My Personal Rankings of Each Country in HWW

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Ah OK I was wrong, 50% not 25%. And yea it changes the ROI calculations quite a bit.

      At a glance you should be able to tell which cities are full and which are half because the full have the usual double resource icon while the half just have a single resource icon.

      I played as Nat China in the only HWW game I've tried, really enjoyed it. That economy is potent if you can survive the initial days. Good luck.

    • jubjub bird wrote:



      The exception is Netherlands on the HWW map because so much of their production is non-core. I think their numbers were a little different, can't recall exactly off the top of my head.
      Netherland's non-core starting cities afaik have pretty high base resource values, not too bad when reduced to 25%, so that Netherlands still can be competitive despite having almost only non-core stuff.

    • Technology level can be misleading. It's rarely the technology useful to that country at that time.

      UK economy is kind of a mess. British India should be part of the UK, making UK the dominant colonial power but weak in Europe. British India should be like the Dutch colonies, maybe with stronger naval garrisons but inefficient at resource production.

      Better yet, make some of the Dutch Indies core Japanese rural provinces so they help Japanese oil production in a more significant way after Japan takes them.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by z00mz00m ().

    • Undaunted wrote:

      DxC wrote:

      HWW day 3 research. Nat. China not even on the list and I've been researching pretty steady :(
      I wonder what lithuania had more technological weapons than nationalist china at 1939
      Don't underestimate the primitivity of the Chinese-Japanese war on the Chinese side. Before American aid started arriving, the vast majority of the troops was just a soldier with a prehistoric rifle plus some cannons from the 1890's. Even basic infantry weapons like machine guns and mortars were very, very scarce. The best resource going for them was their manpower; and indeed they used that and paid with it. Even though accurate calcultions of casualties could never properly be made, most historians agree that they were larger than even the Soviet losses, possibly by several factors.

      The Lithuanian army may have been small, but it was reasonably modern for its day. It included full artillery regiments for each division, AT and AA guns, some transport capacity (trucks etc), an air force and a navy. Here's the general layout:

      niehorster.org/035_lithuania/_armed-forces.html

      Of course they were still severely outnumbered by the Red army, and the political decision to surrender without a fight was probably the right call under the circumstances.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • I mostly agree, though I believe that China, the USSR, and US are better, while the UK is a bit lower.

      For China, while your position might be bad at the start, as long as you can hold back/deter Japan, you buy time to get your massive resource number and build a huge army. I’ve managed to snowball as them to crazy levels, and I’ve seen it done too. If you can lock down Japan as China, then you have an easy path to take all of Asia and to move into Europe.

      The same thing applies to the Soviets, but it should be easier since few players go for them until it’s too late. They have the most resources at the start and can end up with a huge and powerful army that can dominate Eurasia. This combines well with allies since you usually don’t have much trouble dividing up Europe or Asia with them, and can support them from a good position.

      As for America, their position and doctrine makes up for their weak force at the start. The thing is, Americas big fleet will usually hold back any enemies from across the sea with ease, allowing you to use your massive resources and fast researching doctrine to dominate the Americas. The naval jumpstart then makes invading Europe quite Easy, or helping your allies there.

      Finally the UK. The trouble I find with them is it’s hard to gain a decent foot hold on an area. While you can bombard and take a lot of land with your fleet, you also run into the trouble of being overstretched, with your colonies easy pickings. This combines if you can’t lock down France or Germany as an ally, since it’s not easy to invade them by sea.

      But enough rambling, I agree else wise. Very nice, and good job!

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Don't underestimate the primitivity of the Chinese-Japanese war on the Chinese side. Before American aid started arriving, the vast majority of the troops was just a soldier with a prehistoric rifle plus some cannons from the 1890's. Even basic infantry weapons like machine guns and mortars were very, very scarce. The best resource going for them was their manpower; and indeed they used that and paid with it. Even though accurate calcultions of casualties could never properly be made, most historians agree that they were larger than even the Soviet losses, possibly by several factors.
      The Lithuanian army may have been small, but it was reasonably modern for its day. It included full artillery regiments for each division, AT and AA guns, some transport capacity (trucks etc), an air force and a navy. Here's the general layout:

      niehorster.org/035_lithuania/_armed-forces.html

      Of course they were still severely outnumbered by the Red army, and the political decision to surrender without a fight was probably the right call under the circumstances.
      While the Chinese army did have much outdated equipment and many issues, it was not as primitive as you may think.

      history.army.mil/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm
      history.com/.amp/news/china-role-world-war-ii-allies
      en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_China

      While China did have less advanced forces, and heavily used older equipment, it was not as you would think. China had received much support from the Soviet Union, Western Allie’s, and ever Germany in military advisors, weapons (such as tanks, planes, guns and more) and supplies. The US even used Chinese Airbases (which means they had enough military infrastructure to hold warplanes) To support China against the Japanese. Of course China still had less advanced weapons and relied on older equipment heavily, but it seems it was more ww1 era. This all culminates to show that China did stack up better than we would think.

      As for casualties, It’s generally agreed that the Soviet Union took the most military casualties.

      worldpopulationreview.com/coun…two-casualties-by-country
      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
      nationalww2museum.org/students…orldwide-deaths-world-war

      While both countries took horrible casualties, and these sacrifices can’t be compared, it is generally agreed that China took 3-4 million military casualties, and the Soviet Union 8-11 million. Total casualties go up to 22 million and 27 million. While it’s hard to calculate the amount, most estimates put the USSR much higher than China casualties wise.

      This paints a different picture of China in the Second World War. While they had an awful leadership structure, garbage equipment, and practically no training, they still had some. This proves that rather than their only resource being manpower, there was also their grit and weaponry too.

      Edit:Even before aid from the west picked up they still have ww1 era weaponry, rather than 1890’s! Still trash but something.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Carking the 6th ().