I think Pearl Harbor should always fire for Japan, no matter when it decides to declare war on the USA. Now if USA declares, then there would be a recruitment, but I don't think it would be as large as if Pearl Harbor happens. Whenever Japan and US are at war with each other...any negative effect that Japan has on USA should be stopped, no matter the date. There is no honored economic agreements when your at war with someone.
I also agree that there needs to be some work done on events that allow you to reduce your Neutrality very early. As I demonistrated in my AAR, by July 3rd, 1937 I had my neutrality low enough to have the best laws without being at war. So I ost 4 months of production or so to remove dissent, who cares, Since I played both a FtML game and a S&S game, I think I clearly proved that there is not enough "Bad" events or consequences to make this strategy the "Norm" for the mod. Yes I switched the primary party from democracy to republican and back, but this was no problem, infact I think I like the Republican Pres and Vice better f0r 1936-1940. I also had to limit what I made to keep realistic units amounts, infact by wartime I was at about 150% of the force the USA had on Dec, 7th 1941. Before the war started. I am next goiing to see how strong I can make the economy before war starts, with having the normal starting forces. I can imagine the USA could have an enormous economy with this mod. Especially if you rush techs for anything economy or production based including the "Aresona"l techs. Mass producing the units at the last minute. SO I will be doing my next AAR on that premise.
As for Rangers, hmmm well if they are anything like Marines, IE takes too long to build compared with Infantry, I am not sure weither they are actually worth ithe trouble. A marine brigade was about 1733 IC days when I compared them at the start of USAs war compared to about 160 IC days for a plain Infantry, now I can't see paying that high difference in production costs that often. And I didn't even have Rangers researched at that time. I just looked at my AAR save and they were costing about 500 IC days, still alot. As to pairing, hmm...They scream to be paired with Heavy Armor or mountaineers, but with rangers and marine high officer requirements you will pay heavily to have them. I think I would still rather use plain jane infantry for most uses. I still would use 3 Infantry compared to 1 ranger. And remember rangers is a "Support unit" so it can't be used without a standard unit. Rangers has outstanding stats and for those stats fairly low supply needs, but the main problems I see is 100% softness, 5 speed and the 250 officers needed for that small brigade. will make them either team them up with a non mobile forces or something like heavy armor which has such a low speed, mass infantry will still probably do better in the long run. Maybe in places you need alot of extra defense, but need to have minimum supply usage. It has the same supply usage as a garrison or 1 2/3s of a militia and about equivelant stats to infantry with no width.
I also agree that there needs to be some work done on events that allow you to reduce your Neutrality very early. As I demonistrated in my AAR, by July 3rd, 1937 I had my neutrality low enough to have the best laws without being at war. So I ost 4 months of production or so to remove dissent, who cares, Since I played both a FtML game and a S&S game, I think I clearly proved that there is not enough "Bad" events or consequences to make this strategy the "Norm" for the mod. Yes I switched the primary party from democracy to republican and back, but this was no problem, infact I think I like the Republican Pres and Vice better f0r 1936-1940. I also had to limit what I made to keep realistic units amounts, infact by wartime I was at about 150% of the force the USA had on Dec, 7th 1941. Before the war started. I am next goiing to see how strong I can make the economy before war starts, with having the normal starting forces. I can imagine the USA could have an enormous economy with this mod. Especially if you rush techs for anything economy or production based including the "Aresona"l techs. Mass producing the units at the last minute. SO I will be doing my next AAR on that premise.
As for Rangers, hmmm well if they are anything like Marines, IE takes too long to build compared with Infantry, I am not sure weither they are actually worth ithe trouble. A marine brigade was about 1733 IC days when I compared them at the start of USAs war compared to about 160 IC days for a plain Infantry, now I can't see paying that high difference in production costs that often. And I didn't even have Rangers researched at that time. I just looked at my AAR save and they were costing about 500 IC days, still alot. As to pairing, hmm...They scream to be paired with Heavy Armor or mountaineers, but with rangers and marine high officer requirements you will pay heavily to have them. I think I would still rather use plain jane infantry for most uses. I still would use 3 Infantry compared to 1 ranger. And remember rangers is a "Support unit" so it can't be used without a standard unit. Rangers has outstanding stats and for those stats fairly low supply needs, but the main problems I see is 100% softness, 5 speed and the 250 officers needed for that small brigade. will make them either team them up with a non mobile forces or something like heavy armor which has such a low speed, mass infantry will still probably do better in the long run. Maybe in places you need alot of extra defense, but need to have minimum supply usage. It has the same supply usage as a garrison or 1 2/3s of a militia and about equivelant stats to infantry with no width.
Last edited: