OMG, first quote provided context to INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY and somehow this is a “political view”......
I give up!!!
- 1
Old Hoi2 player confused
- Thread starter The Rain Man
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
OMG, first quote provided context to INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY and somehow this is a “political view”......
I give up!!!
Part of the first quote:
Do you think the in the german army were only unemployed men ? Fielding divivions always have impacts on the economy -> two sides of the same coin
But this do not refute the fact, that the USA have had enough manpower and enough industrial capacity to field 400 divisions; we both know that this didn't happend, but our discussion is about the theoretical possibility to do it and, yes, the civil-economy would have suffer.
- 1
It seems to me that discussions regarding country division capability are derailing the intent of the Original Post. Instead of reducing confusion, the country division capability discussion is creating more confusion.
Perhaps those that want to discuss country division capability should start a new thread.
Perhaps those that want to discuss country division capability should start a new thread.
- 4
- 2
I understand that HOI4 is boring - a lot of the game, though some nations are better than others, is about being on speed 5, and pausing every once in a while to construct, pursue a focus, or research. I feel bad if I spend an hour or so at the computer staring at it and moving the mouse around occasionally
- 3
I understand that HOI4 is boring - a lot of the game, though some nations are better than others, is about being on speed 5, and pausing every once in a while to construct, pursue a focus, or research. I feel bad if I spend an hour or so at the computer staring at it and moving the mouse around occasionally
Meanwhile, in our MP mod, we discussed creating a new speed 1 that was even slower than the speed 1 in regular HOI4. We tried it out, but it was too slow in terms of divisions responding to commands. But the fact that we tried it out should tell you how important we think playing the game slowly really is once the shooting starts.
The pre-war period can be kind of "speed 5" ish, but if you are facing a competent opponent in Barbarossa or the SCW or the invasion of Japan, you really need to slow the game down and consider things carefully.
(Yes, I know more MP groups don't run the game slow or allow pauses, but I think they are missing out on some of the fun by forcing players to play HOI4 like Starcraft.)
- 5
- 2
Oh I should have said I have a basically nominal amount of hours in HOI4 (100-200 or so).
There'll be a lot more screen staring until I get a hang of it
There'll be a lot more screen staring until I get a hang of it
- 1
Considering Legion condor had ~100 tanks and no division formation, just a few units thrown together, you would imagine three full panzer divisions to make an impact...
- 1
It does let me feel superior to others, and isn't that what wargaming is really about?
(I don't get to use the old trollface that often around here.)
- 2
- 1
I wonder how an imminent invasion by the axis would have upped those "upper limits".ACTUAL PROOF:
“On the surface, it was hard to understand, given this pool of manpower, why there should be any manpower problem at all. Why, if Germany could maintain a military establishment of 9,835,000 or 10.9 percent of its population and Britain could support 3,885,000 or 8.2, did American manpower officials insist in late 1942 that 10,500,000 or only 7.8 percent would be the maximum force that the country could sustain without incurring serious dislocation to the American economy? [5] The problem as well as the answer stemmed basically from the fact that the Allies had from the beginning accepted the proposition that the single greatest tangible asset the United States brought to the coalition in World War II was the productive capacity of its industry. From the very beginning, American manpower calculations were closely correlated with the needs of war industry.”
AND
“In January 1943, G-3 warned that the 8,208,000-man Army might approach the limit of manpower available and that adjustments from within would have to be made to secure the kind of Army needed to win the war.”
AND
“In consonance with this economy drive, Marshall approved-in February-a new Army troop basis that called for an enlisted strength of 7,500,000 and between 120 and 125 divisions, for June 1944”
AND
“In late April the committee scaled down its estimates of the ultimate strength from 185 to 155 divisions and accepted an 8,200,000-man total as the planning ceiling figure-the "maximum strength" for the Army imposed by manpower limitations. It recommended that the U.S. Army, and especially the Air Forces, be developed to the maximum strength practicable within the estimated limitations on armed forces and be deployed as quickly as possible”
I would strongly recommend you read the article in its entirety to see that the USA was definitely constrained in its ability to field full strength divisions. Any comparisons to the USSR is ridiculous (and laughable
Germany had in total 18 million men under arms. That's 40 % of the male population.
The US could have matched that easily under conditions of total war. They just didn't have to, given their protection by the seas and the willingness of commonwealth, polish, soviet, free french and other allied soldiers to die in their stead.
But if an enemy would have assaulted the US like the eastern front? I guess that would have changed the way they fight.
- 3
- 2
Bragging rights and NATO counters, that's longbeard Bushido.
- 2
One of the issues for the US was its logistical tail. Above and beyond the division slice, there was another 15,000 or so troops in the "interior" zone per division. If the US was fighting on its own territory, those troops would have been freed up for combat divisions.
- 1
As fascinating as all this is... Anyone notice that you've probably chased off a new returning player that was looking for help?
Seriously, some of you guys should get a room in a cheap hotel...
Seriously, some of you guys should get a room in a cheap hotel...
- 4
ACTUAL PROOF:
“On the surface, it was hard to understand, given this pool of manpower, why there should be any manpower problem at all. Why, if Germany could maintain a military establishment of 9,835,000 or 10.9 percent of its population and Britain could support 3,885,000 or 8.2, did American manpower officials insist in late 1942 that 10,500,000 or only 7.8 percent would be the maximum force that the country could sustain without incurring serious dislocation to the American economy? [5] The problem as well as the answer stemmed basically from the fact that the Allies had from the beginning accepted the proposition that the single greatest tangible asset the United States brought to the coalition in World War II was the productive capacity of its industry. From the very beginning, American manpower calculations were closely correlated with the needs of war industry.”
AND
“In January 1943, G-3 warned that the 8,208,000-man Army might approach the limit of manpower available and that adjustments from within would have to be made to secure the kind of Army needed to win the war.”
AND
“In consonance with this economy drive, Marshall approved-in February-a new Army troop basis that called for an enlisted strength of 7,500,000 and between 120 and 125 divisions, for June 1944”
AND
“In late April the committee scaled down its estimates of the ultimate strength from 185 to 155 divisions and accepted an 8,200,000-man total as the planning ceiling figure-the "maximum strength" for the Army imposed by manpower limitations. It recommended that the U.S. Army, and especially the Air Forces, be developed to the maximum strength practicable within the estimated limitations on armed forces and be deployed as quickly as possible”
I would strongly recommend you read the article in its entirety to see that the USA was definitely constrained in its ability to field full strength divisions. Any comparisons to the USSR is ridiculous (and laughable
That's brilliant.
I think the game a lot different than reality as far as these numbers of divisions and manpower in force. As Germany I never had over 3 million in the field, probably due to high attrition as well as production limitations (good units need support equipment, tanks, artillery, etc). As the USA, maybe 30-40 divisions seems adequate (only having played '39). True to form the US doesn't need to field that many, just enough to land successful invasions and hold the lines while allies send reinforcements.
But in the same measure the game doesn't really have much of a lend lease flavor to it (though I don't have most DLCs).
The strategic importance of Iran as a port for the USSR to receive US (Or US / British) aid isn't really in there.