The United States: the Spain of HoI?

[unmerged(6073)]

That is, just as Spain could achieve ungodly amounts of wealth and power in EU and EU2 without breaking a sweat, the United States seems to hold all the cards.

HUGE amount of manpower. Industry as far as the eye can see. Disgusting amounts of resources (especially oil.) A good government with which to exploit those resources. In the long term, the best economy of any nation. Some pretty good leaders, both military and civilian (nothing compared to Germany's best military leaders, but far better than most of Germany's civilian leaders.) More than enough resources to make both guns and butter in huge quantities. Moreover, it's got a mainland that is almost impossible to bomb.

In these circumstances, how can a player-controlled United States lose? Where's the challenge? The main hindrance I can see is the Democratic government and all of the anti-war sentiment, but once that's gone I imagine a game as the U.S. would get pretty unchallenging.

Or have I missed something?

 

[unmerged(10435)]

Well... The USA were pretty unbeatable IRL and as HOI is a realistic game, it really can´t neglect that.

A human player could perhaps hold off USA to -48(playing as Germany), but a human USA is going to beat any nation foolish enough to declare war. So you just have to play another nation than the US(as I see it) if you want a challenge.

The democratic government is the only thing hampering USA. Maybe the isolationistic movement is going to be a bit more stronger?

 

[unmerged(881)]

Originally posted by Chuikov
In these circumstances, how can a player-controlled United States lose? Where's the challenge? The main hindrance I can see is the Democratic government and all of the anti-war sentiment, but once that's gone I imagine a game as the U.S. would get pretty unchallenging.

It is a fair question.

It think it will depend on how much a hindrance the isolationist aspect of the democratic style. Perhaps because the US is more isolated geographically, it will require more successes on the part of the fascist states to create war support than it will for the UK what with being in Hitler's backyard.

I suspect the other method will be to model the relative weakness of the US Army and to a lesser extent the US Army Air Corps in the face of Germany.

I've not seen anything about this but perhaps another aspect of the democratic "weakness" about war-making might be an inability to spend as much money on R&D and force structure as we would like. I think that this other possible aspect of democratic nations would be an interesting way to make it difficult for the US and such to correct their weaknesses prior to fascist state successes.

 

[unmerged(1852)]

There's also the peace to war transition. It would be impossible to put anywhere near 100% of its capabilities into the war on December 8 1941. IIRC the US war industry was still being built up in 1945. So a lot of that capacity would only become available over time.

 

[unmerged(7024)]

In 1942, things are a bit limited (only 30,000 war planes, forsooth); but by 1944 the US was actually cancelling war contracts. Tooling up just didn't take very long...

 

[unmerged(5664)]

I think the comparison to Spain is probably right. I imagine that the USA will not be much of a challenge for an experiences player to do well with.

I don't see anything wrong with that. I wouldn't want an unnaturally weakened USA just to make it more of a challenge.

 

[unmerged(10435)]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
I think the comparison to Spain is probably right. I imagine that the USA will not be much of a challenge for an experiences player to do well with.

I don't see anything wrong with that. I wouldn't want an unnaturally weakened USA just to make it more of a challenge.

But for beginners it will probably be fun to be able to win the game almost at once. (won´t we all be beginners in the beginning?)

And, if the US is weakened then the game won´t be historical when playing the Axis. And that would be the real game-killer.

 

[unmerged(5987)]

An American player could focus on ridding the world of both facism *and* communism.

That's going to be a challenge for any one nation to do.

 

[L G]

That would be neat idea for a US player, but would the game let you? i thought u couldnt do weird things like invade canada and stuff, or mayb Russia may be seen as a legitimate opponet(how do u spell that?)

 

[unmerged(10435)]

Originally posted by Upham
An American player could focus on ridding the world of both facism *and* communism.

That's going to be a challenge for any one nation to do.

Well... If the US win only be ridding the world from both fasciscm and communism, then the US is going to be a though nation to play. But, in the end you only play against yourself(except of course multiplayer).

 

[unmerged(5664)]

It's been said that there are 3 different types of government: democratic, fascist, and communist. While it should be almost impossible for 2 democracies to go to war, it could be quite possible for the democracies to go up against the USSR. For quite a while it was the communists, ot Germany, that was seen as the biggest threat.

 

[unmerged(8195)]

In HOI, just like in a boardgame like World In Flames, the US' ability to win the war depends on...

--What gains the Axis has already made in the war prior to US entry...
--How the Commonwealth and other allies are performing at that point...
--How the US approaches the overall strategy concerning its own war aims (Pacific first/heavy naval commitment vs. Germany first/heavy land commitment)...

Granted, all the above overlap each other--but it is very possible for an inept US player to misjudge the direction the war is going and hand the Axis a victory by default.

And when I mean "victory' I don't mean, say, German conquest of the Western world for example, but if the game's victory conditions allow for an Axis victory to "hang on" longer than their historical counterparts...well, then that's a victory.
Inept US gameplay or strategic misjudgements can play a role in that.

And winning is all that matters, right?

 

[unmerged(10435)]

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
It's been said that there are 3 different types of government: democratic, fascist, and communist. While it should be almost impossible for 2 democracies to go to war, it could be quite possible for the democracies to go up against the USSR. For quite a while it was the communists, ot Germany, that was seen as the biggest threat.

Wasn´t communism more of an internal problem in western Europe? Most people were just happy with Hitler up to 36-37. That´s because he had brought Germany back on track, and made it a player in international politics(the Brits thought it balanced the power base in central Europe).

 

[Pan Zagloba]

And the US are a good distance from most of the theatres of war. That presents its own challenges to a proactive strategy IRL, although I don't know about in the game.

Zagloba

 

[Mannock]

I agree with Count DeMoney.

I would also make another point. Lets say you played a regular shooting game. Then you always have the chance to set the difficulty of the game (from easy to hard or something like that).
So see USA as easy difficulty setting (even though I think it will be harder to handle USA than someone might first think).

 

[unmerged(5987)]

Originally posted by L G
That would be neat idea for a US player, but would the game let you? i thought u couldnt do weird things like invade canada and stuff, or mayb Russia may be seen as a legitimate opponet(how do u spell that?)

Russia *is* a legitimate opponent for the US.

Patton wanted to team up with the Germans and kick their communist asses back to their 1941 borders; he thought they were no better than the Nazis (and he was probably right).

And if you can get nuclear capabilities early, it really won't be all that hard.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Upham


Russia *is* a legitimate opponent for the US.

Patton wanted to team up with the Germans and kick their communist asses back to their 1941 borders; he thought they were no better than the Nazis (and he was probably right).

And if you can get nuclear capabilities early, it really won't be all that hard.

But Patton and the like were prevented from going after the Russians. I assume that kinds of war wouldn't be allowed in '45, but perhaps it would in '39...

 

[Ming]

I doubt the US public would support an aggressive, protracted war against the Soviets. Especially after just going through one against the Germans.

Would make an interesting scenario though.

 

[unmerged(8564)]

I'll play my first game with US

 

[Pan Zagloba]

Originally posted by Ming
I doubt the US public would support an aggressive, protracted war against the Soviets. Especially after just going through one against the Germans.

Or before or instead of I would have thought.

Zagloba