Historicaly Accurate A&AE



  • I have been trying to research the ETO to come up with historicaly accurate setup and IPC income for this game and maybe the others in the future. Has anyone  tried this before? I am assuming in AAE that each pieces represents a division. I am not really concerned if  the game is too unbalanced but, I am interested what that kind of game would be like.



  • To me it’s 1inf=3-4inf div 1t=1tank div 1art=2art div 1fg=1 squad of fgs 1bm=1 squadren of bm 1bs=1bs 1d=2-3d 1tp=a fleet of tps 1sub=3-4 subs


  • 2007 AAR League

    Oh dear lord … not another one of these questions :lol:



  • @Admiral_Thrawn:

    I have been trying to research the ETO to come up with historicaly accurate setup and IPC income for this game and maybe the others in the future. Has anyone  tried this before? I am assuming in AAE that each pieces represents a division. I am not really concerned if  the game is too unbalanced but, I am interested what that kind of game would be like.

    For the infantry, you might want to figure that each piece represents a corps, a force of 2 or 3 divisions, or you are going to have an enormous number of pieces.  With the armor, you might be able to get away with one piece per division.  Your best bet for an accurate order of battle would be to check with Brent Nafziger, who is the Order of Battle Expert.  As for the IPCs, if I can locate my photocopies of The War Potential of Nations, I should be able to give you that fairly readily.

    Your big problem is going to be that a German division in 1944 was not the same as a German division in 1939 or 1940.  With the armor, because of the improvements in tanks, that is not a problem, but the infantry units were clearly weaker.  So, whereas a corps in 1940 needed 3 divisions to achieve a given level of combat power, it might take 5 or 6 divisions in 1944 to achieve the same level of combat power, and 9 or more in 1945.

    The other issue will be what scaling factor do you use for the naval units, and how do you account for the enormous number of antisubmarine escorts that were slower and smaller than a typical destroyer, but deadlier against subs than a destroyer.  There really is no units in the game to represent the ASW force, made up of trawlers, sloops, corvettes, frigates, and destroyer escorts.  The only way to deal with them, if you wanted too, would be to use ships from another game to represent them.  The destroyers in the Attack game might be a good choice, as you can order plastic ship runners from Eagle Games very easily.  The other choice would be the Xeno Games units.  They were about one-third the cost of a regular destroyer in terms of industrial effort and manpower, so would cost maybe 3 IPC, have an attack of 3 against subs, and 1 against everything else.  I have probably 3 or 4 orders of battle for the British and the US with respect to the naval units.  You would definitely have more British ships on the board than the regular game, as that really cuts down on the British and US navies.

    If you use Gewehr’s idea of one for one on the larger ships, you will have 15 British battleships on the board, 6 British carriers, they had 64 cruisers which are not represented, somewhere around 60 to 90 destroyers (the actual number was 184), and between 14 and 19 subs (the actual number was 57).  You are going to need to figure out a better scaling method.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    To me it’s 1inf=3-4inf div 1t=1tank div 1art=2art div 1fg=1 squad of fgs 1bm=1 squadren of bm 1bs=1bs 1d=2-3d 1tp=a fleet of tps 1sub=3-4 subs

    I once saw a scientist at JPL use this to explain why they don’t have life on Mars.



  • @Imperious:

    To me it’s 1inf=3-4inf div 1t=1tank div 1art=2art div 1fg=1 squad of fgs 1bm=1 squadren of bm 1bs=1bs 1d=2-3d 1tp=a fleet of tps 1sub=3-4 subs

    I once saw a scientist at JPL use this to explain why they don’t have life on Mars.

    :lol:  :lol:  😄



  • Timeover51 I am trying to do an order of battle for June 1941. I don’t think I would make the inf weaker as the war took its toll on germany. That would be too difficult. I think if the war is going badly for Germany than they can’t build as many Inf to represent the weakening of German power.

    I agree that an inf would be a Corps.

    As for the navy I think for simplicity you could lump the ASW ships into Destroyers. Once you found out how many ships the different nation had and where they where they where positioned you would have to make each piece worth multiple Ships.



  • @AJ:

    Oh dear lord … not another one of these questions :lol:

    AJ you apparently have heard this question before. 🙂



  • @Admiral_Thrawn:

    Timeover51 I am trying to do an order of battle for June 1941. I don’t think I would make the inf weaker as the war took its toll on germany. That would be too difficult. I think if the war is going badly for Germany than they can’t build as many Inf to represent the weakening of German power.

    I agree that an inf would be a Corps.

    As for the navy I think for simplicity you could lump the ASW ships into Destroyers. Once you found out how many ships the different nation had and where they where they where positioned you would have to make each piece worth multiple Ships.

    So, basically, you are looking for an Order of Battle for Barbarossa then, or at least one for that time period.  Do you need exact unit location, or simply how many units of what type were where?  If that is what you need, I have that in my US Army Historical Studies pamphlet set.  As for ship order of battle, as I said, I can come up with that fairly readily.  Aircraft are a little tougher, as air units moved a fair amount.  Then too, A&A Europe, along with the rest of A&A, lumps fighters and dedicated ground attack aircraft like the Stuka into one category and puts bombers in the other.  Also, are you playing Italy as a separate country or including them with Germany?

    My advice, at least with respect to the land and air units, is to set Germany as your standard to start with, and have X number of German infantry represent Y number of infantry divisions, V number of tanks represent W number of panzer divisions, and then add 3 artillery for the 3 Army Groups (North, Center, and South).  Depending on how you apportion the figure to division ratio, you might want to add a few more artillery.  Once you have your German figures totalled, you can then simply figure out the  ratio of German divisions to Allied Divisions for each Allied Country, and that gives you the base figure total for each Ally.  Do the same for aircraft, although you might want to play with the ratio of German to Russian, as a lot of the Russian aircraft in June of 1941 were obsolete, and basically useless against the Luftwaffe.

    For the warships, I would say have each battleship represent a battle squadron of 4 ships, which would give you 4 battleships for the British, and each carrier represent 2 carriers, which is the ratio in A&A Pacific.  I will need to check on how many carriers that would give the British, as by June of 1941, they had lost the Courageous  and Glorious, but had added some armored deck ships.  Your major problem is that you are missing the cruiser force, which played a major role in convoy escort, raider hunting, and general purpose duties.  For destroyers and smaller ASW escorts, you should figure on having somewhere around 12 to 16 on the board, each ship representing roughly 25 to 30 escort ships.  You should also have one dedicated bomber to serve as Coastal Command, and assist ships in attacking subs.  For carrier air groups, if you give the British 2 fighters per carrier, you should give the US carriers, 1 of which should be available, 3 fighters to reflect that larger American air groups.

    I hope that all of this is of help to you.  Let me know when you need the naval order of battle stuff, and also if my ideas about land units are okay.



  • Timeover 51 Italy and all the Minor Axis would be separate. Including Finland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria.

    I agree with most of the stuff you are saying. If you have the time share any info you have. We could also work on a scenerio. Call it AAE Historical Edition.
    I also had an idea of refelecting the amount of troops each power had available or fielded in battle. So you could eventually run out of units to build. Well, maybe not the Russians with having pretty much infinite manpower!


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yea!  AAEHE!

    Axis and Allies Europe Historical Edition…

    put me on board that project!


  • Customizer

    @Imperious:

    I once saw a scientist at JPL use this to explain why they don’t have life on Mars.

    You’ll be getting Life on Mars soon.  I think they should have made Tyler black instead of Irish, but U.S. T.V. is still not ready for that.  I mean getting the bloke off Star Trek to play Hunt was probably because they though it was a space opera.  They might even change the name; too confusing for an American audience.



  • @Flashman:

    @Imperious:

    I once saw a scientist at JPL use this to explain why they don’t have life on Mars.

    You’ll be getting Life on Mars soon.  I think they should have made Tyler black instead of Irish, but U.S. T.V. is still not ready for that.  I mean getting the bloke off Star Trek to play Hunt was probably because they though it was a space opera.  They might even change the name; too confusing for an American audience.

    Uuummmm….what???  :?  😐


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    ???  :?


  • 2007 AAR League

    ehhhhhh, an anti american post in an AA europe edition thread,  bravo.


  • Customizer

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars_(US_TV_series)

    A nutter in the Priory.  I know what he means.



  • I think that AARHE is very close to being finished and it would be neat to give AAE and AAP the same treatment. These games are just as good as AAR and in some ways better. With some good Historical house rules it would make them better.



  • "Someone" should make a 1939 AAR version  😉


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I think that AARHE is very close to being finished

    It has been finished a long time ago.

    However i need to add Azores to the map (under phase 3 map anyway)

    also, will recolor Angola and Mozambique and add Portugal.


  • Customizer

    Is this that apalling AAR map with a few territories divided and Chicago relocated to Montana, or a new map designed around AARHE rules?



  • What about the AAE board would you change for AAE Historical Edition? I would suggest Libya and Egypt split in 2. Bessarbia needs to be changed so that it connects to the Black Sea. Germany also split in 2. Either Med. needs to be less spaces or the atlantic needs to be bigger. Perhaps Belorussia and Ukraine needs to be split in 2 as well. Also the US should be recolored to revised green and not the blue. Why is it blue anyway? The UK recolored to revised tan. Germany recolored to revised black or dark grey. Italy becomes a separate power colored light grey. This includes Libya and possible adding Albania to the board.



  • No problem with accurate IPC, and setup.
    Balance is easily solved by victory condition and game rules.
    (rather than false data)

    Since the map is Europe alone its an opportunity to use a real map. Download a free vector map and go from there.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 17
  • 2
  • 55
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

53
Online

14.0k
Users

34.3k
Topics

1.4m
Posts