XX Century

The reason the US's army was so small at the time was because it was as large as it had to be to serve its purpose: Protect US borders, there was no immediate threat from Canada or Mexico, and we really were protected by the oceans back then. It was reasonably far down the list in military SIZE (not quality or potential) until WWII.

AeroPrinz:
my email is: jamesjkirk@aol.com
 
Originally posted by jamesjkirk
The reason the US's army was so small at the time was because it was as large as it had to be to serve its purpose: Protect US borders, there was no immediate threat from Canada or Mexico, and we really were protected by the oceans back then. It was reasonably far down the list in military SIZE (not quality or potential) until WWII.

AeroPrinz:
my email is: jamesjkirk@aol.com

Actually, during WWI 4 million American troops were mobilized, which in effect made the United States Army the 4th largest army in the world by 1918 (after Germany, France, and United Kingdom respectively). Russia would be #1 on that list except for their massively heavy losses and then after Lenin took control the old army pretty much was dissolved.
 
Meanwhile, Procifica, are you really from Washington State, that is on the Pacific coast?
 
I know that. It was in reference to the last line of his post that I quoted. :)
 
I realized that I was wrong when I wrote it, I didn't mention it because I was lazy and that was just a tiny blip of a few years and then the military was scaled way back again
 
Originally posted by jamesjkirk
I realized that I was wrong when I wrote it, I didn't mention it because I was lazy and that was just a tiny blip of a few years and then the military was scaled way back again

No problems
 
Originally posted by Procifica
I know that. It was in reference to the last line of his post that I quoted. :)

Sometimes people are not really correct in things they write in the last line of the reference.
I am just wondering becouse I have been in the Washington and I like it very much.
 
Please advise what file you extraxt the areographicpack ver 1.0 for the XX century scenarioto?
 
What atlas are you using for your city names?

I've found so many errors in names. You should also put Eureka as the city above San Fransisco. Oh boy.. it took me hours to correct all the city name typos. Solt Lake City, Thsloniki, Cartahena?
 
Why i can't download the 1.4 PTW version ?
I can download th graphic pack ...

Please answer me AeroPrinz :egypt:

I :love: this scenario
 
Well either that or Weed or Redding. Something there.

I've seen some people put Sacremento in that area but that would be unrealistic since Sacremento isn't too much north of San Fransisco and is more to the east.

I know what I'm talking about.. I live near Oakland/SFO/San Jose/etc
 
I live in Sacramento, so I'm no stranger to the area either :) Sacramento is somewhat north of San Francisco, but is definitely more to the east. I probably wouldn't bother to put it in a scenario on this size map. Only LA, San Fran and San Diego are impt enough on a global scale
 
Caliban - I've played your version and I don't know if you are still working on this, but...

-There aren't nearly enough resources on the map. I played as Germany and not only did I not have access to Iron or Horses, there were no countries in the world with a surplus of those. The only Iron in europe belongs to Scandinavia.

-Cultural conversions should be off, they don't jive well with the close confines of Europe.

-Players need more money at start to establish embassies.

Otherwise it's a fun scenario, right now I'm on my way to conquer Iceland, then it's off to the Dutch East Indies.
 
Top Bottom