Historical Correctness

[TG Moses VI]

Free for alls are fun, just as long as you have a set of rules to go with them. Otherwise I wouldn’t want to be stuck with UK.

[don_riggins]

yeah its simple enough to play ie been looking for other ww2 games like it. do u haave any idea how hard a3r is to get :o good thhhhing i didnt want it anytime soon, just like the original final fantasy tactics, none of that greatest hits junk. 5 yrs to find the flippen thing

[Guest]

I think the russian front would be a lot more correct if the added the major rivers such as the volga :)

[TG Moses VI]

Yeah, along with weather conditions and mountainous terrain.

[Guest]

You know, for the Eastern front to be historically correct, you’d give every two Russian infantry one shot to fire. :) I agree with the river thing. And what about the technology development, such as the later German tanks and jets?

Guest

[EmuGod]

The Russian T34/85s were more pwoerful than anything the Germans had when they launched Operation Barbarrosa.

[Candyman67]

T34/85’s weren’t even around during 1941. But I will say the T34/76 was superior to any German tank used during Barbarossa.

[EmuGod]

Sorry abut that, I made a typing mistake when typing in the tank model. The T35/85s came later. You’re right is was the T34/76s. Couldn’t the soviets pick less confusing names??

[D-Day]

:D Hi, This is my first post on topic and thought it wold be perfect to jump in on.

I have played A&A for almost 17 years now (since 86) and what I have best about all three versions is that they are simple to learn and play, at first. But for any body who has a deep interest the inaccuracies eventually get to you, for example the Famous Panzer dash south to South Africa in the original AA, and drive you Mad. But thats where another great kicker comes in for the game its ease to adapt to house rules, any body with tons of ESCI and MPC 1/72 scale figures and micro armor can go bazzark inventing new rules and adding new peices.

The one thing that both A&AE and A&AP lack is the Technology rules from the original game, this allowed some national variation to occur in game play and represented an important part of the war.

[Mr Ghoul]

The German tanks were out-matched in France, never mind Russia!

It was German tactics and innovation that won most of their battles.

[Guest]

Honestly, I think the Germans should have won the war- I felt that they had the better tactical minds on their side, but had a damn bad ally in Italy and lacked the strategic foresight and industrial capacity to win…well, there is the issue of the militarily inept Fuhrer…but that’s another issue altogether. I think they adapted the best to the new quick strike tactics pioneered in 1918- I mean, the French saw that and developed the Maginot Line, and the Germans developed what the media called blitzkrieg…

[EmuGod]

Blitzkrieg is a very suitable name for the German tactics. It’s German for “lightning war” and the Germans did do very well in the beginning of the war. I’m happy that they made so many mistakes and only wish that they would have made more earlier and they the western powers would have stopped Hitler earlier. They had the ability to win, but thank God they didn’t becuase Hitler was a madman. You’re right about Italy. I’m sure Spain would have been mroe successful than Italy would have been in the war. Franco was a very good military general.

[Guest]

the allies would have been able to prevent the war entierly if they didn’t let germany build up an army. i’m not sure but i think in the versille treaty he wasn’t allowed to have an army. the allies should have used there troops in stead of lettin germany build up an army on the eastern front to "stop the comunist threat’'. hitler may have won if the damn japs didn’t attack pearl harbor. he may have gone on and defeated both russia and great britian. and at that time they could have worked together to take on the us.

[Guest]

I don’t know how politically correct “damn Japs” is…anyway- the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor was a very good move, tactically- it essentially gave the Japanese the Pacific…problem was that the pre-emptive attack didn’t knock out the carriers, which came back to haunt the Japanese later in the war. I wonder why other countries, in wartime, fail to see how quickly the United States can mobilize for war from peacetime industry. It happened in both World Wars…
I’m still amazed at how quickly Germany re-militarized after the economic depression brought on by the Treaty of Versaille…amazing what a little bigotism, leadership, and motivation do to people…
On a sidenote, has anyone else read the Harry Turtledove alternate history series of books? They’re a great read. Especially with the U.S. joining Germany in WWI…

[D-Day]

On the Italians, Leadership was not the main trouble, Italian troops could and on occiaisionly did fight very tough and admirably (one point Captain Correlles Mandolin got right). However in the end a poor cause, poor morale and an inept upper leadership where the bane of the Italian soldiers. When they fought on the allied side on home soil they performed well and as partisians, even if they were largely communist.

[wlohsl]

if the damn japs didn’t get there hard on so early and wait for the american carriers to return the pacific would have been caos for america. wake island may have fallen faster due to drop in moral from knowing there would be no carrier support. in the second great war the importance of air craft carriers exceded that of battle ships.

[Xi]

Actually, the Imperial Japanese Navy’s mistake was not bombing the oil depots & refineries on Oahu. If they had done so, and then kept the pressure on, the US war in the Pacific would have been set back to San Diego(that’s 2000 miles and about a 6 month to 1 year time span according to some strategists).

The carriers(CAs [or CVs to navy pukes]) would have been a nice lil bonus had they been in port.

Oh, let’s not fail to mention the US LUCK at Midway! 4 JPN CAs swimmin wif da fishies fer 1 US CA(even the IJN thought it was 2 US CAs).
–----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atta boy, Nimitz! - Xi

[EmuGod]

@Xi:

Actually, the Imperial Japanese Navy’s mistake was not bombing the oil depots & refineries on Oahu. If they had done so, and then kept the pressure on, the US war in the Pacific would have been set back to San Diego(that’s 2000 miles and about a 6 month to 1 year time span according to some strategists).

The carriers(CAs [or CVs to navy pukes]) would have been a nice lil bonus had they been in port.

Oh, let’s not fail to mention the US LUCK at Midway! 4 JPN CAs swimmin wif da fishies fer 1 US CA(even the IJN thought it was 2 US CAs).
–----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atta boy, Nimitz! - Xi

Japan’s mistake was that the army was incompetent and that the navy knew this and because of their long time fights, the army appointed fools to the navy commandships. Admiral Yamamoto did not want the Admiral who commanded the attack, Admiral Nagumo, to command it. He knew fro mthe beginning that Nagumo would screw up and he did at Pearl Harbor, at Midway and at Guadalacanal. Had Yamamoto been able to appoint his own navy officers, which he couldn’t do even though he was command-in-chief of the navy, then Japan might have actually been able to win the PAcific War quickly. Yamamoto had predicted that he could keep the Americans running for a year before they’d turn around and defeat Japan, and he was right. He knew that the army would make too many mistakes.

[Yanny]

I always lose the Free for Alls because I won the first few we played, now I’m always the first one attacked. They fear me!

[ZimZaxZeo]

…regarding historical accuracy of A&AE, it seems like a great balance, considering the simplicity of the game (dozens of unit markers, not thousands; no seasonal or terrain effects, etc.).

At the start on the Eastern Front, Hitler & Stalin had rough numerical equivalence in air forces and amour. Yet the Germans lambasted the Soviet steel in the early going, gaining near total command of the air, for instance. The game reflects this by designating a very small effective size for the Soviet airforce.

On the ground, the T-34s were largely tied to Infantry movement, while the Panzers had the sweeping luxury of operating as armored divisions. Again, the Game reflects this by starting the Germans with twice as much armour as the Soviets.

In terms of masterful deployment of manpower and materiel, the German war machine in 1941 was tuned up, oiled up and of superior experience. Still, the sheer mass, resistance and yes, initiative of Russian footsoldiers, wedded to the vast scale of the land was enough to counterbalance the assault each summer: 41, 42, 43.

And that’s the way this game plays out. The Germans attempt to chew up Soviet armies, because the land itself is too hard to fill up with decisively massed forces. and to hold. The Soviets absorb shocks, counterpunch and stall. The game can go either way, depending on skill, experience and luck of the players, and the coordination of the Allies.

The balance is there. Historically accurate on the micro scale? Not. But on a reasonable scale for ease of use and plenty of variations: Sure seems so.

And as for those Italians, well, they had done that Empire thing already. Mussolini made em nostalgic for Roman glory and got em fired up – for a spell. Then they remembered there were more interesting things to do back home (wine, women, song, sports, art, motorcycles, etc.) than in Abyssinia or Greece, where it was too hot and dusty and the locals were less than accommodating. Besides, they got tired of being associated with that bigmouthed Austrian complainer who forgot to show them respect and was a lousy painter.