Pre-Release videos give the Impression of USA being too strong- too early.

[xtfoster]

Historically in 1939 the US army consisted of 190k men.

189,839 plus 125,202 in the Navy and 19,432 in the Marines
Note: This number counts only the Full Time (including Army Air Force) members of the National Guard (i.e., the Cadre), not the part time members who didn't start to be activated until August 1940.

Edit: It also doesn't include any volunteers like the Flying Tigers (23rd Fighter Group), Eagle Squadrons (4th Fighter Group), etc.

 

[Xandor1992]

From what i have seen the allies (UK/USA) are stronger, but this is offset by the fact that the battle of the Atlantic is a real thing, you can't D-day anymore without having taken care of the U-boat peril, i would argue that viable submarines is huge buff to the axis, in both MP and SP. There is also the fact that Land XP doesn't come easy for "Allied" nations prewar, meaning that the western allies will be behind on that early on, making early D-Days much much harder.

 

[Federkiel]

*snip* There is also the fact that Land XP doesn't come easy for "Allied" nations prewar, meaning that the western allies will be behind on that early on, making early D-Days much much harder.

I don't know if i really understand this. What denies the US to have just one 50 width INF and have it train for a full 4 years?
Or other Allied nations that do not have to fulfill any army size for their focuses?

Could you please elaborate your statement?

 

[Novacat]

I am guessing he is referring to the fact the Axis and Comintern can get land exp from the Spanish Civil War, Ethiopia and the Sino-Japanese war. But at the same time those countries cannot really abuse land training (while, as Feder mentioned, most allied countries can just disband all but 1 division and just perpetually train that division), and, lets be realistic, being able to gain a constant 2-3 naval and air experience a day with zero drawbacks is completely broken.

 

[Xandor1992]

I don't know if i really understand this. What denies the US to have just one 50 width INF and have it train for a full 4 years?
Or other Allied nations that do not have to fulfill any army size for their focuses?

Could you please elaborate your statement?

Even with 1 division training you won't have enough XP for rushing land doctrine if you are going to have to have proper templates.

 

[Federkiel]

Last time i checked you get about 10 army xp per 50 days or so. That makes some 200 in less than 3 years (1k days). Plus the points from focuses and lend lease plus a land warfare theorist. Not too bad i would say.

 

[Daelyn75]

Hi, we have fixed or are looking into some of these balance issues already actually. We generally have an open beta the week after release so you get the chance to feedback on the changes after playing

podcat, I sent some ideas to you via PM.

 

[Fulmen]

Even with 1 division training you won't have enough XP for rushing land doctrine if you are going to have to have proper templates.

1-div training without eq. is around 300 free XP by 1939. Then depending on who you are, you should be able to get a fair amount of XP from lend-lease and/or attaché to China or Japan. Then there's also the military theorist that most nations can get/afford. Not every country can 1-div train, but all in all, you'll have at least a few hundred XP to play with after templates, though it'll go mostly or entirely into tanks if you're producing any. But if you're not making tanks, then you'll get a few doctrine boosts for sure.

 

[Fulmen]

Hey @podcat,

@ThePrussianPrince explains how to get rid of the Great Depression by May 1937 without using the "lobbying without PP" exploit. Please nerf.

 

[Lord of Beer]

Wait, so 1 division training hasn't at all been addressed with this patch/DLC, even though ArmyXP now gives even more bonuses? Oh dear...

 

[Putuna]

Congress was shifting pro-war, and with FDR in charge US entry was inevitable. It likely would've happened "naturally" some time in the first half of 1942. PH sped things up, and silenced the IIRC still fairly considerable anti-war movement. However the only way USA could've gone to war earlier, was if she was attacked earlier.

I know they added the Panay Incident into the game, possibly a result of people like me posting about it and noting that it was in previous HoIs, but they also added a third option to it that wasn't there in the past, which is to outright declare war on Japan. I think I've read there was some talk of going to war, but was it very realistic? Probably not. But maybe someone more versed in US history and the American political landscape of the late 1930s can comment on this more.

The USA was actually not moving closer to war. Polling at the time indicates that the vast majority of people did not want to go to war. Even after the fall of France the majority of US people didn't even approve of giving "help" to England. What's very funny is support for war and aid actually went down once Germany invaded the USSR. Indicating the American public actually approved of the German attack on the USSR. The American public didn't even want to go to war with Japan in 1941 before pearl Harbor. Obviously this all changed after pearl harbor.

 

[Ex Mudder]

Things would slow down if they added a 230 day hold on the New Deal after the WPA as well. I'm wondering why that isn't there. Not perfect, but it would slow things by 8 months or so. Still too early though.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

Also have any YTers mentioned the download size for their version? Poor internet here and wondering when I can play.

One of the devs mentioned today in another thread that it's about 300MB. I got the impression that was a rough guess, not a specific figure.

 

[Kaido (Manstein)]

I'm fine with the United States being strong. The MP communities can just do what they always do and put in their own house rules if they think they are too strong. If I want to pwn with the United States in single player, is that so wrong?

 

[Daelyn75]

Hi, we have fixed or are looking into some of these balance issues already actually. We generally have an open beta the week after release so you get the chance to feedback on the changes after playing

This is always good news. Tweaking the data can be one of the most important things to do.

 

[lwarmonger]

I'm fine with the United States being strong. The MP communities can just do what they always do and put in their own house rules if they think they are too strong. If I want to pwn with the United States in single player, is that so wrong?

If the US isnt restricted in mobilizing their industrial strength early then you are ahistorically strong.

I thought one of the main points of this update was to help reflect the very relevant internal political dynamics of democracies, and how that limited them.

 

[TheNexxus]

MtG really gives the impression that it’s a huge nerf to the Axis. I don’t see how as any of the Allied powers (Britain, Soviets or US) you could possibly lose a match to an AI Germany, Italy and Japan. The US can basically bury Japan in elite naval forces, German has no hope of anything remotely approaching a Plan Z now and Russia can effectively go fully mechanized/motorized while Germany will be relegated to infantry and calvalry.

 

[Fulmen]

If the US isnt restricted in mobilizing their industrial strength early then you are ahistorically strong.

I thought one of the main points of this update was to help reflect the very relevant internal political dynamics of democracies, and how that limited them.

This.

MtG really gives the impression that it’s a huge nerf to the Axis. I don’t see how as any of the Allied powers (Britain, Soviets or US) you could possibly lose a match to an AI Germany, Italy and Japan. The US can basically bury Japan in elite naval forces, German has no hope of anything remotely approaching a Plan Z now and Russia can effectively go fully mechanized/motorized while Germany will be relegated to infantry and calvalry.

It should be a nerf to the Axis, historically they were starving for oil... BUT, everything I've seen and heard so far indicates that at least the European Axis is still perfectly capable of just spamming refineries and reaching autarky in oil and fuel by around 1939-40, which is definitely not historical at all. This is a greater problem in MP, because it's not just Germany spamming refineries, but it does extend to SP. I was really hoping for a more proper nerf of refineries in MtG. Anyway we'll find out for certain how things are with the new balance in the coming days.

 

[Secret Master]

USA was NOT powerful or anywhere near ready for war historically in 1939.

No, but what I am more interested in is how their fuel stacks up with naval XP. The USN was nothing to sneeze at in 1939. But I suspect the USN will basically be at sea running exercises for 100% of the days between game start and Pearl Harbor.

 

[Stug_Life]

The real problem here in mp is the fact that the USA can put their entire navy on exercise without running out of oil starting from day 1.