All patch requests/ideas here (thanks)

[GroupNorth]

There's so many cries for a new patch (of course, because the game is so good). Instead of 50 different threads, how about a master thread with a sticky putting it at the top?

How about we make a list of BASIC issues, easily fixable, that might catch Hubert's eye if most people agree? Keep it to 10 issues or less.

My BASICS:

1. HQs, especially during the 1939 and 1940 setups. There should be more of them, with a strength of 2, reflecting that they are still organizing and arming. In my 1940 custom, I put in an extra Monty, Gamelin, Billote, Leeb, and Garibaldi, all with strength 2. They are somewhat removed from the action.

Or HQs should cost slightly less.

2. IRAQ, while a semi-independent state, is for all intents and purposes a garrisoned oil depot for England. Iraq becomes part of Commonwealth. This is historic and balances out the cash starved UK.

3. Stop the DUTCH GAMBIT. It's just a cheap, ahistorical trick. Or at least limit the plunder it provides the allies. There's no way the UK is going to kill the ones it has sworn to protect.

4. AMERICA. It's starting MPP income should be 400. This amount rises each turn. Example 410, 420, 430, 440, 450, etc... Okay, if they don't have a rising industry, just give em a better base to start with!

America starts with extra Bomber, Patton HQ, and 1 tank.

5. USSR. When attacked, it should have more troops in the heartland. Add 1 corps, 1 army, 1 airfleet, and ideally 1 HQ (at strength 2). Position these away from the frontline.

6. SUBS need to dive more. A lot more, as in most of the time until more research is available! They also need to inflict more MPP damage. Ideally, airfleets should not be able to attack subs. We need a Battle of the Atlantic.

7. RESEARCH. Simply too costly. Reduce price by at least 50 MPPs.

8. SHIPS. They need to automatically regenerate 1 stength point per turn while at port, for both historical and gaming cost-effective reasons.

Ideally, there needs to more ships around too. I gave a whopping 5 more Cruisers and 1 sub to UK. 1 sub to Italy. And 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, and 1 sub to Germany.

9. AIRPOWER. Airfleets and Bombers need to do less damage to each other. It is not uncommon to see an entire air unit die in one mission (with escorts and interceptors). Tone down mutual damage or slightly reduce cost of air units.

These are my Top 9 issues that would finalize SC.

[Compassion]

Nice line of discussion. don't think we are getting another patch, but some interesting points to bring out. I have comments on some of your points (mostly because it late and I need to get some sleep so I can't hit everything)...

Originally posted by GroupNorth:

My BASICS:

1. HQs, especially during the 1939 and 1940 setups. There should be more of them, with a strength of 2, reflecting that they are still organizing and arming. In my 1940 custom, I put in an extra Monty, Gamelin, Billote, Leeb, and Garibaldi, all with strength 2. They are somewhat removed from the action.

Or HQs should cost slightly less.

I have a hard time with this... Why does Monty exist in 1940? The French & Italian lack, while ahistorical adds historical balance as those figures were ineffectual so having to spend money on these figures effectiveness balances things well.

It is food for thought, though making some of the less effective leaders a bit cheaper (though that's perhaps not a good idea for the Italians or French as using them would represent a pretty major recognition of ability that didn't exists at the high levels of those militaries).

3. Stop the DUTCH GAMBIT. It's just a cheap, ahistorical trick. Or at least limit the plunder it provides the allies. There's no way the UK is going to kill the ones it has sworn to protect.

Perhaps. But the real killer is plunder. WHat's the point of it? It reflects nothing IRL... Besides, British "protection" of the royal cousins might not be as far fetched as you beleive... after all, theseare the same british that were planning on invading Norway.

4. AMERICA.

Cut out your suggestions on America as it's a subject that we could go round and round on it's own thread and I don't have the numbers in front of me... but giving them 400pts the first turn is nuts...

America starts with extra Bomber, Patton HQ, and 1 tank.

Why? Patton was a Brigadier sitting in California reading Infantry Attacks and Achtung Panzer. THere were also few tanks other than some M3's and T7's that were being tested or sold to the Brits. It would be the end of the year before large scale manufacturing started and even then it would be 1942 before M4's started coming off the lines. As for bombers... I'm afraid all you'd see in 1941 are these:

Not quite the Flying Fortress we would come to know and love... But then we did have a few around. Perhaps not a full strength unit, but maybe a quarter. Though I wonder if Wellington's and Lancaster's are 0 star units, would the US even have a bomber unit of that caliber until 1942?

[ January 05, 2003, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: Compassion ]

[GroupNorth]

Good points, Compassion.

HQs. Monty? I mentioned him in my Custom scenario, because I don't want Wavell. I place Monty at very low strength in England besides Alexander. But Wavell should more likely be in England too.

Why more HQs? Because, even outside of historicity, in terms of game balance, HQs are bloody costly. To get everyone's game going, we need more in the 1939 and 1940 scenarios, at least.

I put in 2 French HQs, although 1 is sufficient. France is destined to fall, whether they are there or not. Since France can NEVER buy them in a serious game without wild luck, they should be in. Besides their ratings are low and I understrength them to 2.

AMERICA: You are mostly right, but since the game does not have drastically increasing MPPs for America, I felt they need a boost. Please feel free to read my post on all the war production of all nations year by year.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=001877

EXAMPLE:

ARMAMENTS PRODUCTION (in 1944 US billions)

___________________1940____1941______1943

Britain------------$3.5----$6.5------$11.1

USSR---------------$5.0----$8.5------$13.5

USA----------------$1.5----$4.5------$37.5

Germany------------$6.0----$6.0------$13.8

Italy--------------$0.75---$1.0------

The USA did rearm quietly and slowly in 1937-1940, even though its defense budget is rather pacifistic (tiny fraction of a massive national income) and restricted by neutrality legislation. But by the end of 1941, they were catching up to Germany, and nearly tripling her by 1943.

All American HQs were actually active by 1942, but I figure Patton sees action first so maybe he should lead the way.

[ January 05, 2003, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: GroupNorth ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I couldn't resist asking why Monty and not Wavell.

Wavell is credited with one of the longest advances in history. He was only unable to complete the total rout of Italy in Africa because political expediency forced the British to take his troops and dump them in the lost Greek cause.

Monty on the other hand was not spectacular at Alemein, he was not spectacular in Sicily, was less than inspired in Normandy, and Market Garden accomplished nothing long term either. And Patton made Monty's crossing of the Rhine a joke.

What exactly did Monty do well?

[zappsweden]

My few proposals:

1) Make the UK corps in Alexandria an army instead.

2) USA starts with 3 chits, Russia with 4 chits i.e one more than now.

3) Slightly higher penalties for Germany attacking Vichy France and Spain since this means that Axis takes Gibraltar and Iraque too easy i.e with no real danger.

4) USA starts with higher MPP production. They could start with 180+30=210 MPP at entering the war. After they have battled for a year that should be increased by another 60 MPP (they will have 270 MPP then). This will make it tougher for an Axis trying to conquer the whole map and bringing in USA early in the war.

5) Russia should have more corps and less armies on the Polish border so that they do not lose everything already on turn one of their Axis wars.

6) The suez loop should be both ways so that allies can put some effort there without losing their entire capability later in the game. Only one return hex, though.

7) Slightly lower plunder rates but slighlty higher MPP for Axis and UK at start. One extra 10-level city for both Germany and UK. This will prevent the game from just become an Axis plunder/MPP collecting game and also make the UK player more active in the game (because he gets more cash).

If any player just thinks that this gives Allies an advantage my simple answer is that partisans, free french and siberia options can be turned on/off to make it more axis friendly. If i had programmed this game i could probably make and test point 1,2 and 3 in an hour. Point 4,5,6 and 7 would probably take one day. We are your hardcore gamers and "playtesters", would not we deserve the game to be balanced?

The play balance in this game is like a soccer penalty shot (elfmeter). On high skill levels there are seldom any missed penalties. The goalkeeper cannot prevent a good shot, he can only save a bad one. This game is even more biased than the soccer penalty shot.

[ January 05, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Jollyguy]

I'm starting to think that plunder should be reduced. Since its important to the Nazi war machine at the outset, give them another couple units in its place. Plunder is the real reason the Allies attack the Low Countries anyway. Or, have variable plunder rates. When attacking a friendly leaning minor, no plunder. When subjugating an enemy leaning minor, full plunder.

Giving the Allies HQs at the beginning doesn't sit right with me. The game is designed so the Axis can roll West. Give the Allies to many training wheels early on, and game balance is thrown way off. It' from about 1942 that we need to address the imbalance.

Starting the Russians with more corps and fewer armies at the frontier sounds like a good idea. That would allow the Russian player to patch together a line easier. A good Axis player surrounds and destroys almost all those armies as it is, if not all of them.

We would still need to address the ability of the Axis to operate a massive army West, which hastens France's demise.

[John DiFool]

Twice now I have seen people saying planes shouldn't

be able to attack subs. Well, in the actual war

they DID attack subs, but were only effective

when airborne centimetric radar (and Leigh lights)

became operational. Hence air unit's ability to

attack subs should be partly based on radar tech.

JD

[Wachtmeister]

It seems to me that the primary problem for the Allies, especially against good human opponents, is the low MPP output per turn for the UK and USA. This limitation is especially pronounced for the UK which starts with numerous high cost/high maintenence units, coupled with low MPP per turn. Throughout the game, the Allies are hard pressed make good damage to existing units, much less build new ones. Research for advanced units, expecially air fleets, is necessary and expensive, but again, the low per turn MPP rate available to the UK and USA severly limit their capability to build up a competitive striking force. If the Allies manage build a large force [assuming the Axis player allows time to do so - not likely], then they cannot readily make good the unit damage that is sure to occur in operations against the experienced Axis.

The Allies have very limited opportunity to gain per turn MPP's by taking territory, as the Axis do. Until 1943 at the earliest, Allies will be doing well to avoid a reduction in initial per turn MPP's against a good Axis player with a "West" or "Med" strategy.

Assuming that we have seen the last patch for SC, the only way to increase the effective Allied MPP per turn rate is to make units cheaper, by increasing the "at start" Industrial Technology research category using the Campaign Editor. If there is another patch, then a method to directly vary per turn MPP output would be useful.

Having said all this, SC is not seriously unbalanced. In fact the Axis AI can be defeated at Expert - Experience +2 level. However, human Axis players usually exploit their advantages much more efficiently. As a starting point it might be interesting to start the UK with IT level 2 and the USA at IT level 3, or maybe 4, since they start so late, and tweak up or down according to the observed effects upon play balance.

Adding Allied Units, such as low level HQ's indirectly addresses the low MPP output, since such units are cheaper to build up and maintain than build from scratch. However, lowered unit cost to offset low MPP output would leave the decision on what to build and when up to the individual player.

[GroupNorth]

John D,

Yes, airplanes did begin to attack subs later in the war. Aside from radar, VLR aircraft were vital for spotting them too. So radar and longrange research should allow for some subhunting.

I suppose my point is that I consider a UK airfleet to be composed of squadrons of spitfires, mustangs, lightnings, thunderbolts, rocket bombers, etc... These mass produced ones (the bulk of the RAF) weren't made for subhunting.

Nor was the Luftwaffe particularly equipped or trained to sink UK capital ships.

[Liam]

Destroyers!!!

Great convoy protectors, raiders, and support ships...

[GroupNorth]

A destroyer flotilla would be great, though it's SC2 material.

[SeaWolf_48]

North Group, I like all nine of your suggestions. And 10) Airborne troops.

The map issues can wait for SC2. Iceland and the Murmasnk Convoy route.

[GroupNorth]

Another important historical detail would be the problems associated with Allied naval action in the Baltic. The Germans had subnets and mines everywhere. After some consideration, the Allies thought it too great a risk to screw around over there. I'm using those house-rules with my buddy now.

[zappsweden]

The big problem I see is that great industrial nations USA, UK, Germany and France have too low MPP compared to the neutral countries. This makes especially USA and UK suffer since they cannot conquer whole Europe like Axis can in 1940-1942.

After the fall of France, Axis (Germany and Italy) will have at leist 3 times the MPP as the allies (UK) and that number will increase rapidly until Russia and USA joins.

THE MAINLAND VALUES (no africa colonies) for the major nations:

Russia 480 MPP

USA 180 MPP

Germany 120 MPP

France 100 MPP

UK 80 MPP

Russia has the same number of MPP that the other nations have combined!!!

The only country that benefits from this is Axis because they can occupy alot of neutral countries to compensate for these values.

Solution: Simply make UK, Germany and especially USA have some more cities to start with. The Allies will then be more active/aggressive in the game.

[ January 07, 2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[GroupNorth]

Good suggestion, Zapp, especially with more USA cities.

Just adding JFstup's popular suggestion to keep all patch ideas in this thread:

it seems that if the ussr were given 2 or 3 headquarters at the beginning of their setup, they would have a better chance of holding out as they can hardly ever afford to buy them.

[Liam]

They Assume that much of the USA's power is being used against the Japaneses. That's why some cities aren't included. If you wanted to put USA is too big a player in this game it would take the balance out. To even up the income more penalties on invading nations... Perhaps refugee Army/Airforce discount for Allied units. The Polish, Free French, and many others served in Allied Armies. Also some Jews in N.Africa. The Whole World was in a way contributing. Save Sweden and Switzerland and parts of S.America... Perhaps a Pool of Income that the Allies can draw from when the Axis hit a certian # that counterbalances their income so that it isn't won by premature Invasion of Spain,Port,Suez,Iraq,Sweden,Norway

[Russ Bensing]

Here's my .02:

VARIABILITY: I've been playing the game since it came out, and I haven't played as much in the last couple of months as I did before. One of the problems is that it gets kind of old. There are only so many main strategies to pursue, and after a few dozen games, you get into the "It's Tuesday so I have to invade Norway" routine. Solution: Borrow the variants concept from A3R. You have pro-Axis and pro-Allied variants, one for each side each game, except that neither side knows what they are or when they'll occur. You're tooling around as Germany, getting ready for Barbarossa, when all of a sudden Turkey joins the Allies. Or same situation, except Turkey comes in on the Axis side. Or the US enters with L3 planes. You could come up with about 10 or 15 per side that would add immensely to the game's replayability.

GAME BALANCE: Because of their early start, the Axis maintain an advantage in production throughout the game. By late 1942 they should be getting nearly as many MPP's as all the Allies combined, and are better able to use them because they've usually reached L4 or L5 IT at that point. In reality, the Axis should have an advantage in the early years, but the tide should slowly turn as the US and USSR gear up production, eventually overwhelming the German military machine. Solution: Eliminate IT as a researchable tech. The Germans and UK start out at 1 in 1939, go to 2 in 1940, and stay there the remainder of the game. US and USSR enter at 2 in 1941 and go up 1 each year. Italy and France are at 0, and stay there. That, more than anything else you do, will accurately simulate the production of the various countries throughout the war.

NAVAL COMBAT: As anybody who's played HOI knows by now, the idea that you can use the same combat engine for both land and naval combat is whack. There's a world of difference between the two. Your chances of finding an opposing army corps in 50-mile-square (hexagonal?) area are 100%; your chances of finding an opposing sub group in the same area are remote. Even finding an opposing surface group, absent air support, isn't a sure thing. Solution: Go to a sea zone system, with losses through relative attrition rather than direct combat. Eg: Allies have 2 fleets and one carrier in same zone as one German sub. Sub loses 3 points, Allies 1. Except neither side knows what the other has in the zone. Losses affected by research in sonar and subs. Same for surface combat, except deadlier, and losses affected by research in gun-laying radar.

STRATEGIC WARFARECompletely broken, but relatively easy to fix. Solution: Strat bombers attack resources, even if there's a unit on top. Fighters can't attack resources. Make subs cheaper, and introduce another sea unit -- escorts -- which are cheaper than cruisers. Subs cost Britain MPP's just as in game now.

I've got some more, but let's chew on these for now.

[Kuniworth]

Russ - Interesting, you are absolutely right that axis should decline late in the war.

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Russ - Interesting, you are absolutely right that axis should decline late in the war.

Not in absolute terms, but in relative terms: they should be declining by 1943 at the latest, and probably by mid-to-late 1942 the Allies should be outproducing them.

You also need to introduce some changes to victory conditions: you don't want a situation where the game is over, one way or another, by 1942. You could do a major/moderate/minor victory split, with a combo of conquered countries, time, and resource points.

[Jollyguy]

I'm beginning to think IT should also be hardcoded. Or, perhaps that research area is verbotten for the Germans and Italians until the Russians and Americans join.

I also like Russ' variability idea..."wildcards." We need more variability of play, more variability of of readiness, so people can't figure out the script, and paint by numbers.

Also, I'm beginning to think that research should be something on the order of 4,3,2,1,1 rather than 5,4,3,2,1. Possibly even 3,3,2,1,1. As it sits now, the Russians are hit with level 3 and 4 tanks and jets right off the bat. That's a hard one to overcome. If we don't get even more research slowdown, then give the Russians more money and units, perhaps through lend-lease.

The Americans need more mpps, no doubt about it, and the Brits a bit more in Egypt

As to Russ' random events. I wouldn't allow the players to pick them, at least not the major ones. Through gameplay some would become known as better than others, and people would gravitate toward them. Instead, like the old gameshows where the tv audience is given the answer, but not the contestents, at the start of each game each opponent would be alerted to something like, "In January 1941 pro-British elements will sieze control of Iraq," or "In March 1941 Uncle Joe will put down his bottle of vodka, get a moment of sobriety, and order an immediate mobilization and declaration of war on Germany," or, "In May 1941 German U-boats will sink American destroyers; limited American entry releases navy for escort duty, and mpps allowed to build naval units or be applied to research until America fully enters war." Each side would know his wildcard, or wildcards, and could plan accordingly, but the other side would be clueless.

I think Hubert pretty much knows that we need a bit more work on the Axis mpp imbalance. Possibly also a bit more research slowdown, but if readiness was increased overall, this may not be as much of an issue. The problem is the Axis get conquer the entire board, get ahold of all that plunder, and build a massive force backed up by up to 800 mpps per turn.

I'd like to draw more attention to Russ' idea of random wildcard events, which would tie in well to increased readiness overall, especially when the Axis becomes overly aggressive and attacks ahistoric minors.

But one thing we're overlooking is Hubert has said SC 2 will include a Russian winter. You slow those Germans down for 3 or 4 turns, almost totally blunt their offensive capability while allowing the Russians to marshal their forces, while the Western Allies are also building up, and maybe game balance is directly effected.

I have a feeling some of our ideas will be incorporated in SC 2, some unnecessary, as the new game engine will be an entirely different model.

[pzgndr]

Something I've suggested for IT is to have different growth rates. For example, US and USSR could have 10% increases while everyone else has 5%, but historical data could be used to realistically tailor these figures for each nation. And I would have US and USSR enter at L0 and have maximum room to grow. Let Germany and Italy start out at L1. That would provide them an early advantage, but would limit further growth and provide the Allies the catch-up bonus needed for a quick advance. The Axis would have a tough time deciding if it is worth researching IT early or not. To compensate for entering with lower IT levels, US and USSR could start with more MPPs, perhaps further adjusted based on political triggers.

The goal is to better simulate the historical capability of the US and USSR to significantly expand their economies and eventually surpass the Axis. It was a race against time for the Axis, and that needs to be modeled in the game. For replayability, I'd prefer that this be kept as a random research area and not hardwired into the game. Players could then decide how much emphasis to place on IT growth. IMHO, the whole resource and production model needs tweaking, and IT research would just be a part of all that.

[GroupNorth]

Good discussion.

WILDCARDS: of course, more variables and option make for more replayability for sure.

NAVAL COMBAT: I assume we're talking SC and not SC2? For SC, I'd just recommend more restrictions on subspotting, more sub diving and retreating, etc... Using suspension of disbelief, I just assumed a Cruiser force was really accompanied by several escorts and such. Escort Destroyer flotillas and hunter/killer doctrines would be SC2 material.

STRATEGIC WARFARE: Completely broken? No, that's not wholly true. Strat bombers already attack resources. But Fighters shouldn't be able to attack resources, but yes to cities and ports.

However, Strat Bombers should not suffer such enormous losses. In the game, it's common to see a bomber squad suffer 60% to 100% losses in one turn.

Get rid of Industrial Tech research? No way! That's a real-life form of research which the Soviets and Germans in particular pursued.

Should the Germans naturally decline in industrial input in 1943? NO WAY. By the end of 1943, their armament spending went from $6 billion to $13+, even higher than the Soviets, and it was climbing for a bit even after! They went into Total War mode, gaining far more resources from switching from a consumer economy to a military one, as well as investing heavily in their war factories. So it's the job of the Anglo-Americans to bomb some of this extra production away.

[arby]

Originally posted by Jollyguy:

Also, I'm beginning to think that research should be something on the order of 4,3,2,1,1 rather than 5,4,3,2,1. Possibly even 3,3,2,1,1.

I think lowering the initial figure is a good idea. You shouldn't have L4 tanks or planes in 1941. In fact, you shouldn't have them before 1944.

As to Russ' random events. I wouldn't allow the players to pick them, at least not the major ones. Each side would know his wildcard, or wildcards, and could plan accordingly, but the other side would be clueless.

I wouldn't even do that. Hitler couldn't plan in 1939 for Iraq having a pro-Axis coup in 1941, so why should you? All of the variant events would be ones which could have happened during the war, so they have to be planned for, just like the participants did. But you don't know if or when they're going to happen.

[arby]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

The goal is to better simulate the historical capability of the US and USSR to significantly expand their economies and eventually surpass the Axis. It was a race against time for the Axis, and that needs to be modeled in the game. For replayability, I'd prefer that this be kept as a random research area and not hardwired into the game. Players could then decide how much emphasis to place on IT growth.

See, here's the problem I have with that: it really isn't a decision. Let's pretend that you have a choice at the beginning of the game to make any technology L5. If you said anything besides "Industrial Tech," you get to be the captain of the Dummy Team this week. Investing in IT isn't a choice, it's a necessity. Have you ever played a game where that wasn't your No. 1 priority? Even after they changed the research rules so that it costs 50% to switch, and cut the benefit from 10% to 5%, I still dump 5 chits into IT as soon as I can. It's a no-brainer.

[arby]

Originally posted by GroupNorth:

NAVAL COMBAT: I assume we're talking SC and not SC2?

No. I'm talking SC2. I think Hubert's taking SC as far as he can; better is the enemy of good. Further effort would be more wisely invested in SC2.

However, Strat Bombers should not suffer such enormous losses. In the game, it's common to see a bomber squad suffer 60% to 100% losses in one turn.

I haven't seen them suffer those sorts of losses, and I'm not sure I'd want to reduce that.

See, my philosophy is that a strategic war game should demand that the player make strategic choices. Strategic bombing was a choice: the US and UK invested substantial resources in that, resources which they could have invested in other areas. Right now, an investment in strategic bombing -- investing in the tech, building bombers -- really isn't a wise choice for the Allied player, for a number of reasons: the damage which can be inflicted is negligible in light of the investment demanded, and the alternatives (early invasion of continental Europe) are more rewarding.

I haven't addressed the latter point yet, but as far as the first one is concerned, I'd implement the rule that only bombers could attack resources, including ports and cities. This is historically realistic; you didn't have P-47's bombing Hamburg. I'd enable bombers attack the resource, rather than the unit sitting on top of it. I'd have bombers inflict more damage than they do now, but take about the same amount of damage. (The damage taken recedes substantially as the bombers gain experience.) If these changes are implemented, then you can easily have a situation where strategic bombing is costing the German player 100 or more MPP's a turn. As it stands now, I've never seen a German player respond to strategic bombing by trying to defend with air units. If he's losing 100+ MPP's a turn, he will. He will also need to invest in AA. Incidentally, I'd change AA a bit. Right now, increased AA means increased losses for bombers. I'd retain that to a much lesser extent but make it so that AA reduces the damage the bombers inflict. If those changes are implemented, then I think Strategic Bombing becomes a more feasible option for both players: the Allies are more likely to pursue it and the Germans are more likely to pursue steps to defend it.

Get rid of Industrial Tech research? No way! That's a real-life form of research which the Soviets and Germans in particular pursued.

See my comment to Bill about this. I just don't think that IT is really an "option," in the sense that anybody has to think about it.

Should the Germans naturally decline in industrial input in 1943? NO WAY. By the end of 1943, their armament spending went from $6 billion to $13+, even higher than the Soviets, and it was climbing for a bit even after!

This is true. What you are trying to model here, though, is not the actual defense spending of Germany, but the relative production -- in terms of arms and manpower -- of the various countries. As it stands now, by 1942 Germany has about 600 MPP's and is at L4 or L5 IT. That means that it's outproducing all of the Allied nations combined, and will continue to do so for the rest of the war. That is not historical. My suggestion would model the situation just about exactly: it would give the Germans the early edge, and then slowly allow the Allies to overcome it.

[ January 09, 2003, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: arby ]