You asked whether I find Axis and Allies historically realistic, and if not which parts I feel should be changed. That’s worth a post in itself! Below are the areas I feel the game falls short of historical realism.
Industrial capacity
Military aircraft production is a fairly good proxy for overall military production. During 1942, the Soviet Union produced 25,000 military aircraft. Germany produced 15,000 military aircraft that year, and Japan produced 9,000. But in Revised, Germany has an income of 40, Japan of 30, and the U.S.S.R. of 24. It’s also worth noting here that in '42 the Soviet Union produced between 3 - 4 times as many units in every major land category as did Germany. Axis and Allies dramatically understates the Allied industrial advantage–which is probably necessary for game balance.
Changes in industrial capacity
Germany produced 15,000 military aircraft in '42, and 41,000 in '44. The U.S. produced 48,000 military aircraft in '42 and 98,000 in '44. Ideally, Axis and Allies should take into account this kind of dramatic expansion of military production capacity.
Changes in technology
The Japanese Zero was considered top-of-the-line in early '42, but had become obsolescent by '44. More generally, technology played a very important role in deciding the outcome of the war. This is not to suggest the Allies had a decisive technological edge over the Axis–they did not–but rather that there were a number of technologies which were really, really worth having. I realize most variants of Axis and Allies have some sort of technological system. But that system is far too luck-based, and doesn’t really capture the feel of the ongoing effort by all major participants to both avoid falling behind technologically, and, ideally, to pull ahead.
Air superiority
In the real war there was a contest to see which side could gain control over the sky. Fighters were of pivotal importance to that struggle; with their main combat purpose being to shoot down enemy aircraft. Victory in this competition was critical on a number of levels: it meant control over the battlefield skies, control over the surface of the ocean, and gave your side the ability to strategically bomb enemy factories and cities while thwarting bombing raids against your own. Axis and Allies doesn’t capture any of this. Fighters are slightly better on “defense” than “offense.” But beyond that, the only air battles fought typically involve AA guns shooting at enemy aircraft–which is not primarily what the air battles of WWII were about.
Limitations on manpower
In August of 1939, Germany’s population was 69 million people, as compared to 160 million for the Soviet Union. More generally, the Allied nations had much larger core populations than did the Axis nations; which meant that the Allies could field much larger numbers of infantry. But in a game like Revised, if Japan decides to go for a heavy infantry strategy, it could easily end up with a much larger stack than the Soviet Union. That situation is completely ahistorical.
Absence of qualitative unit differences
According to a study, Soviet infantry were only 33% as combat-effective as their German counterparts. Germany also enjoyed a qualitative advantage over British and American infantry, albeit to a lesser degree. Incorporating qualitative differences could help offset the Allied advantages in military production capacity and manpower.
The attack/defense combat system
I can understand giving infantry a higher combat value on defense than on attack. Defending infantry dig a trench, and use the trench as cover while attacking infantry cross some open field. I get that. But why does a defending aircraft carrier have a combat value three times higher than an attacking carrier? Does the defending carrier dig a trench in the ocean water, and somehow hide behind it to defend itself against the attacking carrier?
The Axis and Allies combat system does a good job of capturing the advantage infantry have on defense; but is not good for capturing a number of other important elements. For example, a fighter is great at shooting down enemy aircraft, but fairly useless if you want to sink a battleship. A dive bomber or torpedo bomber might let you sink the battleship, and is decent at shooting down enemy planes. I would prefer a combat system which allows unit specialization like this, rather than lumping everything into “attack” or “defense.”
Hitpoints
Some units were harder to kill than others. Tanks and battleships had thick armor. Fighters were fast and maneuverable. Submarines were stealthy. As a nation provides its tanks with thicker armor, its fighters with better engines and more aerodynamic airframes, and its submarines with increased levels of stealth, those units should become progressively harder to kill. But in Axis and Allies, every unit has only one hitpoint (except for battleships which have two).
Summation
There are other ahistorical elements in the Axis and Allies rules set as well. That being said, I understand that Larry Harris’s goal was to build a comparatively simple, straightforward game. The simpler the game, the fewer of the above-described factors can be successfully addressed. I play and enjoy Axis and Allies, but I don’t consider it a realistic depiction of WWII.
I’ve endeavored to create a more historically realistic rules set. In doing so, I’ve found that each increase in realism increases the game’s complexity. I’ve tried to add as much of the former, and as little of the latter, as possible. Even so, I must admit that if Axis and Allies is a complexity level of 100, Flames and Steel is about a 150. The advanced version of Flames and Steel, which I am working on now, will probably have a complexity of 200. This means my rules set is not for everyone, but only for those who are willing to put up with some added complexity to gain depth and richness. Flames and Steel provides that depth and richness by (among other things) addressing each of the above-described factors.
