How A&A corresponds to WWII history


  • 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).


  • @Imperious:

    Harris made everything to have balance and those ‘values’ have very marginal relationship to real economic capabilities. The allies should have a 2 to 1 advantage in IPC, but of course that would inbalance the game unless you made some method where the conversion of this money could be impacting the game in any significant way. The Soviets are way too low in IPC as they were twice as strong as Japan, while USA is too weak.

    it would be 16 ipc japan and 56 ipc US, with everthing else the same.


  • yes right like it is already in AAP.


  • something should engourge more plane buys.


  • :-o
      Back in my Classic AA days, for the first three or four turns I thought of the figures as Army Groups or even Corps/ Air Wings/ Naval Squadrons or Flotillas’, but once the chips stacks began to throw long shadows across the board I made a mental switch and looked at them as the divisions and the special support units of that Corps/Air wing/ Flotilla.
      As far as a time frame is concerned, I thought a full turn consisted of a campaign season, about 6 months of actual conflict time, not months per say.
      AA is a combination of; Risk, Monopoly and Chess, not a true WWII game recreation. If that is what you seek, there are other games that do that very well. We play it because we like its’ playability, not for accuacy.
      Thats’ my thoughts.
        Crazy Ivan  :roll:


  • I think that if one tries to figures units sizes and times for A&A he/she will go insane.


  • :-o
      My point exactly, that is why I kept it rather vague, and flexable.
        :roll:

  • 2007 AAR League

    AA severly butchers the economy of Russia and bolsters the Japanese and German. In reality Russia could outproduce Germany in any point of the war and Japan could have never moved past mainland China.


  • things’ll also be different for AAR then it would be for AAE or P. AAE and P are on a smaller scale than AA, so the units should be smaller as well.
    AAE
    1inf=3-4inf Divisions
    1arm=1-2 Atmered divisions
    1art=3-4 art divisions
    1fg=1200 fgs
    1bm=1000bms
    1AA=9-10 bateries of AAs
    unsure on the rest

  • 2007 AAR League

    You’re not going to figure it out …. 2400 Figs on a carrier?

  • Customizer

    Exactly my view.

    http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=2736&highlight=poor+russia

    In my version each of the Allies starts with a 50 IPC income.  The downside for Russia is the Xenophonia rule preventing the Western Allies from reinforcing the Eastern Front.

    @ezto:

    AA severly butchers the economy of Russia and bolsters the Japanese and German. In reality Russia could outproduce Germany in any point of the war and Japan could have never moved past mainland China.

  • 2007 AAR League

    do you play World at war?


  • I played WaW once. Didn’t like it much. But I’ll give it another try if you think it is worth it.
      What do you like about it?
      Crazy Ivan

Suggested Topics

  • 1
  • 1
  • 12
  • 66
  • 18
  • 14
  • 17
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

11

Online

17.4k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts