USA IS ALLOWED TO BUY ONLY 4 ARMIES????

[Major Spinello]

So the reason US has a limit of 4 armies in SC2 in the scenario that came with the game is because Blashy hates the US ... please gimme a break! I´m not always with Blashy, but he does a good job of explaining and defending the design decisions for SC2.

And btw: If I look at the AAR between Rambo and Stalin´s Organist in the other thread it seems to me that the game is not that badly ballanced after all.

[jon_j_rambo]

Dude, I'm an Entertainer My games are for the crowd & the mass. That game was over the second he accepted my challenge.

Too much Legend, too little time >>> OUT

[jon_j_rambo]

@Major Spin --- Dude, they didn't catch, because they don't care about the USA. See patches! See SC1! Blashy & gang are AntiUSA, so why care if USA is trash in the game? How can you miss 4 Armies? Because you don't care to check anything USA. They hate USA because we kick ass, just another attempt to diss us.

[Blashy]

How about you stop whinning and discuss the subject.

As you can see from the numbers I put up. USA had 2 million total less in Manpower to Germany, 40 to 38.

Now how many of those were on the pacific front?

[rclawson007]

As DicedTomato noted, the US had a much different organizational structure than the Euro powers and Russia. The US had far greater manpower devoted to support and supply; I mean we did have to get every single bullet and K-ration across the Atlantic. And the US troops did get rapid replacement rates that German commanders would have thought nothing less than propaganda. And US tanks, while plentiful (and clearly did their job) were inferior to German and Russian tanks of the period. Only in the closing days of the war did the US field a good heavy tank. But how does one capture these facts in a game like SC2, that by definition, needs to be streamlined and balanced. Limiting US to 2 TKs of equal strength (same attack and defense values) is logical. For me, the bottom line in a WWII grand strategic game is rational (not realistic) design, fluid play, and game balance. Besides, I just use the editor to tweak things I'd like a little different. Well done HC.

[Stavka_CCCP]

How about tank Strenth Blashy? Are we to believe most of the US SHermans were in the Pacific? Didnt they outnumber the Panzers 5-1? Remember the US adopted a Europe first strategy and had most of its forces in Europe. Yes there were significant forces in the Pacific but not that many. Even if we assumed %50 of US forces were in Pacific which is a stretch the US still would field an Army that would exceed 4 Army groups. Hell even Francos Spain fields an Army that just about outnumbers US in this game

[jon_j_rambo]

USA deserves MORE SUPPLY.

[rclawson007]

I fully agree with JJs main push for more US supply. The US had supply out the A**.

[jon_j_rambo]

USA deserves MORE TANKS.

USA deserves MORE PLANES.

USA deserves ALOT more stuff.

Most of all, the USA deserves respect from T-Blashy. Is this guy for real?

[rclawson007]

I see the US force allocation have two issues here. The first is a perception that it is due to a lack of respect for US achievements. Maybe - maybe not - I don't know anyone well enough to say. And since this just a game, I frankly don't care. The second is a question of game balance. As far as balance goes, just agree to play with soft build limits. US penalty is only 10%. Problem solved.

[Blashy]

Softbuild limits favor the Axis by eliminating one of their biggest issue, manpower.

And JJ, USA during WW2 has my respect.

[rclawson007]

I guess I haven't learned the Axis play book well enough then. I have not yet managed to run into a problem of Germany having extra MPP and nothing to spend it on. But I have with the US.

[dicedtomato]

Poland in SC2 starts with about four armies. Blashy, are you telling us that the fully moblized U.S. Army in 1944 couldn't field more troops than the Polish Army?

DT

[Fartknock3r]

Anyone forgetting that the US starts with 2 armies? So if you build 4 more thats 6 armies, thats good enough for me. The USA shouldn't have to do all the heavy fighting, thats Russia. 6 armies, 2 tank groups, and a paratrooper are enough to attack france i believe. And whats so bad about using corps? They rock! And don't forget that the Americans didn't do d-day alone, d-day should be coordinated with british, and heck, even maybe Canadian units. (if you want )

[Kelly's Heroes]

The United States began the war with only a handful of active divisions: five infantry and one cavalry. By the end of the war, the nation had fielded nearly one hundred. Additionally, due to the US Army's method of employment combined with events of the war, the United States did not suffer the destruction of any of its division-size units during the conflict.

Here is a full list of US Army Divisions that fought in WWII - note that 74 army divisions fought in Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_divisions_during_World_War_II

This number is much more than 4 armies.

In addition the USA dominated the seas and the air (the Allies had 10,000 planes in the air on D-Day).

In addition to all this the USA supplied military equipment and supplies for its Allies (UK) and through Lend-Lease (USSR was sent 600,000 trucks alone).

My suggestion for the game should be that in each successive year after USA enters war, the USA should be given more MPPs. By 1944 the USA was a power house of production and military might.

[ June 17, 2006, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Welcome to the party Kelly, exactly. All the othe countries are given there due, it's our time.

We're tired of the USA being dissed on.

"Find them, or I'll find you" --- Rambo speaking in regards to missing 'Nam POWs.

[Fartknock3r]

Ok, maybe the USA needs to be stronger, but how can this be represented in the game without ruining play balance? Lets here your thoughts Rambo.

[rclawson007]

The US has an Industry Tech modifier of + 20% per level already. Maxed out it goes to 180% now. A simple editor change to +30% per level would equate to 230% maxed out. Combined with Production Tech and soft build limits as already provided would allow you produce a large american force. Of course the only real thing you could do with it is continue the fight agaist the Russians. Which, politically at the time, is as much the reason for the US having 70+ divisions in Europe when Berlin fell as defeating the Germans.

[Baron]

US had 38 million?

Between 1939 and 1945 the correct numbers for the US were as follows:

USMC 669,000 (1939 – 1945)

US Army/Air Corps 11, 260,000 (1939 – 1945)

USN 4,183,000 (1939 – 1945)

That only adds up to +/- 16,000,000

I am looking for the information right now and have not found it yet but if my memory serves me the US only had around 9 million in uniform at the end in 1945. Far from dredging the bottom of the barrel like the Europeans and Japanese were forced to do the USA did not even fully mobilize!

The approximate population of the US was 130 million in 1939, the USSR 190 million. The US mobilized slightly more than 10% of its available manpower (this figure raises when you take into account the fact that the Country misused 15% of it manpower by not utilizing the African American troops to their utmost). In contrast the USSR with a population of around 170 million put over 34 million in uniform or about 20% of their available manpower. Of these 10 million were killed or missing and another 10 million were casualties (these numbers do not take into account civilians).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country

It is also interesting to note that the USSR out produced the USA in the numbers of tanks produced: USSR 95,000 - USA 88,000. I won’t go into the figures for ships and aircraft other than to say the USA alone out produced the all the Axis countries by itself.

World War 2 Nation by Nation, by J. Lee Ready published 1995. ISBN 1-85409-209-1

So where does this leave us? It is obvious IMO that the United States is way under represented in this game. Were the true figures used of course it would not be much of a game. So we have to figure out a way to fix it. I for one like build limits but these limits should be reflective of what was used in theater. I as a wargamer enjoy the beer and pretzel type of games. SC2 is such a game. What I would like to have is the correct available forces and the engine to let us go from there. It is painfully obvious the is not the case for the USA in this game. I understand that for game balance purposes the USA must be reigned in somehow.

The link http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/manpower.aspx was an interesting read but it didn’t explain why there was a shortage of trigger pullers. The reason there was a shortage on the front lines is the tooth and tail issue. US forces then and now have 10 men in a Division for every one Rifleman who is behind a trigger. A US Division is as big a European Corps and a US Corps is as big as a European Army. The same formula holds true of a US Army – they are as large as a European Army Group. So if we are to have these artificial limits placed on US forces they should have their combat strengths adjusted upwards. I won’t get into the Research issue right now but I think what we have right now stinks.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[SeaMonkey]

Look, USA fielded 3.5 million personnel in the Med/European theater. A lot of that was support in keeping with the vast logistical efforts the USA was capable of.

What the USA contingent needs to be historical is firepower and mobility. Max readiness, supply, and good morale, if not excellent morale. One of the most neglected parts of this equation is the American artillery, it was simply kickass, the firepower I referred to.

You know how to represent that capability.

[bloodstar]

Play balance? If the allies are still active in 1944, Germany should be massively out produced no matter how much of the rest of Europe is controlled by It.

The US had so much equipment and manufacturing capacity they could have supplied Any country fighting Germany with equipment:

Tanks Produced during World War II:

# Soviet Union = 105,251 (92,595)

# United States = 88,410 (71,067)

# Germany = 46,857 (37,794)

# United Kingdom = 27,896

# Canada = 5,678

# Japan = 2,515

# Italy = 2,473

(number in paren is tanks with 75mm or larger

main weapons)

Artillery:

1. Soviet Union = 516,648

2. United States = 257,390

3. Germany = 159,147

4. United Kingdom = 124,877

5. Japan = 13,350

6. Canada = 10,552

7. Italy = 7,200

8. Other Commonwealth = 5,215

9. Hungary = 447

Fighters:

1. United States = 99,950

2. Soviet Union = 63,087

3. Germany = 55,727

4. United Kingdom = 49,422

5. Japan = 30,447

6. Italy = 4,510

Aircraft Carriers:

1. United States = 141

2. Japan = 16

3. United Kingdom = 14

4. Germany = 2

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

I don't care about balance in the sense that

once 1944 rolls around, the Axis should be

fighting on the defensive no matter how well

they've done, unless they've managed to

score early knockout blows against the other

countries.

Here's a list of Lend Lease Deliveries to

The Soviet Union:

Aircraft.............................14,795

Tanks.................................7,056

Jeeps................................51,503

Trucks..............................375,883

Motorcycles..........................35,170

Tractors..............................8,071

Guns..................................8,218

Machine guns........................131,633

Explosives..........................345,735 tons

Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000

Railroad freight cars................11,155

Locomotives...........................1,981

just some food for thought.

[Major Spinello]

In my mind a game can be balanced even though the chances of winning for one side does increase and that of the other decrease with time. In fact, what makes a WW2 grand strategy game fun is exactly that both sides play very differently. If you play the Axis, you are on the offensive early on, but have a tight time table and inevitably lose the initiative if you can´t keep up the momentum. With the Allies it´s more or less the other way round: You are always on the verge of breaking in the early years, but if you stall the enemy long enough, then eventually you will outproduce your opponent and turn the tables on him. Nevertheless, if the game is done right, both sides can win.

[Blashy]

The only way the Axis can win in this game is by extreme expansion, which historically is the only way they could have won due to being outproduced later on by USA and USSR. Or somehow manage to knock USSR out of the war, though one that is.

Oh and the numbers I posted are MANPOWER that accounts for everything regarding the military, not just "troops". 6 armies is about 600k troops (in sc2) add some corps, tanks and paratroopers and you end up with 1.5 million for these units alone, add other units and you are close to 2 million out of 3.8 million that served in the ETO, but alot of personel was dedicated to support roles.

The ONLY thing I say USA should have as a bonus, is longer range amphibious, to the point that ampbibious troops take one turn from USA to France once USA has maximum amphibious tech.

[Honch]

Guys, guys, guys:

Play my Honch Expanded Scenario and all is well. US starting OOB is historically corrected, much more arrives via the production queue and I have upped the limit on several categories of US units.

US also gets the "bomb" in 1945.

[dicedtomato]

Blashy, you need to stop being a salesman for SC2. Make up your mind; either the game is intended to be an historical simulation, or it's not. Lame justifications for why the U.S. Army is the size of Poland's, or why the Axis can conquer the Middle East without breaking a sweat, only make the game look ridiculous in the eyes of serious wargamers.

DT