And the Allies never had it during the war? Would the Axis have won. I hear it’s very important.
Dreadful Axis Mistakes
-
You asked whether I find Axis and Allies historically realistic, and if not which parts I feel should be changed. That’s worth a post in itself! Below are the areas I feel the game falls short of historical realism.
Industrial capacity
Military aircraft production is a fairly good proxy for overall military production. During 1942, the Soviet Union produced 25,000 military aircraft. Germany produced 15,000 military aircraft that year, and Japan produced 9,000. But in Revised, Germany has an income of 40, Japan of 30, and the U.S.S.R. of 24. It’s also worth noting here that in '42 the Soviet Union produced between 3 - 4 times as many units in every major land category as did Germany. Axis and Allies dramatically understates the Allied industrial advantage–which is probably necessary for game balance.Changes in industrial capacity
Germany produced 15,000 military aircraft in '42, and 41,000 in '44. The U.S. produced 48,000 military aircraft in '42 and 98,000 in '44. Ideally, Axis and Allies should take into account this kind of dramatic expansion of military production capacity.Changes in technology
The Japanese Zero was considered top-of-the-line in early '42, but had become obsolescent by '44. More generally, technology played a very important role in deciding the outcome of the war. This is not to suggest the Allies had a decisive technological edge over the Axis–they did not–but rather that there were a number of technologies which were really, really worth having. I realize most variants of Axis and Allies have some sort of technological system. But that system is far too luck-based, and doesn’t really capture the feel of the ongoing effort by all major participants to both avoid falling behind technologically, and, ideally, to pull ahead.Air superiority
In the real war there was a contest to see which side could gain control over the sky. Fighters were of pivotal importance to that struggle; with their main combat purpose being to shoot down enemy aircraft. Victory in this competition was critical on a number of levels: it meant control over the battlefield skies, control over the surface of the ocean, and gave your side the ability to strategically bomb enemy factories and cities while thwarting bombing raids against your own. Axis and Allies doesn’t capture any of this. Fighters are slightly better on “defense” than “offense.” But beyond that, the only air battles fought typically involve AA guns shooting at enemy aircraft–which is not primarily what the air battles of WWII were about.Limitations on manpower
In August of 1939, Germany’s population was 69 million people, as compared to 160 million for the Soviet Union. More generally, the Allied nations had much larger core populations than did the Axis nations; which meant that the Allies could field much larger numbers of infantry. But in a game like Revised, if Japan decides to go for a heavy infantry strategy, it could easily end up with a much larger stack than the Soviet Union. That situation is completely ahistorical.Absence of qualitative unit differences
According to a study, Soviet infantry were only 33% as combat-effective as their German counterparts. Germany also enjoyed a qualitative advantage over British and American infantry, albeit to a lesser degree. Incorporating qualitative differences could help offset the Allied advantages in military production capacity and manpower.The attack/defense combat system
I can understand giving infantry a higher combat value on defense than on attack. Defending infantry dig a trench, and use the trench as cover while attacking infantry cross some open field. I get that. But why does a defending aircraft carrier have a combat value three times higher than an attacking carrier? Does the defending carrier dig a trench in the ocean water, and somehow hide behind it to defend itself against the attacking carrier?The Axis and Allies combat system does a good job of capturing the advantage infantry have on defense; but is not good for capturing a number of other important elements. For example, a fighter is great at shooting down enemy aircraft, but fairly useless if you want to sink a battleship. A dive bomber or torpedo bomber might let you sink the battleship, and is decent at shooting down enemy planes. I would prefer a combat system which allows unit specialization like this, rather than lumping everything into “attack” or “defense.”
Hitpoints
Some units were harder to kill than others. Tanks and battleships had thick armor. Fighters were fast and maneuverable. Submarines were stealthy. As a nation provides its tanks with thicker armor, its fighters with better engines and more aerodynamic airframes, and its submarines with increased levels of stealth, those units should become progressively harder to kill. But in Axis and Allies, every unit has only one hitpoint (except for battleships which have two).Summation
There are other ahistorical elements in the Axis and Allies rules set as well. That being said, I understand that Larry Harris’s goal was to build a comparatively simple, straightforward game. The simpler the game, the fewer of the above-described factors can be successfully addressed. I play and enjoy Axis and Allies, but I don’t consider it a realistic depiction of WWII.I’ve endeavored to create a more historically realistic rules set. In doing so, I’ve found that each increase in realism increases the game’s complexity. I’ve tried to add as much of the former, and as little of the latter, as possible. Even so, I must admit that if Axis and Allies is a complexity level of 100, Flames and Steel is about a 150. The advanced version of Flames and Steel, which I am working on now, will probably have a complexity of 200. This means my rules set is not for everyone, but only for those who are willing to put up with some added complexity to gain depth and richness. Flames and Steel provides that depth and richness by (among other things) addressing each of the above-described factors.
-
Thanks, Kurt. A couple of thoughts, from what I’ve read on this site and from my playing experiences:
Carrier defense has been reduced to 2 for AA50, and carrier attack has been reduced to 0 in the 1940 games. Also, carriers take 2 hits to sink in 1940.
Sounds like you need to get your hands on AA50 and/or the 1940 games.
You noted the big difference in quality of infantry and quantities of manpower. I’ve seen it explained that the number of units in Axis and Allies roughly approximates some of these factors. In other words, quantity of units in A&A actually represents quality. So a stack of 20 German infantry next to a stack of 20 Russian infantry - you might actually imagine 1/3 as many troops in the German army as the Russian army, but 3 times the effectiveness.
Also, fighter units (and bomber units) can be said to represent not purely fighters or bombers, but a mixture. So a fighter unit represents your torpedo planes that can sink big ships. Also, ship units can be thought to represent a mixture of ships.
Yes, A&A is an abstraction and sometimes (many times) you will see absurd situations (Like a Jap infantry heavy strategy as you said).
Here’s one of my favorites. One of the first games I played of AA50 (was actually against myself - to get familiar with the game), UK liberated France by a Normandy invasion. That same turn, Italy then launched an amphibious assault from the Mediterranean, complete with coastal bombardment. The Allied troops were all in the North, or in Paris or something. I guess those Battleship guns could shoot hundreds of miles? :lol:
Oh well - A&A is a blast!! Thanks again, man.
-
Thanks, Kurt. A couple of thoughts, from what I’ve read on this site and from my playing experiences:
Carrier defense has been reduced to 2 for AA50, and carrier attack has been reduced to 0 in the 1940 games. Also, carriers take 2 hits to sink in 1940.
Sounds like you need to get your hands on AA50 and/or the 1940 games.
You noted the big difference in quality of infantry and quantities of manpower. I’ve seen it explained that the number of units in Axis and Allies roughly approximates some of these factors. In other words, quantity of units in A&A actually represents quality. So a stack of 20 German infantry next to a stack of 20 Russian infantry - you might actually imagine 1/3 as many troops in the German army as the Russian army, but 3 times the effectiveness.
Also, fighter units (and bomber units) can be said to represent not purely fighters or bombers, but a mixture. So a fighter unit represents your torpedo planes that can sink big ships. Also, ship units can be thought to represent a mixture of ships.
Yes, A&A is an abstraction and sometimes (many times) you will see absurd situations (Like a Jap infantry heavy strategy as you said).
Here’s one of my favorites. One of the first games I played of AA50 (was actually against myself - to get familiar with the game), UK liberated France by a Normandy invasion. That same turn, Italy then launched an amphibious assault from the Mediterranean, complete with coastal bombardment. The Allied troops were all in the North, or in Paris or something. I guess those Battleship guns could shoot hundreds of miles? :lol:
Oh well - A&A is a blast!! Thanks again, man.
I agree I need to get my hands on Axis and Allies 1940. My problem is that I live in a small town, and don’t have access to an A&A playing group. That problem isn’t as bad as you think it might be; largely because I can use TripleA to play online. My favorite map on TripleA is New World Order. New World Order is to Anniversary Edition what Anniversary Edition is to Classic. (Except that this may be understating things.)
I hear what you’re saying about how Axis and Allies abstracts various things. Like you said yourself, it’s a fun game, and I enjoy it a lot.
Even so, the perfectionist in me is always eager to discover/create the ideal rules set.
-
I for one would be thrilled if you’d try out ABattlemap and play on the A&A.org forums. You can play 1940 that way. On top of that, the map is beautiful. Go to Global 1940, TMTM’s module thread and go to the first post for download links… You can watch games, play games…
Let me know when you’re up and running!
Can you play teams in TripleA? Can you watch everyone else’s games on TripleA? Do they have leagues and tournaments on TripleA? I’m only asking because I don’t know, and I suspect they don’t but could be very wrong. -
I for one would be thrilled if you’d try out ABattlemap and play on the A&A.org forums. You can play 1940 that way. On top of that, the map is beautiful. Go to Global 1940, TMTM’s module thread and go to the first post for download links… You can watch games, play games…
Let me propose the following deal. I’ll go to ABattlemap and play Global 1940. In exchange, you’ll go to TripleA and play New World Order. (We can advise each other if we run into technical difficulties.) This way we’ll each get a taste of something new.
For your first game of New World Order, I’d suggest that you control Italy and Romania, and find an experienced partner to control Germany and Finland. Italy is a major player in New World Order; and can often attain an income of 80 IPCs or higher. Romania is considerably smaller, and seldom gets much higher than 20 IPCs. Germany’s income can get to 100 - 110 IPCs, while Finland’s income is usually in the high teens.
Your partner’s advice will be especially important during the first couple rounds because of the power of a well thought-out prescripted opening. You want to capture two factories on I1 (in Tunis and Marsailles) and another two factories on I2 (in Algeria and Greece). You should try to capture yet another factory on I3 (in the southwest of Spain) as the first step toward your conquest of neutral Spain and the consequent expansion of your income.
Also, Britain will likely conquer western Turkey, including its critical industrial complexes. If you can sink the British East Mediterranean fleet and take control of Western Turkey, you’ll then be well-positioned to either move south and east against Britain’s other colonial holdings, or north and east into the Black Sea. An Italian fleet in the Black Sea can create a whole new set of problems for the Soviet Union. There are about six or eight Soviet territories that border the Black Sea, including one with a factory.
Can you play teams in TripleA?
Yes. The way it works is this: someone logs into the TripleA website and chooses to host a game. The host decides on the map, and will normally write something along the lines of “1 v 1” or “2 v 2” or something else. If you have a friend you want to partner with, you can sometimes talk a 1 v 1 host into agreeing to a 2 v 1 game.
If you log into TripleA at a time when none of your friends are logged in, you can often get into a multiplayer game. In cases like that, both your allies and enemies will often be complete strangers. That randomness can make the game more interesting, as long as you don’t get too frustrated by being put in an unwinnable situation (as will sometimes be the case). A lot of other times the teams will be more or less balanced, which can lead to some interesting games!
Can you watch everyone else’s games on TripleA?
Yes. You can enter and watch a game even if you don’t control any of the teams. It’s not a bad way to spend 10 minutes here or there. On rare occasions, the host of the game will require people to enter a password to join. That’s not a big deal, because there are plenty of non-password protected games for you to join instead.
Do they have leagues and tournaments on TripleA?
Yes. I entered a New World Order tournament, and made it to the second round. At that point the tournament ended prematurely. :( But then another New World Order tournament appeared–one which seemed less likely to end prematurely. However, I didn’t have time to enter this new tournament.
At least as of a few years ago, there was a league for Revised games on TripleA called the Ladder. I don’t know to what extent that league has transitioned over to Anniversary.
That being said, TripleA doesn’t seem to place a strong overall emphasis on league play. If you’re there a lot, and if you’re good, you’ll develop a reputation. For example, people know not to mess with Straha, allweneedislove, Hobbes, or other players of that caliber, unless they themselves are feeling very, very competent. Some of the players on TripleA are significantly better than anyone at GenCon (including me). Even if you lose to a top-tier player, you’ll gain respect if you put up a good fight. In any case, there are plenty of mid- and lower level players on TripleA to keep things from getting too top-heavy.
-
Too many Axis mistakes to name at the moment. The biggest was trying to make the jet a dive bomber. Hitler wanted it to be one. I believe the Germans had the jet in 41. I might be wrong on that date. If they would have produced as a fighter out of the gate they would have had air supremacy all over Europe. Not to mention the atomic bomb. They were developing it and gave up on it because the war was going so well they didn’t think they needed it. Imagine if they would have developed the jet and nuclear weapons. Good nite New York city.
-
Well actually a main reason they didn’t finsh their project was because the lost Einstein. Also it was considered “Jewish Science” and hitler wasn’t very happy with that.
-
Well actually a main reason they didn’t finsh their project was because the lost Einstein. Also it was considered “Jewish Science” and hitler wasn’t very happy with that.
Poetic justice, no?
-
Haha alright thats on my list of things NOT to do when I become a evil dictator. DO NOT GET RID OF JEWISH SCIENTISTS THAT CAN BUILD ATOMIC WEAPONS!!!
-
Well actually a main reason they didn’t finsh their project was because the lost Einstein. Also it was considered “Jewish Science” and hitler wasn’t very happy with that.
Curiously though, Einstein never worked on the Manhattan project. His only contribution was co-signing the letter (drafted by Szilard) sent to President Roosevelt.
I guess Einstein was too busy on the Philadelphia Experiment :lol:
-
Very interesting post…however I’m inclined to think the Africa campaign would have had a good chance of succeeding if a large part of the air and armor slotted for Barbarossa had been sent to Africa instead. If Axis succeeded in shutting down the Suez Canal then perhaps amphib operations against Malta, Gibraltar, and Cyprus could have been considered. Every little colonial defeat was a further blow to British morale and prestige. Hitler didn’t necessarily need to Sea Lion–just keep conquering one colonial possession after another, and keep offering peace to UK at terms the common people of UK could accept (eg the autonomy of UK and its colonies).
Hitler himself had decried 2-front wars. I see Barbarossa as the Nazi party falling victim to his own hubris. It wasn’t even clearly winning the war with UK, and somehow the solution is start another war with an even more powerful state. They should have at least obtained the cooperation and assistance of Japan before embarking on such an absurd all-in bet.
The med was under italy’s sphere of influcence, germany had no agenda that involved any serious dedication to the reason. The only reason why Rommel was sent to africa was to shore up the italian defenses, he was never ment to push to take out egypt. Also, Hitler never intended to take out britain or its empire, all he wanted was for britain to sue for peace and to recognize germany’s continental superiority. Remember you got to imagine how things look back then, and don’t think as retrospect or highen sight.
-
Too many Axis mistakes to name at the moment. The biggest was trying to make the jet a dive bomber. Hitler wanted it to be one. I believe the Germans had the jet in 41. I might be wrong on that date. If they would have produced as a fighter out of the gate they would have had air supremacy all over Europe. Not to mention the atomic bomb. They were developing it and gave up on it because the war was going so well they didn’t think they needed it. Imagine if they would have developed the jet and nuclear weapons. Good nite New York city.
In 1940, Britain produced more military aircraft than did Germany, with the British receiving many more aircraft and aircraft engines from the United States. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, in large part in hopes of enlarging Germany so that it could cope with the combined Anglo-American industrial threat. (And ultimately persuade the British to agree to peace.)
But over the short-term at least, that meant that Germany’s enemies collectively had a large advantage in available manpower and industrial capacity. That meant that in 1942, Germany had to conquer very large sections of Soviet territory in order to avoid strategic defeat. Because 1942 was such a crucial year, Hitler deemphasized projects which involved several years of delay.
Preliminary work on an American nuclear device began in 1939, and the Manhattan Project was initiated in 1942. This project required an enormous amount of technical and scientific resources, as well as a massive commitment of industrial capacity to enrich uranium and plutonium. I’ve heard it said that during WWII, the U.S. used more industrial capacity on enriching uranium and plutonium than it did on building tanks. Despite all this, nuclear weapons did not become available to the United States until the second half of 1945–by which time Germany had already been eliminated from the war. If Germany had had more time and more available resources, a Manhattan Project-style nuclear bomb project might have made sense.
But while Hitler’s decision to eschew a Manhattan Project for Germany made sense, the delay in jet development was far more difficult to justify. From what I’ve been able to gather, the chief culprit there was Herman Goering, who, in 1940, drastically reduced the number of engineers allocated to jet engine development. A few other high ranking German officials were also part of the problem.
Hitler does not appear to have become significantly involved until several years later, in 1943. At that time, the basic Me 262 design could be used for one of two general purposes: as a fighter to shoot down enemy aircraft, or as a ground attack plane to destroy enemy tanks and artillery. Hitler favored the Sturmvogel variant of the Me 262 (the ground attack variant). He correctly expected the Allies to invade France relatively soon, and saw a jet-based tactical bomber as a method of attacking Allied tanks and artillery even despite the Western Allies’ overwhelming air superiority. If Germany had possessed large numbers of Me 262 Sturmvogel fighter-bombers/tactical bombers, it would have had a significantly better chance of repelling the initial D-Day invasion. Such planes could have been used to attack not just Allied tanks and artillery, but also the transport ships carrying enemy units.
However, Germany failed to produce enough Sturmvogel Me 262s to significantly affect the Normandy invasion, or enough Schwalbe (fighter) variants of the Me 262 to significantly affect the Allies’ attacks against Germany’s cities.
-
No real term limits on leadership or background checks for that matter not that Stalin would do well here either.
Not removing Hitler before he implemented his Anti-Jewish plan. Hitler was bold and charismatic to the max. Germany was dealt a bad hand with the Treaty of Versailles and was a basket case by the time he managed to get himself elected so to speak. Of course burning down the Reichstag /parliament building and blaming the commies helped well that and Hindenburg being senile but I digress. Hitler did get Germany going, from 1933 to 1939 Germany did quite well, even until the end of 1940 the average German would have good reason to elect/re-elect him if given a choice.
The only trouble was that he was nuts and intended on removing the Jewish problem by: pick one (removing them his envisioned lands) OR (doing what ended up occurring).
Two 4 year term limits in Nazi Germany would have changed history.
Of course a real election and decent candidate background checks would reveal Hitler’s writings of 1919, kinda hard to run with that I would imagine.
-
Kurt - New World Order is a blast. Trucks and halftracks… trucks and halftracks! Say no more.
Hitler’s dreadful mistake was the attempt to invest Stalingrad, thereby rendering useless Germany’s greatest strengths - qualitative superiority and finely-tuned mobile and combined arms tactics. It became a slugfest, a meat grinder, a street brawl… and even though it came at massive loss to Russia, they were able to continuously pour troops into the city (manpower being their strength) while reinforcing the flanks and eventually using the German tactic of encirclement. Hitler’s hubris, as others have mentioned, was a fatal flaw. The apparent need to capture the city bearing Stalin’s name drove him to commit everything to the cause.
Stalingrad could have been circumnavigated and left behind as a pile of rubble, and the Wehrmacht could have kept the initiative.
-
Kurt - New World Order is a blast. Trucks and halftracks… trucks and halftracks! Say no more.
Hitler’s dreadful mistake was the attempt to invest Stalingrad, thereby rendering useless Germany’s greatest strengths - qualitative superiority and finely-tuned mobile and combined arms tactics. It became a slugfest, a meat grinder, a street brawl… and even though it came at massive loss to Russia, they were able to continuously pour troops into the city (manpower being their strength) while reinforcing the flanks and eventually using the German tactic of encirclement. Hitler’s hubris, as others have mentioned, was a fatal flaw. The apparent need to capture the city bearing Stalin’s name drove him to commit everything to the cause.
Stalingrad could have been circumnavigated and left behind as a pile of rubble, and the Wehrmacht could have kept the initiative.
agreed
-
Germany was a master at Blitzkrieg warfare.
Air superiority was a key in many WW2 battles.
Had they known about the Naval assention of aircraft carriers, they could have used some of the U-boad steel and reallocated that for building 4-5 carrier groups to hunt down the Royal Navy elements.
Japan and the USA proved carrier domination of the oceans. The aircraft are more lethal than U-boats for Blitzkrieg warfare on the high seas.So the Germany’s surface naval war preparations by 1939 were more WW1 vintage, not matching the modernizations they had for armor and aircraft.
Good enough to take down France (big fortified army), but not Great Britain (remote fortified island).
-
Enjoyed the post, Linkon. Nice one.
-
First mistake = Bad strategies during the battle of britain.
Second mistake = declare war to USSR.
Third mistake = No good heavy bomber for the luthwaffe. -
Had they known about the Naval assention of aircraft carriers, they could have used some of the U-boad steel and reallocated that for building 4-5 carrier groups to hunt down the Royal Navy elements.
Japan and the USA proved carrier domination of the oceans. The aircraft are more lethal than U-boats for Blitzkrieg warfare on the high seas.Building carriers in and of itself wouldn’t have made a difference because the real problem Germany had in this area was Hermann Goering. Even though he was supposed to be in charge just of the Luftwaffe, Goering pushed hard to get control of all military aircraft in Germany, including those of the Navy. Goering, whose handling of the Luftwaffe was at times inept, was even less suited to handling naval aviation. And if I recall correctly, he intentionally hampered the development of German naval aviation (and perhaps even of the carrier-building program) because he viewed the Navy’s air assets as competition which drew away resources that he wanted to see allocated to the Luftwaffe.
-
I don’t agree.
Nazi didn’t need a carrier. In 1940, Germany possessed all the western litoral of Europe (France has the norvège).
What Germans miss the most was planes with long range capacity such as the condor (But with a better armement and equipment).
With this kind of planes, Luthwaffe could have cause lot problem to the Royal Navy.
Aircraft carrier proved their value in the pacific because the vast of the sea.
But in the north Atlantic Ocean, a German carriier would constantly have been harassed.
Moreover, Royal Navy lost some aircraft-carrier because of the Luthwaffe.
After all…Europe is an Unsinkable territory! :-D
Suggested Topics
