How Much can the USA Produce?

[Commander666]

USA Gearing Up 1 event will, from memory, usually occur just after Vichy France?, about July 1940 in historical SP game with human as USA.

Yes, it did occur some time after Vichy event. But it was tied to Japan demanding French Indo-China. It happened right after Siam joined Japan - which happened right after they got Indo-China. I think it actually is not tied to Siam joining, just in this game that all happened same day.

Well, USA player does not need to worry about doing anything to increase resources - only build infra and factories in the most high provinces as regards their highest start IC. The first gearing event took USA IC from 111 to 222 IC. What a jump! And resources ballooned into the hundreds daily now being stockpiled.

Seems 2nd gearing event will be Pearl Harbor which should take my current 0/227/350 to probably 0/350/350.

Personally, I think no gearing up for war until after Vichy is wrong; and such huge jumps are problematic. While I haven't researched it, I think USA did gear up a little once WW2 was officially announced with the Allied DOW of Germany. Sure, they were not getting involved, but they must have been concerned when the scale of world wide conflicts went from Japanese-Sino war... to Marco Polo... to Finnish-Soviet war... and then suddenly all of Europe erupts with the Allies going to war while the SU annexes everything on its western borders and Italy annexes Albania. Each additional country joining Axis would have become alarming.

However, if they didn't care even enough to slightly increase the American defensive posture in 1939, they certainly cared once France fell so rapidly the next year. "Danzig or war" should have been USA's first small gearing up. Vichy being created the next but bigger gearing up. The Japanese taking French-Indo China next and largest gearing up so the three amount to what the one event gives. That effectively doubles USA IC. Then giving a final 50% boost with Pearl makes sense.

Further, while my game is not there yet, I think Hitler's invasion of Norway and especially annexing Denmark (with Greenland and Iceland becoming USA possessions) would have created further gearing for USA. In fact, USA's RL preparations for defense probably considered every UK ship lost and, especially, would have been tied to the evidence of a growing U-boat menace. Why else were they so scratching their heads to figure out how radar works? In conclusion, massive gearing up events do not make for appropriate game play. Sure, some historical events created bigger consequences than did other things... but AoD got it quite wrong as regards USA in v1.08.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

As the USSR you can easily trigger most of the USA's gearing events, all you need to do is attain 70 belligerence. But I believe this helps compensate for the hidden bonuses Germany gets in being able to keep its belligerence ridiculously low.

but AoD got it quite wrong as regards USA in v1.08.

I believe the gearing events for the USA have been present long before 1.08.

Further, while my game is not there yet, I think Hitler's invasion of Norway and especially annexing Denmark (with Greenland and Iceland becoming USA possessions) would have created further gearing for USA.

The USA gets a gearing event if Iceland falls into German (or Soviet) hands.

I disagree with Commander's idea of increasing the USA's peace-time IC, but I do agree with mcgyanol's suggestion of increasing the USA's base IC, while simultaneously decreasing the % of available IC during peace-time. The USA should not be able to build a significant army by 1939/40, but it should have a devastating impact on the Axis' fortunes in the coming years.

 

[Commander666]

I believe the gearing events for the USA have been present long before 1.08.

I'm sure they have been. I was actually just stating (for the record again) what I'm playing... but would have been better to have put that trailer in brackets.

The USA gets a gearing event if Iceland falls into German (or Soviet) hands.

That would make sense; and is an example of how gearing should progress a bit with any event that would justify gearing (instead of saving all the gearing to be awarded with just a couple major events).

I disagree with Commander's idea of increasing the USA's peace-time IC,

I don't mean to increase it either. I'm just against awarding a 200% increase in IC due to one gearing event. My suggestion was to give a little of that increase with Danzig, more with Vichy, and perhaps a bit more when Japan gets French Indochina. However, at this point that might not yet be the full increase given because - obviously - it will be more peacetime IC if the same total gearing is gotten earlier.

However, it is most easy to reserve enough of the total gearing for the one event (currently all gotten soon after Vichy)... and instead give some balance later (like maybe Germany taking Norway or annexing Denmark). Done that way the total peacetime IC for USA would be basically same - WHILE AT THE SAME TIME having more gearing events raise IC more progressively in smaller steps. It does not need to result in any more peacetime IC. Give some of it earlier... give some of it later to maintain same total... and do it in more smaller steps.

Surely, there are enough Axis and Japanese events for USA to achieve basically same peacetime IC but have it spread out better than a 200% increase at one time.

The USA should not be able to build a significant army by 1939/40, but it should have a devastating impact on the Axis' fortunes in the coming years.

That would depend on what you term significant. One line of CL-4 to replace the DD-1s so the USN SAGs have better range does not constitute a significant navy. Its not even any increase really if player converts the inapprpriate DD-1 screens into convoy escorts. In fact, every BB of 2800km or greater range will NOT have a new screen until after Pearl Harbor. Additionally, by Jan 1940 I constructed three SS-3, one DD-3, and one CA-3. That does not significantly increase the navy by any standard.

Importantly, no CVs will be adding until the first two new carriers (USS Yorktown and USS Enterprise) come in August 1940. That might be rather slow historically. Checking my website, I see they commissioned in 1937 and 1938 respectively. Hence, USA in AoD isn't adding any significant navy "by 1939/40"... and better spreading out the gearing events need not change that either.

EDIT: I reloaded cause I made a serious tech mistake. This time I got USA's 1st Gearing for War event between Germany annexing Denmark and DOWing Luxembourg. It's still the same major increase with +25% peacetime modifier (more than doubling my effective IC this time), but seems not related to any other event as things were comparatively quiet in Europe. Strange.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Germany annexing Denmark triggered it, as it means Iceland is in German possession.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Probably not. The usual event chain means that UK owns Iceland. The first gearing even often triggers while Germany is invading BeNeLux in may 1940. It is a bit random, sometimes it triggers after Vichy.

 

[Commander666]

Germany annexing Denmark triggered it, as it means Iceland is in German possession.

Probably. But Germany never got "possession" of Iceland. After the annexation process completed, Iceland went to UK.

Anyway, there were about 3-4 more gearing events... none of them occurred with any other event or even soon after - rather in quiet times event-wise. However, it might be delay on triggers.

One gearing was very big, the others about 15%. Now Japan has DOWed me; and I playing with 389 effective IC.

 

[Commander666]

USA should not have more IC

While I'm not sure exactly what day I had the above stated 389 IC, I checked to determine that the day after Pearl Harbor my USA had 0/486/360 IC.

In my case Pearl Harbor happened Jan 4/42. The lower 389 IC maybe was the day or week before.

Whatever, USA having an effective IC of 486 strongly indicates that the suggestions made by others to increase USA IC further (primarily to help online play) really are not warranted.

I reached my IC by doing what can be fairly called a "modest" factory construction program. I added 6 new factories in each of 5 locations (total 30) and increased those provinces to 200% infra. Done at regular speed, it amounts to a daily investment of 42 IC.


But others do more than that using complex strategies of accelerated construction, or more factories (I could have done one more line but choose to build a bit of navy).

The point is that an experienced aggressive player can get USA effective IC to be 500 by Pearl Harbor. How much more do you need to win in multi-player?

As regards my SP game - now 487 IC - that is ridiculous for quickly defeating the IJN, blitzing across the Pacific islands, soon annexing Siam and trapping many enemy in French Indo-China, and - with the new Operation Torch event - I suppose also pushing the Italians back in N. Africa (probably using just the Canadian Army). Meanwhile, I can construct mind boggling numbers of units. Ran 12 lines of CV to match IJN CVs on a 1-to-1 basis considering their anticipated construction.... and scrapped 6 lines after 6 months of construction because the Japanese start advantage of 12 CVs to 6 of mine had changed to 3 CVs of theirs left to now 9 of mine. I will end all CV construction when I have 15 CVs - not because I need that to win any naval battle but only so I can have one CTF (3 CVs) in each of the 5 oceans.

Strategic bombers of course I build using 4 lines.
Suddenly need MOTs.... not a problem.... just add 6 lines. You will have 18 divisions in a year that can blaze across the rest of Africa taking back the Suez Canal.
What about Operation Overlord? No problem, I don't have a single tank, paratrooper or transport plane yet - but one year in advance of my D-Day I'll just drop however many lines I need to get what I want.

What can a player not do given ~500 IC? But some want even more increase?

 

[mcganyol]

commander, when germany has 540, soviet 510 and japan 300 IC, then usa's 500 is pathetic at best.
the main problem is that you have no clue what you are talking about but you simply can't stop talking about it. just for the sake of arguing probably.
i don't care if you have killed all the AIs with only 20 divisions so in your opinion building 30 is a total mistake and unnecessary to win.

i won't try and tell Raikonen how to drive an F1-car just beacuse i feel i'm highly superior in my 1.4honda on the streets.

You are welcome to either join our online play and learn at least the basics of balance in aod or keep your nonsenses to yourself.

What can a player not do given ~500 IC? ...

yeah, until you find out plz only ask in the forums!

i try to answer you but i bet you will neglect it anyway... even 20 ic is enough if you have unlimited time. i know you used to play till '63 and such but i have never seen an online game last over '44. so if usa wants to make a difference in 42-43 it has to improve it's military very fast. and i mean very fast. you don't have years to prepare. 6 lin of MOTs is way not enough. [well making mot at all as usa is a mistake imo but that is a different topic]

in early 41, both axis and commintern has over 500 divisions on the field [of course i didnt mean germany alone, i mean whole axis]
in early 41 usa has at best around 100divisions but i doubt even that is reasonable. around 50 divisions is more likely.
so usa has around 2 years not only to catch up but to outgun axis. for that it needs much more IC than they have. [even on top of the free market bonus]

 

[Pang Bingxun]

so usa has around 2 years not only to catch up but to outgun axis. for that it needs much more IC than they have. [even on top of the free market bonus]

A line of 9 Mot will need 80+348 days if full free markets, full hawk lobby and full assembly line apply. 20 lines of Mot1941-SpArt1940 cost about 261 ic. So USA can mobilize 2160 manpower in slightly more than a year into 180 Mot1941-SpArt1940. Those are divisions with a mediocre icd/manpower ratio but they still suffice to exhaust the manpower USA have. In order to be limited by ic the USA must build a lot of divisions with a (very) high icd/manpower ratio.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Part of the problem stems from, as I believe Pang has pointed out, the USA lacking manpower. Even with all the gearing events, and even after disbanding its entire military, the USA can barely mobilize 2160 manpower in 1940; perhaps even in 1941. Regardless, the USA needs more then just a significant army, it needs a war winning airforce and navy too.

Yes this is possible if the Japan player triggers the Pearl Harbour event. But no human Japan in their right mind would give the USA +250 manpower, -10 dissent, +3 hawk and +4 interventionism; especially not for improved combat odds which can last just two months. Even if they did, the USA will still struggle to reach reach 2160 manpower without disbanding its starting military.

Additionally the gearing event 56 giving the USA +1 drafted army is bit of a nonsense too. IMO all of the gearing events should give +1 standing army to the USA. But also the triggers for them should be edited as they can easily be exploited by both the Comintern (by the USSR getting very high belli - heck, it can get 50 belligerence from just invading & annexing the Baltic and invading Finland historically) and the Axis (by creating puppets to keep belli very low).

 

[mcganyol]

pang, usa does not need motors. the mar-spart is the highest mp/ic unit they need. and they don't need very much of them. [100 is way more than enough]
they need at very least mechanized, but even better medium tanks, they need a hell lot of planes (and not the cheapest cas), they need hell lot of ships.
usa needs at bare minimum 9 lines of carriers which is in itself around 80 IC. give the modern screens for it. give a few transports too. you are already over 100 IC and that is a very medicore navy. Nowhere near the overwhelming force against the japans. So if usa really wants to make sure to win the war on pacific by it's economical weight it has to dedicate around 200IC only on navy [18line of carriers, and a lot of screens and transports]. This 200 IC is spent virtually manpower free. Give to the equation that usa needs 4 line of fighters as a bare minimum. thats another 40IC. give in bombers which at least is another 50IC [with only 1 strat bomber, 2tac bomber and 1nav bomber]. This is nowhere near the overwhelming air, the usa irl has. i don't think this airforce is enough to cover all the pacific theater and help out the uk at the same time.
aircrafts are also virtually manpower free. paratroopers and transport planes are not even included as they are really costly [at least you dont need much of them]
if you have 500 effective IC. at best you have 400 dedicated on production, but i doubt even that is reasonable. we better calculate with 350 if usa is about to support su and/or uk with supplies and/or money. by the start of unit production you may have more, but once you field something your mil. salaries and supply demand start to increase dramatically. Also you need to upgrade / repair/ reinforce from time to time. i also don't think it's wise to run research below 90% [i prefer 100 tough]. So your average spending on production of new units wont be higher than 350 on average.
from that 350IC you spend 200 on a strong navy, spend 90 on a medicore airforce and spend huh you guessed you have 60 ic left to build 3 lines of mar and around 2 lines of arm... well so you have to cut navy in half. ok spend 100 on a medicore navy, 90 on a medicore air and u have 160 left for land... with 160 u can make 4mar, 4tank, 4mech. that is at best a medicore land force and will take ages to deplet 2000 manpower.
i didnt even count things like usa maybe want to produce a line of rocket test site [20ic] and/or nuclear reactor [50ic] and/or maybe a few aa or radars on the pacific islands and probably other smaller things like a few airfields or ports for pacific islands.... etc

usa must have the IC of ger and japan combined imo [once it is in the war]. even that doesnt reflect the industrial potential of usa in ww2, but i agree that more than 800 would by no means help game balance. but it has less than germany or soviet union alone... (even if it is a bit compensated by the better free market)

 

[Pang Bingxun]

pang, usa does not need motors.[..]they need at very least mechanized, but even better medium tanks,

The USA have to choose how fast they want how good an army. The better the wanted army, the longer it takes to build it. Mot is a good choice for many cases and this includes the USA, but the USA can do better if they want.

261 ic over 80+348 days will give 180 Mot1941-SpArt1940.
234 ic over 80+474 days will give 180 Mech1942-SpArt1940, but that requires some techrushing.
205 ic over 80+990 days will give 180 Arm1941-SpArt1940.

if you have 500 effective IC. at best you have 400 dedicated on production, but i doubt even that is reasonable. we better calculate with 350 if usa is about to support su and/or uk with supplies and/or money. by the start of unit production you may have more, but once you field something your mil. salaries and supply demand start to increase dramatically. Also you need to upgrade / repair/ reinforce from time to time. i also don't think it's wise to run research below 90% [i prefer 100 tough]. So your average spending on production of new units wont be higher than 350 on average.

The USA are wise to give building factories the highest priority, use all other ic on Infra and once the first gearing events trigger build up money stockpiles(and after 1940 assembly line experimentation some supply stockpiles, too) till max hawk lobby is achieved. Once being max hawkish the military production starts. I assumed this to be a historical on time Pearl Harbour with only the retooling done in advance. Then however 600-700 effective ic would be available:

[...]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.

usa must have the IC of ger and japan combined imo [once it is in the war]. even that doesnt reflect the industrial potential of usa in ww2, but i agree that more than 800 would by no means help game balance. but it has less than germany or soviet union alone... (even if it is a bit compensated by the better free market)

A bit? Free markets and assembly line increase military units per icd by 122.22%, but USA can use a higher average gearing bonus and has less icd to spend on upgrading, reinforcements and supplies. So for same effective ic the USA can produce approximatly 3 times as much as germany, USSR or Japan. The USA can easily spend a "centrally planned no assembly line equivalent" of 1350 effective ic on military production. That is approximatly what those 3 main villains in total can mount for some time before resource scarcity cripples their effective ic.

 

[mcganyol]

i don't think in multiplayer you can achieve 700 effective IC [simply cos u can't afford to build only industries in 40-41], especially not with stockpiling money and supplies. 36-37-38 with only very limited ic on factories [maybe 10 lines are possible] and no hawk lobby puts usa in a serious disadvantage compared to su and ger.

why you say usa is 3 times more effective than germany or ussr only because the free market? by that time of course both ger and su has the assembly lines [they usually have it sooner than usa].
give in the equation that ger land doctrines favors arm production. usa at very best can produce 1.5 times the tanks with the same IC allocated as germany. but i think even that number is an exaggeration.
other opponent is japan which of course have ship assembly line, and the head of state who makes unit production 10% cheaper. of course it is nowhere as good as free markets 20/20. but saying usa can produce 3 times more carriers with the same IC as japan is a total bull**. i think not even 1.5.
but usa can't allocate the same ic to tanks as germany and the same time allocate the same ic to carriers as japan. so it won't overproduce them in a ~2 year period.

 

[Commander666]

...when germany has 540, soviet 510 and japan 300 IC, then usa's 500 is pathetic at best.

... even 20 ic is enough if you have unlimited time. ...but i have never seen an online game last over '44. so if usa wants to make a difference in 42-43 it has to improve it's military very fast.

in early 41, both axis and commintern has over 500 divisions on the field [of course i didnt mean germany alone, i mean whole axis]

in early 41 usa has at best around 100divisions but i doubt even that is reasonable. around 50 divisions is more likely.

so usa has around 2 years not only to catch up but to outgun axis. for that it needs much more IC than they have.

The whole problem is that you are trying to hyper drive a game that was designed for historical balance. As you don't have unlimited time, you want the USA to "out gun" the enemy in 1943. Where did you begin your assumed notion that Allies should win in MP - especially since you seem unwillingly (or your group is unable timewise) to put in the effort for that to happen with proper balance gained over time?

Have you noticed the "1944 scenario" - maybe better designed for people with your special needs.

 

[Commander666]

Additionally the gearing event 56 giving the USA +1 drafted army is bit of a nonsense too.

That had me shaking my head too.

... if the Japan player triggers the Pearl Harbour event. But no human Japan in their right mind would give the USA +250 manpower, -10 dissent, +3 hawk and +4 interventionism....

True! But no human Japan should invade China in the first place - if discussing online games. Much better they build IC and CVs to quicker sink mcganyol's navies. :rofl:

 

[Titan79]

The whole problem is that you are trying to hyper drive a game that was designed for historical balance.

What? Historical balance would mean exactly what mcganyol is saying, i.e. that the US in AoD should have much bigger production capabilities than it currently has.

Maybe you meant "game balance"? Otherwise, I don't understand how you can at the same time bash and surreptitiously acknowledge this fact. If the game is designed around historical balance, as you wrote, then the US is definitely underpowered as it stands now... (it had roughly 2,5x the max production of Germany IRL, but even if we do not want to give it the same, insane numbers - which would mean around or even over 1000 IC - surely 500 IC is way too low. Something around 700 might be a good compromise between game and historical balance).

 

[Commander666]

commander,... ... ... You are welcome to either join our online play and learn at least the basics of balance in aod or keep your nonsenses to yourself.

Thanks for the invite... but I wouldn't want to join one of your games - not unless you and I can get into bombing each other immediately.

It is no nonsense that I state you are trying to change the balance of AoD to serve a specific desire. I quite know the basics of AoD balance - which you want to warp so that the USA player can be effective in your rushed game by eliminating your recognized problem of "you don't have years to prepare".

That's your problem! Hope you playing the USA!

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

What? Historical balance would mean exactly what mcganyol is saying, i.e. that the US in AoD should have much bigger production capabilities than it currently has.

I also fail to see Commander's point, unless he means game balance. But that still makes little sense as an Axis with the same IC as the Allies+Comintern will almost always end in Axis victory.

Yes the current multiplayer game involved a massive industrialisation race (see the link to the AAR in my signature), but the point is every nation was doing so and the USA's industry was still easily over-shadowed by the Axis. And mcganyol is right, a human USAcannot pursue significant industrial efforts throughout 1940-41 if it wants a chance to influence the war on multi-player.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

i don't think in multiplayer you can achieve 700 effective IC [simply cos u can't afford to build only industries in 40-41], especially not with stockpiling money and supplies. 36-37-38 with only very limited ic on factories [maybe 10 lines are possible] and no hawk lobby puts usa in a serious disadvantage compared to su and ger.

Not having full hawk lobby is no option. Lacking mp experience i simply assumed it to be completely achieved not before PH. Without using the event USA needs to force changing sliders and that comes at some costs. Without forced sliders changes however USA can put approximatly 100 ic on factories and infra together before the first gearing event triggers. It strongly depends on ic on consumer goods, so selling resources and reducing total research expenses are rather relevant.

Before the USA change HoG in late 1940(?) building any military is not a good idea. I calculated with no military build starting before PH. In practise some mild investment in the military starting in late 1940 is reasonable.

why you say usa is 3 times more effective than germany or ussr only because the free market? by that time of course both ger and su has the assembly lines [they usually have it sooner than usa].

The USA may have it the same time as germany, the USSR will lag severly behind that. But that is not even the issue. When the army was build assembly line was not used. I compared the output of military units when they were built. Once the army is built and unused manpower is low it makes little sense to compare it. For all nations but the USA assembly line is essentially only used for upgrading the miltary. at Upgrading however free markets will excel and give 4.69 times as many upgrades per icd as centrally planned economies with both being fully proffesional army.

give in the equation that ger land doctrines favors arm production.

This is a discount of (up to) 20% or the same as assembly line. So if US donnot choose to change the doctrine path the advantage shrinks down to 77.7% or even 42.2% if you want to calculate out assembly line as well.

usa at very best can produce 1.5 times the tanks with the same IC allocated as germany. but i think even that number is an exaggeration.

If comparing the same models at the same average gearing bonus it is precisely 20/9 times the tanks per icd. Later models are more expensive, so the numbers are a bit smaller. Retooling time is not reduced by sliders and techs, so that will make the numbers a bit smaller, too. But bigger max gearing bonus is used and is faster reached due to techs and sliders. Assuming it to be 2.22 times as many units per icd is rather reasonable.

other opponent is japan which of course have ship assembly line, and the head of state who makes unit production 10% cheaper. of course it is nowhere as good as free markets 20/20. but saying usa can produce 3 times more carriers with the same IC as japan is a total bull**. i think not even 1.5.

Ship assembly line will not be available for japan before late 1940 at best. The HoS is rather useful, it reduces icd per units by 19%, so units per icd increase by 23.46%. Depending on whether ship assembly line usage differs the usa can produce 1.44 or 1.8 times as many Carriers as japan per same icd if gearing bonus and retooling make no difference. So a factor of 1.5 is a good estimate of what happens if ship assembly line is used only partly by japan. My suggestion that a factor of 3 per icd is used applies only to army and air airforce and does not calculate in the HoS of Japan. But japan is a much smaller economy than germany and USSR anyway.

but usa can't allocate the same ic to tanks as germany and the same time allocate the same ic to carriers as japan. so it won't overproduce them in a ~2 year period.

I think that the same total worth of the military is reached in significantly less than 2 years if those 2 years start with historical PH and only the USA use assembly line. If Germany and Japan together spend 480 ic on avarage over 3 years(1080 days), than USA spending the same 480 ic and dividing 1080 days by 20/9 will give 486 days. That is less than 1.5 years.

Long serials are more efficient due to gearing bonus and retooling. For having a signicant military early short serials would need to be used. This tradeoff is exceptionally strong for the USA.

 

[Commander666]

I also fail to see Commander's point, unless he means game balance. But that still makes little sense as an Axis with the same IC as the Allies+Comintern will almost always end in Axis victory.

Yes the current multiplayer game involved a massive industrialisation race, but the point is every nation was doing so and the USA's industry was still easily over-shadowed by the Axis. And mcganyol is right, a human USAcannot pursue significant industrial efforts throughout 1940-41 if it wants a chance to influence the war on multi-player.

My point is not game balance in AoD (which I think is fine) but rather the problems of player balance online using AoD. Firstly, it seems players might want to spend their limited online sessions (time wise) engaged in war. However, I would hardly classify AoD as a "war game" but rather an economics game that results in winning wars.

Just playing the "early years" takes me - in SP - weeks of real time (or days if I stay up day and night). How nice if each online player could individually play the early years; and when the online game began, there would be a "file merge" to combine each player's country attributes and values in one master file that everybody would download to so all start identical game.

But there exists another problem. The players of UK and Germany go to war in 1939, Russian player doesn't start his real war with Germany until early 1941, and USA doesn't join until end of the year. It caused history as occurred, but certainly leaves the USA player "isolated" - especially if the game will end soon after he gets into the war (because the other players ran out of time, or whatever).

The solution to get a true "war game" online out of AoD must be house rules that have only one rule - "No house rules!". I want to play Poland so I can teach the German player how totally useless all his IC and infra construction from 1936 to 1938 really was - because he won't be building anymore of it after the spring of 1938!

===================================


EDIT:

So - according to the BBC - mcganyol is "boz"... and he's playing Japan in the current MP game. And he's pushing for more USA IC... so that he can sink more enemy CVs after the States builds them, I suppose.

But I just sank 9 of Japan's 12 CVs using my 6 USA CVs in Single Play... and lost nothing. The reason generally purported is that the AI plays so much worse than the human. In short, had I been playing boz he should have sunk my navy having a 2-1 advantage when we went to war. However, we all know that when it comes to the actual combat - SP or online - there is no difference as regards the calculating of shots. The only difference is that humans are presumed to have better strategy than AI... so explaining my win against far greater Japanese AI odds.

We can also presume that boz probably has good strategy, and followed the house rules that meant war with China in 1937. Trying to make sense of the paradox, it seems that my win occurred because the AI chose to do battle around my islands where my bombers could greatly assist. And had boz done same, I also would probably have sunk his CVs.

However, we can further assume that boz knows also the value of NAVs when based on his Japanese islands... and that I would not venture near there. So seems to me that if boz and I played, we would be mostly at the stand-off range of each other's NAVs with me making sure Wake, Midway, Johnston and the Hawaiian islands can't be taken. I don't see any problem with me having my lower IC of 488 as I reported using on v1.08 to defend the Western USA from Japan in online play - even with boz commanding the IJN. In fact, I could easily have skipped Strategic bomber construction (and anything else) and put all that into more NAVs to so run 8 lines instead of the current 2 lines I did... and kept myself safe on both sides of America.

And I still maintain that I only need time to eventually come to the aid of the Allies. The problem is really one of trying to hyper warp USA to get into a fairer game for each online player because, as boz - or mcganyol - pointed out, no online game he knows of went long enough for a historical end. That reason I do not see as justification to give huge increases in IC with v1.09; and upset the rather good historical balance - iC wise - that exists in v1.08