@axis_roll I have not watched the History Channel in years. It became to heavily involved in reality TV.
We cut the cord.
How A&A corresponds to WWII history
-
The different units represent different scales. Infantry would represent 3-5 corps which could be considered an army and Armor is a smaller scale of a corps (3-6 divisions of tanks) The tanks have alot more impact than infantry armies. I see that germany had 160 divisions and out of this 20 were panzer/ motorized in 1941. They were organized in 14 field armies. If you take 140 and divide by 3 to get corps and again by 3 to get armies you get 15.5 which the game has 15 infantry on that front ( as pointed out by another poster). If you take the 20 armor and divide by 3 to get corps, you got about 7 units ( 7 corps of armor) and revised has 6 in range of soviet territories plus 2 artillery which makes 8 and thats close enough for this type of comparison.
On Midway that one infantry is not:
and there should be 250.000 - 350.000 soldiers on Midway island? - nah
an army would be made up of 15 divisions ( with 10,000 men each so thats 150,000 but its still to high and some units are just not gonna fit really any consistent system because the game was not designed that way. It was a balanced idea on deployment rather than historical.
Germany’s initially only got 11 ipc of units in Africa, (Africa corps - not entirely a field army)
These forces also represent the bulk of the italian army. The tank alone would represent both the DAK and probably some italian armor units
-
Probably the only way to get a truly accurate count between R/L and A&AR (or A&A if you prefer) is to have a seperate count for each power and average it out.
If you wanted to make the counts accurate to R/L you’d have to alter the unit numbers and placement to make it true to life and add “Realism” rules. Eg. Aircraft, Armor, Inf, and Art. can only move one space during a turn (to account for the vast stretches of land on the map). And it’d go without saying that you’d need a minimum number of infantry pieces per territory to act as a “garrison” or suffer a penalty of income from that territory. This would add a whole new aspect of logistics to the game.
And you’d have to have seperate “Theatre Rules” for the Pacific and for the European theatres such as the chanelkampf (Channel Battles) during the battle of Britain and to account for the limited flight distance of German aircraft compared to the British advantage of being over home-ground (maybe only 1 round of German fighters over England, with 2 rounds for all powers’ bombers? or a reduced German aircraft attack while over England?).
You’d also have to take into account that the Japanese aircraft could travel much farther (and were cheaper to produce) than American aircraft, but they were’nt as hard-hitting nor hardy as U.S. naval/land based aircraft.
In short, you’d have to literally re-write the movement, engagement, income, and territory capture rules from the ground up and work with the map that’s already in place. Additionally, you’d also have to figure out the “theatre rules” according to the specific theatre (especially in regards to Japan as they depended almost solely on airpower and infantry for keeping their territory, with their navy to back it up).
This actually sounds like a fun project to do (especially since I suck at playing A&A and I have the spare time I could devote to it).
-
It would be neat to have a more realistic setup and income level for the game. Maybe it would be too steep of a climb for the Axis to defeat the Allies but, if you did it would be that much more glorious! I have been trying to find the different powers approximate strengths in all the theaters but it is kind of difficult. I think you would have to put some kind of restraint on the amount of troops you could raise. Of course Russia and Germany raised millions of troops but, there is always a limit to your army. Germany should actually start off with most of there forces because wasn’t 1941-42 the peek for the German army? Also what do you think the difference in representation of the amount troops a piece represents from Revised to Europe and Pacific would be? Has Larry every said what a infantry piece is suppose to represent?
-
Has Larry every said what a infantry piece is suppose to represent?
I think he said corp once. but i not that sure.
-
The other part of this is to realize that supplying armies is not exclusively about numbers of men. War fighting materials are as much a part of the problem as finding grunts to carry the rifles.
To presume that the armies raised at new bodies is to ignore the actual practice of pulling combat units back for resupply and reconstitution. Yes, replacements for casualties were part of that practice but new equipment was as much a part of the industrial complex problem as finding more men.
We should not assume that a “destroyed” army is actually representing 100,000’s of men dead. It more accurately is the destruction of war materials and disruption of the organization that is what most quickly removed combat units from the front line. 2% to 3% causualties were enough to get most combat units looking for R&R. 10% casualties would be enough to make most units static and unable to do much more than hold ground. Casualty rates higher than that would generally be the end of the unit but the “elements” of the unit would still be individually functioning and could often be pulled back together in R&R to rebuild the unit.
This is, in my opinion, where those IPCs ar going.
-
Baghdaddy, I agree with what you are saying but, I also find extremely unrealistic to be able to raise the infinite infantry as long as you have IPC. Like getting 12 or 13 inf. a turn. At some point you run out of men who can fight.
-
Well that’s why it’s called a game :-)
-
Baghdaddy, I agree with what you are saying but, I also find extremely unrealistic to be able to raise the infinite infantry as long as you have IPC. Like getting 12 or 13 inf. a turn. At some point you run out of men who can fight.
okay the population fit for man service is about 20%. 54,609,050 /300,000,000 this is only males btw https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military.
the poulation of the us in 1940 was 132,164,569. .2(132,164,569) = 26,432,914. with 100,000 sized infantry(about 2.5 time the size of a corp) then you would yeild 264 infantry foe the us for the whole game. this is not. inculding rreplacements.
2,143,873(number reaching military age anually for 2005)/300,000,000(pop) = .71%
.007*132,164,569(pop 1940)=925,152 thats 9 infantry a year. a year is 4 turns( 3 months). that is 2 infantry increase for the next 72 rounds uninterpated. (18 years)
the war ended in august 1945. thats about 12 turns. or 9 turns for 4 month turns.
if you added up all the infantry of the us would you come close to there being 275 infantry for the whole game? (264+24=288) thisd is not inculding the fact 100,000 men dead is way more than one dead infantry. -
Baghdaddy, I agree with what you are saying but, I also find extremely unrealistic to be able to raise the infinite infantry as long as you have IPC. Like getting 12 or 13 inf. a turn. At some point you run out of men who can fight.
okay the population fit for man service is about 20%. 54,609,050 /300,000,000 this is only males btw https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military.
the poulation of the us in 1940 was 132,164,569. .2(132,164,569) = 26,432,914. with 100,000 sized infantry(about 2.5 time the size of a corp) then you would yeild 264 infantry foe the us for the whole game. this is not. inculding rreplacements.
2,143,873(number reaching military age anually for 2005)/300,000,000(pop) = .71%
.007*132,164,569(pop 1940)=925,152 thats 9 infantry a year. a year is 4 turns( 3 months). that is 2 infantry increase for the next 72 rounds uninterpated. (18 years)
the war ended in august 1945. thats about 12 turns. or 9 turns for 4 month turns.
if you added up all the infantry of the us would you come close to there being 275 infantry for the whole game? (264+24=288) thisd is not inculding the fact 100,000 men dead is way more than one dead infantry.http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7302.0
I hope you don’t meind darthmaximus and Fox but i’m using your game. it berlin would of fallen on round 11 so average and allies owo. just what i’m looking for. 6 inf for america to start with exculding china. then all subsent inf purchases. us went 9 times game ended on japan 10.6+ (6,9,5,0,8,2,6,4,5)+ (lets say all 44ipcs wnet to inf. on round 10) that would be 14 inf.
65 inf for the whole game. nowhere close to the 275 inf limit. 200 inf off to be excat or 4 times the amount. i think inf rescritions shouldn’t exist because if there needed your playing way too long.
-
Imperious leader:
an army would be made up of 15 divisions ( with 10,000 men each so thats 150,000 but its still to high and some units are just not gonna fit really any consistent system because the game was not designed that way. It was a balanced idea on deployment rather than historical.
I’m quite sure a full German infantry division at WW2 was much more than 10.000 men, rather 16.000-18.000 men, and consequently I believe the average German field army (at least before combat) was very much bigger than 150.000 soldiers. The average German Army corps was about 60.000- 120.000, more or less the size of a russian army. Â The Russian equivalent to a German army was called a “front” and could number as much as 350.000 men. I also believe The German 6th army at Stalingrad initially numbered 200.000-300.000 men. Tell me if I am wrong.
Baghdaddy:
We should not assume that a “destroyed” army is actually representing 100,000’s of men dead. Â It more accurately is the destruction of war materials and disruption of the organization that is what most quickly removed combat units from the front line. Â 2% to 3% causualties were enough to get most combat units looking for R&R. Â 10% casualties would be enough to make most units static and unable to do much more than hold ground. Â Casualty rates higher than that would generally be the end of the unit but the “elements” of the unit would still be individually functioning and could often be pulled back together in R&R to rebuild the unit.
I think this sounds very reasonable to me, which is why I suggested that the visible inf-unit may be interpreted as the elite front-division of the corps it represents. Losing this front-division the corps would eigther be pulled back for reinforcement (symbolized by a newly purchased inf) or pinned down, unable to make offensive action (thus symbolized  only by the territory colour).
AJGundam:
Well that’s why it’s called a game
He,he, yes A&A is a game alright, but unlike e.g. RISK it is nevertheless designed to follow WW2-history more or less accurately.
Have you guys ever tried playing the CD-rom game? In this game the odds are very much manipulated to make the game even closer to WW2 history. Example: Even though the odds should be exactly equal, it sure seems UK will almost NEVER lose the bomber in the first SBR on Germany, where as Germany will almost ALWAYS lose the bomber in a first SBR on UK. So to win in the cd-r game one could say that knowledge of WW2 history seems more helpful than actual skills in calculating the odds.
-
Cyan:
the poulation of the us in 1940 was 132,164,569. .2(132,164,569) = 26,432,914.
Yeah, I think we can agree that the US fought the war much like they had both of their hands on their back (busy with lots of other stuff). With your calculations the great US effort seems merely like spitting. 8-)
As for Germany it has been estimated that around 3-4 million soldiers were still in uniforms in may 1945 just before Germany surrendered.
-
Baghdaddy, I agree with what you are saying but, I also find extremely unrealistic to be able to raise the infinite infantry as long as you have IPC. Like getting 12 or 13 inf. a turn. At some point you run out of men who can fight.
Tactics and strategy don’t appear out of thin air. There is a cost associated with training people. If the first three IPC spent on an infantry unit is actually raising the man power, the second three IPC spent to add a second army to the first could just as easily be teaching them to do more than stand in a line in a trench and shoot. Infiltration tactics, mechanized support, combined arms philosophy, small unit leadership training; all these things increase combat effectiveness. That Turn 4 infantry piece could be a division that has all the most up to date training, tools and skills to face down a Turn 1 infantry piece that represents a Russian conscript army corps.
The pieces on the board represent combat capabilities, not men, tanks, planes or ships. We have already noted the ability for land based air pieces to instantly become carrier based air pieces. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of landing an airplane on a flight deck would recognize the difficulties. It becomes obvious that the Fighter piece on the board represents a combat capability that is comprised on men, machines and tactics. There is no point in assigning numbers since the entire US carrier air wing at Midway barely exceeded 100 planes yet that would be only a drop in the bucket in the air combats that occured when Operation Barbarossa started.
A&A is a game. It does a reasonablly good job of feeling like WWII with out all the mind numbing details. If you want to get into the details get a computer based game that handles the conflict week to week and tracks the pieces and parts down to individual submarines and airplanes.
BTW, ever wonder how many submarines one submarine piece really represents?
-
I’m quite sure a full German infantry division at WW2 was much more than 10.000 men, rather 16.000-18.000 men, and consequently I believe the average German field army (at least before combat) was very much bigger than 150.000 soldiers. The average German Army corps was about 60.000- 120.000, more or less the size of a russian army. The Russian equivalent to a German army was called a “front” and could number as much as 350.000 men. I also believe The German 6th army at Stalingrad initially numbered 200.000-300.000 men. Tell me if I am wrong.
German infantry division 1944=12,352
VG division=10,072
panzer division 1941=15,600
panzer division 1944=13,276
German infantry division 1939=17,200Corps=3-5 divisions
Army=3-5 CorpsAt Stalingrad germany lost 225,000 KIA plus 90,000 captured
note: Soviet Infantry=9,619
Soviet tank corps=10,980
Mechanized corps=15,020 -
German infantry division 1939=17,200
Corps=3-5 divisions
Army=3-5 CorpsAt Stalingrad germany lost 225,000 KIA plus 90,000 captured
Thanx for coming around…Â :-P
To avoid any confusion we should also be aware that a field corps and a corps is actually two different things.
Where the definition of a field corps is (1) that it is a subdivision of a field army, the definition of a corps is (2) that it is NOT a subdivision, but actually a independent force that isn’t really big enough to be called an army (independent geographically (eg. British Free Corps) or according to task (eg. US Marine Corps)). Therefore a corps can pretty much have any size smaller than a field army. A perfect illustrating example of (2) would be The British East African Camel Corps with only 7.000 soldiers. Despite its very small size, this force is surely a corps because it’s not a subdivision of anything: It’s commander was the highest-level commander of British East Africa.…and well…the British Free Corps never had more than 27 soldiers!!! :-D
I believe DAK was initially a corps according to definition 2 (expeditionary force), - not a field corps. Initially it was only combined of two small divisions (5th Panzer & 5th Light) of less than 30.000 soldiers, but later it grew in size and thus became “Panzer Army Africa”, or even later “Army Group Africa”, allthough these organisations never reach a size comparable to a field army or an army group of the eastern front. This is why “Army Group Africa” was dubbed a “paper tiger” by the allies.
Cheers :wink:
-
Thats also why their is varience on 3-5 corps/divisions
And those figures are only german. The soviet establish infantry divisions at about 10,000 supporting my conclusions, where as the germans are a bit higher while the standard is going down all the time. BY 1942 the germans division is not
German infantry division 1939=17,200
, but rather probably about 13,000-14,000 and we are after all talking 1942 figures and not 1939.
At El Alamein – Panzer Armee Afrika OOB was about 14+ divisions (on paper)
4 corps:
DAK= 2 Panzer divisions
XXI= 1 mot./ 1 inf
XX=2 italian armor/1 Italian mot. div.
X=2 inf and folgore airborne division.plus 2 infantry divisions, 2 light infantry divisions and a brigade for reserve
-
i’m agreeing w/ Baghdaddy, and i’ve said this before.
That lone guy at Midway or the Soloman’s and etc. is not a unit of x,000 troops, but rather a given unit of combat capability. You might send in 2 inf and a ftr squad to take that unit, and this may represent 3-4 times the number of attacking troops you have otherwise as the defending unit is dug-in, knows the terrain, has wired the area, is hiding in caves etc.You might only have a couple dozen ftrs guarding an AC (as opposed to the hundreds comprising what is thought of as a ftr unit), but one might consider that there are several carriers in the flot, anti-aircraft guns, and supporting vessels - corvettes etc.
The dice come in to demonstrate variables that lowluck will not account for - commanders, morale, terrain, espionage, weather etc.
-
@cystic:
i’m agreeing w/ Baghdaddy, and i’ve said this before.
That lone guy at Midway or the Soloman’s and etc. is not a unit of x,000 troops, but rather a given unit of combat capability. You might send in 2 inf and a ftr squad to take that unit, and this may represent 3-4 times the number of attacking troops you have otherwise as the defending unit is dug-in, knows the terrain, has wired the area, is hiding in caves etc.You might only have a couple dozen ftrs guarding an AC (as opposed to the hundreds comprising what is thought of as a ftr unit), but one might consider that there are several carriers in the flot, anti-aircraft guns, and supporting vessels - corvettes etc.Â
The dice come in to demonstrate variables that lowluck will not account for - commanders, morale, terrain, espionage, weather etc.
I think back to an old game my brother and I played called USN, Pacific Campaign. It had week based turns and aircraft points where one point represented 10 aircraft. It also had regiment and battalion size USMC units that were of similiar combat strenghts as army size Chinese units.
That 1 US Inf sitting on Wake island is not the same number of men as the 1 US Inf hitting the beach at Normandy nor the same as the 1 Russian Inf sitting in Moscow.
This is a strategic level game and it is focused more on playability than any solid connection to the historical events. For as simple as the game system is, it is astounding that it plays as much as the historical war did. That is a tribute to the skill of the game designer and the patience of the play testers.
If we get bogged down pinning a number of men to each Infantry point, we are truly missing the point of how this game system works.
As a prime example, nowhere in this game system can you simulate the British evacuation of Dunkirk yet every historian points to the rescue of the men of the BEF as being crucial to the ability of the Brits to re-arm and field an army as quickly as they did. Instead this game states that ground forces committed to an amphibious assault can not retreat. This, at first glance, is ridiculous. Getting men back of the beach would not be risk free but surely not every man would die. On closer examination, it becomes clear that what is really being tracked is not the number of dead bodies in the surf zone but the loss of combat capability due to lost equipment, scrambled command structures, missing supplies and demoralized men.
To take this one step further, combat losses on a front do not mean entire armies of men are destroyed. Instead it means they are no longer combat capable. Equivalently, the infantry, artillery and armor units built represent equipment and supply replacements for those combat losses as much as they represent newly trained recruits.
These same concepts carry over to fleets and air units. Consider the fighters that are lost in a offensive combat operation. Their bases and ground crews are still intact. If those same fighters were lost in a defensive combat operation, those bases and ground crews are presumed lost. Obviously the game system does not model this as well as more complicated systems that track airbase construction and maintenance seperately.
I’m just happy that the game plays as easily as it does yet provides this level of realism. To be honest, anything much beyond this level of play, and I will be looking for a computer based game to assist in tracking all the game mechanics so as not to overwhelm and bog down the players.
-
Using Midway as an example…
That 1 INF also represents, in addition to actually INF soldiers:
Artillery, a small number of aricraft, support and radar instalations, mines, barbed wire and other fortifications.When/If the INF is move from Midway via a TRN, the TRN can be assumed to have additional reinforcing personnel on board (if advancing to attack) to bring it up to offensive combat readiness, or to be transporting the heavier equipment and seasoned personel to the US to be augmented with new units in preparation for re-deployment elsewhere.
Thus, as has been mentioned earlier, specific units at specific locations are NOT equivalent in terms of numbers, but ARE equivalent in terms of combat capability.
So…
a Russian INF on the German Front represents a LOT of men with small arms and limitted support and heavier elements.
a UK INF landing in Norway has light sea-born support and air support for a smaller number of men
a USA INF on Midway has defensive entrenchments, aircraft, technology and artillery with a small number of men.And as units are moed around the board, the “invisible logistical element” comes into play, where units are augmented (or depleted) as they move through various terrain and enter various theaters of combat operations. That invisible logistacal element is where a Pacific INF get boosted in the several turns it takes to get to Europe, or where heavier elements (especially mechanized elements) are stripped from European units as the manpower moves into the Pacific.
Of course, the only real breakdown of that is in terms of Japan’s land units that enter Asia, which SHOULD deplete as they cross Siberia, but instead miraculously become European grade units (though perhaps justified by Japan forcing local peoples to join the war effort to augment the advancing forces on the march to Moscow…)
-
I have learned that trying to translate the A&A units into actual military units doesn’t work.
-
You could always set a standard amount for the units (total number of men throughout the war for each nation, divided among the respective pieces and averaged out to assign a static number of “man power” per piece).
Then just change the number of pieces on the board until they match “historical” numbers in terms of placement and troop strength for Spring of 1942.
As for finances, perhaps even the cost of pieces could be changed.
But I’m just throwing out ideas here and if I have the time maybe I can get around to doing a project like this (shouldn’t take more than a couple of hours to figure a(n) “manpower” per nation, but several more hours to assign pieces to the board to reflect those numbers accurately).
Suggested Topics
