How about some input on this low tech fix

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

As to the issue of naval, U-Boat, simulation in this game.  How many of our Axis players make the very painful decisions the historic Germans did.  U-Boat production, naval production by the Germans was "painful".  Weinberg points out how many tanks were not built with the production of a sub, not to mention the surface fleet which was still worked on so late in the war. How many of our Axis players build a navy when faced with the choice to build less tanks.  Someone once characterized many players of this game as pushing tanks along the steppes.  We are not a crew who hit the "Deploy new ship" button often.  The Germans had subs because they made painful choices to plow PP into subs, something few of us do.  This game has a mechanism to produce much more naval power for the Axis, but few choose to use it.

Considering the state of the naval rules in this game I don't think there are many painful choices for Germany. [:)]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

If there was one thing that was not painful for the USA it was production.  Your very mention of "the bomb" makes this clear.  It was an expensive project, and I believe ranked second in cost of all the gazillion of projects they kicked off.  The most common approach to solving a dilemma for the American reseachers was, when given two paths, try both!  Two types of bomb, three ways to obtain fissionable material, over and over the huge, gigantic economy provided an answer to every problem posed.

The bomb took almost 5 years to produce. It is not that the USA production was not impressive, it most certainly was, it was that it didn't go into high gear immediately. It took 3 years just to get enough landing craft for Normandy. The build up was slow (relativly) but steady and continued without interuption.