Why there is no two ocean going USA in any WWII map?
-
I understand that why USA cannot be two ocean-going in small maps but why it isn't it in big maps either? Even in Domination 1914 map which is ww1 scenario USA can go towards both oceans effectively.
-
@Schulz Total World War.
-
Haven't playet it just wondering how should the US distribute its income for both theatre? Is that optimal way and conducting only one front is bad? How did this map achieve it yet the others didn't?
-
@Schulz TWW still offers the American player the option to focus on one theater or the other. But in reality the game (by design) requires the American player to at the very minimum make some contributions to both even when going all out for either Germany or Japan.
It really comes down to the fact that without at least some support for either theater... generally the Axis will get a significant upper hand in which ever theater the Americans ignore. Thus many players adopt a more balanced approach where they focus more on one (generally the Pacific because Japan will become a juggernaut if completely ignored) but still divert some resources to the other at the same time.
There are a number of more subtle factors that contribute to this... but the above gives a general idea.
-
I understood USA in TWW looks like a bit USA in Big World. Conducting for only one fronts still works but if USA player wants to go both fronts then its wiser to go against Jap only.
But my complain was different. I would like to see the US that going both fronts is flat better than conducting only one front. And not rushing Japan and sending a few units to Europe, the vice versa would be better and more historical.
I mean going mostly Europe and still some investments in the Pacific.
-
@Schulz So you are looking for a map where the Americans are forced to go to Europe? Seems a little restrictive... and sine many of the traditional maps already have a 'Germany First' slant... not really sure what you are looking for.
-
I am searching a wwii scenario that USA goes historically mostly against Germany/Italy but also USA has to spend roughly %20-%30 of incomes for Pacific front. Going against only Germany or Japan is also worse strategy than balanced approach.
Also going against Japan guarantees defeated Japan so also defeated Soviets too.
-
@Schulz We already had this discussion btw (in anothe topic that was pretty much the same as this one).
What I said there is that if you want to have USA going mostly Atlantic but also a little Pacific, you should be able to achieve it by making Pacific the best choice, but with very harsh placement limits, so that USA will be obliged to place most of its stuff in its eastern part (which is also historically consistent).
Side note, back in WW2 Pacific U.S. America was much less peopled than it is now, relatively to the regions east of the Mountains (and the Mountains themselves were very scarcely populated, but important for some key raw matherials).
As far as a scenario goes, I don't think there is any, at the moment. Maybe @RogerCooper knows any?
-
I don't think any placement limit would be needed, if Russia and UK is designed to doomed to fall without US help in Europe that would already prevent the US commit only Pacific Front.
The şssue is I don't want to see an US that commiting only Atlantic is the best. No idea how can it be achieved.
-
@Schulz said in Why there is no two ocean going USA in any WWII map?:
No idea how can it be achieved.
I think you've answered the question. Nobody intentionally made a map that the USA has to ignore one side of the world, but designing to avoid this isn't easy.
-
I think Big World and World at War are pretty much designed for USA going mostly Japan only because USA can't get much foothold in Western Europe, Spain-Portugal is highly defended and UK and Russia don't desparately need USA help in Europe to stop Germany.
-
@Schulz The Global game encourages a 2 front strategy with the possibility of Axis victory on either map.
There is someone working on a scenario that splits the US in the way Britain is the Global game.
If you want to create a scenario that forces a 2 ocean war strategy, it would not be hard. This could be achieved through splitting the US into 2 countries, giving units in specific areas, victory conditions, national objectives or gradually increasing transport movement allowances.
-
I wouldn't really like to see splitting USA into 2 pieces. It is still good option (or making East US minor of West US) but I would prefer to see the US is being forced naturally splitting its income between two oceans depends on Axis players.
-
@Schulz said in Why there is no two ocean going USA in any WWII map?:
I wouldn't really like to see splitting USA into 2 pieces. It is still good option (or making East US minor of West US) but I would prefer to see the US is being forced naturally splitting its income between two oceans depends on Axis players.
Then TWW is your game.
-
@Schulz said in Why there is no two ocean going USA in any WWII map?:
I don't think any placement limit would be needed, if Russia and UK is designed to doomed to fall without US help in Europe that would already prevent the US commit only Pacific Front.
The şssue is I don't want to see an US that commiting only Atlantic is the best. No idea how can it be achieved.
I don't understand how I cannot get the message, so I will try to be more vague.
You have two possible ways to go, in this case Atlantic or Pacific. You can try to make both ways closely exactly as good a pick, but this would be very hard to balance (and even if you balance it perfectly, there is no way people would see it or agree to it; and even if they agree, most people will just go the easiest way, if that is anyways one of the optimal choices, so probably full Atlantic). Instead, you can make it so that one of these ways is preferable, for a number of reasons, to the other way. Then, once you have picked or recognized what is, in absence of placement limits, the preferable way to go, you can set placement limits in a way that going fully in that direction would be inefficient (or even impossible) enough so that people will have to go the other way too. It doesn't matter which way, just the placement limits have to be harsh enough in the preferable direction.
Meaning that if, as you said, America would prefer going Atlantic, then just have enough placement limits there to limit that, tho this is easily going to be ahistorical, as the east was by far the most productive part, but, on the other hand, Pacific being the preferred way would be possibly even more ahistorical, as there was really nothing of much value in there until reaching the western Dutch East Indies.
Of course, it would be also possible to make Japan so weak that Americans simply can breeze through it with a minor part of their total productive power, so that they would go Atlantic for the remaining part, but, in this case as well, going Pacific would need to be preferential (which probably implies making a bunch of Pacific islands way overvalued).
-
Going full force Atlantic and Pacific should be equally good.
Going only Pacific must result guarantee falling of Japan and Russia but going only Atlantic musn't guarantee falling of Germany.
But as I said before; balanced manner should be better than focusing only one front. It doesn't have to be %50-%50.
For Making Pacific front more tempting and variety, its better to make Australia and New Zealand American hence USA would be closer to East Indies. Otherwise Western USA is too far away to reach here. Western USA is even too far away for to protect Australia.
hawaii can be overvalued too. It wouldn't be even too unrealistic. Some cities could be much more important than their actual values. Strateic locations, historically imprtant towns etc... Verdun in ww1 is a good example. The same can be applied to Hawaii. Had the Japanese captured it, it could be major blow to American public morale.
