|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Mar 12, 2021 21:45:19 GMT -6
After trying every single playable nation in the game, I found myself feeling somewhat out of place when I played as the USA for a few games...
It is the only nation that has three home areas: North American East Coast, the Caribbean, and North American West Coast. Not only that, it does not share home areas with any other nation, meanings that although there are possessions of other nations US home areas, none of these possessions are home areas of other nations.
I guess that is what happens when your nation is not on the Eurasian continent. Even Japan faces threats from Russian Far East, since Russian Far East is a home area of Russia's.
This makes me feel like whenever I'm playing as the US, I am simply just...irrelevant and ignored..., the US is not facing any direct threat from major powers, not only that, the rapid economic growth makes playing as the US even easier in late games.
This isn't to complain, because I do realize that this situation is very similar to, if not exactly identical to, the United Sates and it's geopolitical environment in the real world.
The UK is locked on an Island and relies heavily on trade with it's colonies across the world, while facing continent threats from continental Europe due to its proximity to other nations. In addition to that, the Royal Navy has to protect its colonies around the world at all times. These factors give the royal navy a sense of challenge and makes playing as the Royal Navy fun.
Germany has very few ports and naval bases, and these few ports aren't the best locations either. It also shared build area with the UK, Russia, and France. It makes playing as Germany challenging and fun.
France share home areas with 4 nations, and is constantly being contested in both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean. It also has a large number of colonies to protect, which makes playing as France even more challenging and fun.
Russia has bad technologies, low funding, constantly blocked in the Baltic Sea due to its horrible access to open waters. The Russian Navy has to travel around the world just to get to the other side of it's boarder.
Italy is the underdog, it has such a low base resource number and is in a rivalry with France at all times.
Japan shares its home area with Russia and is surrounded with colonies claimed by other nations: Russia, the UK, the US, and France in Indochina, leaving it very little room to grow.
You get the idea...
I don't think the US is over powered, but I don't know where the problem comes from. I feel like something is off with the US but I just can't point my fingers anywhere.
Does anyone else share my feelings?
|
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Mar 13, 2021 4:53:52 GMT -6
As someone else said, the USA is the game on easy mode. I only occasionally played it in RTW1 after getting the hang of the game. In RTW2 I have only played played it when the patch is otherwise unplayable. Typically I would say the game is balanced for GB as it is the only one that truly has everything as you well outlined in your post above. Japan is hard mode given the lack of AI war or even AI nations regarding each other as threats.
Spain and Austria-Hungary are two fun nations you did not mention but the key to fun is the challenge and in this game starting as you do with an historical budget around 60% as a share of world tonnage greater than history (ie in OTL 1905 the USN prior to Tusushima was roughly equal in battleships to Germany, France and Russia though this somewhat depends which older and coastal battleships you still count, not so in this game, cruiser counts varied wildly), worse in the default game and it gets easier over time and unlike RL the US does not have global trade to defend or even Chinese trade meaning far fewer overseas commitments than were actually the case.
Now the game is a game and so will have deviate from RL at some point but given things get easier over time for the US it is boring to play.
You cannot even mod the USA economy to make it interesting as it kills any growth for the GB economy automatically killing the challenge factor (I know this as it was my one foray into very limited modding to try and rescue my interest in the USA as a playable nation).
So yeah the USA is not the most fun nation for those who want either challenge or a somewhat historical game.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Mar 13, 2021 5:44:07 GMT -6
As someone else said, the USA is the game on easy mode. You cannot even mod the USA economy to make it interesting as it kills any growth for the GB economy automatically killing the challenge factor (I know this as it was my one foray into very limited modding to try and rescue my interest in the USA as a playable nation). So yeah the USA is not the most fun nation for those who want either challenge or a somewhat historical game.
The USA's economy is somewhat irritating in that a huge hike in the industrial income was from British payments and investment during the wars, world wars that no longer happen, or often feature USA Vs GB!
It is absolutely easy mode though, would only recommend it as a first playthrough so people can figure out the ropes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Mar 13, 2021 14:37:00 GMT -6
As someone else said, the USA is the game on easy mode. I only occasionally played it in RTW1 after getting the hang of the game. In RTW2 I have only played played it when the patch is otherwise unplayable. Typically I would say the game is balanced for GB as it is the only one that truly has everything as you well outlined in your post above. Japan is hard mode given the lack of AI war or even AI nations regarding each other as threats. Spain and Austria-Hungary are two fun nations you did not mention but the key to fun is the challenge and in this game starting as you do with an historical budget around 60% as a share of world tonnage greater than history (ie in OTL 1905 the USN prior to Tusushima was roughly equal in battleships to Germany, France and Russia though this somewhat depends which older and coastal battleships you still count, not so in this game, cruiser counts varied wildly), worse in the default game and it gets easier over time and unlike RL the US does not have global trade to defend or even Chinese trade meaning far fewer overseas commitments than were actually the case. Now the game is a game and so will have deviate from RL at some point but given things get easier over time for the US it is boring to play. You cannot even mod the USA economy to make it interesting as it kills any growth for the GB economy automatically killing the challenge factor (I know this as it was my one foray into very limited modding to try and rescue my interest in the USA as a playable nation). So yeah the USA is not the most fun nation for those who want either challenge or a somewhat historical game. Thank you for your reply. I definitely agree with you. I wish there was a way to model the US's commitment to global trade in the game. For example, when Germany conducted unrestricted submarine warfare with another nation other than the US, the US still suffered from diminished safety and freedom of trade, which was very important to it's economy. The US in the game just does not rely on anything, it has a self-sufficient economy, unlimited and very easy and safe access to crude oil, and on top of that, a huge population, educated workforce, and other natural resources to enjoy and help build a giant economy... I fail to come up with a single disadvantage for the US, both in Real Life and in the Game. Maybe with a few tweaks and edits, we can imitate, somehow, it's reliance on global free trade and open sea lines of communication? |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 13, 2021 14:46:34 GMT -6
You cannot even mod the USA economy to make it interesting as it kills any growth for the GB economy automatically killing the challenge factor (I know this as it was my one foray into very limited modding to try and rescue my interest in the USA as a playable nation). I'm not sure what you mean by this, there's no link between the US and British economies in game |
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Mar 13, 2021 15:39:55 GMT -6
You cannot even mod the USA economy to make it interesting as it kills any growth for the GB economy automatically killing the challenge factor (I know this as it was my one foray into very limited modding to try and rescue my interest in the USA as a playable nation). I'm not sure what you mean by this, there's no link between the US and British economies in game I mean I tried it and then watched, as I usually do, the rest of the world's economies grow....and Britain stayed static on 20,000 It really is simple to test. Try resetting USA historical resources to 8,000 like the majority of other powers. Now it may just have been some error that I repeated, repeatedly but I am sure it can be tested by others. There is somewhere one these or more likely the RTW1 forum an outline of the dates when you should see the various economies receive growth. Britain appeared to miss at least a good decade of them when I tried testing it. |
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Mar 13, 2021 15:54:30 GMT -6
I fail to come up with a single disadvantage for the US, both in Real Life and in the Game. Maybe with a few tweaks and edits, we can imitate, somehow, it's reliance on global free trade and open sea lines of communication? Actually the USA has usually experienced some strategic materials dependencies but the exact materials varies from decade to decade and prevailing technologies. Still yes its trade requirements were always something of a perpetual open flank and the last ditch (though a very deep and nasty fire breathing snake filled ditch) solution of Royal Navy planners to the defence of Canada had War Plan Red become anything more than a training exercise for over excitable junior officers with staff potential. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 13, 2021 19:48:38 GMT -6
I'm not sure what you mean by this, there's no link between the US and British economies in game I mean I tried it and then watched, as I usually do, the rest of the world's economies grow....and Britain stayed static on 20,000 It really is simple to test. Try resetting USA historical resources to 8,000 like the majority of other powers. Now it may just have been some error that I repeated, repeatedly but I am sure it can be tested by others. There is somewhere one these or more likely the RTW1 forum an outline of the dates when you should see the various economies receive growth. Britain appeared to miss at least a good decade of them when I tried testing it. There might be a specific bug related to HBR, but in general, base resources have basically no effect on growth rates, except for a constant return for the RGP modifier The formula for the yearly rate of growth in percent=(2+GGP+(350*RGP/BR) nws-online.proboards.com/post/63524 |
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Mar 14, 2021 0:59:24 GMT -6
I mean I tried it and then watched, as I usually do, the rest of the world's economies grow....and Britain stayed static on 20,000 It really is simple to test. Try resetting USA historical resources to 8,000 like the majority of other powers. Now it may just have been some error that I repeated, repeatedly but I am sure it can be tested by others. There is somewhere one these or more likely the RTW1 forum an outline of the dates when you should see the various economies receive growth. Britain appeared to miss at least a good decade of them when I tried testing it. There might be a specific bug related to HBR, but in general, base resources have basically no effect on growth rates, except for a constant return for the RGP modifier The formula for the yearly rate of growth in percent=(2+GGP+(350*RGP/BR) nws-online.proboards.com/post/63524Which is why I was surprised at the result but you can test it. Just make the change yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 14, 2021 2:39:33 GMT -6
I think what's going on is that with the US having less income, GBR's "increased budget to maintain preeminence" perk doesn't get pushed as hard.
In other words, Britain's budget isn't explicitly tied to the US, but is tied to whichever of its opponents has the most money (which is generally the US).
|
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Mar 14, 2021 3:04:48 GMT -6
I think what's going on is that with the US having less income, GBR's "increased budget to maintain preeminence" perk doesn't get pushed as hard. In other words, Britain's budget isn't explicitly tied to the US, but is tied to whichever of its opponents has the most money (which is generally the US). Save I was watching the progress of base resources not the budget. I would be very happy if those with more mod experience than I would test to see if my observed outcome is repeatable or if I simply messed something else up somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Mar 15, 2021 17:23:14 GMT -6
I fail to come up with a single disadvantage for the US, both in Real Life and in the Game. Maybe with a few tweaks and edits, we can imitate, somehow, it's reliance on global free trade and open sea lines of communication? Actually the USA has usually experienced some strategic materials dependencies but the exact materials varies from decade to decade and prevailing technologies. Still yes its trade requirements were always something of a perpetual open flank and the last ditch (though a very deep and nasty fire breathing snake filled ditch) solution of Royal Navy planners to the defence of Canada had War Plan Red become anything more than a training exercise for over excitable junior officers with staff potential. Does this mean that the US is truly without a single disadvantage in the later periods? This question is perhaps better suited for a geopolitical scientist or economic historian. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 15, 2021 18:29:43 GMT -6
Actually the USA has usually experienced some strategic materials dependencies but the exact materials varies from decade to decade and prevailing technologies. Still yes its trade requirements were always something of a perpetual open flank and the last ditch (though a very deep and nasty fire breathing snake filled ditch) solution of Royal Navy planners to the defence of Canada had War Plan Red become anything more than a training exercise for over excitable junior officers with staff potential. Does this mean that the US is truly without a single disadvantage in the later periods? This question is perhaps better suited for a geopolitical scientist or economic historian. I mean, sorta? There were steel shortages of steel and rubber during WWII, but those were due to the sheer number of war machines the US was producing. Similarly, the US had a shortage of tankers during WWII, but that was only relative to the massive amount of fuel we had on hand, and the massive number of ships we had in the water overseas. The US's only real strategic disadvantages going into WWII(not counting fluke things like the Mk-14 torpedo), was how exposed the Philippines was to invasion, and how far US ships had to sail to engage the enemy. But the second one had already been accounted for in pre-war planning, with US ships being much longer ranged than their British or Japanese counterparts. If Mexico was hostile I guess the materials shortages could have gotten a lot worse (They were providing like 1/3 of US raw materials at some point IIRC) |
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Mar 16, 2021 2:34:12 GMT -6
Does this mean that the US is truly without a single disadvantage in the later periods? This question is perhaps better suited for a geopolitical scientist or economic historian. I mean, sorta? There were steel shortages of steel and rubber during WWII, but those were due to the sheer number of war machines the US was producing. Similarly, the US had a shortage of tankers during WWII, but that was only relative to the massive amount of fuel we had on hand, and the massive number of ships we had in the water overseas. The US's only real strategic disadvantages going into WWII(not counting fluke things like the Mk-14 torpedo), was how exposed the Philippines was to invasion, and how far US ships had to sail to engage the enemy. But the second one had already been accounted for in pre-war planning, with US ships being much longer ranged than their British or Japanese counterparts. If Mexico was hostile I guess the materials shortages could have gotten a lot worse (They were providing like 1/3 of US raw materials at some point IIRC) It really depends what you mean by strategic disadvantage. There are few show stoppers but if the US in the real world was cut off from from its global supply chains its economy would become a lot less efficient fast. Even if those chains are sufficiently interdicted then consequences will appear on the home front. A lot would depend on what the US were fighting for in a given situation as to how much pain the general population would endure. In Our Time Line (OTL) world wars the US was allied either with the British economy (at the beginning of each conflict) or the British. This meant their trade was not nearly as interdicted as it might have been had it been facing off against the British. In fact what happened was a surge in British and French (people always forget the French) war related orders. For example when mobilising for war in 1917 the US Army was short of guns (actual field guns) but took over a factory built to supply the French and another factory built to supply the British before deciding to equip its expeditionary force from surplus French stocks anyway. The main infantry rifle was originally intended to be the Model 1906 Springfield but this could not be manufactured in sufficient numbers but fortunately the British has invested in three American factories whose equipment was slightly tweaked and standardised to produce the Model 1917 Enfield for US service. Military explosives and propellants manufacturing had been boosted massively by Anglo-French investment as well so that the US was a major supplier of the Entente. Oil tankers building for the British (who had their own oil but it was twice as far away as US oil so they ended up mostly importing US oil) were taken over by the American much to the consternation of the Admiralty. Access to the British, French (well most of it in World War II and all of it in WW1) and Belgian Empires and South America for both import and export markets were hugely useful to paying for the wars. In particular certain strategic metals which are important if you want those higher quality guns, improved armour techs and higher performing aircraft were only available in useful quantities from certain regions such as the Belgian Congo or South Africa. The blockade system in RTW/RTW2 while it does not really emulate the legal concept of blockade does somewhat give an idea of the effects of interdiction of supply on the US, a gradual down pull on military effectiveness and the will to fight. In OTL the US did not have to experience blockade in the 20th century though the whole then US had experienced it in 1813-1815 and the Southern States in 1861-65 and not liked it one bit. What is not modelled is the massive damage prolonged bouts of blockade would have on the US civil economy post war as markets and customers are lost and have to be won back over time or given the game models repeated wars the loss of confidence in US suppliers full stop. This is somewhat understandable as it is not something that appears in the history books as it did not happen but it can be annoying as it means there are next to no consequences from war for the US and there are always some negative consequences from war in the real world. Even purely in game it means a player facing US can never tame the beast no matter how many wars it fights idiotically and loses and when playing as the US it means you can play as an idiot and lose a war and suffer only marginally greater consequences (it takes some work to lose a war as the US mind as the AI really does not understand how to run a blockade away from a national home region and for example when facing GB they keep switching their fleet between the East Coast and the Caribbean rather doing as a player would and sitting on the East Coast until hands are thrown up). Of course a game has limits but real world the US needed its global markets hence the drive for a global Navy. |
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Mar 18, 2021 13:04:49 GMT -6
I mean, sorta? There were steel shortages of steel and rubber during WWII, but those were due to the sheer number of war machines the US was producing. Similarly, the US had a shortage of tankers during WWII, but that was only relative to the massive amount of fuel we had on hand, and the massive number of ships we had in the water overseas. The US's only real strategic disadvantages going into WWII(not counting fluke things like the Mk-14 torpedo), was how exposed the Philippines was to invasion, and how far US ships had to sail to engage the enemy. But the second one had already been accounted for in pre-war planning, with US ships being much longer ranged than their British or Japanese counterparts. If Mexico was hostile I guess the materials shortages could have gotten a lot worse (They were providing like 1/3 of US raw materials at some point IIRC) It really depends what you mean by strategic disadvantage. There are few show stoppers but if the US in the real world was cut off from from its global supply chains its economy would become a lot less efficient fast. Even if those chains are sufficiently interdicted then consequences will appear on the home front. A lot would depend on what the US were fighting for in a given situation as to how much pain the general population would endure. In Our Time Line (OTL) world wars the US was allied either with the British economy (at the beginning of each conflict) or the British. This meant their trade was not nearly as interdicted as it might have been had it been facing off against the British. In fact what happened was a surge in British and French (people always forget the French) war related orders. For example when mobilising for war in 1917 the US Army was short of guns (actual field guns) but took over a factory built to supply the French and another factory built to supply the British before deciding to equip its expeditionary force from surplus French stocks anyway. The main infantry rifle was originally intended to be the Model 1906 Springfield but this could not be manufactured in sufficient numbers but fortunately the British has invested in three American factories whose equipment was slightly tweaked and standardised to produce the Model 1917 Enfield for US service. Military explosives and propellants manufacturing had been boosted massively by Anglo-French investment as well so that the US was a major supplier of the Entente. Oil tankers building for the British (who had their own oil but it was twice as far away as US oil so they ended up mostly importing US oil) were taken over by the American much to the consternation of the Admiralty. Access to the British, French (well most of it in World War II and all of it in WW1) and Belgian Empires and South America for both import and export markets were hugely useful to paying for the wars. In particular certain strategic metals which are important if you want those higher quality guns, improved armour techs and higher performing aircraft were only available in useful quantities from certain regions such as the Belgian Congo or South Africa. The blockade system in RTW/RTW2 while it does not really emulate the legal concept of blockade does somewhat give an idea of the effects of interdiction of supply on the US, a gradual down pull on military effectiveness and the will to fight. In OTL the US did not have to experience blockade in the 20th century though the whole then US had experienced it in 1813-1815 and the Southern States in 1861-65 and not liked it one bit. What is not modelled is the massive damage prolonged bouts of blockade would have on the US civil economy post war as markets and customers are lost and have to be won back over time or given the game models repeated wars the loss of confidence in US suppliers full stop. This is somewhat understandable as it is not something that appears in the history books as it did not happen but it can be annoying as it means there are next to no consequences from war for the US and there are always some negative consequences from war in the real world. Even purely in game it means a player facing US can never tame the beast no matter how many wars it fights idiotically and loses and when playing as the US it means you can play as an idiot and lose a war and suffer only marginally greater consequences (it takes some work to lose a war as the US mind as the AI really does not understand how to run a blockade away from a national home region and for example when facing GB they keep switching their fleet between the East Coast and the Caribbean rather doing as a player would and sitting on the East Coast until hands are thrown up). Of course a game has limits but real world the US needed its global markets hence the drive for a global Navy. Thank you for the detailed reply. It makes a lot of sense, truthfully. I wish there is a way to somehow simulate the US reliance on global markets in the game. Both in peace time and in times of war. Having a "trade factor" in the game would be nice, especially if such factors can influence budget. If the US's trade is crippled, it's hard to imagine its economy still healthy and growing, thus the naval budget could be impacted, both positively and negatively. |
|
