PLEASE POST A REPLY WITH YOUR INTEREST FOR THE NEXT GAME. 
.Appropriate Armor/ Units Rule 
A HUGE problem, CoW allows too many armored units to be produced. We're using a country’s ability to make a certain, historical number of them. It is very different from what you’re used to. You will have what will seem like few armored units.
The goal here is to simulate an appropriate starting force pool for each country. Look at the following historical number of armored & motorized units for the various countries that fought in WW2:
Russia:
23 Armored Corps
2 Mot. Corps (mostly American lend-lease trucks)
44 Cavalry Corps (probably simulated by lvl-1 mot. infantry)
136 Infantry Corps
41 Guards (Commandos?) 177 TOTAL
ratio:
Armor / Mot /Cav / Inf
1 / ~Mot / 2Cav / 6Inf
Germany:
19 Panzer Corps + 5SS Panzer Corps
14 Motorized Corps
94 Infantry Corps
6 Mountain + 8SS
ratio:
Arm /Mot/Cav/ Inf
1 +.25SS /.8Mot / ~ / 5Inf
America:
5.3 Armored Corps
2 Motorized Corps
2 Mot. Corps (America chose to Lend-Lease these to Russia)
25 Infantry Corps
2 Airborne + 1.3 phantom units
ratio:
Arm / Mot/Cav/ Inf
1 + .8 phantom/ .4Mot / ~ / 5Inf +.8 phantom
* From what I've read the Americans used their mass of trucks for mass supply. This and the 'Phantom' corps = EXTRA gold usage.
British:
4 Armored Corps
No Mot. Corps (1 Cav. division only)
14 Infantry Corps
ratio:
Arm / Mot/Cav/ Inf
1 armor +1 * tank destroyer?/ ~Mot / ~ / 2
* The British used Bdes (11 armored + 11 tank Bdes [Bde's are small independent units- about 4 armored corps in total MINUS the inherent infantry-so bad anti-infantry value?])
Italy:
2 Armored Corps
1 Cav. Corps
4 Motorized
25 Infantry
24 militia
2 Mountain/2
ratio:
Arm /Mot /Cav / Inf + militia
1 / 2Mot / .5 / 12.5 Inf + 12 militia
French: In 1940-
at BEST 2x Medium armor Coprs (4 armored divisions)
6 (motorized inf.) calvary units.
What about 'I want to do what I want with my country,' and 'what if I, who am in charge of my country went another direction?' (as in to prouduce more armor). These are VERY good objections, and players should always be able to take their country in a different direction than the historical leader did.
I will simply say that other than France in the very early days of WW2, every one wanted to produce the maximum number of armored units that they could; most, if not all saw the value in armored vehicles. Every country was just up against a wall 
with the amount that they could produce. I.e. every player would produce more than this allotment if allowed, just as every leader in WW2 would have produced more if it were possible, but it was not 
. You can turn typewriter plants into rifle factories, but you can't turn most industrial plants into tank factories.
Notes:
- The Soviet Union began and ended the war with more tanks than the rest of the world combined (18,000–22,000). They sought to embrace new ideas. When Stalin came to power and enforced a giant, ruthless industrial effort, weak views on armor began to change and Marshal Tukhachevsky’s 'Deep Battle Concept' ideas gained favor. An attack-based policy gained full support at all levels of the military. This was adopted in 1933.
Main Soviet tank production:
BA-64 9110 built, Light Tanks 17,200'ish built, T-34/76 34,780 built , T-34/85 22,560built, 4,8151 KVs (all types) SU-76 14,230 built, ISUs 8279 built (all types)
- Britain had been the worldwide trend-setter in tank development from 1915, but had lost its leadership position as the Second World War approached. Hampered by restricted expenditure in the years leading up the war and still organised for operations in Imperial defence as an expeditionary force, the British Army entered the war unprepared for the very sort of combat its influential theorists. The idea of “mechanized warfare”, and fast tanks, also originated in Britain.
TOTAL & Main British tank production: 27,896 TOTAL Tanks & SP Guns, Scouts 11,000, Armored Cars 9,600, Crusaders 5,300 built, Churchills 7,368 built, Cromwells 3,066 built /// Canada tanks 5,678 built.
- Prior to the entry of the United States into the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the Army had only a few tanks. During the Louisiana Maneuvers in September 1941, it used trucks with the word "tank" painted on their side. Even after Pearl Harbor the 10th Armored Division did not have any tanks, so crews trained by marching down roads in groups and executing orders as if they were in tanks.
The U.S. supplied tens of thousands of Sherman tanks to U.S., British, Canadian and other Allied forces, tipping the scales against the smaller numbers of elite German tanks on World War II battlefields. “In battle, quantity has a quality all its own.”
First, U.S. military doctrine emphasized the idea that tanks should act as a mobile, armored force capable of racing through holes in enemy lines to wreak havoc on infantry, artillery and other softer targets as they outflanked and encircled the enemy.
Main U.S. tank production: Stuarts 23,119, Other lights 8,068, Mediums 68,864 (Shermans = 33,403).
- At the start of the war, France had one of the largest tank forces in the world along with the Soviet, British and German forces. The French had planned for a defensive war and built tanks accordingly. Their infantry tanks were heavily armoured. But, also, generally, they were relatively sluggish, and operationally in terms of control of their forces, the French were at a disadvantage and were outmaneuvered by the German forces.
French tanks were well respected, but they were slow (infantry pace), according to the tactics of the time, used short-barrel guns to deal with fortifications and machine-gun nests, and had small turrets which forced the tank commander to multi-task. They lacked an intercom or radio. The chain of command was utterly rigid; movements were carefully planned with a combination of artillery and infantry, with tanks in support. Tank commanders were not supposed to take initiative on the field.
Further restricts were: A quarter of French tanks were still with the cavalry. As of 1939 the French still did not envision armored divisions as an autonomous force.
- Germany's armored force was not especially impressive from a technical standpoint at the start of the war. As noted above, it was their advanced combined arms doctrine and unrivaled command-and-control capability that gave German mechanized forces their advantage on the battlefield. The Germans were very well trained, well equipped (with inherent mechanized and motorized regiments & well supplied),flexibility, had a fast decision-making process and a perfect communication capability at all times and at all operational levels.
Heinz Guderian and Erich Von Manstein were both keen to try the new armored warfare tactics. The tactics called for the use of synchronized air support. Armored formations were set to produce decisive breakthroughs at specific locations along the enemy lines (the “Schwerpunkt”), and then either converging to the rear of the enemy to create large pockets, to be left afterwards to the artillery, infantry and aviation.
Total WW2 German tank production: 50,439 built.
- The Italian view on armored warfare was limited in scope, mostly because of the landscape where most divisions fought. The Austro-Hungarian border was mostly an Alpine battleground, which prevented any efficient use of tanks. However, in some areas, like Northern Dalmatia, tanks were ideally suited.
The Italian army was mainly equipped with L3 tankettes in the 1930s, and these, armed with machine guns, formed the main armor strength of Italy as late as 1940. Italy began fielding heavier tanks beginning with the Fiat M11/39 with a 37 mm main gun in 1940. The Italians called their tanks a "coffin for 5 brothers," "sardine box" or "iron casket."
France is a real challenge and only for manly men!
players for the most part. We just want a good game. And... make sure and read our post about Yugoslavia or Hungary/Slovakia [Sweden] in our 'Country Situations' post below this one in the forum Role Play section. 
. Overlord_KC, the other Yugo. or Hungary player will play the other AXIS country you don't. With your approval to that schttufff- BAM 
I know what you're saying. The U.K. DEMANDS a level of excellence, and although we/ I do my best to find solid players, without a strong U.K. the ALLIES are doOOOomedd... 
Good to have you back brotha' 
light tanks, or worse yet (especially vs. inactive players) to make wayyy too many mobile artillery and cheezily' fight from a distance. It is a REAL problem, and I'll do whatever it takes to correct it. Of course, I'm all ears for players opinions of how to do so. I must say that for people's sanity, we need to keep it simple- the 'K.I.S.S.' theory in action. Therefore my initial reaction to only let a country build armor that includes lights, mediums or Mot.Artillery in a certain number of factories. I'm not sure if to place the motorized/ mechanized units under the same constraints. I.e. only mot/mech in a few factories.
