South America is easily te deciding factor here even when they had nil direct participation during the whole WW >.>

The Pan American Union will also be the only nation with no frontline armies. Even the 2's will be taken away. But this is a SCENARIO. The Pan American Union could've formed an army had they felt threatened enough. Why should I take away that possibility?

i dont recall mexico fighting world war two. also the african bonuses are just simply out of proporition. like rhodesia, somalia were not fighting for the allies. only south africa did. india also fought for the axis believe it or not. or atleast there were regiments or whatever that were formed and fought for germany. sweden was specifically neutral. as was switzerland. greenland, did not fight in ww2 and niether did svalbard which should remain neutral and if not then its part of norway. when did brazil or french guiana fight. if your just seeing belligerent countries on wikipedia that doesnt mean they engaged in action. they may have sent supplies. this map is fulll of inaccuracies. your just placing england like everywhere whether it be true or not its not like they were gaining soldiers from there. and or anything of true value, unless you can prove me wrong on that. tell me what they were getting from suriname for example...japanese coverage of china is also incorrect, it included manchuria. the japanese actually had the strongest navy and the largest battleships ever created. america really had no army or navy and were EXTREMELY green. the japanese were already battle tested and had over 4 lare aircraft carriers. side note, they easily could have taken hawaii and if they had launched that 3rd or 4th wave, they would have destroyed the rest of the american navy. #yolo. but anyways there you have really got to fix this scenario. 1st but purging every thing you put into afrika.

also i made sure everything i said coincided with your 1942 time date. i can also discuss troops counts with you, if you'd like. source:watching history channel in kindergarten instead of spongebob

I'm glad that you're providing actual insight into your posts, instead of what Hell Bender attempted to do. Now allow me to rebuttal a bit:

Svalbard, Switzerland, Greenland, Sweden. I understand all were neutral, but I have given them to countries for the sake of bonuses. (This is a World Map, not a WW2 map.)

As for the Pan American Union: They were heavily in trade with America, should America be threatened, it was logically in their best interest to start sending troops. This was never required, but it was still a possibility for them to deploy. That's why I've added them. They'll be given NO standing army. This is a scenario, not trying to be 100% accurate.

England did have holds in the Mid East, part of the reason the mid eastern borders were made. You're correct, they gained no value from the Mid East, besides positional advantage vs Africa. However, this is yet again a world map, it did not make sense to not give them the bonuses. This is a scenario, to which the player can manipulate any part of the English Empire, whether or not it was manipulated in the real war.

India, very interesting, I didn't know they did form troops to fight for the Axis, though it is logical now that I think about it. However, simulating this would be tough and would break the Indian bonus, I'm not too comfortable doing this..

Japanese holds, I will update to add Manchuria, I completely forgot they had part of it.

Africa: Again, this is a scenario, I kind've added the African bonuses to allow for fighting against Vichy France and Italy. As the USA may NEVER land in Europe without being gifted a territory, it only makes sense to throw the Allies a bone there.

Troop Counts: If you come up with some coherent proportional total troop counts for all of the countries, you're a beautiful man.

Ok , I can run the numbers tomorrow it's late now.
Also too give this game a great aspect, I would in corporate some sort of command system or role play heiarchy. I think you can interpret tht well enough. I'll post again tomorrow if I can. Or maybe Monday. But I'll get back to you in any case. Need sleep now

Also ill be inallies side great britan or if not poaaible japannese empire

invite me to the next game as well lolowut and it looks t#real awesome but russia had an hold in ukraine didnt they

Burgoo, your navy point about Japan having the largest in the world in 42 i am pretty sure is not true. Maybe the most aircraft carriers, but i doubt it. Soon after Hawaii at Midway it was 4 Japanese carriers vs 3 Americans, so the Americans weren't that "green" compared to them. The Brits, i think, had a larger navy than Japan as well, because U-Boats only really went to merchant ships, not battleships, as they would've been destroyed.

If I remember correctly Japan's navy had the most aircraft carriers, but the United States had more cruisers, battleships,ect.

Are you saying that America had the largest navy in 1942? hahaha Don't forget a little thing called pearl harbor which decimated all the battle ships and cruisers but i guess they could re-build the entire fleet again in one year like you said. The british had the largest navy in 1939 but they lost 7 ships before 1942. You clearly don't know what you're talking about with "I think", "im pretty sure". "u-boats woulve been destroyed" like seriously do you think they were defenceless or something? And lastly i literally don't know how to respond to youre midway comment. I said specifically that the japanese missed the american aircraft carriers. And how does have 3 aircraft carriers make them experienced? Do you even know what green means? It's clearly in respect to the pilots, whom compared to the japanese ones were complete amateurs considering that they never had combat experience.

Glad to see that im not the only person here who knows a lot about history.

after "I said specifically that the japanese missed the american aircraft carriers." it should say "at pearl harbor"

no, i dont know what green means. and anyway Pearl Harbor was in 1941 (December) and the US had a whole year to create there Navy again. 1942, I think, means end, not beginning, by which time the US had the largest.
I only use I think and other such things because I'm not sure, whereas you think that everything you are saying is completely right, though not necessarily.

Lets not go off topic here. In ww2, the soviets didn't necessarily have the best troops, but they happened to have a large population, loyal and used to harsh winters, so I think that while they still have a bonus, make them a little bit low since it wasnt that good anyway. I think that the U.S should be getting around 60-70 guys, since they had a large population with fairly good weapons and things like that that they made insane amounts of.

1942 means beginning, or more specifically, when America joined.

Well, lol about burgoos 'kindergarten-level' knowledge of history,(calling him out mostly cause of his general attitude) but anyways I don't like how Britannia won't be able to bunker down in Europe(historical turning point), a few extra armies might help? And pro-Nazi Spain should be pro-Nazi-meybe under mussolini's control.

O, and to brit africa, taking uganda gives u 5 bonus ;)

Germany could've won WW2, but it made the mistake of not finishing off Russia when they could've.

I disagree. Germany should not have focused Russia as hard as they did. Hitler was paranoid. He forced Russia into joining the allies when it was quite obvious that Russia would side with Germany. What lost Germany the war had nothing to do with generals, armies, or micro-strategy; it was Hitler. Hitler doing his massive genocides brought his own country against him. Hitler being paranoid lost him many key generals, Erwin Rommel ring a bell? Hitler betraying Russia then not following through in a timely manner. (NEVER F***ING ATTACK RUSSIA IN THE WINTER). Hitler for underestimating the possibility of American involvement.

What brought Nazi-Germany close to becoming the world's conqueror also defeated Nazi-Germany.

Nothing is perfect.