No Peace in Our Time - the 1939 World War II IH

[Pericles of Athens]

Honestly, when I'd suggested a quality scale for units, I'd meant exactly what you're implying, Perry. A training scale from 1 (conscript) to 5 (elite) would serve us well, I think, but it's too late to add it at this point.

You could always just assign a place on the scale to each nation, from Germany at the top to the Chinese at the bottom, having the value effect organization/discipline. But even without an "official" system I'm sure Barry can take into account quality on a nation-by-nation/case-by-case basis if he so chooses, I'll differ such things to his judgment.

Edit
@Kip Some things never change.

[Dave Strider]

I'm still fully encouraging people to look at my OOB and how sexy it is.

The Black Sea Fleet was a lot bigger than I expected it to be.

[Iron Aquilifer]

It is very sexy Dave, don't you worry

[Dave Strider]

[Dan the Man]

Do we have any kind of an espionage system in place?

[chesser2538]

While skimming the different threads for our countries, I have seen very differing set ups for the econ stats. Are we not paying upkeep cost on our army or are we. And If our countries starting historic OOB is more than its starting income do we just cut the overage. Also is oil usage per unit effected by the -5% stat for dictatorships.

[Dave Strider]

We are paying upkeep costs on our army, that is to say, our starting, pre-game units cost 50% of what they are listed as in the military rules post. Once the game begins, when we recruit new units, we pay full price for them, and then add them to our upkeep costs.

We don't NEED to use our historic OOB, it's merely an option if we wish to. I, personally, am using part of my historic OOB, and filling in the rest with what I'd like to have starting off.

[Pericles of Athens]

pre-game units cost 50% of what they are listed as in the military rules post.

Again where does it say this? Barry said to either use a historical OOB or use 100% of your income to create an army, he never said units would only cost upkeep if you create an army from scratch.

I think, at least for the big eight, we should keep strictly to the numbers they had historically. As it should be easy to find stats on all of them. If we all just create random armies it isn't really a WW2 scenario..

[Dave Strider]

Again where does it say this? Barry said to either use a historical OOB or use 100% of your income to create an army, he never said units would only cost upkeep if you create an army from scratch.

That's the way it's always been, I don't see why it wouldn't be that way now. We've always created our starting armies with upkeep, because it didn't make sense to list units your nation already possessed at game start with recruitment; we're paying for existing units, not creating new ones.

I think, at least for the big eight, we should keep strictly to the numbers they had historically. As it should be easy to find stats on all of them. If we all just create random armies it isn't really a WW2 scenario..

You underestimate the difficulty of finding reliable sources on the Soviet military. The ones I originally found - comprising the invasion of Poland, the Winter War, and the battles at Khalkhin Gol - had less than 100 divisions between them, and some of the same divisions were on multiple rosters (for instance, some of the units in the invasion of Poland then went north to fight the Finns). The USSR had 300 divisions in service at the time of Barbarossa, and I doubt that the USSR tripled the size of its army in two years.

We've created random armies in most of the games we played, historical or not. Why is it suddenly a problem now?

[Pericles of Athens]

Since when? I've always created armies with recruitment costs not upkeep costs.


From what I could dig up the Soviets had 100 Divisions of Infantry and 44 of Cavalry, along with 544 heavy tanks and 5,838 light tanks.


WW2 has more reliable data than most other settings + WW2 is a more concrete scenario (forced alliances, enemies, the entire war the game revolves around) + Germany and company need to have a chance at winning, if all the allies have unhistorically stacked armies they won't have a snowball's chance in hell.

[chesser2538]

It's Barry's game, let's just wait and let him provide some clarification, he is our wise and fearless leader after all

[Dirty Chai]

Just to note for me personally, I'm aiming at trying to accurately portrary the KMT/ROC military in 1939 to the best of my ability.
As long as it matches up proportionately with other militaries on the same levels it did in history, then it's okay if numbers are simplified.

What's more important than historical numbers is the proportionate balance of power.
IE, one country had 2/3 military size of the military of another. Even if the numbers change a bit, that proportion of 2/3 to 3/3 should be kept.
So if country A had 60 men, while Country B had 90 men, that propotion of 2/3 should remain.
It could become 120 men v.s. 180 men, but the proportion remains.

[Dave Strider]

Again, it doesn't HAVE to be the historical starting OOB. Barry never said it had to be.

[Pericles of Athens]

Just to note for me personally, I'm aiming at trying to accurately portrary the KMT/ROC military in 1939 to the best of my ability.

That's what we should all be doing, I don't think any of us want the U.S. to have the largest navy at game start or the Red Army to have more heavy tanks than the Germans at game start or any other needless historical inaccuracies of that sort.

But it might not matter either way since we haven't seen much progress on most of the Big 8, I'm not even sure if we'll be getting this show on the road in the first place.

[Barry Goldwater]

In light of the current discussion: I'd advise players to use at least part of their historical OOB if possible, try to at least reflect what their historical OOB is like if using all or mostly self-created units (ex. the Chinese shouldn't be fielding a modern armored horde, the Japanese shouldn't have a bigass air force and two infantry divisions to control all of China, the Soviets shouldn't have a navy that blows the British one out of the water...) like BF said, and only resort to self-creating everything for your army/navy/air force if you really can't find the historical 1939 OOB for your faction (which I've just been talking with Xion about). As BF said, please also try to keep your army close to the historical balance of power as well so we don't get ahistorical roflstomps right off the bat.

[Dave Strider]

Anyway, with that discussion over, cmon folks, let's see those armies get put up. I didn't spend 4 days writing up a mammoth armed forces for the USSR for nothing, damn it, I wanna fight something.

[chesser2538]

I still didn't get a definitive answer to my previously stated question regarding the upkeep of units as well as the question regarding oil usage. And while i"m at it I might as well ask, If our countries historic OOB included units that are beyond our current tech level do we include or exclude them in our starting army.

[Dirty Chai]

I didn't spend 4 days writing up a mammoth armed forces for the USSR for nothing, damn it, I wanna fight something.

Poor Finland.

[Dan the Man]

And while i"m at it I might as well ask, If our countries historic OOB included units that are beyond our current tech level do we include or exclude them in our starting army.

This is an important question. Also, what about oil? Finland doesn't have any oil but according to my OOB (WHICH WILL BE DONE WHEN I'M GOOD AND READY, FRED) I should have one tank division, which needs oil to function.

Poor Finland.

Finland doesn't afraid of anything.

[Dave Strider]

If you say so, Daaaaaan. I'll just invade and start occupation in the meantime.

Also, if anyone needs oil, hell, I'll donate some of my oil income to them. I've got like 1 million barrels per turn surplus. I'll give oil to my enemies, I don't give a . I'm Soviet Arabia over here.

@Chesser: Not everything is gonna be historically accurate. *shrug*