Aa historical game (rough draft)

@SuperbattleshipYamato Yeah I get you 100%. Alternate History is a niche interest in the first place so finding other people willing to go down the rabbit hole is always tough.

)89f8de53-eb0c-4026-990b-e3b6aca4969f-image.jpeg

@Witt

Thank you so much! I appreciate your input.

If I was going into Tank on Tank combat I’m taking the M4 Sherman. Better sights, better visibility, an actual turret basket, better ergonomics, better mechanical reliability, and with the 76mm variant a very capable anti armor gun. As well as far more reliable armor due to high production quality standards. The M4 armor is reliable face hardened. The T34 could be correctly hardened, too hard so that it’s brittle or too soft.

If I was trying to drive a tank to get into a fight, the M4 is the obvious choice due to the much better reliability.

If I had to pick a tank to work on. M4 again due to its easy to repair design.

If I wanted to drive a comfortable tank well that’s no contest it’s the M4. Also it’s an easier to drive tank due to the vastly superior production quality.

So the M4 is a vastly superior weapons platform the only reason they seem comparable is on paper armor thickness and gun. Off of paper they aren’t close. Like pretty much all Russian military equipment they seem intimidating but ultimately are trash. Like how the T 72 got smashed by the M2 bradely and infantry fighting vehicle not even a tank.

@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.

These are more quotes from other games

“when we prepared for operation sealion we were all given rain coats.”
German soldier

“the FFF are so good they take 4 divisions for the loss of one Evan if some of those divisions are armored divisions.”
Impressed English soldier

“the Americans are so rich they build battleships when we build destroyers.”
Herman guderan captain of the bismarck

“we don’t need AA guns we need Chinese soldiers.”
Lord lucius darvin British general of the Burma army

“sssir wwweve lost another 4 fighter wings!”
Japanese soldier to a supirior
“how?”
Japanese general
“5 Chinese infantry divisions!”
Japanese soldier

“The best Russian soldier is 200 times worse then the crapest German soldier ever.”
SS commander

When I lived in Orange County Ca, I remember seeing the platforms for old ww2 anti air guns. Same on the “Queen Mary” docked there.

I think it’s correct in the game to have the guns. Because the nature of the game can cange the way the war really played out, america would have had many more batteries than it did based on the war. We did have anit air batteries but not even close to the amount in England.

For instance, in one of my games, my German airforce bombed the American fleet in the gulf of mexico. If Germany would have had long range bombers like the B-17 and/or carriers capable or bombing the East or West Coast, Americans response would naturally been to have more AA batteries. That’s merely my speculation though.