My gripe is with everyone who wants 100% Historical Accuracy in games….
While I enjoy historical accuracies in games based on historic event, it cannot be totally accurate for one main reason.
THE END WOULD BE THE SAME EVERYTIME! US WINS!(sans dice rolls). The roll of the dice would be the only way to have anything different.
Making games so that sides can be a little balanced giving some countries more than what they “historically had” makes the game playable. Who the hell would want to play Germany or Japan when they know they are going to get their asses handed to them by the US?
Yes, I do realize that you can get different strategies to win. BUT THAT WOULDN’T BE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WOULD IT?
These games are made to give each side a chance to win whether it be from gaining certain advantages or by giving them a little more power or taking away some power.
These games are for fun. If you cannot gain enjoyment from them due to one little thing not being “correct”, then this is not for you.
My last thing… Take it for what it is, A GAME! Have FUN with it. If all you can do is blast how bad it is historically, sell it to someone who will play it for what it’s worth.
Thanks for listening…
And people who say axis could have won the war if only x, y, and z, you can’t say that in 1940, where Russia can prepare for invasion, US can defend its fleet, and (if the game began in 1939), the Anglo-French could invade Germany.
Thank you docfav7 exactly what i was thinking! +1 to you
THE END WOULD BE THE SAME EVERYTIME! US WINS!(sans dice rolls). The roll of the dice would be the only way to have anything different.
While I am on board with you about the silly criticisms about the lack of historical accuracy, I don’t think that those histro-centric folks are demanding a game where the Allies win because… the Allies won. They want the conditions/ opportunities available to both sides to as accurately model what was available to the combatants at the time.
If, for instance, the Axis powers had “played” WW2 perfectly, they would have no doubt have won. That is: no tactical or strategic errors, perfect builds, and all other conditions that can be controlled for, done correctly. Now, that might be next to impossible, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that with superior “play” on the part of the Axis powers, a very different result might have occurred.
My major gripe with those who gripe about history, is that A&A is simply not a WW2 simulator, but a board game with a WW2 theme. One cannot point to one aspect, or even several, and claim those are the most important a-historic aspects to the game, when you have things like perfect information (you can see where all the guys are), planes that cannot ditch in the ocean, lack of logistical concerns, and… factories in captured territories raising infantry?? None of that “makes sense” in the context of a WW2 simulator, but makes perfect sense in the context of the great boardgame that is Axis and Allies.
I am convinced that axis have won if:
The axis woud definitely have won if Hitler kept the non agression pact with SU and Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour, keeping USA out of the war
I am convinced that axis have won if:
- Hitler kept the non agression pact with SU. Propably both countries would have splited west Europe between the 2.
The axis woud definitely have won if Hitler kept the non agression pact with SU and Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour, keeping USA out of the war
The problem is that the USSR was planning to attack Germany and just needed time to get ready. When they were done, they would be much stronger than Germany.
US would have entered the war eventually if Japan kept on attacking the Western Allies’ colonies. If it just restricted itself to China, it couldn’t do much.
It should be noted that between 1935 and 1945, over 18 million Germans served in the Wehrmacht. That’s a lot of troops.
It should be noted that between 1935 and 1945, over 18 million Germans served in the Wehrmacht. That’s a lot of troops.
What was the greatest number that served at one time?
Well if you like the idea of subs sinking other subs, sub stall, factories of any imaginable type able to be built anywhere, subs taking out planes, transports being used as fodder, UK attacking Italy before Italy enters the war, or another 20 items, then just stick with Milton Bradley. However, the games are getting at least somewhat realistic of late because people cringe on some of these ridiculous rules.
Like it or not the game ARE getting more historical and thats bringing them to a better place.
Also the result is NOT a forgone conclusion. It could have turned out differently. The axis made most of the mistakes that would lose it any chance to win.
The game must reflect history because it is not risk, but a basic modeling of a light ww2 game.
@Imperious:
Well if you like the idea of subs sinking other subs, sub stall, factories of any imaginable type able to be built anywhere, subs taking out planes, transports being used as fodder, UK attacking Italy before Italy enters the war, or another 20 items, then just stick with Milton Bradley. However, the games are getting at least somewhat realistic of late because people cringe on some of these ridiculous rules.
Like it or not the game ARE getting more historical and thats bringing them to a better place.
Also the result is NOT a forgone conclusion. It could have turned out differently. The axis made most of the mistakes that would lose it any chance to win.
The game must reflect history because it is not risk, but a basic modeling of a light ww2 game.
Dittos to this. I’ll say it a slightly different way.
It’s actually because A&A is becoming so much more historically accurate that it is drawing fire for not being historically accurate. As people see all the improvements to accuracy, it’s making them think much more critically about how it could be more accurate.
As original poster said, it’s a game. Take it for what it is. Let it go. Enjoy.
I am convinced that axis have won if:
- Hitler kept the non agression pact with SU. Propably both countries would have splited west Europe between the 2.
The axis woud definitely have won if Hitler kept the non agression pact with SU and Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour, keeping USA out of the war
I think the invasion of the Soviet union was a great idea, but it had its flaws.
1. I think they should have sent in Rommel instead of Paulus, but who knows what disaster would happen in africa with no Rommel!
2. The preparation was bad, just in case winter supplies would have been good!
3.Splitting your army to attack many places on a big scale,they should have just took Moscow and be done with it, I don’t think Blitzkrieg tactics should have been used in Russia.
4.Committing to much to the Battle of Britain/Canceled Sealion, "Oh Britain isn’t cooperating, looks to the right hey look theirs Russia!
- Usa would have been crippled if the Aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor at the time of the bombing
FDR knew the attack was coming, so no carriers there. :-)
The problem is that the game IS historically accurate. If you play w/even half a brain the allies win.
The problem is that the game IS historically accurate. If you play w/even half a brain the allies win.
:-) That’s not a nice way to talk about my opponents.
I hope it wasn’t my earlier postings titled ‘Design Flaws’ that got this thread on historical accuracy going. A board game simulation of history cannot be 100% historically accurate. However, I agree entirely with Imperious Leader’s assertion that A&A Global has gotten more historical and become a better game for it. Whatever my criticisms are they are intended to suggest ‘tweaks’ that to my mind improve the present game. I alter games as I see fit to make them more enjoyably playable to me and I am sure a great many players do exactly the same (house rules). Since this is an open forum, alternate views and suggestions on any aspect of the game should be discussed without recourse to tarring commentary as being ‘too historical’ or, alternately, as ‘not historical enough’. However, this writer does lean towards being as ‘historical’ (however one defines that) as the simulation may allow. When any gamer sees what appears to him/her rules that seem out of place or military/territory values that seem to be skewed/odd then those concerns (whatever they are) are open to criticism and discussion. I an sure most respondents have the same sentiment when suggesting improvements to this game (whatever the suggestions may be).
My major gripe with those who gripe about history, is that A&A is simply not a WW2 simulator, but a board game with a WW2 theme. One cannot point to one aspect, or even several, and claim those are the most important a-historic aspects to the game, when you have things like perfect information (you can see where all the guys are), planes that cannot ditch in the ocean, lack of logistical concerns, and… factories in captured territories raising infantry?? None of that “makes sense” in the context of a WW2 simulator, but makes perfect sense in the context of the great boardgame that is Axis and Allies.
because factories making infantry is such a believable concept anyway… like jar jar binks wasn’t believable, but lightsabers and ewoks, those are foregone conclusions… :roll: :-o :wink:
- Usa would have been crippled if the Aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor at the time of the bombing
FDR knew the attack was coming, so no carriers there. :-)
and FDR was in on it planning with the japanese so he could fight hitler. AHA!
I hope it wasn’t my earlier postings titled ‘Design Flaws’ that got this thread on historical accuracy going.
No, it wasn’t.
No those posts/threads went to house rules where they belong.
This thread can stay here because nobody is suggesting historical changes and new units, etc.
It is most untrue that if the game was historical, then “USA” wins every time mantra. Honestly, a more correct way to express it is “The Soviet Union wins every time” In some cases USA might not even be in the game. Nobody can just say that history follows the same result no matter what, otherwise their is no point in studying it. It becomes deterministic, like everything else. Every war begins to be looked at the same way. It does not work that way.
Germany simply follows a different path as they do in all the other strategic level wargames that ARE very historical.
It works in every other historical game and it can work here.
It is not an either this or that or black and white preposition, but rather a collection of advantages built up over time and mistakes made by either side that lost the advantages or gained more advantage.
Yep, just like history. You have a better chance of winning if you can take advantage of your enemies mistakes. Of course it does help if you can out produce them :-D
I think the post misses the point. We want a game which is historically accurate AT SET UP, but which can go any one of a million different ways depending on the roll of a die. Even if the Allies play it by the book, simple bad luck in even a relatively minor combat can change the course of history.
But if it doesn’t feel like history, we might as well be playing on a chess board.
The main flaw with Global is the assumption that the USSR will join the Allies and that Japan will join the Axis. I discuss this at length here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20996.0
In summary, I think Global misses a big trick in not considering this option. Axis vs Allies is fine for 1942, but for 1940 it could be so much more.
Flash, I know that Russia was a wild card, but why do you think Japan could have joined the allies. The US was really a silent partner to the UK and China in 1940. US/UK were already at odds w/Japan, and both were actively aiding China. The US had placed the embargo on Japan before France fell, then really tightened it up w/invasion of FIC. The Tripartite Pact was signed in Sept 1940, but it had to be in the works for quite some time (well before the fall of France). Even if Japan didn’t attack Pearl/Phil, at some point they would have invaded French/Dutch/UK colonies (allied tt). Maybe after the fall of England?
If Hitler would have gotten UK to sign a one way peace deal (that he thought was possible) to stop hostilities ending the allies before the US came in then yea I guess Japan would essentially be on the same side. Such a deal may have included handing over those colonies. Maybe Germany and Japan would have started a fight over control?
