Apart from the brits leaving the frenchies to the wolves i havnt seen anything to out of the ordinary. i broke the axis with Rome as they invaded albania (no point getting involved with a drowning man :-D )
What do you think is the most/least realistic about A&A?
-
By this I mean in comparison to the real war.
I think the most accurate thing is that you need to kill Germany first.
The least accurate is that there are no supply lines in the game.
2nd least accurate is that taking all of Africa is a big thing, in reality the Germans would never have gone south after taking cairo. They would have gone into the middle east.
3rd is that the Japs would not have made such a big play to the Russians as they do in this game.
4th is the transport/sub war in the atlantic is almost non existant.
-
i’m curious by what you specifically mean by no supply lines?
i don’t know if i can rank them as you did but these are some more unrealistic aspects to the game:
Japanese IPC generally > than anyone elses by the end of the game (sometimes even when Allies win :lol: )
SBRs in general
no escorts or interceptors also
AA guns in general
tactical bombing
overall optimal purchase strategy
tech rolling always independent of previous rolls (you should be able to get closer to reaching a tech)
underrepresented ability of subs
no decreased attacking ability during amphibious assaults
rockets in general
no nuclear arms race
no air superiority / supremacy advantage
no impeded ship movement betwen Turkey/Balkans or around Gibraltar or in the Baltic as there is impeded movement in the Suez and Panama Canals
no railroads/ railroad bombing
generally not profitable enough for USA to island hop
Chinese territories too easy for Japan to take over
i can’t think of any more right now…
-
I think the worst is in everything relative to submarines. They should be stronger and more important, especially in altlantic.
-
I’d like to play a 10 times more complicated Axis And Allies. And the stuka is a bomber, not a fighter.
-
@Feldmarshall:
I’d like to play a 10 times more complicated Axis And Allies. And the stuka is a bomber, not a fighter.
go to www.harrisgamedesign.com he is designing an Advanced AaA and he wants to have Fan input…
check it out…
GG
-
A&A is so unrealistic one can’t even begin to descrice the things wrong with it. One thing being infantry attacking bombers, i mean how the hell do you come up with that. Or how about AA guns firing once i mean are the crews high? Not to mention tanks moving only double infantry speed, hehe. However it is one of the greatest games in the world. And for Feldmarshall Hartmann how about 100 times more complicated.
-
No defender retreats.
No stacking limits.
No mystery to where the enemy is.
Reinforcements appear only at an IC.
Sacking the capital for cash.
No requirement for occupational forces on hostile territory.
It was easier in reality to flank on a front.
No scorched earth.
No ramping of production capacity on the home front.
No fuel shortages.
No commandos.
No gaining of experience by units surviving battle.
-
yeah i agree, the lack of a retreating option for defenders is one of the biggest problems with the game.
also, i agree that armor and field rtl shouldn’t be able to hit aircraft. on the other hand, transports should only be able to hit aircraft and not be able to hit other naval ships.
-
I agree with almost every comment made in this thread.
However, when I do get a chance to play the games are amazingly long as is. I believe that Larry Harris/ MB/ AH had to balance out the fact that the true strategy games were appealing only to the hardcore war gamers, while games like risk were a bit too simple.
I have a ton of house rules, as most of us do, but the out of the box game does need to stay relatively uncomplicated to keep a broader appeal. And if it doesn’t have that appeal, places like this where we can talk about it probably don’t exist. A fifteen year old kid probably isn’t that interested in alot of the historically accurate details, and might not play much if one turn took two hours or they constantly had to return to the rule book for clarification.
I assume that alot of the things that we feel are missing are subsumed by the IPC cost. For example- supplies, logistics, intelligence. For 3 IPCs you get an Infantry unit along with the rail supply, reinforcements, and other support needed to keep it going in the field.
That having been said- sub warfare (including commerce raiding), AA rules, air combat, and National Advantages all need, IMO, alot of tweaking (or inclusion) for those of us who are interested in expanding the game.
-
I hate to say this, seeing as some might say I should be banned from the site, but historical accuracy is not one of my biggest concerns, as long as I can have fun playing. However, strategic realism is one of the biggest concerns among my clique. For example, in original A&A, we decided that you could place newly built fighters directly onto an adjacent carrier. Our rationale was “Why would a country NOT be able to do that?” Luckily, that detail was corrected this time around…
-
…and I also have something to say in reference to some of the comments I read on this page.
Our house rules DO allow:
Scorched Earth
Defender retreat
And my favorite: Alternate Set-up!Also, with regards to the “No mystery” comment by Linkon, I remember going to a store to czech it out, and a dude there told me that every so often they play “double blind” games, in which they set up two boards, and play in different rooms. How things are kept legit, I don’t know. Probably requires a LOT of paper for record-keeping… :D
-
It’s difficult to stay true to warfare and keep a game interesting to the majority of the masses. Ultimately, as a gaming company, you want a product to appealt to as many tastes as possible because making a profit is the ultimate goal.
Much like Dungons and Dragons gaming, I think Axis&Allies players are encouraged to broaden the scope of the game, to create new rules, alter old ones, as you see fit.
I don’t look at the old game or even these new revised games as an end-all. I look at it as a blueprint - a base foundation - that allows individuals to make as many improvements and enhancements as they deem fit to make. For that reason, A&A rocks.
One of the first “improvements” I made was an option to retreat. They can do so the next round after their initial announcement. However, any retreating forces that are hit by the attacking forces don’t receive a retaliation strike back, since they, literally, turned their back to their enemy.
-
One of the first “improvements” I made was an option to retreat. They can do so the next round after their initial announcement. However, any retreating forces that are hit by the attacking forces don’t receive a retaliation strike back, since they, literally, turned their back to their enemy.
I made up the same house rule too. It seems to work pretty well. It definitely adds to the realism.
Suggested Topics
