Economics in SC--Exactly right!

[EB.]

It should be pointed out that SC has the perfect presentation of economics in terms of the relative productive power of the major countries. Exactly right! The Soviets really did have more production than the Allies--they really did have that many more MPP's. How many people have whined that the game does not properly reflect the "industrial giant" and "arsenal of democracy" which we call the US. Well, plainly stated, the US did NOT do very much in the war. Hollywood movies and Lend-Lease propaganda aside, the US effort was rather minimal throughout the war. Basically, the US did not produce much or fight much in the war. That is real history. They entered late, took forever to land in a real theater of war (North Africa and Sicily / Italy do not qualify), and only entered France when the Germans were already mostly defeated. At the time of D-Day (which we always hear about), the Soviets were launching a huge offensive in Byelorussia (Bagration) which completely dwarfed the US effort. But we NEVER hear about Bagration. In France, the US basically fought old men, little boys, and Eastern European political refugees (Osttruppen) who cared only to surrender as fast as possible. The German soldiers always wanted to surrender to the US rather than to the Soviets because they knew that the US would treat them nicely and not punish them while the Soviets would give them some deserved payback. Bottom line--US really did NOT do very much in the war, and the game reflects this perfectly. Thank God for that.

Original US sources are very candid about these facts. The original US plan was to create about 250 divisions. (In terms of scale, the Soviets fielded over 500 divisions in the war, though the sizes are not identical.) However, despite the best efforts of the US government and industry, and despite all curses and exhortations by FDR and his staff, the US in the end only coughed up about 80 divisions, and many of them admittedly not even fit for combat. As our dear Harry Truman so skillfully demonstrated while in Congress, there was gross, rotten, and scandalous corruption throughout the entire US military production system. Outright thievery at all levels of the process, without exaggeration. We do not want to admit these things now because it is politically incorrect, but it is still true. J.Edgar Hoover set the new political line in US history when he stated "we don't care about what really happened", meaning (I think) that the US should be given credit for victory even if the evidence does not support this.

There are some games which are equally realistic in terms of the economic balance (like Clash of Steel). Then there are some games like High Command, Third Reich, or Axis and Allies which get it totally wrong by grossly exaggerating US military production.

We must be thankful that the creators of SC got it so right. World War Two was for the overwhelming part fought and won (and lost) on the Eastern Front. A realistic game must reflect this fact, and the first step in this process is the economic balance. Strategic Command gets an A+ grade on this test.

[BlueMax 1939]

you have a hearty amen on that one...i think that anyone who looks at the casualties from WWII will quicly see that this was a war that was won on the eastern front...games like axis and allies are so imbalanced towards US production that only the most novice of players can lose with the allies side (this is my experience anyways). facts are the US let the germans and russians bleed themselves white and then moved in to 'win the war' so to speak. the russians had tried to get us to land in france MUCH earlier then we actually did...great game; and i agree full heartedly with the prod levels, although haveing a bigger map of the US would be nice (and of course afrika!)

[Jeff Heidman]

Wow, stright out of 1970s era Pravda. Congratulations, do you still have your Young Pioneers card? Even the Russians don't believe that garbage anymore!

Let us know when you do some serious study of WW2, economics, and such. Wars are not one by getting vast numbers of your own soldiers killed.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by EB.:

Original US sources are very candid about these facts. The original US plan was to create about 250 divisions. (In terms of scale, the Soviets fielded over 500 divisions in the war, though the sizes are not identical.) However, despite the best efforts of the US government and industry, and despite all curses and exhortations by FDR and his staff, the US in the end only coughed up about 80 divisions, and many of them admittedly not even fit for combat. .

Every US divisions, once you count non-divisional assets, was roughly three times the size of an equivalent Soviet division. For example, every single US Infantry division ahd, as a matter of course, more tanks attached to it than a German Panzer division. Just one example.

The Soviets at no point ever had 500 divisions in the war, or anywhere close to it. They never fielded a Navy to speak of, and every modern historian understands tha massive impact lend-leas had on the Soviet economy. I suggest you go read some actual hisotry, instead of Soviet Cold War propoganda.

Jeff Heidman

[Sol Invictus]

I agree that the war was won in the East but I think you are underestimating the impact that America had on the war as a whole. The fact that the Russians won by using their soldiers lives rather than the U.S approach of using material, shouldn't detract from the effort that the U.S made. The U.S was also fighting a major war in the Pacific and captured more German soldiers in N. Africa than the Russians did at Stalingrad. I think the problem arises when Tech is added to the mix. It is very difficult for the U.S. to achieve the tech levels that were historical and Hubert has stated that this is a problem and will be changed.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Sol Invicutus:

The U.S was also fighting a major war in the Pacific and captured more German soldiers in N. Africa than the Russians did at Stalingrad.

Sure it was so! since they much preferred down home harmony & grits in Peach Blossom, Georgia than bitter-root and scum out of the witching pots out in The Gulag, ya?

[Sol Invictus]

Cheese grits at that. Who wouldn't surrender.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EB.:

Original US sources are very candid about these facts. The original US plan was to create about 250 divisions. (In terms of scale, the Soviets fielded over 500 divisions in the war, though the sizes are not identical.) However, despite the best efforts of the US government and industry, and despite all curses and exhortations by FDR and his staff, the US in the end only coughed up about 80 divisions, and many of them admittedly not even fit for combat. .

Every US divisions, once you count non-divisional assets, was roughly three times the size of an equivalent Soviet division. For example, every single US Infantry division ahd, as a matter of course, more tanks attached to it than a German Panzer division. Just one example.

The Soviets at no point ever had 500 divisions in the war, or anywhere close to it. They never fielded a Navy to speak of, and every modern historian understands tha massive impact lend-leas had on the Soviet economy. I suggest you go read some actual hisotry, instead of Soviet Cold War propoganda.

Jeff Heidman</font>

[Zeres]

facts are the US let the germans and russians bleed themselves white and then moved in to 'win the war' so to speak.

-------------------------------------------------

Sounds like a good strategy to me! Let the Fascists and the Commies duke it out in the East. We really didn't have a dog in that fight. Are you honestly saying the American strategy was less honorable than the Russians because fewer died? I'd say that American strategy worked out pretty well for them!!! "save our boys.....bomb them to hell!!!" and all that. If for nothing else, the free world can thank us for our bombers...And their bombers!!!

[Norse]

Originally posted by Sol Invictus:

The U.S was also fighting a major war in the Pacific and captured more German soldiers in N. Africa than the Russians did at Stalingrad.

Now you are telling only half the truth! Nasty nasty so now it is my duty to tell all the truth

First of all, the Germans at the Stalingrad-pocket surrendered at 31st january and 2nd february 1943, while the battles in Africa lasted for several years (during which, axis soldiers continously surrendered, as is the course of war). You cannot seriously compare several battles, to one "half" of a single battle, to prove that the Sovjet's didn't do ALL that much?

I belive you are only counting the Germans that surrendered on the 2nd February, this is wrong, count them all!!

To compare, I think it is much fairer to compare one battle to another. Let us take the battle in N.Africa that ended axis presence there, where the axis troops surrender in Tunis.

Ok, so for the battle of Stalingrad, the Germans alone lost over one and a half million men. 91.000 of these Germans surrendered in the "pocket" in january and february, and about 4000 returned home alive. IN ADDITION, the battle of Stalingrad also destroyed the 3rd and 4th Rumanian and the 8th Italian armies, each between 100.000 to 200.000 men in size.

In Tunis, the Axis forces stood with their backs against the sea, and when the allies broke thru their lines then they had nowhere to go to regroup. Men and mice surrendered, and the allies took over 200.000 prisoners. This ended all axis presence in Africa, while the Germans still had millions upon millions more fighting in Sovjet.

How much did US send? They send the 2nd corp, that's right, a corp. Of course it was backed by the Pattom HQ and some sweet fleet The Brits sent a corp of their own with Alexander HQ to assist Pattons invasion of Morocco, and they also had Montegomerys' 8th commonwealth army there, fighting Rommel.

So we got, 2 corp, an airfleet in Gibraltar, navy in escort, an army, and three HQ's (and I'd say a tank army too, but that's just me). It was these allied forces that managed to defeat the axis army and africa corp defending Tunis, which had airsupport operating from Sicily.

I don't quite understand how you are comparing this to millions upon millions who fought, surrendered and died at Stalingrad, not to mention that both sides still had millions of millions more fighting on in the area (I am not excaggerating, open a book and you'll see).

I think the biggest impact the US had in the war, from the European Theathre point of view, was the mere presence. With the US in the war, Germany hadto start thinking about "Fortress Europe" as early as in 1942 as they now opposed a powerful enemy that held the initiative. This detracted a concentrated German effort on the eastern-front. When the US attacked Italy, their main goal was disallow the Germans from continously building up their military defences in western-europe. Invading Italy forced Germany to send a couple units that way, units that otherwise would have digged in somewhere useful.

Or to put it in another way, without US at all in the war, the units would go east instead. The US presence made them go west and dig in, and wait for years, instead of doing active combatduty on the east-front. Let me remind you, that by D-Day, the outcome of the war had already been decided. Germany now fought for it's excistance, not for victory. Best they could hope for was a stalemate.

~Norse~

[ October 15, 2002, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[Edwin]

EB- You seriously trivialise the importance of Lend/Lease and the effect of US troops from 1942 onwards. If the USA never entered the war or supplied Lend/Lease Britain would never have been able to hold on to North Africa or mount a European invasion. In addition, if Axis forces were not tied down in North Africa/Italy they could have been used on the eastern front. That said, no one in their right mind can disagree that Russia won the war for the allies by tying down over 160 Axis divisions. Hitler should have studied Napoleon.

Every US divisions, once you count non-divisional assets, was roughly three times the size of an equivalent Soviet division. For example, every single US Infantry division ahd, as a matter of course, more tanks attached to it than a German Panzer division. Just one example.

Reality is that the Russian army of 1942 fielded 4.5 million military personnel on the western border, in 1944 they had 5 million men in infantry armies alone. Divisional figures - USA, infantry basic unit 15500 men. Russian equivalent 9500. US infantry divisions were never formed with Tanks - that said, once in combat tanks were frequently assigned - but not hundreds of tanks. US armoured division had just under 230 tanks. German panzer division had between 150 and 200 tanks.

Finally, I do not think Russia has too much MPP. However, I do think that the USA should be able to contibute more. Personaly I would like to see some representation of Lend/Lease

[dgaad]

In 1944 there was a Fuehrer Conference in which US production was discussed.

An officer of the Wehrmacht had been in charge of an office studying Allied economics and war production. Since we have a record of this conference and the document presented, we now know that these figures were almost completely accurate. For example, the report stated that in 1943, the United States, alone, produced 40,000 aircraft. This number exceeded the total of all German aircraft production since Hitler came to power ten years earlier in 1933.

By the end of the presentation, most of the circle of the Fuehrer's advisors were alternating between furtive looks at the Fuehrer and outright laughter. It was the opinion of the Fuehrer and his ruling circle that this particular Wehrmacht officer had gone insane or had fallen victim to Allied propaganda.

The officer who made the presentation was severely disciplined. His figures were accurate, the Germans simply could not concieve that they were.

[ October 15, 2002, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[Norse]

I think what we are discussing here is what MPP's actually represent.

Is MPP representing the raw production power that each nation posess?

Or is MPP representing the actual military effort the nation contributes to the war?

~Norse~

[arby]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Wow, stright out of 1970s era Pravda. Congratulations, do you still have your Young Pioneers card? Even the Russians don't believe that garbage anymore!

Let us know when you do some serious study of WW2, economics, and such. Wars are not one by getting vast numbers of your own soldiers killed.

No, but they are by killing the other guy. And the Russians did helluva lot more of that than the Americans did. I remember reading somewhere that for every German soldier the Americans killed, the Russians killed twenty. Won't vouch for its accuracy, but I'd bet it's not far off.

I disagree with the general attitude that the Allies' production, especially that of the US, is grossly undervalued in the game. MPP's represent more than industrial production, but manpower as well. And, as I mentioned once before, there's a political component to that aspect as well. Russia could afford to lose 20 million people, both demographically and politically. It's doubtful that the US could have afforded to do so demographically, but we sure as hell couldn't have done so politically. If we'd suffered anywhere near the horrendous casualties the Russians did, Roosevelt would have been impeached and we would have withdrawn back into Fortress America. The game forces the Western Allies to be much more cautious about committing their forces, which replicates exactly the real situation.

Where I disagree with the original poster is that while the economic model might be roughly correct, it does not produce an outcome that is correct. When the Allies win, what almost invariably happens is that the Western Allies mount an offensive in France, while the Russians cling for dear life in Moscow or even the Urals. The war is won on the Western Front; if the Russians can mount a counterattack at all, it is because the German player has had to bleed off most of his units on that front.

I think the reasons for that are varied -- lack of a winter effect, air power, the way units gain experience -- which don't have anything to do with the economics. But I don't have much problem with the economics themselves.

[Jeff Heidman]

I am not going to question teh economics, simply because I think they are too abstract to really judge.

BUt the idea that the USSR could lose 20 million "demographically" is false. By 1945 they were literally out of men to throw into the line units. They had started drafting 16 year olds the year before. The Red Army in 1945 was an immensely powerful, but immensely thin, force. It was literally at the end of its rope. When Truman abrubtly cut Lend-Lease, Stalin had to engage in a crash demobilization in order to keep the nation from starving to death.

Why is this important?

Because it shows that despite the apparently overwhelming vicotry on the Eastern Front, the war was a lot closer than it appeared. The Western Allies certainly did not lose the men that the USSR did, nor did they kill nearly as many Germans as the Soviets did. But their contribution was invaluable to the war effort, and probably made the difference between total victory and a nasty stalemate and negotiated peace on the Eastern Front that would have left vast portions of the USSR under German control. And, of course, resulted in another massive conflict some years later once both sides were able to regroup and re-arm.

The demographics are critical to understanding how the war was fought and won. Right up until the end the Red Army was taking MASSIVE casualties. They lost more men taking Berlin than the US lost in the entire Western Front.

But modern war is not about killing men. It is about destroying your enemies resources faster than he can replace them, and more importantly, not having your own destroyed faster than the enemies. Both Germany and the USSR were using resources faster than they could be replaced, i.e. their war efforts were long term unsustainable. In fact, every major combatant with the exception of the US was in a position of declining resources by the end of the war. We won because Germany declined faster, not because the USSR had an inexhaustable supply of men, they didn't.

So, take away the Western Front. Take away North Africa, Greece, Norway, France, Siciliy, Italy. Take away the Battle of the North Atlantic. Take away the Strategic Air Capmaign. Take away Lend Lease. Take away the bulk of the food the Red Army used for food post 1943. Take away 90%+ of the Soviet rail system. Take away ALL of the high octane av-gas that the Soviet Air Force was exclusively reliant upon the West for. Take away the 50,000 trucks that moved that food and ammunition. Take all that away, and then tell me that there would ahve been no change.

Tell me how a Red Army that was out of men to feed into the meat grinder come May of 1945 could have won that war without any help, when it was a close thing WITH all the help they did get.

Tell me how many divisions a U-Boat equals. Tell me how many 88's would have been pointing East without the day and night bombing. Tell me what percentage of the Luftwaffe was defending Germany instead of shooting down Il-2's.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by arby:

No, but they are by killing the other guy. And the Russians did helluva lot more of that than the Americans did. I remember reading somewhere that for every German soldier the Americans killed, the Russians killed twenty. Won't vouch for its accuracy, but I'd bet it's not far off.[/QB]

No, modern total wars are won by making the other guy run out of resources before you do.

There is this idea that beating Germany was simply a matter of killing X number of Axis soldiers, and without US help that just takes a little more time. That is simplistic and incorrect.

Because it ingores teh fact that your soldiers are getting killed too. You win by making the other guy run out of soldiers (or resources in general, human bodies being one of them) before YOU run out of soldiers.

Bot the Germans AND the Russians lost men faster than they could be replaced. The Germans just ran out before the Russians did, but it was a very close thing.

If you graph the casualty rate throughout the war, the Germans pretty much dominated the Soviets in casualties per unit time. But if you look at the derivative of the casualty rate, it becomes clear why the Soviets won. They lost men faster, but had more men to lose, and were able to build up faster, evne while the "pool" of untapped resources declined at a precipitous rate.

Jeff Heidman

[EB.]

On what Russians believe today, it is in fact the case that Soviet patriotism is making a strong comeback as the population sees what disaster the democratic reformers have created. If you do not believe this, then you obviously do not travel to Russia. Stalin, for example, has the highest popularity now than at any time since his death. Ordinary Russians have exactly what one could call the "unreformed Stalinist" view of history, especially concerning the war years. You will of course not find this opinion popular among the Mafia businessman or pro-Western intellectuals of non-Russian ethnic origin. The traitorous self-hatred of the Gorbachev years has been incrementally replaced in the minds of Russia by healthy patriotism and a refusal to repeat the lies of Western propaganda any more. This is the political reality in Russia today. Stalin statues are popping up all over the country, pro-Soviet books, newspapers, and pamphlets being produced constantly, the Soviet hammer and sickle red flag is now again the official battle flag of the Russian army, and the old Soviet national anthem has returned--Putin has changed the words, but everybody still sings the old words from the 1950's anyway. Now all of this is not speculation but real fact. So, the fellow who says rather flippantly "not even the Russians believe this garbage anymore" is completely ill-informed. No offense but you are offensively wrong.

Now on the Lend-Lease issue. I have studied this in the greatest detail, including reports and documents which you obviously have not researched. Bottom line is that US Lend Lease aid to the Soviets was grossly exaggerated. Here are some very general points:

1. scale--US aid to Russia represented a tiny fraction of Soviet production--Soviets produced 95% of their own equipment and supply during the war years

2. low quality of US equipment--US models of fighters and tanks were so low quality compared to German equipment that in many cases the Soviets simply refused to use the equipment and left it in warehouses--Soviet troops referred to US equipment as "coffins"--instant death in combat

3. relative quantity--the US by comparison sent THREE times as much aid to Great Britain as to the Soviets--Great Britain's contributions to the war were rather minimal, so it is silly to suggest that sending one third as much to a bigger and stronger USSR had any significant impact

4. accounting dishonesty--on a scale worse than worldcom!--the US counted its aid not by amount sent but by PRICE--and they very conveniently increased the stated price (and thus value) of their crappy equipment to make it seem that they were sending a great deal--for example, at one point a worthless Grant tank was considered as worth a few of the far better T-34 Soviet tanks

5. more accounting dishonesty--US counted the amount of aid SENT, not the amount received--much of the aid was lost, stolen, or disappeared during transport due to local corruption or German subs and air power

6. the aid was not free anyway--the Soviets paid for the aid received and after the war returned much of the US equipment unused

Patriotic Russians today know that the Soviets won the war almost singlehandedly. The old US propaganda lies are not believed any more, and this trend is likely to continue.

[pzgndr]

I'll throw my 2 cents worth in. Over the past couple of weeks I've played 3 games as Allies against the AI on Intermediate +1 settings and saw a fairly decent ebb and flow of events with the tide turning around 43 and Allies winning in late 44 or early 45. Rapid industrial technology advances can significantly skew the MPP picture on both sides (and hopefully the proposed research tweaks will fix this), but here are some general comments:

1. Some way to jump-start the US early would be helpful, either with at-start MPPs or more research points or higher IT. Hubert has already commented about bumping this up some, but not too much. If the US takes its time, it can be tough during the end game. Commit it too early and take heavy losses, it then becomes a struggle to regain initiative.

2. Some way to slow the USSR down in the later stages. I've ended a couple of games with over 2000 MPPs in the Russian coffers because I reach a point where I have enough forces and don't need more. It just becomes fantasy, like building instant Russian battleships in Prussia! Suggestions I have made include scorched earth applied to Russians to simulate rail conversion problems going west, eliminating plunder for conquering activated Axis minors to limit excessive MPP gains (just consider them part of Germany), and limiting builds to home country to delay getting units to the front.

Once the tide turns and the Russian steamroller starts gaining momentum, it grows by leaps and bounds while the western allies are continuing to fight on a fixed income. Liberate France and the Low Countries and get zippo! The endgame is usually ahistorical with Russians overrunning most of Germany and meeting up with the Allies on the Rhine, not the Elbe. As pointed out, the Russians were struggling with resource problems by the end of the war - which is not something you see in SC. We could easily limit Russian MPPs in 44-45 with the above suggestions without hurting the game. They'll continue to grow, just not so fast.

Disclaimer - I realize this is based on AI play and some human play can be much different. But my general comments should be relevant nonetheless.

[Sol Invictus]

Norse, I certainly didn't mean to equate the Russian effort at Stalingrad with N. Africa; only trying to refute the charge that the Western Allied war effort had no impact on the total war effort; which is just silly.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by EB.:

Patriotic Russians today know that the Soviets won the war almost singlehandedly. The old US propaganda lies are not believed any more, and this trend is likely to continue.

Like I said, keep your Young Pioneers bage polished, because you are surely a model citizen for the new Soviet State, Pravda and all.

Keep telling yourself how important you are, and how unimportant everyone else is. It will surely make you feel ever so much better.

Troll.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

Hey EB, maybe later on you could tell us about how the Soviets shot down 4500 US planes in the Korean War! Or maybe how the Katyn massacre was a German plot to discredit the Soviets!

All sorts of fun to be had digging up and regurgitating Soviet era propaganda!

Jeff

[James Ott]

IMO the MPPs are meant to reflect "combat power" as distinguished from production capability. This would include men employed as well as tanks, aircraft, etc. Also IMO, the best way to determine the relative combat power of the various allies is to analyze the casualties caused by each ally. It is difficult to segregate the casualties caused by the western powers of the UK and the US, but when you compare the casualties infliced on the western front with the eastern front, then there is no argument that the Russians had a many-fold greater impact on the war. In fact, the Germans received over 8 times as many casualties on the eastern front than the western front (including the German invasion of France).

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">

Losses per theater

Theater Dead

Africa 16.066

Balkans 103.693

North 30.165

West 339.957

Italy 150.660

Eastern Front (- Dec 1944) 2.742.909

Germany (1945) 1.230.045

Various 245.561

Total 4.859.056

</pre>

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by James Ott:

IMO the MPPs are meant to reflect "combat power" as distinguished from production capability. This would include men employed as well as tanks, aircraft, etc. Also IMO, the best way to determine the relative combat power of the various allies is to analyze the casualties caused by each ally. It is difficult to segregate the casualties caused by the western powers of the UK and the US, but when you compare the casualties infliced on the western front with the eastern front, then there is no argument that the Russians had a many-fold greater impact on the war. In fact, the Germans received over 8 times as many casualties on the eastern front than the western front (including the German invasion of France).

That would be true, if it was relevant.

But again, wars are not won by killing men alone. They are won by destroying resources, men are just ONE type of resource. The "impact" cannot simply be measured in men killed. War ahs not been that simple since, well, war has *never* been that simple, actually.

How many men are in a U-Boat? 70 or so? Does that mean that sinking a U-boat is only as significant as destroying 2 infantry platoons?

If I shoot down a FW-190, does that count as equally significant as a single soldier getting killed?

Of course not. The Eastern Front was the decisive front of WW2, no doubt. But the rest of the war, and the contributions made to defeating the Axis by the West, were both significant and necessary to the desired outcome. The Eastern Front was a fight of brutal attritionist warfare, measured in men and tanks destroyed. The Western Front was just as brutal, but fought in a different manner.

This dismissal of the efforts of the West is both offensive and unfair to them men who gave their lives trying to halt the tyranny of Hitler and Mussolini.

And, of course, all this ignores that minor little spat that the US fought, basically alone, with Japan, where the Soviets didn't bother to even DoW, much less actually fight, until they snatched up some territory for themselves after the US had crushed the Japanese.

Jeff

[arby]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

There is this idea that beating Germany was simply a matter of killing X number of Axis soldiers, and without US help that just takes a little more time. That is simplistic and incorrect.

[/QB]

It certainly is, but you seem to be taking an inordinate amount of time refuting an argument that I didn't make. There's no question that the Allied efforts in the war contributed mightily to the ultimate outcome. Yes, victory definitely depends upon forcing the other side to spend more resources than you do.

But that's essentially the point. Germany devoted far more resources to the Eastern Front than it did to the Western Front. Yes, if you take the US out of the war, a Russian victory becomes problematic. But if you take Russia out of the war, an Allied victory becomes impossible.

I'm not arguing that the American contribution was inconsequential. But many people here are under the impression that, to be historically faithful, America should be getting about 500 MPP's by mid-'43 so they can crank out as many planes, tanks, ships, and troops as it takes to crush the Nazi menace. Well, that's not how it went.

[sogard]

However arby, the USA ought to be producing MORE than a constant 180 MPPs throughout the game and that is the point.

The game can be made more Allied friendly, once you understand how it works, by invading Portugual early, invading Ireland when convenient, invading Norway when the Germans focus their intentions in the east, then occupying Sweden -- gets the Brits up into a more respectable range which gets even better when Iraq gets invaded by the Axis or the Allied take it out.

But, does much of this make sense within a World War II framework?

It may be fun; but, where is the WW II connection?

I think it is fair to comment when the game rewards play that is very counter intuitive (and we have not taken up the idea of disbanding wholesale units to remake the Armed Forces of a given nation as the gamer likes). It is the sort of thing that makes computer geeks feel good; but, drives a gamer who has a historical viewpoint batty.

[ October 15, 2002, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]