Historically accurate setup

I don’t know if this would be useful or not, but I have an old copy of 5th edition World in Flames, and it occurred to me once in a drunken stupor that it could be converted to A&A, since they seemed to be similarly scaled.  I started with the Sept. 1939 scenario, and then allowed for likely builds and combat losses through May/June 1940.  I took the average printed combat power of units of each type for each nation to get a multiplier, which I then applied to the actual number of units.  This more or less accounts for differences in quality, since in A&A, infantry is infantry, regardless of whether it represents Chinese conscripts or the German SS.  For naval units, I used the research mentioned in my previous posts.  Fighters and tac bombers include naval air.  If you are not using an optional rule for paratroops, marines, or air transports, just convert them to regular infantry.  This might have to be scaled down if you don’t want cluttered maps, but I’ve given the raw numbers below.  So, if you trust the historical research of Australian Design Group:

France:
22 infantry, 1 mech, 4 artillery, 2 tanks, 2 fighters, 1 tac, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 2 subs, 1 transport

Germany:
36 infantry, 4 mech, 1 para, 8 artillery, 9 tanks, 11 fighters, 6 tacs, 2 bombers, 1 air transport, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 6 subs, 2 transports

Italy:
11 infantry, 1 mech, 5 artillery, 2 tanks, 4 fighters, 4 tacs, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 4 subs, 2 transports

Japan:
32 infantry, 1 mech, 1 marine, 7 artillery, 1 tank, 10 fighters, 9 tacs, 1 bomber, 1 air transport, 3 battleships, 4 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 3 carriers, 2 subs, 4 transports

China:
22 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 fighter

USSR:
19 infantry, 2 mech, 1 para, 4 artillery, 6 tanks, 4 fighters, 3 tacs, 1 air transport, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, 5 subs, 1 transport

Commonwealth (includes both maps plus ANZAC)
24 infantry, 2 mech, 1 para, 4 artillery, 2 tanks, 11 fighters, 5 tacs, 1 bomber, 4 battleships, 7 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 2 carriers, 2 subs, 5 transports

USA:
7 infantry, 1 mech, 1 marine, 2 artillery, 1 tank, 7 fighters, 6 tacs, 1 air transport, 4 battleships, 4 cruisers, 7 destroyers, 2 carriers, 3 subs, 4 transports

Optional rules:

Air transports:  // Cost 6 / Move 4 / Attack 0 / Defense 0 // Can airlift one infantry or para during non-combat movement.  Can airdrop one para during combat movement.  If AA guns are present, must first survive AA fire, or both the air transport and para are lost.

Paratroops:  // Cost 5 / Move 1 / Attack 1 (2) / Defense 2 // Can be dropped on enemy territory during combat movement by an air transport.  Attack with a 2 on the first round of combat, and revert to an attack of 1 if the combat lasts more than one round.

Marines:  // Cost 5 / Move 1 / Attack 1 (2) / Defense 2 //  Function as regular infantry in all ways, except they attack with a 2 during amphibious landings.  Unlike paratroops, they retain this attack value until the amphibious combat is complete.

Amphibious landings:  All land units except marines attack with a 1 during the first round of combat during an amphibious landing.  Tanks cannot be paired with tac bombers during the first round to give them their bonus, but fighters can.  Artillery cannot raise the attack value of infantry or marines during the first round of combat.  During subsequent rounds, artillery can pair with marines to raise the marine’s attack to 3.

China raised alot of divisions of poor quality during the war.

That list is from 2004 and was proposed for Advanced Axis and Allies.

the values are correct, and some ships move 3 but that fell out of favor latter.

Just work on setup, and no i do not have d20 list. IMO the game does not need D20

yea but the dice take a long time to roll. Second problem is to gain support for your ideas you got to not step too far outside the box.

I’m not sure that trying to make something different requires you to remain in the box.  Many of the A&A games are lacking for the very reason that they kept the box.  All of these re-issues and yet many games are still plagued with the same issues they had 20 years ago.  ie. the need for bids, unrealistic setups, etc. etc.

Making something totally different might be a nice refreshing change.  I don’t think the issue is needing to stay the same as much as it is needing to be very clear in the operation of the new game concept (and game balance goes without saying).  Clear rules and usable charts go a long way to help players get a firm grasp and make it playable.  The process of attracting people might take longer if the game represents a significant departure, but in many cases it really doesn’t matter.  For many, anything other than a sanctioned A&A game is not an option anyway… those people would rather play A&A then a game that offers a different and/or improved experience.  So at the end of the day they aren’t your target market anyways.  But if people try something different and it works, its following will grow.

Keep going Keodis I’m interested to see what you come up with.  Design it as you envision it.  It can always be rescaled after the fact.

I’m not sure that trying to make something different requires you to remain in the box.  Many of the A&A games are lacking for the very reason that they kept the box.  All of these re-issues and yet many games are still plagued with the same issues they had 20 years ago.  ie. the need for bids, unrealistic setups, etc. etc.

Making something totally different might be a nice refreshing change.  I don’t think the issue is needing to stay the same as much as it is needing to be very clear in the operation of the new game concept (and game balance goes without saying).  Clear rules and usable charts go a long way to help players get a firm grasp and make it playable.  The process of attracting people might take longer if the game represents a significant departure, but in many cases it really doesn’t matter.  For many, anything other than a sanctioned A&A game is not an option anyway… those people would rather play A&A then a game that offers a different and/or improved experience.  So at the end of the day they aren’t your target market anyways.  But if people try something different and it works, its following will grow.

D20 system will not solve any problems regarding those that plague the OOB games as produced. Those problems are due to lack of long term play-testing and people who make incorrect decisions regarding the History and setups, etc. It can still be different with D6 or D12. D12 seems more natural and D20 seems too drastic. Why not D100?

OK i am having trouble with the north african deployment. In libya the italians had 10 divisions of infantry, 2 of which were mechanized and had some medium tanks. they also had 300 aircraft that were outdated.

in egypt the UK had an under strength infantry division and an under strength armor division. they also had 205 aircraft that were even more outdated than the italians…… how am i going to represent this in A&A.

Italy would be 2 inf, 1 mech or 1 inf and 1 mech, no fighter.
UK would be 1 Inf, no fighter

What happened is the Italians attacked in late summer and by October had a huge advantage over UK, but instead they just entrenched because they didn’t capitalize on the mechanization of warfare and decided this was a replay of the Great War.

Just get the deployments right and after that tweak strength.

also France’s deployment is way too huge ( 16 infantry, 6 mech, 3 tanks, 2 artillery, 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber ). Germany will take extreme losses. im going to have to alter it because many of the troops didn’t even fight and were bypassed. idk what percentage to put their army to. 40% percent strength??

This is easier. France had deployed Infantry, etc in her colonies.

Your goal should be first to find all the data and where everything should go, once you do that you begin process of tweaking. You don’t do it at this point. Finish up and post all of these imbalances latter.

French Indo China: inf

They didn’t have what would be 1 inf in FIC, rather i would place this in FWA.

For the Soviets they deployed alot of her forces on the border with some getting ready for attacking Finland and reserve in Moscow and Kiev. The far eastern force should be a mechanized force with tanks, art and at least one fighter. a few infantry too.

I cant remember what my extrapolation was for that, but it was more or less this:

4-5 inf
2-3 Mech
2 Tanks
2 Art
1 Fighter
1 AAA
1 SS
1 AP
1 Port ( Vladivostok)

are you saying there should be 2 inf in FWA?

Oh in that case Perhaps one inf in FEA, but not 2 in FWA

Germany invaded France with:
141 divisions of infantry
7300 guns
2500 tanks
5600 aircraft

This is not correct.  Tanks are correct (probably 2300 actually). Aircraft is more like 2800, Infantry is more like 97.

I will check and come back

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/Germany/German-Orders-of-Battle-June-1940.htm

http://niehorster.orbat.com/011_germany/40-05-10_army/_okh.html ( on this site count all the XX divisions from each category)

Don’t use Wikipedia for anything factual. It is a guideline or quick reference and by no means accurate ( for the most part)

The totals for the ENTIRE German army: ( deployed in the east, Norway, Denmark, and elsewhere in Germany)

By May 1940, the number of divisions in the German army was as follows:

129 infantry divisions;
   8 motorised infantry divisions (3 Waffen-SS);
   10 panzer divisions;
   3 mountain divisions;
   1 cavalry division;
   2 airborne divisions;