Historical Correctness



  • Who here found the historical correctness of Europe to be good? Personally I prefer Pacific for its historical correctness and I found that Europe is really stupid, hehe 😄 because the Russian front chucks it totally out of WHACK! If I was to make the game I would make it so that Russia has sh*t loads of money and that they have a totally seperate defense and attack ratios ie. their tanks attack at 2 instead of 3 and so on… I think if Avalon Hill had of made the game more historically correct it would have been more enjoyable.

    Does anyone else agree with me?

    Yanny - Less Caps Please 😄

    [ This Message was edited by: Seb on 2002-05-03 02:19 ]

    [ This Message was edited by: Yanny on 2002-05-28 11:24 ]



  • Welcome back Seb! Where have you been?

    For all you who don’t know, Seb used to be our biggest poster (before I came along of course 😄)



  • it might be an interesting idea. I would have divided the eastern front into smaller territorys so there could be grand dynamic battles. I’m not sure about giving russia seprate attack and defence values, it doesn’t seem that historicly correct to me. T-34s kicked a lot of ass.



  • hehe I am glad someone recognised me yanny.



  • well, the Germans would have to decrease their attacking value for their fighters and the Russians would have to increase their tanks’ attacks. Since the T-34’s were better than the Panthers and the Stuka dive-bombers were terrible fighter planes.



  • By including so many separate rules like “German tanks attack for this… American bombers defend for this…” you really do take a lot of the overall simplicity of the game. And maybe that’s why people enjoy the game so much, because they can become instant wargamers without reading numerous rules. Granted, the Eastern Front could’ve expanded, the Russians could’ve be more powerful, and country specific stats could’ve been implemented. But you have to realize, any game that offers “historical accuracy” with a learning curve a fraction of the time is impossible. Maybe what you are looking for are “Advanced Rules” for the expert player.



  • What sets Axis and Allies apart from other games is it’s simplicity. Thats why some people love it, and other people hate it (I can’t even get the adults in my gaming group to look at it!).



  • That is what makes A&A popular on those who have a reasonable interesting in World War II and/or wargamers who aren’t diehards and want to have a good time with a couple of their friends.

    What makes A&A so great is, like Chess, it’s easy to learn but almost impossible to master.


    “Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
    “Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men.” - Patton

    [ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-28 21:01 ]



  • Yeah, I play several really fun games, but very complex games. Atlantic Storm, Brittannia, and Breakout Normandy have 30+ page rulebooks! Takes several games just to get a feel of the game. Axis and Allies, took me 2 turns to understand the rules.



  • Well who knows? I guess Axis and Allies are like your training wheels. Maybe you need them at first, at least until you get a feel and sense of economical and campaign planning. And Europe might be a return to old times with a sense on theater specific battling and a few realistic changes. Now if you are ready to take off those “training wheels,” there are plenty of other Axis and Allies conversions out there. Boerke´s European Large Map 1941 seems to be one fine example.



  • yes i agree with yanny for he taought me how to play my first game of AA 🙂 but i like AA simplicity at some points and then again i hate it in others. but the thing i like best about AA is unlike many games AA is so customizable. now a good idea for AA is Free for alls Yanny doesnt like them to much cus he alsways loses 🙂 but then again the peps we play with are asses, and many times gang up on him 😞 well anyway they are realley fun and have allot more out comes then the standard game. and we usally play only one country can win so theres allot of scheming and sometimes people get exited cus someone moved a battle ship near there coast or somtin like that so its realley fun. the 1939 WAW map is realley good for it. also the when u do them on the Europe map it gets extrememly political. Y u remember that game we played were Max was italy and u were france. that was great and i will admit i might have lost that one in the end.



  • 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.



  • 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 😮 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



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



  • Yeah, along with weather conditions and mountainous terrain.



  • 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



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



  • 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.



  • 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??



  • 😄 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.



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

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



  • 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…



  • 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.



  • 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.



  • 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…


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 16
  • 11
  • 2
  • 11
  • 2
  • 2
  • 10
  • 1
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

42
Online

14.6k
Users

35.2k
Topics

1.4m
Posts