• 10
  • 4
  • 2
  • 3
  • 41
  • 4
  • 5
  • 3
  • 3
  • 9
  • 6
  • 2
  • 6
  • 19
  • 9
  • 7
  • 38
  • 3
  • 3
  • 16

Recent Posts

  • S

    Also I don't think capital cities would represent realism. Soviets wouldn't have collapsed without Moscow.

    Making Rome as captal of Italy does not make sense. Northern Italy or Sicily would be better. But I would still prefer removing capitals in a realistic scenario.

    read more
  • S

    @Hepps said in How would you rate countries and territories considering realism in big WWII maps.:

    @Schulz It is an over simplification to say that some measure of a countries wealth (eg. PU) gained by support from an Ally is inherently contained within the production of a territory without factoring that into the production value of the "parent" state(s). More over this idea assumes a constant, consistant and stable supply of resources or manpower every turn. Finally, what happens when the territory is lost? Does the enemy gain the bonus PU each turn? Is this to say the Germans would continue to send men and equipment to Southern Italy and simply hand it over to the Allies? Because if you add PU to Italian territories with this in mind... then theoretically that is what you are saying is happening.

    If German helps should not be considered as Italian then this rule should be applied to Commonwealth nations too. Canadian and British troops should not be able to attack Germany together for example.

    I think the best solution is calculating the exact German helps to the Italians then adding this extra Pus value to Northern Italy. (Or spreading all Italian territories) But if people want to make North African campaign more important then this extra values can be added to Tunisia. It would be also historical too.

    read more
  • C

    @Schulz If simply abstracting such things, I would rather suggest having triggers removing/adding income, under the condition of both capitals being free (or something), rather than screwing up actual production values. Italy had virtually no iron, no copper, no coal, no oil, etc. (like, France had over 20 times the iron extraction of Italy and Germany had almost 200 times the carbon production of Italy); so it had to import all from Germany controlled territories, but I don't know how much Italy paid back (also in terms of sending workforce (temporary emigrants) in the German mines, etc., that happened also before the war).

    read more
  • @Schulz It is an over simplification to say that some measure of a countries wealth (eg. PU) gained by support from an Ally is inherently contained within the production of a territory without factoring that into the production value of the "parent" state(s). More over this idea assumes a constant, consistant and stable supply of resources or manpower every turn. Finally, what happens when the territory is lost? Does the enemy gain the bonus PU each turn? Is this to say the Germans would continue to send men and equipment to Southern Italy and simply hand it over to the Allies? Because if you add PU to Italian territories with this in mind... then theoretically that is what you are saying is happening.

    read more