AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION: Does not take into effect the differences in airframe weight and number of engines.
1941: Japan=5,088, Germany=11, 766, United States=19,433
1942 Japan=8,861, Germany=15,556, United States=49,445
1943 Japan=16,693, Germany=25,527, United States=92,196
1944 Japan=28,180, Germany=39,807, United States=100,752
Four Year Totals: Japan=58,822, Germany=92,656, the United States=261,826
By 1943 and 1944, a large portion of both Japanese and German production was single-engine fighters. The United States was producing large numbers of two- and four-engine bombers, including the B-17, the B-24, and the B-29, as well as the twin-engine C-46 and C-47 transports, and the four-engine C-54 transport. Therefore the disparity in production based on airframe weight and engines produced was far greater.
The above data was taken from Rene Francillon’s JAPANESE AIRCRAFT OF THE PACIFIC WAR, and was in turn taken from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey
In the Revised Rules, the US starts with 42 IPC, Germany with 40 IPC, and the Japanese with 30 IPC. Now, in 1941, Germany and Japan were both at war, and had engaged in serious industrial mobilization. The US, on the other hand, was still gearing up, and was putting into production a Two-Ocean Navy, the Liberty and Victory class of merchant ships, was just really starting up tank and artillery production, and was re-equipping the army with a new semiautomatic rifle, the M-1. We were also producing an enormous number of trucks both for our army, and the armies of the UK and Russia. Simply put, the US in 1941 was already superior to Germany and Japan combined in industrial production.
Now, if you argue that the limitations on the US is for game balance, I can understand that, at least sort ofl. However, giving the US a starting IPC total only two greater than Germany is a bit hard to take. And starting Japan with 30 is even harder. That gives Japan the same industrial production as the UK, which is on the face of it ludicrous. I assume that game balance might work in a two player game, where one player controls the Allies and one the Axis. My observations of multiplayer games are that the Axis normally have the edge from the start, and it just gets worse from there. I would be interested in hearing comments from those who have played in multiplayer, ie more than two player, games.
I guess I will never understand the perspective some people have that Axis & Allies is a game that is supposed to follow history in terms of realism as one of it’s prime goals.
IMHO, A&A is a war game simulation on a macro scale loosely bases on history with a heavy “WHAT IF…?” slant.
By this I mean the map is more strategic than geographically accurate, the hit points of units are representative of armies and not squads (no terrain or weather or other ‘micro’ elements involved), IPC levels are more for game play rather than true measures of economic output. I could go on about the differences in macro versus micro scale that bothers the ‘realists’.
Player turn sequence does effect IPC levels. For example, if Russia went last, I can see how she would have many more IPCs than 24. IMHO, USA has less IPCs to represent how late she was getting into the war as well as her relative inability to play a major factor in the war early on.
Answering your request about games with multiplayer allies…… you are correct in that the Allies do have to coordinate their efforts. The Axis can operate independently and still be effective, where as the allies can not do so for long or they will lose the war. I guess this is one of the historical aspects of the real war that shows itself in this game: Allies must work together, from coordinated attacks to lend-lease.
Please do not misconstrue my statements as attacks on those who want a more ‘realistic’ game. There are many more games at a lower level (i.e. micro level) that enable more ‘realism’ to be a part of the game. Advanced Third Reich is one that I can think of and have played that does so, and does so well, IMHO.
I just do not think A&A was ever meant to be (or can be) THAT type of game.