How would you rate countries and territories considering realism in big WWII maps.

  • Just wondering is there any data regarding of this question like this: but I am not just seeking of raw stats. I'd rather to find a way of assigning the most realistic values of every territories (or areas).

    Let me to give details:

    For example they cause increasing values of territories:

    -Possess oil or any other raw materials
    -Fertile in terms of agriculture
    -Has heavy industry
    -Has big and loyal population
    -Being in critical crossroad (it can be also sea zone)
    -Hosting important harbours

    they cause decreasing values of territories:

    -Bad terrain/climate (deserts,montains,ice-fields)
    -Small population and/or less loyal people
    -Not being in critical crossroad.

    After after assisting

  • Moderators

    @schulz not sure if this is quite what you're after but you could try asking CWO Marc over at a&aorg. He has quite a bit of info here

    link text

  • Moderators

    @schulz Seems as though you have a pretty good setup as far as the criteria for valuing territories. If you simply applied that to the map you are using you would be on the right track.

  • A few years ago I had intended to detect the most realistic Pus for every soils, canals and sea zones. Then I have assisted these values for the British Empire in WWII. I have also looked military/vehicle productions of countries/territories. I have excluded British and Commonwealth investments against the Japanese as much as possible that's why I did give relatively a bit low value to Australia and India. I don't like to see European and Pacific front at the same time in big maps. It feels like playing 2 different games.

    The British Empire

    North Atlantic Sea Zones=10.000
    Suez Canal=4000
    South Africa=1500
    Indian Ocean=1000
    New Zealand=200
    New Foundland=200
    British Indian Ocean=25
    British Somaliland=5
    Trucial Coast=5

    Removing two zero from these vaules are also possible.

    North Atlantic Sea Zones=100
    Suez Canal=40
    South Africa=15
    Indian Ocean=10
    New Zealand=2
    New Foundland=2

    I am welcomed to any suggestion for these relative values.

  • Moderators

    It would be cool to see a map with realistic values for each territory. I think you need to adjust costs of units as well if your doing this. Otherwise each nation will make way too much pu's and the map will turn into a stack fest.

    Then you need to play test adequately so the map is not massively in allies favor, which it most likely is if you keep it strictly real. Axis had many shortages which they had to deal with. So that said, eventually you will need to give them access to more pu's than was really available to them in 1939 time frame.

  • Moderators

    @schulz Btw, why no response to the "blood and steel" question?

  • Moderators

    @schulz Oh, my bad, I didn't see , you did respond. Anyways, you should fix it if broken. Then you don't need permission to mod NML.

  • @general_zod

    Yes they are very close to their real values but still it is debatable since very hard to determine the real values of every territory. Unit coust would be rearranged and upkeep would be implemented.

    Axis would have no chance against Allies in very realistic scenario so the goal of Axis would be keeping axis production on a certain level for determined rounds.

    Maybe I could fix the map but the classic one is better I think.

  • Admin

    Here is a little info on Denmark during the occupation 1940-1945:
    Oil & raw materials = Nothing that I know of.

    Agriculture = Some historians have concluded that Denmark in 1940-1944 supplied 10% of all Germany's food supplies, and 1944-1945 15%.

    Industry: 20% of everything produced was exported to Germany.

    Loyal population: Well in the start of the war, the population was pretty much unaffected by the war. A bit upset about being occupied, but most people agreed that it was better than having Europe being overtaken by Communism. Denmark resisted with its military for a couple of hours and lost about 15-20 servicemen, while taking out about 20-200 germans. The government and king surrendered and Denmark was spared of any destruction during the war. Denmark delivered more SS troops than resistance fighters, but more importantly the government, labour unions, fishermen, farmers and industry were more than willing to cooperate with the Germans, make money and get through the war relativity painless. Most people who had anything to say was pretty anti-soviet, but split between supporting UK or Germany. Most thought and expected Hitler to win the war, up until 1943 when the war luck changed.

    A critical crossroad: Well, I think it was a critical naval choke point and many supplies to/from Norway went through Denmark by ship and train.

    Important harbours: Aalborg Airport was the most important airport as it was a stepping stone to Norway (the primary target of the German occupation. Denmark was just kind of "in the way"). Frederikshavn was also an important harbour linking supply lines from Norway to Denmark. Of course also Ålborg/Aalborg and Copenhagen were important harbour.

    Terrain/climate: Denmark is very flat, full of farmland, has a lot of roads but is also composed of islands, relatively easy accessible.

  • @schulz All the formal sources of economic & military data I have seen are by country. The Soviet Census of 1937 would be of use within the Soviet Union.

    Columbia Games' Front Series and Pacific Victory contain some careful economic & transportation analysis in assigning production values.

  • Thank you for your informations.I would like to learn relative strengts of main combatans in the European front. Can we say that the British Empire and the US had the same power excluding the pacific front and lend-lease?

    What would we say for the power of Nazi Germany-Italy-USSR and the British Empire in 1 Jun 1940 counting Vichy and other occupied areas?

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz The United States of America had way more power than all the British Empire combined, and increasingly so the more you value oil production. The U.S.A. alone, to which you would probably add several American Allies, should account for about 40% of the world's total production.

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

    @schulz The United States of America had way more power than all the British Empire combined, and increasingly so the more you value oil production. The U.S.A. alone, to which you would probably add several American Allies, should account for about 40% of the world's total production.

    Yes it is true I have been searching for power comparison between the British Empire and the US considering these factors.

    -Pacific front: Excluding all Pacific investments for both sides
    -Exiled allies: Adding them (Free France, Poland, Greece, Netherlands etc...) into the British Power
    -Lend Lease: Counting everything that delivered to other allies from the US as their domestic productions.

    Consiering these factors realistically how powerful was the US compared to the British Empire or the Soviet Union?

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz The Soviet Union lost almost half of its production in 1941, so that varies a lot depending if the game starts before or after Barbarossa.

  • @cernel

    The best starting date is for big wwii maps imho 1 July 1940 since presence of new installed vichy france would give variety of strategies. I don't like to see Vichy as part of Germany in big maps. Then no need to add Free France, Dutch, Belgium etc...

    The Soviets did lose almost half of their productions but they did also enormously increase their production capacities like the US did it after 1941.

    It would be better considering 1 July 1940 for me.

  • @schulz Here is the data from the correlates of war database

    Nation Steel Production Military Expenditure Military Personnel Energy Consumption Population Urban Population
    Argentina 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.9% 2.1%
    Belgium 2.3% 0.2% 0.7% 1.5% 0.5% 0.4%
    Brazil 0.1% 0.2% 0.8% 0.2% 2.6% 1.9%
    Bulgaria 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1%
    Chile 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4%
    China 0.0% 0.5% 13.1% 1.8% 33.9% 8.9%
    Colombia 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% 0.4%
    Cuba 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%
    Denmark 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3%
    Ecuador 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%
    France 5.9% 3.1% 5.1% 4.0% 2.7% 2.9%
    Germany 17.7% 36.2% 24.2% 12.9% 5.2% 10.6%
    Greece 0.0% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4%
    Iran 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.9% 0.6%
    Italy 1.7% 2.0% 5.1% 0.9% 2.9% 3.7%
    Japan 5.0% 5.1% 8.4% 3.1% 4.6% 9.2%
    Mexico 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 1.3% 0.9%
    Netherlands 0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.8% 0.6% 1.0%
    Norway 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%
    Peru 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2%
    Portugal 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.4%
    Romania 0.2% 0.2% 1.3% 0.6% 1.3% 0.5%
    Russia 13.1% 18.0% 15.7% 9.2% 11.1% 15.7%
    Spain 0.4% 0.2% 4.7% 0.4% 1.7% 2.1%
    Sweden 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4%
    Switzerland 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
    Thailand 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 1.0% 0.6%
    Turkey 0.0% 0.2% 1.3% 0.1% 1.1% 0.5%
    United Kingdom 10.0% 23.8% 3.5% 11.2% 3.1% 8.3%
    United States of America 35.8% 3.0% 2.9% 42.1% 8.5% 16.9%
    Uruguay 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3%
    Venezuela 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%
    Yugoslavia 0.2% 0.3% 1.3% 0.2% 1.0% 0.3%
    Axis% 24.9% 43.7% 43.4% 17.4% 16.7% 26.8%
    Category: Database

  • Moderators Admin

    @rogercooper The "Enegy Consuption" value seems the best pick to represent PUs production. Why some nations like Canada and Australia are missing?

    That site (you already linked several times in the past) is very good but quite hard to navigate. Can you please give me a link if I would want to see the full list of the "Energy Consumption" values for any countries at any years between 1937 and 1942?

  • "Enegy Consuption values look unreliable since Denmark looks stronger than Brazil which is not true.

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz At the end your production is what quantity and quality of armed forces you can put and maintain on the field (not necessarily what you actually did; like Denmark didn't really even try). What Brazil did in WW2 was mostly paid for by the United States of America, while Denmark produces a lot of butter and has at least a little production of transport ships. Really what Brazil, Argentina and the like were able to have as their own armed forces before WW2 was very meagre. On the other hand, at the time Brazil had more than 10 times the population of Denmark but, still, valuing Denmark twice than Brazil doesn't seem necessarily wrong to me.

    Anyways, I was just saying the Energy Consumption looks like the best pick amongst the given altenatives there. Like Denmark produces no steel at all, most likely because they were just starting producing their stuff from steel ingots, rather than raw iron (but Denmark was animal farming focused and had very little industry, mostly just for producing ships).

    On the other hand, I don't necessarily like that Belgium is stronger than Italy, even tho Belgium was surely much more advanced, on average.

  • Still not imaginable for me how come Denmark is stronger than Brazil or Belgium is stronger than Italy? If Denmark and Brazil were neighbours, could Denmark have defeated Brazil in a war?

    If the US had fourfold industrial capacity than the British Empire then why their contributions to strategic bombing effort over Germany were almost equal?

    Or how come the size of US army and the British army were very similar in European fronts? I think these facts prove that if we don't count lend lease and pacific invesments, the US and the UK had almost the same power.

Log in to reply