Dunno, most Russians would disagree with most Americans as to how much we were actually lend leasing. Since the end of the Cold War there has been sort of a collective awakening in the US in regards to USSR contributions in WW2. Even still there is a myth that with out the US' production the USSR would have fell. Most data I've seen is to the contrary. By the time US material started making it's way to the front the Russians had begun to turn the tide. That isn't to say the equipment wasn't welcome with open arms or that it was helpful. But US material was not the crutch that kept the Soviets alive that some Westerners make it out to be.
My understanding was that it was precisely the opposite. Since the end of the cold war there has been increasing access to Russian archives and information from WW2; the Soviet propaganda figure of 4% of Soviet production being supplied by the allies has been demonstrated to be completely false, the numbers are more in the region of 20-50% of production depending on the type of equipment (100% in one case actually). Hell, there are quotes from Stalin, Zhukov and Khrushchev that have emerged in more recent times that outright say "without lend lease we would have lost the war", in almost those exact words.
Also, you refer to specifically to US lend lease, which is true was not in significant numbers until 42 and later. However, British lend lease began arriving in Russia only weeks after the start of the war, with large amounts of equipment arriving to fill crucial gaps left due to early losses and the slowdown in production as the factories were moved to Siberia. I have read some articles that say that as much as 40% of the Medium and Heavy tanks and 15% of the fighters defending Moscow by December were lend leased.
I should note, I am not suggesting that the US won the war for everyone or that the USSR didn't win the war. I honestly think that without any one of the allies the war would have been lost. However, I think it is fair to illustrate quite how much equipment was sent as lend lease to the Soviets and the UK. The fact that the USA could outfit a huge military AND supply both the USSR and UK with massive amounts of equipment is just not represented in a game where both the Germans and the Soviets outproduce them.
I have to strongly disagree with the notion that America would not have intervened unless attacked. For one thing that is not at all certain. For another, it would be terrible game design and easily manipulated. Who in their right mind would ever attack the USA in MP games until after Russia and Britain had fallen?
WT may still be rising a bit too quickly, but it is better than it was at initial release. In our current MP game we have reached the second half of '39. The war started a few months early. China, Poland and Benelux have all fallen, as has Paris. France will capitulate any day now. WT is 85%.
Frankly, if both France and China have fallen, WT should reach 100%. I also believe the US would be gearing for the inevitable war at this point. We may have been slow to get fully involved but we would have done so. We were already fighting uboats without having declared war.
I agree with this. If you set up the game historically, without China capitulating, world tension is under 40% at the start of the war. We actually had a very awkward situation in one MP game where world tension was actually so low that Poland couldn't join the allies when attacked because world tension was so low.
Also, even once France falls and world tension skyrockets, the US still has to remove the great depression and Isolation before it can actually produce decent military factory numbers, let alone join the war. It will easily take a year from the fall of France before they can actually have much influence.
