Or, the US just gains the 40 IPC for being at war, period.
Granted that would suck, I want a US that makes over 100 lol.
Hopefully the placing of Moscow firmly in Europe will offset the Moscow magnet, simply because Germany will now be so much closer to that city than Japan, not true of the old maps with the Soviet capital somewhere in the Ural mountains.
If this is so, can Germany afford to sit and wait for Japan to arrive east of Moscow before attacking the place?
It should be uneconomical for Japan to devote so much energy to eating up central Asia.
There should, however, be a Soviet factory in the Urals (or at least the option to move one there) so that
1. USSR can fight on with a reasonable factory (3-4 IPC) if Moscow falls,
2. Japan has a reasonably attainable and valuable target if it decides to attack Russia.
I fully appreciate the need for the game to potentially diverge from a historical play out; my concern is that an optimum strategy for the Axis similar to that so familiar from previous versions will mean that the historical game NEVER happens, and the Pacific continues to be ignored.
I fully appreciate the need for the game to potentially diverge from a historical play out; my concern is that an optimum strategy for the Axis similar to that so familiar from previous versions will mean that the historical game NEVER happens, and the Pacific continues to be ignored.
A historical game means axis always lose.
For the real WW2, Germany should never attacked Russia before finishing off UK.
Japan will always lose against US in the Pacific, b/c US had perhaps 4-5 times higher GDP than Japan.
But the Pacific islands should be worth much more, then we could have a real pacific conflict in the global game.
A&A can never be historically realistic, unless a $100 bid to balance the game is considered “realistic”?
The Axis lost the war in 1941. If Germany had attacked Russia 2 weeks earlier, they would not have been stroped by bad wether and Russian reinforments in Kursk. They would have rooled Moscow and Russia would have decended into a state of Panic, they would have lost their command centre, and their few generals.
The axis lost the world war by 2 weeks, 1 year before pearl harbour.
If Moscow had fallen, UK would have surrenderd because of the econmoic attack blowtorch of Germany (bombing, rockets, and stopping american aid) along with aferica falling.
Even the USA couudnet beat the rest of the world.
yep exactly.
Even the USA couudnet beat the rest of the world.
I think that they could have.
I highly doubt Russia would have been easy to occupy, there would have been insurgents all over the place still fighting. The US would just be dropping a nuke on Berlin before they did it to Japan if Russia would have crumbled, but once again I do not feel loosing moscow would have been the complete defeat of Russia that the axis though it would have been.
I highly doubt Russia would have been easy to occupy, there would have been insurgents all over the place still fighting. The US would just be dropping a nuke on Berlin before they did it to Japan if Russia would have crumbled, but once again I do not feel loosing moscow would have been the complete defeat of Russia that the axis though it would have been.
I completely agree with you.
In 1944, the germans said they would have an a-bomb by 1946. They were also devolping stelth-fighters and uber LR bombers that could reach the US and back.
And if the US did have a A-Bomb, it would not be able to reach Berlin without Brittan as a base.
The Germanys just would have built lots of subs and when ever the US lauunced transports, the would be suck before going 10k.
If I was hilter, I would invade northen Canada, use airbases there to bomb the US to nothing, then use your army to work you way to Wasington.
You Americans need to remeber the US is not invisiable (GFC!!!).
May I chime in here and say dont forget that it could be considered that those few tuff russian soliders that held that , what was it 1 or 2 square miles of what was left of stalingrad,played a large part of an allied win. If Hitler had a better dice roll on that battle maybe Russia would have been lost and that changes things a bit. U.S. may have had to make a 100% dedication to Europe theater, with a defence posture on the west cost.
Please makers to be :“Do not rule that america splits income”
Look nobody is taking anything away from the great contributions that the other Allied countries made. All I am saying is that the US could have handled both Germany and Japan alone, with or without the A-bomb. I am sure they would have found a way to drop the bomb on Berlin.
@Brain:
All I am saying is that the US could have handled both Germany and Japan alone, with or without the A-bomb. I am sure they would have found a way to drop the bomb on Berlin.
Not a chance.
They didn’t launch D-Day from Norfolk ya know.
@Brain:
All I am saying is that the US could have handled both Germany and Japan alone, with or without the A-bomb. I am sure they would have found a way to drop the bomb on Berlin.
Not a chance.
They didn’t launch D-Day from Norfolk ya know.
Bombs don’t have to be dropped from planes.
@Brain:
@Brain:
All I am saying is that the US could have handled both Germany and Japan alone, with or without the A-bomb. I am sure they would have found a way to drop the bomb on Berlin.
Not a chance.
They didn’t launch D-Day from Norfolk ya know.Bombs don’t have to be dropped from planes.
Sorry I meant the US defeating the Axis singlehanded comment.
No country would have the resilience to keep fighting after they had a few A-bombs dropped on them.
I dunno.
I think given the inability to put boots on the ground in Europe or mount a concentrated SBR campaign, and having depleted their entire Atomic arsenal of two, the US would have had ended up on the receiving end of the Germans’ huge stockpile of weaponized chemicals.
That is if they bothered with Germany at all. (Which begs the question of what was the fate of the Allies they never had in this counterfactual scenario, I presume conquest before American DOW.)
Well the US didn’t have to put boots on ground in Japan. Now did they?
@Brain:
Well the US didn’t have to put boots on ground in Japan. Now did they?
Actually they did have to put boots on the ground, island by island right up to the Home Islands, until it was quite clear that both them and the Russians were on the doorstep of Japan itself.
Lobbing bombs across an ocean didn’t end the war. Douhet was wrong.
And this of course, was not done without some brave Allies keeping the road to India and New Guinea etc. in Allied hands.
I just think that the US would have executed a more difficult KJF campaign - driven by that Day of Infamy. But if Hitler had been left with a free hand to handle Europe, once UK is Neutral or Nazi, and Moscow has fallen… I dunno, say 1944… then it’s too late for the US to take on the Germans from across the Atlantic.
If UK and Russia was captured before US sent many troops to Europe, I think the US would not go to war against Germany, only defend their home waters, and eventually secure south America, and capture Japan.
For Germany’s sake, this had to happen before, or sometime during 1942, b/c then the war was lost for Germany.
It is ofc very possible that nukes against Germany could be an option, but even today, you need troops on the ground, or at least be 99% certain that your enemy knows that you’re willing to put troops on the ground, like the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
It wasn’t until Milosevic thought that NATO would send in ground troops that he conceded, even if he (Serbia) had lost before the war started.
