American MPP?

[Welshwill]

No doubt this question has already been asked but.

The US production allocation during WWII was, I believe, 60/40 between Europe and the Pacific.

These figures mean that the total MPP allocation for the US throughout the war would equal 300MPP!!!! The US alone out produced the Axis in virtually all areas of industrial production. The next patch should rectify this problem and slightly increase the US allocation upon their entry and ramp up their allocation on a yearly basis. If the USSR is able to start with 480 MPP in 1941 then the US total should at least equal this by 1944 if not exceed this value. The production capacity of the USA hugely outstriped their opponents and they were virtually self sufficient in all raw materials. The current settings are historically wrong and this allows the US to play only a minor role until mid to late 43 by which time the Axis are running rampant.

[Guest Mike]

Yes, it's been discussed a lot!!

You need to realise that a lot of American production is represented by British and Soviet MPP's.

The best idea I've seen to fix it was to take 50 MPP from Russia and give it to America, and then allow lend lease in some way shape or form.

However America does have a hugge advantage - it doesn't have a lot of front line units it has to feed replacements into.

This means it gets to build a lot of research points and can get it's industrial tech up reasonably quickly.

[Mammou]

The US is set that low in order to balance the game.

BTW...the Americans DID play a minor (combat) role until 43.

Cheers,

Mammou

[Canuck_para]

Maybe it would be more realistic to have country based costs for units. ie cheap Russian infantry, cheap US aircraft and tanks, cheaper Brit ships, etc. This way you could lower the Russian total but they could still field a large army.

[Welshwill]

Originally posted by Mike:

Yes, it's been discussed a lot!!

You need to realise that a lot of American production is represented by British and Soviet MPP's.

The best idea I've seen to fix it was to take 50 MPP from Russia and give it to America, and then allow lend lease in some way shape or form.

However America does have a hugge advantage - it doesn't have a lot of front line units it has to feed replacements into.

This means it gets to build a lot of research points and can get it's industrial tech up reasonably quickly.

I will conceed the point on Lend Lease allocation to the Allies but, their is no increase in MPP throughout the war to represent the massive increase in US industrial production. Also, when the USSR is defeated shouldn't the US MPP increase to represent a return on the resources no longer being sent to Russia?

The US industrial might during WWII was one of the main factors in destroying the Axis, this is not being represented accurately within this game.

By 1944 the US MPP should be close to double even taking into account the Pacific allocation.

What in your collective oppinions were the main factors in destroying the Axis? Top five only, not in any order of significance.

1) Huge Soviet reserves in manpower and their disregard for losses.

2) The Russian winter.

3) Churchills uncompromising will to continue and the British people, of course.

4) Roosevelt.

5) US Industrial MIGHT!

[Sol Invictus]

Welsh, I'd have to say Russian blood and American treasure won the war.

[jacob lundgren]

if you can set it so countries have certain units cheaper then that is a really nice idea.

make american tanks airplanes(both) cheaper

russian armies/corps

british naval(not subs)

german subs maybe corps to represent huge amounts of german manpower used by war

of course it wouldnt be an exact percent for each.

like matbe subs are 70% for germans english naval 80% american tanks 75% russian corps 70% etc etc

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Welshwill:

What in your collective oppinions were the main factors in destroying the Axis? Top five only, not in any order of significance.

1) Huge Soviet reserves in manpower and their disregard for losses.

2) The Russian winter.

3) Churchills uncompromising will to continue and the British people, of course.

4) Roosevelt.

5) US Industrial MIGHT!

On the other, the Shadow Side, so to speak, I would add that the decision by The Raving Lunatic to commence his conquests in 1939 would be a major reason for the eventual defeat of Germany.

With their academic tradition and longstanding scientific expertise, the Germans were well positioned to be an Industrial powerhouse, and had tremendous R & D advances in the fields of electronics, nuclear energy and optics, etc.

Had they waited until 1943 or so, then many of the scientific breakthroughs would have caught up with the military necessities.

They could have done very much better on Intelligence and spying in general, but that arrogant and occultish Aryan-superiority nonsense overwhelmed the traditonal insistence on a stoic-strict empirical approach.

The Universities and Religious Institutions were cowed and cowardly, which allowed The Spirit to be mostly obliterated by a kind of Surly-Insane Obsession.

Another reason -- the failure of various fifth column movements to cohere, come up with an effective plan -- and actually achieve the assasination of The Raving Lunatic.

Finally, the "good Germans," were a little too good, in that they allowed a surge in economic well-being following the da-da degenerate and economically devastating 20s to blind them to Munich and what followed (as Kristal Nacht)... a lesson for all, even in these supposedly -- more sophisticated times.

After all, the propoganda is more devious in these Global Corporate days, though equally as blatant as what The Little Ferret accomplished for The Raving Lunatic, etc.

So the combined synergistic effects of Allied production Might and German Arrogance would be one of the primary reasons for their defeat (... perhaps there are... collective Angels of Our Better Nature watching over -- the Lesser Us, after all... ).

[Welshwill]

On the other, the Shadow Side, so to speak, I would add that the decision by The Raving Lunatic to commence his conquests in 1939 would be a major reason for the eventual defeat of Germany.

I totally agree and if their hadn't been so much infighting amongst the high ranking Nazi's then the war could have had a radically different outcome.

Will

[TrionDelta]

production was on an 80/20 scale and we still owned the japanese... NO one can say they had a chance as they did not

[Canuck_para]

Another possible solution is give the US free development of Industrial Production every year to show the increasing strength of the US economy.

[James Ott]

I think you are looking at this from the economic side. Look at it from a personnel side. Estimates are that 10 million russian military died in the war compared to 300,000 to 400,000 for the US (including Pacific theatre). I can't easily find the amount of men committed to the war by each side, but the casualty differential I think shows the dramatic difference in manpower resources dedicated to combat--which is undoubtedly included in the MPP calculation.

[Welshwill]

Originally posted by James Ott:

I think you are looking at this from the economic side. Look at it from a personnel side. Estimates are that 10 million russian military died in the war compared to 300,000 to 400,000 for the US (including Pacific theatre). I can't easily find the amount of men committed to the war by each side, but the casualty differential I think shows the dramatic difference in manpower resources dedicated to combat--which is undoubtedly included in the MPP calculation.

That is a fair point but, the MPP allocation still doesn't represent the massive industrial advantage that the US brought to the Allied cause. The level of US manpower at the end of the war was huge and if you say that the MPP allocation represents the total men under arms in the equations, what about the manpower that the US mobilized to service there industrial needs.

Will

[Sir Whiskers]

A few observations:

James - The number of men under arms in the US and Soviet forces was, US 12.2 million, USSR, 12.5 million. Keep in mind these are peak figures. The Soviet Union lost so many more men because they were the primary land power opposing Germany from 1941 on (and their disastrous losses in the initial Barbarossa campaign). The United States lost far fewer men as captured, and was also much better at caring for its wounded.

Welshwill - There is no question that the US out-produced any other country during the war, even considering that it entered the war late. What is interesting is the amount of waste inherent in the US war effort. The system for rotating replacement infantrymen into the frontline divisions was never properly established. All US units had enormous logistical tails (at one point during the invasion of Italy, the US had more vehicles in Italy than soldiers!) Also, a significant percentage of US production was used on strategic bombing, which yielded minimal results until 1944-45.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, simplified their production on a few successful models of weapons, vehicles, aircraft, etc. Wastage was considerable in 1941-42, as their forces were often retreating, but once the tide turned, the Soviet juggernaught just kept getting stronger. I'm not saying their system was superior, but it was able to inflict more direct losses on the German forces (at least until the western allies landed in France). Of course, if they hadn't received so many lend-lease trucks from the US, their later offensives would have been much more difficult, so US lend-lease acted as a "force multiplier" on other Soviet resources.

While I agree that it seems absurd to assign the US 180 MPP, UK 130 MPP, and the Soviet Union 480 (!) MPP, perhaps we should look at the result of these design choices. The Soviet Union is able to keep taking losses and come back, rebuilding army after army. It can eventually be crushed, but only with a maximum effort - as was true historically - the Germans did not devote their entire economy to the war until it was far too late. The UK can maintain operations on the periphery, but that's all. The US can build up significant forces, but only over time, and in conjunction with the British. If we want Hubert to change these numbers to reflect economic output, we'll have to (as others have said) include mechanisms for Lend Lease, Battle of the Atlantic, variable unit costs by country, and so on. These are all things I'd like to see in the next version of SC, but for now I can live with them, since the game is able to give me a good challenge as is (at least at +1).

My apologies if this post is just too loooong - couldn't stop myself.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Welshwill:

No doubt this question has already been asked but.

The US production allocation during WWII was, I believe, 60/40 between Europe and the Pacific.

These figures mean that the total MPP allocation for the US throughout the war would equal 300MPP!!!! .

As an aside this raised another point, the 'Japan attacks Siberia' switch that you can set to prevent Russia gaining the Siberian armies.

IMO, if that is set to on (ie Japan attacks Siberia), the USA should roughly double its available MPPs, the C'wealth (UK in game) should pick up another 20% - 30% (India, Aust and NZ production and forces mostly) because Japan could not have attacked Siberia AND gone south for the oil, so the Pac war would never have happened.

[Welshwill]

Originally posted by husky65:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Welshwill:

No doubt this question has already been asked but.

The US production allocation during WWII was, I believe, 60/40 between Europe and the Pacific.

These figures mean that the total MPP allocation for the US throughout the war would equal 300MPP!!!! .

As an aside this raised another point, the 'Japan attacks Siberia' switch that you can set to prevent Russia gaining the Siberian armies.

IMO, if that is set to on (ie Japan attacks Siberia), the USA should roughly double its available MPPs, the C'wealth (UK in game) should pick up another 20% - 30% (India, Aust and NZ production and forces mostly) because Japan could not have attacked Siberia AND gone south for the oil, so the Pac war would never have happened.</font>

[Norse]

No nation had a "static" military expenditure. The US expenditure increased from 2 billion $ to over 50 billion $. Germany and the others did exactely the same thing.

Two things:

1. USA did NOT start with a huge military budget or endless resources right away. They hadto carefully turn their machinery into chunking tanks and planes out, which by end of the war chunked out alot. Now, in the game, this is already simulated by that you haveto spend your MPP's correctly, and do as they did historically : Build your military up into a Giant thing (with the correct units), and then you can use what you got to hurl yourself at the Fortress Europe and succeed, if you take your time and wait for the right moment. If you attack Fortress Europe in 1942, then both USA will fail but you must also understand that the Axis does not have the MPP's to successfully make a good Fortress Europe by 1942. The Sovjet front will simply eat the Axis resources up, so what we eventually got, is the Axis leftovers vs the Anglo-American MPP's, which gives the allies a slight advantage that only keeps increasing.

2. There is also a thing that you guys ignore completely, and that is industrial tech. If you want to increase your industrial power like they did in real life, then you must invest alot on industrial tech. Eventually you will be able to buy Armies instead of Corps, at the same price. This simulates the increased growth in the military budget, by spending more and more resources on this war. 180 MPP's go a MUCH longer way with industrial tech 5 than industrial tech 0.

3. Another thing is that Sovjet NEEDS all the MPP to be able to survive the Axis onslaught. Armies after armies after armies will be killed on the east-front, and Sovjet must have the MPP's to be able to cope with all the losses and eventually get stronger than the Axis.

USA never had any such massive front in Europe, that sucked up armies after armies after armies... The western front and the east front can't quite compare in this sence. I mean, take El Alamein in Africa, that is 2 armies slugging it out against each other. In Sovjet, you can easily have 20ish armies slugging it out against each other, on each side!

If the patriotic people get their will so USA gets atleast the same ammount of MPP's that Sovjet gets, then we'll see an unstoppable tide of suicide GI's hurling themselves at Fortress Europe. There is no way the Axis can be able to survive such an unhistorical thing.

Be smart, go safe with the operations that are doomed to succeed, and you will mimic the role USA had in Europe at ww2.

~Norse~

[Welshwill]

I'm not saying that the US MPP should equal the Russians but, it should increase to simulate the massive increase in capacity and output that is a historical fact. Your right about getting the tactics right, but if you wait to long then the Germans are pulling in ~600MPP, with significant research development and the US have the choice of investing in research which is so random they might be lucky to achieve level 5 Ind Tech by the time the Axis have knocked out the Russians and are turning on the UK. Where is the fun if you are totally outclassed in all areas. Isn't it designed to simulate the European Theatre? US MPP isn't even close to simulating that FACT! if only because it remains static.

Will

[gunnergoz]

I think that SC works as a game because of abstractions like the MPP system, including the balance of points Hubert has devised which seems to bring out a very historical-looking rsult in many cases. It can be played out to a very credible likeness of history, or can be played out to something else entirely in part based upon player decisions.

As a simulation, it is way off base in many respects. Apples and oranges, so to speak.

I have to keep reminding myself of this simple difference.

[Norse]

ok, let us look at this historically as to what USA actually did, and how this is portrayed in the game.

At first they fought the German subs in the atlantic. At the beginning of any scenario, USA has atleast one battleship fleet per German submarine fleet in the atlantic, and on top of this comes the Royal Navy. So USA won't need alot of MPP's to win the battle of the atlantic.

Now you may say "yes but USA only get's 180 MPP, and UK less than that, while Axis gets 600 MPP's, so Axis can buy more subs than we can buy battleships."

WRONG!

It doesn't MATTER if the Axis got 600 MPP's, because the Russian front will eat up atleast 300 to 400 of that (as reinforcements and a new unit now and then to avoid a hole in the line). That leaves the Axis with slightly the same OR less MPP to spend on the atlantic, as the Allies do. Besides, the Allies already got a big naval advantage over the Axis subs, so unless the Axis does something fanatical (sea lion or something), then allies stand a real chance of winning in the atlantic.

Likewise, the Axis must spend MPP's on creating Fortress Europe, and that doesn't leave much left to buy subs.

Then comes the time to think of the US to put some preassure on Europe.

US sent a bomber fleet and the 9th airfleet to UK, and used that to harass the Germans. Meanwhile they spent alot of MPP's on researching heavy bombers and all that, industrial tech etc, atleast 1750 MPP's on research IMO.

That doesn't leave alot left to go invade Europe with, which is historically accurate!

When USA invaded Marocco in november 1942, they sent in SC terms, 1 corps, and 1 HQ Patton, as well as a couple battleship fleets.

In 1943 or late 1942 or so, the US sent the 8th airfleet to UK, which gave the allies more airsuperiority in western-Europe.

The war in Italy doesn't require much units either, you can send down your fleet and your aircrafts, and back your frontline units up by bombarding the Axis, until Italy surrenders (I know, easy in theory, but that was how it was, the Axis couldn't afford to send 4 or 5 airfleets down there to turn that tide).

In the meantime, Sovjet is loosing 20 million fighting men! But what matters the most, is that Sovjet doesn't HURT from this militiarilly speaking. The Sovjets had a HUGE army rolling all over Axis soil even as the Sovjets lost millions of men on single battles.

So historically speaking, the MPP's contributed by Sovjet, were much much bigger than the MPP contributed directly by the USA in the European theathre. (MPP's are not only factories, or stockpiles of oil, it is the actual war effort, and Sovjet contributed alot in human materiel and industrial materiel).

I hope I didn't hurt your American Pride if the case is that you are an American. I acknowledge the great deal of military power USA put in ww2, but in terms of SC, then this doesn't come up as a whole lot.

Let us take a look at 1944, Operation Overlord. USA bombarded with their fleets, and used their airpower (BRitain did the same) to soften up the German defences, then invaded Normady. We are talking max 6 us armies here.

Now USA have had all since 1941/42 to build up their military to prepare for this (5 armies, a couple airfleets, etc), and this is what they had and what they did historically, and honestly, that doesn't require nearly as much MPP as Sovjet and Germany needs to slug it out against each other. Remember that the bulk of the German MPP will go against Sovjet.

I don't think USA needs more MPP to portray USA's direct wareffort in this game, atleast not much. Perhaps give them 200 MPP, and Britain 160, but that would be about it. A skilled player can make USA the decisive factor as it is.

Feel free to disagree with me

~Norse~

[husky65]

Originally posted by Welshwill:

That is a fair point but, the MPP allocation still doesn't represent the massive industrial advantage that the US brought to the Allied cause. The level of US manpower at the end of the war was huge and if you say that the MPP allocation represents the total men under arms in the equations, what about the manpower that the US mobilized to service there industrial needs.

Actually the USA was running short on infantry towards the end.

However, the first point I'd like to make is that if the choice is play balance V historical accuracy, I'll take play balance.

I haven't even looked at the editor, but it might be possible there (or in a further patch) to give the USA access to Tech levels above 5 or to simply unlock an extra 100MPPS a turn every year.

[Old Patch]

I think if you feel the USA is getting shorted, perhaps they should get more "free" research points - currently they get 1 (and Russia 2) so what about 3 or 4 instead?

American production increases are sort of figured into the game in a backhand way. America is going to take minors and cities as they arrive in Europe. Ireland and Portugal are always good choices, and Norway and Sweden make an excellent base of operations as well as providing lots of MPP's. Historically I can't think of any instance of the USA using the resources and production of the areas it conquered - no Sherman Tank plants in Rome, no escort carriers being built in Brest, no P-51's built in Tunis - that kind of thing. Much like Italy, it takes awhile to get the USA rolling.

Lend-Lease aid to Russia sort works the same way. It's not overt, but once the Allies take Iraq units in North Africa can Operate into Russia (and incidentally the values of North African cities rise as well, although this benefits the Commonwealth more than the Russians). So although the Russians get no immediate benefit, a British Army group of an HQ, and several armies, corps, and/or tanks moved to the Rostov area helps just as much as a complicated set of Lend Lease rules would.