Creating a historically accurate WWII game

@Red:

Perhaps the greatest A&A gameplay weakness is that tanks and aircraft don’t take attrition losses.  […] Aircraft were particularly prone to heavy attrition just operating.

Yes, and tanks have attrition problems too when they do a lot of long-distance marching.  Ideally, long- and medium-range tank movement (menaing at the strategic and operational scales) is done by ship (if applicable) and by rail, with tanks moving on their own over short (tactical-scale) ranges.  Tanks and othe tracked vehicles are high-maintenance beasts, and the further they travel on their own the more they’ll start breaking down.  It’s the concept of “mean time between failures”, but in this case with distance rather than time being the variable.

@rjpeters70:

But, would their kill rate have been higher had they been trained to use bows and arrows?  Similar range and accuracy (or better, if you knew what you were doing with them), but far quicker to load (around 5 seconds).Â

The “if you knew what you were doing” point you mention is important because experience needs to be considered.  The English longbow is a good illustrative example: it took a lot of training and strength to use it at its maximum potential.  If I recall correctly, some of the skeletons recoved from the Mary Rose were identifiable as longbowmen because the sideways-twisted stance used by archers when firing affected their spines over the course of their careers.

Another historical instance of technological imbalance was the introduction of firearms in Shogun-era Japan.  Samurai who learned their craft – the handling of swords and of bows – over a lifetime found themselves being shot down by musket-equiped armies consisting of ordinary peasants who could been trained in relatively little time to use the newfangled firearms.  The samurai class eventually contrived to take control of – and eliminate – the firearms trade in order to save themselves from: a) battlefield obsolescence, and b) the humiliation of being killed by their social inferiors.

@rjpeters70:

Fair points, but if you’re firing from a fixed position that offers concealment, and are trying to kill masses of forces moving hundreds of yards over open terrain, wouldn’t you want to get off several volleys before they hit the walls?

In that sense, wave after wave of mass arrows might have done the trick.

Note:  I’m not offering that warfare itself should have stuck with bows and arrows until the advent of the repeating rifle.  I’m wondering about a specific battle.

If we’re talking spacifics though a musket would be easier to fire from concealment.  The stance one would need to take to launch thier arrow with skill and effectiveness would expose them considerably toenemy fire. One can stay lower behind a wall, rampart, or window while reloading and firing  a musket.
An archer must be in an in an exposed stance to launch thier arrow accurately and achieve range.

Consider the differece of firing an arrow vs.a musket through an arrow loop. An archer had to stand several feet back from the arrow-loop and was firing somewhat blind through a narrow slot in a wall. One could fire a musket while  looking directly through  an opening in the wall because the barrel could be exposed through the opening or extend over battlements and still offer concealment to the operator.

With all that said, firing arrows in volleys over the walls at a steep angle in mass formations would provide a rapid rain of arrows at shorter range as Mexican formations approached the walls. So I guess a combination of skilled archers and marksmen might have changed the outcome of the Battle of the Alamo.

@rjpeters70:

Interesting point about going for lower level of technologies, where feasible.Â

Take the battle of the Alamo:  For 13 days, the Mexican army laid siege to a fortification held by 180 odd men.  Both sides used muskets, which took 30 - 120 seconds to load.  Both sides had artillery.  But, the land around the Alamo was largely flat plains (with the exception of the creek three hundred yards to the west of the Alamo).Â

Now, the Mexican army had to rush across open fields to approach the walls of the Alamo, and the Texan forces used muskets and artillery against them, getting a high kill rate.  But, would their kill rate have been higher had they been trained to use bows and arrows?  Similar range and accuracy (or better, if you knew what you were doing with them), but far quicker to load (around 5 seconds).Â

Could the Texans conceivably have won the Alamo, had they used bows and arrows against the Mexicans?

I doubt it took the Alamo’s defenders even 30 seconds to reload.  They were familiar with firearms and knew an assault was coming.  The smoothbores loaded somewhat more rapidly than Civil War muzzle loading rifles and when I’ve timed re-enactors they typically could load and fire about 3 times a minute.  Against massed attack there is little aim involved.  Another factor is that the defenders appear to have had more than a single firearm apiece.  So during the initial rush, they would have gotten a “free shot” on average.

@KurtGodel7:

Perhaps the greatest A&A gameplay weakness is that tanks and aircraft don’t take attrition losses.

They do in my rules set!  8-) Every round of ground or naval combat begins with the dogfight phase. In the dogfight phase, all units present fire at their air combat values. Any hits you receive must be applied to air units. Once you have applied a single anti-air hit to one of your air units, you must apply additional hits to that same unit until it’s dead, or until combat ends. (The same is true if you apply an anti-land hit to one of your land units, an anti-naval hit to one of your ships, or an anti-sub hit to one of your submarines.)

There are other ways aircraft can be destroyed as well. In strategic bombing raids, there is one round of dogfight phase, followed by strategic bombers attacking their targets using their strategic bombing values. Strategic bombing raids do permanent damage. For every ten points of damage a production facility experiences in a strategic bombing raid, it is reduced by one level. While nations receive some money from territory income, most of their late game production will come from production facilities. A sufficiently powerful strategic bombing offensive can destroy all those facilities; as well as the underlying cities in which they would exist. The correct defense against a strategic bombing offensive is to build air superiority planes; such as piston fighters or jet fighters.

There is a second way of defending oneself from strategic bombing raids: airfield attacks. To initiate an airfield attack, send your planes to a space with enemy aircraft, and declare an airfield attack. There will be two rounds of dogfight phase. Any of your planes which survived that dogfight may launch one attack against enemy aircraft, using their land combat values.

I like the idea of an air battle first compared to standard combat.  It wasn’t clear to me if this was a single round of combat with SBR values for the air attacks, single round with standard air combat values,  or multiple rounds with regular air combat values.

I’m in favor of limiting this to a single round since air supremacy is often variable rather than absolute and we don’t want excessive attrition of air units either.  Even in a single round, if one is heavily outnumbered in the air, absolute air supremacy will probably be the result for the enemy.

SBR and airfield attacks have some merit as well.  One of the weaker components of Global is that it lacks waves of SBR attacks against major IC’s of Axis powers.

Another thing to think about is “suprise” air attack against aircraft only on the first round of a DOW.  This would allow Russia to have many fighters and such that are devastated on the ground.  Ditto for the U.S. in Hawaii.  Might even allow it to be targeting naval or even specific ships with a single round of combat…  In either case, the strike would be targeted and only defended against by the units targeted rather than ground/scrambles, etc.  Then if there is planned combat in the zone, that would commence including surviving AC from both sides.

Another way of doing the surprise combat might be similar to AA or a single round of subs, allowing only hits on specific values like one or 2 and no response if hit.  This could make Barbarossa and Pearl very interesting…and with historic numbers of target aircraft there as well…rather than depleted as in global.

@KurtGodel7:

@Red:

Perhaps the greatest A&A gameplay weakness is that tanks and aircraft don’t take attrition losses.  Historically, even very successful attacks severely depleted these forces.  Examples would be heavy losses in Poland and France as well as pilot/aircraft losses in several of the major early war IJN/USN encounters.Â

Aircraft were particularly prone to heavy attrition just operating.  And they were easy to target in suprise attacks at the outbreak of war.  But since the game allows them to be chosen last they don’t attrit.  Plus they can be held away from the front.  This is why the USSR’s air force is almost completely absent in the initial placement.

Perhaps the greatest A&A gameplay weakness is that tanks and aircraft don’t take attrition losses.

They do in my rules set!  8-) Every round of ground or naval combat begins with the dogfight phase. In the dogfight phase, all units present fire at their air combat values. Any hits you receive must be applied to air units. Once you have applied a single anti-air hit to one of your air units, you must apply additional hits to that same unit until it’s dead, or until combat ends. (The same is true if you apply an anti-land hit to one of your land units, an anti-naval hit to one of your ships, or an anti-sub hit to one of your submarines.)

There are other ways aircraft can be destroyed as well. In strategic bombing raids, there is one round of dogfight phase, followed by strategic bombers attacking their targets using their strategic bombing values. Strategic bombing raids do permanent damage. For every ten points of damage a production facility experiences in a strategic bombing raid, it is reduced by one level. While nations receive some money from territory income, most of their late game production will come from production facilities. A sufficiently powerful strategic bombing offensive can destroy all those facilities; as well as the underlying cities in which they would exist. The correct defense against a strategic bombing offensive is to build air superiority planes; such as piston fighters or jet fighters.

There is a second way of defending oneself from strategic bombing raids: airfield attacks. To initiate an airfield attack, send your planes to a space with enemy aircraft, and declare an airfield attack. There will be two rounds of dogfight phase. Any of your planes which survived that dogfight may launch one attack against enemy aircraft, using their land combat values.

Interesting. At one time I had an idea for a variant of A&A where unit placement was at the start of your turn and the purchase phase was at the end. The units purchased were considered “in production” and set aside until placement at the beginning of the next turn. While the units are in production the enemy can strategic bomb them before they even get deployed.

By doing this the intention was to make strategic bombing more important and more costly. The other difference was that interceptors defended at full combat value and escorts attacked at full combat value for one round. I have never play-tested this so it might be a game breaker. It seems kind of fun to me though.