N america VS Europe

Its a simple Qustian for simple ppl
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

Moved to offtopic...in 3...2...

It depends, if you want to go solo then 50 turns is not enough for america unless you allyfaging against one continent

If it's a 1v1 Eu v NA then Europe. Europe's economy is rich af. So is NA but North America has a lot of distance to cover which means more air transports, while Europe is sufficient by land and water. So by the time the first European Bombers/Subs/Transports etc begin crossing the Atlantic, a good North America will only just be starting to reap the benefits of full country bonus and the like

نوشتع شده توسط Darth., 25.01.2017 at 10:29

If it's a 1v1 Eu v NA then Europe. Europe's economy is rich af. So is NA but North America has a lot of distance to cover which means more air transports, while Europe is sufficient by land and water. So by the time the first European Bombers/Subs/Transports etc begin crossing the Atlantic, a good North America will only just be starting to reap the benefits of full country bonus and the like

you voted for Namerica its like i said simpel ppl

نوشتع شده توسط VOLDERMORT, 25.01.2017 at 14:37

نوشتع شده توسط Darth., 25.01.2017 at 10:29

If it's a 1v1 Eu v NA then Europe. Europe's economy is rich af. So is NA but North America has a lot of distance to cover which means more air transports, while Europe is sufficient by land and water. So by the time the first European Bombers/Subs/Transports etc begin crossing the Atlantic, a good North America will only just be starting to reap the benefits of full country bonus and the like

you voted for Namerica its like i said simpel ppl

stop spamming noob.

نوشتع شده توسط Oleg, 25.01.2017 at 17:01

نوشتع شده توسط VOLDERMORT, 25.01.2017 at 14:37

نوشتع شده توسط Darth., 25.01.2017 at 10:29

If it's a 1v1 Eu v NA then Europe. Europe's economy is rich af. So is NA but North America has a lot of distance to cover which means more air transports, while Europe is sufficient by land and water. So by the time the first European Bombers/Subs/Transports etc begin crossing the Atlantic, a good North America will only just be starting to reap the benefits of full country bonus and the like

you voted for Namerica its like i said simpel ppl

stop spamming noob.

no

Its my poll

Pff... rank 1 duel... Both continents have professional armies, which are made of capable humans, but rare. When they die, both continents don't have reserves to replace them. The end.

Half of Americans and Europeans suffers heart conditions or diabetes, and if not for that, then they are fat(er) which mean not able to perform military duties. If you think i lie, go watch WW2 documentaries, shirtless loaders who lift 50kg ammo for artillery, none fat and all muscles. Today westerns, grandchildren of those people are way weaker, both mentally and physically. Heaviest thing they lift is soup spoon.

They would either sign peace treaty after 500 casualties, like in most wars they have, and then brainwash home population how its they who won and forced enemy to sign peace. Leaving their youngsters to debate on the internet forums who won and who is stronger.

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 26.01.2017 at 13:32

Pff... rank 1 duel... Both continents have professional armies, which are made of capable humans, but rare. When they die, both continents don't have reserves to replace them. The end.

If modern war was dependent only on attrition, Asia and USA would win everything

Edit: By Asia I mean Indochina. Everyone else has either a tiny military, or is a terrorist country *cough*Pakistan*cough*Saudi*cough*

نوشتع شده توسط Darth., 27.01.2017 at 03:07

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 26.01.2017 at 13:32

Pff... rank 1 duel... Both continents have professional armies, which are made of capable humans, but rare. When they die, both continents don't have reserves to replace them. The end.

If modern war was dependent only on attrition, Asia and USA would win everything

Edit: By Asia I mean Indochina. Everyone else has either a tiny military, or is a terrorist country *cough*Pakistan*cough*Saudi*cough*

LOL i agree

نوشتع شده توسط Darth., 27.01.2017 at 03:07

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 26.01.2017 at 13:32

Pff... rank 1 duel... Both continents have professional armies, which are made of capable humans, but rare. When they die, both continents don't have reserves to replace them. The end.

If modern war was dependent only on attrition, Asia and USA would win everything

Edit: By Asia I mean Indochina. Everyone else has either a tiny military, or is a terrorist country *cough*Pakistan*cough*Saudi*cough*

Attrition means spend the power until the enemy spend it all, so you win with the power whats left. America doesn't have that. America have industrial spamming capabilities, but that's not attrition, don't mix those two. America can outspam the enemy and win, but not outpower it. Even that is prone to debate now, as America is formed on capitalism, so you need money to pay for industrial production, and they are already heavily indebted, so it's a questino whether they can do it.

It's not like WW2 anymore when US had healthy economy based on gold and not on debt. Also WW2 technology was cheap, 1 American fighter cost was $1,300,000, one transport ship was $50,000,000, and today equipment is fighter: $150 million, transport ship $2 billion. They simply don't have that money and when war start, loans will stop so they can't make more debt.

And if they try Soviet or Chinese style, to conscript workers for factories so they can continue war production, their people will rebel, because they are not used to collectivism like Soviets or Chinese, Americans are used to individualism, to be actors, starletes, entrepreneurs, bug terminators, website designers, non-binary, gender-neutral and so on.

No country except Germany, Russia and China could do it today, it's over. People changed, they are not like before, only Germans and others i mentioned still have 'hivemind' and are comfortable in collectivism, WW1 and WW2 have alot to do with it also. Maybe also Vietnam and Iran, but hardly.

EDIT:

North Korea as well. their people used to it, they are strange to individualism, but very comfortable in collectivism, to work together in factories, to fight side by side. Their policy military first also makes them the most suitable for war as they can produce more military equipment than any other country their size. Not to mention training and military teaching.

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 27.01.2017 at 08:43

نوشتع شده توسط Darth., 27.01.2017 at 03:07

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 26.01.2017 at 13:32

Pff... rank 1 duel... Both continents have professional armies, which are made of capable humans, but rare. When they die, both continents don't have reserves to replace them. The end.

If modern war was dependent only on attrition, Asia and USA would win everything

Edit: By Asia I mean Indochina. Everyone else has either a tiny military, or is a terrorist country *cough*Pakistan*cough*Saudi*cough*

Attrition means spend the power until the enemy spend it all, so you win with the power whats left. America doesn't have that. America have industrial spamming capabilities, but that's not attrition, don't mix those two. America can outspam the enemy and win, but not outpower it. Even that is prone to debate now, as America is formed on capitalism, so you need money to pay for industrial production, and they are already heavily indebted, so it's a questino whether they can do it.

It's not like WW2 anymore when US had healthy economy based on gold and not on debt. Also WW2 technology was cheap, 1 American fighter cost was $1,300,000, one transport ship was $50,000,000, and today equipment is fighter: $150 million, transport ship $2 billion. They simply don't have that money and when war start, loans will stop so they can't make more debt.

And if they try Soviet or Chinese style, to conscript workers for factories so they can continue war production, their people will rebel, because they are not used to collectivism like Soviets or Chinese, Americans are used to individualism, to be actors, starletes, entrepreneurs, bug terminators, website designers, non-binary, gender-neutral and so on.

No country except Germany, Russia and China could do it today, it's over. People changed, they are not like before, only Germans and others i mentioned still have 'hivemind' and are comfortable in collectivism, WW1 and WW2 have alot to do with it also. Maybe also Vietnam and Iran, but hardly.

EDIT:

North Korea as well. their people used to it, they are strange to individualism, but very comfortable in collectivism, to work together in factories, to fight side by side. Their policy military first also makes them the most suitable for war as they can produce more military equipment than any other country their size. Not to mention training and military teaching.

If needed North Korea can have 5 million+ men under arms and marching to war. Their quality though, will be absolutely atrocious. Quantity isn't everything.

نوشتع شده توسط Darth., 27.01.2017 at 10:46

If needed North Korea can have 5 million+ men under arms and marching to war. Their quality though, will be absolutely atrocious. Quantity isn't everything.

You crazy, NK have soviet weaponry, how is that atrocious, best equipment in the world. Low profile tanks but agile with alot of firepower and autoloader, best assault rifles which don't jam or brake, can be used in sand, mud and water. And MiG-29, best multirole fighter, long-range radar and missiles, can take out any plane and he won't even spot yet.

The only thing outdated they have is AA system, old dvinas and nevas, but they can still take down a plane if fired multiple at the same target (like Serbia shot down stealth F-117 with old soviet rocket), They would need S-300 and S-400 to cover their airspace, or wait for new S-500 but that will be expensive, i would advise S-300.

So they have both quality and quantity, they are not in the top 5 best armies for no reason.

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 27.01.2017 at 13:40

نوشتع شده توسط Darth., 27.01.2017 at 10:46

If needed North Korea can have 5 million+ men under arms and marching to war. Their quality though, will be absolutely atrocious. Quantity isn't everything.

You crazy, NK have soviet weaponry, how is that atrocious, best equipment in the world. Low profile tanks but agile with alot of firepower and autoloader, best assault rifles which don't jam or brake, can be used in sand, mud and water. And MiG-29, best multirole fighter, long-range radar and missiles, can take out any plane and he won't even spot yet.

The only thing outdated they have is AA system, old dvinas and nevas, but they can still take down a plane if fired multiple at the same target (like Serbia shot down stealth F-117 with old soviet rocket), They would need S-300 and S-400 to cover their airspace, or wait for new S-500 but that will be expensive, i would advise S-300.

So they have both quality and quantity, they are not in the top 5 best armies for no reason.

Their economy can't handle supplying 5 million+ men with guns, food, armour, etc. Do they even have 5 million guns. Or even pistols? Will they be marching off to war with crowbars in their hands? If they have enough guns, do they have enough ammo? Can they produce enough ammo to keep up with the demands of so many guns being fired? Do they have the materials? Can they provide enough air, anti-air and tank support to ensure they don't get butchered?
Answer is nope. And that's why North Korea having compulsory military service is crazy, it just diverts people away from advancing the economy. And that's why they're so close to being a failed state.

نوشتع شده توسط Darth., 28.01.2017 at 01:01

Their economy can't handle supplying 5 million+ men with guns, food, armour, etc. Do they even have 5 million guns. Or even pistols? Will they be marching off to war with crowbars in their hands? If they have enough guns, do they have enough ammo? Can they produce enough ammo to keep up with the demands of so many guns being fired? Do they have the materials? Can they provide enough air, anti-air and tank support to ensure they don't get butchered?
Answer is nope. And that's why North Korea having compulsory military service is crazy, it just diverts people away from advancing the economy. And that's why they're so close to being a failed state.

Lol they have military first policy, which mean most stuff they produce is military-related. They have enough ammo, guns, pistols, arty, planes, ships, boats, tents, cantines, trucks and behicles to support their army in war. NK doesn't produce alot of civilian things, and that's why it lag behind, but for military - it's the best.

Compulsory military service (conscription) is natural for a nation, it trains people for real war. It does not divert them away from economy. After their serve term, they continue their lives normally, and if war start, they are called back to army and they get same spot they served as a conscript. That mean every North Korean knows his position, his rank, how to handle weapons and orders.

South Korea have conscription as well, from the same reasons, while for example Japan doesn't have, so if Japan find itself in war, and all 200,000 professional troops die, they won't have reserve, as they didn't conscript, those people didn't serve the army, doesn't know to handle weapons, to execute orders, where to go etc. And if they train those people during the war, that mean they are losing valuable time and resources, that's a huge minus and advantage for the enemy.

Something similar you now say for NK, was a propaganda for the USSR in the West. That soldiers were not trained, were inexperienced and lack weapons, while in reality Soviet people had 3 years service length, 4 years for the navy and technical/mechanical/engineer units, Soviet industry was primarily heavy and military related, we first built tanks and then shops. Red Army was the second best equipped in the world in that time, only behind Nazi Germany which totally devoted national economy to war production, from gloves, coats and uniforms to shells and engines.
That's why i find it funny to play games like atwar, were US wartime conscripts have 4 attack and 6 defense while Soviet have 2 attack and 4 defence, despite serving 3 years before the war where State planned for the miltary, while US never conscripted before WW2 and its army was more like militia.

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 26.01.2017 at 13:32

Pff... rank 1 duel... Both continents have professional armies, which are made of capable humans, but rare. When they die, both continents don't have reserves to replace them. The end.

Half of Americans and Europeans suffers heart conditions or diabetes, and if not for that, then they are fat(er) which mean not able to perform military duties. If you think i lie, go watch WW2 documentaries, shirtless loaders who lift 50kg ammo for artillery, none fat and all muscles. Today westerns, grandchildren of those people are way weaker, both mentally and physically. Heaviest thing they lift is soup spoon.

They would either sign peace treaty after 500 casualties, like in most wars they have, and then brainwash home population how its they who won and forced enemy to sign peace. Leaving their youngsters to debate on the internet forums who won and who is stronger.

Simple, North America because as soon as it started, they would send 7000 nukes to Europe, devastating its ability to wage war. Sure the American population centers would be hit, but it would not even come close to comparing the damage america's arsenal would do. As for Russia, they would not be able to utilize their entire arsenal as only part of it resides in Europe.

نوشتع شده توسط nlachance, 19.07.2017 at 08:34

Simple, North America because as soon as it started, they would send 7000 nukes to Europe, devastating its ability to wage war. Sure the American population centers would be hit, but it would not even come close to comparing the damage america's arsenal would do. As for Russia, they would not be able to utilize their entire arsenal as only part of it resides in Europe.

If it was that easy to use nukes, United States and Soviet Union would already had a war and wouldn't poke each other for 45 years in Cold War.

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 19.07.2017 at 14:16

نوشتع شده توسط nlachance, 19.07.2017 at 08:34

Simple, North America because as soon as it started, they would send 7000 nukes to Europe, devastating its ability to wage war. Sure the American population centers would be hit, but it would not even come close to comparing the damage america's arsenal would do. As for Russia, they would not be able to utilize their entire arsenal as only part of it resides in Europe.

If it was that easy to use nukes, United States and Soviet Union would already had a war and wouldn't poke each other for 45 years in Cold War.

I get that but the US and Soviet Union were never directly in conflict, it was always proxy wars. If it ever ramped up to a ground war, nukes would be used and both sides knew it, that was why they didn't fight directly.