

If the game favors the Axis is it because of the small American economy represented, or other factors in the game mechanics, such as the lack of weather that would prevent an early winter invasion of the Low Countries in 1939/40 and winter weather that would help stall Barbarossa half way into Russia?

Aside from which, many of the same people who were saying it favored the Axis in December began saying it favored the Allies around February or March. Some postings say that Russia is doomed while others say the map should be moved farther west, cutting off the Urals, so Germany will have a fair chance of winning. These opinions seem to swing back and forth.

[ May 19, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My o My.

There are so many ways that you can determine what the strength of a nation is. Instead of addressing each of these "perceptions" on what is correct, instead, if anyone wants to ask a specific question as to the reasoning behind some of these things, then I'll be more than happy to go into some detail on how I got the numbers I got.

Until then, I'll just give some general comments on some of the posts I have read.

Manpower... Manpower does not equate to combat power, nor is it part of the MPP calculation. It is unlimited in SC.

Relative strengths of Germany/Soviets... after 1941, the Germans and Soviets had roughly equal manpower under thier control. Not military strenght, total population. Soviets manpower pool was not unlimited, but it was one of the only things it had left to try and stop the Germans with. By 1945, the Soviets had reached the bottom of the manpower pool.

UK was the greatest power in the world. But it had a slight problem. The bulk of its military spending was in Naval ships, for without control of the seas, the Commonwealth raw materials could not get to Britain. And within the Commonwealth (and the colonies), they had to be careful how they used the colonial troops that were out there. ANZAC did not have a large number of men. And once the units were being raised, they had to worry about Japan. South African units would not serve outside of Africa. Indian units were a concern because they were afraid that of too many of them were raised, they would fight for independence, not against the Germans. Not to mention the fact, that the Majors and higher had to be British officers. But the most important factor is that there was no shipping to get these troops from place to place.

The reason why the Soviet MPPs do not revert back to the control of the US is the same reason that when UK falls, Canada doesn't give its MPPs to the US. Its just the way the game mechanics was set up.

Divisions... I've got the breakdowns of all the combatants by year. For some of them, I even know what the to&e's where by year. Even so, this alone is not a good way of comparing the strength of one nation to another. US overall had 89 divisions (actually 180 division equivalents), but no one is going say that they were weaker than the Soviets who had 200 to 400, depending on the year.

Economic game balance... its not a matter of what I believe. I've actually spent the time and did the research to see where the numbers are coming from and compare them to other similar systems. The Axis and Allies are balanced. If France falls around the historical time frame and Russia enters around the historical time frame then the swing is towards the Allies. Until Russia enters the swing is for the Axis. The bidding is perception, not reality. What would be a fairer bidding would be for the higher ranked player to give his opponenet the MPPs.

Finally... lets get down to specifics... if people believe the MPPs are too low or too high, how about doing the research to determine what you believe the numbers should be? Then post the results. Otherwise, this is like trying to piss up a rope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detroit was in WWII

If the Soviet economy includes US aid, then why do the Germans get it after the fall of the USSR?

Does FDR absent-mindedly mail checks and packages to the same address after it falls into German hands?

The numbers I saw put foreign aid for the entire war between $40 and $50 billion.

$11 billion of this went to the Soviets. For the entire war.

The annual US federal budget peaked around $100 billion in 1945, dwarfing this foreign aid component.

However, as Shaka of Carthage points out, there are other ways to measure the strength of a nation.

The US population was large. It was patriotic. It was skilled with firearms. It was drafted.

The United States of that era was at the height of its manufacturing prowess. That was before the Japanese and others copied our auto industry. We had more of everything. Thousands of tanks. Millions of 50 caliber machine guns. Oceans of fuel. It was the Germans who were short of supplies, ammunition, aircraft, tanks and everything else.

Which makes it demoralizing to see a good German player earn $700 in Germany and $120 in Italy, while the US has $180, the UK $150, and the USSR $300.

To the people who want me to do research on this—I don’t know how to compare the price of manufacturing a product in Detroit where the employees earn union scale to a Soviet factory where the employees are paid in rubles to a German factory staffed with slave labor. If you include half the midwestern cities and oilfields, you’ll end up with something like $300, leaving the other half of the midwest and the west coast to fight Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well-dressed gentlemen

Glad you responded. I welcome the opportunity to try and explain some of my reasoning.

If the Soviet economy includes US aid, then why do the Germans get it after the fall of the USSR?
Thats a valid point. First let me address the lend-lease. We seem to be quoting the same sources so bear with me.

Total US Lend-lease....... $50,940,395,773.22

Of that, $2.5 billion went to "overhead"... money US spent that was either lost, spent on US forces or not charged to any nation. Still leaves $48.4 billion. These are 1940s dollars (to get current dollars, its about 11 or 12 times).

UK got.......... $31.3 billion 65%

Soviets got..... $11.3 billion 23%

France got...... $3.2 billion 7%

China........... $1.6 billion 3%

As soon as Germany invaded Russia, US started sending help. But here is the important part. The UK started sending US economic aid it was getting to Russia also. I have been unable to verify those numbers for the moment. Hence...

Conclusion....... UK Lend-Lease is 2.75 as much as Russias.

I did an Economic comparison between SC, High Command, Clash of Steel and Third Reich. If you are interested, here is the thread. SC Economic Comparison

Here is the MPP comparison for the 1939 numbers.

................3R..........COS........HC......SC

Italy...........60...........43........80......115

Germany....120.........120.......120......120

France.........68...........77........97.....100

UK............100.........257.......178.....178

USA..........216..........129.......476.....180

Soviets.......72..........343.......111.....480

There are a few mistakes in the analysis, and I have promised to clean it up and post it as a HTML document on the SCHQ website, but for our purposes this is good enough.

As you can see, none of the "sources" agree. So I dug into it further, determined merchant ship tonnage and who built it, got the GDP numbers for each year, got the tonnage of the raw materials that were imported and produced (mainly steel), etc, etc. Found a couple of things. The Russian numbers are very unreliable for various reasons. Even the new Russian stuff coming out has to be validated (which is hard to do). And the Allies were not above "inflating" numbers for propoganda purposes... hence you have to be careful when you use those sources (thank goodness for declassifed materials and the web).

Then I had a relevation. SC is a game. While I was determing the historical MPPs, SC MPPs were for a balanced game. And consequently alot of those historical things (like lend-lease) were abstraced in SC to enhance it as a game (ie make it easy to play).

Then some things became clear. German economy should never grow beyond two or three times its initial base (ie 360 MPP max). Italian economy once it entered the war was strangled by lack of oil (ie 60 MPP max). So Axis economy is only 420 MPP historicaly.

US economy (for ETO), even when fully mobilized (which we don't do in SC), was 350 to 400 MPPs. Remember, the US is producing merchant ships, has a higher standard of living than anyone else, giving logistical support to its troops that no one else can dream of, etc. All those things are not reflected in SC. And depending on what number I want to use, over 200 MPPs should be spent as "lend-lease".

Russia... first lets just say that the numbers are open to a wide variety of interpetations. Here is what I believe. MPPs should be around 100. Then by '45, because of the new factories, it should just about double the base number. So lets just give them 200 from the start. Even if they get the 60 MPPs from lend lease, I am nowhere close to the SC number. But remember, SC is a game, we need to look at playability.

In SC there are no Russians. They are Reds. There are no Germans, they are Greys. There are generic units, so the difference between the Germans and Russians don't exist. So the Reds need more MPPs to "balance" them against the Greys.

And that is why the Russian lend-lease numbers go to the Germans. Because its really the Reds "play balance" numbers going to the Greys. There is no historical MPP balance between the various sides.

Besides, if the Greys have beaten the Reds, the game is over. The Allies have lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well dressed gentleman

I tried to keep the other post brief, but the economic side is not something that can be explained in a few sentences.

Hopefully, when I give the short answer to your other statements, you'll understand some of the reasoning behind it.

The annual US federal budget peaked around $100 billion in 1945, dwarfing this foreign aid component.
Problem though, is that the entire budget was not spent on war materials. And even if you isolate just the military portion of it, you have to remember that in SC, all of the MPPs we get can be spent on war stuff. Impossible to figure out exactly what the US spent on the items it sent just to the ETO theater. Almost better to determine what the military units were and work backward, making sure you have enough MPPs to produce the units per a historical OOB year by year.

Which makes it demoralizing to see a good German player earn $700 in Germany and $120 in Italy, while the US has $180, the UK $150, and the USSR $300.
Its a evenly balanced game. Key word being game. Its not historical.

To the people who want me to do research on this—I don’t know how to compare the price of manufacturing a product in Detroit where the employees earn union scale to a Soviet factory where the employees are paid in rubles to a German factory staffed with slave labor
Me neither. smile.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agreed it's not historical.

The US wasn't mobilized and the lock on it's MPP is more or less to delay it's entry until a true D-day so she can buy HQs and get Air. That's all...Not a carried on War Effort for any length of time. The Armies are just staple armies there that would've been raised eventually anyways. If the Allied Player uses this it's fairly balanced. The two battleships aren't the American Fleet would've been quite numerous even with outdated dreadnaughts roughly equivelant to anything the German's could've made seaworthy to protect their Lendlease program and their transports.

The German MPP balance is fair. The fact that she is let out of the bag after Iraq/Sweden/and then Spain Portugal makes it's very unbalanced. Plus the fact that the Suez is more or less a joke to defend for the Allies...I have never met an Ally in my last 40 games that could hold it. So a larger reaction to an invasion of Fascist Spain would be ideal. Perhaps some sort of MPP punishment rather than booty. -300 and likewise with Portugal... While the German U-Boat program would've been a shocking new weapon of the times even though merchant raiding wasn't a new concept but it would've had a huge effect on both the British and US Naval efforts in the early stages before good countermeasures were put in place. It was probably far more effective than Strategic bombing and many men and ships were put on preventing the wholesale destruction of Allied transports... A ship is a metal object filled to the brim with important resources needed for a War effort. The target was very obvious unlike when carpet bombing a city...

The US would have a great advantage if her technology was on par...

The USSR is way too rich for her blood. She wasn't as economic as Germany and should be cut back down to size. Although you can find that those numerous corps they can buy and place throughout mountain forfications in the end can spell the deathnail for the Greys. You're forced to push your way to the very verge of Siberian reiforcements by 41. Then wait and build up and drive to cut them in two...that's the only way to truely win that way. So accurate or not it gives you a chance to feel it out somewhat closer to history. Perhaps a few more hexes back for a true Siberian War would help. A Soviet Resistance to the end, those partisans are a pain in the rear kinda represent Russian Manpower and hatred towards the Axis Oppressors.

I think Italy is a weakling and should half it's production, no second thoughts! She could manage to do operations with what fleet she did have but that's it. A german Pawn definitely...

If HQs were placed in Greece and Spain and the troops were reassigned to actual strategic locations perhaps things would turn out a bit different in the Balkan War instead of quick victory. That would make the fight worth it if the German's went in ill prepared. The Italians contributed with their Navy mostly and their armies are not located in the right place... their best cities aren't defended against a Gambit which is that historical? I am not sure but I doubt it. I'm sure as War %s raised the nation would've moved it's troops in a better position. Since this really doesn't count for other nations I don't think it should be instituted there..

The UK, had resources but she was near starvation in '40 due to German U-boats. She had a vast empire to police. She was strong in the beginning but quickly wanned. Her biggest contribution was being a huge sore in Hitler's arse teh whole time. Although you have to remeber though Colonial she was becoming more and more a CommonWealth anyways. Though many of those nations did put troops up with British ones. She should get better than she does. Equivelant with Germany at Fall of France... Though perhaps a U-boat enhancement so that she can't use that to destroy Germany too early.

France was wealthy but not smart. That's all. Germany should be penalized for waiting too long to attack France. In 1940 the French had the best tank in the world. They spent a lot of money on a defense grid that was missing a big potential hole...Belguim-Andenne route. With that and the mountains in the south hell, perhaps germany would've never broke through?

Regardless. She should be greater than Italy.. Significantly and likely near to Germany herself..France had an overseas Empire too. With lots of Rubber and some oil. Why don't we balance out gameplay and lock it down that the Low Countries cannot be invaded by either nation in 1939 period.

[ May 19, 2003, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here might be why there is a slight edge for the Axis, involving the cost of units for Russia and U.S. in V1.05, then in V1.06 after the patch to reduce Industrial Tech.

Ind. Technology: In V1.05 this gave each advance a 10% reduction in cost. Both USA and USSR start with L1 and L2 respectivly. I assume that these levels were picked for play balance, giving 18 and 48 MPPs rebate in base MPPs. When v1.06 came out the tech changed to 5% reduction but the tech levels for USSR and USA did not go up to L4 and L2 to keep the value's the same.

I agree.

In version 1.05, USA's units were 10% cheaper, while USSR's units were 20%.

Currently USA's units are 5% cheaper, while USSR's units are 10%.

I believe Version 1.06 wanted to modify Ind. Technology because it was so powerful and everyone was investing in this tech (level 5 could give 50% cost savings). In what I believe was an unintended change was also the reduction for the initial setups for USA and USSR.

I believe USA should start with at least level 2(10% reduction) and USSR at least level 3(15% reduction) to restore the initial play balance that was trying to be achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree that the USA and USSR need a boost in IT to compensate for the post v.105 reduction in IT effect on unit cost.

The resulting increase in unit cost per IT level is especially damaging to the USA which, like the UK, has a built in 12-40 MPP extra transport cost to bring each ground unit into combat against the Axis. Having the USA pay both time and MPP costs for transport to deploy ground units is certainly realistic, but perhaps it unintentionally further lowers the USA economic strength?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One possability for us to get rid of the bidding system and replace fall weiss would be to balance out the USA with a set payoff. In Research chits and beginning cash... just cause we can't see the cities we can create the impact in the editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka’s research is impressive. Here’s mine. My numbers:

US aid to Soviets = $11 billion over 3.5 years – say $3 billion a year.

US military budget = 25% of federal spending. Say European theatre is half that. 12.5%

US federal budget = $50 - $100 billion a year.

US forces in Europe = $6 billion - $12 billion a year.

THEREFORE, the USA should have an income x 2 to x 4 what they sent to the Soviets.

If half the Soviet 480 MPPs are from America, then the Americans deserve 240 x 2 = 480 MPPs.

Minimum.

This assumes Lend-lease is not part of the US military budget, which sounds reasonable, as these were marketed as loans.

If it turns out that lend-lease was actually included in the US military budget, then American money is cut in half, to about 240 MPPs.

Shaka of Carthage is correct that dollar figures are misleading, because some people can make things cheaper than others. This should work to the advantage of the United States, because of mass production.

Although it’s only a game, it wouldn’t hurt to make the green people more like Americans. I like the idea of putting technology and money into US coffers via the bidding system.

Maybe we should bid money on the US economy alone, rather than all three 1941 allies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be argumenative, but:

... because some people can make things cheaper than others. This should work to the advantage of the United States, because of mass production.
Don't forget something you mentioned earlier. In terms of mfg costs, I doubt anyone could produce something "cheaper" than Russia. And I would guess that because of the slave labor, that the Germans could produce it cheaper than the US.

And thats when you start to realize that Mfg Costs have nothing to do with Rate of Production. All in all, its a very complex subject that requires more effort than most people want to put into it.

To take this into a totally different direction... Read something recently in the US Strategic Bombing Survey. It seems we have alot of it wrong. This is a percentage of total war production that was devoted to air forces...

England...... 40 to 50%

German....... 40%

US........... 35%

Next largest category was ammunition, which varied from 23% to 32%. Then it was ships from 6.5% to 12%.

When is the last time that any of you spent 50 to 75% of your MPPs every turn on aircraft and ammo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

When is the last time that any of you spent 50 to 75% of your MPPs every turn on aircraft and ammo?

... when it was that the freaked and shrilly bescreaming Berserkers... were cresting the cross hexed hill!!!

Actually, this interesting observation suggests another possible complication, although...

I am FIRMLY in the camp which assumes that most, if not all the "small & telling details" of ANY wargame, are what makes that game exciting and out of the ordinary.

And now that we have (... apparently :eek: ) limitless computer power so to handle and effectively dispatch the scut-work, perhaps this next suggestion would not overly cramp the style of our less adventurous members?

***How about a separate category, possibly located on a side-bar (... we could insert several other access buttons here as well)

... which would be for SUPPLIES & MUNITIONS, and manipulation would directly effect ALL units' readiness in the various Theatres?

The more MPPs you allot to the field, the more READINESS, and of a certainty, vice versa. This would presume some Xtra supply wagons and security escort and bespectacled clerks and the like, and might be set up so that...

EACH NATION would have a separate (... and possible researchable) cost!

And so, la lo, here we merrily go, the USA could flex its Paul Bunyan sized industrial muscle, yes? ;)

I am thinking that it might be interesting and challenging to allow (... require?) each player to assume other active and quick-reactive! ROLES within the game, say, in this instance, as Supply & Munition Administrator.

Fail at that extremely critical task, and you will be increasingly hounded by the yelping War Dogs of Hell... :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had asked Hubert about initial starting for USA and USSR:

I believe USA should start with at least level 2(10% reduction) and USSR at least level 3(15% reduction) in Industry to restore the initial play balance that was trying to be achieved.

He answered:

Exactly, if you still feel it requires tweaking, this can easily be done from the Campaign Editor.

Hubert

I'm going to try some games with the above settings and see how it goes without any bidding. I encourage others to also do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...