gorski Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Give USA 2 fighters and 2 strat bombers that cant be moved or disbanded. You could place them at the edge of the map in the ocean. Gorski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Originally posted by gorski: Give USA 2 fighters and 2 strat bombers that cant be moved or disbanded. You could place them at the edge of the map in the ocean. GorskiIn 1941 the ConUS had a similar number of frontline combat a/c as the UK (I don't have figures for 1940) - the US doesn't need to be made stronger, they were not ready for war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 My guess is this has to do with the initial strength of the US forces and the possibility of the gamey early invasion. I know that this has been brought up before in other threads, but I would wait for the Gold Demo since I have added a few special rules to majors that will make such invasions much riskier and most likely unattractive although not impossible. I think the small tweaks should solve the problem and thus not make it necessesary to overstrength the US since it is true to a certain degree that they were not all that prepared for war. The tweaks should also take care of Italy as well. Hope that helps, Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Thanks, Hubert. If you are reading/posting, things must be getting into the last stages. That is very good; the wait is nearly over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorski Posted July 14, 2002 Author Share Posted July 14, 2002 Thanks Hubert. I guess I should just wait and see for now. Everything I bring up has been changed for the gold already. Gorski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polish Bruce Lee Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 remember that the usa had to fight two side in the war, so we have to assume that the MPP is split in two, so dont say that they need more units or production point, i know your not now, but someone will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 How accurate is the US MPP production at 1941? I don't think 180 MPPs is an accurate reflection- as the US provided vast amount of materiel to Britain and Russia. I think the US should get an initial MPP of 1500 in reserves to reflect the industrial strength of the US. I guess just edit a campaign. The way things look right now, Germany does not have to fear the US if it is a pursuing a Britain first stratagem. Also, this would make ermany more careful of trying to take out neutral nations with the US joining looming. Yes the US was not prepared for war in 1941 but gez, it had the industrial capacity that surpassed Russia during WW2. Any thoughts or corrections on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Originally posted by aesop: I think the US should get an initial MPP of 1500 in reserves to reflect the industrial strength of the US. Yes the US was not prepared for war in 1941 but gez, it had the industrial capacity that surpassed Russia during WW2. Any thoughts or corrections on this?Its hard to translate US capacity into MPPs (not knowing what Hubert based his figures on), but in 1940 the US produced only 331 Tanks/SP guns (not light tanks or tankettes). 1941 4,052 1942 24,997 1943 29,497 (Total US Tank prod = 88,410 - Total USSR Tank prod = 105,251). In 1940, all that industrial might was not devoted to war, the USA had to convert it to building weapons rather than cars and fridges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Yes, but you are forgetting ships, planes, ammo, supply, etc. Any thoughts Hubert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Remember that much of the US production is off fighting in the Pacific, and so not available for a european war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 There was a Germany first priority and the US focused more of its industrial production for Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Follow-up to my post - I think there should be a gradual upscale where industrial production increases for the major countries. (to reflect how thier industries grew from 1940-45)But the game is almost ready to be shipped. A formula should have been made to reflect historical levels of MPPs produced for each site. Well, maybe for SC2. Also routing major units should reflect captured materiel/equipment with a certain amount of MPPs going to the victor - say for example- corps 5-7 MPPs, army, 10-15 MPPs, tank 14-18, HQ- 25-40 MPPs, not applicable to ships or planes though. Well I guess another thought for SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Originally posted by aesop: Yes, but you are forgetting ships, planes, ammo, supply, etc. No, I'm not forgetting them, I just used tanks as an example, US production had to be ramped up in all of the areas you quote. The Germany first policy did not mean that all resources were immediately devoted to destroying Germany, a lot of resources went to defending the USA, then to containing the Japanese advance, then to attacking Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Any thoughts Hubert?It's really a matter of play balance, and the current amounts play out very well within a reasonable historical range. The income values could have been handled in a variety of different ways, but as a design decision I just went with the current setup. What you get in the end is a pretty good simulation of production, build-ups and delays that result in a good proximation of the actual situation as it were. Of course, these values can be tinkered with in the Campaign editor, but as far as how it's balanced within the full game itself right now, I would think it's safe to say the 'Beta Boys' and I have not had any real problems. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts