How Much can the USA Produce?

[Zardnaar]

On the old HoI2 forums people always claimed the USA could not produce what they did historically. I laded up a game of AoD and built a few factories (18 or so), elected ALf Landon in 36 and built infrastructure up as well. IRL the USA made some stupid amount of tnaks, 30 odd aircraft carriers, 100 divisions and the proverbial boatload of planes.

With a serial build 100 divisions are easy enough the planes, boats, andnukes are a bit harder. The USA is going to struggle to research everything they did make IRL.

366 Base IC
461 effective IC

1942 producing
4 CAS (will cut down to 2 lines later)
9 1942 mech inf (will cut down to 3 lines later) with SPA
1 line of transports (54/99 serial build)
1 line of Convoys 50/99 serial build
1 airbase
2 lines lvl IV DD
1 line of rocket sites (not historical sue me)
2 CVL
6 CV
1 mot inf line
2 armor lines with SPA
1 tac bomber line
1 line CA
1 line of marines/SPA

15 IC left over to upgrade/repair stuff (spare lines will be shut down to mass upgrade late 43/early 44.

Inactive lines can be restarted
2 CA
1
2 lines INf w/artillery Brigades (pacific island defence forces)

Obviously if I had a historical game I would not have 9 lines of mech inf left over or rocket sites and I would probably be building nuclear reactors.

 

[Commander666]

On the old HoI2 forums people always claimed the USA could not produce what they did historically. I laded up a game of AoD and built a few factories (18 or so), elected ALf Landon in 36 and built infrastructure up as well. IRL the USA made some stupid amount of tnaks, 30 odd aircraft carriers, 100 divisions and the proverbial boatload of planes.

With a serial build 100 divisions are easy enough the planes, boats, andnukes are a bit harder. The USA is going to struggle to research everything they did make IRL.

366 Base IC
461 effective IC

1942 producing
4 CAS (will cut down to 2 lines later)
9 1942 mech inf (will cut down to 3 lines later) with SPA
1 line of transports (54/99 serial build)
1 line of Convoys 50/99 serial build
1 airbase
2 lines lvl IV DD
1 line of rocket sites (not historical sue me)
2 CVL
6 CV
1 mot inf line
2 armor lines with SPA
1 tac bomber line
1 line CA
1 line of marines/SPA

15 IC left over to upgrade/repair stuff (spare lines will be shut down to mass upgrade late 43/early 44.

Inactive lines can be restarted
2 CA
1
2 lines INf w/artillery Brigades (pacific island defence forces)

Obviously if I had a historical game I would not have 9 lines of mech inf left over or rocket sites and I would probably be building nuclear reactors.

Better you had cancelled your convoys at start; and converted TPs instead for a net saving of 50% MP. Or built 2 lines of TP if you really need that many. The rest, IMO, seriously lacks air force while over-heavy on army. Do you have any fighters at all? Nothing wrong with a rocket test site. Continuing past level 1, though, is rather unimportant compared to switching to nuke reactor construction instead. Guess you wouldn't have the needed IC to do that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Better you had cancelled your convoys at start; and converted TPs instead for a net saving of 50% MP. Or built 2 lines of TP if you really need that many. The rest, IMO, seriously lacks air force while over-heavy on army. Do you have any fighters at all? Nothing wrong with a rocket test site. Continuing past level 1, though, is rather unimportant compared to switching to nuke reactor construction instead. Guess you wouldn't have the needed IC to do that.

Oops 2 lines of fighters, I fell a bit behind on air techs and air power is not as brutal in AoD as opposed to say Darkest Hour Lt. I'm building CAS , tac bombers and fighters.

 

[Commander666]

Oops 2 lines of fighters, I fell a bit behind on air techs and air power is not as brutal in AoD as opposed to say Darkest Hour Lt. I'm building CAS , tac bombers and fighters.

Well, I doubt the CAS will help you much. But STR sure might hurt the enemy a lot.

Basically, I see a huge problem with how you are building. The are 2 basic schools of thought:

Regarding army units, don't build anything until you have tech rushed. Then - at the right time - build a lot of advanced units using as many multiple lines as is needed to reach your goal of number of units. This is what you are mostly doing. This saves both much supplies and eliminates earlier upgrades. However, it ties up a huge amount of daily IC to finance those many lines. This high daily IC investment in one unit type is not too serious for relatively cheaper units like infantry.

However, for very expensive items like aircraft and that use little supply, it is better to avoid building more than one line. Obviously, line must be started earlier to get same amount - so this strategy will need upgrading. Upgrading costs can be minimized by not upgrading anything until after tech rushing achieves same level of unit as other strategy. So that might mean 2 or 3 successive upgrades for units built with one line - which will significantly reduce cost of 1st and 2nd upgrades. Units in production can also be upgraded there whenever new tech achieved but to do this or not actually depends on several factors (which I won't discuss now).

The two different strategies result in vastly different IC available on a daily basis. Many lines result in tying up much IC on a daily basis, so limiting the variety you can build at any time. You would need to cut back on the number of lines to find IC to build other things like HQs, GAR, CLs, and of course nukes. So, using mostly single lines for the very expensive items leaves player with greatly more available daily IC to build for variety. These kind of players can build everything including unique units like subs, cavalry, and even paratroopers. Each of these 3 has a unit attribute that no other unit has - so making them very effective if used properly in the particular right places, with the right numbers, and with good timing.

The arguments usually begin about which way of building is more economical - especially when it gets to discussing Army units of relatively high investment like ARM and MECH. I don't intend to get into that. The only thing I would like to point out to you is the huge amount of daily IC needed for 4 lines of CAS. There is no doubt one line is not only cheaper to get the same number of units (including upgrading cost) but you would have much extra needed daily IC (the IC not used daily by dropping 3 lines). This IC can then be used for a line of FTR and maybe one of STR too. Of course, all lines need run longer time to get same amount, but are you seeing the point of how to get all the aircraft types needed?

I'm not sure about your 2 lines of ARM and 9 of MECH but know it amounts to huge daily IC. And I don't intend to discuss which way might be the most economical because the other school of thought considers "available daily IC for diversity" to sometimes be more important than economy. But no wonder you are missing building so much else that is actually very useful for USA like nukes, STR and PARA. But if those big ticket items are too rich for your build scheme, you should at least consider the glaring mistake in your navy construction scheme. Your CVs, CVLs and DDS are fine. But why you building CAs?

Look at your start fleets regarding the SAGs. Sure they have enough screens counting all the DD-1 and DD-2. But those screens severely limit the range that your BBs might enjoy if they were screened by modern CLs which would also increase the attack values of your SAGs significantly. But you are building more CAs to compound your problem of "shortage of modern long range screens". The DDs you are constructing are already all consumed as CV screens and TP escorts. But you are missing CLs to get your SAGs "stronger and longer". Modern CLs should be replacing every obsolete DD in your SAGs if only for greater range. You can use those vintage DDs as expendable scouts, or convert to convoy escorts.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

If at war in 1940/41, the USA can have around 500 if not more effective IC. But I'm sorry to say I doubt any player can re-create what the USA was able to build IRL. I think the primary reason for this is game balance. If the game (which is somewhat ironically called 'Arsenal of Democracy') gave the USA the ability it had IRL (I remember someone saying the USA outproduced Germany by 2.6 times when German production was at its peak), then it would have something like 800-900 effective IC once it's in the war. An AoD friend of mine suggesting giving the USA 1200 effective IC.

In online games, players already do all they can to delay the USA joining - they would do that and more if it started off with 400-450 base IC in 1936.

But if people did want more realistic production for the USA, I'd say give the USA harsher peace-time penalties when doing so.

 

[Commander666]

If at war in 1940/41, the USA can have around 500 if not more effective IC. But I'm sorry to say I doubt any player can re-create what the USA was able to build IRL. I think the primary reason for this is game balance.

Correct. USA player would have 50 CVs in 1945. You mean to say that would not be "better balanced"? OK, agreed... but it might be great fun!

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, I doubt the CAS will help you much. But STR sure might hurt the enemy a lot.

Basically, I see a huge problem with how you are building. The are 2 basic schools of thought:

Regarding army units, don't build anything until you have tech rushed. Then - at the right time - build a lot of advanced units using as many multiple lines as is needed to reach your goal of number of units. This is what you are mostly doing. This saves both much supplies and eliminates earlier upgrades. However, it ties up a huge amount of daily IC to finance those many lines. This high daily IC investment in one unit type is not too serious for relatively cheaper units like infantry.

However, for very expensive items like aircraft and that use little supply, it is better to avoid building more than one line. Obviously, line must be started earlier to get same amount - so this strategy will need upgrading. Upgrading costs can be minimized by not upgrading anything until after tech rushing achieves same level of unit as other strategy. So that might mean 2 or 3 successive upgrades for units built with one line - which will significantly reduce cost of 1st and 2nd upgrades. Units in production can also be upgraded there whenever new tech achieved but to do this or not actually depends on several factors (which I won't discuss now).

The two different strategies result in vastly different IC available on a daily basis. Many lines result in tying up much IC on a daily basis, so limiting the variety you can build at any time. You would need to cut back on the number of lines to find IC to build other things like HQs, GAR, CLs, and of course nukes. So, using mostly single lines for the very expensive items leaves player with greatly more available daily IC to build for variety. These kind of players can build everything including unique units like subs, cavalry, and even paratroopers. Each of these 3 has a unit attribute that no other unit has - so making them very effective if used properly in the particular right places, with the right numbers, and with good timing.

The arguments usually begin about which way of building is more economical - especially when it gets to discussing Army units of relatively high investment like ARM and MECH. I don't intend to get into that. The only thing I would like to point out to you is the huge amount of daily IC needed for 4 lines of CAS. There is no doubt one line is not only cheaper to get the same number of units (including upgrading cost) but you would have much extra needed daily IC (the IC not used daily by dropping 3 lines). This IC can then be used for a line of FTR and maybe one of STR too. Of course, all lines need run longer time to get same amount, but are you seeing the point of how to get all the aircraft types needed?

I'm not sure about your 2 lines of ARM and 9 of MECH but know it amounts to huge daily IC. And I don't intend to discuss which way might be the most economical because the other school of thought considers "available daily IC for diversity" to sometimes be more important than economy. But no wonder you are missing building so much else that is actually very useful for USA like nukes, STR and PARA. But if those big ticket items are too rich for your build scheme, you should at least consider the glaring mistake in your navy construction scheme. Your CVs, CVLs and DDS are fine. But why you building CAs?

Look at your start fleets regarding the SAGs. Sure they have enough screens counting all the DD-1 and DD-2. But those screens severely limit the range that your BBs might enjoy if they were screened by modern CLs which would also increase the attack values of your SAGs significantly. But you are building more CAs to compound your problem of "shortage of modern long range screens". The DDs you are constructing are already all consumed as CV screens and TP escorts. But you are missing CLs to get your SAGs "stronger and longer". Modern CLs should be replacing every obsolete DD in your SAGs if only for greater range. You can use those vintage DDs as expendable scouts, or convert to convoy escorts.

I just had a USA game started in 1953 after I beat the game on VH as Germany. I built nukes and long serial lines of single unit. The X9 mech were a rush build in case Germany fell apart on the eastern front in 43. I am more preparing for the cold war being honest the game is won whatever I do.

 

[Zardnaar]

If at war in 1940/41, the USA can have around 500 if not more effective IC. But I'm sorry to say I doubt any player can re-create what the USA was able to build IRL. I think the primary reason for this is game balance. If the game (which is somewhat ironically called 'Arsenal of Democracy') gave the USA the ability it had IRL (I remember someone saying the USA outproduced Germany by 2.6 times when German production was at its peak), then it would have something like 800-900 effective IC once it's in the war. An AoD friend of mine suggesting giving the USA 1200 effective IC.

In online games, players already do all they can to delay the USA joining - they would do that and more if it started off with 400-450 base IC in 1936.

But if people did want more realistic production for the USA, I'd say give the USA harsher peace-time penalties when doing so.

Serial lines might get there.Long production runs of 1 line each. War in europe is usually over in 1943/44. Ithink 6 carrier lines will build the historical US carrier fleet, X3 DD lines, 1 linne of CA and CL. USA had around 100 divisions so maybe 3 lines of armor, 1 mech, 1 mot, 2 inf would probably build that by 44/45.

I'm not building nukes because I don't need them basically. Early on I did have IC problems as I was building IC. Are you better off just using X10 tech teams? Its late 43 atm I could have invaded Europe in 42 but I am more or less mucking around.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

On the old HoI2 forums people always claimed the USA could not produce what they did historically.

With some mediocre build up of base ic USA should have little problem to mobilize their manpower, which is near 50% lower than in Doomsday. Not producing any factorires AI usually gets 340-360 base ic.

Continuing past level 1, though, is rather unimportant compared to switching to nuke reactor construction instead.

Building both sites up to 3 is important for research, after that the absolute gain in saved days is relatively small. Starting a nuclear reactor in late 1942 should suffice if nukes are a goal.

- removed obsolete quote; icratox

CAS is very cheap, STR is very expensive, at 1940 tech level it is 3 times as expensive as CAS. So your concrete example will not work.

As USA there are some very important things to consider:

1. Before Pearl Harbour or similar Hawk lobby is not optimized. Full Hawk lobby increases daily output of military units by 77.78%.
2. Before ~1940 elections or so an inconvenient HoG increases icd per military unit by 21%.
3. The assembly techs increase daily output of military units by 25%.

All three together mean that starting military production in late 1941 instead of mid 1940(1st drop of peacetime penalty) will increase daily output of military units by 168.89%. Before that it is better to maximize civil build up and research. Usually it is wise as USA to minimize money on research before 1939 or even 1940. So USA needs some time to reduce its backwardness later, but this happen relativly fast with all those really expensive tech teams. An optimial time to start production is having finished retooling exactly at Pearl Harbour. The compromise between few long serials and many short serials must accommodate to those limitations. Less than one year after retooling is finished USA would have 4 arm per arm serial. 15 lines of Arm1941-SpArt1940 would need less than 275 ic over less than 720 days to finished 150 Arm1941-SpArt1940. That uses up 1350 manpower. It think that answers the question whether the USA are able to build what they did build IRL.

 

[Commander666]

I just had a USA game started in 1953 after I beat the game on VH as Germany. I built nukes....

I'm not building nukes because I don't need them basically.

I am more preparing for the cold war.

I'm a bit confused. Understand you played as Germany and won. Then did you switch in 1953 to continue playing as USA? Who built the nukes - you playing Germany first time?

Anyway, your build above is for USA 1942, so fail to connect your thoughts regarding 1953. But - if you playing for Cold War and not building nukes as USA (as it appears from your statements) - then Stalin will love you! Good luck.

...being honest the game is won whatever I do.

Guess then it doesn't matter if you have FTR or not.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

All three together mean that starting military production in late 1941 instead of mid 1940(1st drop of peacetime penalty) will increase daily output of military units by 168.89%. Before that it is better to maximize civil build up and research. Usually it is wise as USA to minimize money on research before 1939 or even 1940. So USA needs some time to reduce its backwardness later, but this happen relativly fast with all those really expensive tech teams. An optimial time to start production is having finished retooling exactly at Pearl Harbour. The compromise between few long serials and many short serials must accommodate to those limitations. Less than one year after retooling is finished USA would have 4 arm per arm serial. 15 lines of Arm1941-SpArt1940 would need less than 275 ic over less than 720 days to finished 150 Arm1941-SpArt1940. That uses up 1350 manpower. It think that answers the question whether the USA are able to build what they did build IRL.

It answers it quite well, it means the USA cannot build what they did IRL. They did not just build tanks, by August 1945 their navy had 23 battleships, 28 carriers, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, 377 destroyers, 232 submarines. By July 1944 their airforce totaled 79,908 aircraft. By 1945 their army totalled 8,267,958 people (I think that includes air force personnel); their entire military totalled 12,209,238 personnel.

 

[Commander666]

- removed offtopic discussion

That uses up 1350 manpower. It think that answers the question whether the USA are able to build what they did build IRL.

Are you saying how much stuff USA can build is limited by their manpower? While player can certainly reach limits that restrict building vast amounts of army units, I doubt USA has any MP problems building 50 CVs, 2 dozen STR and umpteen nukes.

Building both sites up to 3 is important for research, after that the absolute gain in saved days is relatively small

Regarding the value of a Rocket test site to speed research, the first level gives significant gain. As you point out, each additional level gives less gain. With the significantly reduced gains with extra levels, if it is worth to add level 2 and 3, or not, is rather subjective. You admit that adding Level 4 isn't worth it. I maintain adding level 2 isn't worth it because there is a matter of time to add extra levels. But let's get the first priority straight. If you could only have either Rocket test site or Nuke reactor as USA, which would you pick? The reactor, of course. So that sets priority.

Next is the matter of time which comes into play because very unlikely USA can construct both sites simultaneously. So, as soon as reactor construction can reasonably begin, it should because getting nukes is better than more marginally speeded research via 2nd and 3rd level of rocket test site.

In fact, it is debatable if even the first level of a Rocket Test Site is worth the speeded research. But that is a good research boost. I construct it for that research boast and another very important reason. To understand, let’s see what is really happening when player starts construction on rocket test site. Is he not preparing for the huge investment of the reactor which will follow? I venture that the fiscal stability player needs to begin Rocket Test (achieved by finding IC needed to fund that) is the first step in the smooth transition to the following increased fiscal stability needed to start reactor (find the extra IC to do that).

Taking on a 50 IC project like reactor is massive. Starting with the lower IC of a Rocket test site and building one level (for the optimum research boast) can smooth out the needed IC adjustments for player to tackle the higher cost of reactor because he only needs to now find the extra IC regarding the different cost of the two things. So - cancelling Rocket site to start reactor is a most proper approach. But delaying nukes to get slightly more speeded research by continuing rocket site to whatever level you arbitrarily think is optimum most definitely delays nukes - but they were the priority.

You can increase your research speed other ways. But if you value nukes, stopping rocket test site earlier will assist player realizing sooner their atomic dreams.

 

[Commander666]

I think that includes air force personnel); their entire military totalled 12,209,238 personnel.

The figures for USA in mid-1945 are just amazing. Importantly, they relate to what the inventory was on that date. What USA actually managed to build exceeded that in many cases because the figures do not include all that was lost during 3 1/2 years of war. Of course there were many ships built before 1936 that are included in that inventory - so inflating the navy figures if considering only what was constructed from 1936-45.

I would agree the personnel for air force are included since the USAAF was a branch of the army until post-war. Anyway, 12 million uniforms is quite impressive. Add to that the huge proportion of civilian population employed in the war effort... and Yamamoto was most right to predict, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

 

[Pang Bingxun]

It answers it quite well, it means the USA cannot build what they did IRL.

That is the opposite of my conclusion.
Lets get some figures without gearing bonus and retooling applied for the sake of simplicity, also i ignore discounts from doctrines and ministers.

They did not just build tanks, by August 1945 their navy had 23 battleships, 28 carriers, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, 377 destroyers, 232 submarines.

23 unbrigaded BB1941 cost 33683 icd.
28 unbrigaded CV1943 cost 47094 icd.
71 unbrigaded CVE1943 cost 30059 icd.
36 unbrigaded CA1941 cost 18248 icd.
36 unbrigaded CL1941 cost 15163 icd.
126(377, but 3 per division) unbrigaded DD1941 cost 54432 icd.
77(232, but 3 per division) unbrigaded SS1944 cost 14197 icd.

That adds up to 212876 icd or 197 ic over 3 years.

By July 1944 their airforce totaled 79,908 aircraft.

Let us think of this as 80 divisions.

40 MRF1943 cost 35021 icd.
40 STR1943 cost 63037 icd.

That adds up to 98058 icd or 91 ic over 3 years.

By 1945 their army totalled 8,267,958 people (I think that includes air force personnel); their entire military totalled 12,209,238 personnel.

Well, manpowerwise AoD has a problem. For Germany and USSR the IRL Army had also ~3 times the soldiers AoD calculates with.

9 Serials of Arm1941-SpArt1940 need 165 ic over (80+1048) days to complete 16 units each. This time i calculated in gearing bonus, but clearly 144 armoured divisions is superior to what the US Army had IRL. In total i come to 453 ic needed for military production of navy, airforce and army. Due to the effects partly ignored it would be slightly less ic needed. So approximatly 2/3 of effective ic reasonable available by late 1941 are needed for production of military, approximatly 200 ic are available for other purposes. With using only 90 ic on 6 serials of factories USA could have 480 base ic in late 1941 and 535 base ic in late 1943. That would then be near 700 effective ic with quite some room resource wise for further enhancement of effective ic.

 

[Zardnaar]

The reason I am not building nukes iis it is a waste of time. Here is how the game will pan out and I am dragging my feet as well. Germany has not collapsed mid 1043 althoughthey have not made any progress in the east since 41. THey did do Sealion and got as far as Glascow but I liberated the UK. Operartion Torch happened the same month IRL 2 months later my tanks and mechs crossed the Suez canal, Italy was pushing into the Sudan. In 1943 I just beat up a few Italian divisions andinvaded southern N.Spain as they were in the Axis. This was just a raid to get my navy into the med. I have built 12 aircraft carriers and maybe 2 SAGs of lvl IV CA with DD as escorts. I do not need a big navy vs Japan I can just build another half dozen carriers I do not think I will need much more than that.

So 1944 I will invade Europe probably in the Balken area and push into Poland. I may be able to liberate Poland before the Soviets get there. Then I swing west but this time I will mkae sure to liberate all of France before the German surrender event fires. I will then shiop my army to Asia to say high to Japan. I'll do some Island hopping and invade China instead of beelinging for Japan which will have a handful of divisions there. This is just to train my army. Japan will probably surrender in 1945 but I may drag it out to early 46 so when the cold war gets hot event fires it will be summer 46. By then most of my army will be back in Europe, upgraded to 45 levels of goodness and I think I will leave the mech and arm lines running. My air force is getting some xp bombing southern Spain.

The army size will probably be around 150 divisions something like 12 Inf, 9-12 MArines, 30-40 MOT, 30 ARM, and 60 odd Mech. THis game isa really about preparing for the slugfest against the USSR not the Axis. THe last game I had nukes as a post surrender USA and I nuked Germany 3 times and Italy 1. Kind of made the game to easy.

I have had games as the USA/Britain in normal HoI2 where I have built so many strat/tac bombers even the allies struggle to fuel them all. 8 strat bombers if unopposed can reduce Germanys IC to rubble over a few weeks hell they can even blow up all of the USSR IC in Siberia if you invade through India and drop a few air bases you can gut the Soviet IC long before your army gets there.

 

[IcratoX]

I've removed all posts that contained any form of insults. There are a couple of things I want to make very very clear now:

- You do not insult another member, at any time
- Do not change words/change quotes or whatever of any other member
- If you think someone else's post is abusive, insulting or similar to you. You turn to a staff member. You however do not enter a discussion, and especially not start throwing around insults.

You have an ignore function on these forums, use it. Especially if you do not wish to speak to a certain member.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Thabnks for the calculations Pang, I think you have me persuaded! Although, of course, your figures do not include the substantial support the USA gave to the UK, USSR and others. I also doubt an air division had 1,000 aircraft.

Well, manpowerwise AoD has a problem. For Germany and USSR the IRL Army had also ~3 times the soldiers AoD calculates with.

Indeed, I would propose editing this to represent the RL levels, but then that would also require editing the manpower needed per division of infantry etc - which can be a hard one to define.

I would agree the personnel for air force are included since the USAAF was a branch of the army until post-war. Anyway, 12 million uniforms is quite impressive. Add to that the huge proportion of civilian population employed in the war effort... and Yamamoto was most right to predict, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

It really is impressive and Yamamoto was indeed most correct. Although in AoD Japan easily has the upper hand in naval combat in 1941-42 due to the blueprints it starts off with for the naval doctrine. If the USA tries to go against Japan 1v1 (as it did IRL) then it will get slaughtered.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Thabnks for the calculations Pang, I think you have me persuaded! Although, of course, your figures do not include the substantial support the USA gave to the UK, USSR and others. I also doubt an air division had 1,000 aircraft.

AoD uses 100 aircraft per division. IRL the numbers Germany build of Bf 109 and Fw 190 together reached over 50k. Numbers build is not how much were used at once, but even if it was 400 air divisions vs. 800 air divisions it would be quite a mess to handle this.

 

[Commander666]

. Although in AoD Japan easily has the upper hand in naval combat in 1941-42 due to the blueprints it starts off with for the naval doctrine. If the USA tries to go against Japan 1v1 (as it did IRL) then it will get slaughtered.

Playing Japan with all those blueprints was wonderful and I easily beat USN if 1-1. But playing USA I also beat IJN because human can keep himself under a land-based air umbrella – a tactic the AI rarely does – and so greatly change simple odds to something more difficult to compare.

AoD uses 100 aircraft per division. IRL the numbers Germany build of Bf 109 and Fw 190 together reached over 50k. Numbers build is not how much were used at once, but even if it was 400 air divisions vs. 800 air divisions it would be quite a mess to handle this.

The actual figures were less: only 42,531 Bf-109 and Fw-190 together. Total fighter production (15 models) was 53,215. But, sure, these numbers might be hard for AoD to handle. But what actually is an AoD division other than 100 aircraft - which doesn’t fit to any squadron or air wing AFAIK?

Can AoD air divisions not be changed arbitrarily to 1000 aircraft instead – which might fit better to some players who actually will build ~50 air divisions? But the other point - they wouldn't all be there all at once - might fit rather well for players who only build half that number. It would be nice to somehow get it into numbers of squadrons or wings if possible.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Playing Japan with all those blueprints was wonderful and I easily beat USN if 1-1. But playing USA I also beat IJN because human can keep himself under a land-based air umbrella – a tactic the AI rarely does – and so greatly change simple odds to something more difficult to compare.

Aha when I make such comments, its best to presume I'm talking about an online game. Anything is possible on single-player. You could probably build nothing but militia and transports and still conquer the world on single-player.