I was looking at Historic, and I think there should be another refix. Many things are not right, and I think there is potential for expansion. I will go on nation by nation.
United Kingdom-
1. Newfoundland (St. John) to become occupied province
2. New Urban(s)= Glasgow
3. Navy Research to be slightly reduced (The British navy was large but not that modern. I don’t understand why British battleships in the game are more researched than German battleships, for god’s sake the Bismarck sunk Britian’s most famous ship with a single shell. So I think either britian’s research should be reduced or Other nation’s increased)
France-
Name Change- France –> French Third Republic
Removal of starting Tank Destroyer (The French im pretty sure didn’t have any significant number of TDs in service in 1939. In fact im pretty sure TDs were invented/mass produced in 1940)
Italy-
Name Change- Italy-> Kingdom of Italy or Italian Empire
Removal of Tank Destroyer
Enlargening of Naval Forces. The Italian Navy was quite large, but outdated. So research could be reduced and numbers increased. Specially low level subs
New Urban(s)- Palermo. Italy has no core cities below Naples, and this is annoying as well as untrue. Palermo was a proper city, and it would be nice to have it in Historic.
German Empire-
Removal of rocket AND its research. Germany had NO rockets in 1939, and had barely researched them. It is not historically accurate for it to start with one AND with research.
Adding 1 more paratrooper AND its research. Germans pretty much invented paratrooping, so I think they deserve to have it researched. Also Paratroopers were used in invasion of Poland so I think another paratrooper would be accurate.
Increasing research on Navy. I don’t understand why Japan and UK, even France and Italy I think, have equal or superior naval research to Germany. The German Navy was by far the most modern navy. It was small, but it could easily destroy the French and Italian navies combined. So I think its research should be increased dramatically.
A few more light tanks.
New Urban(s)- Dresden
Poland-
Removal of tank destroyers, replaced by, light tanks, maybe? each.
Sweden-
Doctrine change- Allies-> Axis, in 1939 Sweden supplied Germany with iron ore in return for military equipment, money etc, therefore Sweden should be Axis
Soviet Union-
New Urban(s)- Smolensk and Chita, Smolensk was practically one of Russia's most major cities, maybe third most major after Leningrad and Moscow
Line of weak fortification along Euro Border. The Stalin Line was still up in 1939, NOT fully dismantled
More infantry
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, all Persia in HWW for some reason, to become Soviet cores since all three were Soviet Socialist Republics.
Removal of Paratrooper unit at beginning
USA-
. Removal of Paratrooper starting unit
. Honolulu to have a naval base, you know Pearl Harbour EXISTED right?
Persia-
New Urban- Mashhad.
1 more infantry unit and 1 AC
Japan-
Name change- Japan -> Empire of Japan or Japanese Empire
Slightly more industrialised.
Removal of research for rockets. I... just dont know what to say... do you really think Japan was even THINKING of rockets in 1939???????
Larger navy. LARGER NAVY Japanese Imperial Navy was BEEG, like BEEG
More planes, i.e. Naval Bombers and fighters
More infantry forces.
NO research done on Light Tanks
In ownerships of Manchuria. OK I know I have to argue my case. The thing is, I don’t get it. IN HWW Phillipines is American territory, even though it was only technically under military protection. The Japanese had a MUCH, MUCH firmer grip on Manchuria than the Americans did on the Phillipines, so there are two options, either Japan gets Manchuria or America loses Phillipines. To give Manchuria would remove a playable nation, but it could be replaced by Finland or something.
Slightly larger chunk of China, i mean like 5 rurals
New Urban, Yokohama, it was a major city
Australia-
Australia’s territory in New guniea to become occupied, I don’t get why its core.
Tasmania to become core.
New Urbans- Adelaide and Darwin
If there be anything more do let me know.
“I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.” “If you win, you need not explain!” “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?” War is Peace Slavery is Freedom Weakness is Strength
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
54 Replies
23 May 2021, 17:54
cl0xy wrote:
vietcong2005 wrote:
There should be more tanks for the Soviet Union. Much more. Soviets had at least 11k tanks at the beginning of operation barberossa. While, Germans only had around 3k tanks. Meanwhile, the Italian navy wasn't outdated it was in fact advanced and modern. It was only bad because the lack of sufficient oil and resources. I agree that Japan needs a larger navy and more planes. It needs more medium levels naval bombers and level 2 or 3 carriers.
The invasion of russia happened in 1941 - 1942 but the game starts in 1939 but ok
In 1939 the Soviet Army was still formidable and large. It had still had much more tanks. Although, the Germans had better leadership and quality.
23 May 2021, 17:58
the Soviet Union was horrible in 1940 and very innefectice
23 May 2021, 19:46
They still beat the Japanese at battle of khalkhin gol
23 May 2021, 20:15
I would say that battle was a draw. The USSR and Mongolia outnumbered the Japanese 3:1 and had 30% more casualties.
no offence but everything you critiziced i disagree with. Maybe read more history first
“I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.” “If you win, you need not explain!” “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?” War is Peace Slavery is Freedom Weakness is Strength
23 May 2021, 22:56
its a known fact that the reason operation sealion didnt happen was because of Germanys Navy compared to Britain
23 May 2021, 23:38
vietcong2005 wrote:
cl0xy wrote:
vietcong2005 wrote:
There should be more tanks for the Soviet Union. Much more. Soviets had at least 11k tanks at the beginning of operation barberossa. While, Germans only had around 3k tanks. Meanwhile, the Italian navy wasn't outdated it was in fact advanced and modern. It was only bad because the lack of sufficient oil and resources. I agree that Japan needs a larger navy and more planes. It needs more medium levels naval bombers and level 2 or 3 carriers.
The invasion of russia happened in 1941 - 1942 but the game starts in 1939 but ok
In 1939 the Soviet Army was still formidable and large. It had still had much more tanks. Although, the Germans had better leadership and quality.
and most of Soviet tanks in the 1940s were broken and not combat-ready, sure the Soviets had a bunch of tanks, but most of them were not once again... combat ready, they were so broken, most of them were destroyed, in one engagement in war, also they couldn’t get the materials to fix the tanks.
24 May 2021, 00:22
@GrandEmpire just explain why you think sealion didn't happen then.
Naval landings by themselves are a huge logistical challenge, Naval power and air superiority is a requirement and the Identification of suitable targets is a must for A decisive Advantage.
The premier naval powers USA and UK took years to prepare for the Normandy landings. Operation Sealion couldnt be accomplished by the germans as they didnt have the naval superiority, Air superiority, experience and technical knowledge for such an operation.
Besides the leader had already commited troops for Case Blue (drafted in 1940?).
whowh wrote:
I would say that battle was a draw. The USSR and Mongolia outnumbered the Japanese 3:1 and had 30% more casualties.
even though The battle ended With a more Soviet Casualties it is a Soviet victory as Japanese Military matters took a drastic change of policy and Decided to end aggression with the Soviets and Change courses for a southern expansion.
Case Blue had specifically stated Japan to not invade and keep them in the dark if possible so that the Japanese adopt the southern expansion policy and be able to supply its war machine.
Besides Japanese Diplomatic policy against USSR faltered after Germany Itself allied with USSR.
"In my humble opinion, on the subject matter, topic and content discussed beforehand; I would like to humbly propose, convey my idea on the subject and remark; this, with the help of the afforementioned post" - Karl von Krass "The Golden Spire is looking for members, Anyone with good sense of game mechanics and a discord account can apply" Secretary of Nova0213
24 May 2021, 04:48
Karl von Krass wrote:
Naval landings by themselves are a huge logistical challenge, Naval power and air superiority is a requirement and the Identification of suitable targets is a must for A decisive Advantage.
The premier naval powers USA and UK took years to prepare for the Normandy landings. Operation Sealion couldnt be accomplished by the germans as they didnt have the naval superiority, Air superiority, experience and technical knowledge for such an operation.
Besides the leader had already commited troops for Case Blue (drafted in 1940?).
whowh wrote:
I would say that battle was a draw. The USSR and Mongolia outnumbered the Japanese 3:1 and had 30% more casualties.
even though The battle ended With a more Soviet Casualties it is a Soviet victory as Japanese Military matters took a drastic change of policy and Decided to end aggression with the Soviets and Change courses for a southern expansion.Case Blue had specifically stated Japan to not invade and keep them in the dark if possible so that the Japanese adopt the southern expansion policy and be able to supply its war machine.
Besides Japanese Diplomatic policy against USSR faltered after Germany Itself allied with USSR.
The Japanese lacked the forces to defeat the Soviets in open battle. The Japanese tanks were terrible, in fact some would argue that even Italian tanks were better. The best Japanese tank was only able to be compared to a Sherman tank. Even worse the Soviet Union had more and their tanks were more powerful. Consisting of more medium tanks. Meanwhile, the Japanese had mainly light tanks that had paper thin armor. Just look at the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Although, it was an expected victory, the Japanese were incredibly surprised by the speed and strength of the Soviet Union, the invasion only lasted for a little more than one week. The Kwuangtang army was also a pretty strong Japanese army. Coupled with collaborators there were over one million men. The Japanese expected that they would at least resist for at least one month. If the Japanese had continued they would might have fared worse than Italy.
24 May 2021, 04:49
I think the Soviet Union should definitely have more units. It should have at least some medium tanks. Not necessarily higher levels units.
24 May 2021, 06:23
no whowh i meant the stuff people said my thread
Was wrong
About
“I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.” “If you win, you need not explain!” “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?” War is Peace Slavery is Freedom Weakness is Strength
24 May 2021, 13:39
Karl von Krass wrote:
Naval power and air superiority is a requirement
cough grandempire cough
Karl von Krass wrote:
The battle ended With a more Soviet Casualties it is a Soviet victory
Strategically yes.
vietcong2005 wrote:
some would argue that even Italian tanks were better.
