Edwin P. Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 In a future SC2 patch I would like to see the game engine account for the effect of the War with Japan on the USA war effort; 1. After Japan surrenders USA production should double, along with its build limits. 2. If USA decides to remain neutral, and not embargo Japan thus not triggering an attack on Pearl Harbor, then American war production should double. This would allow it to send more MPPs to the UK. Possibly allowing the Alleis to secure victory without the America having to enter the war. This would be implemented by: August 1941 - A Decision Popup asks if the USA wishes to embargo Japan. --If No Then USA remains Neutral and its production doubles. This allows it to send more MPPs to the UK. --If Yes then USA enters the war in Europe at a later date, as per the standard game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 After Japan surrenders, USA also gets a couple more nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Hello, what are you guys talking about here? Stop this pro-american propaganda. You can't even close the war in Iraq so now you want to send more troops to Europe?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Actually, I'd like to see a true "war on drugs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n0kn0k Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The "war on drugs" was a huge failure in every aspect. And not to mention a huge waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Originally posted by n0kn0k: The "war on drugs" was a huge failure in every aspect. And not to mention a huge waste of money. Is it not still ongoing? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n0kn0k Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Dunno for sure how much effort they are putting into it atm compared to the past. Maybe there's someone here with some numbers on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 back to the post, Ok so you double the US capacity or put options. To Balance the game what are you going to do? Perhaps reducing Britain's MPP to reflect the attack on singapore and war in Burma , loss of ships there etc in 1941. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 To balance the game, the USA remains neutral. The UK does not gain the benefit of American troops or naval units. Thus you have choice 1: USA can send UK more MPPs via Merchant Ships now AND choice 2: USA enters the war later. Ideally the Allied player would get more victory points if they can win without the USA entering the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 If the USA and japan dont go at it,maybe the germans persuade japan to attack in russia.At the very least russia wouldnt know what japans plan was and quite possibly would have left the siberians where they were.Also america maynot have started gearing up for war(isolationism)I know the american public was for helping britain but the war had been going for a while and the americans output hadnt gone on a war footing.It probably would have increased very slowly.I think Edwin P.and minty are right.Britain would have been forced to send more troops to the s. pacific.I know ultra was a huge help to the british but it cant fight battles or hold ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Actually, I'd like to see a true "war on drugs". Then, No doubt @-Man, You'd VERY much like to see, Would initiate a MASSIVE letter-writing (... anybody write letters anymore? LOL!) Campaign... against! BY FAR, The very worst of the "drugs" In terms of misery, suffering, And doom & death, EVER KNOWN to humanity: 1) Alcohol 2) Tobacco Right @-Man? **After all, X-tensive studies have shown, Oh forget that ipso in facto crap, My own extensive experience In this field has amply Demonstrated, To my complete satisfaction, That: The two groups LEAST likely To cause ANY trouble, ARE: 1) Users of Pot/Weed/Mary Jane (... them auto-cratic sorts on the lunatic fringe - mostly on the far right of the spectrum - EVEN! Wish to deny Marijuana? for... Medicinal purposes, EVEN! Then it relieves suffering, LOL! What hating-hearts we got so - awful self-righteous all over the place, eh?) 2) Users of Crank/Smack/Heroin Funny how it works out, Ain't it? This absurd dichotomy I mean. BTW, Ever wonder WHY so many American Government Programs, Ostensibly designed to help?? The least of us, Are called... War! War on Drugs! :mad: War On Poverty! :mad: War on (... indifferent, non-political, LOL!) Nature Itself! :mad: War War War War War War War! Sometimes you merely gotta marvel. Just how far we've come! These last couple thousand years Of so-called: "Progressive" "Enlightened" "Logico-Rational" ... thinking?? :confused: I say! Let's have WAR! :mad: On... war... metaphors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottosmops Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 War On Bad Policy! would fit well into this schema. And nobody would complain, if this were a world wide war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts