BB, CV, SS, DD, AP, and CA are naval terminology.
This is only used by a few engineers at shipyards, and only in USA.
Since A&A covers all kind of military equipement from nations all over the world, and not just ships in USA, then I think we should use 3 letters abbrivations, like:
Inf = infantry, Art = artillery, Mec = mechanized, Tnk = tanks, Ftr = fighter, Tac = tacticals, Bmb = bomber,
Sub = submarine, Dst = destroyer, Trn = tranny, Cru = cruiser, Car = carrier and Bat = battleship
We do use 3 letter abbreviations too. “Inf, Art, Ftr, Tnk/Tank, Mech, Tac… etc.” Just not for naval units… except for “sub and trans (tr)” which I think everone uses.
The naval ones work fine too. I don’t see the real issue. Yes, perhaps the US is the only one who uses them, but this is a US game after all. And what do we care, it isn’t like this is all official or something, this is a fan page. And, not that it matters much to us, I do believe the navy still uses these designations: CVN, SSN, CA, DD etc… And they certainly used them in the Second World War.
BB, CV, SS, DD, AP, and CA are naval terminology.
This is only used by a few engineers at shipyards, and only in USA.
These are naming conventions used for actual hulls of ships… CV(N)-68 is the USS Nimitz while the Submarine I served on is the SS(N)-772.
So What you are saying is, that you use 3 letter abbreviations and 2 letter abbrevations, and basically have no set system or standard at all, and are just going with it.
And if you don’t play online, why do you care at all? why not just type out transport and submarine for what it matters. The problems isn’t me not understanding the terminology it’s other players and users of the forum who don’t.
People start moving AP’s around the board and BB and CV’s and suddenly what they are actually typing is a totally different unit style, but they stick with the 2 letter abbreviations because they think CA is Carrier, and that their right. It becomes a problem sometimes, especially when battles go south and suddenly it’s - well that was really my CV defending not my CA - even though the last 10 posts the CA was the carrier bla bla.
The Term ABBREVIATION also means to shorten a word with the letter it uses. There is no V in Aircraft Carrier, or A in Cruiser, or 2nd B in battleship so on and so forth, and if you are ALREADY using 3 letter abbrevations for land units then WTF is the problem with standardizing the whole set? That’s what we are looking for here…
A STANDARD - that EVERYONE understands, is CLEAR, and Easy to use, that applies equally and universally to all unit types.
Thanks cal….
How about TT? transport as well?Yeah. People do that to maintain consistency of using double letters
People use TT to mean “territory”.
Thanks cal….
How about TT? transport as well?Yeah. People do that to maintain consistency of using double letters
People use TT to mean “territory”.
Yes, which is why I use Tr for Transport
Interesting… wonder where all these comes from? Maybe naval terminology… I was Air Force :-D
In ABattleMap (about 1-3 years ago it stopped working with the new versions) under View>List Units, it would provide a text list of where everything is.
Helpful for sending by email at the time it was invented.
Some used this list for various reasons.
Many of the abbreviations came from that.
Many abbreviations have changed over the years.
Many people don’t want to type as much, lazy, or other reasons.
@Weezer:
I believe CV stands for Carrier Vessel, and all U.S. carriers have a CV before their ship number.
CV does NOT stand for Carrier Vessel. There have been many discussions on this site as to why. I leave the reader to search out those answers, as it has come up about every 3 months, or so.
Not sure how anyone that loves Axis & Allies/ WWII History would not use normal naming conventions- CV, BB, CA, DD, SS, AP…
Not sure how anyone that loves Axis & Allies/ WWII History would not use normal naming conventions- CV, BB, CA, DD, SS, AP…
These are the same people who fuss about the game not being historically accurate
Well, this doesn’t matter to me all that much. I spell out the entire name just as much as I abbreviate. And I can generally understand all forms… you guys argue about it and decide.
While I would enjoy an Axis & Allies 1940 version or setup that was more historically accurate, it would be extremely difficult to win as the Axis. Particularly as Japan.
GDPs:
Wartime GDP of the Great Powers
1938 to 1945 in International Dollars and 1990 Prices (billions)*
Country 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
USA 800 869 943 1094 1235 1399 1499 1474
UK 284 287 316 344 353 361 346 331
France 186 199 164 130 116 110 93 101
Italy 141 151 147 144 145 137 117 92
USSR 359 366 417 359 274 305 362 343
Germany 351 384 387 412 417 426 437 310
Austria 24 27 27 29 27 28 29 12
Japan 169 184 192 196 197 194 189 144
Allied/Axis GDP 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.3 3.1 5.0
Take 1941 and divide by 10, you get IPCs of:
USSR: 27
Germany: 57 (41.2 Ger, 13 Fra, 2.9 Aus)
Italy: 15
UK: 35
Japan: 20
USA: 124
