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



  • We have to count foreign aids as domestis production (power) regardless of country and for example there is really nothing wrong in depicting Italy stronger than she was because Germany had deployed 15 divisons and hundred of planes, armours, trucks etc in North Africa.


  • Moderators

    @Schulz Any particular reasons why, in a map with Germans and Italians, you would want those German units and assets being represented by Italian production, units or assets, instead?



  • Because not counting German assets, supplies, helps etc... as Italian would make impossible to take Egypy for Axis since the Germans and Italians would be unable to attack together the British units. That does not really make sense.

    I don't know did the Germans supply Italians in terms of resources? Sure they should all take into account as Italian domestic productions.

    Also US lend lease should be represented as British-Soviet domestic productions.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @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.


  • Moderators

    @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).



  • @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.



  • 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.



  • I've found another methot to calculate the relatiive values of countries; Just want to share some countries. In this time I have taken into account resources and Indonesia emerged more valuable what do you think?

    1939

    USA: 370.352
    Germany; 187.63
    Slovakia: 4.67
    Hungary: 31.24
    Indonesia: 25.58



  • I'm so sad this thread is seems like abandoned.


  • Donators

    @Schulz I have been cleaning up the new version of the Correlates of War database, which has some interesting data.


 

20594
1171
1286
Who's Online
Visitors Today