Again, we are forgetting the large scale of this game. One artillery piece isn’t a single gun. It represents an entire division of artillery, which could be 1,000-2,000 guns, plus supporting infantry, vehicles, support staff, etc. It’s just primarily centered around the artillery guns.
This.
From another angle. In modern warfare, if we remove mobility from the battlefield, what is the deciding factor in battle? Tankers might say armor, but I believe it is penetrating power. High velocity means more destruction, and divisional artillery can REALLY bring the destruction. Saying that artillery pieces are ‘vulnerable’ is discarding the fact that it includes some of the larges caliber guns in the military. It is not defenseless. In fact all personnel in the grouping would put the safety of those guns above the safety of themselves because they know those guns can save their units behind. A lone arty gun is not a sitting duck!
A lone arty gun is not a sitting duck!
PLEASE…
Artillery is WORTHLESS in the face of an armor breakthrough.
There is a reason that guys who shot artillery in Afghanistan, got busted for wearing flip flops and hawaiin shirts, instead of combat uniform.
That said, the whole concept of an “army” is lost in Axis and Allies. Usually an “Army” consists of a multitude of different groups, many times including but not exclusive to artillery, tanks, scout vehicles, etc etc.
Much like how a transport flotilla, isn’t just transports.
I begrudgingly have to agree that the single piece doesn’t JUST represent artillery. BUT, I would love to see a rule, where if an Army group LOSES it’s infantry cover, that for a round, the artillery are at a disadvantage!
Oh I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about WW2 and not present day, by modern warfare I simply was referring to mobilized warfare IN ww2.
In WW2 it was artillery that gave you the best chance of knocking out enemy armor provided you didn’t have any of your own or some stukas to call on. Artillery was king of the battlefield at least until the end of the war.
as proof: remember that gun line Rommel assembled at Arras? Some of those were of course 88’s, but he called on all artillery pieces, including anti-air pieces to STOP that TANK!
Are we talking long range artillery? Or are we talking Anti Tank Guns? I think that is the question…
Well considering the model is a 2/2 unit that beefs up another infantry’s attack to 2 I assumed it was basically a ‘gun’ heavy formation. Anti tank guns, AA guns AND long range artillery. Still I know of many occasions on the Ostfront where the only answer the Germans had for the KV series other than stuka strikes was concentrated artillery barrages. From my recollection this was a strike delivered by all the true artillery guns of a division/brigade.
If we look at the military of the time, a division was allotted a certain amount of artillery…but that could be augmented by other formations and the Germans were famous for ad-hoc formations…
Ok then, if the a&a artilery comes with its own infantry and support, which any military command would be court marshalled for doing without, then it wouldn’t be able to support an extra infantry group giving them a +1bonus when attacking. If you look at artillery as having its own infantry then armor would have the same (armor is usually safer, more effective and rarly used without infantry present) then a player wouldn’t have to worry about what pieces he bought because a little of everything would be included with each piece. ( you could then argue the same things for naval units). Then the game becomes a matter of buying armies and not individual pieces. And as for lonely artillery, I may have missed named this topic, I should have said naked artillery, I realize they would not work by themselves but rather in batteries. I just figure that part of a&a was trying to build balanced armies not just buying all inclusive unit that could function as well independantly as with other units.
Remember this is a strategic war game based loosely on WWII history. I agree with the others that the artillery ‘piece’ is representative of more than one gun.
Recall these are pieces that represent a strategic capability (an abstraction, if you will).
When the artillery piece was introduced, it was done to fill the gap between the mostly offensive tank and the mostly defensive infantry piece. The best place was an offensive/defensive piece. Offensive since it attacked at a “2” and boosted an other unit (inf) to increase it’s attack capability. Defensive since it was 1 IPC cheaper than a tank.
Then why dont we just call them companies, battalions, divisions, armies etc. And dispense with the complex sculpts. I do realize that we are dealing with company and larger size units when dealing with one “artillery” unit on the board. No offense, but if I wanted to fill gaps and be abstract I’d play risk.
Because cardboard counter games are no fun. The plastic sculpts MAKE the game from my POV.
Think of the artillery as a ‘gun’ heavy formation. Infantry can call on the support of an arty unit to increase their combat power, think long range. The arty gun can support itself and 1 other inf because it’s got enough guns.
Also armor units don’t have infantry. The only one’s to do it effectively at this time were the Russians by having their soldiers hold onto the exterior. That’s why you see armies with Mech infantry, its a way to keep infantry mobile with the tanks and yet not be taken out by a machine gun.
Definetly a lot of good input here, I’ve been playing a&a since it first came out and it has come a long way (I would even say that it is partally why I was inspired to gain an advanced degree in history and geography) I am glade there is a place like this to bounce around ideas and see what failures and success people have had. I am excited to collect all of the pieces being produced by FMG and HBG, my buddies and I are playing coaches 1939 map right now and it is really an amazing piece of work. With all the new sculpts, I’m thinking of using a d24 sided die to give greater range and discrepancies to current units as well as the new sculpts. That way a guy could represent the arty and it’s inf as seperate pieces on the board, and build your armies out of individual unit, creating a new level of complexity. I know some people don’t like to complicate thing any more than they already are, and that’s their choice, but I love the challege.
I wouldn’t see it as complicated so much as cluttered. Having a board with units that even represent divisional size would be insane. Good luck though! Perhaps you could go Army Corps but I would think that would leave out a lot of units.
perhaps another game at a lower unit level like Advanced Third Riech may be more to your liking.
I like the global view that is A&A.
I like things global also, I think the limits are size of playing area and time to play, otherwise clutter is definitely a problem, the 39 map we are playing on right now is 4’×8’ and things are cramped in Europe, coach mentioned that on his next map things in Europe were going to be 25% bigger. That would be nice seeing as the southern part of Africa doesn’t need to be so big. It’s not like I would try this stuff on the classic board or even Global 40. It’d have to be big and modified.
That is something I really liked about the old gameboard from Classic A&A. Along the edges of the board they had these little blow-up boxes for certain territories on the map. So, if the map was getting a little too cluttered, you could stick some of your units in the blow-up boxes. I would usually put the ICs, AAguns and Air units in the blow up boxes and the ground forces on the map.
I suppose it’s like Chess…
Does the queen or knight REALLY represent how a horse, or Maiden works? NO. And the tactical representation is moot.
But the piece remains!
Good point, Garg
