A&A is so unrealistic one can’t even begin to descrice the things wrong with it. One thing being infantry attacking bombers, i mean how the hell do you come up with that. Or how about AA guns firing once i mean are the crews high? Not to mention tanks moving only double infantry speed, hehe. However it is one of the greatest games in the world. And for Feldmarshall Hartmann how about 100 times more complicated.
No defender retreats.
No stacking limits.
No mystery to where the enemy is.
Reinforcements appear only at an IC.
Sacking the capital for cash.
No requirement for occupational forces on hostile territory.
It was easier in reality to flank on a front.
No scorched earth.
No ramping of production capacity on the home front.
No fuel shortages.
No commandos.
No gaining of experience by units surviving battle.
yeah i agree, the lack of a retreating option for defenders is one of the biggest problems with the game.
also, i agree that armor and field rtl shouldn’t be able to hit aircraft. on the other hand, transports should only be able to hit aircraft and not be able to hit other naval ships.
I agree with almost every comment made in this thread.
However, when I do get a chance to play the games are amazingly long as is. I believe that Larry Harris/ MB/ AH had to balance out the fact that the true strategy games were appealing only to the hardcore war gamers, while games like risk were a bit too simple.
I have a ton of house rules, as most of us do, but the out of the box game does need to stay relatively uncomplicated to keep a broader appeal. And if it doesn’t have that appeal, places like this where we can talk about it probably don’t exist. A fifteen year old kid probably isn’t that interested in alot of the historically accurate details, and might not play much if one turn took two hours or they constantly had to return to the rule book for clarification.
I assume that alot of the things that we feel are missing are subsumed by the IPC cost. For example- supplies, logistics, intelligence. For 3 IPCs you get an Infantry unit along with the rail supply, reinforcements, and other support needed to keep it going in the field.
That having been said- sub warfare (including commerce raiding), AA rules, air combat, and National Advantages all need, IMO, alot of tweaking (or inclusion) for those of us who are interested in expanding the game.
I hate to say this, seeing as some might say I should be banned from the site, but historical accuracy is not one of my biggest concerns, as long as I can have fun playing. However, strategic realism is one of the biggest concerns among my clique. For example, in original A&A, we decided that you could place newly built fighters directly onto an adjacent carrier. Our rationale was “Why would a country NOT be able to do that?” Luckily, that detail was corrected this time around…
…and I also have something to say in reference to some of the comments I read on this page.
Our house rules DO allow:
Scorched Earth
Defender retreat
And my favorite: Alternate Set-up!
Also, with regards to the “No mystery” comment by Linkon, I remember going to a store to czech it out, and a dude there told me that every so often they play “double blind” games, in which they set up two boards, and play in different rooms. How things are kept legit, I don’t know. Probably requires a LOT of paper for record-keeping… :D
It’s difficult to stay true to warfare and keep a game interesting to the majority of the masses. Ultimately, as a gaming company, you want a product to appealt to as many tastes as possible because making a profit is the ultimate goal.
Much like Dungons and Dragons gaming, I think Axis&Allies players are encouraged to broaden the scope of the game, to create new rules, alter old ones, as you see fit.
I don’t look at the old game or even these new revised games as an end-all. I look at it as a blueprint - a base foundation - that allows individuals to make as many improvements and enhancements as they deem fit to make. For that reason, A&A rocks.
One of the first “improvements” I made was an option to retreat. They can do so the next round after their initial announcement. However, any retreating forces that are hit by the attacking forces don’t receive a retaliation strike back, since they, literally, turned their back to their enemy.
One of the first “improvements” I made was an option to retreat. They can do so the next round after their initial announcement. However, any retreating forces that are hit by the attacking forces don’t receive a retaliation strike back, since they, literally, turned their back to their enemy.
I made up the same house rule too. It seems to work pretty well. It definitely adds to the realism.
One game that got History a bit right. Is the Europe game. You got to win or be overpowering for the Battle of the Atlantic, before you can progress in Africa/Europe. Or sending help to U.S.S.R., thanks, Pellulo
@Feldmarshall-Hartmann said in What do you think is the most/least realistic about A&A?:
I’d like to play a 10 times more complicated Axis And Allies. And the stuka is a bomber, not a fighter.
There are plenty of games out there which are more complicated and more realistic than A&A.
A big problem with any game is that the European and Pacific theaters were very different places. Any game which covers both will be complicated to reflect the differences or simple and ignore the differences.
For the European theater, my favorite games are https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/197439/the-fog-of-war and https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/130960/triumph-and-tragedy-european-balance-of-power-1936. For the Pacific, my favorite is https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/251364/pacific-victory-pacific-theater-of-ww2-second-edit.
I have, sadly, never played this.
World in Flames
Reviews say it is the most realistic WWII boardgame.
