73p historical map army powers

Undaunted wrote:

first question Why all little countries has same armies militas anti airs anti tanks ??

RBoi200 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

first question Why all little countries has same armies militas anti airs anti tanks ??

Those are the most basic armies.

Undaunted wrote:

first question Why all little countries has same armies militas anti airs anti tanks ??

ıf you want to give equal chance every country

then second question why chile has smaller army even than luxembourg bhutan ecuador uruguay or random world country ?? chile's mission is only dying to argentina at this map ???

I wonder do this army seizes depend on numbers at real history ?

The All In map is not meant to give an equal chance for everyone. Far from it.

Army sizes and preset research levels should attempt to reflect nation's military power at that time. Though, for small, one city nations, I assume they just gave them the same thing, considering it makes little difference.

tbh they need to redo. When they made it there was too much focus on balancing

I looked to army of luxembourg in 1939

ıt seems 13 officers, 255 armed gendarmes and 425 soldiers but ıt has 10 units in game

I guess chile has at least 8-10k army seize in 1939 but ıt has only 2 militia and 1 ınterceptor

I wonder how they calculate these army seizes at game

Nova0213 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

first question Why all little countries has same armies militas anti airs anti tanks ??

ıf you want to give equal chance every country

then second question why chile has smaller army even than luxembourg bhutan ecuador uruguay or random world country ?? chile's mission is only dying to argentina at this map ???

I wonder do this army seizes depend on numbers at real history ?

Little countries couldn't fund large militaries.

The All In map is not meant to give an equal chance for everyone. Far from it.

Army sizes and preset research levels should attempt to reflect nation's military power at that time. Though, for small, one city nations, I assume they just gave them the same thing, considering it makes little difference.

GrandEmpire wrote:

tbh they need to redo. When they made it there was too much focus on balancing

Undaunted wrote:

you dont understand my question so you think luxembourg is stronger than chile ?

Nova0213 wrote:

GrandEmpire wrote:

tbh they need to redo. When they made it there was too much focus on balancing

I think they need to make it at least playable for the one city nations, give them at least one province with each starting resource, (1 city producing, 4 rural cores producing). It's not supposed to be fair or balanced, but it's pretty impossible to do anything with the small nations.

Undaunted wrote:

you dont understand my question so you think luxembourg is stronger than chile ?

I said I assumed they roughly gave nations with one city roughly the same type and amount of units, since they don't matter as much.

but I still try to understand why chile has 2 units