[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Spoiler?[]
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File[]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 173 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


how do you balance them in a WWII grand strat without drastically nerfing their historical industrial output?
>>
Probably heavy isolationist and war-weariness penalties, even with logical counter-nerfs to that in turn with surprise attacks on them.
>>
>>543671
you can't.
No, really.
The USofA was just too much of a world superpower with untouched economy, untapped reserves of manpower, material, resources and workforce, they could take on any single other nation at that time.

Germany jizzed their pants when they had 2 proper battleships.
America lost 8 BBs in Pearl and it didn't bother tham at all. The only reason they only had 18 battleships at the end of the war was that they shifted focus to carriers.
Speaking of which, Japan was proud of their 4 fleet carriers, but after losing them they couldn't replace those losses.
Meanwhile America could pump out an aircraft carrier every month.
Not to mention all the arctic convoys they were sending to Russia that helped them hold the eastern front.
There's this greentext about american logistic might in the atlantic and how many pounds of ice cream they could and did supply to the fleets.

If that's some civ-style game where America is just a nation with a set of bonuses starting from scrap, then ok. Slap on economic boosts, isolationist tendencies and democratic government and you're good.

But if the game is a WW2 grand strategy (anon, just admit that you're talking about HoI4) then there's no way you can nerf a caountry of this size, this population and this industrial potential to a comparable level.
You'd have to go apeshit with other nerfs. Or give them much biggere enemy, like all of Europe at that time.
Or just do what Kaiserreich did; divide them into pieces.
>>
>>543848
/thread
>>
>>543671
Army penalties due to low morale, discipline and disorganization as well as vulnerabilities to war exhaustion.
>>
>>543904
Cool upvote you worthless retard
>>
give their land soldiers massive organization debuffs. Meaning that they wont take more casulties but will flee sooner than other armies.
>>
>>543671
hit them with significant army debuffs to reflect the US general poor performance in combat during the war
>>
>>543848
Pretty much this. The only other country which could probably balance out the US was the USSR and with all the manpower losses over the first half of the 20th century not really.
>>
File: 1618184611996.jpg (66 KB, 960x955)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>tfw there probably never be a game that solely focuses on the economy during WW2
I am absolutely tired of Goy4 and I want an Albert Speer-spreadsheet simulator in which I have to control the war economy in the most autistic way possible.
>>
>>543671
You cannot truly balance the situation of an unbalanced historical event.
>>
>>543963
nice bait
>>
>>543983
>Albert Speer-spreadsheet simulator in which I have to control the war economy in the most autistic way possible
Why has nobody done this? This sounds like an actually interesting game idea and it would stand out against the paradox map painters and millions of wwii tactical/shooter war games.
>>
>>543671
better question
what about these guys? reminder their army could on paper rival Germany. yet on every WW2 game they're nerfed as fuck just so the game doesn't end in 1940
>>
>>543671
But Anon, the USA didn't even have to use it's full wartime production potential to arm the armies of 3 countries (itself, UK, USSR).
>>
>>543995
You know all those "What if X won Y" alt-history scenarios? We are living in one of them when it comes to french incompetence and german competence in WW2
>>
>>543989
Because most players are dumb as pricks and would get absolutely filtered by such a game. The closest thing we ever, EVER got was Victoria II, and even that is absolutely lacking because you still have to deal with bullshit combat and you have to deal with internal politics NOT related to the economic aspects of the game.

So, what should the Albert Speer-spreadsheet simulator do at the very least?
>control resource production
>control logistics (roads, railways, canals/shipping, pipelines)
>control factory construction/expansion
>manage the related (and more) private sector according to your needs
>influence designs based on feedback of the military - or don't and shipt the cheapest equipment possible, not necessarily the best
>make decisions on what will be produced in what quantities
>get the equipment approved by the military's proving grounds
>deal with the fallout, both good and bad
>put the approved equipment in production
>that said, either fiddle around with specific factories to get shit done OR build new factories, which will take you may or may not have
>influence the wider war through the decisions you made
>deal with airraids on your assembly lines
>deal with worker shortages/strikes/slave labour (Soviet Union, Japan, Germany exclusive thing)
>deal with ADJACENT things like finances, banking/insurance sector, war bonds, taxes
>have to live with the decision made by other cabinet ministers controlling these aspects
>have to deal with the head of government/Führer/Comrade Secretary
Yep, it would filter your average plebbit Goy4 moron pretty damn hard.
>>
>>543848
Man. Where did it all go wrong?
>>
>>543989
>>544005
you would need a VERY competent team to do this in a non-gamey way. a team well versed in economics, history, military history, and maths
>>
>>544032
That is the reason why the later installments of the HoI series are more of a hurr durr combat bullshitfest than anything else. The economic simulation of those games is just shit, while in reality the war itself was decided in the factories first. It was much more the economic management that contributed to its outcome than strategic or tactical genius. Of course, Germany in the first two years is somewhat of an outlyer. They were way ahead in certain doctrines and had a considerable edge in pure organization, but their economic situation was utter shit. Literally everyone else except Japan and Italy caught up in organization, tactics and overall doctrine while having a much broader economic base to build all the tanks and planes and trucks to put those military theories into operation.

Now, companies like paracuck in their very early days COULD have made a game like this because there was enough creative force available to pull this off, and they also had an audience autistic enough to enjoy it. But now? Well... maybe Slitherine would do it, since they're quite good at catering to a literate audience that sits on a proverbial mountain of knowledge on the WW2 timeperiod.

So yes, I'd need a team that's leagues ahead compared to the fuckers working in most coding slave pits. In the end, the coders are only needed to make sense of the raw amount of autistically catalogued economic data that's ingame to be subjected to massive player and AI interaction. That alone poses an incredible hurdle...
>>
>>544031
no major conflicts that could wreck the economies of all other major powers, leaving the USA as the only country to reap all the benefits of a global war while suffering no consequences of it.
>>
The worst part about strategy gamers is the obsession with balance.

WW2 America isn't balanced. It's the strongest nation by industrial output because of the combination of preexisting factories/infrastructure, secure access to resources, and complete lack of bombing on said factories. If the game doesn't include that then it's a shit game, the balance doesn't matter.

Here's a better question: Why don't you bother to actually overcome this with your shitty weeaboo/wehraboo roleplay playthrough #1255. Just beat them already, stop complaining.

Balance is boring and differences are interesting, in any WW2 game USA should be the best nation by measuring industry, no ifs, ands, or buts.
>>
>>543983
>>543989
>WW2 no combat game
Oh boy, I can't wait to optimize the German economy only to watch America and Britain bomb everything to the point where optimization doesn't matter.
>>
>>543671
You don't.
>>
>>543995
France wasn't Germany's rival on paper. Even if Germany hadn't easily run through a single forest then gone for the obvious target of the undefended capital city, 6-12 months of German Blitz would have made so many victories over France that France would be forced into highly attritional warfare to compete, which is a war they could not win.
>>
>>543995
You design better AI.
>>
>>544005
Convince me to play this "game" instead of reading linear programming textbook.
>>
>>544210
Convince anybody here that you belong on this board in the first place.
>>
>>544179
>start trying to optimize the german economy too early
>angry farmers turn on you, get voted out of power
>WW2 never happens

bad end game over
>>
>>544254
Nah, Germany was pretty pissed at the time, they'd probably just have replaced some leadership but still had the same overall type of people governing them. Maybe no WW2 but a war for sure.
>>
>>543848
Yep, main beneficiaries of WW2 were americans.
>>
>>543996
>UK
>USA
>armies
lol

>USSR
>arm
Trucks are not really arms, but they did help by allowing more factories to fully switch to tanks and armaments productions.
>>
>>544176
>The worst part about strategy gamers is the obsession with balance
So much this. I hate this idiocy so fucking hard.
FUCK BALANCE, GIVE ME FUN!
You want easy game, play as easy nation.
You want challenge, play challenging nation.
A glorified rock, paper, scissor clones are boring.
>>
>>544176
>>544331
this is good and all for singleplayer, but for multiplayer, most Japan players would probably ragequit when they realize they're gonna lose no matter what
>>
>>544331
I don't mind RPS games at all. It's just the stupid obsession with stamping it on everything.

In most cases 100% okay to make a strategy game where one strategy is the strongest.
>>
>>544331
That's fine and all, but in WW2 strategy games, allied fans aren't the ones leading the ball, it's wehraboos

>WTF DO YOU MEAN AMERICA CAN OUTPRODUCE GERMANY? BUT MUH GERMAN SCIENCE! MUH GLORIOUS REIICH!
>>
>>544338

Nah, I disagree. I'd actually like to see a WW2 simulation where America's production was ACTUALLY put to the test. Imagine a war where all of America's combatants committed their own industry, doctrine, and strategy to combating Americas. It's not about beating America, it's about beating America's allies. How much damage can America actually do to Germany without Britain, for instance? What if Germany had committed itself to pushing Britain out of the war to the point of not attacking the USSR at all?

The socialogical and strategic view being to pit all decisions against American industry. This didn't actually happen and it's a fun sandbox to play in.

(Yeah I know the Axis would still lose cause oil, I don't care at the moment)
>>
>>543848
So the moral of this post is that my country can only be defeated when it’s divided? Damn.
>>
>>544295
>>544254
The only credible coup attempt - the Oster conspiracy - had a list of demands and terms to make peace with the Allies; freeing Austria, turning the Sudetenland over to the Czechs, and renouncing claims on Poland were not even considered. In fact, they wanted a return to the 1914 borders with Poland - more than Hitler had demanded in August 1939.
In short, though they were anti-Hitler in some sense, they were very much in favor of his aggressive foreign policy, as was every single political party in Germany barring the communists.
>>
>>544005
What if I want to play as a free-market nation
>>
>>544473
You can't read, can you?
>>
>>544477
>oh no, all your heavy industry moved to the other side of the world!
>at least you still have all those banks :)
>oh no the banks have started producing and accruing toxic assets to feed market demand for more investment vehicles!
>>
>>544406
Yeah, and you can watch it happen in realtime when you check out the news.
>>
>>543671
Make the depression hit harder so that they rearm themselves much more slowly.
Give even more penalties to war support at the start of the game.
Reduce the impact Japan's China war has on increasing American war support.
Make it so supreme court can strike down new deal legislation so you have to wait for the court to swing or pack the court.

By the time WWII hits you should go from 0 to 100 very fast and become OP, but not before.
>>
>>544186
>12 months
>Blitz
That's an oxymoron. See how well they did against Russia after their initial attack stalled.
>>
>>544348
Well the oil issue may be solved depending on how they kick the UK out of the war, whether the Dutch East Indies have fallen, and whether the Soviets are trading
>>
>>544477
You only have 1 slider and a text box. The slider is the interest rate and the text box is where you input much money you print. Everything else is just extremely autistic background calculations and random rng events to spice things up here and there.
>>
>>544176
>Balance is boring and differences are interesting
>asymetric balancing suddenly isnt a thing

also balance doesnt matter much in singleplayer but who's gonna wanna play multiplayer if the moment you choose your nation you already know if you are on the winning or loosing tea
>>
>>543671
Internal politics that hinder or outright stop otherwise perfect war machine. Same shit as Roman empire in antique setting.
>>
>>544176
The success of Paradox's games has been not giving a fuck about balance. If you want to play Poland in 1939 well you're going to have a shitty time but that's a choice you can make yourself.
>>
>>544789
Me, I would. I wanna try my best to bleed my opponent and make him pay for every inch of land. I want to make the IRL casualties of WW2 look like a fucking children's airsoft party.
>>
>>544477
The thing is, during WW2 every economy was heavily directed by state fiat. If GM for instance would refused to build tanks in their assembly lines, the army would have taken over. The thing tho is: there is no reason to assume a firm like GM would refuse the government because they get PAID for the tanks. It's even more extreme in the USSR since all factories are state owned, which means the player could have quite the edge over privately run war economies - which historically was true to a certain extent.
>>
>>544254
Very unlikely you'd be booted out of power because you went bonkers with automization in the German economy. Actually, if the Nazis weren't bent on keeping things as labour intensive as possible, they could have matched at least the Soviets in raw output from day one and surpassed them one to two years into the campaign. They didn't until 1943 and came close to Soviet production numbers in a few selected areas and also only through the contribution of occupied territories. Nat-soc economic policies are retarded; only /pol/lacks fall for them.
>>
>>544946
it'd be hard to posture as a traditionalist party while tearing up germany's patchwork of small family farms and factories. industrialization is destructive.
>>
>>543671

Implement money, national debt and food production. Tie manpower to industrial output (i.e. if you draft people they can't work in factories). Have political and military consequences for supporting (or failing to support) allies and co-belligerants. Implement some kind of internal political system where people need to be persuaded to go to war
>>
Like Kaiserreich does, by having a civil war.
>>
>>544406
>Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
- Abraham Lincoln in 1838. It was true then and it's true now.
>>
>>544473
>freeing Austria
Don't act like the majority of Austrians weren't pro-Anschluss. The Republic of Austria is a fake country with no legitimacy created by the Treaty of Versailles just because the City of London was pissing its pants over the idea of a continental power that could rival them economically.
>>
>>545045
>and then the americans chose suicide by darkie.
the final line in the history of the usa.
>>
>>543848
>There's this greentext about american logistic might in the atlantic and how many pounds of ice cream they could and did supply to the fleets.
Link plz
>>
>>545074
I can't wait for the military that crushed Japan in the east and Germany in the west less than a century prior to lose against Mexican drug cartels in its own home territory
Man, what's happening to America is just fucking sad, like the collapse of the Roman Empire
>>
>>545107
Small independent central govenment - Please understa-
oh wait, wrong board NVM...
>>
>>545054
As far as I know actual Austrians they would disagree.
>>
>>545107
They chose not to see the problem. It's the most effective solutuion in the short term. And who the fuck cares about long term?
For other examples see: Europen Union
>>
>>544952
Industrialization has been going on for 250 years now and for the most time, the west kept its "trad"-makeup. What's destroying western civilization is outsourcing industry and insourcing brown people. And one can reasonaly blame the outcome of WW2 for that, even (no, especially) if you see nat-soc-bullshit as the bullshit it was.
>>
File: 1600624213659.jpg (5 KB, 225x225)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>545260
>the west kept its "trad"-makeup.
>>
>>545107
Get rekt Ameriburgers
>>
File: reddit_filename.jpg (179 KB, 1242x814)
179 KB
179 KB JPG
>>544320
>>
>>543848
The USA was 60% of world GDP after the war.

Before the war, however... Not the case. Hardly 20%
>>
>>544005
Sounds based. Too many games put you at the top or the bottom, would be nice having power and superiors.
>>
>>543671
Allow Japan to refuse to attack pearl.
That single event would cripple the USA's involvement in the war.
The vast majority of Americans pre-pearl were against getting involved. They would not support joining the war unless they were attacked. If they manage to force through a war, unrest would be high, war support would be low, and war production would be horrible.
>>
The US military is in serious decline as the government transforms it from a lethal fighting force into a welfare program for women of color.
>>
>>546258
Is fine as long as the rich elite get richer, they can move to Europe when the USA collapses. That's what you guys vote and defend, right?
>>
>>546308
>the left institutes policies that destroys america's military strength and social cohesion
>this is somehow the right's fault
>>
>>546347
>America
>the "left"
Don't kid yourself, you have the right and the other right. The whole fact you believe one of them is "the left" basically proves my point.

Keep the infighting like a good goyim.
>>
>>544477
Freedom ain't free. Market economy gotta be litterd with dues of bankrupts.
>>
>>546375
>you have to side with the niggers or else you're a goyim!
okay go dig up marx's grave and suck his cock, it's clear you're jonesing
>>
>>546379
>negative reading comprehension
Guess the education system is doing wonders there too.
>>
>>546382
oh no, it's utter trash because the left won on that front and instituted their policies
>>
>>545107
I'm pretty confident we'll see a balkanized USA in our lifetime. Eventually even regional dialects of American English will stop being mutually intelligible.
>>
>>545054
>The Republic of Austria is a fake country with no legitimacy created by the Treaty of Versailles
Austria has existed longer than germany, if Austria is a fake country then so is germany, sure Austria was a monarchy before the treaty but that doesn't matter because austria was seperate from germany both before and after the treaty, you wouldn't call the german empire and weimar republic completely seperate countries just because one of them is a monarchy and the other a republic.
>>
>>543671
Amerimutt penalties
-50% morale
-60% research
BLM protest
-20% manpower
-40% security funding
>>
File: 1440961912998.jpg (434 KB, 1210x1279)
434 KB
434 KB JPG
>>546400
Austria's only reason for existence as a sovereign state is that they had their own small empire in 1871, that's it.
Vienna was "always" considered the heart of german culture. Alas, after 1945 everyone started pretending Austria is something completely separate from the pan-nationalist state of Germany so that Austrians get to stay out of the Warsaw Pact and since normalfags don't actually think now everyone thinks Austria is some separate nation speaking "austrian".
Say what you want to say about legitimacy of Germany or Italy, but Austria not being a part of the bund is a retarded inconsistency.
>>
>>546400
>Austria has existed longer than germany, if Austria is a fake country then so is germany
Great, let's break Northumbria off of England then since we're going with that argument. Hell, you could probably argue that there's a bigger cultural difference between norfmen and londoners.
Arguably Germany has existed since the ascension of Henry the Fowler, possibly earlier if you consider the Treaty of Verdun the break-off point.
>>
>>546394
I hate to say it, but it's the opposite. If you live in the South, you'll notice only the old folks and totally isolated white trash (not that they're bad people, they're better than the rest of the country, even) speak with southern accepts or use southernisms in their speech. Everyone else talks like some generic urban Yankee. Mass media has been a disaster for regional identities across the nation.
>>
>>544031
civil rights act 1965
>>
>>546400
>implying Germany isn’t a fake country also
>>
>>544189
but that would make the french less stupid
>>
>>545093
I am also interested
>>
>>545093
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream_barge
>>
>>546577
No, it was the 19th Amendment, or was it the Federal Reserve? Maybe it was the Civil War? You keep going back and thinking of where it might have gone wrong, and you realize that it only took a whopping 11 years for the government to start stepping around the boundaries of the Constitution (1798 Alien and Sedition Acts). America was, in a way, doomed from the beginning, but so is every civilization. It all comes to an end someday, and they almost always end with a whimper, not a bang.
>>
>>546718
even Augustus was followed by Tiberius
>>
>>546718
it was the illegal revolt of 1776, and before that the leftist roundhead rebellion
>>
>>544979
But then everyone else has to deal with that kind of stuff as well, and at least in terms of food, manpower and money America had a huge advantage.
>>
>>546071
>the best way to balance America is to make it sit around doing nothing for even longer

great
>>
>>546841
If you want to balance them and don't want to hit them with a unhistorical nerf mace then that's the only historical solution. Force them to join the war under unfavorable conditions rather than receiving the massive boost being attacked gave them.
>>
>>546071

Nah, manufacturing a pretense to join the war is simple, it just needs to be anything that the papers will all print as one. It was always obvious that America was headed to war and just waiting for everyone to get outraged.

America was already at war anyway, American and German ships were fighting in the Atlantic.
>>
>>546731
It was the Norman conquest by the (literally) illegitimate William the Bastard, which sank the Saxon idea of electing the best ruler and replaced it with "muh right".
>>
>>547192
>Saxons
Fuck off barbarian
>>
>>543671
By making political will a factor.

The galvanization of the people was not set in stone, and there was a real chance that the American people wouldn't be willing to fight to defend Hawaii. If you can translate this dimension (politics is an irrefutable part of war anyway, so you should.) Then you could do it.
>>
>>547198
>A literal upjumped Viking who converted for money calling others "barbarian"
>>
>>544348
Seeing as the US Modified strategic bombers to fly off an aircraft carrier to bomb Tokyo as a symbolic gesture of fuck you Japan.
I would not put it past the joint chiefs to do the same thing to Berlin but with a Nuke.
>>
>>547009
>Nah, manufacturing a pretense to join the war is simple, it just needs to be anything that the papers will all print as one.
Like sinking you own ship and blame the Spaniards or just say that being a opportunistic warmonger is you "manifest destiny"? Nah, that wouldn't fly IRL.
>>
>>547664
or sinking your own ship and blaming the vietnamese

or blowing up your own skyscrapers...
>>
>>547822
Sounds stupid. Might as well pretend some country have nukes and invade it.
>>
>>545093
It's pretty much a cope post to explain away how desperate America was to keep the morale of it's troops up. Yes, it's an egregious waste of resources that's only possible from outnumbering and outmanufacturing your opponents by an actual literal magnitude, but it's a pretty skewed way of looking at things. A simple table of tonnage and numbers puts the point across much more succinctly without being quite so pathetic.
>>
File: Imp1.png (169 KB, 641x479)
169 KB
169 KB PNG
>>544176
How about the obession with real countries? Back in the good old days we had random map generators.
>>
>>547192
William is so based.
>>
>>545260
>west kept its "trad"-makeup
HAAHAHHAHAHAHAHH
>>
>>546308
no faggot
>>546387
can confirm, you couldn't fuck up a system so badly without actively trying to sabotage it
>>
>>545054
>fake country
Literally all countries are fake.
>>
>>545195
Yeah good for them modern germany is cucked.
>>
>>549593
t. retard
Common ancestry and history don't real blah blah blah we're all cogs to be used in a dehumanizing authoritarian system with weird anti-social socialism that incentivizes bad behavior
>>
>>545776
War is incredibly good for a country that is able to protect its industry. They basically used it to jump start the economy out of the depression
>>
>>549679
>Common ancestry and history
What if he's El Americano?
>>
>>546731
>illegal revolt
no shit
Cuckold mindset
I will live to see the day Chartists slaughter the Moloch-worshipping Windsors
>>
>>543995
>>544000
>>544186
>>544696
An 'Ugh what could have been' scenario that I often wonder about is; what if the war in France had taken a few more months and inflicted a bit more damage on Germany, to the point that it gives them pause. Still ending with the capitulation of France and removing Britain from the continent, just later and at a higher cost.
Could there have been a 'peace with honor' with Britain, thereby keeping the US out of the war?
Would the US still be producing and lend-leasing huge amounts of materiel without its 'friends' UK and France at war?
Would the USSR attack Poland with no agreement with Germany?
Would they antagonize or even attack Germany as the Germans are said to have suspected?
And then all the things Japan might have done different.
WW2 really was as close to apocalypse as a civilization can get and "survive" it, I believe.
Please excuse my drunken rant
>>
>>551335
>Could there have been a 'peace with honor' with Britain, thereby keeping the US out of the war?

Are you high? Churchill was determined to defend Jewish interests if it meant every last Briton choked on his own blood
>>
>>543989
There's no money in it. For all the shit you want to give Paradox for all the DLC, they aren't that profitable. Grandstrat is a niche genre, that will never be as popular as flogging lootboxes to coomers.
>>
>>551335
Germany tried to make peace with the UK several times. A pilot flew to the UK to try and make peace and they imprisoned him.
Churchill didn't care about peace. He wanted to put Germany in its place and keep the money flowing.
>>
>>551350
My mistake, not a pilot, a politician. Rudolf Hess. They kept him locked up until he was 94, then he "hung himself".
>>
>>544348
One of the most fun hoi3 games I played was setting up an aggressive USA bent on world conquest. I manged to declare war on every country in the world before they started fighting each other. USN vs RN, IJN, KM, RM, plus every other assorted tinpot fleet in existence.
It was intense. And very very bloody.
>>
>>546071
Japan must attack to survive. But they dont have to attack the US. By only attacking UK and Holland, they can get all the shit they need.
>>
>>549472
>Bruhr
>>
>>543671
Closest would be >>543745 where you incentivize them to not go to war due to high war weariness penalties. America has never really been too good at eating losses and damage from a morale standpoint. Other than that, not really. Like >>543848 said, America was just in far, far too powerful of a position at the time to ever be both balanced and accurate in a game. I think I remember someone saying in reference to some game that in multiplayer when playing as Germany your primary goal is to keep America out of the war. That may be the only other possible way to do it—make America require enormously definitive reason to get involved with the war. Only problem with that is that it basically either removes them from the game as no player would be dumb enough attack them knowing it's effectively just a guaranteed loss, or it would just give them massive turtle ability and they'd become even more comically overpowered than they were in real life.
>>544031
Wilson.
>>544338
Japan actually could've done way better in real life if it weren't for their incompetence. If America was determined to get them then yes, they absolutely still would've lost, but they still had a huge defensive advantage that they squandered. But that's the thing—you just hold out until America feels the juice isn't worth the squeeze in continuing the war.
>>
>>543671
Dont nerf the bad guys,it makes it more challenging. (vs ai)
>>
>>549379
>without being quite so pathetic
They won the war so I don't think they're pathetic
>>
>>543848
The reason the US was able to win against the Reich was because of a two way attack. Without the soviets backing them America might have been stalemated and D-day along with Normandy being a failure. The other reason they were successful was spoon feeding the soviets with machines to build their industry, giving them tons of supply, ammo and guns.

The US structured it's military and it's doctrine against a clear cut enemy that played on more or less the same rules of war. The USA got mainly beaten at Vietnam for following the Geneva convention and not taking the necessary measures for victory. One off if not the main doctrine of the US is superior firepower. That means having the better tech and more resources than your enemy. This worked with a distracted Germany but failed miserably against rice farmers in Asia. The US greatness is based on a long gone enemy. A part of Rome's was that it conquered a lot of land. America is doomed because it can't adapt.

In the present it's ten times worse than the worst of the Nam. The military trusts expensive pieces to do the job. A five grand jeep or car vs one jury rigged 10 dollar gas cannister. America's victories in the past have been like a shadow of Hannibal's. Not being able to use a victory meant that the wars in the middle east were more or less pointless.

The US army uses straight forward tactics in most battles. This is based on McArthur's simple strategy of just going forward and trowing men at it until it collapses
>>
>>552683
The Americans had nukes, there was no way they were going to lose.
>>
>>546394
In 3000 AD on the futuristic version of 4chan there will be some Afro-spic mutt posting about how his successor state is the true heir of America n shiet.
>>
>>552683
America lost in Vietnam because it could never actually invade the North for fear it would draw in the Chinese and then the Soviets and the failure of Vietnamization due to a series of corrupt governments.

Germany being able to capitulate the USSR would have made things harder for the Allies but also present whole new problems to the Germans who now had to actually occupy all the land they took that was no doubt full of angry partisans.

MacArthur's campaigns during WWII were much lower in terms of casualties than the battles wages elsewhere in the Pacific by Nimitz during Island-Hopping. He did not 'just throw men' at the enemy, I don't know where you get that from.
>>
>>552883
I'd go so far as to say the Pacific theatre was worse than the Eastern Front in many ways. Japs actually committed to multiple human wave style attacks.
>>
>>552894
I don't know if the island hopping campaign was even necessary in the end. Should have just cut them all off the vine with a sub blockade and give them enough space to avoid any possible air attacks. Go straight for the Philippines or focus on the East Indies where the oil was.
>>
>>551335
>Would the USSR attack Poland with no agreement with Germany?
>Would they antagonize or even attack Germany as the Germans are said to have suspected?
No on both accounts. USSR was still undergoing industrialization, it was in no shape to attack a major country *and* western countries rejected mutual defense packt against Nazi Germany *and* they low key hated the commies. Extremely unfavorable position to start any big shit.
Also read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Line
>>
>>552864
>muh nukes!
>end of the war
>delivery by run-of-the-mill bombers
Read up on them, lad. You spewing bullshit.
>>
>>552946
Yes this is kind of my take. If Germany had somehow disentangled itself from conflict with Britain, they would be hailed by the rest of the west for taking on the Bolshevik menace. They probably could have gotten away with a huge eastern european sphere of influence dependent on them plus a good reputation.
I really think the 'alliance' with Japan fucked them more than anything
Yellow fever never pays, lads
>>
>>546558
Cities will become the dominant polity, actually. People will identify first by which city they are from.
>>
>>552930
It was all in preparation for an eventual invasion of the main Japanese island. More air bases for bombers to refuel and rearm at.
Granted, it never happened because of the bombs, but even those bombers launched from an airfield we had captured.
>>
>>552894
cannibalism occurred on both fronts, but I think more people got eaten in Stalingrad so im going to argue east.
>>
>>552883
>full of angry partisans

you didn't get the memo?
>>
>>553019
don't forget they tried to kill Hitler before he invaded France. A lot of people had no desire to fight the west, and only wanted to eliminate communism.

Boy that Norm Macdonald joke -"The more I learn about Hitler, the less I like him". is actually true as fuck.
>>
>>553033
>Boy that Norm Macdonald joke -"The more I learn about Hitler, the less I like him". is actually true as fuck.
Me except the opposite.
>>
>>543848
>untouched economy, untapped reserves of manpower, material, resources and workforce, they could take on any single other nation at that time.
So then why did it take them 6 years to not even beat the Soviets to Berlin and 8 (1937-1945 Sino-Japanese war) to not invade Japan?

I never understand this superiority complex when intervention was late and manpower was lethargic.
The industry and resources were inexhaustible compared to say, Japan, but short of continental invasion, the US never had the political willpower (that should exist in WWII strategy games, this is the point I'm trying to make, not saying ur country is shit) to field an army RELATIVE to its size.
>>547198
I'm with this guy. Britain for the Britons.
Also France, give back Brittany. It's named for us.
>>
I kind of like the idea of blm riots and kneeling rallies wrecking the Wartime Economy.
>>
>>553098
In a real wartime economy, blm riots would be shut down hard
>>
>>553098
Or rightwing attempted cues to kill senators and to forsake all international alliances.
>>
>>543995
You represent the issues that they had.
Like an anti-war sentiment/war weariness from ww1, political fracturing etc.
>>
>>544943
Yeah that was a common thing, there are stories of german workers still manufacturing arms while the allies entered the city because they get paid.
>>
File: Facepalm.gif (799 KB, 320x240)
799 KB
799 KB GIF
>>555301
>cues
>>
Make a portion of their population be black.
>>
File: 1588130213038.png (335 KB, 496x476)
335 KB
335 KB PNG
>>555301
>cues
My fucking GOD
>>
>>543671
Make them really boring and/or tedious to play so that no one actually wants to play them.
>>
>>543671
Have them having a bonus against enemies with high war exhaustion, get penalties against enemies with equal or superior strength.
The US never won a war with an enemy that wasn't superior or equal to them and even so, they got BTFO in Nam.
>>
>>553019
>If Germany had somehow disentangled itself from conflict with Britain, they would be hailed by the rest of the west for taking on the Bolshevik menace.
Isn't that what happened in TWR? But in any case, it never would have happened in real life, (((The City))) would never have let Britain coexist with Nazi Germany (or any strong Germany).
>I really think the 'alliance' with Japan fucked them more than anything
The reason that Britain broke off their alliance with Japan was that they could see their conflict with the US coming from a mile off, and didn't want any part of it. Then Germany steps into Britain's place and receives the assfuck that was meant for them, while Britain is bailed out by the Americans in the Pacific.
>>
>>545045
This was about 20 years after they got the white house burned down by an empire that had 90% of it's attention fixed on Napoleon at the time, correct?
>>
>>556151
>T. Gets his understanding of history from /pol.
>>
>>544031
It didn't? The only thing that changed was that the Europeans stopped murdering each other so they're relatively stronger and the Chinese aren't a complete and utter mess like they were for half the 20th century.

The only problem is that people think the US is some sort of driverless Tesla when the past year has highlighted what happens when your government is basically in anarchy.
>>
>>543848

>Get lucky once at Midway
>Think your country is hands down superior, was and always will be

Wowzer
>>
>>552864
Wouldn't do fuckall good. Germany was already firebombed a lot worse than the nukes America used in WW2 and didn't surrender. They literally had to overrun the country with soldiers. Adding nuclear weapons wouldn't have made a difference.
>>
>>543671

> some version of Axis & Allies in the future
>>
File: American food.png (415 KB, 622x505)
415 KB
415 KB PNG
>>556171
Cope mutt
>>
>>556520
>Dig out determined Japanese troops on multiple islands
>Still make enough shit to lavishly equip our own troops with semi-auto rifles AND make tanks for the Brits and pretty much supply the entire Soviet war effort.
Yea I think we're pretty good at war. Germans in Belleau Wood thought a bunch of yankee cowboys and jew boy city kids couldn't dig them out, and look where that got em.
Buckshot in the belly and a 19 year old ginger from Chicago posing with a luger.
>>
>>556554
>we were good once so we could never possibly decline!
Absolute fucking cope. Your country is being ran into the ground top-down and you have the balls to brag about winning a fucking battle that happened just over a century ago.
>>
>>551335
Seething faggots will start crawling out of wood works because "anime" but the general political situation in "tanya the evil" light novels deals with something similar. And what I got from it is no way any major power will leave a germany in hegemony of the continental europe. US may not declare war on them directly but it will try its best to fuck them in every other way and UK will never not be in war just for the fear of being isolated against all of the europe. USSR is more prone to swinging, but as others said if it's the nazi germany unlike the interwar empire in tanya, it would try its best to kill them sooner or later.
>>
>>556560
cope, US is still the greatest military power on earth
>>
>>556554
Yeah, you guys were the top of the game.... once. You know where those hard fought battles were won? In white working and middle class homes across the whole of America. An army is only as good as the quality of its men. Now your army is full of 3rd worlders, wimmin and deviants. You dont honestly think the US army of 2021 is capable of winning the equivalent of an assault on Iwo Jima or a siege of Bastogne, do you?
>>
>>556582

I'm not even american.

USA went from being Max+Sami -> Grit+Kanbei

That's a lot of OPness right there...
>>
>>556582
Why wouldn't they, there's really no reason to think otherwise from on-the-grounds records of "3rd worlders, wimmin and deviants". If you have to worry about anything it should be spirit at home and even that's not as bad as doomers think. I believe US will be about the only country where atleast a good amount of people will not take things up their ass if shitters start treading the hardline away. Can't say the same for any country in the rest of the world.

Also not an amerimutt btw.
>>
>>556560
>Alright retard gang, America beat our asses once, surely they can't do it again!
Now this is some copium.
>>
>>556582
>army is full of 3rd worlders, wimmin and deviants
That beat the shit out of everything they fight.
Sounds like you're coping.
>>
>>556526
Japan was also firebombed to all Hell and didn't surrender until the nukes dropped.
>>
>>544477
>free market
>war
>>
>>556526
I think the impact the nukes had was less of a physical one, and more psychological. Sure, firebombs did a huge amount of damage but you often needed to fly hundred of planes and drop thousands of bombs to destroy a city. Comparatively, with a nuke you really only needed 1 plane and 1 bomb to do a similar amount of damage. Now imagine that you're Japan and you see those bombs dropped, then realize that the US has thousands of bombers and potentially thousands of those bombs. Before it might have been logistically impossible to destroy an entire country, but now it could actually happen. That's a scary thought.

>>556560
>>556582
The US military is surprizingly still effective, even if the general populace is less athletic than previous generations. Right now the US has the third largest standing army in the world and is almost entirely volunteer. On top of that, they have some of the best equipment and huge oil reserves. I think you could probably argue about whether or not navies/supercarriers are still effective due to the existence of long-range missiles and drones, but in just about every other area the US is either on par with or superior to their international rivals.
>>
>>543848
>The USofA was just too much of a world superpower with untouched economy, untapped reserves of manpower, material, resources and workforce, they could take on any single other nation at that time.

so you are saying american used to be great. if only some one could make it great again
>>
>>556170
Lol touche. But it really is incredibly impractical for a foreign power to invade the us. Supply lines are impossible and the guerrilla fighting would be unreal.
>>
>>556846
*weren't allowed to surrender, by the americans, until the americans had nuked them
>>
>>556560
Fucking COPE. We have a better military than the entire rest of the world combined. If the entire globe tried some shit against us, we would still be able to defeat them effortlessly in a defensive war, barring the use of nukes. Nowhere is our country being "run into the ground" which I have a good idea what you're trying to say considering how stupid what you wrote was.
>>
>>557219
Yeah as long as aircraft carriers are dominant usa is golden. Im worried about an innovation occurring that makes them obsolete though. Like with battleships.

I need to educate myself on the nuclear submarine arsenal and how it plays in to geo politics though. We have a significant sub force as well.
>>
>>557199
if anything the last administration gave US its needed nerfs
>>
>>557212
>having the gal to ask for anything but a complete surrender when you're so thoroughly whipped.
>>
File: WW2 Economies.jpg (1.12 MB, 2967x1670)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB JPG
>>543848
Too much this. Lately I've been reading a book about Third Reich economy and I got completely shocked by the figures in the book. If it was a full blown war, USA could probably destroy entire Europe by itself.
>>
>>543671
>how do you balance them in a WWII grand strat without drastically nerfing their historical industrial output?
Same way you do in reality. Have them be an economic powerhouse with a weak fighting force that takes a long time to produce..

If they enter the fight early they lose their army and get stomped. The only way to win is to do as they did in reality, hide and pray nobody attacks them until everyone else has weakened each other enough to give them a chance in direct combat.
>>
File: Car ownership.jpg (1.13 MB, 2325x2015)
1.13 MB
1.13 MB JPG
>>557490
And Germany was not impressive at all with their economy suffered heavily in 1920s. They had less industrial production per capita than fucking Ireland. Without Blitzkrieg and some great tactics they wouldn't hold even a slight chance of winning the war.
>>
>>557490
>If it was a full blown war, USA could probably destroy entire Europe by itself.
You're forgetting that the Europeans are all veterans of total warfare, the USA had a relatively green military doctrine.

It would have ended worse than Vietnam for them.
>>
>>543848
/thread

This is still an oversimplification, but if you are planning to have a game where industrial output plays a role into your performance, you just fucking can't make US anything else than insanely overpowered. US industrial capacity, despite fucking downrun of entire economy, was still greater than next 4 biggest industries COMBINED. As absurd as it sounds, at the outbreak of war in Europe, US industry was between 38 to 39% of all fucking global industry (note the word choice - industry, not economy). And all of it in a single country that's separated by ocean from both sides from anyone that could be its potential enemy.
You just can't balance that.
>>
>>557490
>>557501
>and I got completely shocked
Shocked about what? Fucking EVERYONE knows that their economy was non-existing, and so did their industry. On top of that, whatever they had, was put into military re-arment, which further made things worse.
Next thing, you gonna be shocked how the Autobahn system was fucking useless, since there were no cars - but it was still useful to artificially create jobs.
Also, consider this: Germans not only didn't had any actual industry to go into the war, they didn't even fucking prepare for it. They didn't build any sort of material stockpile before war, didn't even intend to, and indebted themselves later by buying from Stalin. Literally quarter of Soviet military factories from the 3nd five-year plan was build using money the Germans paid for raw materials. That's how fucking inept they were.
Never cease to amaze me how effective Goebbles propaganda is - people still believe in that crap about Germanic efficiency.
>>
>>557562
Ask Germans how it worked for them.
Ask French how it worked for them.
Ask Italians how it worked for them.
Ask Brits and Soviets how it would go for them without endless stream of American hardware.
>inb4 America, fuck yeah
I'm Polish. Yet there is no fucking denying that WW2 was fought almost entirely using the fact how fuck-huge American production was, later bolstered by Soviet relocated and retooled industry.
>>
>>557562
That's why I used "full blown war". Even WW2 didn't get enough support, as most Americans thought it was not the business of USA to fight against Europeans. American foreign policy for 150 years was to stay away from any issues outside the Americas. Vietnam war had almost no support from the public and sparked the most anti-war campaign that ever occurred in the history. The plan was not destroying the enemy, but protecting the American satellite in South Vietnam. Also it was a different time from WW2 era and they couldn't go full Danzig or Hiroshima on Vietcong.

If USA fought against the entire Europe, the support for war would be 100% as the enemy actually poses a real threat for its existence and Europeans are not some peasants in rice fields. (Cold War attitude also reflected this, in case of Soviet Aggression all Americans would support the war). In case of USA vs Europe war during WW2 period, USA would nuke Vladivostok and whatever port Soviet Union has near Pacific for starters. Next they would dominate Atlantic Ocean and probably take Iceland as a base. (Canada would be annexed in a week or so at the beginning of the war). From that point on by using their naval superiority they would cut Europeans from their colonies and eventually take over the colonies further damaging struggling economies in Europe. After that point it would probably turn into some kind of cold war as technological superiority is not enough for occupation of such big continent and USA would be satisfied with dominating basically all continents except Europe. (If USA really wanted, they could nuke Europe, just as they could have nuked Soviet Union at the end of WW2)
>>
>>557646
They effectively raped France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Eastern Europe in general, brought British to their knees, making them escape like a bitch. That naturally makes one think they were at least slightly better than British and French industry, not 1/3 of their industrial capacity. Without American help they would occupy Russia and force Britain to a peace treaty. I guess it was all the genius German officers and Herr Hitler.
>>
>>557634
Fucking supply lines and nerfing naval capacity could help a bit with it.
>>
>>557646
>On top of that, whatever they had, was put into military re-arment, which further made things worse.
It made it worse for the peasants, not for the army. Germany invested 50% of its GDP for military, compared to 3-4% in other countries. Goebbels was not fucking around when he talked about total war.
>>
>>557653
>That's why I used "full blown war". Even WW2 didn't get enough support, as most Americans thought it was not the business of USA to fight against Europeans. American foreign policy for 150 years was to stay away from any issues outside the Americas. Vietnam war had almost no support from the public and sparked the most anti-war campaign that ever occurred in the history. The plan was not destroying the enemy, but protecting the American satellite in South Vietnam. Also it was a different time from WW2 era and they couldn't go full Danzig or Hiroshima on Vietcong.

That's exactly why America would lose a "full blown war", too much internal resistance.

If America was the aggressor they'd be fighting a propaganda war to get their own people to fight and their "war veterans" would still be green, it would be a bigger fuck up than Vietnam and America would find itself economically isolated from the rest of the world in the aftermath.

If Europe was the aggressor they'd stand a much better chance but by the time they could muster and respond Europe would have a foothold on American soil. They might beat them in the sense that they stop the advance but ultimately they'd lose the east coast. Europe would win in long-term economic gains.


If America wants to fight a war and win its needs to start with South America or Canada.
>>
>>557689
European delusion at its best.
>>
Politics, you need a system that allows you to intervene and sabotage popular support and that's it.
>>
>>557696
Can't take Vietnam, thinks the USA can take the combined might of Europe.

What is it that lies beyond delusion?
>>
>>557697
>Politics would nerf the most stabilized country in the world.
No significant minorities, no tensions, no rebel movements. Such focus would benefit USA, not harm it.
>>
This thread is full of primo Eurocope.
Why are they so upset at being irrelevant now?
>>
>>557698
Destroying and taking are two different words. I never claimed they could conquer Europe , but they could easily destroy it. USA had absolute superiority in regards to technology and industry over European. Similar to what Europeans had over other people a century before that. Just few nukes would bring entire Europe to their knees. It took Japan 5 days to surrender, and Europeans were not that strong on suicide war like Japanese were.
>>
>>557707
The Europeans are upset they're no longer relevant.
The Americans are upset they've never been relevant.
>>
>>557715
That's it. You are not just European, but a fucking bri'ish. How does it feel being reverse colonized guv'nor?
>>
>>557713
The problem you have there is the Manhatten Project was not purely American and involved the UK and Canada. If war broke out between the US and Europe there's a good chance Europe would have had nukes first as a result of the Tube Alloys project.
>>
>>557689
>but by the time they could muster and respond Europe would have a foothold on American soil.
European ships would be sunk halfway across the atlantic
>>
>>557719
Cope.
>>
>>557490
what book?
>>
>>557698
>the goal was to take Vietnam like we're playing Risk or something

The goal was to prop up the inept south vietnamese government so they could take over, not so we could take it ourselves. And we gave ourselves the handycap of not invading the North despite being more than able to.
>>
>>557715
holy christ the cope is real.
>>
>>557822
I think the possibility of the soviets and chinks intervening was what stopped the US from committing into a full scale invasion of the north
>>
File: VGHv2.jpg (757 KB, 1500x729)
757 KB
757 KB JPG
>>556582
>>
>>557912
>I think the possibility of the soviets and chinks intervening
Which was a situation created by the fact USA didn't go aggressive on them earlier and allowed them to develop.
>>
>>557674
Ever heard about Liberty and Victory ships?
Ever heard about producing those faster than Germans could sink them?
How about having more military shipyards - and all of them perfectly capable to operate, without fear of bombardment or any attack, while serving 2 oceans - than next three guys combines? And all of them well supplied, because there is no fucking resource shotrage.
It's like you can't grasp the simple concept that real life isn't balanced and thus any game on global scale, that takes global history into account, isn't going to be balanced. US in HoI series is super-nerfed vs. reality already, and it's still ungodly OP from sheer geography alone. GoY$ even invented completely fantastical paths for Mexico, just to create SOME semblance of danger or a thread.
>>
>>557662
>Without American help they would occupy Russia and force Britain to a peace treaty
More like the war running for 3-4 years longer, then Soviets doing pushback on their own, ending the whole thing far, far fucking worse circa '48. You know why? Because Soviets also had greater industrial capacity than Germans, along with full access to resources, too. And Germans, thanks to Goering and bunch of politicking, had no capacity for strategic bombardment to disable Soviet industry once it relocated.
As for the genius of German officers - we are talking about people who didn't understood logistics. Not in some grand way, but even the most common fucking sense way. From the entire top command, we've got Manstein as the sole person that had any fucking grasp about logistics. Everyone else assumed supplies are going to just materialise in their conquest. They fucking went to war against Soviets without preparing even a single fucking train engine for the Russian gauge. Not a single fucking one.
>>
>>557662
Also, they've raped Poland in a two-front war, while fighting against 3rd rate military (and still got bogged down, considering the disparity of materiel). Great fucking achievement.
France? Well, if you have fucking fortifications protecting your country, how about you stick behind them, rather than relocating 2/3 of your armed forces to Belgium and end up encircled? Because something tells me you are one of those people who have no clue how the fuck Fall Gelb actually looked like, despite all of this being common access data since '90 and the analysis of events were accessible since early 50s.
Your post is like reading that famous book by Needham, written in '44. It's called Grand Titration and isn't really connected with WW2, aside the fact Needham got stuck in rural China due to the ongoing war and instead of being a chemical engineering setting up munition factory, he turned into a self-taught sinologist. And from his '44 perspective, he wrote an assumption about the WW2 and initial success of Axis powers was solely on the fact they were capable of mobilising the masses and gain upper hand early on, but then the democratic world simply got its shit together and civic duty won over authoritarian regimes solely on moral ground. He had the excuse of not knowing just how terrible was the situation of Germany and Japan, along with various fuck-ups of their commanders, since the war was still going on.
What's yours. 76 years later?
>>
>>558175
>What's yours. 76 years later?
Armchair general with no actual knowledge.
>>
>>558276
, he posts on /vst/ lmao
>>
>>558172
>They fucking went to war against Soviets without preparing even a single fucking train engine for the Russian gauge. Not a single fucking one.
never stops being funny to me. the germans really thought they could capture land faster than the soviets could destroy it
>>
>>556649
I'm sure as your country turns into a weird mixture of Mexico and Brazil you will remain an effective military force.
>>
>>558393
you get the feeling that they expected that after the absolute defeat of the soviets in 41 that the ussr would collapse like russia did in ww1 after brusilov. Ofc, the hun didn't expect the soviets to have a totally spartan mentality to war and suffering.
>>
>>558398
>I'm sure as your country turns into a weird mixture of Mexico and Brazil you will remain an effective military force.
You kidding me, the Brazilians and Mexicans will make America Great again! Those guys know the meaning of hard labour and an honest days work.
>>
>>558393
>>558770
The actual problem at hand is - aside the purely logistical side of things - the overconfidence they had so far, further combined with an almost decade worth of propaganda of just how inferior the Slavs and communists are. Barely pulled Poland and were off-schelude by almost two weeks in that (the plans assumed Poland would fall by 20th of September, being completely overrun), ended up being bogged down in Norway for weeks, made a massive gamble with France... but since all of it worked so far, hey, what could possibly go wrong with attacking a country that can allow itself to lose 500km of "borderland" (which is about the size of a large European country) without any actual detriment to its war capacity? Clearly, they are commie Slavs and Jewish stronghold, so it's gonna fall apart any minute now. Any minute.
Combine this attitude with the fact they were a big military without any actual fucking logistics, entering a country that doesn't even use the same gauge for its rail and is infamously roadless and you know they've lost the moment the whole conflict started. Blitzkrieg was never sustainable in the long run due to the severe neglect of logistics, which is why it was calling for quick surrender of the other side. Should Poland keep up fighting for two weeks longer, they would run out of momentum. France fighting another week and they would have no fucking fuel at the front. But since they've luckied out, who needs petrol for your tanks and trucks, right? Who needs delivering munitions to the front and moving artillery around.
>>
>>553096
Ok I'll take this bait. Your lack of basic historical knowledge is showing.
>6 years
>8 years
Remember the US was not a direct participant until 1942. You meant to say about 3.5 years for both eastern and western theatres.
Also:
>US never had the political willpower
kek, let me just check my figures... 8 million men in the armed services by 1945. They could, and would have invaded Japan if it weren't for our amazing jewish nuke-makers and Harry Truman's balls to use them
>>
>>558847
>US never had the political willpower
>kek, let me just check my figures... 8 million men in the armed services by 1945. They could, and would have invaded Japan if it weren't for our amazing jewish nuke-makers and Harry Truman's balls to use them
That's exactly what she said, they never had the political willpower to invade and instead played chicken-wuss. The amount of men they have is independent of their will to use them.
>>
>>543995
>could rival
Nah, it was straight up superior.
>>
>>543983
>>543989
you already have a game about changing the rail gauge of all of russia to german, what more do you want
>>
>>557646
>EVERYONE knows that their economy was non-existing, and so did their industry
stormnigs and poltards still buy the nazi economic miracle myth
>>
>>559322
says someone who has probably genuinely lectured /pol/ on how the Nazi "plunder economy" was built based on big piles of stolen paintings, gold fillings from jew teeth and recycled vulcanized rubber.
>>
File: ProductionTable.png (434 KB, 1296x433)
434 KB
434 KB PNG
>>543983
Albert Speer said "ugh..if only Germany wasn't so authoritarian and listened to criticism we could have had twice the equipment by 1942" or some shit like that. And that made me think, how would you prevent players from just minmaxing their economy and going all in on quantity and interchangeability of parts (like the Allies did in OTL)?
fuck now I want to brainstorm shit even though I have no masters in either economics, CS, history or military studies. I should stick to tanks
>>
>>559467
>Germany funded an entire war machine on shit they stole from Jews.
That's impressive.
>>
>>543671

>Nation specifically chooses to limit the size of its armies to focus on industrial production because they're too cowardly and shit at actual fighting and they'd prefer to have their 'allies' do the bleeding so they mop up in peacetime
>Everyone acts impressed when they produce more weapons

66 US infantry divisions. 66! Germany fielded over 300. USA deployed 10 M, Germany 16M.

Let's see America fight first-rate opponents on the ground, not Ostruppen with stomach conditions or half-starved Japs. Let's see them handle a largescale front like the Eastern front. They'd be completely demolished. For all their materiel advantages, US troops were terribly organized and poorly led. Zero chance they could beat Germany without Soviet help: the Western Allies simply weren't capable of serious land warfare. Just look at the Italian campaign: complete mess and that's with huge numerical advantages.
>>
>>559926
Oh my God, this is some spectacular cope.
>THOSE GUYS DON'T COUNT, THEY SUCK
Even the 17th SS? And the 352. Infantry? And the numerous Fallschirmjager units? And the 7th Panzer? They all sucked ass? Maybe Krauts just fucking suck lmao
>>
>>559940

>Since there were a handful of good units on the Western front, that means it was in some way equivalent to the Eastern Front

"Nazi Germany had at its disposal 50 divisions in France and the Low Countries, with another 18 stationed in Denmark and Norway.[f] Fifteen divisions were in the process of formation in Germany, but there was no strategic reserve.[94] The Calais region was defended by the 15th Army under Generaloberst (Colonel General) Hans von Salmuth, and Normandy by the 7th Army commanded by Generaloberst Friedrich Dollmann.[95][96] Combat losses throughout the war, particularly on the Eastern Front, meant the Germans no longer had a pool of able young men from which to draw. German soldiers were now on average six years older than their Allied counterparts. Many in the Normandy area were Ostlegionen (eastern legions)—conscripts and "volunteers" from Turkestan,[97] Russia, Mongolia, and elsewhere. The Wehrmacht had provided them mainly with unreliable captured equipment; they lacked motorised transport.[98] Formations that arrived later, such as the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, were, for the most part, younger and far better equipped and trained than the static troops stationed along the coast.[99]

In early 1944, OB West was significantly weakened by personnel and materiel transfers to the Eastern Front. During the Soviet Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive (24 December 1943 – 17 April 1944), the German High Command was forced to transfer the entire II SS Panzer Corps from France, consisting of the 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions, as well as the 349th Infantry Division, 507th Heavy Panzer Battalion and the 311th and 322nd StuG Assault Gun Brigades. All told, the German forces stationed in France were deprived of 45,827 troops and 363 tanks, assault guns, and self-propelled anti-tank guns."
>>
>>559926
>one fifth as many divisions
>two thirds as many soldiers
>attacked into prepared defensive terrain the entire width of western europe
>inflicted a 2:1 casualty ratio
>only failed to beat the soviets to berlin because the soviets cared more

nazifags have some explaining to do
>>
>>559967

>Faced 25% of the German army, the shitty quarter plus some Hitler Youth units
>armed support from locals 70% of the time
>Had Canadians and Brits along for the ride
>Overwhelming materiel advantage and air dominance because the Germans were busy with another couple thousand kilometres of front with a vastly stronger foe

Yeah that's a real fair fight.
>>
>>559977
when the nazis win unequal wars it's martial superiority, when anyone else does it it's unfair :(

face it: napoleon would have won.
>>
>>559985
>napoleon would have won
Hitler said as much during his visit to Napoleon's tomb.
>>
>>543848
>Or just do what Kaiserreich did; divide them into pieces.
Pretty much this. I know it's controversial but I really think this was the best way to solve the American Problem.
>>
>>559985

>Germany defeating two global empires who've had 9 months to focus solely on preparing the Western front despite having fewer men, artillery and tanks is somehow equivalent to two global empires defeating a quarter of the German army while the rest was fighting a third global empire.

Face it, Germany was stronger than any 2 of the Big 3 Allies combined. You seriously think the Allies would win without the Eastern Front, Enigma/Commonwealth resources or American industry?
>>
>>543995
>what about these guys? reminder their army could on paper rival Germany
Their army was unironically superior to that of Germany. It's one of the great memes of history that France was ripe to be taken by Germany in 1940. France could have defeated Germany by the end of 1939 if they'd actually continued their Saar Offensive. It was a lack of political will that destroyed France, which was why Petain was so popular for overthrowing the Republic and establishing the French State.
>>
>>560000
>Germany was stronger than any 2 of the Big 3 Allies combined
The German army was weaker than the French army in 1939.
>>
>>560005

>And that's why French troops marched into Berlin in the 1940 campaign

WTF are you smoking?
>>
>>559963
>OMG IF THE GERMANS HAD INFINITE SOLDIERS THEY WOULD HAVE WON
Pure, uncut copium.
>>
Only if alternate realities are allowed OP then you can come up with something like this:
>Mexico becomes the latino version of USSR led by Leon Trotski
>The South rises again as a domestic terrorism group / guerilla warfare forces akin to Boer Commandos
>China convinces the Nazis and Fascists to allow it join their anti-ComIntern pact instead of Japan (something that actually almost happened IRL)
Otherwise its basicly what >>543848
said already
>>
>>559576
>how would you prevent players from just minmaxing their economy
Oh, that's easy. Changes to the economy take a considerable amount of time, due to the quite high inertia and the pre-planning necessary for retooling. A whole lot of Germany's economy related problem during the early stages of WW2 come from that alone. For instance, Hitler decided around May 1941, a few weeks before Barbarossa, to equip the Panzer IV with a long barelled 75 mm gun. Two weeks later he reversed that decision, but the companies producing the tank already made preparations to execute the design changes. They were already retooling when news reached them that Hitler decided the older version of the Panzer IV would suffice. Months later, that decision also was reversed because the Germans needed more firepower to deal with the KV and T-34 tanks. Now, in the game the player would have to deal with comparable decision making by NPC-controlled aspects of the game, in this case the head of state.

Of course, one could try to min-max, but more often than not these attempts would face quite powerful resistance coming from other departments and/or the military administration/general staff.
>>
>>559985
I thought the nazis hat shit martial, shit officers and shit logistics, what is it now?
>>
>>560414
>China almost joined the Axis
Now that would've been one hell of a twist
>>
>>560441
Alternatively you implement bureaucracy.

Any orders the player issues must first pass through bureaucratic channels. With lower chances of success for orders that change the status quo and diverge from cultural norms.

This chance of failure is proportional to both the size of the country and it's type of governance, plus racial bonuses. Somewhere like America has a large chance of failure (-large country, -"democracy", -inept politicians) while somewhere like Russia would have a much better chance to succeed (-large country, +"dictatorship", +Communist propaganda).

Unfortunately this doesn't work in games because players like to have absolute control and know their orders will be followed to the letter. So they have to play America as a dictatorship because it's the only way they can accomplish anything.


So yeah, in games it's hard to nerf America due to their economy without killing the fun but in reality they're inept and incapable of winning anything because their politicians are too busy bickering amongst themselves.
>>
>>556554
>we won against old men and cripples once, ain't we the greatest warriors in the world!
lol
>>
Its funny seeing all these wehrboos come out of the woodwork and parrot the exact same thing Germany and Japan said about the US; ie Americans are too decedent and cowardly to fight and will be smashed despite their overwhelming material advantage. At least they could plead ignorance.
>>
>>557653
>f USA really wanted, they could nuke Europe, just as they could have nuked Soviet Union at the end of WW2
Fucking retards, why there are so many of them on this board?
>>
Being really fucking boring is already a nerf enough. Not only does it take forever to unlock your economy and get into a war, said war is then primarily a naval one, and naval mechanics are always given secondary priority to land. There is no game which comes close to modeling the intricacies of the Pacific theater, and thats where you're going to be spending most of your time while build build up an army able to compete in Europe.
>>
>>560516
>Americans are too decedent and cowardly to fight and will be smashed despite their overwhelming material advantage.
Given their material advantage in Afghansitan, Iraq and Syria they've had piss poor performance. The American war machine basically plays Blitzkrieg but has no idea what to do after the opening move.
>>
>>543848
Now I'm not saying US is unstoppable or that it could roflstomp all the axis by itself

but I am saying that giving your average RTS/GS autists the economic bonuses that WWII US had they would immediately call hax
>>
>>559940
>They all sucked ass?
Yes. Real fighting men were on Eastern front.
>>
>>560535
They win at nearly every tactical engagement, and the only reason they don't at strategic level is because they really don't care enough. That says more about the issues with the political arm that wields it than the sharpness of the armed knife.
Also there's a reason a rising china still thinks it needs a few decades before it can be at par with US military. I trust their assessment more than every retard here seething at american military superiority
>>
>>560535
>comparing counterinsurgency and nation building operations to total war

America stomped the shit out of our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that was the easy part; trying to stabilize a foreign nation is 100x more difficult than winning a war. Even here though America has a btter track record than most. Look at Europe or Asia for examples of foes turning into productive friends.
>>
>>560567
>America stomped the shit out of our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>Still fighting in Iraq 18 years later.
>Still fighting in Afghanistan 20 years later.
Sounds like you're really stomping them...
>>
>>560601
Cope some more
The mutts might be idiots but they annihilated the militaries of Afghanistan and Iraq, the fact that they can't deal with the consequences of their actions does nothing to invalidate the might of the burgerstanis
>>
>>543917
>has to make it about something you understand
Fucking invaders go back
>>
>>560624
>the fact that they can't deal with the consequences of their actions does nothing to invalidate the might of the burgerstanis
As said before:
>The American war machine basically plays Blitzkrieg but has no idea what to do after the opening move.
>>
File: 19436810.jpg (39 KB, 302x475)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>552288
Even Patton admitted that was a mistake
>>
>>560497
>Alternatively you implement bureaucracy.
I've thought about that. The only bureaucracy the player has absolute control over in the Speer-spreadsheet simulator is his own (ministry of armaments production/economy). Every other pencil pushing organization can only be influenced indirectly, either by fullfilling certain requests of them or having at least neutral to decent relations with the minister at the top. That would call for quite sophisticated RPG and dialogue options, to be honest, for example character interactions in Crusader Kings or Imperator Rome.
>Any orders the player issues must first pass through bureaucratic channels.
That would be less of a "problem" the player had to deal with if the orders are for the own turf. If it afffects other branches of the government, there could be a conference-mechanic to deal with NPC-bureaucrats/ministers/military officials/industrialists. The more democratic the nation is, the more demanding the NPCs would behave in these instances, since there would be much more oversight provided by parliament/Congress. That's much less of an issue for the Soviets, Germans, etc.
>With lower chances of success for orders that change the status quo and diverge from cultural norms.
That could be part RNG (NPCs rejecting it outright due to political position, etc), part indirectly influenced by previous player actions (bribes, threats, fullfilled tasks, improvements in productions due to player action, etc).

I recommend pic related, if anyone wants to know how Speer organized the industry and how he dealt with political shenanigans.
>>
>>560658
Right but that's not a failure of the military machine, that's a failure of the political planners. The hammer works just fine, the carpenter doesn't know how to make a table.
>>
>>560773
I think you hit the nail on the head.

The American war machine is basically an inept carpenter with a ludicrous amount of wood and nails. Ask him to make a table and he'll hammer bits of wood together at random until he gets something resembling a table, then when he tests it, it topples over, so he gets some more wood and nails and starts hammering away again...
>>
>>560829
Basically America is the "cheap Chinese knock-off" of war.
>>
>>544320
>trucks aren't arms
Thanks Adolf, for once again demonstrating an absolute lack of understanding how important logistics are in warfare.
>>
Remove a Roosevelt,really
>>
>>560829
Rather America has the best carpenter using the best tools, following directions written by the world's dumbest engineers.
>>
>>553026
Don't you mean Leningrad? Leningrad was the one where people ate whatever because of the siege
>>
>>560441
I bet someone already thought of this and then realized that players running into problems like that would just opt to zerg rush the enemy instead of planning out their manufacturing
>>
>>560960
Both but stalingrad had far more brutal ratfighting while leningrad was more about the bombardment
>>
>>560978
I don't know. I mean, sure. It would have been possible to zergrush the Soviets in 1941 if Germany decided to concentrate on the Panzer IV and Stug III and had retooled the factories for those two in 1939. In my estimate the Germans could have attacked with around 8,400 tanks instead of the 3,300 they had, even if the Panzer IV still war armed with the short 75/L24 instead of the better 75/L40. Of course, that would have meant much less artillery support and much fewer halftracks. Thing is, the Germans wouldn't have had the fuel for move that impressive tank force all at once and engage in complex spearhead maneuvers. In the end, the player who zergs in that kind of scenario would run out of gas by August '41, with rationing around October.
>>
>>561005
Do you have any recommended reading for stats about unit composition like that? Stuff like this tickles my autism, but I don't know how to find it beyond reading the slop that's on Wikipedia
>>
>>561023
https://www.ww2-weapons.com/germany-army-unit-organisation-1942-45/
Quite comprehensive.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Armour/ShepStuff/Website/EconomicStats.htm
Decent overview of some economic meta. Unfortunately, it's incomplete.

I based my estimate of the 8,400 number on Speer's quite elaborate reports and production numbers. The thing is, Germany really could have built that amount of tanks by 1941, but it would have meant much less artillery, mortars, halftracks, trucks and very likely even less construction. Further reading on that:

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=164666
>>
>>561023
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Not that guy but this is a solid little read as well, and really illustrates what this thread is about.
>>
>>561055
>>561066
Thank you
>>
>>546558
Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina all spoke the same language back when they were Yugoslavia, but after balkanization happened to them all these new languages popped up that justify themselves by misspelling words from the other three. Same with Macedonian vs. Bulgarian, and to a lesser extent Moldovan vs. Romanian (though in their case they decided to do a 180 after the USSR broke up and rebrand Moldovan back to being Romanian instead of trying to make their own thing)

>>553021
Black people already function like this, though there's also the groupings about which coast you're from, hence the East Coast vs. West Coast conflicts (and now they're trying to make Gulf Coast also be a thing to distance themselves from calling it The South)
>>
>>560915
>Rather America has the best carpenter using the best tools, following directions written by the world's dumbest engineers.
It's a long stretch to say America had the best carpenters. KISS:
America is a dumb carpenter with good tools.
>>
>>546511
>since we're going with that argument
Scotland has been trying to break off from the UK for some time, and Ireland actually succeeded, though not all of Ireland
>>
>>546731
>1776
Lexington & Concord was in 1775
>>
>>560002
Reminder that the Saar offensive was so successful and encountered so little resistance that the French thought it was a trap (and the German sympathizers in the army were spooked), which is why it got called off. It's so fucked up.
>>
>>543671
ITT:
>Americans Cope
>>
>>561139
When it comes to open warfare in the last 80 years it's hard to say the US is stupid, or their military ineffective. In sheer military terms they are absolutely dominant, and are one of only two countries in history to throw aircraft carriers at each other, the only country to ever utilize nuclear weapons, and are pretty much the only developed country to actually utilize modern military doctrines in the field on any significant scale. Sure they do dumb shit, but they are the gold standard right now of military effectiveness. Their political machine though has no clue what they are doing and routinely shits the bed.
>>
>>561487
I would hardly call drone strikes on civillians intelligent. They are also the leading instigator of friendly fire incidences.

They are only effective when it comes to killing everything in an area and have no nuance for picking out friendlies/none-combatants from hostiles.
>>
>>558172
>had no capacity for strategic bombardment to disable Soviet industry once it relocated.
>once it relocated
Relocated with what, exactly? Most of the locomotives the Soviets used to move their industry east were supplied by America. The Soviets can't make a pushback after several years of resistance and building up their infrastructure if all of the most important pieces get destroyed and captured in the first moments of the war. They certainly wouldn't be as bad off as France was, but they'd definitely never be able to resist if America truly kept out of the conflict.
>>559926
>what do you mean the Americans played to their advantages rather than throwing every man they had into machinegun fire?
>no, that's stupid, they didn't do it like the Soviets did so they're wrong!
>>560773
This.
>>
Let's just take a gander here...
>Retards comparing war and politics to fucking carpentry
>Retards spouting off /pol/ tier talking points
>Retards that know literally nothing about war or history
Yep, it's a /v/ spin-off board alright.
>>
>>560002
Modern armies are never greater than the political will which directs them. It is perfectly fair to point at France and laugh for categorically shitting the bed, continuously, from 1919 to 1941. They WERE ripe to be taken. It is not a meme to say that France of 1939 had morale and leadership on par with Iraq in 1991.
>>
>>561622
you literally have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>>560835
What? They're more like a sledgehammer of war, extremely great at knocking shit down and then maybe hammering in some infrastructure but sucks ass at anything requiring delicate work
>>
>>562065
>but sucks ass at anything requiring delicate work
Compared to whom exactly?
>>
>>562084
Well, the UN of course
>>
>>562099
kek
>>
>>562065
>What?
I was thinking in the sense that they have near infinite resources and manpower so they can afford to do it half-arsed. They can throw bodies at a problem till the problem goes away, efficiency be damned.

>They're more like a sledgehammer of war, extremely great at knocking shit down and then maybe hammering in some infrastructure but sucks ass at anything requiring delicate work
But that works to.
>>
Why is /vst/ such a blessed place, how the fuck does this thread not reek of /pol/
>>
>>561637
Fucking enlighten us or leave. Don't give a shit but your useless post is neither informative or funny. It's a shit post, and not in a good way.
>>
>>562617
OK allow me to share my arcane wisdom regarding the United States armed forces...
The Army handles pretty much every situation these days with velvet gloves. Everything they do, for better or worse, is designed to minimize casualties for themselves and the local population. That being said, it's still an Army, not a local police force, so dropping a satellite guided artillery round is not out of the question. This entire mindset came around in the late 70's, early 80's as the army changed from a static, draft based force to a more highly trained and motivated volunteer force, thus more capable to handle delicate operations like COIN and even hostage rescue in some more elite formations like the Rangers. Not to say the army is now incapable of large scale combat, you need only look at the outcome of the 2 wars against Saddam to see they're more than capable of fighting a near-peer threat. The US Military is probably one of the most humane fighting forces on the planet, which doesn't say much considering a lot of countries either don't care about civilians or intentionally target them, like we saw in the war between those 2 really irrelevant countries I forget the names of.
Any questions?
>>
File: downloadfile.jpg (32 KB, 474x315)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>562643
>Everything they do, for better or worse, is designed to minimize casualties for themselves and the local population.
Are you one of these people who belives the BLM protests were "peaceful".
>>
>>562654
>Totally irrelevant statement
Ah I see.
>>
>>562643
Yeah so none of what you said really changes anything in this thread or makes you sound any more knowledgeable than the rest of us peasants. Thanks though.

>The US Military is probably one of the most humane fighting forces on the planet,
Try being in the Canadian Army, where you aren't supposed to shoot the 50 cal at people.
>>
>>562665
That's not just you.
It's supposedly disallowed in the US military as well. Supposed to only use it against enemy equipment. Enemy weapons and uniforms count as equipment however. A lot of places need command approval before firing the MK.19.
>>
File: 1619699824992.png (8 KB, 309x163)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
It's simple, really. The United States and all other Anglo countries would never accept a million of their own dead coming back. They would rather stop the war than continue going.
Stop acting like faggots and pretending you're tough as nails. You would never go through what it really took to accomplish your goals. This is why the US has always failed in their imperialist policies. They stop the wars before they get too hot.
>>
>>562669
I wish that made me feel better lol. The ultimate irony is that the military keeps becoming less lethal at the same time their surplus equipment keeps being given to police forces who are forever becoming more lethal.
>hey the army doesn't need these grenade launchers anymore, better give them to the ATF
>>
>>562673
>YOU NEED TO HAVE SHITTY TACTICS AND SEND A MILLION OF YOUR OWN MEN TO DIE IN RETARDED FRONTAL ASSAULTS
Slavoid cope.
>>
>>562673
See I read that as Western countries have no real interest in throwing away an entire generation of people just to appease some degenerate idiot's delusions of grandeur and racial purity.

And shit son if you're gonna do what Hitler and Stalin did, at least win in the end.
>>
>>562681
>unable to actually exert power and control
Retard. How's Vietnam doing? North Korea? Afghanistan? Iraq?
>>562685
One of them would have completely won in Europe had the anglos not been involved. But the anglos didn't even win, so what's your point? They saved some of their men's lives so they could become addled boomers unable to combat the trannies and sissies parading the streets?

This is exactly what I mean, the "so what" attitude and rough pride in fighting not for national health or imperialist control, but for something insidious. Business interest. America did nothing to Japan except help it become its greatest competitor, and it did the same to China and didn't even fucking help create the place. A bunch of fags unable to accomplish any conquest, that's what the US is.
>>
>>562680
It's almost like the US empire is slowly folding in on itself as it turns to fight "white supremacy"
>>
>>562708
Looks like >>562534 spoke too soon.

>>562708
Take your meds mate.
>One of them would have completely won in Europe had the anglos not been involved
Wow so they woulda won so long as they didn't have to fight anyone capable of fighting back. You don't say.
>They saved some of their men's lives so they could become addled boomers unable to combat the trannies and sissies parading the streets?
Literally true for every Western country, whether Anglo or not. And we have Germany and the EU mostly to blame for that, so thanks.
>fighting not for national health or imperialist control
Fighting a war that serves a purpose is one thing. Invading an entire continent to satisfy your own delusional need to be top dog only to not only start a series of unnecessary war crimes and nonsense, but also to end the war back in the stone age is something else entirely.
>A bunch of fags unable to accomplish any conquest, that's what the US is.
And yet still more relevant than either Germany or Russia, both of who's efforts at aggressive imperialism set their countries back significantly, largely due to the US' efforts.

Look I ain't a fan of the modern leftist fetish for anti colonialism or anti imperialism, but neither am I a fan of delusional racial purity screeds from some natsoc retard who actually thinks Germany woulda handled the world any better than the US.
>>
File: 1556195468281.png (68 KB, 500x303)
68 KB
68 KB PNG
>>562740
Forgot pic
>>
>>562740
>Fight back
Anglos got decimated whenever it was a fair fight. Without a two front war for either they would have got dumpstered and then retreated, most actual Americans would have preferred that. The whole rah rah is, and will always be, retarded coming from a country of quakers.
>western country
You don't say? Keep crying about it, YOU created it. Stop being a homo and actually read up about it, all of this and more was in the US' ultimate vision and their military was used and abused for it. Imagine blaming Germany, kek.
>war
You know nothing about war or how it should be waged, unsurprisingly really. Talking about war crimes, haha.. America has never engaged in total war save against itself, which hampered it for the next sixty years. It took Europe going to the end game stage of it's own battle for control for them to even emerge relevant again.
The Monroe Doctrine and et all was complete retardation from the Americans, look what it has produced. Combine that with what they did in the Spanish War, a bit load of nothing, and you get the mix of laziness and terribly thought out and executed ideas.
>muh USA
A bunch of pansies who couldn't handle the world or the task of taking civilization to the next step. The American hegemony is collapsing largely off its own volition. Think about that and next time you brag about how easily you were handled the throne of power, remind yourself that easy comes the crown easy come it's fall. The US likes to think it's Rome but in reality it's Carthage, a mercantile nation that let's hired armies do all of its fighting rather than engaging in real warfare of conquest.
>>
>>543671
You don't. Both USA & USSR should have their massive industrial output but you balance them by nerfing morale, unit training/ranks, and weapon efficiency. Also, use logistics: USSR with shitty transport networks and USA with being so far away from everyone else.
>>
>>560659
Patton had brain damage from constantly getting into car accidents with no safety measures. If you just look at America today vs pre-WWII, it's obvious they should have joined. It eliminated a potential rival superpower and put the important half of Europe under its thumb. And the USSR collapsed anyway, no war needed since communism is so shit.
America's biggest misstep is not realizing how powerful China could get if left to unite and develop.
>>
>>562829
>Patton had brain damage from constantly getting into car accidents with no safety measures
Yea sorry, that doesn't mean he wasn't fully cognizant of the truth. He fought for the wrong side and he knew it
>If you just look at America today vs pre-WWII, it's obvious they should have joined
If you showed the men fighting for the US in WWII what our country would become they would have joined the Nazis.
>>
>>562761
>MOMMMAAAA, THEY ARE NOT LETTING ME KILL THEM FAIR AND SQUAAAAAAAARE
the eternal cope of the losee
>>
>>562969
Sounds like you just got back from 'Nam.
>>
>>543671
you just keep the realism of their soldiers being terrible cowards
>>
>>563631
It's not that they're terrible cowards, rather their training is based on the concept of only engaging in conflicts where they have a clear advantage. Training your soldiers to fight when they're at a disadvantage requires significant discipline which doesn't fit in with their rather cavalier "America, FUCK YEAH!" attitude to war.

Unfortunately that means when SHTF, things fall to pieces. In those situations it's brave to turn your tail and flee and gallantly chicken out unless you're not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways.
>>
>>563631
>muh cowards
>>
>>563631
You've commented the same retarded shit like 8 times now.
>>
>>562175
>They can throw bodies at a problem till the problem goes away, efficiency be damned.

That's the one thing America tries its best to AVOID.
>>
>Americans are WEAK and COWARDLY and will stop fighting as soon as it starts to cost them something

Literally the same mindset both the Japs and the Nazi's had going into it, look how that turned out.
>>
>>564342
Yeah but he added the caveat that it needed to be a fair fight. Surely German superiority would have shone through if only the rest of the world chose not to leverage their strengths.
>>
>>545299
>>549589
You realize that the current "progressive" social norms have only been present from approximately the late 50's on correct?

What's 250 minus 180?
>>
>>564565
>You realize that the current "progressive" social norms have only been present from approximately the late 50's on correct?
The 50s? Mate, try the 10's. Tranny bullshit has only become mainstream since 2015, now "deadnaming" which noone would bat an eyelid a decade ago is treated as an act of literal "violence".
>>562742
Tranny mutt posting a known tranny image. Opinion discarded.
>>
>>545260
>And one can reasonaly blame the outcome of WW2 for that
And the blame for that falls squarely on the Allies, unless Hitler somehow popped out of the grave and pointed a gun at their heads and made them import infinity niggers.
>>
>>545107
Mutt... you.. you didnt "crush" germany.. Germany had 400k soldiers in france in 44 while having 1.5 Million on the Easten Front, and having lost 3 Million in the previous 3 Years, you didnt "crush" anything more than forced conscripts, 2nd tier infantry reserves and 6-7 Panzerdivisions that you couldnt even outmaneuver and those retreated behind the Westwall.
>>
>>544186
Go back to hoi 4 zoomer
If germany lost in its initial attack the war would have been over, the french army was superior if they couldnt be outflanked, and they couldnt after a failure in the ardennes
>>
>>564657
>the french army was superior if they couldnt be outflanked
The French army was inferior in both quantity and quality to the Germans.

For example, a big reason why the French so heavily invested in Maginot line (other than to draw the Germans up into the Beneleux region for the holding action that would take place and bleed the Germans) was that they did not have sufficient amounts of troops, hence they had to conscript 40 year olds, which raises a question, what do you do with them? Stick them in a fortified bunker, which is exactly what they did with their B grade troops.

For more information:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWwLcykedcs
For shorter version (and what I think is a better version personally)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5kTuWrvaQk
>>
>>564342
>>564553

>NOOOO, America's victories are due to her overwhelming grace, virtue and martial valour, not the fact that they were last to join the war and got others to do all the hard work.

German superiority did shine through, as is immediately obvious from them defeating Britain and France in '40 and dragging down most of Eurasia with them in defeat. Look at a map some day: consider how small Germany is compared to the countries that it was fighting. The fact is that it didn't especially matter how garbage the US military performed as long as they had millions of Russians and Commonwealth troops to hide behind.
>>
>>565261
>consider how small Germany is compared to the countries that it was fighting.
Consider population, wealth and resource density
>>
>>543671
Better logistic mechanics. Realistic weather and terrain penalties and other things to complicate logistics which limits their ability to bring all their power to bare at once
>>
>>565371

>Population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1939

>Wealth

https://www.zuljan.info/articles/0302wwiigdp.html

>Resources

Coal is literally all they had. Iron ore had to come from Sweden via Norway, by sea! Oil from Romania. Raw materials from Balkans. Rubber had to be expensively refined.

Even with all these ridiculous constraints and retarded logistical, political and industrial strategy, Germany massively overperformed relative to everyone else involved, with the possible exception of Finland.

Meanwhile the US possessed enormous amounts of every resource and deliberately underperformed. They sabotaged their war effort so as to put more of the burden on the Russians and Commonwealth: they'd supply their allies so someone else would die in America's place. Then sweep in at the end and claim the spoils of victory after all the hard work was done by others. Absolutely disgusting: America will shortly get what it deserves when China tears them a new asshole. You can't hide behind your allies forever.
>>
File: WW 2Doctrines.jpg (110 KB, 720x524)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>543957
>>
>>563703
This, the Americans are many things but they aren't cowards:

We were running a NATO exercise, the Americans had 96 hours to advance into our territory and capture two objectives, us and the Canadians were on the defense. We opted for an elastic defense and used a series of rapid unending hit-and-run engagements, eveytime they could muster a counterattack we would fade away to the next defensive point then engage again and when they didn't go where we wanted we'd issue an open challenge getting them to do something stupid, exploiting terrain and luring them into prepared defenses. They kept fighting thinking that we couldn't stand against them and we kept goading them into one more attack, one more stand, letting them think they were on the verge of victory. By the time they had advanced enough to encounter the 31st 'Nucks they had ran out of supplies.

It was a near total wipe.
>>
>>567931
Man, I bet everyone involved was having a blast.
Bet it didn't seem like it at the time though.
>>
>>567931
Same thing happened in the Gulf War, Americans kept getting baited into getting surrounded by Iraqi tanks and slaughtered.
>>
>>568002
Damn it's been a while since I heard this shit.
>IRAQ ACTUALLY SECRETLY COMPLETELY BTFO NATO
Smells like a 2016 /pol/ thread.
>>
>>568002
it is one thing to say that the inexperienced and fresh American army had trouble with the much more experienced Germans, but it is a whole, whole other realm of stupidity to claim this. Do you have a single source to back that up?
>>
>>567811
>having allies is dishonorabu

same mindsets gonna lose it for China in the end as well.
>>
>>544031
probably around the death of alexander and the failure that followed (successor states).
>>
>>568590
It's pasta I think.
I remember hearing it years ago on /pol/ and everyone pretty much just ignored them. /Pol/ is a terrible board to discuss war however, as there are a great deal of retards that listen to Hell March and assume Russia can blitz all the way to Paris in a week.
>>
>>543989
all the competent Paradox devs left after Vicky 2
>>
>>568002
>>568590
>>568638
This happened once during the invasion of Kuwait. A light armoured recon unit overextended engaging an infantry platoon and end up facing a line of tanks, they were disabled immediately then what survived didn't last long.
>>
>>558172
>Strategic bombing
>Eastern front
No. Every bomber would be used to allow an actual push. Like it happened in reality.
>>
It's funny that just like in history, the tankies and amerimutts both vehemently deny wehraboo's any victory, even making up lies and shoving random free form analysis onto the war that has little bearing on the actual facts of the conflict.. And also subtly jabbing each other between posts.
America has always had a large isolationist segment. They have also had strong regional distinctions and a two-party system that incentives internal conflict. These political factors keep it from waging a true total war as other anons have said, American might is pretty lame compared to how strong it really should be. Even today, Russia operates itself far more capably with what should be not even a fifth of the resources.
>>
>>568638
>/Pol/
>""""""""P""""""""
Get fucked faggot.
>>
>>564613
>The 50s? Mate, try the 10's. Tranny bullshit has only become mainstream since 2015, now "deadnaming" which noone would bat an eyelid a decade ago is treated as an act of literal "violence".
You're confusing singular issues within the current paradigm as being "progressive" social norms.

To cut a very tedious explanation as short as possible, the ball was made in the 20-30's period, and get kicked down the hill in the 60's, with the 50's being its final assembly.
>>
>>543671

Logistical penalties for having to send stuff
to the other side of the world.
>>
>>543671
Part of me says you're really just asking, "How did Paradox fuck up the USA in HoI4?" But as for an actual answer. Get some economic mechanics in the gave. Give the US high poverty rates, low income, and the likelyhood of new factories opening very low. Then they can give a few guns to the Allies, but not much. When the war start a player can do things like war bonds to help the economy, and get it back on track.
>>
>>567811
>Germany massively overperformed relative to everyone else involved.
Absolute nonsense, it would have taken a special sort of retard to have lost against those the Germans fought in the first half of WW2.
>>
>>560063
You are coping, he btfo'd your "germans had good units in the west" opinion by stating that the most capable formation was withdrawn (which btw would have made a breakthrough at St. Lo impossible thus bogging down the allies in normandy)
Now you pull some bs Statement out of your ass to feel like you won the discussion.
Literal mutt tier cope
>>
>>561005
"Zergrush" "In my estimate" "Spam moar tankks:DDDDD" "complex spearhead"
Go back to Hoi 4, you absolute zoomer faggot
>>
>>564732
>Source:youtube
Yeah fuck off faggot
>>
>>564732
Allied force had better tanks, better aircraft, more manpower, better rifles, better infantry tactics

Germans literally only figured out that you can put radios into tanks and coordinate them, and massing the tanks into one spearhead. The german panzer divisions in 1940 consisted to 2/3s or more of panzer 1's and 2's

French high command sucked and they didnt even had radios in their supreme headquarters. The army itself was so superior that it makes the french defeat in 7 weeks all the more mind boggling
>>
>>569639
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST USE THAT AS A SOURCE
>Why?
>CUZ DAJOOOOOOOOTUBE!!!!
It's a University lecture made by a relevant historian lol, with the 2nd being a summary of the former.

>>569656
>Better tanks
They had heavier tanks, not necessarily better.

>Better Aircraft
The allies had inferior aircraft to the Germans at the outbreak of WWII, especially France.

>More manpower
Technically yes, they had amounts of manpower.
You're forgetting that Great Britain would NEVER contribute an amount of men proportionate to their total population however, meaning that the pools aren't as suggestive of what they can actually use (even if GB has hundreds of millions of people under their control, they're not going to be able to recruit even .3%~ of that).

>better rifles
This I'm less familiar with, I was under the impression that rifles were largely equivalent at the time?

>better infantry tactics
As well as this.

>Germans literally only figured out that you can put radios into tanks and coordinate them, and massing the tanks into one spearhead. The german panzer divisions in 1940 consisted to 2/3s or more of panzer 1's and 2's
Reductive at best, they did not "only have tanks with radios, therefore THAT'S the only reason they won" anon.

>The army itself was so superior that it makes the french defeat in 7 weeks all the more mind boggling
...Are you French by any chance?
>>
>>569575

Time after time the Germans just did a better job in fighting. They made a trend of performing impossible feats. The entire Norway campaign, successfully pulling off an amphibious campaign against the BRITISH NAVY, against superior numbers. Storming Eben Emael, again paradropping against superior numbers. Those few weeks in May, crossing defended rivers. Rommel won in Africa whenever he wasn't outnumbered 3:1. Even sometimes when he was: Kasserine Pass. Even though the British knew about the invasion of Crete by Enigma, the paratroopers still won. Let's not forget all they did on the Eastern Front, encircling superior numbers time after time as late as '43.

For all their faults the Germans were the best fighters on the ground. Clearly this isn't enough to overcome the scale of three global empires but it should be recognized.
>>
>>570697
>Even though the British knew about the invasion of Crete by Enigma, the paratroopers still won.
Because the army were retarded and didn't garrison the airfields.

> Let's not forget all they did on the Eastern Front, encircling superior numbers time after time as late as '43.
The Germans had more men under arms than the Soviets when Barbarossa commenced, and I believe that only changed after late 42 IIRC.

>For all their faults the Germans were the best fighters on the ground.
Granted, for the majority of the war.
>>
>>569636
t. zoomer faggot
>>
>>570697
Who cares? WW2 wasn’t about who had better fighters, it boiled down to which political system could organize for total war better. Turns out communism and capitalism are superior to fascism in this regard and Europe got absolutely obliterated by the Soviets and Americans. It is a shame the Germans couldn’t hold out longer than the Japanese though so we could nuked Berlin.
>>
>>569656
>better infantry tactics
Who precisely? Certainly not yanks, russkies nor brits.
>>
>>543671
Why would you balance a WWII grand strat? WWII wasn't balanced.
>>
>>571815
Why would you balance any (allegedly) historical game? Only reason is to sell DLC to literal retards.
>>
>>571815
Balance doesn't necessarily mean between teams, it could also be thematically. A nation could be over/underperforming compared to the potential of its real world counterpart. A good example of this is WarThunder where both the Russians and Americans will be covered by source "A" but they'll opt to use a different source for the Americans which has lower ratings compared to "A".

The same thing applies to a 4x where a "realistic" game will opt to ommit certain mechanics that hinder their preferred nation (typically this is the nation of the games creator, because blind-patriosm).
>>
>>543848
The real reason America was so decisive was that it was a major world economy that was untouched by the war and isolated enough that it couldn't be easily destroyed. At the time the war started, it did indeed have a huge economy but its military was tiny and it took a good two years into the war before the US was producing enough military equipment to properly take on both Japan and Germany. The US and its allies the USSR and UK were very much dependent on one-another to win the war. No one and probably not even any two of the Allied Powers could have defeated the Axis on their own.
>>
>>570655
The French Army at the outbreak of the war was definitely better than the Heer. That Germany won was a historical fluke, even the Germans were genuinely shocked by their success.
>>
>>571909
>The French Army at the outbreak of the war was definitely better than the Heer.
On paper, yes, but in reality France after WW1 was a deeply demoralized society, shaken to its core, which inevitably influenced military morale and outlook. A confident people would NEVER have built something like the Maginot line.
>>
>>568638
Seething /his/dditor spewing lies, as usual.
>>
File: MAPK1823.jpg (7 KB, 225x225)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
>>568638
Back to plebbit
>>
>>571680
>it boiled down to which political system could organize for total war better. Turns out communism and capitalism are superior to fascism in this regard
Wrong, it REALLY boiled down to who had superior numbers, like 90% of military conflicts where both sides have rough parity.
>>
>>546558
>but it's the opposite. If you live in the South, you'll notice only the old folks and totally isolated white trash (not that they're bad people, they're better than the rest of the country, even) speak with southern accepts or use southernisms in their speech. Everyone else talks like some generic urban Yankee. Mass media has been a disaster for regional identities across the nation.
This, maybe the US will Balkanize but the damage has been done
>>
>>545260
>the west kept its "trad"-makeup
>>
The constant arguing of who would have won and who was stronger and why people won WWII and was Germany doomed or whatever is not productive.
The fact is Germany could have won. The Battle of France is enough proof for this; France was decisively defeated in battle after battle so they could eliminate their neighbouring great power in only a few weeks.
The longer the war lasted the worse the prospects got for Germany. They did not have access to resources all over the globe the way the United Kingdom did, they did not have the vast land and resources of the USSR, they weren't surrounded by two oceans like the USA.
Germany's serious defeat was when they failed to decisively defeat the Soviet Union in 1941/1942, after that they were stuck in a war of attrition which they were in a significant disadvantage. Now if the Red Army's performance had continued to be terrible then perhaps they would have won a constly victory eventually but at that point they had become evenly matched and the question became not who is the better fighter but who can keep fighting the longest, and the answer was the Soviet Union.
This is not even mentioning that Germany did not accept a doctrine of total war until 1943, and the war war's ultimate conclusion was not yet set in stone. For comparison, from day 1 the UK, USSR, and the USA were committed to total war. The fact that the USA, the ultimate free market capitalist country, more or less took over all private factories, conscripted every single military-age male, and poured all of its vast resources into impressive military equipment, especially the atomic bomb, paints a stark comparison as to how a literal fascist totalitarian state under-utilised their economy for war, and still performed very well until 1942.
Germany was a serious military threat that could have won, but a long war of attrition was a weakness of theirs, and a strength of the Allies.
>>
>>573535
>The fact is Germany could have won.
The fact is they didn't. The only people who argue they could/should have won are sympathisers.

We're not historians here, we're trolls.
>>
>>573535
>The fact is Germany could have won.
They couldn't and didn't. The German war effort could only have succeeded if the political situation amongst and between the Allies was radically different, or in the case of complete military incompetence, neither of which were the case.
>>
File: 62.jpg (131 KB, 669x446)
131 KB
131 KB JPG
>>573091
>A confident people would NEVER have built something like the Maginot line
>>
>>556520
eat shit nip you lost
>>
File: 1617668151861.gif (864 KB, 280x158)
864 KB
864 KB GIF
Oh, boy, another thread where retarded faggot foreigners try to downplay, insult, or otherwise deny the hard fact that the USA is more powerful and prosperous in its run than they've ever been in their entire history. Another thread where they think the Soviets would have beaten Germany without the USA. Another thread of gif-related:
>>
>>574702
>the USA is more powerful and prosperous in its run than they've ever been in their entire history

Sorry to disappoint you bro but you don't even make the top 10 (>>508662).

Also; posting a picture of a Belgian to express your feelings a s a proud American, maximum cuckery right there. You could have at least gone Stone Cold or posted some of those weeaboo cartoon chicks you covert.
>>
rioting niggers
>>
>>552683
>The USA got mainly beaten at Vietnam for following the Geneva convention and not taking the necessary measures for victory. One off if not the main doctrine of the US is superior firepower. That means having the better tech and more resources than your enemy. This worked with a distracted Germany but failed miserably against rice farmers in Asia
The US won every battle it was in in Vietnam, even the Tet Offensive when North Vietnamese launched a surprise attack on the Tet holiday in violation of an Armistice they agreed to. The US actually won 8n Vietnam. The term carpet bombing was coined there to describe what the US did to the north to get them to agree to the zparis peace accords. Part of that agreement was that the US agreed to provide materiel to the south if the north violated the agreement, which was expected. However Demicrats took control of congress and refused to fund that because their political interests were served by getting out of the war all together. Gerald Ford as president literally begged congress to fund the program but the democrats.refused and even walked out. America had won the war but Democrats refused to keep the peace.
>>
>>543848
I heard a quote somewhere, cant source it so it might be bullshit but it fits reality. Someone asked a german soldier after the war when they knew they would lose.

"We knew we would lose the war when the Americans began sending up their planes unpainted. It meant they could make planes faster than they could make the paint."
>>
>>544031
tolerating communists to fight hitler led to communist propaganda making headway in the western Allied countries, leading over the next several decades to broad social, political and economic destabilization.

Yuri Bezmenov told us this and we still didn't listen.
>>
>>544943
makes me think of that recording of Hitler talking with advisors and being in utter shock at the working conditions they found in the soviet factories.
>>
>>575986
based and objectively truthpilled.
I'll go one step further: journalists fucked up the vistory.

Commie sympathizers aside, most war journalists were based out of places that got his in the first hours of the tet offensive. By the time the Americans responded (with very swift response, by military standards mind you), the journos had already evacced the area and started telling everyone back home the war was a hopeless clusterfuck because they had personally been too close to bullets for a while.

Thus the narrative undercut the reality on the ground.
>>
>>543995
>>552683
>>557662
So Hitler was right about the most important thing: it doesn't matter how good your industry is or how many guns you have, if the hands of the people holding those guns and industries are filled with cowardice.
You can't balance USA in WWII grand strategy because back then, Americans were still willing to kill their enemies, just as their Germanic kin. And if it hadn't been for the manipulations of the Jew, the two nations would have stood united to eradicate all of the other insipid weak scum off the planet.
>>
File: Copter.jpg (135 KB, 1200x813)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
>>575986
>America had won the war but Democrats refused to keep the peace.
It sure doesn't sound like victory when your withdrawal entails pushing vehicles off the deck to make room for more people. It sounds more like a hasty retreat to me.
>>
>>576047
They were spooked by their own side lying to them. If you can't trust your nation, you end up doing stupid shit like this instead of killing your enemy with deadly force attacks.
>>
>>576047
Yes this occurred after the Democrats cut off funding and the south was unable to repel the north because they no longer had materiel support. The north eventually took over all the south including Saigon which they renamed Ho Chi Minh City. You should look up boat people to see what south Vietnamese did fearing the communists. Then look up Vietnamese re-education camps to find out what happened to many south Vietnamese who were unable to flee.
>>
>>576067
Looks like the capitalists lost the ideological war. Maybe they should learn to take the L. The world belongs to the globoschlomo and USA will soon be a distant memory. Cope.
>>
>>576098
If your point is that Communism as an ideology is better able to withstand losses of human life because it devalues human life thus making numerous losses less painful because individual people even large numbers of them are simply fungible cogs in the machine and in the end the only thing that matters is the that the ideology persists then I agree with you.
>>
>>576141
>brainwashed goy projecting again
Every time.
>>
>>576141
Good, that's exactly the point. Ignore >>576149.
>>
>>576067
>Yes this occurred after the Democrats cut off funding and the south was unable to repel the north because they no longer had materiel support. The north eventually took over all the south.
Sounds like the North won to me...
>>
>>576067
>Playing a football game
>At the end of the 3rd quarter you're winning 7:3
>Refuse to play the final quarter
>As a result of your actions you forfeit the match
>"We won!"
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the American War Machine.
>>
>>544305
It was actually communists and world communism
>>
>>573091
>the Maginot line
Dude, it worked, it funneled the Germans into Belgium exactly like it was supposed to, the only reason the French lost so badly is the Belgians breaking their alliance in 1936, and as a result the French and British couldn’t setup proper defenses ahead of time (while Poland was being overrun) like the original plan had been, they were forced to wait for Germans to do the obvious and declare war on Belgium to then be allowed to advance into Belgium and only then begin fortifying the area.
Had they been able to actually dig in, I’d bet the war in the west either would have lasted a much longer time, or might have even resulted in a stalemate again until the Soviets attacked Germany from the East in a general advance westward like they had always intended once strong enough.
>>
>>576911
More like the coach pulls all the starters and doesn’t even put in the backups
>>
>>576936
I agree regarding the Maginot line, but the fact is that France and the French army were deeply demoralized and much weaker in reality than on paper. There is no contradiction here.
>>
>>576970
Look up the battle of Sedan, the best German divisions in the entire military (Panzer 1-3 and Grossdeutschland)
Just barely (with the help of the most intense aerial bombardment in all of WW2) beat the French B divisions (Old men conscripts) to cross the river and take the very important city, only a few of the river crossing were even successful, but it was enough to force the French around the bunkers to retreat and the German then blew open/up the bunkers.
The city was fought over for 14 days and exchanged hand like 17 times.
The French didn’t roll over for lack of effort, they just had really terrible allies (Belgium and Britain) who turn and ran home once real fighting began.
>>
>>576993

Crossing a river and storming a city is difficult. This is not new information.

The fact is that the French fucked up royally. They could've invaded Belgium pre-war or set up defences behind them or done ANYTHING in the months when Germany was blitzing Poland. They chose to do nothing and got the reward they deserved. They chose not to build enough good planes, not to develop radios in their armour, not to train for aggressive, coordinated counterattacks between armour and infantry. They chose to abandon Czechoslovakia! Every single decision they made was a mistake 33-40.
>>
>>543671
This entire thread is now Frenchoid cope that they lost horrifically to fucking Germans lmao.
>HON HON WE BUILT LE BEEG BUNKER, OH NO ZEY ARE GOING AROUND IT, QUICKLY JAQUES, AUTISTICALLY RUN INTO THE BELGIAN WOODS
>>
>>543671
why the fuck would you
Unbalance is intrinsic to Grand Strats, fucking kill yourself
>>
>>578809
>HON HON WE BUILT LE BEEG BUNKER, OH NO ZEY ARE GOING AROUND IT, QUICKLY JAQUES, AUTISTICALLY RUN INTO THE BELGIAN WOODS
that was literally the entire plan though. use reserve divisions on maginot and funnel germany to belgium where the UK and proper french divs would defend it
>>
>>579102
>Unbalance is intrinsic to Grand Strats, fucking kill yourself
It's ironically how you baww when America is the weakest faction in the game.
>>
>>579784
>America is strong IRL
>It shouldn't be in GSG because...?
>>
>>543995
>reminder their army could on paper rival Germany
There's actually a good Alternative Hypothesis video on this, and basically it's that the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to cut their army down to a bare minimum, causing most of the older / mentally outdated officers to be fired (freeing it from a lot of institutional inertia), and when they built it back up they were able to fill the officer ranks with men who weren't stuck in old ways of thinking.

The result was that the French army was kind of a bloated mess like the modern USA, full of career officers who were mainly interested in politicking and were mentally caught up in older ways of waging war, while the German army was full of younger, newer officers who were more highly motivated and were better able to adapt to new technologies and innovate.

Even though on paper, the French army was superior to the German army, in practice the German army's overall quality was much higher. If WW1 had gone the other way around, you'd probably see the exact opposite situation. Similarly if France hadn't been so obsessed with cutting the German Empire down and forcefully reducing their military, they probably would have been less of a threat due to retaining a lot more old fucks who couldn't wage war as effectively.
>>
>>543848

American aid to the Soviets is overstated but helped, it was the United Nations, unified. Beautiful.

>>543978

The Soviets in general had a larger population than the US before collapse.
>>
>>579791
Because what's the point of playing America if you're not stomping fools on godmode?
>>
>>579894
>Similarly if France hadn't been so obsessed with cutting the German Empire down and forcefully reducing their military, they probably would have been less of a threat due to retaining a lot more old fucks who couldn't wage war as effectively.
That's the wrong lesson to learn. The correct response is that if you're going to vindictively punish a nation for waging a war with you, don't stop at reducing the military. Just do what you actually want to do and exterminate them.
>>
>>580014
>Because what's the point of playing America if you're not stomping fools on godmode?
For the same reason every American warm movie has the Americans "struggling for victory".

Because being the underdog and coming out ahead is more fun than stomping on ants.
>>
>>552683
>The USA got mainly beaten at Vietnam for following the Geneva convention and not taking the necessary measures for victory.
my_lai_massacre.png
>>
>>580019
That's the Talmudic way
>>
>>580032
Mỹ Lai massacre
>>
>>543671
Focus on the same reason they lost the Vietnam war despite winning many battles. The US people may not have the will or stomach for a war when a threat isn't staring them in the face. It's really the same case with most nations, it's why pound for pound the US is so inefficient in warfare historically compared to many others.

The old world had the "benefit" of facing an imminent, existential threat during their wars up to WW2. The less tangible factors like morale and willingness to fight and die for your homeland are much easier to embrace and support when armies are literally marching through your backyard, when you can't go to work because the factory you've made your living at is a target of a bombing run, and when you're on the wrong end of the barrel of a gun. The average US citizen at this time had none of these factors to worry about, so selling them on fighting a war that only might venture across the Atlantic and visit them is tough. There's a non-insignificant faction of people who would likely just see it as a waste of life and resources that would be better spent improving conditions at home.

The leadership of the US might be interested in pursuing long-term goals by intervening in the war in Europe, but John Q Public really has no desire to submit to a draft and face the possibility of not coming home. It took heavy propaganda efforts, censorship, and a Japanese attack on a US military base to actively pull them into it, even if Washington was providing materiel support to friendly nations throughout the world, and even then the US was limited from bringing its full corpus to bear.
>>
>>580032
>Half the people killed ended up being VC anyway.
If you're gonna fight, stand up and fight. And don't cry when a disgruntled infantry company comes through with a vendetta.
>>
>>580425
>If you're gonna fight, stand up and fight. And don't cry when a disgruntled infantry company comes through with a vendetta.
But that's the same thing as entering a war then running away with your tail between your legs after winning a few battles. Don't cry when people point out you lost.
>>
>>543671
Add politics. US public opinion is far more sensitive to casualties than other nations. Have a mechanic such that if the casualties goes to high you suffer from stability penalties or is forced into a peace deal.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.