US IPC Breakdown

@oztea:

It should be excuseable for the US to start with a handful more infantry, considering France starts with a larger domestic army than the US.

I may be mistaken , but I’m pretty sure that the French did have a larger military before the US entered…definitely per capita. They were at war for goodness sake!

I agree with Spitfire38; IIRC hearing on a Pearl Harbor show that if Japan had landed in San Fran. we wouldn’t have been able to resist until they reached Chicago. So yeah, I think the US starts out with too large an army. Just IMHO.

Frankly, Larry and Krieg have done a fantastic job of creating this game and maintaining a fairly good balance…even though I complain about the US, one side really doesn’t win a lot more than the other. So I’m going to take whats given, historical inaccuracies and all. A historically accurate WWII wouldn’t make the game any fun…we all know what happens!  :wink:

In 1940 US Navy was 2nd largest in the world by a good margin. Close to the UK in Naval power, but the Brits still held that title. Japan was 3rd, and Italy the 4th. Germany was marginal in naval force, but was threatening with submarines. Historically wouldn’t be fair. US would have a larger navy than Japan.

@Spitfire38:

@oztea:

It should be excuseable for the US to start with a handful more infantry, considering France starts with a larger domestic army than the US.

I may be mistaken , but I’m pretty sure that the French did have a larger military before the US entered…definitely per capita. They were at war for goodness sake!

Yeah, back then the US standing army was something like 176,000 men which was smaller than Romania’s standing army of 200,000.

Yes, we were 16th in the world directly behind Romania and Turkey.

We’ve definitely been put up so there’s no chance of a direct invasion of the US.

@theROCmonster:

In 1940 US Navy was 2nd largest in the world by a good margin. Close to the UK in Naval power, but the Brits still held that title. Japan was 3rd, and Italy the 4th. Germany was marginal in naval force, but was threatening with submarines. Historically wouldn’t be fair. US would have a larger navy than Japan.

We had a large navy, but the ship stock was obsolete compared to the Japanese or British I believe.  As I recall, the majority of US battleships, cruisers and destroyers were WW1 era, and the Japanese carrier capability outstripped the US until the battle of Midway.  US torpedo technology lagged behind in the first few years of the war.  Japan and Germany had been building new ships, sometimes not so secretly violating the treaties dictating displacement & armament, so while their navies may have been smaller, they were technologically ahead at the outset of the war.

The Hood was a WWI era battleship after all.  It’s not as if it was just a lucky shot from the Bismark.

Well, if you complain about the US starting pieces, take a look at Italy: The 4th largest fleet in the world is outclassed by the Germans after G1 when they buy the usual Carrier. Also you usually get sunk during UK1 2/3 of your fleet.

And if you consider how small is Italy as a country compared to the other 3 “naval empires” (UK, Japan, US), having the 4th largest fleet JUST for the medi  should be quite more represented!

And yeah, Italians didn’t did much during ww2, but as a game I’d like to change history having around the same resources.

you know what should be changed? WTF does the US start with so many mech inf?

Can you think of a more useless unit for the Americans, and they have 4 of them! Does Larry mean to honor the historical contribution of GMC, or what?

The US was a mechanized force, and those mechs can be useful in N. Africa, but I do agree that the value of mech is much lower than in the real war.