USA Too many IPCs? Too much Power?

“but without US led invasions in both Italy and Normandy diverting German resources and troops, that front would probably have ended in stalemate.”

Stalemate ?
No thats not likely b/c the west was nearly abandoned by the germans.

Since Winter 1942/1943 (after the defeat @ stalingrad) Germany has lost the war in the east (most of the Oberkommando der Heeresleitung knew that - Assassination Attempt on Hitler 1944, only fanatics believed to the “Endsieg”) and was only reatreating and defending (with exception of some counter offensives like Operation Zitadelle). The Invasions of Italy and France came September 1943 & June 1944, at this time most of the German troops were orderd east to fight the russians. The Germans had far more fear of the Russian soldiers than of the western allies (many reasons for that).
Btw. how many US Soldiers were involved in Europes invasion from D-day to V-day ?
I think maybe a total of 100.000 - 300.000 men.
How many Russians ?
I think of 20.000.000-40.000.000 Soldiers…… form 1941-1945.
Germany had had about 35 milion armed soldiers from 1939-145 if I am remember right.
On Bararossa 6 million German Soldiers crossed the border to invade Russia.

Btw. If I remember right, the Luftwaffe Defense Aircraft for whole France was about 30 planes (ridiculous but true) when D-Day took place. 3 Years before Germans lost an average of 100 planes a day by raiding UK for about 180 days. So over 18.000 planes & pilots lost in 1940 - never recovered from that.

Just my 2 cents   :wink:

The Germans had lost at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk by the time of the landing in Italy.

Actually Stalingrad and Moscow were lost more than 6 month before the first invasion took place.

Now Stalin was begging for a second front for good reason.

Begging ? LOL
At wich Conference did he do so ?
Casablanca Conference he wasn´t there and Jalta Conference in 1944 he wants the biggest part of the cake b/c in his opinion the russians fought harder and got far more looses than other allies.

Who knows how long his populace would have had a taste for war to the finish on the scale they were fighting it.

Hmm you mean Russians , Germans , Americans or Brits ?
This sentence could go to all involved nations  :-D

Who knows when the Germans would have figured out the atomic bomb.

Never, thats for sure….
Penemünde was the Secret Weapon Base of the 3rd Reich
and there was many stuff but no A-Bomb.
Germany could simply never invest (while at war but also before)
so much resources in just one Single bomb like the US did.
Btw. were should the GErmans get the Uranium or Plutonim ?
We dont have it here in our soil… So no A Bomb Never  :lol:

Canada had over 5 aircraft carriers? Or are you just saying the Canadian Navy exceeded the US ATLANTIC Navy?

I agree, think they only outnumbered the US Atlantic Fleet.
How “big” the navy is, would be count by weight if I am right.
So you can have fewer ships but the “bigger” navy.

@Blitchga:

@dadler12:

Historically the US was “the sleeping giant.” Yes it was still struggling from the depression pre-war, but it still had the highest industrial capacity on Earth. The US helped bankroll almost every allied power pre-war and throughout the war (Lets not forget that America became one of the banks of the world after WW1 and had been heavily involved in lending European countries money since the treaty Versailles). Once the US entered the war it was able to outproduce almost all the other powers combined. The US possessed almost every resource needed for the war, and those it did not have in great quantity (ex. rubber) it could import from it’s sphere of influence within South and Central America. Yes the war was won by the allies, but it was won with US dollars, weapons, and ordinance (except maybe Soviet Russia although it did receive massive amounts of lend-lease weapons early-war and copied American technology whenever it could late-war). Russia may have survived without the US, but not for long. England would’ve fallen as easily as France without lend-lease or if Hitler wasn’t intent on invading Russia. The US defeated Japan almost on it’s own and all while fighting a war on another front. By the end of the war the US fielded more aircraft carriers than all nations combined. The US conducted (with the British) the largest amphibious invasion EVER. The US dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs. Game play wise, the US needs to build a transport (7 IPC) for every 2 land units (assuming at least one is infantry). So in essence, it pays double what Germany or Russia has to spend on land units. In the Pacific, it is dealing with a monster (Japan) that no other power can fend off unless the US is involved in 30+ IPC per turn builds. Let’s not forget that after turn one Germany makes 70 IPC and around 50-60 IPC per turn after, and by round 3 latest Japan has 50+ IPC. Not to mention the US starts out with very few units compared to the other major powers. Almost every build the US makes (minus air units) will take at least 2 rounds to reach the front. I think the US is represented fairly in-game and fairly historically. If the US is not a beast, it cannot fight a war in the Pacific and Atlantic and the Axis will run all over the board. In fact in most of my games the Allies can only win by playing defense until the US gets involved (just like in real life!) and smart Axis players can knock out both UK capitals by turn 3 and whittle the USSR to 30ish IPC. The Axis needs to wait until turn 3 or 4 to bring the US into the war. When they have in my games, they have won.

Patriot much? I hate to burst your bubble but while the USA was immensely powerful they did not single handedly win the war. The US did not train the majority of your pilots (The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan or BCATP did), they could not effectively figure out how to move goods across the Atlantic and had to rely on Canadian escort. Should I also mention that Canada had a bigger navy at the end of the war then the US? The USA did take part in D-day but to a lesser extent than the British and Canadians, the Russians contributed immensely in every way to the European war effort and made it to Berlin before the USA. The Russians produced more tanks than ALL Allied nations combined (Yes that means more than the USA AND ALL OTHER ALLIES combined, actually the Russians LOST almost as many tanks as the other allies produced). I could go on but I think everyone is getting the idea.

As for the game itself, I believe that the representation is just fine. The one problem if anything is that the USA should have a slightly bigger economy and NOT be able to reach the European or Pacific fronts in a single turn. It should take at least an extra turn to get into combat. I can assume that this was done for playability as apposed to historical accuracy.

As Gargantua and Calvin (I think it was the two of them) said the axis have to think ahead and prepare for plans to delay and push the US troops back if the US comes in without adequate protection on their landing forces.

OK pilgrim what have you been smoking?

I agree that the USA IPC level before they are at war is too high.  If they stay neutral for the full 3 rounds, they can build up a heck of a lot of equipment and troops and really be ready to go on round 4, even if they split between two fronts.  If they put it all on one side or the other, that Axis power will be doomed.  I don’t think they should be able to build quite so much before they are even in the war.

I also have a problem with how the map is drawn for USA, specifically Sea Zone 101.  The US has 2 Major ICs that can service that sea zone.  So, they could use the Eastern US IC to build 5 transports plus warships for escort and the Central US IC for 10 land units and the whole force will be ready to move all together on the next turn.  I don’t think that is right for realism or gameplay.  I think an extra sea zone should be created in the Gulf of Mexico with a line drawn from the tip of Florida to the line that separates SZ 89 from SZ 101.

It gives the US a “gear up for war” income.  They would get FULL income if they were attacked

That was exactly what my thought was as well.  Even if you don’t use the split income concept the other ideas prevent the idea of instant armada without being at war.

I apologize if I demeaned the other allied nations contributions. The Russians fought about 80% of German forces. I was simply stating that no other nation had as much industrial and economic power as the US and that the US was able to engage in, and win, both theatres in WW2 (Europe and Pacific), while every other nation (exception is the UK although apart from fighting in Burma and SE Asia they didn’t do much in the Pacific) was fighting a one theatre war. Russia declared war on Japan once the war was over! Germany would have defeated the Russians had it not been for Hitler’s interference, so I do think that front eventually would have ended in stalemate had the US not been able to lead invasions. The commonwealth was important but in reality was the junior partner in the US/UK alliance, I’m sorry but that’s how it was. Do you honestly think the Canadians and Brits could have invaded Europe alone (remember Dieppe)? And if the Canadian fleet having more transports and escorts make it “bigger” than the US navy I used the wrong choice of words, no navy could expect to defeat the US on the seas in 1945 with all their aircraft carriers. I steer clear of US propaganda, but you can’t argue the fact that they were the deciding factor of WW2. Yes Egypt, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow were major turning points the US had little to do with (short of supplying tanks to UK in Egypt and tanks and supplies to the Soviets). But without the US the UK would have eventually tired of a war it couldn’t win and elected another Chamberlain to negotiate a peace with Germany, in my opinion. And the Germans beat themselves out East via Hitler’s poor decisions such as diverting forces from Moscow.

@FieldMarshalGames:

The British Empire had more troops in the African theater and in the Italian campaign than the US…  this is Historical fact.  The USA was tied up in the Pacific and in preparation for the real “second front”.  Remember British General Alexander was Supreme Allied Commander in the Mediterranean theater (Not Ike).  US and other Allied forces (Canadian/Polish/French etc) in North Africa and Italy were always under British High Command.

In fact, the British Empire had more troops facing the enemy on all fronts than the Americans until June 1944 (This is well represented in AAA)

The Allies would have lost the war without any one of the BIG THREE, but lets give the other two the due respect they deserve.

The AXIS would have won if:

The USSR was not attacked OR was beaten in 41-42
The British Empire did not Hold out while the other two sat and watched
The USA stayed Neutral and did not assist their allies with their industrial might.

For any ONE Nation to claim they “won the war” is just silly.

Good points but may I add that the Allies in the Med were not able to take all of Italy (they stalled out and stayed there the remainder of the war), they would not have cleared Africa as soon had the US not landed in Africa (and although they got whipped at Kassarine they created a second front so as to force the Germans/Italians to defend both), and they probably would not have even have attempted an invasion in Italy without the US involved.  Also, no one has been able to refute my point that the UK and Soviets depended heavily on US aid, vehicles, ordinance, and technology where (as far as I know but please correct me if I am mistaken) the only thing things those nations helped the US with was that the British provided some technology (ex radar, bomb designs, aircraft engines). Addressing your three Axis win points, the UK would not have survived without US aid. Period. Churchill knew this and that is why he pressed FDR so hard to join or at least give massive amounts of aid, both economic and military.

While it’s pure speculation, I think that if the UK/US had never set foot in Europe but just kept bombing and supplying the USSR, the USSR would have eventually overwhelmed Germany and its allies, if over a longer period and at a much higher cost.  Even if Germany had been able to, for whatever reason, deploy most, if not all, of its divisions from the west to the east in 43, 44, or 45, I don’t this it would have allowed them to gain any long term strategic or operational advantage over the numerically superior Soviet forces.  Not to mention, the Red Army of 44, 45 was no longer the stumbling giant of 41, 42, and was only gaining in operational effectiveness.

Can’t the US can be restricted to a maximum number of each unit until at war?  This reflects the lack of conscription in the country, unlike continental Europe (it’s also why the UK had such a small standing army in '39).

Any surplus income can be assumed to have been wasted on the frivolous and decadent American lifestyle.  :evil:

Certainly, the number of infantry units raised should be limited, restricting the impact of early US intervention which usually relies heavily on infantry.

I like that we can’t go a post or two without getting into the same hackneyed nationalist pissing match.

Back on topic, I think it’s too early to make a call on USA’s power.  Need to get a few games in using LH’s alpha setup.

I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.

@dadler12:

I apologize if I demeaned the other allied nations contributions. The Russians fought about 80% of German forces. I was simply stating that no other nation had as much industrial and economic power as the US and that the US was able to engage in, and win, both theatres in WW2 (Europe and Pacific), while every other nation (exception is the UK although apart from fighting in Burma and SE Asia they didn’t do much in the Pacific) was fighting a one theatre war. Russia declared war on Japan once the war was over! Germany would have defeated the Russians had it not been for Hitler’s interference, so I do think that front eventually would have ended in stalemate had the US not been able to lead invasions. The commonwealth was important but in reality was the junior partner in the US/UK alliance, I’m sorry but that’s how it was. Do you honestly think the Canadians and Brits could have invaded Europe alone (remember Dieppe)? And if the Canadian fleet having more transports and escorts make it “bigger” than the US navy I used the wrong choice of words, no navy could expect to defeat the US on the seas in 1945 with all their aircraft carriers. I steer clear of US propaganda, but you can’t argue the fact that they were the deciding factor of WW2. Yes Egypt, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow were major turning points the US had little to do with (short of supplying tanks to UK in Egypt and tanks and supplies to the Soviets). But without the US the UK would have eventually tired of a war it couldn’t win and elected another Chamberlain to negotiate a peace with Germany, in my opinion. And the Germans beat themselves out East via Hitler’s poor decisions such as diverting forces from Moscow.

The BCATP was another massive contribution put forward by the commonwealth forces. I am not saying they won the war by any means but I feel that no single nation won the war. The BCATP put out tens of thousands of pilots a year and supplied the pilot training for almost the entire Allied air effort. The program was so successful that they actually had to slow it down as it was training more pilots than even the US could build planes.

As for Dieppe, horribly planned raid I couldn’t agree more. Many historians have tried to give reason to it but it was a terrible plan and logistically a disaster with nothing working in conjunction with one another. However, the US was no better when examining their first landings in the Pacific. Some of the atols that the US took had greater losses than all of D-day combined.

As per the navy, I hate to break it to all of you but the Canadian navy really was the biggest one around. It had so many small escort ships to patrol and escort the convoys across the Atlantic that no other nation could outmatch it.

When it came to Allied Victory I strongly feel that no nation deserves more glory than the next. They all had massive contributions in their own way and none were the savior that any of them claimed to be.

@deadbunny:

I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.

I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.

As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!

@Blitchga:

@dadler12:

I apologize if I demeaned the other allied nations contributions. The Russians fought about 80% of German forces. I was simply stating that no other nation had as much industrial and economic power as the US and that the US was able to engage in, and win, both theatres in WW2 (Europe and Pacific), while every other nation (exception is the UK although apart from fighting in Burma and SE Asia they didn’t do much in the Pacific) was fighting a one theatre war. Russia declared war on Japan once the war was over! Germany would have defeated the Russians had it not been for Hitler’s interference, so I do think that front eventually would have ended in stalemate had the US not been able to lead invasions. The commonwealth was important but in reality was the junior partner in the US/UK alliance, I’m sorry but that’s how it was. Do you honestly think the Canadians and Brits could have invaded Europe alone (remember Dieppe)? And if the Canadian fleet having more transports and escorts make it “bigger” than the US navy I used the wrong choice of words, no navy could expect to defeat the US on the seas in 1945 with all their aircraft carriers. I steer clear of US propaganda, but you can’t argue the fact that they were the deciding factor of WW2. Yes Egypt, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow were major turning points the US had little to do with (short of supplying tanks to UK in Egypt and tanks and supplies to the Soviets). But without the US the UK would have eventually tired of a war it couldn’t win and elected another Chamberlain to negotiate a peace with Germany, in my opinion. And the Germans beat themselves out East via Hitler’s poor decisions such as diverting forces from Moscow.

The BCATP was another massive contribution put forward by the commonwealth forces. I am not saying they won the war by any means but I feel that no single nation won the war. The BCATP put out tens of thousands of pilots a year and supplied the pilot training for almost the entire Allied air effort. The program was so successful that they actually had to slow it down as it was training more pilots than even the US could build planes.

As for Dieppe, horribly planned raid I couldn’t agree more. Many historians have tried to give reason to it but it was a terrible plan and logistically a disaster with nothing working in conjunction with one another. However, the US was no better when examining their first landings in the Pacific. Some of the atols that the US took had greater losses than all of D-day combined.

As per the navy, I hate to break it to all of you but the Canadian navy really was the biggest one around. It had so many small escort ships to patrol and escort the convoys across the Atlantic that no other nation could outmatch it.

When it came to Allied Victory I strongly feel that no nation deserves more glory than the next. They all had massive contributions in their own way and none were the savior that any of them claimed to be.

If one country has 10 escort ships and another has 1 carrier, that doesn’t mean that the one with the escort ships is “bigger”

@Blitchga:

@deadbunny:

I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.

I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.

As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!

In a way, you could say that Russia was really an enemy of the Western Allies before WW2 even started, as far back as the Russian Revolution.  Many of the Western Powers, including America, Britain, France and Japan, had limited forces in Russia advising and backing the White armies against the Reds.  Unfortunately, the White armies suffered from corrupt and incompetant leaders and ill-disciplined soldiers while the Reds had very organized leadership and pretty much pasted the Whites on all fronts, thus bringing Communist rule to the Soviet Union.  I’m sure that Lenin, and later Stalin, never forgot that.

As for the US involvement in WW2, does anyone wonder what the outcome would have been if Pearl Harbor never happened?  Or, if Germany and Italy didn’t hold up their end of the tri-partite pact by declaring war on America?  Before Pearl Harbor, American Public opinion was still 80% in favor of America staying neutral.  Even with Pearl Harbor, America was only technically at war with Japan, NOT with Germany or Italy.  What might have happend if America had only went to war in the Pacific?  Or not at all?

In interesting discussion here!  I didn’t read every sentence of every post, but I get the picture.

I tend to agree with the opinion that, the US is supposed to start slow, but grow to dominate.
The Axis have a narrow window to either all out win it, or climb to a high enough status to compete for victory, if they do not achieve this in time, then the game will be much like the war.

As far as historical accuracy is concerned, the soviet union should probably be earning around 60-70 by turn 8-10, as should Germany, Japan around 50.  the USA, if the game was REALISTIC would earn around 200-250 IPC per turn easy, we outproduced everybody and your momma.
That being said, it wouldn’t be much of a game if the USA earned what they REALISTICALLY earned no would it?  The axis never had a chance once our production got in gear, not a chance in hell.

@Blitchga:

@dadler12:

Patriot much? I hate to burst your bubble but while the USA was immensely powerful they did not single handedly win the war. The US did not train the majority of your pilots (The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan or BCATP did),

Not true.

they could not effectively figure out how to move goods across the Atlantic

False

and had to rely on Canadian escort.

Only partially true, the US and IK decided to use canadian escorts to free up US and UK escort for other tasks.

Should I also mention that Canada had a bigger navy at the end of the war then the US?

THis statement is laughable. The US produced more ships during WWII than any other nation…by far. THe Canadian navy had a total of 400 hulls at war’s end, the US had more than that just counting DD’s…the US had over 145 Carriers alone (22 fleet carriers) at wars end.

The USA did take part in D-day but to a lesser extent than the British and Canadians,

“On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.”

the Russians contributed immensely in every way to the European war effort and made it to Berlin before the USA. The Russians produced more tanks than ALL Allied nations combined (Yes that means more than the USA AND ALL OTHER ALLIES combined, actually the Russians LOST almost as many tanks as the other allies produced).

This is not true either. The US and Britian combined produced more tanks than the Soviets. The US produced more trucks than the rest of the world combined that’s a fact.

I could go on but I think everyone is getting the idea.

The idea that you are virulently anti-American.

As for the game itself, I believe that the representation is just fine. The one problem if anything is that the USA should have a slightly bigger economy and NOT be able to reach the European or Pacific fronts in a single turn. It should take at least an extra turn to get into combat. I can assume that this was done for playability as apposed to historical accuracy.

As Gargantua and Calvin (I think it was the two of them) said the axis have to think ahead and prepare for plans to delay and push the US troops back if the US comes in without adequate protection on their landing forces.

There is so much incorrect information i

@Blitchga:

@deadbunny:

I second domicron. lets gets some games under the belt before calling in the red flag. generally peeps tend to call the red flag in support of their favorite side anyway. lets keep it neutral for once.

I am not sure that you have been reading the same thread. We are simply saying that credit is due for ALL Three Major Allied nations and I feel that credit is even required for the minor nations and some of the immense contributions they made considering their side.

As for the comments on Russian aid, that could not be more true. Yes the US and UK send a large amount of aid to Russia but ultimately it was Russia and the Five Year Plans and horrific timeline forced on the Russian people that allowed them to industrialize, it was not the US who industrialized Russia it was Russia herself. As was also pointed out already Russia became an enemy even before WWII was over!

The Canadian Navy was no where near the size of the US Destroyer fleet alone….